Signed Edition Sweepstakes

Recently Viewed clear list

Original Essays | September 17, 2014

Merritt Tierce: IMG Has My Husband Read It?

My first novel, Love Me Back, was published on September 16. Writing the book took seven years, and along the way three chapters were published in... Continue »


On Order

New Trade Paper
Currently out of stock.
Add to Wishlist
available for shipping or prepaid pickup only
Qty Store Section
- Local Warehouse Literature- A to Z

This title in other editions

The Company Car:


The Company Car: Cover



Author Q & A

A Conversation with C. J. Hribal

Caroline Goyette, a writer for the Milwaukee Shepherd Express, speaks

with C. J. Hribal, author of The Company Car.

Caroline Goyette: You describe The Company Car as an epic for “the

little people.” What do you mean by this and why do you think it’s important

that this story be told?

C. J. Hribal: There was really a whole generation of people—they call

it the Greatest Generation—who had survived not one war but two, plus

they’d come of age as kids during the Great Depression. They’d had

things happen to them in war, and what they wanted more than anything

was to re-enter American life and get back to normal. What that

meant for waves and waves of them was getting married and pumping

out babies [laughs] and becoming company men. In the fifties and sixties,

there was this idea of just going along with stuff because that’s what

was expected of you. These people are parts of the backbone on which

this country’s built—that great wash of humanity just wanting to fit in

and not having things necessarily go quite the way they wanted them

to. I focused on one particular family and the way in which the Great

American Dream plays out for them over fifty years.

CG: You worked on the novel over a period of seven years. Could you

talk more about the process of working on the novel, especially how the

characters or the plot evolved over time, or how the finished product

may have turned out differently from the idea you began with?

CH: I wanted to tell the story of fifty years in America through one

family, or fifty years in one family and that would sort of be what America

went through. It was a common pattern—still is, really—starting in a

city and then moving to the suburbs, and then to the exurbs or, in the

case of this family, they skip over the exurbs and go to a farm, which of

course ends up filling in all around them. So you’ve got that kind of arc

going on.

Initially I was going to start with the parents getting married on TV

and end with their fiftieth wedding anniversary. I wrote it straight

through like that, and the draft was about 800 pages long. It took me

about four years to write it, two years to get the first 600 pages done, and

then about a year and a half, two years to get the last 200 pages done. My

agent showed it around, and a lot of people liked it but they all essentially

said the same thing: it’s too long, it’s 800 pages. Jonathan Karp at Random

House said he really liked it and if I could get the book down to 600

pages, he’d be interested in it. My agent Nat Sobel and a bunch of friends

who’d read it gave me some great suggestions on how to tighten it up

and, since it was so long, some ways to put a little more pressure on it.

What I ended up deciding to do was to take the ending event, the fiftieth

wedding anniversary, and open with that, with the kids gathering for it,

so now there’s pressure at the beginning, a frame that squeezes the narrative

on both ends and that you keep coming back to throughout. The

other thing I added to it as I was revising was the narrator’s own marriage

unraveling while they’re celebrating his parents’ fiftieth wedding anniversary.

It’s got this kind of bittersweet thing going on. The kids themselves

are deciding what to do with their folks because they’re getting to

an age—again, this is happening all across this country, has been for a

while—where you have to ask yourself what do you do with your folks

when they get too old to take care of themselves, or they’re getting close

to it and you have to make decisions. So there’s a celebration and a bittersweet

quality. It’s funny, I think I ended up adding more plot lines that

way, but it ended up being a shorter book.

CG: Eight hundred pages down to 400. That sounds like agony—

CH: And it was.

CG: In retrospect, was it necessary in some way to write those 800 pages

to get the 400?

CH: Oh, no question. I think this is true for a lot of writers: you end up

writing a lot more pages than you end up using. There are all the things

that you need to discover, that you have to get on the page, that the reader

may not need. So often your first draft or your second draft is really more

of a record of your process of discovering things, it’s not necessarily the

story people are going to read. Were there things I really liked that got

chopped? Oh, you betcha. What it really did, though, was force me to go

in and tighten things up as much as I could. I cut out some things I liked

but they were probably just digressive, ultimately. There’s a part of me

that says, well, I’ll hold that and it’ll be in another book sometime. There

was a whole plot line with a lot of the kids’ lives in it that was in the original

that I ended up taking out because the book became focused on the

parents’ marriage. And I’d like to use that some other time. In terms of

this book, it’s still pretty expansive but it’s more controlled.

It really only took me about six months to do the cutting and revising,

but it took me about a year, a year and a half, to steel myself to actually

doing it. First, you’re kind of monkeying around the edges of it, saying,

“Well, if I do a little of this, oh, if I do a little of that,” but in fact you’ve

got to hit a point where you just say, “You know what, it doesn’t need to

be here; it’s got to go.” I should say, too, I didn’t cut it to 400 pages. The

final draft was 500 manuscript pages, but that’s 400 in print.

CG: Augsbury has been the setting for several of your works. What

makes you return to it?

CH: A small town in a rural community on the edge of a burgeoning

area, like the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin, which is a bunch of communities

that are all exploding in population—that allows me to really think

a lot about the changing nature of America and the Midwest. For me,

Augsbury is a place that I don’t have to reimagine every single time, which

allows me to focus more on the characters, and yet at the same time, the

setting and the landscape are a very real part of what I’m working on.

CG: Wally’s clichés are a barrier to communication with the family and

at the same time, they become a kind of family language—other family

members find themselves using them. I’m curious about how the idea

for them developed.

CH: I borrowed from my own family. Some are family clichés, but in

fact when I started telling people about them, people were really willing

to offer their own to me. You’d find them in all sorts of places, those

kinds of statements that parents say, that you say you will never say to

your own kids, which you then find yourself saying to your own kids.

Because they’re clichés, they don’t carry that much meaning, but at the

same time, they’re freighted with all the events around them when they

were uttered, and so they do become meaningful within a family. I think

it does actually help bind this family together and make them feel part

of each other, in a way, even though at the same time, within that family,

it causes barriers to communication. I’m reminded of that great

Vietnam cliché: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

CG: The parallels between Emmie and his parents—both the ones he

explicitly acknowledges and the ones we observe through his narrative—

were these a surprise to you as the writer?

CH: I suppose there’s the sense in which we all become our parents, in

one way or another, for good or for ill. I didn’t set out with that, but as

the story evolved, I realized that there were in fact parallels. One of the

stronger ones for me came out later in the book, when Emmie realizes

things are swirling around him and he has no control. He’s always had

a troubled relationship with his dad in terms of trying to understand

where his father was coming from. But when the ground under his own

feet changes in dramatic ways, he starts to understand––and I don’t think

he’s conscious of how much it is like his father—that in fact, he doesn’t

want things to change. The ironic thing is that his father changed fairly

regularly. One of the basic misapprehensions Emmie had was that his father

was a kind of stick-in-the-mud. As he becomes a more staid person

himself, he appreciates his dad. Ironically, his dad is getting ready to

make the next move. In other words, there are parallels in terms of the

ways they approach both change and stability.

CG: Emmie seems to be telling this story both to claim it for himself

and his children, and, in light of his own troubled marriage, to discern

how people manage to stay together for fifty years. Does telling the story

bring him closer to answering the question or just to a more complex

understanding of the problem?

CH: He’s mystified by it going in; that’s terribly troubling to him and

he’s very anxious about it. Over the course of examining his parents’ relationship

and telling about his own, he comes to understand that it’s

always going to be a mystery, you’re not going to come up with the definitive

answer because there isn’t one. And in a weird way, that ends up

being comforting.

CG: Do you see this as Emmie’s story, in the end? Or is it bigger than

he is?

CH: One of the family nicknames for him is Emcee. I see Emmie as the

ringmaster, introducing these family stories, these whirling dervishes of

stories, of which his is one. So he is very much a part of it, but he’s trying

to tell a larger story here, and although it’s very much the story of his

parents, it’s also the story of all those strivers, the “greatest generation,”

the silent majority.

CG: Wally thinks he can protect his family by moving them to the country,

and of course this isn’t the case—people die in the country, people get

hurt in the country, people get pregnant out of wedlock in the country.

There’s a moment at the end of the novel where Emmie counters his

father’s belief with his own hope for the children and grandchildren of

the family, to be “not protected, but happy.” Does protection preclude


CH: There’s this idea that you can keep everybody in a bubble and the

outside world can’t touch them. It really is a truly noble idea. But it can’t

happen. The outside world intrudes anyway, in all sorts of ways. I think

it’s also very much an American belief, this idea that you can move to a

safe place. That’s sort of what’s generated America’s migrations for

much of the last part of this century, to the suburbs, the exurbs, the small

towns. It’s not as though the world doesn’t follow you, or you’re not

going to find the world there, too. It’s like being inside one of those

hourglass timers and trying to keep the sand from coming down on you;

it’s going to come down anyway. And I think ultimately you can be

happy in spite of the fact that that’s going to happen, and that’s what

Emmie comes to understand.

CG: Many of the episodes in the novel are told from Emmie’s childhood

perspective, or from Emmie remembering his childhood perspective.

The things he sees, to whatever extent he understands them,

emphasize further the difficulty of shielding your children from the

world. How did you go about putting yourself into that mindset, and did

it help that you have children yourself ?

CH: Oh, there’s no question having children helps. I say in the book,

thanks to my kids for teaching me how to resee the world. You get a different

perspective just because you’re on a different level, and you’re a

different height—you’re always looking up when you’re younger, and

the whole world is a mystery. In the book, Emmie’s parents’ marriage is

a mystery; his own marriage is a mystery. Once you have kids you’re

confronted by the biggest mystery, or challenge, of all. Their coming to

engage the world causes you to remember when the whole world was a

mystery for you, too. As a kid, you puzzle over the mystery of the adult

world. Having kids who constantly ask the “why” questions or the “how

come” questions, reminds you of what you felt as a child—it’s not like

you don’t have that perspective within you, it’s just that as you get older,

you shut it off. To turn it on again or to remember how I used to see the

world when I was a kid, I adopted a voice. I was very conscious about

this, of writing in a voice of someone who’s older, but who could, in talking

about the past, find himself sliding into that child’s perspective; it’s

called double-focus narration or retrospective narration. It’s not just the

adult looking back, but the adult re-feeling those events, so that the

reader feels it as Emmie felt it as a kid, while also being aware that it’s an

adult telling the story with an adult sensibility; that way you can cross the

gap between the way things were perceived and the way things actually

were, presenting them both.

CG: Like the narrator, you grew up in the Chicago suburbs and moved

to the country; you worked as a cookie salesman. I wondered if you

could talk a little bit about the process of beginning with literally what

you know, and moving beyond that to create something that transcends

personal experience, something that’s fictional, that’s art.

CH: That’s always a tough question. Things happen to you, things happen

to your friends, things happen to your family, you hear about things

that happen to people you don’t know, you imagine things that have

never happened, and it all becomes this amalgamation. When I first

wrote the novel, I designed it so that each chapter had a big event, and

there was lots of exposition in between. What I ended up doing in my revision

was cutting out a lot of that exposition. The exposition tended to

be stuff I remembered happening, and the big events were completely

made up. What ended up in the novel was much more of the things that

I made up. Those were the things I found myself giggling over because

they were more outlandish. I think what happens with a lot of writers is

you start with a kernel of something that might have really happened and

you transform it into something that feels as real as if it had happened,

even though it never did.

CG: Did growing up on a farm help you to develop the work ethic necessary

to write?

CH: Being Catholic doesn’t hurt, either. Guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt, guilt

[laughs]. Growing up on a farm, there’s just lots of things that have to

get done. We were always told, before you get fed and go off to school,

the animals get fed, because you can’t not feed them—you just always

knew there were things you had to do, whether you wanted to or not.

There was that sense of responsibility. All the way through, my parents

encouraged us to have jobs and to earn our own money. And I think

that’s actually a great gift parents can give their kids, to teach them that

they’ve got to work for stuff. So I had a series of terrible jobs, and that really

made me appreciate the people who did jobs like that. I was also very

conscious that these were not the jobs I was going to do my whole life. It

made me a little more appreciative of what I had been given.

I worked in a canning factory—just brutal, exhausting work. Your vocabulary

drops over the course of a summer to essentially twelve words,

half of which are expletives, and you come out of that and you go,

“Whew, life is okay.” If you don’t have to do that, you appreciate how

much work that really is. These people aren’t “losers,” which is what our

culture often tells us they are. They’re doing hard work, necessary work.

CG: Will we hear more from the Czabecks?

CH: There’s a part of me that wants to tell the kids’ stories. There were

whole narratives (about the relationships between the kids) that wound

up on the editing room floor, and I’d like to conclude those. I think

Emmie’s going to show up again as a minor character in another novel

down the road. That’s happened often with me: somebody who’s a

major character here shows up in the background of somebody else’s

story; somebody who’s a minor character in this story gets their own

story later. I sort of like that idea, like a small town you can walk through

and see people and imagine what their story might be. Everybody’s the

main character in their own story.


Product Details

Hribal, C. J.
Random House Trade
Family reunions
Parent and adult child
Chicago (Ill.)
General Fiction
Literature-A to Z
Family saga
Edition Description:
Trade paper
Publication Date:
Grade Level:
7.98x5.24x.96 in. .67 lbs.

Other books you might like

  1. Taking the Wall Used Trade Paper $4.95
  2. A .38 Special and a Broken Heart... Used Trade Paper $3.95
  3. Sweet Eyes New Trade Paper $24.75
  4. The 5th Inning (Busboys and Poets) Used Trade Paper $7.95
  5. Cold Feet Used Hardcover $5.95
  6. Bird Eating Bird (National Poetry... Used Trade Paper $6.95

Related Subjects

Fiction and Poetry » Literature » A to Z

The Company Car: New Trade Paper
0 stars - 0 reviews
$14.50 Backorder
Product details 432 pages Random House Trade - English 9780345471352 Reviews:
"Synopsis" by , Both comically tragic and touching, this novel is a sweeping, generational saga about a family caught in the changing landscape of American life.
  • back to top
Follow us on...

Powell's City of Books is an independent bookstore in Portland, Oregon, that fills a whole city block with more than a million new, used, and out of print books. Shop those shelves — plus literally millions more books, DVDs, and gifts — here at