No Bugs
Pretty lake pic for Chris.
View larger image
Writing class update.
Handed in Clemency and got back this:
“Please tell me: why do you omit transitions and time cues? I can’t believe you think it a virtue to be deliberately obscure.”
Not really the feedback I was expecting, and much to the chagrin of almost everyone save Adam and Diane, I guess the answer is yes, I do think it a virtue.
However, there is no reason to go down with this ship so it looks like it’s time for revision number sixty-two.
But who, pray tell, was the cheeky reviewer who so bluntly hamstrung your piece, and was said comment made in class, or only to you?
There was an op-ed in the Boston Globe some weeks back in which America’s addiction to the Stephen Kings and JK Rowlings of the world was lamented, the argument being that a fondness for such “simplistic” writing would never lead one to the “important writers” whose work is more challenging.
Now I’m not saying Michael’s the next Faulkner, but I also don’t see that a few “Twenty years ago”, “My mind drifts back” or “One night in August of 1968” is going to help readers who are uncomfortable with non-linear plot structure. But it’s my experience the mind works that way, and it’s not always easy to explain, even to onesself, whence some fork (or fugue) in the path was derived. Often following the path is the surest way to an explanation, and asking for some signpost at the beginning is lazy. There’s no failure in a work’s requiring a reread.
“Clemency” may yet need polishing, even some fundamental reworking, I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t accuse Michael of being deliberately obscure, at least not in a cantankerous way. Only insofar as that suits the “feel” he is creating and better conveys his own experience in linking these apparently disparate events in a reach for epiphany.
Learn, Michael, but don’t lose Michael, please……..
Comment by character witness — October 24, 2003 @ 7:16 am
Sometimes one must peer through the haze to see the beauty; sometimes the haze is the beauty, or, at least, part thereof.
Interesting choice of pictures to post with the writing class update. Deliberate?
Comment by Henry — October 24, 2003 @ 8:36 am
Well put, Henry, very well put.
Comment by edified — October 24, 2003 @ 9:16 am
What about the wee beasties working on my legs with chainsaws?
Haze or not, I can feel them.
I may have put my head on the chopping block,
unnecessarily, because I did have an inkling of the instructorÃs need for following the runners
around the bases. However, playing fields viewed through the retrospectoscope are by definition, carefully manicured.
Still, other than one classmate who compared her frustration deciphering my story to reading FaulknerÃs Sound and the Fury, no one, nada, applauded that which I have so sweated over. The funniest part is, my story was read last, and I thought it was to end the night with what the teacher thought best.
If it werenÃt for my summer instructor wanting Clemency ( appropriate photo Susan, how appropriate is that title now) returned with better voibs,IÃd say itÃs about time to end this experiment. I mean, this kind of assault is supposed to come from returned Random House manuscripts not night courses at the local junior high.
Believe me, I do appreciate both comments.
Comment by in need of — October 24, 2003 @ 12:01 pm
Why are you paying this person for uninsightful comments. $5 per story and I’ll tell you what’s wrong.
Comment by william — October 24, 2003 @ 1:00 pm
Less painful coming from a stranger.
Guess what? We win by x number of days. Yesterday we woke up to snow on the deck.
Comment by michael — October 24, 2003 @ 1:05 pm
It may be mere flattery to you, but I’ll nonetheless suggest that this level of critique exists only because of admiration, or at least expectations, of the author. It may stem from their response to you personally, and/or to your writing, but whichever, apathy is the common coin of the realm, so hopefully some sense of approbation can be gleaned from the cat-o-nine-tail welts, spurring you to do enthusiastically what you enrolled in the course for in the first place. (Pause for “breath”.)
“Clemency” is a complex piece. I suspect it suffers from effort, but I’m unqualified to suggest what may be next. I admire your dedication, though, as much as I do admire your actual writing, both of which are a lot (how’s THAT for an awkward phrase that helps give you a more aerial view?)…….
For my part, while sound bites are not what you are about, I must note that “playing fields viewed through the retrospectoscope are by definition, carefully manicured” is too priceless to pass unrecognized….
Comment by warm and toasty — October 24, 2003 @ 1:25 pm
Chris appreciates the picture. I say stay away from the mean writer man. I don’t like him talking to my friend that way.
Comment by chris — October 24, 2003 @ 6:59 pm
Maybe it’s just me, but I guess it’s not clear to me what Mike means by ‘transitions and time cues’. I’ve taken writing classes in the past, but clearly nothing with the same vocabulary as Mike’s. Can anyone provide elucidation in this matter? :}
Comment by Rantmaster — October 25, 2003 @ 12:56 am
If you read it, you will know…
https://mainecourse.com/stories/clemency/clemency.html
But beware, this kind of writing drives your dad right up the wall. And dammit, he ain’t alone.
Comment by Mike — October 25, 2003 @ 12:22 pm
I won’t say it drives me up the wall. But I do see now what was meant. But I also think the flaws are less about transtions and timestamps, but in the ‘method to your madness’. Of course, I haven’t been taking writing courses like you, but I do read a lot, and know what I like and what I don’t.
On the one hand, I find the piece very interesting, with compelling bits making up the whole. On the other hand, I’ll have to admit that through the first three quarters of the story, I was thinking to myself, “yeah, okay…so what?”
Your initial style seems to be a little like mine, stream of consciousness. You mention things as they come to you, make connections that are obvious to you, but not to the reader. Stream of consciousness has its place, but if you’re trying to make a point, wandering all over the place is not going to help you in this design.
Also part of the problem, I think, is that you don’t know what kind of piece you’re writing. On the one hand, you seem to be writing a story, and on the other, you’re writing an essay. The only problem is that if you’re trying to write an essay, then a lot of “Clemency” is ‘sound and fury, signifying nothing’. They don’t contribute anything to the point you’re trying to make, the experience you’re trying to convey. And if you’re trying to write a story, then some of the same parts that would make it an essay only serve to distract and confuse the reader, do the point where they’re saying, “okay, why should I care about the characters in this story?”.
That’s the key to Clemency, I think. Figure out what you’re doing. If you’re writing an essay, then cut out the fat and get to the meat: remove the extraneous details that would serve to flesh out a story. If you’re writing a story, then stop having so many asides to previous events. Only include what’s necessary to involve the readers, to inspire them to read on.
Just one writer’s thoughts to another. 😉
Comment by Rantmaster — October 26, 2003 @ 11:44 am