The Place For My Writers Notes

original posting: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 11:24:17 JST

Not to co-opt whatever it is you're into, but it does seem as though there is a thread of rejection of stereotypes as a valid method of labeling an individual somewhere in the muddle...

[by which rather clumsy device, pray allow me to reintroduce an elderly topic with some relationship to ... writing!]

It seems to me that most of the rejection of stereotypes (and other labels) runs on several legs.

Imprimus (that's a fancy first!), there is the problem that a label tends to "suck up" and "cover over" attributes and characteristics that identify individuals. E.g., having said someone is born in a certain time, one is likely to generalize some feature of some people also born in that era (what I have so elegantly called "sucking up") and then attempt to claim that all those born at that time somehow share that feature - simply due to their birthday (and the "cover up"). From here, one can easily move into astrology.

Secondus, while there may have been some kind of reasoning (or semi-reasoning) process involved in developing a label, in use one often skips re-introducing the reasoning. Perhaps the "shorthand" form is sufficient for ordinary miscommunication, but in the pursuit of better writing, one should take some care to reinforce the forgotten chains of stereotypical development. E.g., instead of simply saying "He was a WASP, and therefore had lots of money," take the time to introduce his family, allude to their humble abode on Fifth Avenue, perhaps even bring in the yacht and the "summer cottage" in New Hampshire - one need never mention the quantity of money carried in his paper bag as he shuffled around Central Park one step ahead of the police. Really. Just let people know that he was a "free-lance recycling agent, specializing in aluminum cans and beer bottles."

Tertius (we want a firm stand, so we need at least a tripod), so many labels, although perhaps convenient in some way, have no evident logic behind them. What difference does being born during the same period make? Granted, there was a statistical bulge related to a period of sexual irrelationships attributable to a war. How much convergence did social and cultural influence have during this period? Would the ex-farmer who went to college and then (horrors!) left Ohio after the war raise children in the same way that his closest friend who went back to the family farm after the war did? For that matter, did New York city and down-field Kansas (to take two examples) suddenly grow homogenized during this period?

Well, that's a three-legged push towards discussing stereotypes and individuals in writing. As I've stated once before, I find ordinary people, who often resemble the stereotypes, somewhat interesting as subjects of writing. Still, it seems to me, the more I think about this, that the focus on individuals in writing implies that even when describing a person who fits into a stereotypical mold quite well, it is extremely important to "break the person out of the mold" and make them a living, breathing individual...

Perhaps we might consider how to take a stereotype and characterize the character in sufficient depth to take the person out of the stereotype?

Or, of course, we can return to the exchange of generational myths. (does anyone have a list of heroes, villians, and archtypes by generation? when's the test on this, anyway?)

Original posting: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 01:30:03 JST

[lots of new critters in the pond (HI!), but I still want to kick this around... forgive me for not quoting everyone, but I thought I'd just summarize and go bravely where I hadn't rambled before...]

Does the Reader know the Writer?

I think that's sort of the topic we're wandering around.

Okay, let me reiterate what I think was the original question - how important is knowledge of the writer's situation to judging the work? (e.g. does the fact that the anne frank of bosnia is writing in bosnia, and is 13 or something, alter the value of the work?)

randy and stuart have gone wandering a bit, bringing up the questions of shared background, internal meanings vs external words, and so forth.

Tsirbas Christos also added some interesting comments on the notion of categorizing writers by their nationality (or other group membership - I'd never really thought about it, but that "area authors" corner in some bookstores really is a rather nasty ghetto to be stuck in, isn't it?)

[Hi, Tsirbas! thanks for joining in...]

good stuff, one and all...

Let me drop a few more pebbles in the rather muddy waters we're treading about the writer, the words, and the reader.

Interesting - especially if I stop and think about something like Shakespeare's work, or Gawain and the Green Knight, where I need commentary just to have a chance of figuring out some of the social and historic references. Take a gander at the original 1000 nights and a night, without reading the footnotes? very difficult.

I suppose the negative case of Japanese writings where you don't even understand the language doesn't clarify much...

Consider, though, reading something like the original Robinson Crusoe or Swiss Family Robinson (not the kid's versions - the old monsters). Stylistic barbarisms, with an overlay of socially accepted trash (the White Man's Burden, don't you know!).

Or take Tarzan, Lord Greystoke - in the original, with the whole wonderful mixture of "British supremacy" with "the natural man." It's enough to make almost any modern reader feel uncomfortable...

Heck, pull the author and cover off one of the "golden age" space operas (E.E. Smith) and try to convince a modern reader to read it.

It does seem as though the effect (and affect) of a piece of writing in part depends on how similar the background is. At the same time, I think the detailed knowledge of the author's personal history, while sometimes adding some depth or understanding to a piece, really should not be required to understand and enjoy the piece.

Let me switch fields for a sec - Picasso's Guernica (sp?). Disturbing, almost tortured piece of art. I didn't care for it, then someone told me there was a war there... and suddenly the piece started making sense. Now, that little piece of information helped me connect the pattern of thoughts and make a whole out of it.

An interesting question for some kind of theoretician might be what information needs to be added to "set the stage" for understanding a writer's work. Actually, it may not be so theoretical - when you bring a book (or short story, etc.) from America to Japan, for example, there are some severe limits on the "common background" you can expect.

It seems as if there is a kind of continuum here, from the writer and reader having largely common background and knowledge (which allows them to communicate with the least words and should tend to limit misunderstandings) to cases where writer and reader share very little. It might be interesting to compare different readers - could we say that the writer who manages to convey roughly the same message to a statistically larger percentage of the readers is more "effective"? What then becomes of a Bach (or maybe a James Joyce?) whose messages are so bloody complex that most readers don't follow it even when it is simplified and laid out in great detail? (I was thinking of Johann Sebastian, incidentally - the musician).

What about a Marshall McLuhan? I have one of his early books - Mass Communication Theory? something like that. and found it absolutely inspiring, although I could only read about one paragraph a day! DENSE! Then he became popular, and started doing 15 minute books with practically no content - comic books for adults? To me, his later work is eminently discardable, even though it reached a much larger audience.

Hum - complex questions, which probably have complex answers.

BTW - I've seen a write up of someone who took several pieces by well-known authors, polished the names off, then tried submitting them under an unknown name. Rather amusing collection of rejections, editorial slams, and so forth...

Would it make any sense to say that while the names, situation, and so forth are likely to have a high level of influence in our reading of "current" material, these factors are likely to change over time, resulting in rather different evaluation of the writing? E.g., while a piece from the 60's calling for popular support of the Vietnam war might have been a winner at the time, dragging it out now is likely to be a problem.

you know, there is something in here that reminds me of the rather well-known comedy bit, where the young man is excited over the voice on the phone... and then we learn that this exciting voice belongs to a well-worn, rather overstuffed mother of whiny little brats...

does it really matter what the writer is like, or where, or when? if the words ring, the images live, I can't see it being important whether Hemingway was homosexual, impotent, or even a lush. I think I agree with Randy - once the writer "lets go" of the words, the whole business turns into one between the reader(s) and those words. Admittedly, the writer should do the best they can to form and mold those words for the audience they expect - but if the readers find pornographic imagery underlying it that the writer never thought of, that is just as accurate as the writer's vision...

(further ramblings as soon as I find the other file I started on the same topic. sometimes the mental filer misfires. :-)

Original Posting: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 13:13:53 -0400

You may remember hearing recently in the news about this incident, and I won't claim that I have all the details exactly right.  However, as I understood it, a refrigerator truck was opened in customs in England recently, where they found a number of refugees suffocated.  Apparently they were trying to sneak into the country, and a tragedy ensued.

However, I would like you to think about the fact that two people lived.

Stop and think of that.  Suppose you had tried to sneak into another country, possibly with friends and family, and this kind of a disaster occurred.  Imagine those final moments in the dark, or even with a flashlight, with the heat of all those people, breathing, coughing, gagging... and you probably pass out.

But then you awaken again.  Only to learn that almost everyone died.  But somehow you lived.

How do you deal with that?  What kind of relationship do you have with the other survivor?

Okay?  That's the basis for today's exercise.

So, if you are ready, pick a number from 1 to 6.  (Yes, you may roll a die if you prefer.)

Got it?  Good.  Then look below and see what you have selected:

1.  A boating accident.  Perhaps a large ship, perhaps a smaller one, with storm, reef, or sabotage, at your selection, goes down.  Again, your character is one of a very small number of survivors.

2.  Wartime.  Perhaps your town was the target.  Perhaps your platoon, company, squad was wiped out.  However you like to do it, your character lives through the maelstrom, only to face life after death.

3.  How about the ever-popular epidemic?  The illness swept through, and almost everyone died, except... your character.

4.  Terrorists?  Pick a group or a place.  And here come the terrorists, who decide they are not going to win, and if they aren't going to win, then no one will live.  Except that your character does come through...

5.  Industrial accident.  The factory (research lab, mining complex, or even just the restaurant where five people worked) has an accident, and the explosion (or whatever) kills just about the whole labor force, except...

6.  Fire?  Fires seem to sweep through housing complexes, suburban areas, dormitories, and other places from time to time, and they do kill.  But your character lives!

[Yes, if you want to, you can write about the survivors of the truck in England, or a similar incident almost anywhere.]

A rough outline of the story might look something like:

Scene 1: In which our hero finds out what has happened
Scene 2: In which our hero expresses anger about it
Scene 3: In which our hero expresses disbelief about it
Scene 4: In which our hero expresses depression about it
Scene 5: In which our hero begins to come to terms with what has happened

(Reading up on Kubler-Ross's stages of grief may help, as may digging into some of the research that has been done on survivors.)

Of course, you may want to shake and bake your story your way.  Go ahead!

I do think this kind of story focuses on the character change, even when it is exploiting the melodramatic potential that such survivors often provide.

So, let's see those words crackling and popping, those verbs hissing, those nouns settling solidly into place as you...

write.

original posting: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:18:47 -0400

Quick, and a little bit quirky...

Consider the phrase:

I bought a jar of pickled smiles

Notice that the end of the line is unfinished.  It might turn into a new line, it might just get used as a title, it might have something about about where you found that jar, who sold it to you, what kind of price did you pay, or something like that.

(Incidentally, who does sell such things?  An odd little grocery story on the edge of never?  A god(dess) quite pristine?  Perhaps a tiny little wart of nastiness that has been stealing those smiles from your children and canning them with a dash of vinegar?  Or the smiling businesswoman who always has an overabundance of them to give away?  Who?)

Anyway, take that phrase.  Let it resonate in the mind, perhaps tickle your tongue a bit with it (are those sweet gherkins or dill as ever?).

Then, write a bit!

[what rhymes with smiles?  tiles, miles, biles, Giles...]

Go ahead, you know you want to open that jar!

Original posting: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:28:00 -0500

Let's take a look at some thoughts from Writing As a Lifelong Skill by Sanford Kaye, ISBN 0-534-22218-8

Up to Now: Your Writing History

And, last but not least in reviewing your history...

"C.  Confidence.  Writing experiences, reading habits, and your history as a student in general have shaped your method of composition and your confidence."

"Very few people are satisfied with their writing.  Some people do not even hope for much more than a sentence free of spelling or punctuation errors.  A majority of people have a generalized notion that their writing, while it works well enough, could be better: there must be ways to simplify the process, clarify the argument, or tighten the organization of a paper."

"But people often have a bleaker view of their own writing than their readers do.  We protest that what we have to say is not very interesting, or that the way we say it is not very compelling.  Yet, when looking for ideas and feelings, for information, inspiration, or argument, readers respond most enthusiastically to writing that struggles to say something meaningful in an authentic voice."

"Ultimately, in those parallel lines of dark ink on a white page, readers hope for contact with another human being, someone who feels something intensely, and who can express it powerfully.  That expectation, more than your earlier writing experiences, is the appropriate framework for increasing your confidence, and for developing writing as a lifelong skill."

So, how is your confidence?  Do you have something meaningful to say?  Do you try to say it powerfully?  Can you feel your reader responding?

original posting: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:47:05 -0400

Always interesting, and more often than not a bit challenging...

Taking the technological simplicity of listserv (join the list, get copies of postings, and repeat!  Simple, no?) and somehow trying to hang our humanity (or perhaps our inhumanity?) on that web of bits.

How do you think community forms in f2f (face-to-face) groups?  What does it take to turn a melange of strangers into someone that you would trust to comment on your writing?  How do you define the edges of the motley crowd?  Or do you need to?

And then, if you will, contemplate a bit on what the electronic parallels might be.  Remember that the owner of this list has some other things to do, that all the participants gathered here are volunteers, and that no one has to do anything in this collation of imagery and light.

Something to contemplate on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

(what does this have to do with writing?  Welladay, if one considers writing as being something that happens between and betwixt some people -- at least a writer and a reader? -- then perhaps considering the ins-and-outs of list formulation might aid that.  Even if one focuses a bit finer, perhaps the way that people think and form communities might inform your writing, eh?  Or, if you want to, you might do a piece based on the odd little interactions out here on the edge of cyberspace -- just don't call it "You've Got Mail" okay?)

Oh -- if you want to franticulate about how a list like this might best be a writers' workshop, feel free!  That's always a fascinating gear to grind.

(Franticulate?  Frantic speculation, I suspect, although it might also be be articulating frantics?)

"My great mistake, the fault for which I can't forgive myself, is that one day I ceased my obstinate pursuit of my own individuality" Oscar Wilde

Original Posting: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:32:29 -0500

here we go...

a good companion on
stormy nights when twists of leaves may become serpents

(borrowing from John Bailey)

Take that pair of lines, and let them verberate (I'd say reverberate, but you have to verberate before you can reverb, right?).  Let them bounce around.  Let your tongue taste them, your teeth tangle in those vowels and consonants.  Grumble them through your very own vocal chords, and vibrate.

And let your mind enjoy the echoes of the images, the twists of leaves, the serpents, the stormy nights, and that good companion.

Who is that good companion?  What else lurks in stormy nights?

Then stretch it out.  Add a paragrph (if you be the fictional type), or perhaps some lines (if ye be poetically inclined).  Mix and match, and see where the words take you.

Write?

a good companion on
stormy nights when twists of leaves may become serpents

Write!

original posting: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:47:58 -0500

Okay, let's try this...

"Lit up like a whorehouse on Saturday night."  Loren D. Estleman, quoted in Falser than a Weeping Crocodile and other similes by Elyse Sommer and Mike Sommer.

There's a fine phrase, talking about something being lit up.  But since we're stretching our writing muscles, let's consider two things.

First, what might you be writing about that would be lit up?  Can you think of a scene that would need some description around how well lit up it is?

Second, of course, let's consider a few variations on that simile.  What would you consider using as a simile to illustrate being lit up?  What does it do if you make it "lit up like a Parisian whorehouse on Saturday night?" Or what about "as dark as a whorehouse on Monday night?"  (er...when's the night off?)

Times Square at the stroke of midnight, Jan. 1?

like a four year old's face when Daddy comes home?

Go ahead, crank out a few similes about being well lit!  And then consider the effect they have on a scene.

If you like, go ahead and write the scene.

Or even the whole tale, if you have the time and the idea.

I probably don't have time for this right now, so it may be a bit choppy.

See, we've got the 4th of July coming up. And it always makes me think of the times when . . . the Boston Pops played, and I boosted a little neighbor up so that she could see the fireworks. And before that, hot dogs and such, fireworks, and other times. And the hard times -- arguing about the Vietnam war, walking with various groups, this and that. What does it mean to be an American, in this time and place? Summertime reflections . . .

And on the random quotations today, I've got:






The Fourth of July celebration in America is an expression of belief and of passion. It's also very much a time of remembrance of darkness and pain. Francis Scott Key was not sitting on the grass enjoying Kentucky fried chicken. Example and experience instead of simple words also play a part in what the Fourth of July means. And that notion of global brotherhood -- that we can no longer say we don't care about what's beyond our borders because our borders include everything.

Kind of a hodgepodge -- but what does the Fourth of July mean for you? What will you be doing Friday? And what will you do in the days to come because of that experience? Flags and music and food and fireworks -- what does it all mean to you?

Write!
When we write, we set fireworks free in the minds of our readers.