|
edwardhenry
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Ted Country: United States State: Pennsylvania Metro: Philadelphia Birthday: 4/18/1982 Gender: Male
Interests: cultural engagement, moviegoing, courtly love, the theatre, novels, the American Dream, world-shaking, literature, baseball, urban living, language games, Philadelphia Occupation: Education/training Industry: Computers (Internet)
Message: message meEmail: email me Website: visit my website
Member Since:
3/30/2005
|
|
| Look Elsewhere
I'm no longer blogging here. Please check out edwardhenry.wordpress.com for my present weblog.
Thanks,
Ted
| | |
|
You should, all of you, stop at a newsstand and buy The Atlantic's Fiction Issue 2005.
It's important, intelligent, and is on newsstands until October. If
you're a subscriber, you can read it online. If you're not, you can
read a few paragraphs.
The fiction itself is fair to good: no truly bad stories, and a few actual good ones. You'll want to read, in descending order:
Poor Devil, by Charles Baxter (A simple, contemporary, broken-hearted love story.)
Weightlifting for Catholics by Mark Jacobs (Stylistically and thematically the best story in the magazine, although it suffers from a tepid ending.)
The House on Kronenstrasse by Shira Nayman (Interesting stuff--and we should never tire of reading about the Holocaust.)
The true gems, however, are two nonfiction pieces:
Writers and Mentors by Rick Moody
is worth the price of the magazine. In the past, I've vilified the
creative-writing workshop on this blog; today, I am speechless in the
glow of Moody's lucidity. So that you nonsubscribers can get the gist,
I am going to post this whole section:
Now,
once an audience begins to experience itself as a community with power,
it begins to ask certain questions about stories. I'm sure that
analogous questions are asked about poems and essays in workshops every
day, but I have less experience with those forms. Pardon me, then, if I
confine myself to the kinds of questions that are a commonplace of the
contemporary fiction workshop.
[NOTE: for some reason, Moody's magical lists are not present in the online version--a terrible mistake by the Atlantic web-squad, I imagine. All the more reason to buy the magazine. Here's a few from my fingertips]
- Does the story begin effectively?
- Does the story end effectively?
- Does the story have a conflict?
- Are the characters believable?
- Are the charactes likeable?
- Is the story dramatic? Does drama help the story move?
- Is the language in the way?
- Does the story have a theme?
- Does the character experience an epiphany?
- Are you moved?
This
is just off the top of my head. Many other such questions can be
imagined. To the extent that a student comes to expect these questions,
or to the extent that he or she writes in expectation of them, the
likely product will be stories (or poems or essays) that reduce the
chances of innovation, that ratify the workshop as a system, and that
ratify the idea of the university but do little for the development of
the form or for our language as a whole.
If I had it to do myself, I might instead ask questions like these:
[Again, edited and inserted by me.]
- Has the writer attempted to eliminate all adverbs?
- What's wrong with using a few more semicolons?
- Does this story contain any sentences that you want to remember to your grave?
- Would Samuel Beckett like this story? Would Virginia Woolf?
- Does this story answer the question, "Why bother to write?"
- Can this story save any lives?
I am not suggesting, of course, that traditional workshop questions are
entirely without merit (though I personally will have no truck with the
idea of likeability, which is the hobgoblin of small minds), nor am I
suggesting that even quite innovative stories are without conflict or
character (although one does recall John Hawkes's famous remark that
"the true enemies of the novel were plot, character, setting and
theme"). What I am suggesting is that a workshop structure that becomes
oriented toward what is easy to say about a story will, by its very
nature, default on its responsibility when faced with two kinds of
work: the very good and the very bad. What gets lost, therefore, is
what is at the margins of convention, and that is potentially
catastrophic, because a literary form is defined in part by the
marginal, by what is impossible, by what is grandiose and
revolutionary, whether in the good sense or in the bad.
This
is insightful stuff, especially since the criticisms in Moody's article
are eminently applicable to the stories which follow it in the Atlantic's Fiction
Issue. Too often, short stories in contemporary magazies read bland and
banal, as if the edges have been rounded off--as if they were written
by committee. The problem, I think, is deeper than the shortcomings of
the workshop model--but it's certainly not helping.
Also phenomenal is Mary Gordon's Moral Fiction.
To sum up: Gordon reminds us that the relationship between morality and
fiction is not as tight as we would like to think it is, and that
fiction is best when it aims to portray a complicated, irreducible
moral vision (think The Brothers Karamazov) not a simple, neatly-packaged moral (think Left Behind: Tribulation Force). Be sure to read this embedded snippet from Saul Bellow.
That's all for now. Happy reading.
| | |
| When it's this hot, you'd do well to spend a late afternoon in the cool
air-conditioned world of the movies. At present, two of the hottest
shows in town are Wedding Crashes (which rules) and Spielberg's War of the Worlds (which does not). Here's some reading concerning those involved:
On Slate, Field Maloney wonders "Was Owen Wilson the key to the Wes Anderson phenomenon?"
This is a misleading query, for assumes--as so many critics have
recently--that Wes Anderson has fallen from grace, after the utter
failure of Zissou (I disagree: it was delightful) and the mess that was The Royal Tenenbaums (again I disagree, but this time with more fervor: I think RT
is one of the best movies of the past ten years). At any rate, the article is
engaging, if a little misguided. Snaps to Maloney for correctly
identifying the best joke in Wedding Crashers
Better reading can be found in the New York Review, where Geoffrey O'Brien provides a steller analysis of War of the Worlds. O'Brien's critique is right on:
This
family drama seems too calculated an interpolation, fulfilling too
neatly the Hollywood requirement that all movies must involve the
"redemption" of at least one central character. The H.G. Wells novel
followed a more austere and solitary course, as its anonymous hero
mostly hid out and watched from the sidelines while the disaster
unfolded. He was there as an observer; it was the fate of the race that
was in question. Here we are often distracted from the magnitude of the
catastrophe by worrying about what will happen to Ray, his teenage son,
and his ten-year-old daughter, as if謡ith inescapable movie logic葉he
fate of the rest of humanity took second place to Ray's need to
establish a good relationship with his kids and get them safely back to
their mother in Boston.
O'Brien goes on to consider
the import of Wells' text, and the movies, cultural landmarks, and
general fear of aliens that it induced.
| | |
|
A Wikipedia article for today:
| | |
|
I simply want to write a quick note to whoever may be reading this, to remind them that The Fugees were killer, and "Ready or Not" was one of the best songs of the 1990s.
Word.
| | |
|