Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Essay: How I Strive to Write Pt. 1: Thoughts on Word Choice (incomplete)

Word Count: 653
Form: Essay
State: Disorganized Thoughts

NOTE: "How I Strive to Write," is intended to be a collection of my own personal artistic preferences as I realize them in the process of reading and writing. By no means do I claim that they are rules for "writing well." I don't even claim to understand what writing well means. That probably depends on your own motivation and philosophy. At this stage, they are just some random, disorganized thoughts.


Vibrancy of Word Choice
Vibrancy of word choice should be the aspiration of all writers. Don't use an adjective when you can use a more vibrant noun that gets the job done. There is no need to use an adjective when it is implied (e.g. "green grass," "brown dirt," or "cute kitten").

Great exercises in paring down your linguistic bulk include writing Haiku (properly), and newspaper writing.

Linguistic Cliche
Similarly, one should also avoid linguistic cliche* because it causes the reader not to think about the meaning of the words. Linguistic cliches are phrases that are overused to the point of meaninglessness. Phrases that no longer challenge us. (Good writing challenges us to create meaning from words, think about and associate them with our own knowledge and experience. When words have no meaning they are just sounds.) A linguistic liche can be a phrase like "I love you to death."

One should never fall into these traps. They are fine for first drafts, because they are easily accessible, but should be pruned out in the editing process. Removal of cliche challenges a writer to think about what it is he is trying to say, and often breeds the most profound or memorable lines in a piece, inventing new phrases (perhaps to become future cliches).
EXAMPLE: In one story I wrote, I said that someone's voice "'droned' over the intercom." In the revisions I came up with the word "flatlined," as in that thing a heart monitor does when a person dies. At first I wasn't sure if I was even allowed to do that. Did it even make sense? I asked a friend to read the story and he didn't stumble over that line; he knew what it meant. Rather than a word like "droned," which doesn't challenge you to think about its meaning, "flatlined," makes the reader visualize the monotone voice's lifelessness in a new way.
Cleverness
This is by no means advocacy of "cleverness," which should be avoided like an ex. Word choice that showcase an author's linguistic mastery or terrific wit remove a reader from the story, and exposes the author as the narcissistic asshole all writers are. Every sentence should be artfully crafted to immerse the reader in the presence of the story at hand.

A Critique of Nearly Every (Modern) Narrative Ever Written
One cliche I noticed recently is the common convention "said Scarborough," after a quote. We never think about that because we are so used to reading it, but no one talks like that. Not that writing should be entirely conversational, but arranging the words in that order seems to me like a remnant of a much older form of the English language. Analogously, since I am at a loss to articulate exactly why this convention seems cliche to me, observe how it sounds with the pronoun "he":
"'No more monkeys jumping on the bed,' said he."
For the time being I prefer to use other alternatives that seem more authentic, like "No more monkeys jumping on the bed', he said." Besides its greater consistency with modern language, it is arguable more effective writing, because "he said" is more immediate and active than "said he."

*Another type of cliche, not intended to be the topic of this post, that can slip into one's writing is intellectual cliche, which refers to the ideas of a story -- such as themes, character archetypes, plots, and action -- rather than it's word choice.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Essay: The Ethics of Workshopping (incomplete)

Word Count: 612
Form: Essay
State: Incomplete, First Draft, Tangential Scrap

The Nature of Workshop Comments

Comments in a prose writing workshop should be aimed at facilitating the completion of the work of a peer. It is important to remember that members of workshops are peers. The relationship of a commenter to an author is not that of a commercial editor determining what is and is not right for publication, but that of a reader to an author, helping the author make those decisions for himself.

The most effective comments are statements of reaction to a piece
-- not suggestions of meaning or how to achieve a different reaction, but what one's first, second, and third impressions of a piece were.

A comment like, "I hated Joe, he was a jerk to Sally," can be remarkably useful to an author.

Categories of Workshop Comments
Comments can be categorized as matters of fact, linguistics, or artistic preference.

1. Matters of fact involve the story's presentation of factual elements, such as where Sally was when she shot Joe, where she learned to shoot, and what kind of gun she used. Factual elements are concrete images, rather than intellectual abstractions, such the "metaphoric value" of Sally's shooting Joe.

2. Matters of linguistics involve the effectiveness and clarity of language in conveying the factual elements of the story.

3. Matters of artistic preference include everything else. They are the commenter's personal preference about the story's subject matter, tone, style, and unwritten intellectual meanings and implications such as metaphors.

The Ethics of Presenting Comments
Comments must be categorically identifiable when presented by the commenter to the author if the workshop is to be a productive experience.

It is common and quite unethical to present matters of artistic preference as matters of fact or linguistics. Matters of artistic preference cannot and should not be explained in objective terms such as the first two categories may be. It is a terrible flaw of human nature to look for a reason for everything, to rationalize and justify everything. We should be satisfied to say, "I like this," "I don't like this," without manufacturing some neat "because."

A common manifestation of this rationalization is in comments regarding the completeness of plot. Some commenters will insist a plot did not feel complete to them, because they simply "wanted to know more." But instead of saying that, they will phrase it as if it is a factual lapse, when it was actually it was a matter of artistic preference in determining the selection of important elements of the story. It is important to ask oneself if this lack of factual elaboration is a critical flaw or not, and it is the commenter's utmost ethical duty to present it as such.

Misrepresenting a comment on a matter of artistic preference as a matter of fact or linguistics is commonly done because we have a desire for what we say to carry weight, and our traditional tendency to more heavily value that which can be "justified" gives us enormous incentive to machinate false justifications

*At great risk of getting off on a tangent, to rid oneself of the necessity for artificial justifications will provide one with much spiritual enlightenment and satisfaction. Allowing oneself to be content with What Is is a marvelous concept. If one would like an illustration of the uselessness of justification, I personally recommend watching the financial cable news networks where at almost any hour one can witness two authorities in the world of finance give compelling, rational justifications for completely opposite predictions about the future behavior of some stock.