Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Til Avernus
Main Character is mid suicide, recalling the deterioration of his relationship to Eve character. Establish fall from grace, loss of innocence. The end of the relationship is caused by MC's inability to deal with the Adam and Eve Paradox. Alone he is half, with Eve is is whole, but he gives up some part of himself as a consequence, making himself half again. MC should stab his own rib. "I'd gladly trade my rib for her body." His decent into death is Orpheus trip to Hades.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Character: Mike
What drives Mike?
He is driven by the basic ideals of success placed upon us by society. He has attained high ranking in his career, but like all successful people, has seen his family life suffer and become wrecked or nonexistent. Therefore, he treats his coworkers as his family, his office as his home, his job as his real life. This is what drives his desire to connect with his coworkers, and also what causes his dejection when Jonas flees from the company.
What drives Jonas?
Anybody's guess. For one reason or another, he rejects the ideals of society. The impression is given that he has a rationale for his departure, but what that rationale is remains a mystery.
How do his coworkers react to his departure? What do they see in it?
The MC sees hope. He has become disillusioned by the success that typical life has to offer, mostly through resentment of Mike, and sees Jonas' departure as proof that something better does exist. He longs to discover the reason Jonas left.
Other coworkers will be representation of different philosophical views and their attitude towards work and success.
He is driven by the basic ideals of success placed upon us by society. He has attained high ranking in his career, but like all successful people, has seen his family life suffer and become wrecked or nonexistent. Therefore, he treats his coworkers as his family, his office as his home, his job as his real life. This is what drives his desire to connect with his coworkers, and also what causes his dejection when Jonas flees from the company.
What drives Jonas?
Anybody's guess. For one reason or another, he rejects the ideals of society. The impression is given that he has a rationale for his departure, but what that rationale is remains a mystery.
How do his coworkers react to his departure? What do they see in it?
The MC sees hope. He has become disillusioned by the success that typical life has to offer, mostly through resentment of Mike, and sees Jonas' departure as proof that something better does exist. He longs to discover the reason Jonas left.
Other coworkers will be representation of different philosophical views and their attitude towards work and success.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Separating the acts of Story Creation and Story Telling
Many writers dismiss the notion that a story can or should be thought out and outlined beforehand. They believe the act of writing is spontaneous, and premeditation only limits the creative possibilities of a story. Writers who get into this line of thought are confusing two important and distinct parts of writing. Story Creation and Story Telling.
When we come up with a plot, characters, and a scene, we are creating a story. When we put that story down on paper in order to relay it to others, we're telling a story. Both are important, unique processes, and often times writers get them confused as one process. They believe that the only way to create a story is to sit down and write and figure it out as you go. Introduce characters as needed, see what sort of conflict they get into, and keep writing until the plot resolves itself. So what's the problem? Isn't it just killing two birds with one stone? Kind of. The problem is the end result. You never really focused specifically on creating your story, and without a complete story at hand, how well could you possibly have told it? What you're left with is one rough version of something that should have been two separate pieces. You have your story, and its been told, but the two could not compliment each other having been created on the fly. When we tell a story without a clear idea of direction, we do things counterproductive to telling an enthralling story. We ramble, we take wild tangents that don't go anywhere, and we repeat ourselves frequently. Worst of all, by the time we reach the end, we may find that the conclusion we've reached isn't really the end to the story we began.This is why its important to keep the actions distinct.
Consider this: A man tells an amusing joke to a room full of people. They find the anecdote quite comical, causing many in the room to laugh out loud. Later on in the evening, a member of the original group tries to retell the same joke to a different group of people. However, the story is not met favorably. No one laughs, many people do not understand it. What went wrong? It was the same story, wasn't it? So why the vast difference in reactions?
It's all in the telling. Any number of things could have gone wrong the second time around. The scene wasn't properly set, important details may have been left out, too many unnecessary details were added in, making the story drag on. In the end it could have just been a matter of an improperly timed punchline.
Its important to not only have your story prepared, but to know the best way to tell it. The two actions are separate art forms, and its important that a writer remembers its OK to keep them separated.
When we come up with a plot, characters, and a scene, we are creating a story. When we put that story down on paper in order to relay it to others, we're telling a story. Both are important, unique processes, and often times writers get them confused as one process. They believe that the only way to create a story is to sit down and write and figure it out as you go. Introduce characters as needed, see what sort of conflict they get into, and keep writing until the plot resolves itself. So what's the problem? Isn't it just killing two birds with one stone? Kind of. The problem is the end result. You never really focused specifically on creating your story, and without a complete story at hand, how well could you possibly have told it? What you're left with is one rough version of something that should have been two separate pieces. You have your story, and its been told, but the two could not compliment each other having been created on the fly. When we tell a story without a clear idea of direction, we do things counterproductive to telling an enthralling story. We ramble, we take wild tangents that don't go anywhere, and we repeat ourselves frequently. Worst of all, by the time we reach the end, we may find that the conclusion we've reached isn't really the end to the story we began.This is why its important to keep the actions distinct.
Consider this: A man tells an amusing joke to a room full of people. They find the anecdote quite comical, causing many in the room to laugh out loud. Later on in the evening, a member of the original group tries to retell the same joke to a different group of people. However, the story is not met favorably. No one laughs, many people do not understand it. What went wrong? It was the same story, wasn't it? So why the vast difference in reactions?
It's all in the telling. Any number of things could have gone wrong the second time around. The scene wasn't properly set, important details may have been left out, too many unnecessary details were added in, making the story drag on. In the end it could have just been a matter of an improperly timed punchline.
Its important to not only have your story prepared, but to know the best way to tell it. The two actions are separate art forms, and its important that a writer remembers its OK to keep them separated.
Friday, June 13, 2008
How to Distinguish a Play
If we are to write plays, we need to discover the difference between plays and other mediums of art, and figure out what a play does better than these other mediums so that we may exploit it.
First the differences.
It's a live production. No opportunity for mistakes. This offers excitement and randomness you can't get from film. The same play could be different with each viewing.
Live Audience. Opportunity for interactions between the art and the audience.
Brevity of the viewing. There is only a limited time for the audience to connect, which makes it important all interesting insights to be closer to the surface. The audience should be able to "get it" by the end of the first viewing. They won't have as much time to spend on it as a written piece.
Movement. The play presents a scene better than any other work except film.
Visual stimulation. The lines of the actors are fine and its good for them to have strength, but if the play is going to be held by the writing alone, the same could be done better by a novel, which could provide the opportunity for deeper insights by pointing out things the characters will not point out to the audience themselves. You can't be afraid to take advantage of the ability to present something visually beautiful.
Theoretically, a play should be the most powerful medium of art because it invokes all elements of art. It has the opportunity to have the tactful writing of a novel, the visual stimulation of a painting or sculpture, the motion and action of a film, the auditory stimulation of music, and a strong level of intimacy with its audience. The only place where a play seems to be lacking is in its evanescence. Its the only art form apart from music that only exists during its brief performance. This drawback needs to be taken into account and counteracted with its many strengths.
First the differences.
It's a live production. No opportunity for mistakes. This offers excitement and randomness you can't get from film. The same play could be different with each viewing.
Live Audience. Opportunity for interactions between the art and the audience.
Brevity of the viewing. There is only a limited time for the audience to connect, which makes it important all interesting insights to be closer to the surface. The audience should be able to "get it" by the end of the first viewing. They won't have as much time to spend on it as a written piece.
Movement. The play presents a scene better than any other work except film.
Visual stimulation. The lines of the actors are fine and its good for them to have strength, but if the play is going to be held by the writing alone, the same could be done better by a novel, which could provide the opportunity for deeper insights by pointing out things the characters will not point out to the audience themselves. You can't be afraid to take advantage of the ability to present something visually beautiful.
Theoretically, a play should be the most powerful medium of art because it invokes all elements of art. It has the opportunity to have the tactful writing of a novel, the visual stimulation of a painting or sculpture, the motion and action of a film, the auditory stimulation of music, and a strong level of intimacy with its audience. The only place where a play seems to be lacking is in its evanescence. Its the only art form apart from music that only exists during its brief performance. This drawback needs to be taken into account and counteracted with its many strengths.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Veil of Art
Nearly every generation previous to ours has enjoyed the pleasure of rich artistic development. It hasn't always been in the foreground, like during the swingin' sixties, but it was always there, ready to be discovered if you were willing to look for it. Unfortunately for me and my contemporaries, the very idea of an artistic movement has become extinct. The movements we live with are nothing more than cop outs; serious attempts to create fake art.
The reason for this, I propose, is that the artists of the day have become obsessed not with furthering the past developments and movements in art, but with creating something that is art, something that can be readily accepted as art. Its not the artists fault, however. They are merely trying to keep up with a society that cares little or absolutely nothing about art. Society doesn't understand it, doesn't need to understand it, will likely never again understand it, but that doesn't stop the general population from believing the world needs it, and that they can appreciate it. Or maybe this isn't the reason at all, maybe everyone would prefer to appear intellectual rather than actually become intellectual. Whatever the cause, the end result has been that people will suddenly grow a deep fondness for anything that they can easily and readily perceive as art. If I can look at a drawing and immediately discern it as art rather than a 4th grader's classroom doodle, I love it.
This has left us with the often misleading "Veil of Art". The Veil of Art is anything that causes a piece to appear artistic, and therefore worthy of admiration by society. Common veils for our generation include but are not limited to Foreign films, black and white photography, installations of any kind, and anything that appears Avant Gard. Purpose, ideas, technique, and aesthetic quality have no bearing anymore. Take the worst movie script in the world, produce it in a foreign language, and you're guaranteed to have art fans the world over praising its unique and innovative style.
This is because Art is no longer meant to stimulate thought and discussion. In fact it should do the opposite, it should leave everyone with as little to think about as possible. Like everything else in our society, its only meant to be quick and easily digested. Don't make me think about what it means, just let me know its art so I can say I love it, impress my girlfriend, and go home.
The reason for this, I propose, is that the artists of the day have become obsessed not with furthering the past developments and movements in art, but with creating something that is art, something that can be readily accepted as art. Its not the artists fault, however. They are merely trying to keep up with a society that cares little or absolutely nothing about art. Society doesn't understand it, doesn't need to understand it, will likely never again understand it, but that doesn't stop the general population from believing the world needs it, and that they can appreciate it. Or maybe this isn't the reason at all, maybe everyone would prefer to appear intellectual rather than actually become intellectual. Whatever the cause, the end result has been that people will suddenly grow a deep fondness for anything that they can easily and readily perceive as art. If I can look at a drawing and immediately discern it as art rather than a 4th grader's classroom doodle, I love it.
This has left us with the often misleading "Veil of Art". The Veil of Art is anything that causes a piece to appear artistic, and therefore worthy of admiration by society. Common veils for our generation include but are not limited to Foreign films, black and white photography, installations of any kind, and anything that appears Avant Gard. Purpose, ideas, technique, and aesthetic quality have no bearing anymore. Take the worst movie script in the world, produce it in a foreign language, and you're guaranteed to have art fans the world over praising its unique and innovative style.
This is because Art is no longer meant to stimulate thought and discussion. In fact it should do the opposite, it should leave everyone with as little to think about as possible. Like everything else in our society, its only meant to be quick and easily digested. Don't make me think about what it means, just let me know its art so I can say I love it, impress my girlfriend, and go home.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Till He Passed Avernus Outline
Underlying Theme - The paradox of a complete self. We are whole people, but we are alone, lonely, and thus incomplete beings. When we find a significant other, we feel completed, whole, as one, but the act of entering a unifying relationship costs individuality, it costs us part of ourself, thus leaving our individual being incomplete. We are forever cursed to be incomplete.
The story theme ties into the story of Adam and Eve. Adam is lonely, desires a companion, gives up his rib to make Eve. He is now complete in union, but the individual is missing a part. He halves himself to become a whole.
Story deals with the fear of the loss of the individual self for the completed union. The main character has given up the opportunity for a union in order to preserve the self. He regrets his decision and attempts to regain this union.
Stream of consciousness narrative, character is mid suicide. His significant other has already parted this world, his only opportunity for completeness is in the next world. Draws similarities to Orpheus and Eurydice.
Should focus on the looking taboo, reference to forbidden knowledge. He is unable to know both worlds, he must choose one, the individual or the union, he cannot know both. To know both would be peeking.
Focus on obsessions. Main character is obsessed with certain quirks, details, events of his time with his partner that he relives constantly during his near death experience.
Being in the bathtub could cause him to focus on everything wet. The red blood causes him to focus on red objects. Things that may not have been red or wet will be recalled as red or wet. White of the bathroom. The knocking on the door. The calling of his name from the worried friend. What about events from his relationship? His final line to his partner. I don't need you. Her final line to him. I need you.
There should be an object of his obsession, something that represents the theme of wholeness vs. incompleteness that can reoccur in his visions. Possibly something of his that he gives up for her. Represents the transition from mine to ours.
Make use of Iambic lines, repetition, rhyme. Represents the falseness in his visions. He is not experiencing reality, he is reliving from the imagination.
I am We. But We are not I. We can have no I.
Be sure to press the loss of identity, the fear of losing identity, the risk of losing identity, but also the gains of the union.
Decide on target points that will trigger his transition from reality to his memory and back. Should be based on his obsessive objects.
Who is the narrator talking to? Himself? the person at the door? His deceased lover? God?
His dialogue is addressed to his lover. Its a confession, too late to save her life, but he hopes that he can somehow save her by confessing anyway. Just like his perception transfers between reality and memory, his lines will transfer between the person at the door and his lover, depending on who he thinks he is with at the moment.
Key Scenes:
I. The beginning of the suicide attempt in the bathroom.
II. Establishing the object of his affection.
III. Establishing the nature of their relationship
IV. Establishing his loss.
V. His revelation.
The story theme ties into the story of Adam and Eve. Adam is lonely, desires a companion, gives up his rib to make Eve. He is now complete in union, but the individual is missing a part. He halves himself to become a whole.
Story deals with the fear of the loss of the individual self for the completed union. The main character has given up the opportunity for a union in order to preserve the self. He regrets his decision and attempts to regain this union.
Stream of consciousness narrative, character is mid suicide. His significant other has already parted this world, his only opportunity for completeness is in the next world. Draws similarities to Orpheus and Eurydice.
Should focus on the looking taboo, reference to forbidden knowledge. He is unable to know both worlds, he must choose one, the individual or the union, he cannot know both. To know both would be peeking.
Focus on obsessions. Main character is obsessed with certain quirks, details, events of his time with his partner that he relives constantly during his near death experience.
Being in the bathtub could cause him to focus on everything wet. The red blood causes him to focus on red objects. Things that may not have been red or wet will be recalled as red or wet. White of the bathroom. The knocking on the door. The calling of his name from the worried friend. What about events from his relationship? His final line to his partner. I don't need you. Her final line to him. I need you.
There should be an object of his obsession, something that represents the theme of wholeness vs. incompleteness that can reoccur in his visions. Possibly something of his that he gives up for her. Represents the transition from mine to ours.
Make use of Iambic lines, repetition, rhyme. Represents the falseness in his visions. He is not experiencing reality, he is reliving from the imagination.
I am We. But We are not I. We can have no I.
Be sure to press the loss of identity, the fear of losing identity, the risk of losing identity, but also the gains of the union.
Decide on target points that will trigger his transition from reality to his memory and back. Should be based on his obsessive objects.
Who is the narrator talking to? Himself? the person at the door? His deceased lover? God?
His dialogue is addressed to his lover. Its a confession, too late to save her life, but he hopes that he can somehow save her by confessing anyway. Just like his perception transfers between reality and memory, his lines will transfer between the person at the door and his lover, depending on who he thinks he is with at the moment.
Key Scenes:
I. The beginning of the suicide attempt in the bathroom.
II. Establishing the object of his affection.
III. Establishing the nature of their relationship
IV. Establishing his loss.
V. His revelation.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
On Concentrated Effort and Divine Inspiration in the Creative Process
I've just finished Andre Dubus' The Habit of Writing and Joyce Carol Oates' Reading as a Writer, and have noticed that there is a huge distinction between their creative processes that may lead young and even aged writers down a path of apathy and failure if they don't receive some proper guidance.
Andre Dubus is clearly pushing the Divine Inspiration method of writing, or what might be more accurately referred to as the Spaghetti method. This process involves writing without thinking, he says, with extra emphasis on the not thinking component. Don't bother placing genuine meaning or effort in the story, just write.
You might be asking yourself, what are the chances I can create a truly moving or meaningful piece of art by simply 'winging it'? Close to zilch; but remember, I said close to. Perhaps you're familiar with the ancient proverb about a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years. The same holds true for a single human being. Let him punch away at the keys for a lifetime and he'll create the great American novel, maybe. This seems to be the point of The Habit of Writing. You just write, anything and everything, until it looks like a story. Then you start all over again. Keep repeating until you finally achieve something of at least the lowest publishing quality. Congratulations, you have your first story, stamped "Inspired by God", because where else could the story come from if you didn't concentrate any effort in its creation?
The Divine Inspiration method is also known as the Spaghetti method in some circles due to its similarity to the process of cooking spaghetti. For those unfamiliar, cooking spaghetti usually involves two steps. The first is simple: Add pasta to boiling water. The second step is trickier. Remove pasta from boiling water. Not difficult in itself with a proper strainer, the real challenge is knowing when to remove the pasta. How can you tell if its been thoroughly cooked? Here's the advice any master chef will give you. Throw one of the spaghetti noodles at the wall. If it falls, the pasta needs more time. If it sticks, then you know the noodle has been divinely inspired to stick and is ready for consumption.
Andre Dubus is a proponent of the Spaghetti method of writing. Just keep throwing stories at the wall and wait for one to stick.
I don't mean to be overly critical of this method, I'm sure many writers use it and have had a fair amount of success with it, but if you're thinking about attempting this method for the first time, you might want to consider some famous writers who were popular users. Here's a list:
Andre Dubus
Right now you're either wondering who Andre Dubus is, or you're wondering why there's only one name on this list. Its because Dubus doesn't cite any other writers who use his method in his essay other than himself. He does briefly cite a piece by Hemingway, along with Joseph Conrad's preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus as examples, but upon reading, you'll find neither one has anything to do with his process of writing.
Contrast this with Joyce Carol Oates' Reading as a Writer, which suggests that writing is a process that begins with intense study and thought, the complete opposite of Dubus' theory. In her essay, she suggests that our own writing is not merely the influence of the works we've read, but the result of our study into the works we've read. She has plenty of evidence to support her ideas as well, citing the diaries of Henry James, Virginia Woolf, and Sylvia Plath, just a few of the writers who were so meticulous and consumed with improving their own writing ability that they not only kept strict record of their ideas for their work, but they actually copied word for word the works of other famous writers in an attempt to learn their style.
Everyone has probably heard someone ask the question before, do writers really mean to put so many ideas and so much depth into their work? The answer is YES, they absolutely do. At least the big names do, the ones with an impressive publishing record, not the spaghetti writers who found their story that stuck. Just a glance at their notes will confirm what every writer suspects, that writing is a labored, intellectual process.
Even the title of Oates' essay, Reading as a Writer, suggests study and concentration in the creative process. Compare this to Dubus' The Habit of Writing, a title that makes it sound like the author has a problem that will require a twelve-step program to solve.
For anyone still on the fence about the Divine Inspiration versus Personal Inspiration debate, let me leave you with a list of writers Oates cites as masters of "consciously wrought prose". Remember, the difference between writers and non-writers is the knowledge that "despite romantic notions of divine inspiration, no story writes itself".
Emily Dickenson
Franz Kafka
Jack Kerouac
Herman Melville
D.H. Lawrence
Robert Frost
Thomas Hardy
Flannery O'Connor
Ernest Hemingway
William Faulkner
James Joyce
Gustave Flaubert
Joseph Conrad
Mark Twain
Sherwood Anderson
Virginia Woolf
Anton Chekhov
Richard Wright
Ralph Ellison
Eudora Welty
Henry James
Sarah Orne Jewett
Sylvia Plath
John Updike
John Gardner
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Raymond Carver
T.S. Eliot
Joanna Scott
Paul West
Cynthia Ozick
Maxine Kumin
Maureen Howard
Bradford Morrow
Robert Creely
and many others not specifically referenced in her essay...
Andre Dubus is clearly pushing the Divine Inspiration method of writing, or what might be more accurately referred to as the Spaghetti method. This process involves writing without thinking, he says, with extra emphasis on the not thinking component. Don't bother placing genuine meaning or effort in the story, just write.
You might be asking yourself, what are the chances I can create a truly moving or meaningful piece of art by simply 'winging it'? Close to zilch; but remember, I said close to. Perhaps you're familiar with the ancient proverb about a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years. The same holds true for a single human being. Let him punch away at the keys for a lifetime and he'll create the great American novel, maybe. This seems to be the point of The Habit of Writing. You just write, anything and everything, until it looks like a story. Then you start all over again. Keep repeating until you finally achieve something of at least the lowest publishing quality. Congratulations, you have your first story, stamped "Inspired by God", because where else could the story come from if you didn't concentrate any effort in its creation?
The Divine Inspiration method is also known as the Spaghetti method in some circles due to its similarity to the process of cooking spaghetti. For those unfamiliar, cooking spaghetti usually involves two steps. The first is simple: Add pasta to boiling water. The second step is trickier. Remove pasta from boiling water. Not difficult in itself with a proper strainer, the real challenge is knowing when to remove the pasta. How can you tell if its been thoroughly cooked? Here's the advice any master chef will give you. Throw one of the spaghetti noodles at the wall. If it falls, the pasta needs more time. If it sticks, then you know the noodle has been divinely inspired to stick and is ready for consumption.
Andre Dubus is a proponent of the Spaghetti method of writing. Just keep throwing stories at the wall and wait for one to stick.
I don't mean to be overly critical of this method, I'm sure many writers use it and have had a fair amount of success with it, but if you're thinking about attempting this method for the first time, you might want to consider some famous writers who were popular users. Here's a list:
Andre Dubus
Right now you're either wondering who Andre Dubus is, or you're wondering why there's only one name on this list. Its because Dubus doesn't cite any other writers who use his method in his essay other than himself. He does briefly cite a piece by Hemingway, along with Joseph Conrad's preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus as examples, but upon reading, you'll find neither one has anything to do with his process of writing.
Contrast this with Joyce Carol Oates' Reading as a Writer, which suggests that writing is a process that begins with intense study and thought, the complete opposite of Dubus' theory. In her essay, she suggests that our own writing is not merely the influence of the works we've read, but the result of our study into the works we've read. She has plenty of evidence to support her ideas as well, citing the diaries of Henry James, Virginia Woolf, and Sylvia Plath, just a few of the writers who were so meticulous and consumed with improving their own writing ability that they not only kept strict record of their ideas for their work, but they actually copied word for word the works of other famous writers in an attempt to learn their style.
Everyone has probably heard someone ask the question before, do writers really mean to put so many ideas and so much depth into their work? The answer is YES, they absolutely do. At least the big names do, the ones with an impressive publishing record, not the spaghetti writers who found their story that stuck. Just a glance at their notes will confirm what every writer suspects, that writing is a labored, intellectual process.
Even the title of Oates' essay, Reading as a Writer, suggests study and concentration in the creative process. Compare this to Dubus' The Habit of Writing, a title that makes it sound like the author has a problem that will require a twelve-step program to solve.
For anyone still on the fence about the Divine Inspiration versus Personal Inspiration debate, let me leave you with a list of writers Oates cites as masters of "consciously wrought prose". Remember, the difference between writers and non-writers is the knowledge that "despite romantic notions of divine inspiration, no story writes itself".
Emily Dickenson
Franz Kafka
Jack Kerouac
Herman Melville
D.H. Lawrence
Robert Frost
Thomas Hardy
Flannery O'Connor
Ernest Hemingway
William Faulkner
James Joyce
Gustave Flaubert
Joseph Conrad
Mark Twain
Sherwood Anderson
Virginia Woolf
Anton Chekhov
Richard Wright
Ralph Ellison
Eudora Welty
Henry James
Sarah Orne Jewett
Sylvia Plath
John Updike
John Gardner
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Raymond Carver
T.S. Eliot
Joanna Scott
Paul West
Cynthia Ozick
Maxine Kumin
Maureen Howard
Bradford Morrow
Robert Creely
and many others not specifically referenced in her essay...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)