Reflections of a working writer and reader
When writers get (from readers or from themselves) criticism in the form "The story would be more believable if such and such happened" or "The story would be more interesting if such and such . . ." and they agree to make use of the criticism, they must translate it: "Is there any point in the story process I can go back to, and by examining my visualization more closely, catch something I missed before, which, when I notate it, will move the visualization/notation process forward again in this new way?" In other words, can the writers convince themselves that on some ideal level the story actually did happen (as opposed to "should have happened") in the new way, and that it was their inaccuracy as a story-process practitioner that got it going on the wrong track at some given point? ... In a very real way, one writes a story to find out what happens in it. Before it is written it sits in the mind like a piece of overheard gossip or a bit of intriguing tattle. The story process is like taking up such a piece of gossip, hunting down the people actually involved, questioning them, finding out what really occurred, and visiting pertinent locations. As with gossip, you can't be too surprised if important things turn up that were left out of the first-heard version entirely; or if points initially made much of turn out to have been distorted, or simply not to have happened at all. Samuel R. Delany
I’m posting this a little later than usual because I got caught up watching Loose Change – Second Edition, a documentary about 9-11. You can watch it too, by following this link: http://www.loosechange911.com/
Watch it if you are into Conspiracy Theory.
Watch it if you don’t like Conspiracy Theory.
But if you just want something to think about, watch this instead: http://www.loosechange911.com/
Previous post: The Art of Seduction
Next post: Learning to Write III
Powered by eShop v.6
I watched it. Scary. And thought-provoking.
I also bought the Dixie Chicks new album. Brilliant. And thought-provoking.
Thanks.
Very interesting, isn’t it?