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
The title is a quote from Mark Twain. But in a piece from The New York Times, Ben Yagoda elaborates at length on the history of the words that modify nouns.
“Kicking things off with adjectives is a little like starting a kids’ birthday party with the broccoli course.”
Previous post: Wordsy
Next post: Thinking Blogger Award
Powered by eShop v.6
Wholehearted agreement. 🙂
jb says: I understand, I don’t like broccoli either.