Response to "Passion" by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala

The first thing I immediately noticed about this story is the large amount of telling that Jhabvala does.  I was never unclear what was happening or what a character was feeling, because there were always these lines of "telling" - for example, on page 3, "She stopped herself, for she realized she was saying he was not the sort of person one met." Honestly, I thought the story had a bit too much telling; I understand the notion that the author wants to have the reader know exactly what's happening, but this line in particular stuck out to me (as did several others) as unnecessary. It was clear from the exchange between Betsy and Manny, particularly Betsy's dialogue, why she stopped herself from continuing on with what she was saying.

While there were some instances of the story that bothered me with too much telling, some of it was justified and needed.  I liked the balance between action sequences or dialogue sequences with the telling of how Betsy felt after Manny got drunk that night in particular.  Immediately following their dialogue, there is a whole paragraph about how she felt towards herself for letting Manny get drunk; this paragraph was needed because otherwise, it wouldn't have been clear to me that she blamed herself for Manny getting drunk.  Personally, the majority of the time, when a person gets drunk, I don't blame myself for their actions - so this said a lot about Betsy's character.

Though, from pages 5-8, I was getting really tired of the amount of telling that was going on. I felt like I was reading a summary of a movie on IMDB; no action, no dialogue, just too much telling. I really struggled to get through these pages and to get to the end of the story. If this had been something that I was reading for pleasure rather than for a class assignment, I would have put it down.  I'm glad that I know my taste preferences when it comes to reading though, and that this story further provided me with the knowledge that I prefer action and dialogue in a story, otherwise, I'm just bored with too much summary.  Thankfully, the story picked up again towards the end with the strong dialogue between Manny, Har Gopal, Betsy, and Christine; to me, this was the most interesting part of the story because I finally got to see where all of the telling lines built up, ultimately in order to change the relationships between them.

Response to "The Man Who Invented The Calendar" by B.J. Novak

This story was hilarious and extremely creative.  I love when writers can kind of gawk at these societal constructs that we have in place and turn them into well-told stories.  Personally, I would probably never think to write about how a man would go about inventing the calendar (pretty sure I don't even know who invented the calendar...).  But the concept of time has always been of particular interest to me, so I really enjoy how Novak played with it in this story.

I was laughing out loud by the time I got to the end of the piece, where our narrator claimed there were going to be several more months after December.  I also loved that our narrator explained the origin of several holidays such as Valentine's Day and April Fool's day and that they were based on events that were happening to him on those particular days--so for Valentine's Day, he was on a date with a woman and she appeared to be the one to create the meaning behind that particular day, and on April Fool's Day, everyone around him was cracking jokes and pranking each other.  I also love that the narrator was thinking about creating the clock in addition to the calendar; this is another example of Novak playing with the concept of time.

I've read a few stories that are written in this type of format - starting with a date, followed by a series of chronological events, like diary entries.  I think these kind of stories are either a hit or miss with readers, and I happen to really enjoy them.  Again, they play with the concept of time in a sense that you always know how much time or how little time has passed based on what day the events took place, and I think it makes for a unique type of storytelling that is actually easier to follow. Often times when I read stories, I'm not sure how much time has passed or what season it's taking place in, and this unsureness can be removed when using this technique.

Overall, I found the story enjoyable. I do have a couple of questions: what is the narrator referring to when he explains that Jane is sacrificed to the Sun God? And what is the deal with the poisonous berries?

Dialogue Prompt: "Let Her In" using characters from "Samantha"

Let Her In

“Sam, you have to tell her.”

“No, no, I really don’t.”

“This has gone on long enough and I can’t take it anymore.”

I don’t know what your problem is.  I have a job, I clean up after myself, and I stay out of your way.”

“You’ve been living in my apartment for six months!”

“Yeah… so?”

“So… you haven’t given me a single cent! And Mom has no idea you’re in New York.”

“Whatever, Thomas.  I’m your sister.  I didn’t think I needed to give you anything or that you’d care whether or not Mom knew I was here.”

“I mean, sure, in the beginning… When I thought you were only going to be staying with me for a month, two tops…”

“I don’t see what the big deal is.”

“Okay, forget about the money for a second.  You need to tell Mom the truth!”

“No.”

“Sam, she’s our mom.  She’s not going to say ‘I told you so.’ She’s going to be thrilled that you’re home and that we’ve reconnected.”

“No, she’s going to say ‘I told you you’d fail as an actress in LA and come crawling back.’  Then she’ll go into some rant about how dad should have never paid for all my acting classes, blah blah blah…”

“You gotta give her more credit than that.”

“Coming from the child she always favored.”

“You’re so full of it, Sam.  Just give her a chance.”

“How do I even begin to tell her?”

“You could say something like ‘Hey, mom. Just wanted to let you know I’ve been living at Thomas’s for the past six months. LA just wasn’t for me, but you’ll be happy to know I’ve gotten a job for myself and am getting back on my feet.  Would you like to have dinner with both of us this week?’”

“I could probably get through two words of that.”

“So write it down first.”

“Alright, fine. But can you give me like, ten minutes to get my shit together?”

“Ok, just promise me you’ll call her.”

“Thomas, I’m not ten years old.  I’m gonna call her, Jesus Christ.”

“I didn’t say you were, though you do act like it sometimes…”

“Thomas!”

“Here, use my phone.  Her number’s programmed in.”

“Come back and bother me in ten minutes.”

*

“Sorry, I stepped out to get a sandwich.  Did you call her?”

            “Yes.”

            “And?”

            “We talked for like twenty minutes.  It was alright.”

            “See? I told you.  All that drama for nothing.”

            “She wants to come over for dinner tonight.”

            “Did you tell her that’s fine with me?”

             “Yeah... I assumed it was.  She said she’s coming over in an hour.”

            “Fine by me.  Perfect excuse to break out the Pinot Grigio.”

            “Well, I guess I’d better change into something decent.”

            “While you’re at it, how about we talk about a monthly rent?”

            “Oh, fuck off, Thomas.”

Response to "We Didn't" by Stuart Dybek

The concept of this story fascinated me.  I could picture this being in an episode of a TV drama because it's about a couple who are about to have sex and are then interrupted by police who are investigating the death of a young girl who was pregnant.  Though, the story isn't really about the dead girl who is found, it's about how it affects the couple, particularly the narrator.  He desires to have sex with his girlfriend and assumes that he is going to be satisfied, but ultimately, he isn't.  His girlfriend cannot stop thinking about the dead girl and it interrupts their night of pleasure entirely.

The dialogue between the narrator and his girlfriend is superb. It's so clear that the narrator really has no interest in this dead girl and is deadset on getting his girlfriend to believe that her death was an accident and they could not have done anything to help her.  She was, after all, there for a while, as one of the cops had remarked earlier. Still, his girlfriend refuses to believe that the girl's death was an accident and the two of them argue over whether or not they could have helped her in any way. The way that Dybek frames this conversation between them, by choosing distinct diction for both of the characters in order to distinguish their voices from one another and using zero dialogue tags, was, in my opinion, brilliant. It's so clear who is speaking that the dialogue tags are unnecessary, and the dialogue between the two of them felt like a scene in a play.  I could picture it so clearly in my head.

I loved the shift from the couple arguing about the dead woman to arguing about just about everything else. It was such a well-done shift that described the passage of time and the state of their relationship in just a few sentences. And then, a few paragraphs later, the narrator just says "there wasn't a particular night when we finally broke up, just as there wasn't a particular night when we began going together, but I do remember a night in fall when I guessed it was over." In just one sentence, the narrator summarizes the type of relationship he had with this girl. Granted, we already know more about their relationship prior to this, but if I had read this sentence on its own, I feel like I would've understood the context of their relationship already. It's also just the type of thing a guy would say after a break-up. 

The ending satisfied me. The narrator realizes that he and his girlfriend never did have sex and he finally accepts that he could not have her the way that he wanted to. To me, it feels like he achieved peace with that at the end of the story, and I think it ties everything together nicely.

Response to "Why Do You Write?" by Margaret Atwood

I was expecting this short little excerpt to be similar to Richard Bausch's list of 10 things all writers must do.  Therefore, I was shocked to read that Atwood is actually being very political here.  A couple of the things she mentions, such as the way that writers will be speaking for or against human society, and "speak[ing] for women," in some of their writing are ideas that I haven't thought much about.  I enjoy writing fiction because I can conjure up characters and situations that may have some parallels to my own life, or have nothing to do with me; it hasn't really crossed my mind up until this point that my writing could be making some sort of political statement.  That being said, I have written and continue to write romance between members of the same sex, but I have always viewed it as just "romance" rather than slapping a "lesbian" or "gay" label on it.

I suppose it's time for me to rethink that.  Perhaps Atwood would see those stories I've written (and potential novel ideas) as stories or books that would be banned for their homosexual content.  Perhaps a good chunk of human society would be against it as well; by writing what I have written, I have gone against the heteronormative society that still exists today.  This doesn't necessarily bother me, but I think what does bother me is the fact that there would be a huge audience missing out on my books/stories or simply loathing them without even reading one word of them because of the content.  That is a scary thought as a writer, when your career depends on people liking and enjoying what you've written.

Regardless, what Atwood ends her excerpt with is simple: "Tell what is yours to tell. Let others tell what is theirs." What I have to say in some of my writing may be uncomfortable for some, and for others, be just what they needed.  Some of my writing might be comfortable for the majority and only resonate with some.  Whatever the case, I have a unique voice to lend to my writing that is different from each and every other writer who exists today, and at the end of the day, I believe that people who love to read and recognize a good story when they see one will appreciate what I have to bring to the table.

Response to "Death by Landscape" by Margaret Atwood

One of the first things I noticed about this piece is Atwood's use of description of scenery. I struggle with writing scenery because I think that I often use mundane words to describe places in particular. On page 2, Atwood describes Camp Manitou from Lois' perspective following the war: "Its log-sided buildings with the white cement between the half-logs, its flagpole ringed with whitewashed stones, its weathered gray dock jutting into Lake Prospect, with its woven rope bumpers and its rusty rings for tying up, its prim round flowerbed of petunias near the office door, must surely have been there always." She goes on, and a beautiful image of this camp-site pops into my head; it's almost as if every word Atwood uses to describe the camp is different, which not only makes reading the sentences exciting, but also clearly defines each part of the camp without being repetitive. This is a skill that I am hoping to improve upon and master in my own writing.

I also loved the way that Atwood described the relationship between Lois and Lucy. The myriad of examples she uses of habits that one girl had and the other didn't, the various activities they would do together, and even the rule-breaking "crimes" they committed at the camp together were all unconventional ways to describe their friendship while letting me as a reader know more about both of them. In short, Atwood makes her characters extremely interesting to read about, for example, instead of saying that "they both liked to eat s'mores by the campfire." Not only do I want to know more about the characters, but I find myself connecting with parts of both of their personalities.

I was extremely surprised to learn that Lucy was dead.  I probably should have paid more attention to the major clue in the title "Death by Landscape," but I couldn't help but be shocked by the revelation. When I learned that she was dead, it just made the entire story and all of the moments Lucy and Lois shared together so much stronger than they initially were (and they already were strong on their own!) The last paragraph was beautiful and was a very satisfying ending. The last two lines especially stuck out to me: "She is here. She is entirely alive." I love that Lois believes that Lucy lives in her apartment, particularly through her paintings. It is a true testament to how strong their bond was, and how much she is present in Lois' life everyday.

Reflecting upon Chapman's Israeli Poet Talk

I really enjoyed the Wilkinson Poetry event that I attended today at Chapman. Even though I don't consider myself a poet, it was really nice to hear from some famous Israeli poets as they spoke about their own experiences not just with writing poetry, but with finding themselves as writers and the unique processes they each had to becoming who they are as writers today.

The talk opened up with a lovely summary of who each of the four Israeli poets were, and the speaker gave a bit of information on each one before they, one by one, took the stand and told their stories. The first, the only man who came up to speak, spent the bulk of his time speaking about how he believes that writers should experiment with their writing style, and that writers "should never develop a pattern of writing, otherwise everything that you write will be a reproduction of what you already know." I thought that this was really good advice because I sometimes feel like I write the same types of stories and I envy those who are able to write well in a multitude of genres. I aspire to be able to do that eventually.

The second speaker, a woman, encouraged us writers in the room to always write down an idea that "screams aloud to be written," especially if "you can't sleep at night until it's written down." I also really agree with this advice, which is why I sometimes, right before I go to sleep, grab my phone and open my notes app to type in any ideas that come to mind when I am desperately trying to sleep, but can't. Again, even though I don't consider myself a poetry writer, I thought her statement about poetry was very accurate: that it "doesn't have to be too serious because it's fun to write." I feel like poetry has this reputation of being very sad and gloomy, and I can't honestly think of any poems I've read recently that are happy. So, I'm hoping more aspiring poets and poets will take this advice themselves. In my opinion, she was the best of the four speakers and she spoke with the most clarity and confidence.

The second woman who spoke, the third speaker, read one of her early poems in the beginning to start off her story. I really enjoyed this poem and I remember the line about "I ate an angel" was repeated several times. She told her story about how she begged to get into a writing workshop after she fell in love with a man who loved poetry; she had always disliked it prior to that, but then realized that she actually had writing talent. The professor saw something in her personality and let her into the class, she said, and she is thankful for what the professor saw in her. Taking that class was her first step into becoming the writer she is today.

The fourth and final speaker, the third woman, spoke about the beauty of writing and how she connects to poetry. She said that poetry is "speaking about something that is unspeakable and hasn't been told yet." I feel like this can apply to fiction writing as well, because many books that I've read have hints of topics between the lines such as dictatorship and politics that are not as obvious to uncover as the main plot line happening.  The woman also spoke about how for her, there is "a relationship between the concrete and the imaginary" that happens when she is writing.  I have a similar relationship to my writing, particularly since my primary writing style is fiction; I think that it is difficult to write about the imaginary, but including some elements of it in fiction writing can spice up a piece.

During the Q&A, each of the authors answered two questions: the first about what a writer should do when he or she experiences writer's block, and the second about what types of writing/authors do they each read to inspire themselves? Some of the best advice given, in my opinion, for the first question was to take some time off and not to force yourself to write through it because sometimes, the inspiration will come back in days or weeks. I think that forcing yourself to write can sometimes produce crap work rather than something of quality, and I'm glad that a group of writers finally agreed with the taking time off and coming back to it idea. (I think this was the first time I heard this advice given.) For the second question, some of the writers listed names of poets while others said that every writer should just be reading more than they write, period. A couple of them spoke about how they could always tell when a writer has written more than they've read, and that their work is just not as good as those who balance reading and writing. Finally, the last piece of advice that stuck out to me was the first woman speaker said that "after reading a good quality poem, you are no longer the same. These are the kinds of poems to read." That can certainly be applied to fiction and any type of writing genre as well, and I have been through that experience after I have finished reading all of my favorite novels. Great storytelling makes me feel more connected to the world and the people around me, which is why I love to read and write.

The event was wonderful and I'm glad I had the opportunity to listen to these successful writers enlighten me for just over an hour. These kind of talks remind me of why I love to write so much and that there is always something I can be doing to improve my craft.

Response to "The Fix" by Percival Everett

I liked that this story was mainly driven through Sherman and Douglas's dialogue. I think I've said this in two of my previous blog posts, but I really believe that dialogue makes or breaks a story. If used effectively, it is, in my opinion, the most interesting part of story-telling. Everett does a great job distinguishing the two males, Sherman and Douglas, right off the bat when they first meet.  Douglas is very talkative and is genuinely curious about Sherman's life since he rescued him from being beaten up one night. Sherman is extremely quiet, never smiles, and is one of those people who just does what he is asked to do.

There is an obvious Bible comparison in this story.  Sherman is Jesus, or some type of God-like figure, who can fix anything and even bring people back from the dead. The story read almost like a myth in that Sherman performed too much of a good thing and people became greedy, wanting him to fix everything for them, to the point of driving Sherman to his own suicide to get away from them. Every myth has a moral of the story, or a take away message; this is probably best summed up by Sherman himself on the second to last page. "You have to be careful about what you fix. If you fix the valves in an engine, but the bearings are shot, you'll get more compression, but the engine will still burn up. If you irrigate a desert, you might empty a sea. It's a complicated business, fixing things." And yet, even though he does fix so many things, people are never satisfied, and that is truly heartbreaking.

Everett makes Sherman very likable through the minimalist description he gives about him. Even Douglas and his wife, Sheila, debate whether or not he can be trusted, but assume he can be because he gives off a good vibe (which I took to be from his simplistic lifestyle, i.e. he is content with living in a room in Douglas's shop with food, never leaving the apartment, and working for Douglas for minimum wage).  I also found Douglas to be very likable because he is curious not to the point of over-prying in Sherman's life, and when he finally does learn that Sherman needs to run away from the town, he is willing to follow him no matter where he goes.  In fact, he even encourages his suicide by nodding at him when he takes a step over the cliff. While this could be seen as sadistic, I view it as Douglas helping Sherman fulfill his own decision.

Too much of a good thing is never a good idea. People are sadly, never satisfied...

Response to "The Disappeared" by Charles Baxter

Baxter did a great job throughout the story of keeping my interest.  I especially enjoyed the way that he presented the cultural differences between Anders, a Swedish man, and the various people he meets in America.  The cultural aspect of this story reminded me a bit of Sandra Loh's "My Father's Chinese Wives," because they both explain cultural differences very well.  Perhaps my favorite example from this story is when Anders notices the several men staring at Lauren from far away, and he thinks to himself, "she was pretty, but maybe Americans had other standards so that here, in fact, she wasn't pretty, and it was some kind of optical illusion." Clearly, the American men do find her attractive, but Anders appears unaware of the way that men "check out" other women in America.

There were so many beautiful details in this story related to scenery. Baxter uses language in a way that vividly paints a picture of Detroit in my head, despite the fact that I have never been there. I particularly noticed this when Anders is riding around the city in a cab, noticing certain neighborhoods and the types of people inhabiting them. I loved the sentence, "Anders noticed broken beer bottles, sharp brown glass, on sidewalks and vacant lots, and the glass, in the sun, seemed perversely beautiful," and the entire paragraph that follows that sentence. Anders appears to have a revelation about America in this paragraph, connecting to the culture for perhaps the first time in his entire stay thus far.

I felt like this entire story was a comment on social norms, particularly in terms of the dating culture. There were so many instances between Anders and Lauren where he had no idea what was going to happen or why she couldn't feel the same way about him as he felt about her after such a short period of time. He didn't understand what it meant to just "have another night" and he couldn't be like the other guys Lauren brought home who would have breakfast with her mother and then move on. I found this aspect of the piece very interesting because I personally am not a huge fan of the American dating culture, and I can see why it would be very confusing to a foreigner. I empathized with Anders throughout the piece.

The sequence of events in this story made sense to me up until the very end of the piece, where Anders finds himself in the maternity ward of a hospital. I'm clueless as to why he is enamored with the idea of having a child; I understand that the baby had the same skin color as Lauren, but it's very different to compare Lauren to a baby versus comparing her to another woman her own age. Ultimately, he doesn't take the baby with him (though I'm not sure how he could?) and I'm glad he doesn't. Still, the ending was a little lackluster for me and I feel like more could have been said.