PROJECT 2: Exercise 1 went well, although I spent about 6 hours on it (bare minimum) instead of 1. Project 2, by comparison, looked very weak by its third draft (Little more than freewriting and a couple of pertinent nouns). It seemed a lot harder to write about some one I know/knew, and of course I picked someone "juicy", which meant, by-in-large, buried in the darker recesses of my mind and resistant to creative endevour. I unearthed it, labouriously, spending about 8 hours on it (bare minimum). Now exercise 2 is stronger than exercise 1, and I don't think this is due so much to putting more effort into it, but to something else. A depth of emotional attachment, perhaps, which was harder to navigate but fuller of richness. Story of my untold life.
I got my feedback on my first submissions today, and should spend some time reflecting on those outside of this post-work preamble. I was suprised that "Rorschach Desk" was the better poem, since it felt scant, and i thought the title was naff. Yet despite being scant it was stronger, again probably because of depth of emotional attachment. I really want to rewrite it now, turn it into something stronger. "The Tower" i just want to put back in the closet. Too wordy, not enough feeling. And I made the mistake of using serendipity rather than intelligence in designing a "shape" (form) for the poem which was lost in the formatting, and was no more than a coincidence in the first place.
Still - unlike 'Rorschach Desk' it was an exercise in poetic description only, and so the main criticism levelled at it is that it is too full of abstractions, like "no fear, no things relation", the two things that I would show rather than tell if I were to write it again (which I might have to, given my compulsion for, if not perfection, my best possible effort. If I were in hell I doubt I'd need a rock to roll back down the hill for me to repeat the process, some demonic minion would only have to tell me that I missed a step).
AMICUS USQUE ADARAS got some very interesting commentary. Good description of scene that draws the reader in (score!), but there are a lot of gaps in the story. I needed to make the burial clearer (but then I added it in during its final stage, splicing several drafts together - HERE'S A POINT - i spliced several drafts rather than pick the best one. This i hope will change over the next project, since I have two drafts of two characters to begin with from the first two exercises, for example, innit. You know) and link the cat to the burial. Man, I was just pleased to have someone paid to read my work, even if I had to pay them myself. Payment and professionalism brings a different quality from friends and family.
I wasn't bearing my authorial responsibility, as I myself was caught up in the enchantment too much to make sense of it entirely. Thus elements slipped in without the clarity of authorial intent. Or somesuch. You know. It was almost as bad as my accidental inclusion of a poetic "shape" to "The Tower", in as much as some of the elements remained a little accidental. Cat? What the fucks a cat got to do with anything? The cat should have been the most important part, but instead it remained in the background. I could have told the whole damn thing from the cats point of view - now that would have been coherent!
Guido Fink: I mentioned in my commentary that I felt the line "outside the rain streaked and misted window" put a distance between the character and the world, creating a different tone from the suspensful one I started with. Csilla pointed out that too start with "thought he hesitated to recount" would have been a good start to a short story, in medias res, and "outside the rainstreaked.." would have been a good start to a novel. Interesting thought. Different paces for different styles.
NOTE: Get a glossary. I can't keep using form, shape and style interchangeably. I'm fairly positive that style is the wrong word for ....insert terminology here.....
So thats that. Good bye computer.
Guido Fink:
No comments:
Post a Comment