XPost: misc.writing, misc.education, alt.journalism
From: philscott@philscott.net
.
Superb piece, thanks Jack.
We have a similar situation in the engineering business with
the 'team player' notion, The results can leave one stunned
into blubbering noncomprehension for days.
Such is the price one pays for having a degree of competence
and an IQ over 100... that can be a painful mix in todays
culture.
Phil Scott
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
news:1133472569.790382.320240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yup, you heard it here first!
>
> !) No more "round tables"...not only are people not equal
> (that is, in
> the same league in terms of technical ability and passion to
> excel),
> which such a formation aims to pretend, but facing one
> another makes
> for a more "personal" experience than needs be -- by which
> term
> "personal" I mean that people take things personally, they
> take
> criticism personally, like you're attacking their baby or
> their
> religion (etc.) -- for we debate IDEAS, not people, and thus
> it
> shouldn't matter who wrote what.
>
> 2) Therefore, all pieces workshopped should be ANONYMOUS to
> further
> discourage the formation of cliques and egotism. Everyone
> gives their
> opinion as before, but we never find out who wrote what
> because it
> shouldn't matter who wrote what and what they intended. The
> piece
> should be able to stand on its own and speak for itself --
> and if it
> doesn't, the workshop notes where and why not. But having
> the author
> explain his/her intentions is silly...you simply can't
> critique the
> half-baked because the rejoinder is inevitably "well, it's
> just a
> draft" (doh!)...to discourage such a cop-out, and to even
> further
> discourage "personality conflicts" we simply make our
> statements and
> leave it at that. The writer comments like everyone else,
> only it is
> never announced (though an immature personality can easily
> give
> him/herself away) that the piece is his/hers.
>
> 3) Everyone reads John Gardner's "Art of Fiction" and Dana
> Gioia's "Can
> Poetry Matter?" as well as B.R. Meyers' "A Reader's
> Manifesto" no later
> than Creative Writing 201 -- and the instructor assigning it
> as
> reference otherwise. This is so that the workshop doesn't
> turn into a
> game of Three Blind Men and an Elephant, so that we don't
> wind up with
> a blind-leading-the-blind situation. One must understand,
> if not also
> master, the basics before we launch off into the great
> beyond -- those
> texts serve as springboards from which one may dive into the
> depths of
> creative writing. It is a lazy conceit that one simply
> writes -- this
> is almost like saying one simply sits at the piano and bangs
> away at
> keys: just because one's been signing one's name since age
> four does
> not one a writer make. Pedantic? Hardly. Like muscles
> which work in
> opposition/tandem, a writer needs to be aware of the
> tradition of what
> has gone before, needs to be aware in a systematic way.
> Like an
> actress whose own power is brought out by the interaction
> with another
> actor, so too does a writer react to that which is outside
> him or
> herself. It's a dangerous pedagogy which romanticizes
> writing as some
> mysterious spark within a person, the logical extension of
> which
> sentiment leads to the "whatever's clever" attitude, a
> laid-back yawn
> of an effort. In a word: craftsmanship! For the
> introductory
> 101-level, Janet Burroway's "Imaginative Writing : The
> Elements of
> Craft" is a good workhorse reference that's full of nice
> examples that
> should stimulate the juices of any honestly eager go-getter.
>
> 4) Thus, much more time should be spent on theory -- not the
> propagation of any particular theory, but on examing,
> philosophically a
> la the Socratic Method of law school, the underlying theory
> demonstrated by a piece. For whether one can articulate it
> or is even
> aware of it, we all each have theories of writing in
> effect -- our
> aesthetic sensibilities inform all that we decide. Instead
> of ignoring
> the pink elephant in the middle of the room, let's talk
> about it. It
> does no good to question the particular tactic (gerund here
> as opposed
> to infinitive, say) without being aware of the wider
> strategy the
> writer deploys (again, whether consciously or un-). Too
> many workshops
> operate like a bunch of chefs poring over one pot, each
> calling for a
> "whachamacallit" here and the "thinggamajig" there.
>
> 5) Part of the "theory" portion (which, depending on the
> relative
> experience of the group as a whole, will vary in length from
> two weeks
> to a month-and-a-half of hungry effort) should recognize the
> role of
> semantics and what an incredible effect it has on everyday
> communications, much less within the realm of fiction.
> Depending on
> the group and other related factors, poetry ought to be
> sampled (e.g.,
> Beth Ann Fennelly's "The Snake Charmer" for how to write
> about love
> without cliche), and even Zen Buddhism with its
> epistemological and
> ontological concerns broached.
>
> 6) The instructor should make it explicitly clear right from
> the outset
> that the workshop is not an occasion for group therapy,
> self-help, etc.
> While beneficial side effects, they become a degenerative
> force if
> made the aim of a workshop, whether intentionally or
> otherwise. Not
> only intellectual rigor needs to be injected, but a sense of
> professionalism and the aforementioned craftsmanship! Many
> writers
> forget that their first purpose is not to "express
> themselves" or "work
> out their issues" but to ENTERTAIN! Even if you offend
> someone, it's
> better than having had no effect beyond a "oh, that's
> nice...yeah, I
> liked it."
>
> We hit the bull's eye by aiming for it.
>
> QVAERENDO INVENIETIS
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
