Playing catch, as I caught a bit of luck in a new job after being unemployed for almost a year -- yada yada yada. Anyhoo.
Thanks George, for unpacking so much, which, I'm grateful, corresponded mostly with my own instincts and impulses regarding the story. A relief, to feel on the right tracks.
Playing catch, as I caught a bit of luck in a new job after being unemployed for almost a year -- yada yada yada. Anyhoo.
Thanks George, for unpacking so much, which, I'm grateful, corresponded mostly with my own instincts and impulses regarding the story. A relief, to feel on the right tracks.
Not to dawdle, I just wanted to comment on this notion early on in your Pulse 1 post, in addressing "why and how" of scene, something Im going to write down on a post it and attache above my computer, that the narrator is given an assignement -- it is important who and why athe assignement is given. This is addressed in footnote. But -- and here's what interested me most -- the writer doesn't get any points for merely describing the character accurately. The writer needs to use attributes, focuse and exaggerate certain ones in order to "make the character" live on the page.
Early in my writing career, I got a lot of compliments on my "description" and "interest detail" even "lyrical prose" and because of that I think I used it as a crutch -- if I just described well enough it would somehow "work". This was not the case. It took a comment former teacher on a well-detailed/described story to beging to shake this out of my head: "A story is more than just a collection of detail." And even then it took more time for me to finally make the leap from the safety of the rooftop of description across the alley way to the rooftop of meaningful detail, if that make sense.
Also, I was struck by noting of how particular details in the beginning of the story are taken up ore alluded to later. It was something that Stu Dybek would say gives the story "an inner life". He stumbled onto this in his own story, The Long Thoughts, when he had to resolved a character leaving his glovdes in the dryer at a laundry mat earlier in the story, and did so by haveing the character say "The hell with them." It really stood out to others. It made me think of how a comedian will make a joke and then later on the act reference or allude to it -- the delight of the audience is always remarkable, on a different leve, which often makes it good way to wrap a routine.
Okay. Sorry for being windy. Appreciate all the great insights and guidance.
Playing catch, as I caught a bit of luck in a new job after being unemployed for almost a year -- yada yada yada. Anyhoo.
Thanks George, for unpacking so much, which, I'm grateful, corresponded mostly with my own instincts and impulses regarding the story. A relief, to feel on the right tracks.
Not to dawdle, I just wanted to comment on this notion early on in your Pulse 1 post, in addressing "why and how" of scene, something Im going to write down on a post it and attache above my computer, that the narrator is given an assignement -- it is important who and why athe assignement is given. This is addressed in footnote. But -- and here's what interested me most -- the writer doesn't get any points for merely describing the character accurately. The writer needs to use attributes, focuse and exaggerate certain ones in order to "make the character" live on the page.
Early in my writing career, I got a lot of compliments on my "description" and "interest detail" even "lyrical prose" and because of that I think I used it as a crutch -- if I just described well enough it would somehow "work". This was not the case. It took a comment former teacher on a well-detailed/described story to beging to shake this out of my head: "A story is more than just a collection of detail." And even then it took more time for me to finally make the leap from the safety of the rooftop of description across the alley way to the rooftop of meaningful detail, if that make sense.
Also, I was struck by noting of how particular details in the beginning of the story are taken up ore alluded to later. It was something that Stu Dybek would say gives the story "an inner life". He stumbled onto this in his own story, The Long Thoughts, when he had to resolved a character leaving his glovdes in the dryer at a laundry mat earlier in the story, and did so by haveing the character say "The hell with them." It really stood out to others. It made me think of how a comedian will make a joke and then later on the act reference or allude to it -- the delight of the audience is always remarkable, on a different leve, which often makes it good way to wrap a routine.
Okay. Sorry for being windy. Appreciate all the great insights and guidance.