This semester of college has been chock-full of two out of three of the proverbial "R's" of education:
Reading and 'Riting.
(Praise be to God, the 'Rithmatic Gen Ed is finally in the past!)
As an English major, well, you might understand why I'm a little giggly with glee over the way I'm asked to spend my time doing homework. Read a poem? Read a novel? Look up some words in the dictionary? Write a reflection paper? Yes, ma'am (or sir), sure thing.
This semester, with my Creative Nonfiction class, however, I have been surprisingly stretched outside my literary comfort zone a bit. I have been asked questions which I have never really considered before about myself: my own writing style, voice, and story.
Tell me to analyze someone else's work. Done. For example, in my American Literature III class, we read a T.S. Eliot poem. His fragmented/unconventional structure, esoteric allusions, lack of narrative format, and strange juxtapositions reflect his emergence as a Modernist Poet. Here's a little blurb to add some flavor to that description for you:
"For I have known them all already, known them all--
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;
I know the voices dying with a dying all
Beneath the music from a farther room.
So how should I presume?"
(-TS Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock")
I mean... that isn't exactly easy stuff to digest for the typical reader (especially someone outside of Eliot's circles, in the movement of Modernism).
Yet, I still like to roll around the line 'I have measured out my life with coffee spoons' in my head. Even though I don't know what the heck Eliot means by the majority of this strange poem, I marvel at the idea of measuring a life out with coffee spoons.
I really value people who can take hold of the challenge of originality and radicalism in their work. Their bravery and, for those who are lucky, success give their writing an almost provocative feel for those of us traditionalists. But, I ask, do their cryptic and unwontedly-styled works effectively project their overall 'message'? I do not know the answer.
When I write, I tend to do so more straightforwardly. Even this blog is written so that any member of the literate public could understand my central thoughts about writing styles (although, I'm guessing 2 or 3 people from my Creative Nonfiction people will skim it. Greetings faithful readers!).
I question if the Modernists were onto something with their esoteric styles and themes. It was risky, and yes, they've survived and are revered in many literary circles. But I feel more powerful using common language, referencing universal experiences, and presenting my message in the most clear route possible. I guess I feel like then my audience has an easier time really connecting my rambling words to their lives.
I say- life is chaotic enough. Let's bring some clarity to it with our writing.
(I must confess I still love the foggy, mysterious feeling T.S. Eliot's poetry gives me. So, really, I guess there is room for every type of writing style. Just make it your own and get your message out there!)
One wonders whether Eliot wrote everything (grocery lists, letters to his mother, etc.) like that.
ReplyDelete"Dear Mother, the mermaids will not sing to me. Do I dare to eat a peach?"
Ok, probably not.
I like what you're saying here, and though frequently guilty of using big words and incomprehensible sentence structure, I believe in simplicity and clarity. Because, after all, writing is about the message. It's about communicating and telling stories, and the art and artfulness of the words should serve that goal, not cover it up. Hurray for straight-shooting!
I admire your careful consideration of the audience for your work. I think that the more you think about what you want your audience to think and feel about your work, the better the work will be.
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote from Walter Ong, who wrote an essay called "The Writer's Audience is Always a Fiction": "What do we mean by saying the audience is a fiction? Two things at least. First, that the writer must construct in his imagination, clearly or vaguely, an audience cast in some sort of role -- entertainment seekers, reflective sharers of experience, . . . and so on. Second, we mean that the audience must correspondingly fictionalize itself. A reader has to play the role in which the author has cast him, which seldom coincides with his role in the rest of life. [...] The dimensions of fiction in a letter are many. First, you have no way of adjusting to the friend's real mood as you would be able to adjust in oral conversation. You have to conjecture or confect a mood that he is likely to be in or can assume when the letter comes. And, when it does come, he has to put on the mood that you have fictionalized for him."
I know we've talked a tad about this, but I identify with the out-of-the-comfort-zone thing. It's encouraging to hear you put this in words and find a hopeful light in it. I think I get too wrapped up in how I say and forget that the important part is what I say - the message. I really appreciate your last line: "Just make it your own and get your message out there!" :)
ReplyDelete