Sunday, April 10, 2011

Random Freewrite 2: Week of 4/3/11


(This is the second draft of the first story I submitted for class. I didn't change the structure or point of view, but tried to clarify it just a bit, since it's second person and might be somewhat confusing. It needs a lot of work!)

ANONYMOUS 


It’s nearing five. Almost suppertime. You know by the roofed carts with roofed trays and the RNA’s with white-knit hair in buns and white-capped hands. Something smells good, something held in plastic and stainless steel. Lasagna, maybe, or country fried steak.
Outside, the sun blends out. Moon curving crescent. Sunset around the corner, sometime after supper, making autumn stretch-marks in the sky.
She’s sitting with the rest, in a chair like any other, though it’s hers, where there’s comfort. Sitting with others. Some were speaking, most were silent. Thinking. Maybe. Maybe seeing. In a teal blue sweater and pink cotton pants, and her hair brushed pretty, she sits and waits for consideration. Someone’s tied her shoes and clipped her nails but left her face untouched. She knows it, maybe. Touching her lips once now, and later, again. Maybe it hurts. Maybe she’s shy. Ducking her head, smiling shy.
“Mom?”
It takes a moment, and the RNA who likes her saying loudly, “Your daughter’s here.”
Slow take in her eyes. Slow gaining smile. Like doors that open, swinging wide.
“Oh.”
As if you’re walking close from far, walking real.
“Hi, Mom.”
You speak louder for no reason, really, but that she’s far apart. Her eyes following you, reading close. You’re speaking but she’s only saying, “Oh.” Some days, she can’t but cry. Those days are hardest, but not today. Today is laughter.
Her hand is tugged up, the RNA saying, “Come along.” She folds off the chair and holds the hand you reach for her.
“Do you want to go for a walk?”
She nods, hesitantly, but when she holds your hands, her grip is strong. You walk together, face-to-face. She watches you walk backwards holding both her hands out in front; she walks catawampus through the white-made walls, past shadow frames of paper echoes etched on stranger faces. Leaning backwards off from you, smiling shy, uncertain scuffled feet in green-laced walking shoes with her name marked in clean black lines. When you danced a little, she does, too. This game she knows. She bounces, too, and sings a buoyant chanting line over and over with smiling eyes.
For minutes however long you stroll in sidesteps and playful bobbing knees until at last you’ve gone full circle around back to her single room. She hesitates at the door, shyly smiling. You say, “It’s okay,” but it’s better out. Her eyes are speaking aloud. Some days, you’ve an answer, and some days, you don’t. Some days, it’s just better out.

   There’s no one there at the front door, as you walk outside with her. Outside to the plastic chairs, once white, on red brick and cooling floors. It’s quiet without the rain. People are leaving in ones and twos, unparking cars and blending out. You’re allowed to sit here with her, but not too long.
She’s sleepy, growing remote. She stares a while, and smiles a bit, at scattered butterflies. You wonder if she remembers, years ago, back when she could, she’d painted splendor onto simple canvas for the first time in her life, signing backwards D’s brushing displaced N’s for months before she stopped. Her journal had been a thread of prayers only God might understand. Years ago, back when she knew. Scrap papered under photographs, elapsed from mind in closet clans of keepsake boxes labeled plainly or not at all.
Of all the arts, she’d liked singing best, and with her, you sometimes sing. Where no one knows and you can be, just be between you and her. She sometimes laughs at that a little, and makes faces as you sing. You get her back, though, gentle tickles that make her start and glare. Just like your father, you. Her eyes are smiling as she glares, just like years ago, back when she knew.
Now on the porch here, on the phone—the best device you ever bought, for these moments above all other thoughts—you find Frank Sinatra, and he begins to sing. Blue Moon, he sings, in ricochets of sweet scattered sound. Blue Moon for her, the song she sang famously and wondrous well, years ago, back in her youth.
By and by, she picks it up. A little sluggishly. An echo off his canter, almost wordless and remote. She follows as she’d followed your face, latching clear and dogged onto sound, the hum of likeness in her mind, of time and place familiar. And in her pauses, she cries. Scattered. Like maybe she knows and maybe she doesn’t, that he’s gone and gone is where she’s turning. She doesn’t stop when he does, singing on a minute longer. Her eyes let go of memory last, after the fade of sound. Staring, like tracing paper faces in her mind.
   “That sounded nice, Mom.”
She glances over. She smiles. Maybe. Like maybe you’re not even there.
Some minutes pass. You don’t play him again, and she doesn’t sing. You speak of other things, a little cheery and a little forced, bringing present back from past, sifting memories back to ground that was more of here and less of then. Back to where you know and stand. Back to her right now with you.
A nurse walks in. Some family heading out: father, mother, with their children waist-high waving arms and fighting mother as she rubs their hand with cleansing gel. Wasps are sending shivers in your ear, now too close, then thankful far. She pays no mind but watches butterflies float over green, frail wisps of dappled yellow stark against discolored bush too dry and needing rain.
“Aren’t they pretty?”
“Yes,” she says.
Sometimes, it clicks.

Back in the ward, you lead her to her private room and brush her hair pretty. RNA’s dealing dinner trays to supplicants crying “Mom,” and “Wait,” and one who cries unendingly, “Someone get me out of here.” It’s suppertime. And work for you. Tomorrow, next, and day after that. These moments are too few.
   She leans in as you wash her face, cold paper cloth in hand. You leave your hand there, lingering, but when it’s gone, she’s gone, as well, back to where she’s been.
"I’ve gotta go now, Mom. I’ll be back in a minute."
You’re lying now. Maybe she knows. Maybe it works. Tomorrow, soonest. Maybe days.
She smiles a little. Sheepish. “Yes, probably,” she says. As if you’re asking an opinion, she says. Casually. You reach for that with your smile. She ricochets off your warming face and giggles some while with you. Laughter’s the same, sounding good.
Some days, it’s easy leaving. Some days, it matters less and less. These days that come less and less.
The RNA sees you. The RNA who likes her, nodding goodbye. This is when you can leave. It’s okay.
The door to her room stands open. Patchwork paper faces collage the wall. Bed is railed, ready. Blue-wrapped mattress in disposable sheaths. Rocker with a clan of bears. White stuffed tiger at window sentry. Offwhite blinds tilt catawampus. Sunset on discolored grass past the common porch. Outside, the trees pour down. Leaves bleeding out. Scrap paper.
“I wish I were the way I was," she’d said.
Years ago, back when she knew.




Random Freewrite 1: Week of 4/3/11


Two Tails
an episode
(3)

[Some weeks later.]



The Sheep was hungry.

Starving, in fact.

Ey vaguely recalled previous thoughts about grass. About eating grass (or was it leaves?) instead of meat. Ey hadn't minded much, either way, but ey remembered a feeling of sympathy for Meaty Things, like the old Cow that had stared at them from across the pasture some miles back and had listlessly ignored the Dog's yappy curiosity. This patch of weeds, however, seemed quite different from what eir image of Grassy Things had been. It was quite a depressing thing, indeed, to think that this was it. Eir diet for the next… Just how long did Sheep live, anyway?

Ey didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Thankfully, ey could do neither, so ey bleated, instead. It was a lonely bleat. More lamb than ram or outraged ewe. It felt weak in eir throat, but nobody was listening, not even the Dog.

There was a daisy among the weeds, bright yellow and cheery. The Sheep knew this color meant something to em. Something happy, something that felt far away. Something that ey knew should have a face and a name, but eir brain could not make the connection. Perhaps from the time spent in a strange body. Perhaps from lack of food. Somehow, eir brain had lost its way. Despite the hunger pangs that cramped eir belly, ey did not eat the daisy. Ey looked down at it with eir slit-eyed gaze and bleated again, softly.

Another bleat answered em, loud and harsh. The Sheep instinctively scurried away off of the highway, and realized what that sound was the moment eir hooves hit the lumpy gravel of the shoulder.

Sure enough, a Car passed by seconds after ey got out of its path. And good thing ey did, for the Dog would have bowled em over had ey been standing there. Legs churning, ears back and tail flashing, the Dog looked like a rounded lump of muscle, struggling vainly to keep up with the Car. Ey was barking fiercely. The Sheep could hear em crying something about "sib" and "kill," but the bark was too hoarse, too wild, to make out the rest.

Another Car rounded the corner in the distance, headed swiftly towards them, swifter than the last. The Dog pulled up ever so slightly in eir mad run and bunched eir hind end to make ready to pounce. The Sheep grew panicked and called out eir first word in two long days: the Dog's name.

The Dog heard eir bleat, and, as Dogs do when they have abruptly become slightly Sheepish, broke down to a trot before nonchalantly heading back eir way. Ey stopped to sniff at the ground, leisurely, as if this chase and the Sheep's agitated reaction to it had all been part of some mischievous plan. Or perhaps the Dog really was sniffing at another Dog's scent on the ground. The Sheep could no longer tell what was acted and what was real.

Sheep were followers, as the Dog had long teased em, and panic was too ready to claim em now. The Sheep knew this. Ey anxiously shifted on eir hooves, glancing back between the Dog and the road behind them. There was someone else in eir brain, someone ey used to be. Someone not a Sheep. Someone who'd gone to sleep.

Ey tried very hard to think.

Very few words remained clear in eir brain, and only two that ey was certain were important to know. One was the Dog's name. The other was for something ey could no longer picture. The Dog had spoken it many times with an air of trust, and it felt, now, like a guiding post for the Sheep on their quest.

Mom.

The Sheep remembered what the Dog had said, the last time ey had mentioned this word.

Mom will know what to do.

The Sheep couldn't remember what "Mom" was or what type of animal it might be, but it seemed as if the Dog considered it a Safe Thing. As if ey felt this "Mom" thing was even more powerful than emself. And the Sheep thought that must make it very powerful, indeed. For the Dog had fought off the hungered wild Dog and its mate in the first night they'd found themselves stranded. Ey had guided the Sheep around the Snake near the creek, and kept watch all night against the Car with blue lights.

"Mom" can save us, the Sheep thought, and watched the Dog roll on the ground.


Classmate Response: Week of 4/3/11


Lucas Chance: Zoe

==========

Loved it, Lucas! Here is my critique. (Note: I tried to be more complimentary than insulting. I feel all self-conscious about it now, guys!)

Nitpicky stuff:
The bar conversation (which I’ll mention again down below) was excellent but for a moment when I felt thrown out of the scene a bit. After Bill leaves, the other three keep on talking, and you haven’t used any names or pronouns so far. We don’t have a particular POV in this scene. Then you wrote: “He takes a drink from his glass. He says in a stupor to Bill: ‘You wanna kill her?’ ” I wasn’t sure who “he” was, and I was confused by him addressing “Bill,” since Bill had just left. Was he just thinking out loud about Bill, or was he addressing one of the other men, also named “Bill”? It was unclear, especially later in the fight scene when Molotov Man bites the (flaming) dust, since that group consists of Molotov Man, Frank and Pitchfork. Earlier in the story, there was this sentence: “Her face was misshapen with a jutting chin that She did not mind being exiled from Brairsburgian life.” The first part looks like an unfinished sentence, maybe? (You need to finish it so I can find out what her chin does! Knowing you, approximately 80% of the people and their various parts have magical properties of a nefarious sort.) Also, in the paragraph following her failed attempt at selling Peter tomatoes, I don’t think you need to use the word “fear” as many times as you did. How you described their reactions to her illustrated that terror and revulsion perfectly. At the beginning, I think you might have overused the word “so,” just a bit. I do this all the time with certain words that I get attached to for the rhythm aspect, so if that’s what you’re going for, I wouldn’t change anything. The cool thing about “so” is that I can hear you reading it aloud, and that gives it a storyteller “voice” which punches the story forward.


Awesome sauce: 
This is going to sound weird, maybe, but I loved how indifferent the story’s omniscient narrator was. That was my second favorite thing about it. Particularly when describing how Molotov Man fell down the hill to his timely end (I suspect), the narrator carried on this blasé tone, as if he could have added, “And he was very much dead. Well, sort of.” The nonchalance made the townspeople so much fun to read. My favorite part of the story was the conversation in the bar between all of the (very drunk) plaid townspeople. It sounded natural and spontaneous, and I particularly liked that you didn’t try to explain who the speaker was every time or even once in a while. Handling a group of nameless characters (well, nameless but for Bill) speaking all at once is difficult enough; doing it well and making it sound like organized chaos rather than just plain chaos is very difficult. Your scene made me think of this quote from Amadeus, where Mozart is saying that in a play, so many people speaking at once is just noise, but in an opera, it’s a perfect harmony. You wrote the “perfect harmony” aspect just right. I also loved, loved, loved the Bill/Zoe sex scene fade-out “Noises are heard.” A+++. That whole short paragraph was just perfect. All of the character work was understated, playing humorously with reader expectations. The opening paragraphs, describing the life of the townspeople and the contrast between how Zoe behaves and how she is reacted to, were terrific. I loved the natural way you went from describing Zoe, to describing the village, to describing how similar the townspeople are, to describing just how this makes Zoe stand out even more, and so on. It had this gentle snowball effect, so to speak, again very understated though direct, where the picture fit into place without reading like exposition. I thought it was the perfect way to set up the tale.

Great job!!

p.s. I went through the entire story envisioning the townspeople as having plaid skin. Intentional?


Reading Response 2: Week of 4/3/11


Steering the Craft
Chapter 7 – Chapter 8
Point of View and Voice

I actually read Chapter 7 back in January when I first got the books, because Point of View is something I was struggling with for my book. Re-reading it for class last week helped refresh my understanding of it and also helped me to notice (if not to perfectly correct) the times I slip out of third person limited to the involved author voice. One thing I was interested in is that she distinguished between the narrator and an observer in first person and third person limited. I never really considered the importance of categorizing whether the voice was the protagonist or someone else, but she made me think about it. It made me recall writing advice I read elsewhere, that the protagonist is the character we’re looking at (the person we’re rooting for), and the narrator is the character we’re looking from. It can be the same person or not, and I think an important thing is not to automatically limit yourself to the protagonist. Achilles is sort of the protagonist (or antagonist, with Hector the protagonist) of The Iliad, but the story is so much more interesting told from varied points of view. I don’t think I would like it at all if it had been told from either one of those characters’ points of view exclusively. It would feel too claustrophobic. On the other hand, telling “The Magic Barrel” entirely from Leo’s point of view (until that last brief scene) made the story for me, by showing me the sort of person Leo was and how he viewed the world through his prickly voice. So it really comes down to how the author uses the voices. You can still use perspective explosively, whether you spread it out or tighten it down.

I love writing so much.

As a side note: it was cool that she brought up Tolkien’s fox, because as soon as I read “involved author,” I thought of Tolkien and his unmistakable storyteller’s voice. (I also thought of Homer and other Greek writers, but then again, I suppose the oratory style of those epic poems and storytelling in general back then makes an “involved author” a given.) I tried writing once from a voice like that and it’s damn hard to do it at all, much less do it excellently and consistently. It seems like more and more of a thing of the past to have such a dominant storyteller voice in fiction, but trying it myself and reading Le Guin’s comments on it made me realize all over again just how much talent it takes.


Reading Response 1: Week of 4/3/11


Short Story Masterpieces
Bernard Malamud
“The Magic Barrel”


I didn’t have quite the same reaction as the rest of the class. One thing I was struck by—and I’m wondering if that’s why Professor Ellison had us read this particular story at the same time that we were reading about Point of View and Voice in the other book—is that the story seemed so clearly told from Leo’s narrow perspective. He projected so much onto the women and even onto Salzman. I felt that a lot of his general unhappiness and harsh view of others was born out of his feelings of lacking direction and being forced into a profession for which he had no passion, and the feelings of incompetence that came from that situation. I think part of why Stella seemed like a match made in heaven was because, well maybe she was, but more than that: he saw her as on his level, not someone (like Lily) whose competence and expectations he would have to live up to for the rest of his life, but someone who could accept him as he was and together either rise or fall or go in an entirely different direction. As for Salzman, I’m not sure if he arranged it or if he didn’t, but one thing I was sure of is that his relationship with his daughter wasn’t what his words to Leo made it appear. My take on it was that he was saying all of the things that Leo might have said months or years ago, the default reaction a rabbi might have, the reaction he’s no doubt heard plenty of times before from other clients, the general public, maybe even his wife. Perhaps that was why he and his wife felt so aloof. I was with Professor Ellison and Yeeva on the “songs for the dead” part. It felt hopeful to me, not dismissive or morbid… although I also get the feeling that chanting songs for the dead was kind of how he spent his weekends. Even that, I think, would illustrate his sympathy towards society’s “dead,” rather than viewing outcasts as lost causes. Anyway, that was my impression. (I have more thoughts on Lily but I’m sick as a dog right now and can’t concentrate, so it will have to wait for some other time.)

p.s. I wrote my initial paragraph in class from Leo’s reflection’s point of view. But I thought that might be cheating, so I change it to Lily and wasn’t satisfied with what I came up with. It felt very clichéd and silly. I liked the reflection paragraph better but scrapped it. Oops.


Junkyard Quotes: Week of 4/3/11


Most of the junkyard quotes this week are long. I’m not sorry to make you read them!

1) “Language has the power to shape reality.”

-Dr. Lisa Gezon (UWG). It terrifies me that this is true, yet no one (outside academia) really talks about it.


2) “As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of man-ism with but little deism, and is as near to atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an irreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.”

-Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason. I could really quote the entire book and have nothing to add to this awesome sauce except to say that he later rants for a bit about the idiocy of studying languages. Specifically dead languages. He makes some valid and excellently articulated points in that argument, as well as a few statements to which I had a very horrified reaction: HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS TO ME, TOM?

Here’s some of it:

3) “The human mind has a natural disposition to scientific knowledge, and to the things connected with it. The first and favourite amusement of a child, even before it begins to play, is that of imitating the works of man. It builds houses with cards or sticks; it navigates the little ocean of a bowl of water with a paper boat; or dams the stream of a gutter, and contrives something which it calls a mill; and it interests itself in the fate of its works with a care that resembles affection. It afterwards goes to school, where its genius is killed by the barren study of a dead language, and the philosopher is lost in the linguist.”

Among other things, he seems to have completely skipped over that little phase of infanthood where babies imitate the sounds they hear and begin to associate those sounds with meaning, i.e. begin to learn a language (or two). I won’t go into it because he's smarter than I am and I don't have all the tools necessary to successfully debate the issue, but that was probably the one part of his book (so far; I’m reading this in between schoolwork) that made me say NO. And SHUT UP.

Disclaimer: I’m a linguistic anthropology major. So there you have it.


4) “A culture that just uses a pig as a pile of protoplasmic inanimate structure, to be manipulated by whatever creative design the human can foist on that critter, will probably view individuals within its community, and other cultures in the community of nations, with the same type of disdain and disrespect and controlling type mentalities.”

-Joel Salatin, in Food, Inc. I really have nothing to add to it, other than to say that it was the only time during the entire unforgettable viewing experience that I said “YES” aloud. That’s exactly how I’ve felt about what is perhaps one of the most trivial-seeming things in our daily lives: driving by roadkill. The closer we associate ourselves to something, the more likely we are to stop. Who wouldn’t stop for another human being? All other conditions being equal, it’d be more likely for someone to stop or slow down for a cat or a dog than a mouse or a squirrel, and for a squirrel or a mouse than a caterpillar. We don’t even know how many ants we run over every day. Who cares? Exactly.


5) “When you look at it, to have Martha play that scene (and no one questioned it—what that meant, or what the alternatives could have been underneath the dialogue), it’s mind boggling. The profundity of this subject was not in the lexicon of our rehearsal period. Audrey and I never talked about this. Isn’t that amazing? Truly amazing.”

Shirley MacLaine, in The Celluloid Closet. Some people tell me that it’s impossible for a writer to not know the entire potential of her own work (whether that potential be in setting, character work, theme, etc.), that every choice on how to use (or not use) that potential is, by default, done with her full awareness. Essentially, that it's impossible for a writer to shortchange her own subject matter or character, or to even write contrary to where the characters, themes, etc., seem to be naturally headed towards. I can’t agree with that at all, and it’s something I’m very mindful of (maybe too mindful or maybe still not mindful enough, being too concerned with other aspects of the work). We only have to point to how LGBT characters have been written and portrayed in history and even now to see there are many things writers (and actors) overlook, whether it’s deliberate or accidental. If I didn't believe other examples, I still have my own work, where I don't know how many drafts of a certain short story of mine (which I'm now torturing Professor Ellison with) I've gone through until I'm finally (this weekend) beginning to catch the heart of the matter, where the characters live and what their voices are, rather than the garbled mess that I've been hoisting onto them.