Filed under mfa

Residency day 9

Courtesy of MFA scheduling and my own travel plans I had a short last day of the residency. The afternoon workshop was optional for all but first term students, I’d already taken care of my contract consultation and flying out Friday night meant that I would miss the closing reception.

The morning workshop was Amy Hill Hearth talking about using oral history as a source of voice. It was as well-organized as her reading the night before. I arrived a bit late and yet managed to not be among the last to arrive.

We had our final workshop before lunch, looking at the Dostoyevsky pastiche that Tibor had us work on, with one of the other students writing an incredible piece of work beyond anything else I’d read of his work.

We had a final lunch with Tibor, with the table filled with many of his mentees from the previous term as well as the current term. For an added bit of entertainment, a socially awkward young man who had made a habit of coming into our lunches illicitly (late, after the first time, so at least there was little chance of him depriving anyone of their food), was removed by campus security, although it did seem a bit pointless to go through the trouble of removing him at the end of the last lunch.

Tagged ,

Residency day 8

Our day began with Jason Ockert teaching about writing the Short Short Story. Notably, I thought I got something actually usable out of a writing prompt. Then morning workshop.

In the afternoon, we had synthesis. A diagram that we drew to draw connections between seminars and common reading was well-received by the synthesis group. I had one participant say that from what he had heard, we had the best of the synthesis groups which was a bit flattering.

Later in the afternoon, I met with my mentor (Tibor Fischer) and mapped out my semester plan.

The evening readings were Amy Hill Hearth, who seemed to talk about her story more than she read from it and Tibor who really annoyed me because I realized that I’m going to have to read all his stuff.

There was a bit of depressing news as well at the reading: This will be Tibor’s last term with the program. I had hoped to work with him for my thesis term, and this dramatically changes how I’ll approach mentor selection next term.

Tagged , ,

Residency day 7

And now it’s really flown by. Only two more days on campus. The opening seminar of the day came from Jessica Anthony who talked about articulation in fiction. She had us look at a collection of twenty first lines and pick first our top five, then our favorite from those. The obvious choice to me was the opening of Mrs Dalloway: “Mrs Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself.” Another part of the seminar involved writing a continuation of one of the opening lines.

The morning was completed with workshop time, then after lunch we had genre workshop with Jeff Parker, Stefan Kiesbye and Tony D’Souza. We spent time looking at scene. 

Then the afternoon seminar: Parker is proposing an interesting place-based collaborative fiction project. Similar to the Field Notes of The Silent History, but without the app requirement. Instead readers would have to find the story texts hidden in caches around the world. One of the substories revolves around a terrorist plot to blow up the Republican National Convention by sending a manatee stuffed with explosives up the Hillsborough River, a plan that left some potential contributors concerned about the possibility of getting on a Homeland Security watchlist.

Finally we had our evening reading with Tony D’Souza and Terese Svoboda. D’Souza was especially interesting for his willingness to move from behind the podium when he read.

Tagged , , , ,

Residency day 6

It’s beginning to feel like the time is coming to an end. We began today with Tibor Fischer who talked primarily about the pre-Richardson/Fielding novel, with some examples from The Satyricon, Callirhoe, The Unfortunate Traveller and Amadis of Gaul which is apparently a bit of a pre-occupation for him.

We had workshop in the morning and then after lunch, the return of the “wildcard” workshop. This time around, I was with Jessica Anthony, who centered her workshop around the short story “Bullet in the Brain” by Tobias Wolff. 

Our afternoon seminar with Enid Shomer had the grand concept of creating word collages, first collecting phrases from magazines and then assembling them into some sort of poem or narrative.

NewImage

After a stimulating dinner with some students and faculty from the MFA (along with a student’s wife and child), we had the evening’s reading from Mikhail Iossel and Enid Shomer.

Tagged , , , ,

Residency day 5

The tradition has become that the mid-point day of the residency is a bit lower-key than usual. We have the morning free for our own reading and writing, although I managed to be far less productive this residency than last. After lunch I led the first of two synthesis sessions. Last residency, this was done with the full student body present and some sort of collaborative information collection (places to submit, books to read, etc.). Since we were given no guidance or direction, I decided to take it instead in a bit more of what I wanted to get out of such a time, with us discussing the seminars that had previously taken place. After a bit of redirection, letting the participants know it wasn’t a bitch session, we had a productive discussion, although I need to work a bit more on getting everyone to participate.

The afternoon seminar was Mikhail Iossel’s Discovering the Story, where he looked at some of the details of how three stories worked. 

The evening reading consisted of Jessica Anthony reading excerpt from her novel The Convalescent and Jason Ockert reading his story “Still Life” which had originally appeared in One Story.

Tagged , ,

Residency day 4

The day began with Tony D’Souza’s seminar, “The Writer’s Toolbox.” We looked at some of what we can pick up from earlier writers.  The middle of the day was a double dose of workshop in which my work came up. Generally good commentary offered.

And then in the afternoon, one of the items I was looking most forward to, a Q&A period with Deborah Treisman. I recorded this using voice memo on my phone, but the sound levels seem to have been too low to have ended up with a usable recording. Some interesting things that we learned during the discussion: The debut fiction issue had the unfortunate side-effect of having the “vultures” circling the authors featured, some of whom were not quite ready to deal with trying to put together a book-length manuscript. Stories come out of the slush, but very rarely. More often, a work pulled from the slush by one of the interns will instead instigate the beginning of a relationship between the writer and one of the associate fiction editors. Much of what is in the slush is not even remotely publishable. The implication was that the best writers aren’t in the slush because when they’ve reached the level of talent to get published in The New Yorker, they’ll likely have an agent who will manage the submission directly to one of the associate fiction editors. There’s a total of about 400 stories per week coming into the fiction department, about half to the slush and half directly to editors. Speaking of her editing style, Treisman said that what she does is to try not to impose a voice on a story, but instead to attempt to draw the voice out of the story.

The evening publishing panel, in the face of the earlier opportunities to hear from Treisman and Eli Horowitz felt a bit redundant, although there was some interesting insight into the development of Jennifer Egan’s “twitter story”, “Black Box” edited by Treisman and the iPad-based “novel”, The Silent History, edited by Horowitz.

 

Tagged , ,

Residency day 3

Lack of sleep is beginning to catch up with me, and I was in a bit of a haze all day. I wasn’t the only one who was lacking sleep though—the first seminar was delayed because Parker overslept for the first time in five years as he claimed.

Our day began with Eli Horowitz, former editor of McSweeney’s. In many ways it was a look at his autobiography, although there were some interesting insights into his editing process.

After our morning workshop and lunch, we then had Karen Russell, who is substituting for Denis Johnson on short notice. Surprisingly, even with this short notice, she was able to prepare a seminar in which we looked at the importance of grounding even (or especially) fantastical narratives. As an exercise, after reading from Kevin Brockmeier’s A Brief History of the Dead, writing our own account of the passage from the living to the dead.

The evening reading was a staged reading of Denis Johnson’s play Psychos Never Dream, a wonderfully funny and coarse work which I wish we had been able to hear all of rather than just the first act. I did find that once again, a staged reading has been less than it can be. Chicago’s Shakespeare Project still remains my gold standard for what a staged reading can and should be.

Tagged , ,

Residency day 2

This was really the first real day of the residency. I’ve decided to not to continue with Tampa Review Online, so I had some open time in the morning which I dedicated to some last-minute critique work. And thence to the first workshop session. No details about the work, but Tibor follows the Iowa format in which the author remains silent until the end of the discussion of her work. We also had an interesting discussion about some of the financial and logistical aspects of the writing life (agents, publishers, being the lead title, etc.)

After lunch, we had the first of the genre workshops. In fiction, with Jason Ockert, Jessica Anthony and Maile Chapman, we talked about genre as in sci-fi/romance/vampires/etc. The discovery of “Bonnet Romance” by some workshop participants sparked a bit of mirth and curiosity.

One of our exercises was looking closely at the openings of The DaVinci Code (as an example of bad writing) and Carrie (as an example of good writing, although I wonder whether some of the humor there was unintentional).

We also managed to get the great quote from Jason, “We wait for the sex, we wait for the elves.”

The afternoon seminar was another visit to the book arts studio, although I managed to instead space out during my opportunity to see paste paper made while watching part of a documentary on the Linotype machine. I’ve been thinking about writing something about the Linotype getting into some of the design choices that it forced on the type designers as well as talking about the mechanics of the great beast. As much as I saw of the documentary focused on the mechanics and seemed to gloss over the aesthetic limitations of the machine.

The evening readings were from Erika Dawson, who read a few of her poems, and Karen Russell, who read an extended excerpt from Swamplandia! Given that we looked at a different excerpt from Swamplandia! in the last residency, if I don’t get around to reading this book, I might end up having the whole thing read to me by the time I finish my MFA.

Tagged , , , , ,

Residency day 1

And so the madness begins again. Apparently my tradition for the residency is to oversleep the first morning but this time around I knew that being late for breakfast/meet and greet was not that big of a deal—except of course that I was late in signing up for the wildcard workshop, which meant that my choices were somewhat restricted. But no matter, I was satisfied with what I ended up with.

I ended up with some nice wide stretches of free time during the day, which I used partly to socialise a bit and partly to try and complete unfinished critiques (of which I am still behind). The lone seminar of the day for me was Ben Lerner’s presentation, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” We began the seminar with a close reading of Robert Creeley’s poem “For Love” which is more about the difficulty of writing a love poem than it is a love poem in itself. From there we looked at how this brokenness could be applied in our own writing. I thought of, but did not mention, Steven Spielberg’s film A.I. which is a wonderfully flawed film, and given that some of what we were talking about in this context was a number of variations on the Pinocchio story, it makes the flawedness of A.I. even more profound.

The evening’s readings were held in a new venue, The Oxford Exchange, an odd mix of coffee shop, tea shop, restaurant, bookstore, tchotch store, and study and reading space. We began with Arielle Greenberg, one of the new faculty members in poetry and then Ben Lerner again. 

I had little opportunity to meet very many of the new students, and I need to work on my sociability, something which I hope to address as the residency progresses.

Tagged ,

Point of view in “The Casual Carpool” by Katherine Bell

In her contributor’s note in Best American Short Stories, Katherine Bell writes:

I loved the way Virginia Woolf and Katherine Mansfield handled point of view and I wanted to see if I could manage shifting among several characters’ consciousnesses from paragraph to paragraph, or even sentence to sentence, without ever zooming out. (360)

Bell manages the shifts in a few different ways. Early on, despite her goal, she does zoom out. The story alternates between a usually close third-person narrative from the POV of a parachutist trapped in the steel ropes of the Bay Bridge, and the shifting POV of the three central characters in the car. She opens with the parachutist, but then zooms out from him, providing details of things that he could not know about the people below him, concluding with a description of the three main characters riding in the Nissan Altima.

Now because of him, more than eighty thousand people would be late to work. Across the city, deadlines would be missed, meetings canceled, stores understaffed. The host of the nine o’clock show on KQED would not arrive on time; at every major hospital surgeries would be postponed. The driver of the Nissan Altima stalled near the end of the Yerba Buena tunel would be late, and so would the woman beside him. The girl in the back seat did not have a job. School had already started, but that was behind her, before the bridge. She had never planned to go. (291)

This is followed with a section break, then Bell is in the mind of Ian, the driver of the Altima. At the first transition of point of view, Bell again pulls out, this time taking a limited view of things so that the first sentences of the second paragraph in the quotation below could be from any character’s point of view, letting the reader ease from Ian’s mind to Julia’s mind. Only when Bell writes of Julia, “She’d rather be on the train, hurtling under the Bay, unstoppable,” do we explicitly enter into Julia’s mind.

[Ian] stole a look at his front-seat passenger, her dark head bent over a tack of papers. She’d unhitched her sat belt when they reached the bridge, which meant she’d lived in the Bay Area long enough to remember the earthquake in ’89, to prefer the risk of a car accident to the risk of being trapped under the rubble.

The girl in the back had never put hers on. She couldn’t sit still, kept shifting her limbs about, running her nails back and forth along the beige velour edge of her seat, leaning her head against the window and clouding up the glass. She’d rather be on the train, hurtling under the Bay, unstoppable. (292)

Another technique used by Bell in the transitions is to use character referents from the perspective of the current character. For example, in the passage above, Julia is introduced as “the girl in the back seat,” exploiting the fact that the three passengers in the car are strangers to each other. When Ian speaks while we are making the transition from Julia to Hannah in POV, he is referred to as “the driver.” This works as a solid marker for the reader when the first abrupt switch in POV occurs on the fourth page of the book: With no transition, we move from Hannah’s perspective to Ian’s signaled only by the use of Ian’s name:

 Only it wasn’t going to be [Hannah’s] child, not only hers, but hers and Kate’s. Which mean that this preview, this flipping through profiles in a stranger’s car, felt like a small betrayal.

Ian squinted at the headlights reflected in his rearview mirror, trying to determine if the car behind him remained at a reasonable distance, or if it had crept closer, the way he’d eased off his own brake to shorten the gap between his car and the one in front. (294)

The next POV change is handled similarly, using Julia’s name to signal a change in POV from Ian to her. Having established this pattern, Bell becomes more adventurous in her shifts, letting herself move between minds within a single paragraph:

[Julia] snapped a studded leather bracelet around a wrist, extracted a hook of silver from a tiny Ziploc bag, and threaded it through the nearly imperceptible hole in her nose. Watching in the rearview mirror, Ian thought she looked as though she were dressing for work, or for a performance, and in a sense she was. If she made it off the bridge alive, if she did not die of boredom first, Julia would take the streetcar to the Castro, where she would walk outside the Ben and Jerry’s next to Isaac, a fourteen-year-old runaway Mormon from the shore of the Great Salt Lake. (295)

Yet, Bell does not keep rigorously to this. At one point, she moves into Julia’s POV from Hannah’s without bringing in her name:

“They’re probably just filming a movie,” the girl in the back seat said. She didn’t care what was happening ahead on the bridge. If a person wanted to fly, he should stay away from bridges. If he wanted to kill himself, he should do it privately, not at rush hour.

This paragraph is Bell pushing the boundaries still further on her ability to move between her characters’ consciousnesses and represents the culmination of all the preparatory work that led to this point. Explicit markers are  no longer necessary as Bell shifts POV from one character to another.

Page number references are to Best American Short Stories 2006.

Tagged ,