Craft Notes
5 creature mouths or moths dripping
5. A class reading list, to be good, really needs to elicit only one thought from the student (s): I didn’t even know you could write this way. I mean to say the list should liberate.
14. New Diagram. It smells crunchy and tastes like running past goats.
3. Godin is coming out of retirement so watch your face.
99. When people are crimped in one of the various poetry scams, is it best to tell them or best to let them purchase a framed copy/recording/anthology/conference fee? Do scams have validating aspects? I used to tell people. I now let them fall into the web because I feel the web is pretty harmless (no one is actually eaten) and they usually struggle their little selves out eventually and maybe realize spiders will poison and mummify self-esteem, naivete, and cash.
1. Opinion: People just don’t get Krazy Kat.
Tags: Andrew Brogdon, Andrew Davis, Andrew Kozma, Arlene Kim, Benjamin Kaja, Brent Goodman, Conchitina Cruz, Deja Earley, DIAGRAM, Katie Hartsock, Krystal Languell, Maggie May Ethridge, Poetry scam, Trey Conatser
I read a book of poetry called Ignatz the other day that is based on Krazy Kat. It was pretty good.
5. Then Tao Lin should be on your reading list, I think.
re: 5, yes. that seems very yes.
“Poets are thus liberating gods.”
I think Gertrude Stein would also be a great choice. When I first read her Three Lives, my reaction was something along the lines of “OMGWTF, she writes exactly the way I’ve been wishing I had the balls to!”
Yeah, people seem weirded out by the ambition / complexity of my reading list for this semester’s intro to CW, but I didn’t decide to be a writer because of mediocre crap I “understood,” I decided to become a writer because of great stuff I could barely wrap my head around.
I gave my kids “A&P” and said “Write like this or else!” No, not really. Gave them “Tetris”. Doing “A&P” and “The School” (Barthelme, duh) on Wednesday.
5) Definitely. The reading lists were the most effective part of my writing program experience, as they showed me that people everywhere were not only writing in crazy, desperate ways, but were doing it better, often, than the people writing conventionally. I feel idiotic, in fact, when I look back now on my weak-ass reading list and trust in the most mundane of writing conventions and styles.
99) I had an ex once who fell into one of these. Things between us were shaky-diplomatic, meaning we oscillated between wanting to hug and to run each other off the road. When the poetry scam got her I wondered if I should warn her off the purchase, but then she got kind of gloat-y (knowing I had literary ambitions) and I let it go.
WHEN THE MATERIAL IS OBVIOUS AND EASY THAT’S WHEN EVERYONE WANTS TO KILL THE PROFESSOR AND TAKE THEIR PLACE
14) anything that puts more emily pettit poems out into the wide world is a great and wondrous thing.
All ripping off my face and wearing it as a mask.
ZZZZIPP HAS SEEN IT
i am also for sexual liberation, libations, and libido – lib arts por vida
I read a book of poetry called Ignatz the other day that is based on Krazy Kat. It was pretty good.
5. Then Tao Lin should be on your reading list, I think.
re: 5, yes. that seems very yes.
“Poets are thus liberating gods.”
I think Gertrude Stein would also be a great choice. When I first read her Three Lives, my reaction was something along the lines of “OMGWTF, she writes exactly the way I’ve been wishing I had the balls to!”
Yeah, people seem weirded out by the ambition / complexity of my reading list for this semester’s intro to CW, but I didn’t decide to be a writer because of mediocre crap I “understood,” I decided to become a writer because of great stuff I could barely wrap my head around.
I gave my kids “A&P” and said “Write like this or else!” No, not really. Gave them “Tetris”. Doing “A&P” and “The School” (Barthelme, duh) on Wednesday.
5) Definitely. The reading lists were the most effective part of my writing program experience, as they showed me that people everywhere were not only writing in crazy, desperate ways, but were doing it better, often, than the people writing conventionally. I feel idiotic, in fact, when I look back now on my weak-ass reading list and trust in the most mundane of writing conventions and styles.
99) I had an ex once who fell into one of these. Things between us were shaky-diplomatic, meaning we oscillated between wanting to hug and to run each other off the road. When the poetry scam got her I wondered if I should warn her off the purchase, but then she got kind of gloat-y (knowing I had literary ambitions) and I let it go.
WHEN THE MATERIAL IS OBVIOUS AND EASY THAT’S WHEN EVERYONE WANTS TO KILL THE PROFESSOR AND TAKE THEIR PLACE
14) anything that puts more emily pettit poems out into the wide world is a great and wondrous thing.
All ripping off my face and wearing it as a mask.
ZZZZIPP HAS SEEN IT
i am also for sexual liberation, libations, and libido – lib arts por vida
5. [T]he [class reading] list should liberate.
“[L]iberate” from what? Conventional narrative standards of achievement?
“[S]tudent (s)” who aren’t interested in what Penelope Fitzgerald or Alice Munro can do might want ‘liberating’ from their own (inexpertly borrowed? self-regardful?) assumptions.
“I didn’t even know you could write this way.”
I’ve felt that way reading “Progress of Love” and many, many other stories by Munro. You can have that feeling without the story in question being experimental. I don’t think that’s what’s necessarily being said here.
MUNRO MAKES ZZZZZIPP’S HEART BEAT
[‘Experimental’ isn’t] what’s necessarily being said here.
True, Salvatore – that’s a perhaps-adventurous understanding of how “I didn’t even know you could” and “liberate” are meant.
I agree with Ryan on Three Lives — an even better choice than, say, Lucy Church Amiably or A Novel of Thank You, as much as I love those two books. Probably the one work that is most demonstrative of what she was doing, since it’s in sort of an in-between position in the realization and maturation of her style. Well… I’m sure everyone who’s read these works knows what I mean.
Really, a genius like Gertrude Stein gets far too little attention. I think probably most everyone here can at least agree to that.
I think that there were approximately two crucial moments in grade school when I discovered that “You can also do this sort of thing” sort of thing. One was when my father introduced me to Franz Kafka when I was, I think, 14… and the other when my 10th grade English teacher introduced us all to Eugene Ionesco and the Theater of the Absurd, as well as describing Existentialism to us. I’m thankful to her for that, and I also sort of resent my 9th grade English teacher, who made us read Thomas Hardy because he thought Hardy was such an amazingly incredible wow-Bob-wow sort of writer.
I fucking hated Thomas Hardy.
… But at least my 10th grade English teacher made up for all that crap.
Oh, yeah: she also had us read Kafka, whom as I said, by then, I was already pretty familiar with. She was cool.
I agree that it’s important for English teachers and literature teachers to provide a broad range to show students what’s possible for writers and what’s available for readers.
It occurs to me that maybe there’re a few too many grade-school teachers who are more interested in trying to get their students to appreciate what THEY appreciate. That’s not what a teacher should be there for, methinks.
ZZZZIPP, if you haven’t already, try the closed-heart massage of Fitzgerald’s novels – Offshore or The Gate of Angels, say, or, if you’re a Gramsci fan, Innocence.
Owen, I think you’re right about the potentially smothering effect of ‘appreciation’, but don’t you find the contagion of enthusiasm to be a great enabler of ‘going into’ – introduction to – an artist or world-perspective? Not “enthusiasm” in the sense of ‘this is what you should care about’, but rather of ‘this is what affected me and how’. After all, enthusiasm was (part of) how your father and 10th-grade teacher revealed Kafka and Ionesco to you, right?
5. [T]he [class reading] list should liberate.
“[L]iberate” from what? Conventional narrative standards of achievement?
“[S]tudent (s)” who aren’t interested in what Penelope Fitzgerald or Alice Munro can do might want ‘liberating’ from their own (inexpertly borrowed? self-regardful?) assumptions.
If I get you right, yes, except that in order for that kind of enthusiastic presentation to actually work well and not leave gaping holes in a student’s education, you’d need a complete set of teachers covering a wide spectrum of styles and subject matters about which those teachers are really passionate.
If they sold those kinds of sets like they used to sell encyclopedias . . . I don’t know, maybe then it could work.
But at any rate, like I said: It really doesn’t seem to me that showing people something you’re really enthusiastic about is really the proper approach to teaching — after all, this is supposed to be your friends’ job — but rather to give your students a comprehensive view of the subject and explain it in the best way you know how (insofar as the course is intended to be an ‘overview’ course, of course — as grade school English classes generally are).
“I didn’t even know you could write this way.”
I’ve felt that way reading “Progress of Love” and many, many other stories by Munro. You can have that feeling without the story in question being experimental. I don’t think that’s what’s necessarily being said here.
MUNRO MAKES ZZZZZIPP’S HEART BEAT
Owen, a one-year “overview” of, say, ‘American literature’ can’t be absolutely “comprehensive”. The teacher – if that’s who designs the reading list – will have to make choices: what ratio of novels to short stories? what ratio of prose to poetry? any non-fiction? and so on. Even a more narrowly defined survey – for example: ’20th c. American novels’ (as in college) – will mean making choices: one Faulkner + Nightwood or two Faulkners? any Thomas Wolfe? Dos Passos? Cane or Their Eyes Were Watching God – or both without Hemingway – or all three and everybody’s already read Gatsby anyway? and so on. Your dilemma – a genuinely enthusiastic teacher vs. “a comprehensive view” – is false.
Since “gaping holes” in any survey – even Ph. D. reading lists have them – are inevitable, a criterion that would work for most students would be: ‘knowledgeable enthusiast’ is better than ‘knowledgeable automaton’ — is what I’m saying.
[‘Experimental’ isn’t] what’s necessarily being said here.
True, Salvatore – that’s a perhaps-adventurous understanding of how “I didn’t even know you could” and “liberate” are meant.
I agree with Ryan on Three Lives — an even better choice than, say, Lucy Church Amiably or A Novel of Thank You, as much as I love those two books. Probably the one work that is most demonstrative of what she was doing, since it’s in sort of an in-between position in the realization and maturation of her style. Well… I’m sure everyone who’s read these works knows what I mean.
Really, a genius like Gertrude Stein gets far too little attention. I think probably most everyone here can at least agree to that.
I think that there were approximately two crucial moments in grade school when I discovered that “You can also do this sort of thing” sort of thing. One was when my father introduced me to Franz Kafka when I was, I think, 14… and the other when my 10th grade English teacher introduced us all to Eugene Ionesco and the Theater of the Absurd, as well as describing Existentialism to us. I’m thankful to her for that, and I also sort of resent my 9th grade English teacher, who made us read Thomas Hardy because he thought Hardy was such an amazingly incredible wow-Bob-wow sort of writer.
I fucking hated Thomas Hardy.
… But at least my 10th grade English teacher made up for all that crap.
Oh, yeah: she also had us read Kafka, whom as I said, by then, I was already pretty familiar with. She was cool.
I agree that it’s important for English teachers and literature teachers to provide a broad range to show students what’s possible for writers and what’s available for readers.
It occurs to me that maybe there’re a few too many grade-school teachers who are more interested in trying to get their students to appreciate what THEY appreciate. That’s not what a teacher should be there for, methinks.
ZZZZIPP, if you haven’t already, try the closed-heart massage of Fitzgerald’s novels – Offshore or The Gate of Angels, say, or, if you’re a Gramsci fan, Innocence.
Owen, I think you’re right about the potentially smothering effect of ‘appreciation’, but don’t you find the contagion of enthusiasm to be a great enabler of ‘going into’ – introduction to – an artist or world-perspective? Not “enthusiasm” in the sense of ‘this is what you should care about’, but rather of ‘this is what affected me and how’. After all, enthusiasm was (part of) how your father and 10th-grade teacher revealed Kafka and Ionesco to you, right?
If I get you right, yes, except that in order for that kind of enthusiastic presentation to actually work well and not leave gaping holes in a student’s education, you’d need a complete set of teachers covering a wide spectrum of styles and subject matters about which those teachers are really passionate.
If they sold those kinds of sets like they used to sell encyclopedias . . . I don’t know, maybe then it could work.
But at any rate, like I said: It really doesn’t seem to me that showing people something you’re really enthusiastic about is really the proper approach to teaching — after all, this is supposed to be your friends’ job — but rather to give your students a comprehensive view of the subject and explain it in the best way you know how (insofar as the course is intended to be an ‘overview’ course, of course — as grade school English classes generally are).
What’s false, deadgod, is your claim of a situation of either/or. Such a situation does not [yet] exist for me. Here’s the reason:
As you’ve set it up: the disagreement, if there is one, appears to be that the two of us want different things. I want a broader education. You want a deeper education. (If I’m incorrect here then please correct me, although this is the only interpretation I can immediately conjure which makes reasonably arguable sense to me.)
Since I want a broader education: it only makes sense for me to choose 5 teachers who teach a broad range of their choosing (since, naturally, no range is going to be complete; if I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise, then let me correct myself here). This way there is a greater chance of my receiving as close to a comprehensive education as possible, which is what I want.
Now, if I were of the opinion that an education that does not go beyond the surface (assuming we do not, for some weird reason, have the opportunity for further research): it would certainly make sense of me to choose, instead, 5 teachers who specialize in a certain area, each different. That way, although I will certainly end up with holes in my education, at least I’ll be knowledgeable on at least five subjects.
Remember that the second scenario — yours — requires a compromise of reality. The reality is that outside of school we have the option of doing further research into a given subject, once we know it exists. In my view: this is what a general education is supposed to do: make you aware of as many subjects as possible, enough to pique your interest should any of the subjects be of the sort to do so, so that you might go on, independently, to explore further. If I were to sacrifice that broadness of education for a deeper education in a few specified subjects: sure, I’d know more about a few subjects right off, but there would be more subjects I would be ignorant of, thereby making it impossible for me — unless I’m further educated elsewhere — to explore those areas.
Thus I’m more ignorant not only once I leave school but will also remain so, whereas, had I chosen the first scenario: this would not be the case.
Owen, a one-year “overview” of, say, ‘American literature’ can’t be absolutely “comprehensive”. The teacher – if that’s who designs the reading list – will have to make choices: what ratio of novels to short stories? what ratio of prose to poetry? any non-fiction? and so on. Even a more narrowly defined survey – for example: ’20th c. American novels’ (as in college) – will mean making choices: one Faulkner + Nightwood or two Faulkners? any Thomas Wolfe? Dos Passos? Cane or Their Eyes Were Watching God – or both without Hemingway – or all three and everybody’s already read Gatsby anyway? and so on. Your dilemma – a genuinely enthusiastic teacher vs. “a comprehensive view” – is false.
Since “gaping holes” in any survey – even Ph. D. reading lists have them – are inevitable, a criterion that would work for most students would be: ‘knowledgeable enthusiast’ is better than ‘knowledgeable automaton’ — is what I’m saying.
What’s false, deadgod, is your claim of a situation of either/or. Such a situation does not [yet] exist for me. Here’s the reason:
As you’ve set it up: the disagreement, if there is one, appears to be that the two of us want different things. I want a broader education. You want a deeper education. (If I’m incorrect here then please correct me, although this is the only interpretation I can immediately conjure which makes reasonably arguable sense to me.)
Since I want a broader education: it only makes sense for me to choose 5 teachers who teach a broad range of their choosing (since, naturally, no range is going to be complete; if I gave you the impression that I thought otherwise, then let me correct myself here). This way there is a greater chance of my receiving as close to a comprehensive education as possible, which is what I want.
Now, if I were of the opinion that an education that does not go beyond the surface (assuming we do not, for some weird reason, have the opportunity for further research): it would certainly make sense of me to choose, instead, 5 teachers who specialize in a certain area, each different. That way, although I will certainly end up with holes in my education, at least I’ll be knowledgeable on at least five subjects.
Remember that the second scenario — yours — requires a compromise of reality. The reality is that outside of school we have the option of doing further research into a given subject, once we know it exists. In my view: this is what a general education is supposed to do: make you aware of as many subjects as possible, enough to pique your interest should any of the subjects be of the sort to do so, so that you might go on, independently, to explore further. If I were to sacrifice that broadness of education for a deeper education in a few specified subjects: sure, I’d know more about a few subjects right off, but there would be more subjects I would be ignorant of, thereby making it impossible for me — unless I’m further educated elsewhere — to explore those areas.
Thus I’m more ignorant not only once I leave school but will also remain so, whereas, had I chosen the first scenario: this would not be the case.