Craft Notes
Writerly Make Believe
(Found Magazine)
A little while ago I was assigned the seemingly menial task of re-typing a chapter of Hans Fallada’s Wolf Among Wolves since, at the time, there was no digital copy in existence. What seems like it might have been a mind-numbing endeavor was actually one of my favorite chores while I was interning at Melville House. You can learn a tremendous amount about a writer by faking being them for a little while. You get to see the scaffolding of each sentence and you’re really forced to pay attention to every single syllable of every word. After I read something I really admire (or sometimes during) I often open up Word and start typing it in, word by word, sometimes spending hours on it. (And I wonder why I can’t find the time to post here.) I suppose it’s a dangerous habit to get into if you’re not the type to stop a project before it’s finished, but I still love wasting time this way.
Tags: hans fallada
i really like this idea. its often how i revise. to get back into the story im workign on, ill just retype it and then let things change as they change or something.
i really like this idea. its often how i revise. to get back into the story im workign on, ill just retype it and then let things change as they change or something.
I could see this being really really useful. It reminds me of um…the movie Finding Forrester where Forrester had the kid he was working with work through writer’s block by typing out the beginning of his story. I will try this some time.
I could see this being really really useful. It reminds me of um…the movie Finding Forrester where Forrester had the kid he was working with work through writer’s block by typing out the beginning of his story. I will try this some time.
This is an invaluable exercise. People should do it more often. It goes hand in hand with Bloom’s notion that you’ll gain more from memorizing one poem well enough to recite it than from reading a hundred poems one time each. Re-typing another writer’s lines is like learning to play a cover song. It’s not your work, and unlike with music you can’t “make it yours,” but it’s still teaching you something about yourself–moving your fingers in ways they haven’t moved before, teaching them new rhythms. It’s wonderful.
This is an invaluable exercise. People should do it more often. It goes hand in hand with Bloom’s notion that you’ll gain more from memorizing one poem well enough to recite it than from reading a hundred poems one time each. Re-typing another writer’s lines is like learning to play a cover song. It’s not your work, and unlike with music you can’t “make it yours,” but it’s still teaching you something about yourself–moving your fingers in ways they haven’t moved before, teaching them new rhythms. It’s wonderful.
Bloom Bloom Bloom. (Sorry I just wanted to type that. Harold is OK in my book, sort of.)
Bloom Bloom Bloom. (Sorry I just wanted to type that. Harold is OK in my book, sort of.)
i like your idea of ‘moving your fingers,’ as i’ve been thinking about the ‘muscle memory’ of typing, like the relationship between writing and what may seem as incidental: one’s impulse on the keyboard, like the em dash vs. parenthesis, or comma vs semi-colon.
i re-typed blake’s section in titular’s ulysses (he had it in all caps) and dang, remember being affected by placing words (hence ideas) next to one another that i would have never done myself.
i like your idea of ‘moving your fingers,’ as i’ve been thinking about the ‘muscle memory’ of typing, like the relationship between writing and what may seem as incidental: one’s impulse on the keyboard, like the em dash vs. parenthesis, or comma vs semi-colon.
i re-typed blake’s section in titular’s ulysses (he had it in all caps) and dang, remember being affected by placing words (hence ideas) next to one another that i would have never done myself.
i noticed that i only use my right thumb for the spacebar.
i noticed that i only use my right thumb for the spacebar.
Maybe there are more fiction writers than poets on this site (of course there are, what am I saying?), but it’s very common that a teacher will tell you to rewrite poems you admire over and over again. Especially in early-on workshops.
I guess you can’t/shouldn’t write fiction over and over again. I also think the exercise tends to be much more valuable in poetry because poems are more digestible units (smaller).
I’m writing a novel currently that has one character voice in particular that I can’t seem to master/fake in a believable way. I’m gonna try finding the voice in other literature or somewhere and use this technique, which I hadn’t considered using for mastering a voice, but thinking about, it seems like that would be the most effective way to use the exercise. Voice seems to be something you can practice at and eventually get a hold of. Right? I dunno.
Maybe there are more fiction writers than poets on this site (of course there are, what am I saying?), but it’s very common that a teacher will tell you to rewrite poems you admire over and over again. Especially in early-on workshops.
I guess you can’t/shouldn’t write fiction over and over again. I also think the exercise tends to be much more valuable in poetry because poems are more digestible units (smaller).
I’m writing a novel currently that has one character voice in particular that I can’t seem to master/fake in a believable way. I’m gonna try finding the voice in other literature or somewhere and use this technique, which I hadn’t considered using for mastering a voice, but thinking about, it seems like that would be the most effective way to use the exercise. Voice seems to be something you can practice at and eventually get a hold of. Right? I dunno.
totally not going to tell a joke about where your left thumb is
totally not going to tell a joke about where your left thumb is
o
YESS. HAVE DONE WITH BORGES, FITZGERALD, ZZZZOME OTHERS. ZZZOME NEWER ZZZZOOON.
YESS. HAVE DONE WITH BORGES, FITZGERALD, ZZZZOME OTHERS. ZZZOME NEWER ZZZZOOON.
I’m glad you posted this, Catherine. I started doing this when I was twenty or twenty-one, and have never stopped. It’s so amazing to feel how other people’s prose feels different than yours, even in the physical making of it.
Similarly, I’ve also read and recorded other people’s writing and then listened to them again, because the parts of their prose that feel unnatural in my mouth are often the places where they’re doing something dramatically different than me, and its interesting to see how those dictions and syntax feel and sound in my own voice. Helps me think through some of the decisions I’m making in my own work.
I’m glad you posted this, Catherine. I started doing this when I was twenty or twenty-one, and have never stopped. It’s so amazing to feel how other people’s prose feels different than yours, even in the physical making of it.
Similarly, I’ve also read and recorded other people’s writing and then listened to them again, because the parts of their prose that feel unnatural in my mouth are often the places where they’re doing something dramatically different than me, and its interesting to see how those dictions and syntax feel and sound in my own voice. Helps me think through some of the decisions I’m making in my own work.
Supposedly, Hunter S. Thompson retyped The Great Gatsby and A Farewell to Arms, saying, “I just want to feel what it feels like to write that well.”
Supposedly, Hunter S. Thompson retyped The Great Gatsby and A Farewell to Arms, saying, “I just want to feel what it feels like to write that well.”
Yo La Tengo have said in interviews, if I’m remembering correctly, that playing the covers on the album Fakebook helped them find their voice. It makes a lot of sense to reiterate good acts of creation. Anything we can do to slow down and cultivate attentiveness to small movements is probably a good idea.
Yo La Tengo have said in interviews, if I’m remembering correctly, that playing the covers on the album Fakebook helped them find their voice. It makes a lot of sense to reiterate good acts of creation. Anything we can do to slow down and cultivate attentiveness to small movements is probably a good idea.
Joan Didion typed many pages of Hemingway and was sure this contributed to her own prose style.
Joan Didion typed many pages of Hemingway and was sure this contributed to her own prose style.
Total bullshit. What’s wrong with literature today is there’s too much emphasis on “the scaffolding of the sentence” and not enough on the real stuff of literature– plot, conflict, emotion, ideas, and the voice not of the inward-dwelling bourgie dilettante but the clash of characters’ voices expressed through dialogue.
Writers have moved ever further inward with their writing; the focus on the sentence, on the patter of words (were talking prose, folks; the prosaic)– they’ve moved ever further away from interest in the world, in finding real stories. Ever further away in the process away from the potential audience.
What we’re left with is a large collection of well-trained scribblers drawing circles like little children in sandboxes.
Repeat the sentence. Does that sound good? Golly gosh! Goo goo ga ga.
How’ bout instead some strong-willed meat and potatoes writing instead of endless well-wrought solipsism?
Neither is it a choice between so-called “realism” and the “experimental.”
There’s been nothing new about experimental writing since the 60’s. Maybe the 20’s.
What’s called realism is realism of the narrow, domesticated variety. The kind you find in “Best American” stories collections and which is utterly boring.
For the state of the art, these are truly shitty times.
Just my two cents, from outside the sandbox.
Total bullshit. What’s wrong with literature today is there’s too much emphasis on “the scaffolding of the sentence” and not enough on the real stuff of literature– plot, conflict, emotion, ideas, and the voice not of the inward-dwelling bourgie dilettante but the clash of characters’ voices expressed through dialogue.
Writers have moved ever further inward with their writing; the focus on the sentence, on the patter of words (were talking prose, folks; the prosaic)– they’ve moved ever further away from interest in the world, in finding real stories. Ever further away in the process away from the potential audience.
What we’re left with is a large collection of well-trained scribblers drawing circles like little children in sandboxes.
Repeat the sentence. Does that sound good? Golly gosh! Goo goo ga ga.
How’ bout instead some strong-willed meat and potatoes writing instead of endless well-wrought solipsism?
Neither is it a choice between so-called “realism” and the “experimental.”
There’s been nothing new about experimental writing since the 60’s. Maybe the 20’s.
What’s called realism is realism of the narrow, domesticated variety. The kind you find in “Best American” stories collections and which is utterly boring.
For the state of the art, these are truly shitty times.
Just my two cents, from outside the sandbox.
“Goo goo ga ga”
Yeah, now I feel like an asshole.
“Goo goo ga ga”
Yeah, now I feel like an asshole.
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
haha looked who showed up still beating the doodoodrum
haha looked who showed up still beating the doodoodrum
Interestingly enough, I watched a documentary film about gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, and there was this really great bit of film about (I think it was…) his time in Colorado, where he spent mornings actually sitting at the typewriter, retyping the entirety of The Great Gatsby and A Farewell to Arms. It was like an exercise in absorption or something. Quite literal and literary. I imagined it being like a meditation, trying to assume the same important space between your favorite writer and the typewriter or something.
I’ve begun a large-scale drawing installation that is based on Thomas Bernhard, and Glenn Gould — and have decided as a writer, retyping the entirety of The Loser would be my version of this, and as part of the installation itself, I’d like to see each chapter as a part of the overall work. Very much looking forward to this project and curious to know if any other writer on this site has bothered to go through this exercise…
Interestingly enough, I watched a documentary film about gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, and there was this really great bit of film about (I think it was…) his time in Colorado, where he spent mornings actually sitting at the typewriter, retyping the entirety of The Great Gatsby and A Farewell to Arms. It was like an exercise in absorption or something. Quite literal and literary. I imagined it being like a meditation, trying to assume the same important space between your favorite writer and the typewriter or something.
I’ve begun a large-scale drawing installation that is based on Thomas Bernhard, and Glenn Gould — and have decided as a writer, retyping the entirety of The Loser would be my version of this, and as part of the installation itself, I’d like to see each chapter as a part of the overall work. Very much looking forward to this project and curious to know if any other writer on this site has bothered to go through this exercise…
Saying “real literature” isn’t about the sentences is like saying rock songs aren’t about the guitar chords or paintings aren’t about the brush strokes or paint.
Saying “real literature” isn’t about the sentences is like saying rock songs aren’t about the guitar chords or paintings aren’t about the brush strokes or paint.
One of my earliest workshop teachers always advocated typing up other writers’ works to get a feel for their rhythms and structures. He suggested using short stories which may be the answer for prose writers worried that novels aren’t digestible enough like Lichtenberg mentioned above. Tobias Wolff’s novel Old School deals with this as well. It’s not a great book by any means, but there’s some really nice writing done concerned with what it means for a writer to take someone else’s work and run it through their own typewriter/keyboard. Could be worth a look for people interested in the subject, plus there’s some funny “cameos” from Hemingway and Ayn Rand.
One of my earliest workshop teachers always advocated typing up other writers’ works to get a feel for their rhythms and structures. He suggested using short stories which may be the answer for prose writers worried that novels aren’t digestible enough like Lichtenberg mentioned above. Tobias Wolff’s novel Old School deals with this as well. It’s not a great book by any means, but there’s some really nice writing done concerned with what it means for a writer to take someone else’s work and run it through their own typewriter/keyboard. Could be worth a look for people interested in the subject, plus there’s some funny “cameos” from Hemingway and Ayn Rand.
King, the cool thing about the book technology is you don’t have to read the book. Get off my lawn, too.
King, the cool thing about the book technology is you don’t have to read the book. Get off my lawn, too.
Pshh, I can one-up all of you on this one.
Pshh, I can one-up all of you on this one.
I learned dialogue mechanics from copying Hem. I mean copying passages by hand. Actually, there are several teaching exercises I give students where they have to copy or mimic an author. I try to give them a groundwork for stealing from authors, you know, a trainer for their career.
I learned dialogue mechanics from copying Hem. I mean copying passages by hand. Actually, there are several teaching exercises I give students where they have to copy or mimic an author. I try to give them a groundwork for stealing from authors, you know, a trainer for their career.
Are *you* somebody?
Are *you* somebody?
kind of a tired argument, the whole inwardness and navel-gazing thing, and in no way “outside the sandbox”. or, if it is, it’s in another sandbox all its own, where detractors of contemporary literature favor your fancy S-word. (please disregard use of gross terms like “detractors”, “contemporary”, “literature”.)
i don’t know how you’ve determined what “the real stuff of literature” is, or whether that stuff can even be determined beyond the only requisite i know of, which = words, but it’s unfair / inaccurate to say lit today is uninterested in the world (what else could it possibly be interested in?). maybe disinterested, but not uninterested.
anyway i like this copycat exercise. it’s helped me probably more than i am willing to admit unanonymously. and after reading your (@king) stories, none of which is as fun as you must have intended it to be, i think you would also benefit from fakin’ it sometimes.
like i mean you would seriously benefit.
kind of a tired argument, the whole inwardness and navel-gazing thing, and in no way “outside the sandbox”. or, if it is, it’s in another sandbox all its own, where detractors of contemporary literature favor your fancy S-word. (please disregard use of gross terms like “detractors”, “contemporary”, “literature”.)
i don’t know how you’ve determined what “the real stuff of literature” is, or whether that stuff can even be determined beyond the only requisite i know of, which = words, but it’s unfair / inaccurate to say lit today is uninterested in the world (what else could it possibly be interested in?). maybe disinterested, but not uninterested.
anyway i like this copycat exercise. it’s helped me probably more than i am willing to admit unanonymously. and after reading your (@king) stories, none of which is as fun as you must have intended it to be, i think you would also benefit from fakin’ it sometimes.
like i mean you would seriously benefit.
I’ve done this with poetry, so far, but never with prose fiction.
It makes sense, though. I paint, and in school they used to get us to make copies of paintings. I’ve done a few of work by people like Rembrandt and Caravaggio. It really helps you to get into the process they went through, to understand their brushstrokes and the way they use tone and colour.
I’ve done this with poetry, so far, but never with prose fiction.
It makes sense, though. I paint, and in school they used to get us to make copies of paintings. I’ve done a few of work by people like Rembrandt and Caravaggio. It really helps you to get into the process they went through, to understand their brushstrokes and the way they use tone and colour.
I’m not convinced that this is a valuable exercise. I’ve tried it several times because of how insistent many people I know are upon the re-typing thing, but I think that you would be better off simply giving that book another deep re-reading.
I’m not convinced that this is a valuable exercise. I’ve tried it several times because of how insistent many people I know are upon the re-typing thing, but I think that you would be better off simply giving that book another deep re-reading.
Sean, your “Regis Philbin” poem (prose?) defines the solipsistic.
My point is proven.
p.s. I dropped in because I’m looking for writers who can do “pop.” Obviously you’re all way more talented than I am. (I’m a promoter more than a writer.) Give it a shot.
Sean, your “Regis Philbin” poem (prose?) defines the solipsistic.
My point is proven.
p.s. I dropped in because I’m looking for writers who can do “pop.” Obviously you’re all way more talented than I am. (I’m a promoter more than a writer.) Give it a shot.
Words are merely the tools used to express knowledge, emotion, drama, ideas, and narrative structure which can sometimes be aesthetically pleasing in itself. You know; those kind of unpopular things. Words are like musical notes, or like chess notation. (One of the best “stories” I ever read was a Bobby Fischer masterpiece, whose conclusion was completely unexpected and breathtaking.)
Or, examine a Beethoven symphony. Such an artwork isn’t “classic” simply because academia says it is. The guy had the goods. Look at the structure of the Fifth in the first movement esp, where he begins with a simple movement then expands it.
Words are the daubs of paint in a Van Gogh painting. Do you really believe that the daubs are more important than the intelligence and vision behind them?
You could probably copy a Van Gogh daub by daub– but that doesn’t mean you could ever imagine and create such a work yourself.
A million musicians can play a Tschaikowsky violin concerto. Not a one of them could create such a work.
Do you realize how stupid your argument is???
Words are merely the tools used to express knowledge, emotion, drama, ideas, and narrative structure which can sometimes be aesthetically pleasing in itself. You know; those kind of unpopular things. Words are like musical notes, or like chess notation. (One of the best “stories” I ever read was a Bobby Fischer masterpiece, whose conclusion was completely unexpected and breathtaking.)
Or, examine a Beethoven symphony. Such an artwork isn’t “classic” simply because academia says it is. The guy had the goods. Look at the structure of the Fifth in the first movement esp, where he begins with a simple movement then expands it.
Words are the daubs of paint in a Van Gogh painting. Do you really believe that the daubs are more important than the intelligence and vision behind them?
You could probably copy a Van Gogh daub by daub– but that doesn’t mean you could ever imagine and create such a work yourself.
A million musicians can play a Tschaikowsky violin concerto. Not a one of them could create such a work.
Do you realize how stupid your argument is???
No. I’m completely a nobody.
No. I’m completely a nobody.
I’m trying to figure out what’s “pop” about your stories.
I’m trying to figure out what’s “pop” about your stories.
Most people here can promote themselves just fine, brah.
Most people here can promote themselves just fine, brah.
“Words are merely the tools…”
no, they’re the materials.
seems like much of what you’re saying elsewhere is irrelevant. i wasn’t talking about symphonies or van gogh paintings. i was talking about writing. and you, who stupidly confused playing tchaikovsky’s music with rewriting it, seem not to understand that you aren’t even making an argument.
and: “You could probably copy a Van Gogh daub by daub– but that doesn’t mean you could ever imagine and create such a work yourself.”
i don’t think anyone would try to say otherwise. it’s only an exercise that may (or may not) help you. it’s another/ closer way of reading, which if you can do it and it helps then why not?
“Words are merely the tools…”
no, they’re the materials.
seems like much of what you’re saying elsewhere is irrelevant. i wasn’t talking about symphonies or van gogh paintings. i was talking about writing. and you, who stupidly confused playing tchaikovsky’s music with rewriting it, seem not to understand that you aren’t even making an argument.
and: “You could probably copy a Van Gogh daub by daub– but that doesn’t mean you could ever imagine and create such a work yourself.”
i don’t think anyone would try to say otherwise. it’s only an exercise that may (or may not) help you. it’s another/ closer way of reading, which if you can do it and it helps then why not?
You seem to be disproving your own claims here. You are correct that words, sentence structure and so on are the equivalent to paint and brush strokes. That’s exactly why they are important!
Van Gogh was famous not for choosing cool things to paint, but because of the way he painted. Similarly, great writers are great for how they write the things they write more than the subject matter. Any fool can paint some sunflowers in a vase, but only van Gogh painted them like Van Gogh.
Imagine how silly your original statement would sound reworded for a different, medium, that what is wrong with film is the emphasis on cinematgraphy, dialogue and actors instead of the “real stuff of cinema” or rock songs focus too much on the instruments and notes instead of the “real stuff of rock.”
“A million musicians can play a Tschaikowsky violin concerto. Not a one of them could create such a work.”
You have this exactly backwards. Again, a million people can paint a sunflower, but the artists who distinguish themselves will paint it in a special and unique way. Similarly, a million people can write a story about a lady with a dog, but only great writers will tell that story in an interesting and unique way
“Do you really believe that the daubs are more important than the intelligence and vision behind them?”
I would say that is quite literally a meaningless statement.
You seem to be disproving your own claims here. You are correct that words, sentence structure and so on are the equivalent to paint and brush strokes. That’s exactly why they are important!
Van Gogh was famous not for choosing cool things to paint, but because of the way he painted. Similarly, great writers are great for how they write the things they write more than the subject matter. Any fool can paint some sunflowers in a vase, but only van Gogh painted them like Van Gogh.
Imagine how silly your original statement would sound reworded for a different, medium, that what is wrong with film is the emphasis on cinematgraphy, dialogue and actors instead of the “real stuff of cinema” or rock songs focus too much on the instruments and notes instead of the “real stuff of rock.”
“A million musicians can play a Tschaikowsky violin concerto. Not a one of them could create such a work.”
You have this exactly backwards. Again, a million people can paint a sunflower, but the artists who distinguish themselves will paint it in a special and unique way. Similarly, a million people can write a story about a lady with a dog, but only great writers will tell that story in an interesting and unique way
“Do you really believe that the daubs are more important than the intelligence and vision behind them?”
I would say that is quite literally a meaningless statement.
This is why Matt Bell is sexy.
This is why Matt Bell is sexy.
Really? I guess that’s right if you want to follow the unthinking herd and do what everyone else is doing.
The point is that literature as a whole isn’t promoting itself very well, whichis why its position in the culture has dwindled. Which is fine, I suppose, from my vantage point, if there’s nothing to compete against except inward-looking solipsists.
What I agree with in the arguments presented here is that what’s important in any work of art is the intelligence and vision expressed by it. Including by a minor talent like Chekhov, or a major one like Dostoevsky, who certainly wasn’t known for the smoothness of his sentences.
What, then, is the purpose of mindlessly copying series of words, which are nothing more than collections of letters? Young writers should be instead learning how the world works and plunging into experience.
Yes, the opening to “Gatsby” is awesome– what makes it so isn’t just the beautiful prose, but what he says– his insight into society and a personality he encountered within that society. The meaning of the novel is introduced from the start– that it’s Gatsby’s interaction with society that creates the plot and makes Gatsby the character he is.
The point: Fitzgerald’s intelligence is all. Without his insight and experience a writer can’t recreate what he did.
A final remark about the original post:
I have an image of a mind-stunted people living among the ruins of a great civilization. They see words carved in stone like “HEMINGWAY.” Who was this Hemingway, they ask? In desperation to know they retype his words themselves, word by word. The magic remains beyond their understanding.
Really? I guess that’s right if you want to follow the unthinking herd and do what everyone else is doing.
The point is that literature as a whole isn’t promoting itself very well, whichis why its position in the culture has dwindled. Which is fine, I suppose, from my vantage point, if there’s nothing to compete against except inward-looking solipsists.
What I agree with in the arguments presented here is that what’s important in any work of art is the intelligence and vision expressed by it. Including by a minor talent like Chekhov, or a major one like Dostoevsky, who certainly wasn’t known for the smoothness of his sentences.
What, then, is the purpose of mindlessly copying series of words, which are nothing more than collections of letters? Young writers should be instead learning how the world works and plunging into experience.
Yes, the opening to “Gatsby” is awesome– what makes it so isn’t just the beautiful prose, but what he says– his insight into society and a personality he encountered within that society. The meaning of the novel is introduced from the start– that it’s Gatsby’s interaction with society that creates the plot and makes Gatsby the character he is.
The point: Fitzgerald’s intelligence is all. Without his insight and experience a writer can’t recreate what he did.
A final remark about the original post:
I have an image of a mind-stunted people living among the ruins of a great civilization. They see words carved in stone like “HEMINGWAY.” Who was this Hemingway, they ask? In desperation to know they retype his words themselves, word by word. The magic remains beyond their understanding.
This is the most concise and intelligent thing any one of us has said.
This is the most concise and intelligent thing any one of us has said.