Is this not the same distinction often made between those in the journalism
school (the PW track in particular) and those in the English department
(creative writing)?
I think the rift is very real and we are all aware of it on some base level,
even if we have never thought about it enough to put it into words. I don't
know if I feel that the system is quite as unfair as Mr. Stephenson
suggests, though that may be because I am in the Beowulf camp. I think both
types of writers serve a purpose. Those purposes are very different,
however, so it should be expected that the writers' means of supporting
their craft be different as well.
I like the way he compares university grants with the patronage of old. I
have often thought life would be so much simpler if I had a patron to
support my work but he raises the point that, were that the case, I would be
writing for that person, rather than appealing to a mass audience. Such a
task, while intriguing, no doubt, to those in the English department, fills
me with worry. I don't doubt that literary writers have a passion for their
work, but it is a wholly different type of passion: a whole other beast, as
I am fond of saying.
Stephenson suggests that patrons in the renaissance, and wealthy individuals
today, support artists out of a sort of moral obligation; serving the
greater good. I believe that literary writers must write (I say must
because I can not speak from experience so I assume) out of a similar sense
of obligation. They write to better the world, I write to better today. I
am almost positive that, no matter how famous I become, nobody 100 years
from now will have read any of my work. But that's okay with me because
that is not my purpose. In the same way, I doubt the great literary writers
of our time sit in front of their computers wondering how best to entertain
their audience. They serve a larger purpose. Maybe the system isn't
completely fair but I don't think it's all that bad either.
~Mary~
PS: I have the funny feeling that I've completely missed the point but
that's never stopped me from putting my two cents in before. :-)
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C50A35.EC9F6260
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Is this not the =
same
distinction often made between those in the journalism school (the PW =
track in
particular) and those in the English department (creative =
writing)?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I think the rift =
is very
real and we are all aware of it on some base level, even if we have =
never
thought about it enough to put it into words. I don’t know =
if I feel
that the system is quite as unfair as Mr. Stephenson suggests, though =
that may
be because I am in the Beowulf camp. I think both types of writers =
serve
a purpose. Those purposes are very different, however, so it =
should be
expected that the writers’ means of supporting their craft be =
different
as well. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I like the way =
he
compares university grants with the patronage of old. I have often
thought life would be so much simpler if I had a patron to support my =
work but
he raises the point that, were that the case, I would be writing for =
that
person, rather than appealing to a mass audience. Such a task, =
while intriguing,
no doubt, to those in the English department, fills me with worry. =
I don’t
doubt that literary writers have a passion for their work, but it is a =
wholly
different type of passion: a whole other beast, as I am fond of =
saying.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'text-indent:.5in'><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Stephenson =
suggests that
patrons in the renaissance, and wealthy individuals today, support =
artists out
of a sort of moral obligation; serving the greater good. I believe =
that
literary writers must write (I say must because I can not speak from =
experience
so I assume) out of a similar sense of obligation. They write to =
better
the world, I write to better today. I am almost positive that, no =
matter
how famous I become, nobody 100 years from now will have read any of my
work. But that’s okay with me because that is not my =
purpose.
In the same way, I doubt the great literary writers of our time sit in =
front of
their computers wondering how best to entertain their audience. =
They serve
a larger purpose. Maybe the system isn’t completely fair but =
I don’t
think it’s all that bad either.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>~Mary~ =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>PS: I have the funny feeling that =
I’ve
completely missed the point but that’s never stopped me from =
putting my
two cents in before. </span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy
face=3DWingdings><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:navy'>J</span></fon=
t><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C50A35.EC9F6260--
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:25:41 -0600
Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
From: Myk <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Dante vs Beowulf
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=------------090207020802080502030103
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090207020802080502030103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think Neal Stephenson explained everything beautifully. There is a
fundamental difference between Dante (English dept.) writers and Beowulf
(pw) writers. Just talk to a "serious" Dante on campus, and you'll see
it easily.
Here's my take on it:
Dante's desire appreciation of their brilliance, and the fewer who
appreciate them, the better. For Dante's, it is better to be obscure and
held in high regard by those "intelligent few" who actually have the
monstrous mental capacity to understand the intricate weaving of words
they have produced than to be widely accepted.
Beowulf writers on the other hand write mainly for the simple fun of
writing, and if mass acceptance and great piles o' cash come along after
the fact, all the better! The desire to write to please one's self is
the driving force for Beowulf's (at least until the cash starts rolling
in, then it's sellout time!!!). The fact that other people might want to
read what they write, and pay for the privilege of doing so, is just a
really cool bonus.
I like to think of it in terms of Spy vs. Spy. Only in our case it's
Diva-like, Academic Snob-Spy vs.
Head-In-The-Clouds-Yet-Down-To-Earth-Dreamer-Spy.
And I think the unfairness (if that is a real word!) that Stephenson was
referring to was the inherent unfairness among Beowulf writers where
some hit it big with monster sales and other writers who are just as
talented and write amazing stories never really sell as much or become
as well-known.
And if I've offended anyone or you REALLY disagree with me, blame Kent
for starting this whole thing!
Myk
Mary Ross wrote:
> Is this not the same distinction often made between those in the
> journalism school (the PW track in particular) and those in the
> English department (creative writing)?
>
> I think the rift is very real and we are all aware of it on some base
> level, even if we have never thought about it enough to put it into
> words. I don't know if I feel that the system is quite as unfair as
> Mr. Stephenson suggests, though that may be because I am in the
> Beowulf camp. I think both types of writers serve a purpose. Those
> purposes are very different, however, so it should be expected that
> the writers' means of supporting their craft be different as well.
>
> I like the way he compares university grants with the patronage of
> old. I have often thought life would be so much simpler if I had a
> patron to support my work but he raises the point that, were that the
> case, I would be writing for that person, rather than appealing to a
> mass audience. Such a task, while intriguing, no doubt, to those in
> the English department, fills me with worry. I don't doubt that
> literary writers have a passion for their work, but it is a wholly
> different type of passion: a whole other beast, as I am fond of saying.
>
> Stephenson suggests that patrons in the renaissance, and wealthy
> individuals today, support artists out of a sort of moral obligation;
> serving the greater good. I believe that literary writers must write
> (I say must because I can not speak from experience so I assume) out
> of a similar sense of obligation. They write to better the world, I
> write to better today. I am almost positive that, no matter how
> famous I become, nobody 100 years from now will have read any of my
> work. But that's okay with me because that is not my purpose. In the
> same way, I doubt the great literary writers of our time sit in front
> of their computers wondering how best to entertain their audience.
> They serve a larger purpose. Maybe the system isn't completely fair
> but I don't think it's all that bad either.
>
> ~Mary~
>
>
>
> PS: I have the funny feeling that I've completely missed the point but
> that's never stopped me from putting my two cents in before. J
>
--------------090207020802080502030103
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I think Neal Stephenson explained everything beautifully. There is a
fundamental difference between Dante (English dept.) writers and
Beowulf (pw) writers. Just talk to a "serious" Dante on campus, and
you'll see it easily.<br>
<br>
Here's my take on it: <br>
Dante's desire appreciation of their brilliance, and the fewer who
appreciate them, the better. For Dante's, it is better to be obscure
and held in high regard by those "intelligent few" who actually have
the monstrous mental capacity to understand the intricate weaving of
words they have produced than to be widely accepted.<br>
<br>
Beowulf writers on the other hand write mainly for the simple fun of
writing, and if mass acceptance and great piles o' cash come along
after the fact, all the better! The desire to write to please one's
self is the driving force for Beowulf's (at least until the cash starts
rolling in, then it's sellout time!!!). The fact that other people
might want to read what they write, and pay for the privilege of doing
so, is just a really cool bonus.<br>
<br>
I like to think of it in terms of Spy vs. Spy. Only in our case it's
Diva-like, Academic Snob-Spy vs.
Head-In-The-Clouds-Yet-Down-To-Earth-Dreamer-Spy.<br>
<br>
And I think the unfairness (if that is a real word!) that Stephenson
was referring to was the inherent unfairness among Beowulf writers
where some hit it big with monster sales and other writers who are just
as talented and write amazing stories never really sell as much or
become as well-known.<br>
<br>
And if I've offended anyone or you REALLY disagree with me, blame Kent
for starting this whole thing!<br>
<br>
Myk<br>
<br>
Mary Ross wrote:
<blockquote cite="[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><font color="navy"
face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Is this not
the same
distinction often made between those in the journalism school (the PW
track in
particular) and those in the English department (creative writing)?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><font color="navy"
face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">I think the
rift is very
real and we are all aware of it on some base level, even if we have
never
thought about it enough to put it into words. I don’t know if I feel
that the system is quite as unfair as Mr. Stephenson suggests, though
that may
be because I am in the Beowulf camp. I think both types of writers
serve
a purpose. Those purposes are very different, however, so it should be
expected that the writers’ means of supporting their craft be different
as well. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><font color="navy"
face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">I like the
way he
compares university grants with the patronage of old. I have often
thought life would be so much simpler if I had a patron to support my
work but
he raises the point that, were that the case, I would be writing for
that
person, rather than appealing to a mass audience. Such a task, while
intriguing,
no doubt, to those in the English department, fills me with worry. I
don’t
doubt that literary writers have a passion for their work, but it is a
wholly
different type of passion: a whole other beast, as I am fond of saying.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><font color="navy"
face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Stephenson
suggests that
patrons in the renaissance, and wealthy individuals today, support
artists out
of a sort of moral obligation; serving the greater good. I believe
that
literary writers must write (I say must because I can not speak from
experience
so I assume) out of a similar sense of obligation. They write to
better
the world, I write to better today. I am almost positive that, no
matter
how famous I become, nobody 100 years from now will have read any of my
work. But that’s okay with me because that is not my purpose.
In the same way, I doubt the great literary writers of our time sit in
front of
their computers wondering how best to entertain their audience. They
serve
a larger purpose. Maybe the system isn’t completely fair but I don’t
think it’s all that bad either.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">~Mary~ <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">PS: I have
the funny feeling that I’ve
completely missed the point but that’s never stopped me from putting my
two cents in before. </span></font><font color="navy" face="Wingdings"
size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Wingdings; color: navy;">J</span></font><font
color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;"><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------090207020802080502030103--
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 02:46:29 -0500
Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dante vs Beowulf
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Quite the interesting discussion...I haven't had MUCH of a chance to do more than browse Stephenson's thoughts (although I am a big fan of his work), and I've always felt split in regards to it. Before I went PW, I was in the English Writing track, until I pretty much took every writing class I could without going wholly literature-like.
I was always trying to straddle both sides of the fence...to not much success unfortunately. The English side of me alwasys wants to make at least an underlying meaning to my work and make the observant read-between-the-lines peeps feel happy, while the PW side of me just wants to write something that will make the other 99% of everyone else happy.
I suppose this is kind of turning into a bit of a rant, but I'm hoping to at least do one work that conforms to both sides...I believe it can happen, just with practice and hard work.
Until then...I think I'll just keep my eye on the prize and try to get the money flow going first, hehe.
DCB
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 00:08:43 -0600
Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
From: John Berry <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: the issue in question
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-4203116B4DDB======="
--=======AVGMAIL-4203116B4DDB=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C50A4D.B016A200"
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C50A4D.B016A200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello.
Here is an excerpt from a paper I am now writing. Please forgive the =
poor citations because I have yet to finish the draft.
Also, I have a story. Long ago my girlfriend at the time was sitting =
there reading a book I would consider garbage. I was about to say so , =
but then realized that any reading is better than none because it =
increases language understanding, the ability to communicate in words =
and in prose, stimulates the imaginative part of the brain (and that has =
to be important), and finally, it's better than watching television and =
having the mind led along. Nowadays especially, I believe those that can =
focus long enough to read may be a dying breed.
Personally, I have always disliked the split in the departments and the =
ongoing division and derision which is created internally; i.e. each =
side "knows" the other is snobby or conceited (you may take your choice =
of which adjective describes what department).=20
As usual, it boils down to individuals. No one should be pre-judged and =
each person should be taken as an individual. If he/she is nice, great. =
If he/she is a snob, that's a shame.
Anyway, here is my excerpt. I would also like to pose the following =
question: Is Ray Bradbury a professional writer or a literary writer?
JB
For his supposition regarding this problem, May suggests that the early =
twentieth- century criticism was overly methodical and "the form became =
solidified by rules and tainted by commercialism" (---ed, 5). Therefore, =
scholars believe there is no more reason to explore and critique the =
short story. In part, this attitude is due to O. Henry, a profuse short =
story writer who promoted the formulaic style. Between 1900 and 1920 his =
influence results in a market saturated with 'How To" books for short =
story writing. This prescription earns critical contempt, exemplified by =
Gilbert Seldes who writes; "'The American short story is by all odds the =
weakest, most trivial, most stupid, most insignificant art work produced =
in any country'" (---ed, 6).
I assume Seldes' complaint is about literary worth versus pure =
entertainment. If a typical short story has the five basic constituents =
of description, character(s), dialogue, pace, and plot (all of which are =
influenced by the author's narrative style), then what, if any, are the =
differences between literary short stories and entertaining short =
stories? The answer exists here upon the University of Oklahoma campus =
in the separate entities of the English Department's Creative Writing =
program and the Journalism Department's Professional Writing program. =
After purchasing and perusing the Professional Writer's textbooks, my =
own definition is that "professional" writers are more stringently =
formulaic and write pure entertainment for immediate sales and profit. =
Conversely, the creative writer attempts to write literature, a story =
that is both entertaining and also has a thoughtful depth, a work that =
may remain as a timeless, worthy read.
Certainly, there is no shame in the entertainment profession. Looking =
back on my youth I am certain I read many professional writing works in =
the likes of Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys mysteries. But the worthy short =
story, those that I believe literary, are the stories that cause readers =
to pause and consider a moment in the story, a moment they can recognize =
in their own life, a feeling they have felt, a thought they have =
considered. And then to realize that the story's author has felt or =
thought as they have, whether the author is young and new, or like =
Shakespeare, 500 years deceased. Further, the spark that ignites a =
reader's epiphany may also be a concept they have yet to consider. These =
important moments are why, I believe, many remember a story, title, or =
author more often than they recall a learning experience from formulaic =
entertainment. That which exposes our common humanity in any way, =
whether anger, sadness, or recognized familiarity, leaves a powerful =
imprint upon the mind. Often, this depth that spurs such reader reaction =
is called a work's sub-text or meta-text. =20
=20
=20
=20
The three decades between 1930 and 1960 produce three laments: the short =
story lacks plot, social concern, and ideology. (6) During this period =
the division forms between formulaic --what today is known as =
"professional"-- writing and "the quality literary story," a tale =
written without saleable concern (6). Writers in the 1940s abandon O. =
Henry's plot formula and instead focus on "incident or episode" (7), =
which furthers a break from the novel and brings the short story closer =
to lyric. Scholars finally begin studying short story structure and =
conclude that the narrative presentation and resolution are extremely =
indirect and difficult for readers to recognize (9). In the 1950s, =
critics decide that the short story pattern illustrates a change from =
"innocence to knowledge" (9) in the main character, a minor character, =
or the reader. Also in this decade, Universities abandon the O. Henry =
formula, and for good or ill, center more on "techniques and =
psychological case studies" (8). Thus, careful diction, and the mode to =
deliver these carefully chosen words assume the plateau for what =
constitutes a worthy short story.
May finishes his historical account in same decade as his book's =
publication, the 1970s, claiming that the "extreme result of this focus =
[results in an] extreme reaction." (8). At the time, some critics =
believe Short authors trade away basic story elements=BEsuch as plot and =
character verisimilitude=BEfor extravagant technique. Of note is that =
1969 is when Tzvetan Todorov introduces his minimizing mathematics in =
"Structural Analysis of Narrative," which may have contributed to =
overzealous technique and storytelling declination. (Todorov 2099-2106) =
Though the critics struggle, again it is the authors that define their =
own work. To begin, May cites Elizabeth Bowen's 1939 comment that, =
because the length means fewer characters, and often times only one, the =
short story epitomizes individual loneliness. To this, authors such as =
Eudora Welty and Joyce Carol Oates add that the short story exemplifies =
mystery and dream (11-12). Mystery and dream, however, seem subservient =
to loneliness when considering Conrad's Marlowe, or any of Hemingway's =
journeys into mans personal darkness: the ever suppressed fear of living =
and dying alone.=20
=20
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C50A4D.B016A200
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Here is an excerpt from a paper I am =
now writing.=20
Please forgive the poor citations because I have yet to finish the=20
draft.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Also, I have a story. Long ago my =
girlfriend at the=20
time was sitting there reading a book I would consider garbage. I was =
about to=20
say so , but then realized that any reading is better than none because =
it=20
increases language understanding, the ability to communicate in words =
and in=20
prose, stimulates the imaginative part of the brain (and that has to be=20
important), and finally, it's better than watching television and having =
the=20
mind led along. Nowadays especially, I believe those that can focus long =
enough=20
to read may be a dying breed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Personally, I have always disliked the =
split in the=20
departments and the ongoing division and derision which is created =
internally;=20
i.e. each side "knows" the other is snobby or conceited (you may take =
your=20
choice of which adjective describes what department). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As usual, it boils down to individuals. =
No one=20
should be pre-judged and each person should be taken as an individual. =
If he/she=20
is nice, great. If he/she is a snob, that's a shame.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Anyway, here is my excerpt. I would =
also like to=20
pose the following question: Is Ray Bradbury a professional writer or a =
literary=20
writer?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>JB</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT size=3D3>For his supposition regarding =
this problem,=20
May suggests that the early twentieth- century criticism was overly =
methodical=20
and<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>=93the form became =
solidified by=20
rules and tainted by commercialism=94 <B>(---ed, 5).</B> Therefore, =
scholars=20
believe there is no more reason to explore and critique the short =
story.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In part, this attitude is due =
to O.=20
Henry, a profuse short story writer who promoted the formulaic style. =
Between=20
1900 and 1920 his influence results in a market saturated with =91How =
To=94 books=20
for short story writing. This prescription earns critical contempt, =
exemplified=20
by Gilbert Seldes who writes; =93=91The American short story is by all =
odds the=20
weakest, most trivial, most stupid, most insignificant art work produced =
in any=20
country=92=94 <B>(---ed, 6).<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
/><o:p></o:p></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>I assume Seldes=92 complaint is about =
literary worth=20
versus pure entertainment. If a typical short story has the five basic=20
constituents of description, character(s), dialogue, pace, and plot (all =
of=20
which are influenced by the author=92s narrative style), then what, if =
any, are=20
the differences between literary short stories and entertaining short =
stories?=20
The answer exists here upon the University of Oklahoma campus in the =
separate=20
entities of the English Department=92s Creative Writing program and the =
Journalism=20
Department=92s Professional Writing program. After purchasing and =
perusing the=20
Professional Writer=92s textbooks, my own definition is that =
=93professional=94=20
writers are more stringently formulaic and write pure entertainment for=20
immediate sales and profit. Conversely, the creative writer attempts to =
write=20
literature, a story that is both entertaining and also has a thoughtful =
depth, a=20
work that may remain as a timeless, worthy read.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT size=3D3>Certainly, there is no shame in =
the=20
entertainment profession. Looking back on my youth I am certain I read =
many=20
professional writing works in the likes of Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys =
mysteries.=20
But the worthy short story, those that I believe literary, are the =
stories that=20
cause readers to pause and consider a moment in the story, a moment they =
can=20
recognize in their own life, a feeling they have felt, a thought they =
have=20
considered. And then to realize that the story=92s author has felt or =
thought as=20
they have, whether the author is young and new, or like Shakespeare, 500 =
years=20
deceased. Further, the spark that ignites a reader=92s epiphany may also =
be a=20
concept they have yet to consider. These important moments are why, I =
believe,=20
many remember a story, title, or author more often than they recall a =
learning=20
experience from formulaic entertainment. That which exposes our common =
humanity=20
in any way, whether anger, sadness, or recognized familiarity, leaves a =
powerful=20
imprint upon the mind. Often, this depth that spurs such reader reaction =
is=20
called a work=92s sub-text or meta-text.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes"> =20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: =
0.25in"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT =
size=3D3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT =
size=3D3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT =
size=3D3> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>The three decades between 1930 and =
1960 produce=20
three laments: the short story lacks plot, social concern, and ideology. =
(6)=20
During this period the division forms between formulaic --what today is =
known as=20
=93professional=94-- writing and =93the quality literary story,=94 a =
tale written=20
without saleable concern (6). Writers in the 1940s abandon O. Henry=92s =
plot=20
formula and instead focus on =93incident or episode=94<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(7), which furthers a break =
from the=20
novel and brings the short story closer to lyric. Scholars finally begin =
studying short story structure and conclude that the narrative =
presentation and=20
resolution are extremely indirect and difficult for readers to recognize =
(9). In=20
the 1950s, critics decide that the short story pattern illustrates a =
change from=20
=93innocence to knowledge=94 (9) in the main character, a minor =
character, or the=20
reader. Also in this decade, Universities abandon the O. Henry formula, =
and for=20
good or ill, center more on =93techniques and psychological case =
studies=94 (8).=20
Thus, careful diction, and the mode to deliver these carefully chosen =
words=20
assume the plateau for what constitutes a worthy short story.</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
size=3D3><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">May finishes his historical =
account in same=20
decade as his book=92s publication, the 1970s, claiming that the =
=93extreme result=20
of this focus [results in an] extreme reaction.=94 (8). At the time, =
some critics=20
believe Short authors trade away basic story elements</FONT><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; =
mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-char-type: symbol; =
mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol"><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: =
Symbol">=BE</SPAN></SPAN><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">such as plot and character =
verisimilitude</FONT><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; =
mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-char-type: symbol; =
mso-symbol-font-family: Symbol"><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: =
Symbol">=BE</SPAN></SPAN><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">for extravagant technique. Of note is that 1969 =
is when=20
Tzvetan Todorov introduces his minimizing mathematics in =93Structural =
Analysis of=20
Narrative,=94 which may have contributed to overzealous technique and =
storytelling=20
declination.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>(Todorov =
2099-2106)=20
Though the critics struggle, again it is the authors that define their =
own work.=20
To begin, May cites Elizabeth Bowen=92s 1939 comment that, because the =
length=20
means fewer characters, and often times only one, the short story =
epitomizes=20
individual loneliness. To this, authors such as Eudora Welty and Joyce =
Carol=20
Oates add that the short story exemplifies mystery and dream (11-12). =
Mystery=20
and dream, however, seem subservient to loneliness when considering =
Conrad=92s=20
Marlowe, or any of Hemingway=92s journeys into mans personal darkness: =
the ever=20
suppressed fear of living and dying alone. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: =
200%"><FONT=20
size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New =
Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C50A4D.B016A200--
--=======AVGMAIL-4203116B4DDB=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
--=======AVGMAIL-4203116B4DDB=======--
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:13:25 -0600
Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
From: Melanie Wilderman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the issue in question
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; format=flowed
<html><div style='background-color:'><P>I think Ray Bradbury (one of my favorites) is a literary writer who made it his profession. He is entertaining (sometimes in a genre-type style) , but his prose are still very literary.</P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P>My opinion: you can be a published professional writer without being literary, but you cannot be a published literary writer without a professional aspect.</P>
<P>Melanie</P>
<P>P.S. I agree with the "individuals" comment. Every group, department, etc. has its jerks.<BR><BR></P></DIV><BR><BR><BR>--Melanie
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: John Berry <[log in to unmask]>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
<DIV></DIV>>To: [log in to unmask]
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: the issue in question
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:08:43 -0600
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Hello.
<DIV></DIV>>Here is an excerpt from a paper I am now writing. Please forgive the poor citations because I have yet to finish the draft.
<DIV></DIV>>Also, I have a story. Long ago my girlfriend at the time was sitting there reading a book I would consider garbage. I was about to say so , but then realized that any reading is better than none because it increases language understanding, the ability to communicate in words and in prose, stimulates the imaginative part of the brain (and that has to be important), and finally, it's better than watching television and having the mind led along. Nowadays especially, I believe those that can focus long enough to read may be a dying breed.
<DIV></DIV>>Personally, I have always disliked the split in the departments and the ongoing division and derision which is created internally; i.e. each side "knows" the other is snobby or conceited (you may take your choice of which adjective describes what department).
<DIV></DIV>>As usual, it boils down to individuals. No one should be pre-judged and each person should be taken as an individual. If he/she is nice, great. If he/she is a snob, that's a shame.
<DIV></DIV>>Anyway, here is my excerpt. I would also like to pose the following question: Is Ray Bradbury a professional writer or a literary writer?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>JB
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>For his supposition regarding this problem, May suggests that the early twentieth- century criticism was overly methodical and "the form became solidified by rules and tainted by commercialism" (---ed, 5). Therefore, scholars believe there is no more reason to explore and critique the short story. In part, this attitude is due to O. Henry, a profuse short story writer who promoted the formulaic style. Between 1900 and 1920 his influence results in a market saturated with 'How To" books for short story writing. This prescription earns critical contempt, exemplified by Gilbert Seldes who writes; "'The American short story is by all odds the weakest, most trivial, most stupid, most insignificant art work produced in any country'" (---ed, 6).
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I assume Seldes' complaint is about literary worth versus pure entertainment. If a typical short story has the five basic constituents of description, character(s), dialogue, pace, and plot (all of which are influenced by the author's narrative style), then what, if any, are the differences between literary short stories and entertaining short stories? The answer exists here upon the University of Oklahoma campus in the separate entities of the English Department's Creative Writing program and the Journalism Department's Professional Writing program. After purchasing and perusing the Professional Writer's textbooks, my own definition is that "professional" writers are more stringently formulaic and write pure entertainment for immediate sales and profit. Conversely, the creative writer attempts to write literature, a story that is both entertaining and also has a thoughtful depth, a work that may remain as a timeless, worthy read.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Certainly, there is no shame in the entertainment profession. Looking back on my youth I am certain I read many professional writing works in the likes of Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys mysteries. But the worthy short story, those that I believe literary, are the stories that cause readers to pause and consider a moment in the story, a moment they can recognize in their own life, a feeling they have felt, a thought they have considered. And then to realize that the story's author has felt or thought as they have, whether the author is young and new, or like Shakespeare, 500 years deceased. Further, the spark that ignites a reader's epiphany may also be a concept they have yet to consider. These important moments are why, I believe, many remember a story, title, or author more often than they recall a learning experience from formulaic entertainment. That which exposes our common
humanity in any way, whether anger, sadness, or recognized familiarity, leaves a powerful imprint upon the mind. Often, this depth that spurs such reader reaction is called a work's sub-text or meta-text.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The three decades between 1930 and 1960 produce three laments: the short story lacks plot, social concern, and ideology. (6) During this period the division forms between formulaic --what today is known as "professional"-- writing and "the quality literary story," a tale written without saleable concern (6). Writers in the 1940s abandon O. Henry's plot formula and instead focus on "incident or episode" (7), which furthers a break from the novel and brings the short story closer to lyric. Scholars finally begin studying short story structure and conclude that the narrative presentation and resolution are extremely indirect and difficult for readers to recognize (9). In the 1950s, critics decide that the short story pattern illustrates a change from "innocence to knowledge" (9) in the main character, a minor character, or the reader. Also in this decade,
Universities abandon the O. Henry formula, and for good or ill, center more on "techniques and psychological case studies" (8). Thus, careful diction, and the mode to deliver these carefully chosen words assume the plateau for what constitutes a worthy short story.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>May finishes his historical account in same decade as his book's publication, the 1970s, claiming that the "extreme result of this focus [results in an] extreme reaction." (8). At the time, some critics believe Short authors trade away basic story elements¾such as plot and character verisimilitude¾for extravagant technique. Of note is that 1969 is when Tzvetan Todorov introduces his minimizing mathematics in "Structural Analysis of Narrative," which may have contributed to overzealous technique and storytelling declination. (Todorov 2099-2106) Though the critics struggle, again it is the authors that define their own work. To begin, May cites Elizabeth Bowen's 1939 comment that, because the length means fewer characters, and often times only one, the short story epitomizes individual loneliness. To this, authors such as Eudora Welty and Joyce Carol Oates add
that the short story exemplifies mystery and dream (11-12). Mystery and dream, however, seem subservient to loneliness when considering Conrad's Marlowe, or any of Hemingway's journeys into mans personal darkness: the ever suppressed fear of living and dying alone.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
<DIV></DIV>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
<DIV></DIV>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
<DIV></DIV></DIV></div></html>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:31:56 -0600
Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
From: Kent Graham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Ray Bradbury
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------000306060107090406030604"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000306060107090406030604
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm reposting the following on behalf of Deborah Chester, whose original
message got dumped somehow into the error bucket:
Subject:
Re: the issue in question
From:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:18:49 -0600
Hmmm. Having read some of his essays on how he became a writer and
learned/developed his craft, I'd say that Bradbury is about as Beow as a
writer can get. The fact that critics also like him is just an added
bonus. He certainly doesn't write with an eye to pleasing critics or
patrons.
DC
--------------000306060107090406030604
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Trebuchet MS">I'm reposting the following on behalf of
Deborah Chester, whose original message got dumped somehow into the
error bucket:<br>
<br>
</font>
<table class="header-part1" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">Subject: </div>
Re: the issue in question</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">From: </div>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">Date: </div>
Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:18:49 -0600</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<p><big><font face="Times New Roman">Hmmm. Having read some of his
essays on how he became a writer and
learned/developed his craft, I'd say that Bradbury is about as Beow as
a writer can get. The fact that critics also like him is just an added
bonus. He certainly doesn't write with an eye to pleasing critics or
patrons.</font></big></p>
<big><font face="Times New Roman">DC</font></big><br>
</body>
</html>
--------------000306060107090406030604--
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:44:42 -0600
Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
From: Kent Graham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: A Scholarship Opportunity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------090806090709090403090304"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090806090709090403090304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm sending this at Dr. Jim Davis's request:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Dr. Davis,
Would you please recommend any of your students, at your discretion, for
the Journalism Studies Scholarship which is being sponsored by The
Association of Young Journalists and Writers? To apply for the $2,000
scholarship, students should fill out the simple online application
without processing fee. Students interested, should visit our website:
http://www.ayjw.org
Besides scholarships, the website also has many useful features for the
aspiring journalist or writer. From help getting published to monthly
writing prizes, AYJW is the place for students who seek a future in
writing.
On the website are also featured a media directory and a college
directory. Your program is included in our college directory which
assists high school students seeking such an education choose the right
college. Please let your students know of this scholarship and writing
support available for them through the association. You can
alternatively email their names and emails to us or print an
announcement about the scholarship and post it. This can be found at:
http://ayjw.org/scholarships/info.php
Thank You Very Much,
Robert Anderson - AYJW Scholarships Coordinator
www.ayjw.org
--------------090806090709090403090304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Trebuchet MS">I'm sending this at Dr. Jim Davis's request:<br>
<br>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br>
<br>
</font><tt>Dear Dr. Davis,
<br>
<br>
<br>
Would you please recommend any of your students, at your
discretion, for the Journalism Studies Scholarship which is being
sponsored by The Association of Young Journalists and Writers? To apply
for the $2,000 scholarship, students should fill out the simple online
application without processing fee. Students interested, should visit
our website:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ayjw.org">http://www.ayjw.org</a>
<br>
<br>
Besides scholarships, the website also has many useful features
for the aspiring journalist or writer. From help getting published to
monthly writing prizes, AYJW is the place for students who seek a
future in writing. <br>
<br>
On the website are also featured a media directory and a
college directory. Your program is included in our college directory
which assists high school students seeking such an education choose the
right college. Please let your students know of this scholarship and
writing support available for them through the association. You can
alternatively email their names and emails to us or print an
announcement about the scholarship and post it. This can be found at:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ayjw.org/scholarships/info.php">http://ayjw.org/scholarships/info.php</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank You Very Much,<br>
Robert Anderson – AYJW Scholarships Coordinator<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ayjw.org">www.ayjw.org</a></tt><br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090806090709090403090304--