I find it difficult to just sit and listen without multitasking, so that was my biggest stumbling block in consuming this narrative. Still, as an individual who works on a podcast (recording and editing segments - I don't put together the finished product but I do know the work that entails. I think it would be safe to say that I'm more interested in the production of audio segments and podcasts in general than the product), I have a lot of appreciation for the final editing of this radio segment. I felt like the extraneous sounds detracted from the overall message - when there was music playing behind the discussion, I found the music distracting me from what was being said. There were also some discordant sound effects, especially towards the beginning of the radio segment, that pulled me out of the narrative and made it difficult for me to become re-involved.
The way the narrative was constructed, though, both within description, and the way that actual vocal inflection could be directly heard, was quite compelling.
My issue, however, is that I am a visual learner - books and images stay with me a lot better than audio. I have listened to the segment three times, and I still can't draw any major points away from it. Maybe the issue is the length - when I was younger, I listened to NPR religiously when driving to and from school, and I always found the five-minute segments quite interesting and easy to attend to, and the longer segments more difficult to take in.
Jacob's Ladder (Atlantic article)
As someone who is actively interested in Africa, African politics, and African history, this piece automatically appealed to me. I appreciated that it provided background on South Africa - I know a decent amount of South African history, but nowhere near as much as I know about Eastern Africa. Although very little of the information given was new to me, it was nice to have a refresher, and I'm certain that what was given would be especially helpful for people who are unfamiliar with South African history and politics.
I know this was a piece on Jacob Zuma, and it is a well-executed piece. However, I kept finding myself wanting more of Khumalo's story - what are her thoughts on Zuma's life, and on her own life? How did she react when Zuma went into politics after promising he wouldn't? What are her feelings on the rape scandal and subsequent trial, and especially to Zuma's form of "protection" against HIV? I would have also liked more opinions from lay people, including the woman with the cross mentioned towards the end of the piece.
I guess this is what Franklin would refer to as not telling the story at hand - though the story told was very interesting and very well-done, I kept finding myself attracted more to the "silent women" that Zuma and the author of the piece, Douglas Foster, referred to than to Zuma himself. I would have definitely appreciated a little more about others an their reactions to him, and a little less about Zuma, himself.
Writing for Story
I have some serious problems with this book (I livetweeted them, actually, but rather than re-posting the tweets here (most of the tweets are visceral, knee-jerk reactions to specific passages I found questionable or even offensive, generally for personal reasons), I will incorporate some of my tweeted points into my response to this book), so I'm going to be honest here: I felt like, though the message was important, the delivery left a lot to be desired. Technically, the book is quite useful, especially when Franklin breaks down the parts of the narrative, and the best way to approach each part. I even appreciated the story he told of the adolescent writer. However, the devil is in the details and I must say that I'm disappointed with much of what I read. I definitely feel like the vehicle for making the points Franklin made was lacking. For starters, although the chapters on Polishing and The Nature of Art and Artists had really salient content, I did not feel like his points - especially about the need for consistent clarity - were met in the writing samples he gave. Maybe I'm just a product of my education, with irrelevant preconceptions that arguments are made stronger when you bring in outside evidence rather than just using your own points, but I thought that he would have been able to make his case a lot better had he used writing samples produced by other people, rather than himself. As it is, I felt that his holding his own writing as an example of what writing should be came across as very cocky, and rather unfounded.
I understand that they are technically good pieces, though I felt like they were quite vague in areas. Especially in the case of "Mrs Kelly's Monster" - I read that narrative twice before continuing onto the chapters about structure and outline, and still, when Franklin pointed out exactly what "clever choices" he made with his structuring and polishing of that piece, it was inevitably something that I had either not noticed, or felt was very heavy-handed.
I still did manage to bookmark several things that I know I will draw from as I continue on in the future. I already have a strong outlining system that has served me well in the past, but I will be taking on aspects of his, especially with regards to matching up the introduction and resolution of conflicts. I also found the list of no-no verbs quite useful, as well as the concept of identifying and removing "woodwork" from the final product (unless you have a flair for making it work after years of practice).
Also, as a side note: I realize the book is copyrighted 1986 and that times were ultimately different then, but by 1972, the officially-sanctioned term for Trisomy 21 had switched from "Mongoloid" to "Down syndrome;" a change not echoed in this work.
Questions for the Class
- Do you consider the outlining structure Franklin proposes to be effective for your writing style? Do you think that there's another way of outlining that works better for you? Do you outline your works now, and, if not, do you now plan on starting to do so? How can you adapt the outline structure he provides to best suit your needs?
- Have you been guilty of "woodwork" in the past? If so, what actions did you take in order to eliminate it? It can be difficult to decide that a beautiful passage that you've written is woodwork, so what suggestions do you have for noticing woodwork in your own future pieces?
- Consider both "Mrs. Kelly's Monster" and "The Ballad of Old Man Peters" in the context of what Franklin says about Polishing your work, and about The Nature of Art and Artists. What about these narratives worked for you? Did anything not work for you? Why/why not?
Saskia--I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I’m surprised that, after being so nit-picky with us as readers and writers-in-training, he doesn’t hold himself to the same level in terms of accuracy (I’m referring to his out-dated and even offensive terminology used to describe “Down syndrome”).
ReplyDeleteI also think it would have been helpful if he had more “outside examples” (aka not his own writing). For instance, he says that great writers like Shakespeare used outlines and such--but it might have been nice to have some concrete examples from those works. He does use some of his students’ writing as samples—but it’s still a bit too close-to-home because he’s the one teaching and correcting them.
Great discussion questions. I won’t answer all of them now, but I did want to respond a bit to the first one. I can say with an emphatic YES that I think this book will prove very useful for me technically—it’s easy to get stuck in my head as a writer, and the outlining will force me to break down the core essence of my stories. I don’t know how religiously I’ll follow all of his advice, but it’s nice to be offered a fresh perspective on how to start from the ground up (from simple yet deliberate outline to polished piece).