|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: The Most Natural thing in the world (Read 7212 times)
|
David Marsh
Guest
|
In a way this short story made me think of one of Bill Clinton's speeches, only a bit more NASTY. I kept thinking "what a great line" until I hit the end of the piece, and I looked back at it. I almost felt tricked by the almost saccharine nature of Casselle's writing: he sure is a talented airbrush-artist. I guess i mean this:
"This very table, which was edged with a channel groove, a groove sloping down to a hole at the low end, a hole over a splattered bucket, the bucket dangling over the blood-red floor; the floor painted red so the blood wouldn't show up on it."
Zine's great btw - think the leper guy in the Keller post may be on crack.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
i am not a leper, you fucking diabetic!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
Any thoughts on the Casselle piece, Leper?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
read the first page. not sure if i have the patience to finish it. at first i was afraid, i was petrified, of errors like "sinister stealth." anyone else with me on a constitutional ban on alliteration? or at least, obvious ones like that?
but, to my dismay, some good lines followed. it's fine. i wouldn't bother reading a book by the fellow, but i wouldn't bother arguing with a cassellenik, either.
i don't think the sentence old marshy cites is all that bad. good old marshy. dear, sweet marshy.
far worse is this one: "A dented black cylinder of oxygen stood between the bed and an open window, and a breeze blew in like a rat, skittering, brushing her sun-cooked face with the thin gauze of the stained curtain, and, over the bed, under a portrait of a bored-looking Christ, ruffling and flapping a time-yellowed thumb-tacked note bearing the message that someone was due back any minute."
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 08:37:01 AM by the lerpa »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
You are a model of Weberian social theory, the lerpa. You define yourself in opposition to things. Only the first page? I'll remove pagination for good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
on the other hand, lines like "It looked like an elephant's eye, squinting" speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
i wish you would remove the pagination. some of these stories tire me out too much to click the 'next' button.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
I've removed pagination from "The Most Natural Thing in the World." Now you can read the first page again, and let us know what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
so tired... so world-weary...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
So you object to the overt "poeticism" of the piece?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
i actually like that elephant eye line; i wasn't being sarcastic there. you should add a flat, emotionless expression to your selection of smilies, so i can put it after my non-sarcastic sentences.
to answer your question, though, there's a certain species of metaphor/simile that i just can't stomach in contemporary fiction. it's hard to define adequately, but let's just say that i don't want to hear some author's precious comparison of a breeze to a rat, or splotches of sunlight to butter. i just don't give a shit what you think of the wind, you know?
there's too much (bad) metaphor these days. i blame nabokov.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
David Marsh
Guest
|
I don't see what diabetic has to do with anything.
And if someone did describe sunlight as butter - they would be playing with the senses. It depends what context the metaphor is used in. I believe that is what you were talking about in your posts on the Keller piece, which I do not believe as much vitriol as it was given. Perhaps the forum moderator might think of censoring some of these posts? I am sure thr author would be upset if she read what was written about her work. I wonder if the leper has ever written anything at all worth reading. Doubtful. Now I'm sure he's on crack.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
Did you say censor?
I'm listening to Linger by the Cranberries. I hate the Cranberries. I needed something like the Cranberries or Enya to calm me down. Yes Enya. Good god. Censor? You mean take out posts that are critical of other people? I suggested turning the heat down on the debate.
I would imagine the leper is on crack, but that's his choice. You can report him to the feds if you like.
Censor. Really? Hmm.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 10:04:29 AM by Gregor Millen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
David Marsh
Guest
|
I just meant that some of these posts wouldn't be acceptable on other forums. I didn't mean to act like the secret police.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
Ok let's focus on the Casselle piece.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 10:04:39 AM by Gregor Millen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
maybe the forum moderator could censor posts containing painfully obvious points, since they might upset persons of intelligence. comparing the sun to butter is playing with the senses? really, marshy? please now explain what i meant before by alliteration, you pedantic nit.
seriously, though, you should be ashamed of yourself, recommending censoring. it'd be one thing if i just flamed these authors without giving any reason for it. as far as i can see, though, my posts, while more vitriolic than yours, are also better argued, supported, and written. and whether i've written anything worth reading or not is beside the point, as you well know. by that standard, anthony lane's movie reviews aren't worth reading; after all, he's never directed a feature film. in any case, if we sorted posts by writing ability, i feel confident you would fall well below me on the list (please note that this hypothetical list is arranged in descending order of ability).
(by the way, the sunlight::butter and breeze::rat language are both from the casselle piece.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
FROM THE AUTHOR:
Ha ha! Do I care to step into an unruly session of Creative Writing for Working Adults and get pelted by spitballs? Not really...the opinions expressed aren't meaningful enough to respond to...I honestly can't make out what the 'critic' was trying to express other than his animosity. What strikes me most about so much low-level blog-type lit opinion-making is the righteous lack of insight or sophistication...they all boil down to 'there's only one way to write and I'm the one who knows which way that is, buddy'. (Raymond Carver is always a safe style haven when dealing with the yobs). It's just a consumerist pose about taste disguised as literary criticism. As to that 'air-brush' thing...huh? And I really like it when some nobody sets himself up as the Metaphor Mullah...announcing his list of No-Nos without a shred of reasoned support.
That knock on 'sinister stealth' gives away the technique at work...the guy once read some sophomore style manual claiming that alliteration is bad and, seeing an incidental example of it, pounced. Completely missing the meaning of the phrase! Well, don't tell him about the 'B.B.C.' or the 'S.S.'
[The author gave us permission to reprint his email]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 11:32:18 AM by Gregor Millen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
look again, dear author, i was criticizing carver, not praising him.
your accusation that i borrowed my dislike of alliteration from a style manual is too presumptuous to dignify with a response. suffice it to say, if you think "sinister stealth" is an acceptable alliteration (heh), you've got a tin ear (not that i needed your defense of it to deduce as much; your story is littered with equally facile/stilted turns of phrase). my shreds of evidence to support the crappiness of the phrase are as follows: it loudly calls attention to its obvious alliteration, and its onomatopeia (intended or not) of the sound of a letter being slipped under a door is lame. whether the alliteration was incidental, as you say it was, is irrelevant; you still should have thrown it away.
here's a bit of presumption: i doubt the alliteration was incidental, except possibly at the moment it occurred to you. more likely, you sat back and admired your bit of discovered poetry.
i defy you to point out where i said there's only one way to write. since you've obviously been reading my posts on other threads, why not consult the one in which i say, "any style could conceivably work in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing." does that square with someone who thinks there's only one way to write?
finally, some of your jargon escapes me. consumerist? what exactly do you mean? b.b.c.? s.s.?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
Schutzstaffel (SS) British Broadcasting Company (BBC) - both alliterative. Also, when you post a message, you get: "Add BBC tags"
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 12:38:53 PM by Gregor Millen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
ah, i didn't think you were supposed to use periods in bbc, so i assumed it was something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
s.c.
Guest
|
Mr. Marsh:
'The Most Natural Thing in the World' may be too lyrical in style for your taste...far be it from me to police your taste. I'm not a politician looking for votes, but I will say that a hard-bitten style dealing with that setting and subject matter would be less than a revelation...it would be a cliche, in fact, don't you think? In any case, one thing the story is not is an 'air-brush' job or something in any way resembling a speech by Bill Clinton...I assume that you mean, by making that comparison, you found it artificially uplfiting?
The story is about a child molester. Perhaps you've misinterpreted the understated ending. The final scene is the aftermath of a rape. Henry, the intended victim, missed it by sheer luck. Bill, ironically, therefore won the race to lose his virginity.
The sentence you quoted and take exception to has its place, and is a piece with the rest of the writing, and, again, may not be your cup of tea, but violates nothing within the tone or meaning of the overall atory. If you read the story out loud with care you'll find it reads in stretches like an epic poem or incantation or sermon, and the words are chosen carefully for the sense they are meant to convey as well as the sound they achieve. Could things be trimmed a bit here or there? Surely! But the same can be said of any piece of writing, ancient or new. Journalistic efficiency is not the point in work of this type, is it? The point is wedding an idea (or two) to the sensual pleasure of reading...not the blunt transmission of plot. And not everything that you don't like personally is faulty. It may take some time or effort to appreciate, or it may be best for you to pass on it completely. But I am not a sloppy writer and whether this particular story is my favorite or not, I distilled it to the essence of itself before sending it away. Obviously, it's not for people who are pressed for time, but I'm certain that a careful reading of it repays the effort.
And I'm not about to dignify that 'lerpa' nitwit's faux-critiques by engaging him, but I'll show you a point I made in a friendly exchange with the editor:
"And no one expects him (the lerpa) to have written a masterpiece in order to earn the right to nitpick...but it's reasonable to ask to see a selection of his published (non-forum or non-blog) critiques. Before dignifying his cat piss with a sniff, i mean."
Thanks!
S.C.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the lerpa
Membrissimo
Posts: 23
life is gay
|
what a silly little man you are, casselle. first of all, the millions who've been following this thread know that is i who shall not dignify you with a response! second, why is it you need to vet the published critiques only of those who dislike your work, but require no such references from those who generally like it (marsh), albeit in a backhanded way? weird!
(i confess, i have no published critiques, nor have i sought to publish any.)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 03:25:06 PM by the lerpa »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
Let's keep it constructive.
I think S.C. answered for himself very well.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 20, 2006, 05:15:31 PM by Gregor Millen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nial
Member
Posts: 1
|
What's all this then? Not quite sure how I wound up here or whether it's worth posting to this thread but I'm always amazed at how quickly the call for censorship sounds the minute someone posts in a tone that isn't to everyone's liking or is designed, by it's belligerence, to rankle. I don't know any of the people on this site (yet) but are you all such fragile, wide-eyed little does? I think some of the leper's points are quite valid - again, the tone is designed to take the piss, have a little fun etc and middlebrow minds might have a hard time seeing beyond this - and it smacks of childish indignation for the author to refuse to address him until he produces a CV to the author's liking. It is also cowardly. You're defensive condescension ("Ha ha! Do I care to step into an unruly session of Creative Writing for Working Adults" and "What strikes me most about so much low-level blog-type lit opinion-making") betrays your mediocrity. If you tried engaging your critics substantively instead of snottily your parents might, in time, grow to love you and you might, in time, win the heart of a member of the fairer sex. But only one of the ugly ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
I think only one person suggested censoring. He has a small point: the tone sometimes isn't constructive. But we don't censor here. However, I think the author fought manly enough; I'm not sure if my own reaction would have been so controlled if I'd had my work derided in a public forum; perhaps he overreacted a little, but not much. Not much at all. I didn't find the story mediocre at all. I wouldn't have published if I had. And some of the points may have been fair; I think Casselle objected to the lerpa only reading the first page of his story. David Marsh has disappeared. (COME BACK - WE NEED YOU!).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 22, 2006, 12:59:46 PM by Gregor Millen »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
s.c.
Guest
|
Actually, Gregor...
...what I ‘object’ to is the never-ending stream of unfiltered, uneducated, uninteresting opinion I see pouring out of online forums, literary or otherwise, and which tend to be 90% ad hominem attack per 10% unsupported decree. I’m quite sure that most of the people with interesting, well-reasoned opinions opt out of these 'debates' for fear of the indignity of rolling around in the mud with these posters…of whom I must say the most vituperative are almost always the last to bring actual ideas to the table. Are we really discussing the fine points of reading and writing here? Consider the post prior to your last…not exactly Edmund Wilson, is he? Not even Dale Peck.
Not even Daffy Duck, actually.
More like a pseudonymous (twice removed) aggrieved prior poster exercising his bit of d’esprit d’escalier a day after it dawned on him just how foolish he came off in the original exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmandaH
Guest
|
I think matters of "style" tend to generate a moral element in discussion because style is an engagement with a kind of ideal literary other self. This is why I called it a "mask" in an other thread. That is, even the naughty language and belligerence are, as the Lerpa pointed out, a "passion play" (i.e. a morality drama).
This doesn't mean that value judgments are right on (or wrong for that matter) but rather that the moral element is perhaps something inherent in discussion and experience of style qua literary production.
Just my two cents,
AJH
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
S.C.
Guest
|
Well, I'd say that Amanda's point was an interesting point on its own but doesn't reflect, in reality, the tone of this discussion, which started off as merely derisive and quickly shaded into cartoon bitchery. Where are the IDEAS? Is stating a preference the expression of an idea? Is simply quoting a sentence considered a reasoned argument against the justice of the sentence? Read the story and explain the first poster's 'critique'. Is this considered a coherent critique?
Is the point of a forum like this to give anyone who has access to it an opportunity to vent a little spleen? I'm all for a proper wrestle over theory and practise, but I'd say that the poster's credential is the tone and the substance of his/her remarks, and the 'democratic' nature of posting shouldn't mean that anyone who put time into a bit of careful work is obligated to 'defend' said work against half-baked snipery. Is this AM radio or a Lit Forum?
Show me the ideas. Not the personal preferences: the IDEAS. Oh, and then...let them be of interest. Well thought-out.
Stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmandaH
Guest
|
S.C. you could be right re the tone of this thread, but I am trying to make a broader point, vis, that the nastiness (however stylized or whatever) still reflects a certain moral outcry. Now, that outcry may or may not reflect a serious interest in the story, I really don't know--the main players should speak for themselves there--but it reflects a need to engage morally in critique somehow, albeit possibly displaced. But let us assume that the players are ingenuous: one could argue that the "Bill Clinton" sound perceived by Mr. Marsh was in fact a stylistic gloss intended by the conscious author to create a kind of dissonance between content and tone, and the point was missed. But in that case, Mr. Marsh is definitely reacting to the story from a position of visceral moral excitability, which is my point.
What I am trying to get to, moreover, is that what I have termed the "moral element" has in fact the potential to engender 1) a "dumbed down" stylistics; and 2) when dissected, a closer reading of texts by means of the original visceral response.
BUT, let us recognize that reality principle after all: not all texts, nor critiques, are worth it.
AJH
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
S.C.
Guest
|
I agree (with mitigators...laugh) with both of your posts, G and A. And I wouldn't campaign to filter the comments...it's really not my concern...I'm just laying out my personal criteria for responding; explaining, that is, why I chose to 'engage' one poster and not another.
A point I'd now like to make which sums up most of my feelings about all this: I spent a hefty chunk of time building a layered, consequent, tightly-jointed story in 'The Most Natural...' in a real effort to provide an aesthetic experience worth a certain kind of reader's invesment of time. I'd appreciate the comments to be in the same good faith, pro or con. I don't expect all the comments to be well thought out...but if they aren't, why should they carry any weight, and why should I bother responding? Do the writers the reciprocal courtesy of the tiniest amount of effort, is what I'm saying.
To get specific: comparing a short story to a speech by Bill Clinton without elaborating (glib? uplifting? calculating? faux-inclusive? statistic-heavy?) is an essentially meaningless comment. Not to step on any toes. And using the word 'saccharine' about a story or style that produces the line 'the dead often smell faintly of shit' betrays either ignorance about the use of the word 'saccharine' or about the story.
It's not a short piece and skimming won't do it justice; I'd much prefer to respond to a critique that came about as a careful reading. Anyone who can't be bothered to put the time and energy into unerstanding a text can't expect the author of the text to take any resultant grenades seriously. They're just toys, such grenades, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Niall
Guest
|
S.C. will you stop whining if I promise to read your story? Intuition tells me no. My initial post (that was indeed my first - I am not an aggrieved prior poster. You remain the only aggrieved person here, poor little thing) was a reaction to your defensive snottiness.
First off, I am indeed Edmund Wilson and, other than the fact that I am dead, I defy you to prove otherwise! I won't cite to them here but both Lerpa and Marsh made substantive comments about your little story which you reject wholesale because you disagree with them. You're wounded by Lerpa's faux vitriol and by his and Marsh's criticism but are unable to address their points. For instance, to Marsh's Clinton/Saccharine comment all you say is you're wrong without actually asking for a clearer explanation. At any rate, it's very hard to take seriously one who writes sentences like, "If you read the story out loud with care you'll find it reads in stretches like an epic poem or incantation or sermon," without any sense of shame or, god forbid, irony.
P.S. I just wrapped up my post when I landed on the line "I spent a hefty chunk of time building a layered, consequent, tightly-jointed story in 'The Most Natural...' in a real effort to provide an aesthetic experience worth a certain kind of reader's invesment of time." What kind of reader are you referring to? You'll call him educated, sophisticated with a subtle and incisive mind capable of grasping your tight joints and many layers but all you're really saying is someone who agrees with you...likes your stuff. Have you no shame?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gregor Milne
Administrator
Poster Monkey
Posts: 72
The best friend I ever had
|
I've long thought that academic writing has become historiography (without meaning to insult the discipline--which is valuable). By that I mean it gets caught up in the study of studies--criticism of criticism...and the original work of study, whether it be a poem, or a story is lost. This is scholasticism. How about Niall read the story and see if the lerpa and the disappearing Marsh really are correct. Perhaps Nial may see some meaning outside of the snippets. Perhaps not. How bout it? Everyone's started arguing about the meaning of the previous post, and not about the story.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.C.
Guest
|
| | | | | |
