Slipping into your story during revisions

[Holly]

... I find my revisions start out well, and then after a little while I suddenly realize I haven't made a single mark on the paper for three or four pages. I got sucked into the story and forgot what I was supposed to be doing ... What tricks do you use to keep yourself from slipping into your story while you revise?

Hello, Sanderling. This is an interesting topic. Here's my trick, which you might think is nuts.

I print the whole thing out, staple each chapter as a separate document, and RETYPE them in a new document on my computer. It's impossible to get lost in the story, plus as I retype I rewrite, cut out the excess, etc. Works for me.

[polymath]

It is actually pretty eye-opening to look this way at books you weren't crazy about.

It's a requirement in literature coursework to read assigned narratives and critically respond to them, no matter how dreary or tedious the narrative might be. The critical response cannot be negative, discourteous, find fault with the method or message, demeaning, or in any way derogatory or disapproving. Finding valid points to respond appropriately and critically to taxes mental faculties, until the unstated rubrics are recognized. Think for yourself, consciously, critically, conscientiously.

No one is there to tell you how to do it or even to tell you what the rubrics are or whether you're right or wrong, since there are no right or wrong answers, per se. It's up to you to figure it out on your own. Huh. Yep, that's the whole point of liberal arts studies, to foster thinking for one's self. Writing and literature study go hand in hand in that regard.

Other unstated rubrics; prepare a well-founded opinion by reading and investigating the intents and meanings of an assigned or chosen narrative. At root, identifying and intepreting the intents and meanings of the motifs and themes on point are paramount. Then take a stand, make a credible point, and support it concisely and cogently and most of all persuasively, which the latter means making it engaging.

Doing the above benefits the individual and society as a whole, and for writers, most builds skills for evaluating and improving one's own writing.

[Sanderling]

Wow, Holly - that's gotta be tedious and time-consuming, but I can totally see how that would work! Even for a fast typer. How many times do you retype the whole thing? Just once, I hope! Maybe I could try that for a single chapter and see whether I'm finding it effective or if I'm pulling my hair out by the end.

I admire people who can critically respond to literature, polymath. English was always my worst course in high school because while I loved to read, I hated having to dissect works of fiction. To my mind, fiction was written to entertain and to be enjoyed, not to be examined for themes and structure and etc. I'm of the opinion that many of the authors whose work we looked at were probably at the time they were writing oblivious to the themes and meanings we're attributing them and the stuff we're writing essays on was never their intention. The process of dissection always ruined my enjoyment of the work. Fortunately, I don't think delving into the written work at that level of detail is quite as necessary in critiquing another author's unpublished manuscript. I'd be fascinated to see what themes, etc, a critical response to my work would discover, however.

[Holly]

Wow, Holly - that's gotta be tedious and time-consuming, but I can totally see how that would work! Even for a fast typer. How many times do you retype the whole thing? Just once, I hope! Maybe I could try that for a single chapter and see whether I'm finding it effective or if I'm pulling my hair out by the end.

Sanderling, I did that once, for the absolute final revision of an 80,000 word novel. It didn't take me that long, either. Before that, I tinkered endlessly with it. Good luck!

[polymath]

I admire people who can critically respond to literature, polymath. English was always my worst course in high school because while I loved to read, I hated having to dissect works of fiction. To my mind, fiction was written to entertain and to be enjoyed, not to be examined for themes and structure and etc. I'm of the opinion that many of the authors whose work we looked at were probably at the time they were writing oblivious to the themes and meanings we're attributing them and the stuff we're writing essays on was never their intention. The process of dissection always ruined my enjoyment of the work. Fortunately, I don't think delving into the written work at that level of detail is quite as necessary in critiquing another author's unpublished manuscript. I'd be fascinated to see what themes, etc, a critical response to my work would discover, however.

Close forensic reading reveals those school classics' themes and meanings and structures are intentional. Another degree of forensic reading involves a kind of lay pscychoanalysis analyzing subconscious influences, which is what psychoanalysis is. Accomplished authors might not at first realize the subconscious influences, but they become aware they inform their writing, and rewrite and revise and adjust future writing accordingly.

A first read whether for sheer pleasure, critique, or forensic analysis should be solely for stimulation, which is entertainment at its best. Then let forensic processes begin. Any given well-founded narrative might not have a strong emotional payoff on the first pass. Forensic reading might result in a spiritual or intellectual payoff, which can be an emotional payoff as well. James Joyce's Ulysses is a burdensome read, but it comes alive through forensic reading.

I've read quite a few literature essays by high school, undergraduate, graduate, and post graduate students and professors. By and large I feel they prospect for meaning and miss the mark. rather they're more about the critics' private meaning, which is fine, but missing out on a large part of the public conversation that the opus of literature is. Ones that get it are another matter. Sublime.

I've analyzed projects in progress. Ones that have a clear creative vision are comparatively easy for me to pick out their themes and subconscious influences. Sharing my views with the writers has then given them insights to develop their works to full realization. Ones that lack for a clear creative vision take considerably more effort to analyze and in my opinion aren't ready for it.

[Sanderling]

That's a good way to put a wrap on revisions, Holly! I don't expect to be a tinkerer, but since I'm not yet to the tinkering stage, who knows... Thanks again for the advice!

That's pretty interesting, polymath. Perhaps the problem with the analyses we did in high school wasn't the analysis itself, then, but rather the way the skill was taught to us. It makes me think of when I was taught creative writing, sometime in my preteens. We had to draw up complete character sketches, and outline the whole plot chapter by chapter, before we were allowed to start writing the actual story. I was never able to come up with anything interesting and I hated the whole process. For years (decades?) I thought I was no good at fiction. When I finally, by some whim or chance a few years ago, decided to try writing a piece of fiction, it turned out I'm a pantser/winger, letting the story unfold as I write, and that's why I'd struggled so all those years ago in school. Perhaps I just need to come at literature analysis from a different direction.

[polymath]

Compulsory education institutions tend to follow a compulsory curriculum and a compulsory model and methodology for writing and reading and literature study. It's one size fits all thinking for the most part. Also, teachers who are good at negotiating the politics of education tend to follow a prescriptive model because it's a sufficiently objective standard that can be evaulated by objective testing that doesn't rock the boat. Worse, they don't teach thinking for one's self, nor can they as they don't think independently for themselves. They teach to widely accepted methodology and interpretations that brook no dissent. Besides, it's not easy to keep up with a classroom full of alternative but equally valid viewpoints.

A compulsory, uniform, dull methodology and approach is all most teachers are able to provide. Institutional education requires a testable standard. However, original thinkers thinking for themselves can't be tested by an objective, easily gradeable standard. It takes an enlightened teacher to see beyond his or her own convenience and genuinely foster students' independent, conscious, critical, conscientious thinking.

The end result is students who are told what to think, how to come to the accepted and proper interpretations, and what a given circumstance means, without developing an individual faculty to express what it personally means, which more often that not is not only discouraged it's often ridiculed. Teachers reinforce accepted, standard processes through repetition. Students who are good at picking up on standard processes parrot them back for successful testing outcomes. That's as far as it goes. They can parrot what they've learned but not reproduce the thought processes independently, though they may develop effective thought processes later on in college or in everyday adult life, working or whatever.

Take Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451. The widely accepted interpretation is it's about the perils of censorship. Bradbury himself said in a coda to an '80s edition that's what it's about. However, in 2007, he said it's about how technology destroys culture. Another interpretation that touches on all the motifs of the novel says it's about how mass culture's convenient self-gratification, majority rules, might makes right attitude oppresses individual expression. Theme upon theme upon theme. Which one or some other is the central theme is a subjective matter open to interpretation, interpretations that may disturb the core of accepted thinking and meet stiff resistance though being equally valid or at least equally credible.

[akila]

Sanderling, I have this problem all the time and a really good remedy that nobody else has mentioned: read your ms out loud. Yes, read the whole thing. Yes, it takes a lot of time and you will be hoarse by the end of it. When I hear the words out loud, I catch all sorts of issues and annoyances that I don't catch when I'm reading on the page. Most published authors say that they always read their ms out loud before submitting.

[Sanderling]

Thanks for the tip, akila. I've heard that mentioned before, but only in the context of line edits; I hadn't really thought of using it for broader revisions. It makes sense, though! I'll have to give it a try.

So then it begs the question, polymath: if all most public schools are able to provide is a compulsory, uniform, dull methodology that doesn't teach thinking for oneself, why bother teaching it at all? Aren't we doing the kids a disservice here by presenting the material in this manner? Teaching them, effectively, to hate it? At least if the subject isn't touched on at all, then they're at worst indifferent. Since having stepped out into the "real world" myself, I've definitely felt that high school goes about it all wrong. Instead of teaching lots of subjects that most of the kids will never use again with the idea that it prepares them for post-secondary studies, I think that high school should emphasize life skills. Introduce kids to a broad variety of subjects but let the universities/colleges/trades handle their detailed instruction. There are still many high schoolers who never go on to higher education, and even those who do usually graduate without useful life skills such as money management or cooking or communication or - as you point out - independent, conscious, critical, conscientious thinking.

[polymath]

So then it begs the question, polymath: if all most public schools are able to provide is a compulsory, uniform, dull methodology that doesn't teach thinking for oneself, why bother teaching it at all? Aren't we doing the kids a disservice here by presenting the material in this manner? Teaching them, effectively, to hate it? At least if the subject isn't touched on at all, then they're at worst indifferent. Since having stepped out into the "real world" myself, I've definitely felt that high school goes about it all wrong. Instead of teaching lots of subjects that most of the kids will never use again with the idea that it prepares them for post-secondary studies, I think that high school should emphasize life skills. Introduce kids to a broad variety of subjects but let the universities/colleges/trades handle their detailed instruction. There are still many high schoolers who never go on to higher education, and even those who do usually graduate without useful life skills such as money management or cooking or communication or - as you point out - independent, conscious, critical, conscientious thinking.

Tragic chuckles, yes. Education politics impose a variety of burdens on teachers and students with conflicting mixed messages coming from all corners and overwhelming chaotic circumstances to negotiate.

An education is an inalienable right in free societies, but it's a negative right. A person has to want it bad and do most of it for him or herself. All a compulsory education provides is the bare minimum needed to get by, and in some respects, tools tantalizingly offered for what's needed to learn best for one's self.

What do school children really need to be competitive in local and global vocations? Reading, writing, and math skills at least. Lately, computer skills too. Auto mechanics around here now have to be able to enter data into a uniform database for state motor vehichle recordkeeping purposes or lose their certifications and thus their livelihoods.

What do teenage students really need to be competitive? Life skills, yes, as well as advanced reading, writing, math, and computer skills. The issue I see is by the age when they should be developing self-responsibility skills, their family and institutional guardians are by and large either indifferent or tyrranical or both in conflict with the other, which lets them run wild when no one is around to supervise and imposes severe supervision when they should be learning to responsibly supervise themselves so they can be fully productive, responsible citizens and enjoy the luxuries and privileges adult life affords.

Wanta know what high school's main mission is according to community colleges and universities, preparing students for advanced education. Preparatory schools serve that role for private school students who are shy of the mark. Much of the freshman and sophomore and vocational associate's degree curriculums involves preparation for unversity coursework. Sadly, the mission doesn't meet expectations. One of the more onerous required basic study skills courses for college and university freshmen is composition. I failed my first attempt at it, and dropped out of college for that and other reasons. My second attempt was all aces. I'm about to begin tutoring freshmen on composition, and will soon be teaching the courses.

Rightly so, the high school mission doesn't meet university expectations, though. Most high school graduates and new college students don't know what they want to grow up to be in the real world. They have ideas imposed upon them by their guardians, but no clear idea of what would best serve their needs and ambitions and meaningfully fulfill their adult lives. A couple years of peer social interaction helps them to develop their adult self-identity so they can decide for themselves what they are ready, willing, and able to become. Again, sadly, many fall by the wayside into excessive partying, neglecting their studies and developing poor self-responsibility skills.

High school guidance counselors are supposed to help students develop education and career plans, but politics and familial guardians impose severe limitations on what they can do. My high school counselor was the worst sort. She did everything she could to sabotage my high school education. She actually said to me I was from a privileged family, I didn't have to do much to succeed. She changed my course selections without anyone's approval, taking me out of advanced classes, refusing to enroll me for advanced classes, scheduling me for advanced classes during first periods, knowing full well I worked nights. I went behind her back and got the classes I wanted when I wanted them anyway. How wrong she was in many respects. I come from a poverty class background and graduated nonetheless into the poverty class, though with vocational, industrial, and college prep endorsements and honors distinction on my diploma. I'm still in the poverty class. But the foreseeable future is looking brighter.

Then there's real-world reasons. The vocational world wants tractable entry level candidates who can be molded into good workers who don't challenge the entrenched status quo. Those old timers jealously guard their status and are relucant to give it up to a bunch of hard charging, intelligent, competent young whippersnappers, which would upset the applecart and inflict chaos on the presupposed notions of the way it oughta be because that's the way it's always been, and in the main sense, because young and early adults don't yet have the wisdom and experience of age to effectively take charge of corporate or worldly affairs.

So, of course, force a minumum education standard down their throats, make them hate learning so they only do the absolute minimum they can get away with or drop out and go into menial labors or lives of crime, which, though they harm society, provides a going and growing wealth of careers and fortunes for corporate exploiters and vendors and workers for the criminal justice system, which is the deadfall trap of oppression in this present day real-world dystopia.

True achievers navigate the hazards eventually, by keeping their heads down in the books, alert to what's going on around them, and in waiting for their turn when it comes. The rest get caught up by the distractions and deadfall traps set by precedence and ancient notions of pragmatics to serve the least good by detouring the unwary into meaningless, empty, fruitless, unfulfilled lives.

It's a perfect world in my view, perfectly messed up so that only the strong survive. Huh, only the measure of what's survival, what's strong, what they mean, differs from humans' prehistoric survival.