(no subject)
So I made this deal to post some part of some piece of fiction that I'm working on, no matter how unpolished it is. I did that, and got some useful feedback from Robert, with whom I had struck this deal, although Natalie seems to have abstained.
However, looking at Robert's piece, I found it hard to formulate anything intelligent to say. I think part of the reason, sadly, is that I'm really affected by the format in which I read something, and I'm starting to wonder about the extent to which this affects all of my commentary and in fact informs all of my reading.
For example, I have a very specific way that I read things on computer screens, especially on the internet, and especially when it appears in the rather narrow column that it does on my lj friends page. I read faster, I never mark the text (obviously, although I know there's software that lets you do that). In some ways I think I'm used to reading online with the goal of finishing as quickly as possible and getting back to real life.
I am used to reading magazines in a somewhat similar way, although you can read them anywhere you want, so it's not exactly the same. But I can't read fiction in, say, the New Yorker. Again, I think it might have to do with the columns, but I bet there's more to it than that. I know the New Yorker is a great publication and all, but I can't like anything I read in it, even though I like a lot of things that were originally published there. Interestingly, I'm fine reading poetry in that magazine, just not longer fiction. I'm sure I could change this if I got a subscription and read every week.
And then, of course, there's 8.5x11 paper. I have a really hard time reading anything on 8.5x11 paper without a pencil in my hand. If you could wipe my memory and present me with some of my favorite stories on 8.5x11 paper, I'd probably hand them back to you full of corrections and marginal notes. Some of my current favorite passages would probably come back marked, "Eh, this might be a little much. Thinking about toning it down."
You know what's doubly weird? If you photocopy something from the New Yorker onto 8.5x11 paper, I can read it just like it was in a book.
Which brings me to books. I wonder how differently I'd have reacted to Robert's unfinished "Fried Eggs" story if I saw it in a real book. Stuff in books feels so final. With a book, I tend to tune out my critical faculty and react with vague feelings of like or dislike, interest or boredom, etc. (Obviously, I should not have been an English major.) And yet sometimes I feel like that's the best way to look at a piece of fiction if you want to offer good advice. I don't think I could ever read a story on 8.5x11 paper and just say, "This was brilliant. No suggestions. I loved it."
That's an exaggeration. I mean all of that. It's more about mindset than anything else, but the format does affect my mindset to a higher degree than it should. Even changing the view on MS Word from "page layout" to "normal" makes me look at my own writing really differently.
However, looking at Robert's piece, I found it hard to formulate anything intelligent to say. I think part of the reason, sadly, is that I'm really affected by the format in which I read something, and I'm starting to wonder about the extent to which this affects all of my commentary and in fact informs all of my reading.
For example, I have a very specific way that I read things on computer screens, especially on the internet, and especially when it appears in the rather narrow column that it does on my lj friends page. I read faster, I never mark the text (obviously, although I know there's software that lets you do that). In some ways I think I'm used to reading online with the goal of finishing as quickly as possible and getting back to real life.
I am used to reading magazines in a somewhat similar way, although you can read them anywhere you want, so it's not exactly the same. But I can't read fiction in, say, the New Yorker. Again, I think it might have to do with the columns, but I bet there's more to it than that. I know the New Yorker is a great publication and all, but I can't like anything I read in it, even though I like a lot of things that were originally published there. Interestingly, I'm fine reading poetry in that magazine, just not longer fiction. I'm sure I could change this if I got a subscription and read every week.
And then, of course, there's 8.5x11 paper. I have a really hard time reading anything on 8.5x11 paper without a pencil in my hand. If you could wipe my memory and present me with some of my favorite stories on 8.5x11 paper, I'd probably hand them back to you full of corrections and marginal notes. Some of my current favorite passages would probably come back marked, "Eh, this might be a little much. Thinking about toning it down."
You know what's doubly weird? If you photocopy something from the New Yorker onto 8.5x11 paper, I can read it just like it was in a book.
Which brings me to books. I wonder how differently I'd have reacted to Robert's unfinished "Fried Eggs" story if I saw it in a real book. Stuff in books feels so final. With a book, I tend to tune out my critical faculty and react with vague feelings of like or dislike, interest or boredom, etc. (Obviously, I should not have been an English major.) And yet sometimes I feel like that's the best way to look at a piece of fiction if you want to offer good advice. I don't think I could ever read a story on 8.5x11 paper and just say, "This was brilliant. No suggestions. I loved it."
That's an exaggeration. I mean all of that. It's more about mindset than anything else, but the format does affect my mindset to a higher degree than it should. Even changing the view on MS Word from "page layout" to "normal" makes me look at my own writing really differently.