(no subject)
I'm a bit worried about my coursework. They advised against submitting work which hasn't been "workshopped" - that is, work that hasn't been dissected and combed and groomed in class. One of the pieces I had workshopped was entitled "Grey Squares". It was about a journalist who calls himself Gulliver Deutschland investigating a society known as the Grey Square Society. This society dedicated itself almost religiously to the cause of not feeling anything at all about anything. They embraced apathy to such an extent that they literally cared about nothing. Literally!
In the piece I attempted to use a range of disparate sources in order to tell a single story. We learned about The Grey Square Society via Gulliver's article, his raw materials (eg. interview transcripts), conversations conducted with his editor and his photographer and his own thoughts and ruminations expressed as if directly to the reader. It was structured as follows:
1. Gulliver's article
2. Gulliver has a conversation with his editor about his article and discusses what he's going to do next.
3. A transcript of an interview with a parent of a society member - doesn't go well.
4. A conversation with the editor about his interview
5. Gulliver's article - dealing with the interview, everything's embellished even though he got nothing out of his interviewee at all - we get the impression that he's not the most moral of journalists.
6. A conversation with his photographer about the Grey Square Society
7. Gulliver's article - Lovecraftian reporting on his witnessing of a societal meeting. He is disturbed.
8. Gulliver has an argument with his editor - begins to understand as to why exactly people might turn to the Grey Square Society
All that quite neatly contained within 8000 words or so. The limit was 6000, so I only submitted up to his commentary on the meeting itself.
In the workshop they asked me about the nature of the magazine for which he works. I replied that I envisioned a sort of local version of The Fortean Times but, in actuality, it's more like a more sensationalist Daily Mail. They said that, in light of that, the article sections feel more like intelligent theses than fearmongering journalism. Make it colloquial and ridiculous, they said.
They also advised me to really think about the characters: The usual stuff. Where they've come from in order to get to the point at which we meet them. And they advised me to make sure that I know where they're going.
And they wanted more concrete dramatism (for want of a better expression) - that is, less vague narrative, more action.
Okokok, that's all good. So I decided to start from the top, to rewrite Gulliver's article as a piece of sensationalist tabloid journalism. For this I had to read a lot of opinion columns and I did, at one point, actually lose the will to live. I did.
That done, I decided to talk a little about the nature of the publication for which Gulliver writes and, knowing that people would wonder as to how one would end up working for a company they themselves found so abhorrent, I decided to explain exactly how this had come to pass.
Then came the conversation with the editor. And I now had a lot better idea of who these people were, so this conversation took much longer and contained more CONCRETE DRAMATISM (what an awful expression).
WELL. The word limit's 6000. I'm nearly 4000 words in and the structure is as follows:
1. Gulliver's article
2. Gulliver talks about himself and the paper for which he writes
3. Gulliver is briefed by his editor.
I'm worried because such is the extremity of my rewrite that the piece is now pretty much unrecognisable from the piece which the group so helpfully workshopped. Verily, it's still the same story. But it's changed so, so much. I don't know if it will be acceptable any more. This is completely unprecedented. I've never done anything like this.
In the piece I attempted to use a range of disparate sources in order to tell a single story. We learned about The Grey Square Society via Gulliver's article, his raw materials (eg. interview transcripts), conversations conducted with his editor and his photographer and his own thoughts and ruminations expressed as if directly to the reader. It was structured as follows:
1. Gulliver's article
2. Gulliver has a conversation with his editor about his article and discusses what he's going to do next.
3. A transcript of an interview with a parent of a society member - doesn't go well.
4. A conversation with the editor about his interview
5. Gulliver's article - dealing with the interview, everything's embellished even though he got nothing out of his interviewee at all - we get the impression that he's not the most moral of journalists.
6. A conversation with his photographer about the Grey Square Society
7. Gulliver's article - Lovecraftian reporting on his witnessing of a societal meeting. He is disturbed.
8. Gulliver has an argument with his editor - begins to understand as to why exactly people might turn to the Grey Square Society
All that quite neatly contained within 8000 words or so. The limit was 6000, so I only submitted up to his commentary on the meeting itself.
In the workshop they asked me about the nature of the magazine for which he works. I replied that I envisioned a sort of local version of The Fortean Times but, in actuality, it's more like a more sensationalist Daily Mail. They said that, in light of that, the article sections feel more like intelligent theses than fearmongering journalism. Make it colloquial and ridiculous, they said.
They also advised me to really think about the characters: The usual stuff. Where they've come from in order to get to the point at which we meet them. And they advised me to make sure that I know where they're going.
And they wanted more concrete dramatism (for want of a better expression) - that is, less vague narrative, more action.
Okokok, that's all good. So I decided to start from the top, to rewrite Gulliver's article as a piece of sensationalist tabloid journalism. For this I had to read a lot of opinion columns and I did, at one point, actually lose the will to live. I did.
That done, I decided to talk a little about the nature of the publication for which Gulliver writes and, knowing that people would wonder as to how one would end up working for a company they themselves found so abhorrent, I decided to explain exactly how this had come to pass.
Then came the conversation with the editor. And I now had a lot better idea of who these people were, so this conversation took much longer and contained more CONCRETE DRAMATISM (what an awful expression).
WELL. The word limit's 6000. I'm nearly 4000 words in and the structure is as follows:
1. Gulliver's article
2. Gulliver talks about himself and the paper for which he writes
3. Gulliver is briefed by his editor.
I'm worried because such is the extremity of my rewrite that the piece is now pretty much unrecognisable from the piece which the group so helpfully workshopped. Verily, it's still the same story. But it's changed so, so much. I don't know if it will be acceptable any more. This is completely unprecedented. I've never done anything like this.