All Things Steve Almond
 |
| Fenway Park at Night |
As I read Almond, I am struck with the feeling of two Steves. I sense an almost expatriate, Vonnegut resignation, but I also find him digging up nostalgic American bones. How do I, as a reader, balance phrases like: "The peculiar sickness of the American mindset may be located in the peculiar notion that the professional athlete . . . should serve as a moral exemplar" against phrases like: "Sometimes I need to pretend. Sometimes I need a broken-down old stadium, stinking of beer and mustard, and rain falling like flour before the sodium lights?" (For Frank: this is "Red-Sox Anti-Christ.") Or: "Our obsession with sport is clearly a symptom of imperial doom. We must remember: All that held Rome together at the end was spectacle" against: "the chance to surrender my will is not without its sacred pleasures--a language, however primitive, with which to seek the solace of other men."
I think about how we talked, in class, of his self-effacement, his honesty, his outright brutality against a critic followed by his admission of pain, and I wonder: is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? To lean forward to our readers without our makeup on? It seems to me that the writers I love the most make sacrifice to their own, god-like readers this way. It seems to me that I trust them more, then, feel more "involved" in their rants, diatribes, or observations than I would otherwise--even if I have been offended. It's more, well, human. It's the least we can ask of someone who would like a moment of our time.
I share my story, my thoughts, and my politics with my students. It put me at personal risk. Yet, aren't I asking the same of you? To write yourselves into being? To put yourselves on the old proverbial line and not hammer out some craptastic five-paragraph essay? I enjoy Almond because he seems to get that I need, as his reader, to feel him present in his craft. Anything else feels like cheating.
At the very beginning of his book, we have a quote from Vonnegut:
And Lot's wife, of course, was told not to look back where all those people and their homes had been. But she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human.
And here we have it, don't we? A writer looking back at American failure, broken ideals, salt marking the spot where a dream had been. Not because he never had faith, or out of some misguided sense of smug, self-righteous finality, but out of grief. Humanity.
Personally? I like the bar that high.
“To lean forward to our readers without our makeup on?” That quote kind of stuck out to me. Make-up is the tool used to cover up blemishes or to accentuate certain, more attractive parts of our face or body. When we write without our make up on (with honesty and without caring what others think) we are definitely vulnerable. And that is plain out scary. When you write like this in it is kinda like walking around naked. Just like Adam and Eve, but you know your naked right away. I’m not going to lie, when Dr. P told us that we were going to be blogging for the class I did have some reservations. Man what are these people going to think about me? Will they think what I have to say is significant? Will I be good at this blogging thing? But like Dr. P says in the blog prompt she is doing the same thing herself with her writing and such. I remember earlier this semester she was blunt in saying how she had a lot of wine at her pool and was suffering from a hangover. Whoa. But I can respect that because she owned up to it. I remember talking about how if she pretended to be an ivy-league-ish professor that we were gonna call her out. Side note. I thought it was cool she taught at Albany state and was knighted “Honorary Sista’”
ReplyDeleteBeing honest to our writing and our personality good traits and all can be intimidating and scary. But trying to put on airs or put on a front all the time is all just as damaging. Even though Almond is blunt and a pouty-mouth, he does make you think. His book is definitely more interesting than the orange book with the cow. Almond did make me chuckle some.
One cool thing about the blog we are doing in this class is it is the experimental place where you can say what is really on your mind, and also play with your style and voice. It is also a cool way to see how others view the world. I had a friend who had Dr. P a semester or so ago and he showed me some of the blogs his class did. I think it was really exciting for him to look back to see what he had wrote. This friend is also reading On Writing by Stephen King. I know that book was alluded to in class about a week or so ago. I am considering getting the book a look too.
Steve Almond has opened my eyes to a type of writing that I thought was a no-no in college—writing without worrying what others will think, and writing in unconventional ways. I’ve learned that following Almond’s style has allowed me to open up more and express my true feelings more. In a five paragraph essay, I can’t really do the aforementioned. In a traditional essay, I feel like I’m moving in slow motion. I’m worrying about impressing my professor with a load of bs that I sometimes have to look back at and ask myself: what did I just write? I guess that is where the makeup part comes in. Almond has taught me that you need to use a different writing style in order to be more open to yourself—deviate from the conventional ways of grammar. He breaks so many grammar rules that I find myself trying to correct him. But then, I break those same rules when I write in these blogs. It feels good to go against the norms of grammar. I’m breaking the rules. And getting away with it. I have a difficult time opening up because I’m more of a shy person. I feel as if Almond’s writing style has challenged me to be more open in my writing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zeke about the questions he posed. I had never blogged until this class, and it is a type of writing that I would love to use in my classroom one day. But I thought about some of the same questions. Then I realized that I just had to roll with it, and do the best I could…whether it was something someone agreed with our not. If you let people judge you and listen to them, then you’ll never be able to fully express yourself. You’ll be stuck in a writing rut.
Is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? Absolutely.
ReplyDeleteIn my American Lit class, we recently read “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot. Due to the theme of today’s blog, I feel that I should begin with the confession that I thoroughly disliked every second that I spent reading this poem – nonetheless, I am going to reference it with the hope of illuminating something relevant to this discussion.
“The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes,
Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening” (lines 15-17).
In this passage, the speaker is referring to the pollution that has invaded the air and permeated the city as a result of industrialization. The speaker is romanticizing the pollution (ugliness) around him because it has replaced that which he would usually dwell upon with admiration and fascination – nature. To me, this parallels those situations where you just have to laugh because, if you don’t, you’ll cry.
Now, step into the political spectrum:
How very often we make light of political issues because they make us feel so pitiful about the state of our nation or the competence of its leaders that our alternative emotional outlet would be sadness.
We admit the ugliness in the world and in our lives because that catharsis allows us to cope and to move forward – and therein is the beauty. It’s not the ugliness that’s beautiful. It’s our honest recognition of the ugliness, it’s the act of finding peace in the midst of the ugliness, it’s the humbling reminder of our human-ness that’s beautiful. And being able to share that with an audience is what makes for beautiful writing.
Is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? Always.
ReplyDeleteDo I want to admit that I make ugliness? Hell no.
This is why it is admirable. Steve Almond is able to do the things that I can’t. Admit fault. Admit pain. That bastard. Just when I think that I am completely turned off by him, he has this annoying little way of saying something completely heartbreaking and wonderful to remind me that he is human (not just some crazy, cynical ass). I wonder if the things that I don’t like about Steve are the things that I don’t like about myself. We are both overly critical of those around us. We both use sarcasm as shields. We both get carried away by our arrogance.
I think that I said last year that Steve, like ogres and onions, has layers. That goes for all people. Underneath our defense mechanisms lies the good stuff. The stuff we try to protect to avoid being vulnerable. The key is to let that show every now and then. People will like you better.
In just a few short weeks, I have learned so much from Steve Almond as a writer. Of course it is more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make instead of trying to cover it up and act like we are some kind of perfect freaks. We are imperfect beings, all of us, that is something that we all share as humans. Why try to hide who we are? Why try to pretend? Is it not better to embrace who we are? YES. We are not perfect, in fact, we are extremely flawed. But in a way, being flawed is beautiful. Yes, we make mistakes, but isn’t that part of the beauty of life? Though we do all make mistakes, we get to learn from them. That is part of the beauty of being imperfect. If you really think about it, life would be so boring if we were all flawless with the same ideas and beliefs. It is our differences that make us who we are, so why not be proud of those differences and demonstrate them in our writing? Steve Almond absolutely shows the benefits of “leaning forward to our readers without our makeup on.” Class discussions have made it clear that the majority of the people in our class find Almond’s work intriguing to read whether they particularly agree with him or not. It is Almond’s ability to allow his readers to see his imperfections that makes him so believable as a writer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Zeke and Noel about the comments they made about the blog. I also had some reservations when I found out that we were going to be blogging for this class. However, I must admit that after getting started I found it rather easy to open up with my idea and opinions and post them on the blog. It is a way for our classmates to see us as writers “without our makeup on.”
I love this: “is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? To lean forward to our readers without our makeup on?” To make yourself bare to your audience is scary, but it makes for amazing writing. Even when writing fiction, if the author can make a character so bare that I can relate to his or her humanity, I'm in. Now, do all successful writers do this? No, and the feature tables at chain bookstores tell me so. Reading Stephenie Meyer tells me so (I can appreciate Twilight for what it is, but when you get down to it...it's not much). My point is that you can write a story that sells books, but it doesn't mean its because your character portrays a “fucked up beautiful” humanity. It just means you can write a plot line. A really good writer can tap into that rawness and the reader recognizes it because it's there in the heart. I believe with Steve Almond that there are universal experiences that everyone can understand because everyone has emotion.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought: girls, do you remember the first time a boyfriend saw you without make up on? You're scared of what he might say, or not. The nakedness of your face seems to scream out at him, flaunting your natural imperfections, wishing, waiting to be accepted. For boys, I would think a similar experience or feeling would come from crying in front of a girl. The facade has fallen and there you are: human and ugly beautiful. It's like that with writing. If we show who we really are, let go of the make-up, someone will love us for what's underneath. The people (and writers) we love aren't the ones that we agree with all the time because they challenge us, inspire us, and relate to us with their humanity and honesty. God I hope I can be a good enough writer to make someone feel as many emotions and think as much as Steve Almond has made me feel and think. Perhaps one day. Sigh...
“It feels good to go against the norms of grammar.” I completely agree with Noel. It's exhilarating to know you're breaking the rules- especially when schooling and professors are so adamant on the correct way to do things. Breaking the rules of grammar helps develop style and voice just as much as the content of writing. It also feels good to not worry about comma splices and run-ons.
I also loved Kristin's comment: “It’s our honest recognition of the ugliness, it’s the act of finding peace in the midst of the ugliness, it’s the humbling reminder of our human-ness that’s beautiful.” This recognition of humanity connects readers and people, remembering how ugly we can be so we can recognize what's beautiful.
I love what AlyFronk said about people having layers - the good stuff is what lays past all of our defenses, all of our walls.
ReplyDeleteAs humans, we are desperate to feel that we are not alone. (Hey, misery loves company.)
We need to know that our flaws are not just our own - we need to see other people's shortcomings in order to reassure ourselves that indeed EVERYONE is only human - no exceptions. Maybe that's what makes us such a needy audience, maybe that's why we expect such candidness out of our authors. Nonetheless, once a writer peels back his or her outer layers, and then succeeds in prompting the reader to do the same - wow, that's beauty. And inner beauty at that, the best kind.
I think all of this comes back to the last blog and how a writer needs to have that over confidence in one’s self in order to write in a realistic way. The fact that Steve Almond has the guts to admit his faults and spill them onto a page, yet still manage to make it enjoyable to read and most of the time (not all of the time) not make it sound whiny. I think the beauty of admitting our faults comes from living in such a “perfect” society. Perfection and flawlessness is so coveted in our society now, that to embrace your faults is ridiculously gutsy and can sometimes backfire on you. Like Kristen Haynes said that being flawed is beautiful- I agree, and most everyone else I think would agree, but at the same time there are stories in the news every day about different innovations in plastic surgery and other things that can alter your flaws into the society’s idea of “perfection.”
ReplyDeleteI think this idea of physical perfection trickles into written perfection and anything else that happens to be in the public eye. There is a certain accepted perfection in writing, which I would claim is the standard MLA five paragraph essay. Steve Almond’s ability to break out of this mold, gain popularity from it, and still make an impact is amazing. This in itself is him embracing his flaws and then he goes even further in relating other flaws of his in his essays. There is a lot to be admired here.
I agree like many others said that it feels good to break the rules, but to do that you have to go back to what was said about having the guts to do it and being able to do it right. You can’t just break the rules any old way-there has to be a skillful embracing of your flaws in the mixture of rule breaking. I think this is part of his charm in being able to completely turn a 180 on his audience. You think you hate him and what he stands for, but with these humanistic traits in his writing you can’t help but identify with him.
After reading this post, it instantly made me think of that well- known saying " Your eyes are in front of you for a reason, to look towards the future and not look back on the past." But isn't the past what shapes us into who we are in the future?
ReplyDeleteTo disregard the mistakes we made in the past is to try to convince our audience that we are perfect and unblemished. No one has the perfect life and for anyone to try to convince themselves or others of that is a damn fool.
To coincide with this blog, I have really had to think long and hard about how I am going to write the paper that is due on Monday.I have made two drafts, both of which didn't sit well with me. They seemed too 'put on.' After reading people's responses to this blog, I finally have a clear view of exactly how I am going to tell my memoir.
While my story is not a pretty one, I could make it seem less harsh than it really was-- for the sake of convincing my audience that it wasn't that bad and I learned things from it. (aka: the silver lining) But I won't do that to them. They deserve the harsh cold reality of how this particular piece of my history really went down. And how there was no silver lining.
In my opinion, harsh stories earn the respect of the audience. The way Steve Almond never seems to 'pretty' his stories up earns my respect. My professors that don't always put a smile on their face and who are always honest with us- even when we don't want to hear it earn my respect. People who don't bullshit through life earn my respect.
Realness earns my respect.
This is exactly the kind of writing that makes me like Steve Almond. Writers need to shed the veil of perfection for their readers sometimes. Show the flaws that make them human, that make them more relatable to their readers.
ReplyDeleteI think Ally Fronk was right when she said “Do I want to admit that I make ugliness? Hell no.” no writer WANTS to show imperfection in their writing at least no normal writer anyway. Almond isn’t afraid to show ugliness in his writing, in fact sometimes he admits to it before you read it for yourself. This is one of the virtues that makes Almond likeable for me, he isn’t so caught up in himself that he can’t see himself ever doing anything wrong.
We should model our writing after this example in order to evolve as authors. Being able to see Almond’s writing style and being encouraged to mimic it has helped me to learn new strtategies as a writer, it has also renewed my want to write.
Academic writing takes it out of me. I mean who cares about a 5 paragraph “craptastic” essay? Your readers won’t enjoy reading your writing if you don’t enjoy what you’re writing!
What is good writing but trying to find out, even a little piece, of humanity. To dig for something that explains the explicit mystery of what it means to be human. Because what is it to be truly human besides the attempt to discover this same humanity? Spending life in a statis of safe expectancy, never allowing the true nature of some Other to penetrate your own psyche, to never really see another person as another and not simply an extension of yourself, these are the symptoms of our consumeristic culture, where people are treated like cattle, not to control them, but simply because these people are begging to be treated like cattle. But there are always some, lurking in the shadowns, unhappy with the simple answers to life and always seeking that deeper truth, that deeper humanity. I'll end this with another Vonnegut quote: "For all of their ingenuity, Scientist's have still not found a way to make humans deader than dead."
ReplyDelete"Is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? Always" I completely agree with AlyFronk's response (and what seems to be everyone else's). Last night I was laying in bed stressing out. I was stressing because I'm about to start my senior year and I still have no idea what I want to do with my life. Wait.. wasn't that what college was all about? Where did I miss crucial class that changed my life and enlightened me to my calling? Why don't I have the next 50 years plotted out in perfection? Crap. So I was laying there contemplating all the mistakes, successes, ups and downs of my college career and wondering how, despite these experiences, I'm still stuck in a grey area. And then I started considering this blog.
ReplyDeleteI tried two other majors. And I definitely left a path of destruction there. But if I hadn't sat through an entire semester of miserable science and math classes I wouldn't recognize how easily literature comes to me. I wouldn't know how much I appreciate doing something I enjoy every day, even though it (so far) hasn't led me to a clear career path. So yes. For me it was critically important to admit the ugliness I had made. In the same way Almond's admission of failure humanizes and endears him to us, admitting our own failures or "taking off our makeup" for our audience can lead to some self-truth as well. Self-truths that enable us to share our flaws, because we've gotten something out of them worth sharing.
This is one of those times where the writer’s block is settling in, and I’m getting nowhere. One of those write a sentence, think it’s dumb, and delete kind of situations. All the while, I’m sitting here trying to come up with something relevant to say about the ugliness we all have inside us, and I realize I’m trying to edit out my ugliness as I go. I don’t want to say something stupid, or ridiculous, or outlandish. Then I realize I’m worrying too much about my audience, or how I’m going to tie that “pretty little bow” on the end of what I have to say. Things are already coming back around full circle…and it’s all Almond’s fault (and I guess Dr. PD’s for writing posts that prompt us to feel these things).
ReplyDeleteSo, the idea that there is more than one Steve, and the idea of the naked-faced close up shot, and what out of these things is beautiful are all weaving webs in my head. I’m thinking about celebrities, authors, artists, musicians, and other people who produce some kind of media that is open for critique. Why is it that we are so obsessed with creating a pretty picture instead of just being real?
Somewhere along the way culture has magnetized our desires towards that which is beautiful and created a standard out of it. If you do your math correctly, this standard makes anything outside of beauty “ugly,” and, therefore, undesirable. I understand there’s no possible way that this would ever disappear, and I’m not saying it should, but why does “ugly” have to be undesirable?
It seems that everyone is agreeing for the most part that ugly is, in fact, beautiful and more desirable, (well in writing at least) and yet so many authors continue to write stuff that they think culture will approve of. If culture adheres to the standard of beauty and general audience prefers ugliness and a harshness in reality over “beauty,” then it seems like either culture or the public has it wrong. I don’t think every piece should so be real that it provides an opportunity for everyone to bitch about their shortcomings. More so, that they don’t have to present themselves in an image they think is publically acceptable. It’s ok to “let your hair down” sometimes, to tell someone that yes, life does in fact suck sometimes. I would argue with the rest of us that this is what makes Steve Almond appealing. He’s crude, blatant, and ugly, yet we can relate, because it’s real life. There’s an elegant transparency to his writing, giving it style, which also adds to the attractiveness.
So maybe we should cut down on the concealer and dig back down to our roots. Consider what makes us tick, think, grow, and feel—like Almond does and other good writing.
I’m ok with the bar that high, too. And I think every time we sit down to write, whether it turns out to be shit or not, we should write for simply for humanity.
We have writers have to embrace our faults and show our readers we are not perfect. Who wants to read a "fake" piece of writing that is not real? Sure it will still have a small effect on us, but are the emotions we feel behind it real? Almond does a great job at being real. Sure he may not always come across as the most likable person, or you may not agree at all with what he says. But he writes from the heart and is forward with his readers. Like Dr.P said in class if Almond inspires us to think about what he has written--even if we don't like it or agree with it--he has done his job. And that is what good writers do. They make you think about their writing and don't just write 5 page "crappy" essays. They put their real emotions behind it and connect better with their audience as a result. I think we should all aspire to write from the heart and embrace the creativity we are allowed in this class. Who cares how many mistakes or faults our writing has--you just have to go for it.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post for me. I was actually in a class last year where I had to learn to write about personal experiences and from a more personal place. All my life I have been an English buff, so research papers were my comfort zone. This particular class was very difficult for me. We had these peer groups where we read each other's papers and gave feedback. Every time my group would unanimously say that my style was clear and grammatically correct, but it lacked a connection to me and my life. The point of our assignments were to be intimate with our readers, and I just had a hard time doing that. I did finally get better at it though, and I am glad I did. It was hard for me because I don't like getting personal with people I don't know, but it was good to get it out on paper, if that makes sense. So with that said, I think writing without our make-up on and allowing ourselves to be vulnerable is a good thing. It helps us connect with other people and give them something to relate to. We all like things that relate to situations in our own lives, and let's be real no one wants to read crap. So for me, I want to continue to be more real with my writing so that I can be comfortable with it.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I would like to shout the greatest of thanks to Dr. P for not subjecting us to five paragraph craptastic essays. Because those suck, not only do they suck, but they are also fake. Steve Almond has taught me that unconvential grammar and writing not only makes for a better read, a more interesting read, but also that it is much more real…realer?
ReplyDeleteLike I've mentioned in previous posts, I have a hard time putting it all out there. I think in the past I was writing to please an audience (a teacher) and everything was so calculated. I was not able to put any of "me" into the paper or assignment. Blogging and Almond have helped me to release my inhibitions and write for me. I still toil with the fact that I do not like not being liked. For this reason, even though others around me like Dr. P lay it all out there and are confident enough to say what they feel, I am scared to do it.
Writing is not supposed to be a pretty little package topped with a pretty bow, because pretty is boring. It is common, it is vanilla. People would much rather read gritty crazy wild stories than calculated thoughts of how an event went down. I think for the most part it is because people are nosy. Knowing details and secrets about others lives satisfies our own, if it didn't, we would not have an addiction to twitter and facebook or any other type of social media.
Social media is the basic form of real, truthful writing. It may only be in 140 characters but it is real and sometimes it is ugly. Sometimes it is so ugly that we go "ewwll did i really?" And that's when we can be thankful for that little trashcan icon right underneath. But, whatever, at that point in time it is what you wanted to say and wanted someone else to hear it.
Just as the saying goes
"You should never have regrets, because at one time, you were doing exactly what you wanted".
The same goes for writing. Just write, it was once a thought in your head, and it might have been a thought in someone elses head too.
This creates bonds and through these bonds something beautiful can be created.
Okay…I'm all over the place with this. I'm done. This writing is ugly. But maybe it made some semblance of a coherent thought?
I have to correct myself, I thought I wasn't going to be able to find a silver lining in my memoir. I found one.
ReplyDelete"Hold your one and only heart to a higher standard. And so on. I'm proud to be ugly, and proud to make pretty things. What are you?"
ReplyDeleteGood question, Steve. I will try to answer.
This class is teaching me to push my writing past academic standard, and that is what makes me enjoys every bit. In this one quote, Steve have broken so many conventions. That is exactly what I want my writing to do. I want to emulate you Steve but I don't want to copy you. I want to be my own person. I feel like I am losing a part of myself if I just try to copy your style or manner. But you are teaching me to think beyond the standards I have been taught to follow in a straight line. I am slowly beginning to color outside the lines because there is no one there ready to slap my wrists for not following the borders.
What am I? I am trying.
Just like you, I am trying to make something beautiful out of the symbols I am given. And in the end, it doesn't really matter to me if others don't agree or if I get criticized. I have had some pretty harsh comments on some writings from professors. There was one day I will never forget. I received a paper from my World Lit I teacher with some of the meanest, most blunt comments I have ever received from a teacher. I met my friend for lunch and just cried.
I just sat in the middle of Au Bon Pain and cried like a baby because I felt so hurt. What did that make me? A baby, maybe but whatever. That teacher was rude and that paper was on a boring subject so what did she expect.
I can take criticism a lot better now. I know it is not the end of the world if someone doesn't agree with or like my writing. The grades matter, yes, but so does what I actually get out of the writing.
So Steve, that is what I am. A writer who still cries over criticism. But now instead of doing it in front of every one, I try to hold the tears for when I am alone in my room and no one can see me. I don't think I will ever not cry when someone hurts my feelings, but that isn't going to stop me from writing what makes me happy.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
ReplyDeleteWriting is just that. We cannot be afraid of who we are and what makes us imperfect. These so called imperfections are what make us unique individuals.I feel that Almond truly grasps this. There is beauty in community and feeling that we as people share some kind of common ground or similarities.
Thus, as writers, I feel it is not only a goal but our sole duties to be completely honest with not only ourselves but also our readers.
I think that what makes the best stories are not the plot lines but when who the writer truly is within comes out on the page. Hemingway did an incredible job in his writing of proving that more often the best fiction is in fact non fiction. He wasn't afraid to put himself on paper though he too feared criticism.
Thus as writers we possess the rite to fear criticism but accept the responsibility to be entirely honest with ourselves and our audience. Anything less is simply ugly.
I think that the admittance of failure is absolutely a beautiful thing. Communication between writer and reader, and really any kind of extended interpersonal situation, cannot be effective without some sort of empathy for each other. This is why an instruction manual for a jungle gym is probably not on many favorite book lists. The type of writing we study specifically in English/English Education generally has a purpose beyond an instruction manual. And Steve Almond is highly skilled in his ability to establish strong writer/reader relationship. I cannot see myself ever having as outspoken a voice as he does, but his ability to draw a person cranially in is a gift I can only hope to one day obtain. Beyond my giddiness for greatness - honest, humanly rich writing still seems to maintain ageless beauty. But that kind of writing takes guts. I believe that this is a prominent factor in our infatuation with and admiration of successful writers. I’ve never actually had anything published, so my value scale of success is very much based on scholastic feedback. But even still, when peers tell me their grades I wonder what exactly makes my paper an A- and the other’s an A+. Beyond definitively visible technical discrepancies. I would argue that based on my personal experience, greater emotional arousal dominates any detached blip of information. And like Dr. P, I find myself most strongly drawn to the self-sacrificial artists that a good writer must be. Self-indulgent martyrdom that often deceptively passes for passion is not included (I don’t mean to suggest that all martyrs are selfish). I like the community found in imperfection; I prefer to read things with such a flavor and hope to reflect that in my own writing.
ReplyDeleteWhen you admit to failure, you open yourself to being human. Everyone tries so hard all of the time to be "perfect" when there is honestly no such thing. Almond helps to show us some of the "real-ness" we are taught our entire lives to avoid in our writing. If we are devoid of our "real-ness" everything is BS and fake.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad to have been introduced to Almond, but I'm afraid of having to turn back after this. I'm going to get used to doing things the way I want to do them, not the way I am told to do them. Its more fun and perhaps more challenging to put yourself out on the line, but it really gives a lot more value to what you have to say. By doing so, you're injecting yourself into your work and yes, it definitely makes you more vulnerable, but its a way to let your audience know you're real. That you exist, that you're not just a robot hiding behind your computer like it so often seems.
I agree with Aly and Tyler… it is the human in us that makes us failures… it is also the human in us that makes us want to try to hide our failures from the world. We don’t want other people to see our flaws and to know that we are imperfect. But I think that showing imperfection in your writing does make you a better writer. Exposing your ugliness not only makes you a better writer for you reader, it makes you a better writer for you. Writing is definitely a form of therapy. Writing allows us to slow down and sort through the things that we don’t understand. Exposing your true ugly self in your writing can be a cleansing experience, one that you and your readers will benefit from.
ReplyDeleteI love the whole idea of writing in an ugly format. I hate the five paragraph essay. However, as a future teacher, I will be forced to torture students by asking them to produce this unfun piece of writing. It is boring. It does not allow for creativity. And it is not really that useful for future writing. When you die and your kids are digging through your belongings do you think they are going to be happy to find a five paragraph essay that you wrote about your life? (“Oh! Look Jimmy a five paragraph essay about mother’s life). No! People want to read about the real you. They want the raw stuff….
I think it is a tragedy that our school system has come to rely so heavily on grammar rules and structure when writing. I feel like where you misplaced a period is irrelevant. How you made me feel while I was reading is what matters.
The quote by Vonnegut about Lot's wife is amazing. Not only is it good writing and just plain genius, it's so true. Though we all would like to think that after being instructed by God himself not to look back upon our home city, our comfort, our entire lives, we would almost all have to admit that it would be terribly tempting. Like he said, it's just so human. I find it interesting that he uses a reference from the Bible even as an atheist to make a point about the habitual actions of humanity. Strange isn't it? Even religion doesn't remove our inherent natural similarities.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, it so human of us to write "in our makeup." It's natural to want to make ourselves seem like more than we are, or at least something different. Nothing is more human than to want to want to be something other than what you are. Let's all just drop that "I completely love every part of myself" BS and admit it. Why do we admire writers like Almond and Vonnegut? Because they write in a way we've yet to be able to. They so something we don't truly believe we are capable of with words--until we do it. Then, like Steve Almond, we find another author to crush on who is what we aspire to become.
Not until we truly sit down, remove our makeup, and write in yesterday's underwear do we see that what we've written is also beautiful. And someone else sees it too. We become the newest crush of the writer with more makeup on than the Merle Norman counter holds.
And even though we realize that we are now unquestionably capable of writing something exquisite, even if we're at a book signing holding our very own New York Time's bestseller, we still feel slightly inadequate.
We still look back.
Just like Lot's wife.
And that is so human.
“And Lot's wife, of course, was told not to look back where all those people and their homes had been. But she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human.
ReplyDeleteAnd here we have it, don't we? A writer looking back at American failure, broken ideals, salt marking the spot where a dream had been. Not because he never had faith, or out of some misguided sense of smug, self-righteous finality, but out of grief. Humanity.”
This brought to mind the famous quote by George Santayana (Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason) -- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Is there not a great sense of grief every time something tragic happens that is just the mirror of something that happened even further back? And yet we don’t learn from it?
And that’s the trump card right there. We can’t learn from it because most of the time it isn’t until after the main event that we realize how similar it is to something equally as tragic. It’s like firing that gun before you think. And I think that is one of the draws of Steve Almond. He takes the time to look back and go through his life with a fine-tooth comb, picking out the highs and the lows, and moments equal important in-between. He then takes those moments, puts them under a microscope and then sits back and says, “here… you didn’t ask for it, but here. Look. Study. Stare. Learn. Relate. Find ties to yourself in me. I’m doing this horrible, ugly dissection of myself so don’t waste it.”
And I often do. I often find while reading him that I connect myself to his text, even as his “outright brutality” is driving me away. “To lean forward to our readers without our makeup on?” He’s leaning already, leaning right in your face, and even as you scramble back there are things about that “ugliness” that catches our eye and we find ourselves drawn to.
So Lot’s wife looked back, saw all the ugliness of her past, and got turned into a pillar of salt for it… I wonder what Almond would say about that.
I completely agree with Morgan when it comes to the quote: "Is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? Always" I mean, baring ones soul in a piece of writing seems to be one of the world's greatest beauties to me. I love reading a raw, cut throat, REAL piece of writing that exposes people to who they really are.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up, I was always taught to be appropriate with what I write and be fair to the audience that reads it. Yes, for elementary through middle school that was acceptable, but eventually I got to the point where my diary was the only place I could open up and show the ugliness that hid behind the "beautiful" life I had always known.
Drugs. Alcohol. Sex. All of my deepest secrets. All the family issues and insecurities. They all came out eventually. My diary gave way to all of these things I was afraid to talk about. I never fully appreciated writing until I knew that I could write about these things. These real, untouched subjects that made me who I am.
I commend Almond for the topics he embraces throughout his book. He takes risks. Risks that I have yet to see other writers take. He's flawed and ugly in his writing and yet the true beauty peeks through cracks and turns the work into something real. True inspiration for those of us who are ugly as well ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlmond is a brave man to come to the fight without any of his make-up on, but I don’t believe he comes truly nude faced (I don’t think any of us can/ I’m a cynic in that sense). I’ve spent some time incredibly self-conscious of my own thought process and when I’m not doing I find myself locked into thinking and opposed to any action. When I do set myself into action, the only time I find myself ahead of my thoughts is when I type as hard and as fast as I possibly can. Maybe that’s how Almond overcomes himself (maybe he doesn’t have to). I don’t know if other people experience this problem, but I know I’m more than anxious to edit any idea before it comes into existence (prenatal cleansing of thoughts). I’m amply proud of shaping sentences before they come out, but it’s more intriguing and considerably more genuine if I shape them as they flop out of my mouth/hands/ass.
ReplyDeleteWhen I try to write naked, I always find that I wasn’t quite prepared to step up the stairs straight on stage to drop my pants. For me, I think that complete honesty comes in jolts of daring. I take off my black and UT- Austin shirt, use some profanity. I take off my left shoe off; reveal something about my friends or family. Undo my belt, you’re getting to the good stuff; I finally show something from my past- when I was in seventh grade I watched a car get hit by a train (I’ve never fucked with railways since learning to drive). Reading my essays will likely be a painfully drawn out striptease full of gradual admittance of self. Eventual control of voice and truth, it’ll take me awhile to come into my own mind; it's a scary summit to make alone. I’m just a young starlet, seeking attention- ready to get naked for the camera- but timidly concentrating on all the ways how I might be screwed.
It is pretty refreshing to read something like Almond where he is just as critical of himself as he is of other people. But I wouldnt be so quick to jump on the "without makeup" bandwagon. I, personally, have never met Steve Almond. I probably never will. So how do I know that, in his writing, he is coming across as self loathing because that is what is actually going through his brain. In our first paper, "self-effacement" was one of the literary techniques that we were advised to attempt to copy. Steve Almond is a professional writer, so I would hope that he had the ability to master one of these specific styles. Maybe this is just me being a cynical asshole, but then again maybe Steve-o has been pulling the sheep over the wool's eyes this entire time. My guess is that he is doing it on the surface and not really attempting to expose his soul to countless readers. Just take his letter of resignation that he published in the Boston Globe as exhibit A. Did he want to publish that letter because he wanted the city of Boston to see that he was human just like the rest of us. That he could be self-deprecating like only the best of us could be?
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect, it all seems pretty fishy to me. It seemed like he was busy trying to be the Woody Allen of the literary world. Woody Allen took self-deprecating to no heights in many of his movies. The only reason I know this is because I read his wikipedia page one time about three years ago. Ive never seen any of his movies and I dont plan on it either. In fact, nobody that I know has seen a Woody Allen movie besides that one with Scarlett Johansson. This doesnt lessen his works as a director in the least, but it does say something about his lack of mass appeal. What does this say about Steve Almond's writing style? Even I dont remember so Ill make up something else. I really dont even have a train of thought, its more like a bunch of Greyhound buses that might or might not be going to the same place. More times than not they wind up scattered and off track, some of them crash and burn, but others actually make it to the destination. The only reason I wrote those last couple of sentences was so that I had something to do while I was trying to recall my reason for getting sidetracked onto Woody freakin Allen.
Steve Almond's style is not even entirely his own. He is borrowing some of the highlights of humorous movies and books that he probably read in the past. Such as Woody Allen (Bingo).
For me Steve Almond was a breath of fresh air. For the first time assigned reading didn't feel painstaking and boring and is something I can easily see myself reading for leisure. He immediately grabs your attention with his stories and numerous interjections which allows us as the readers to connect with him on a personal level.
ReplyDeleteHis stories add depth to his writing and serve to pose a bigger question. They are thought provoking and interesting and that is one of my favorite things about Almond's writing.
Another aspect of Almond's writing that I really dig is his use of interjection in all forms; the dash, parentheses, commas, block quotes, everything. It's his incorporation of all of these that allows Almond to really shine. In his interjections Almond adds levity to the work as well as witty and often hostile honesty, and occasional poignancy.
Almond reminds me of another writer who I really enjoy named Chuck Klosterman who also writes essays, articles, and books of collected works. Chuck, like Almond, doesn't necessarily concern himself with traditional writing structure and it is writers like these men who I find most enjoyable and stimulating to read. They have a voice that is current and relatable and at the same time is, in a way, fearless. They offer their ideas no holds barred, here's what I think now make of it what you will. I wish reading such as Almond was more commonly assigned for English classes especially a higher level, in my opinion, it would make the whole experience much more enjoyable.
Stay with me here because this is a circular comment. The end will justify the means and it will make sense (hopefully). In one of those "stick it to the man" moments that we all love, Dr. P had us shut our books. "I'm sorry but this is shit." For the next hour she lectured us on lessons of her past and present that she wished to teach to us. It was one class where I remember thinking "Hell yes. Where has this been my entire 4 years in college?" You all will remember it. The lights were off books were shut, and we all were holding our breath as Dr. P spoke. After discribing her frustrations of writing her dissertation (I believe) she told enlightened us with words that were once passed on to her. "Write Shit. You can't edit nothing, but you can edit shit." It was like 24 lightbulbs simultaneously went off. collectively we let out our breath and realized we can do IT. The idea of writing shit and admiting our ugliness go hand in hand. Our writing hardly ever turns out the way we intented, and more often than not, it actually comes out in a totally new way. It changes and adapts as we change and edit. Ugliness is like that. The things we say and do seem horrible to some but accepted by others. Beauty is the same way. The usual idea that it is in the eye of the beholder stands true. One man's trash is another man's treasure. These all stand for the same idea. Write Shit. Fix it. Write it again. Admit your ugliness. Adapt. Do it again. Take that risk that Almond does. Offend people with your writing, but own up to it and be nice about it. Give someone your poem that was stupid and dumb. To them it could be gold. All I am trying to say here, is what we learn in class and what we read seem to line up. Not many classes (despite what the teacher says) actually present us with such paralleled conversation that actually means something to somebody.
ReplyDelete