The stories in this packet were a little harder to read than the last one. I don't think it's because they're longer, I just didn't get pulled into any of the material like in the last packet. I could barely follow along to any of the stories as the details in most of them weren't very vibrant. I found my mind wandering off in the middle of most of them, and couldn't concentrate on any of the characters. I guess they just weren't as interesting to me as the characters in the previous fiction packet.
The story that I did get through was the very first one, Internal. The thing that kept the story alive was the repetition. There is a lot of repetition that seems almost lyrical. The funny thing about this repetition is that it's usually the character repeating a characteristic of somebody, like himself: "hardly the typical intern." This repetition is a theme, in my opinion. It reminds me of the effort one must make in order to even become an intern, and I think it this was intentional, it was brilliantly done by the author. The narrator does his crazy assisting by using the same methods he used in medical school. It's somewhat ironic as his current methods are very shady.
The aspects of psychology are also interesting to me as I am minoring in psychology. It reminds me of the early days where people were experimented on and concepts of psychological knowledge were somewhat crazy. His observations read almost as a textbook, and then as a journal. It is certainly not the typical short story, but more of a psychological analysis. I also question the narrator's frame of mind in this story; is he so driven that he will do anything for his mentor? Or is he simply "crazy?"
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Fiction Packet Responses
Survivors by Kim Addonizio
The first story in the packet is funny, depressing, and sentimental--all wrapped up in one terse bundle of words. At first I didn't understand why the narrator was referring to their partner as "lover" and then it clicked. It's an interesting look into the life of a group of people that I am not a part of. I'm certainly open to understanding anything, but I believe you can't truly understand something unless it is happening to you. I'm very close with my parents, so to have them disapprove of my partner would be devastating. This story shows the other side of the fence, referring to how these parents see their son's partner. I could not imagine having parents who do not like me simply because of my sexual orientation. It's awful, and luckily this story makes light of it.
Bleeding into their lives, the narrator describes other aspects of their life that the family would disapprove of. It is a subtle and interesting way for the author to include details. The quirky things that she describes are things one could find in any household (save a few). This also helps the reader see what would be left if the narrator's partner dies. There is a saying floating around that emphasizes what we are when we die; it's usually a pile of things. Walk into somebody's house, and you can get a feel for them simply based on their things--or lack thereof. Take away the few quirky things that define them, and the character's home seems like any other home.
Finally, the major theme in the poem is death. The first line describes T-cells, which are a part of the process of developing HIV. The stigma sticks in this story, and whether the characters are gay or not, it leaves the reader to wonder if they are really sick. As I read on, I see that the narrator thinks that his partner's family will blame him; this is where it hits me that they probably are very sick with the same STD. Upon reading this for the first time, I didn't even notice this dark undertone to the story. I thought it was simply a story of a man in love with a man, who dreaded the thought of dying after his lover. Don't we all think about that from time to time? How dreadful it would be to die after your love already has? The second time around I understood, and it didn't change my perspective much. It's still a touching, depressing story.
The first story in the packet is funny, depressing, and sentimental--all wrapped up in one terse bundle of words. At first I didn't understand why the narrator was referring to their partner as "lover" and then it clicked. It's an interesting look into the life of a group of people that I am not a part of. I'm certainly open to understanding anything, but I believe you can't truly understand something unless it is happening to you. I'm very close with my parents, so to have them disapprove of my partner would be devastating. This story shows the other side of the fence, referring to how these parents see their son's partner. I could not imagine having parents who do not like me simply because of my sexual orientation. It's awful, and luckily this story makes light of it.
Bleeding into their lives, the narrator describes other aspects of their life that the family would disapprove of. It is a subtle and interesting way for the author to include details. The quirky things that she describes are things one could find in any household (save a few). This also helps the reader see what would be left if the narrator's partner dies. There is a saying floating around that emphasizes what we are when we die; it's usually a pile of things. Walk into somebody's house, and you can get a feel for them simply based on their things--or lack thereof. Take away the few quirky things that define them, and the character's home seems like any other home.
Finally, the major theme in the poem is death. The first line describes T-cells, which are a part of the process of developing HIV. The stigma sticks in this story, and whether the characters are gay or not, it leaves the reader to wonder if they are really sick. As I read on, I see that the narrator thinks that his partner's family will blame him; this is where it hits me that they probably are very sick with the same STD. Upon reading this for the first time, I didn't even notice this dark undertone to the story. I thought it was simply a story of a man in love with a man, who dreaded the thought of dying after his lover. Don't we all think about that from time to time? How dreadful it would be to die after your love already has? The second time around I understood, and it didn't change my perspective much. It's still a touching, depressing story.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Lamott - Polaroids - Character - Plot - etc.
When beginning this passage, I started to think about all of the times I've written something. There is always an immediacy about it; I never sit down and plan to write. I'll be mid-sleep and my brain will provide me with the strangest, most beautiful phrase that I had ever thought up. I'll be driving and a song--with lyrics and melody--will suddenly erupt my senses, forcing me to pull over and record it with my cell phone. However, these instances never form a complete piece of work. I can't just whip out a song because my brain tells me to. They give me the building blocks that completeness crave. This is the thought that sums up my opinion on Lamott's work. It all starts with a Polaroid: "First you just point at what has your attention and take the picture" (Lamott 1).
As she goes on to talk about characters, I realize the love/hate relationship that I have with some of the characters I've created. I love them because they can do things that I can't. They express thoughts and ideas that I've had built up for years. And I hate them for the same reasons. I think the main thing I took away from this section is that your characters are a part of you, and that I should be putting every detail I can think of into them: "You are going to love some of your characters, because they are you or some facet of you, and you are going to hate some of your characters for the same reason" (Lamott 4). Creating characters is like getting to know somebody new; you interview, observe, and probably over-exaggerate their qualities. You have a deep talk that strengthens your friendship, or you have a huge fight that weakens it. I don't really do this with my characters, and I'm excited to try.
Finally, I love Lamott's take on plot. The plot can't happen unless you have characters. Plot's remind me of life in a big way. You have thousands of choices everyday, but the choices you make create your plot, in a sense. It really strengthens the argument that you make your own life; this should be even easier with characters you are creating, right? I think it's harder because the pieces of you that are your characters aren't whole. You may make them whole, but plot has a lot to do with who they are: "Your plot will fall into place as, one day at a time, you listen to your characters carefully, and watch them move around doing and saying things and bumping into each other. You'll see them influence each others lives, you'll see what they are capable of up and doing, and you'll see them come to various ends" (Lamott 10). Overall, Lamott has shown me that the important aspects of writing are your experiences, and what makes you whole will eventually make your story whole.
As she goes on to talk about characters, I realize the love/hate relationship that I have with some of the characters I've created. I love them because they can do things that I can't. They express thoughts and ideas that I've had built up for years. And I hate them for the same reasons. I think the main thing I took away from this section is that your characters are a part of you, and that I should be putting every detail I can think of into them: "You are going to love some of your characters, because they are you or some facet of you, and you are going to hate some of your characters for the same reason" (Lamott 4). Creating characters is like getting to know somebody new; you interview, observe, and probably over-exaggerate their qualities. You have a deep talk that strengthens your friendship, or you have a huge fight that weakens it. I don't really do this with my characters, and I'm excited to try.
Finally, I love Lamott's take on plot. The plot can't happen unless you have characters. Plot's remind me of life in a big way. You have thousands of choices everyday, but the choices you make create your plot, in a sense. It really strengthens the argument that you make your own life; this should be even easier with characters you are creating, right? I think it's harder because the pieces of you that are your characters aren't whole. You may make them whole, but plot has a lot to do with who they are: "Your plot will fall into place as, one day at a time, you listen to your characters carefully, and watch them move around doing and saying things and bumping into each other. You'll see them influence each others lives, you'll see what they are capable of up and doing, and you'll see them come to various ends" (Lamott 10). Overall, Lamott has shown me that the important aspects of writing are your experiences, and what makes you whole will eventually make your story whole.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
20 Poetry Projects
1.) Begin the poem with a metaphor:
Melting the Sky
The sky is the sea
The line where they breathe
The clouds in their teethe
The sun at their feet.
The moon is their foe
Cause where do they go
With darkness below
And blackness beneath?
3.) Use the 5 senses:
Lemon
Taste the
sweet
Hear the
beat.
Feel the
rough bumps on its skin.
Smell the
tough,
Sour’s
enough
To make you squirm
into your grin.
See the
color?
It’s like no
other.
With yellow
dripping from its chin.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Patricia Smith - Blood Dazzler
Patricia Smith's Blood Dazzler is an interesting piece of art. It's the type of poetry that keeps me reading, but disturbs me all the same. I didn't really like reading it because it left me with a sick feeling that I couldn't escape. The horrors that the victims of Katrina felt (feel) are not something that I want to feel. In these poems, I almost feel like I was there. The minute details that Smith describes are what sicken me the most. Some of the most memorable poems in this collection are about the evilest concepts of mankind.
One of the main themes of Blood Dazzler is the concept of abandonment. I think this resonates with me greatly for some reason, as the most memorable poems for me involve it. The first poem that kept me wondering is "Ethel's Sestina." It's about a son who had to leave his dead mother in her wheel chair after telling her to wait for help. I couldn't imagine having to do that, and it tears me up inside thinking that somebody had to. I'm not sure why humans grow attached to a body once the person has died, but it is just as traumatic as leaving a living person in my opinion. In that moment, Herbert is forced to let go of his mother without the proper closure, and I think that's what scares me most. I like Smith's ending to the poem, almost as if Ethel is telling her son that she ended up okay: "Wish you coulda come on this journey, son, seen that ol' sweet sun lift me out of sleep" (page 46).
The poem that freaks me out the most is "34." It's about a retirement home left to fend for itself, and the 34 victims inside that weren't evacuated. Thinking about what is going on in a person's head right before or during their death is incomprehensible. It's a concept that can shut down one's mind. The most chilling line, appearing multiple times in the poem is "Leave them." If it was an active choice to leave the remaining elderly, it's obvious they had to know something about it. Whether they are old or unaware, people can always sense those sort of things. It's upsetting to think of the people who abandoned these elderly people; why do they have less worth than that of the people who left them? The poem not only describes their deaths, but their lives, and it's awful to think that any life was lost due to human carelessness.
One of the main themes of Blood Dazzler is the concept of abandonment. I think this resonates with me greatly for some reason, as the most memorable poems for me involve it. The first poem that kept me wondering is "Ethel's Sestina." It's about a son who had to leave his dead mother in her wheel chair after telling her to wait for help. I couldn't imagine having to do that, and it tears me up inside thinking that somebody had to. I'm not sure why humans grow attached to a body once the person has died, but it is just as traumatic as leaving a living person in my opinion. In that moment, Herbert is forced to let go of his mother without the proper closure, and I think that's what scares me most. I like Smith's ending to the poem, almost as if Ethel is telling her son that she ended up okay: "Wish you coulda come on this journey, son, seen that ol' sweet sun lift me out of sleep" (page 46).
The poem that freaks me out the most is "34." It's about a retirement home left to fend for itself, and the 34 victims inside that weren't evacuated. Thinking about what is going on in a person's head right before or during their death is incomprehensible. It's a concept that can shut down one's mind. The most chilling line, appearing multiple times in the poem is "Leave them." If it was an active choice to leave the remaining elderly, it's obvious they had to know something about it. Whether they are old or unaware, people can always sense those sort of things. It's upsetting to think of the people who abandoned these elderly people; why do they have less worth than that of the people who left them? The poem not only describes their deaths, but their lives, and it's awful to think that any life was lost due to human carelessness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)