The Essay

Exultation! Momentary pride.  Self-doubt.  Recrimination.  Meditative breaths.  Read.  Relief.

The stages of my writing is described above.  Exultation for having completed the assignment.  Pride at the new entity I have brought to life with my imagination.  Self-doubt as I read in our texts what my paper should and should not be.  Deep breaths as I print the article to read “in the flesh.”  And relief as I realize I do have something to work with after all.

Relief washed over me when I read the chapter in the Field Guide that writers have more freedom with the essay.  My paper definitely bears a personal stamp.   Maybe too much so ---- I violated Hancock’s admonition not to write about a subject you were too emotional about.  

After reading the chapters in Field Guide and Hancock, I am eager to look at my paper anew.  I’m nervous and find that my stomach is doing flips.  What if it sucks?  Hancock definitely captured my state of mind when she acknowledges that a writer can read, look at, and work on their paper so long they no longer know what it actually says. 

That’s why I love studio sessions!  Fresh eyes, fresh thoughts, and useful suggestions.  I have found the sessions the most useful exercises in the class. 

Hancock’s Chapter 6, Refining your Draft, is a remarkable tool!   I’m actually within my word count (if you don’t count source credits)  WhooHoo!!!

I chose a subject I wanted to know more about, fracking.  I cried, yes really, for two weekends in a row as I uncovered what fracking really is and what it does to the planet.  Am I too emotional about it?  Yep, certainly.  Will it inhibit my ability to write an effective essay?  I’m curious to find out what you all think.

What I learned galvanized a course of action for me after graduation.  In that respect, the paper was an outstanding success!

Hancock's Wisdom

                                                        

Hancock:  Words Into Ideas

Inspirational.  Reading Hancock’s book inspires me to take a look at my writing with fresh eyes.  I’ve spent several days working on my feature article and, quite frankly, I’m tired of working on it.  At this point, I don’t know if what I am reading is really there, or just what I think is there. 

My paper has undergone so many evolutionary changes, even Darwin would be amazed.  Yesterday, I gathered images to illuminate my ideas.  Today, I was going to leave it all alone.  Then, I read the Hancock chapter, gathered up my courage and imagination, and read my article again with fresher eyes.

WHAT AM I REALLY TRYING TO SAY

What am I trying to say???  Just like Hancock predicted, that question works magic.  I definitely do not want to write a piece about the scientific processes of fracking.  I want to write a piece that generates thought, untangles the propaganda, and connects pieces to the puzzle in a way that a picture of what and who is driving this frenzy becomes clearer. 

POLISH YOUR PROSE LATE IN THE PROCESS RATHER THAN EARLY.

This is a strategy I changed after reading Phillip Gerard’s Non-Creative Fiction a couple of years ago.  Previously, I edited as I wrote, carefully choosing and massaging each sentence.  Cutting my carefully cultivated words was excruciating.  I’m still way too wordy and editing sucks, but without as much time invested in my drafts, I am more inclined to dice and slice at my paragraphs.  Brilliant advice!

THE BONE HEAP

I never called it a bone heap, but I have moved sentences to the end of the paper for possible use later.  Hancock is right, knowing the words are still there makes it easier to move them out of the paper if they interrupt the flow.  I even have a permanent folder of ideas or sentences that I keep for use later – possibly.  I think I have an attachment problem. 

And thank the high heavens for word processing!  I’m old enough to remember typing on a typewriter than permanently recorded all of your mistakes.  What a nightmare!!!  Moving ideas and sentences around was very time consuming.  Now, it’s just a couple of buttons to edit, edit, and re-edit.  You youngsters have no idea how easy you have it!   Lol.

WRITE USING ACTIVE VERBS

By far, my most challenging struggle is capturing the essence of what I want to say with the right verbs.  I love verbs!  I even printed off several lists of the best action verbs, but they leave a lot to be desired.  Some industrious soul needs to make an action verb thesaurus.  I love it when writers use a verb completely out of context, but it works perfectly!  Dean Koontz was a master at this in his book Innocence.   

START WITH THE QUESTION, NOT THE ANSWER

My favorite fiction novels drop you right in the middle of a scene.  My head is spinning wondering what the hell is going on.  And then bit by bit you get glimpses into the history that brought the character to the heart pounding scene you entered at the start of the novel.  Implementing that skill into science writing might make it more interesting and grab the reader’s attention quickly. 

QUOTATIONS

Lots of new info in this section that I did not know.  Excellent advice I will use immediately in my feature.

I always enjoy reading Hancock!  It’s time to write! 

Tinker Creek

I know our blog on the Annie Dillard piece is for the first six chapters, but I listened to the audio book at the beginning of the semester and at this point I can’t remember what was what or when was when.

If I remember correctly, it doesn’t matter.  I don’t remember the book actually having a plot, just bunches of observations poetically shared.

As the book started, I took a deep breath and relaxed.  The prose was beautifully descriptive.  I loved, loved, loved it!!!  As I listened, I could actually see the woods Annie was tromping through, heard the chirping birds, and inhaled the fragrant scents of the forest.  Perhaps that’s a bit dangerous to be so distracted as I drive up and down the canyon, but all ended well.

Listening to a book is SUCH a different experience than reading a book.  There’s no skimming the paragraphs or skipping pages.  Every word floats past your ears and into your brain.  The person reading the book makes or breaks the book.  There’s been books I don’t think I would have enjoyed reading, but the reader was a performer who brought the characters to life to such an extent that I fell in love with them.  

One of my friends prefers reading books so his imagination is not impaired.  Audio books are the best of both worlds.  I use my imagination for the visuals but the essence of the character is enhanced by the actor reading the book.  I just finished Middlesex today.  I absolutely wouldn’t have read the book, but the actor brought such life to the characters, affecting the accents perfectly, that I ended up loving the book.  

The first time I listened to a scary book was intense.  I couldn’t just flip the pages quickly to get past the gruesome parts.  Every syllable I had to listen to.  I pick those books carefully.  Stephen King’s Duma Key is incredibly performed.  I can still hear that man’s voice in my head sometimes.  That was three years ago.  

Listening to books has another perk.  Sometimes a phrase is uttered and my jaw drops.  The combination of words is PERFECT!  My entire being becomes engaged in the phrase.  Dean Koontz’s Innocence is that way.  I would listen to some of the sections over and over in utter appreciation of the brilliance.

Well, I haven’t written much about Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.  There’s a reason for that.  If I write what I remember in this blog, I won’t have anything to say for the next one.  So, please forgive my digression. I’ll share what I ultimately thought next time.

chaos?

“Creation Revisited” by Peter Atkins depressed me.  I have, of course, heard about entropy, chaos, and chance in my science courses.  But, those ideas have never been presented in such a way as to posit that evolution and consciousness are a result of the chaos.   That seems counter intuitive to me.  Evolution is generally perceived as becoming more complicated which I intuitively think means less chaotic.  

“The only constant thing in the universe is change.”   It’s a cliché that we have heard all our lives.  Now, I read there wouldn’t even be a universe without chaos.  I am struggling with these concepts.  I can understand how some form of chaos triggered the Big Bang.  But, then all that energy that was expelled eventually gelled into universes, galaxies, stars, planets and us.  That gelling and congregating of matter is a result of the universe becoming more chaotic?  We are what we are because the system is decaying?

Although I am not religious, I must still hold on to some anthropomorphic ideal that there is some order to the universe, some reason.  Yet, Peter Atkins tells me that it is continual degradation that spawned intelligent life.  The motiveless, purposeless universe just bounced around until a motivated entity that seeks purpose was generated.  There’s no reason why one change occurs instead of another.  

I don’t know.  I’m a bit depressed by it all.  I guess I’m just glad motiveless molecules jostled around enough for me to be on the planet. 

But, is it really that simple?  What makes us all who we are?  Smart or not?  Violent or not?  Beautiful or not?  Driven or not?  Are we are who we are just because of the roll of the dice, or jostle of the molecule?