Colette (see previous post): I was never short of things to write; but for me a blog without dialogue was incomplete. But you’re right in general, I’m dithering. Here’s why
On April 13, 2017 I wrote a speculative, “literary” post about thoughts passing through the minds of a man and woman who’ve recently met and may have, experienced mutual attraction. Thoughts not so much about each other but about the nature of what is happening. Time passes. Thoughts are modified; new perspectives occur. Nothing is resolved.
There are eight comments (some by me): the lengths are 24 words, 212, 38, 171, 150, 464, 66 and 44. Everyone sticks to the theoretical and abstract nature of the scenario. There are some differences of opinion. My original ideas are greatly enhanced by the views of others. Clearly Tone Deaf readers then had the ability, the inclination and the interest to expend this kind of effort.
If I thought that this might happen again putting down Tone Deaf would be off the agenda. As it is I’m pessimistic.
But here’s some ragtag verse
A figure of speech
That Commenter with fewest words.
ReplyDeleteit’s ever me,
And traveling back, quite voluntarily
At your behest
To probe the root of your dismay
I find my old
Words haunting as a dream
Where I’m an earnest child
But so without a way to speak.
The wave of intellect
(You call it smat’ring now)
Feels greater now than when
It towed me, helpless mite
Then, even then,
Unto a sea of my own smallness
And inferiority.
Yet I once was
And hope to ever be
Enough
To spark the engine
So that we, all gathered here
Might listen to it’s roar.
Please pardon that first period and the “it’s”.
ReplyDeleteMikeM: First: punctuation is the most expendable part of verse. Take it from me.
DeleteSecond: You surprised me, blindsided me, even. But if I’d been somewhat less ego-centric this shouldn’t have happened. More on that later.
As I said to Colette, I dithered. Closing Tone Deaf might have been interpreted as a minor slap in the chops for the few people presently reading it. But something Colette said elsewhere gave me the impetus I needed. A blog without responses is a diary. A decade ago Tone Deaf was – to my mind – a thrilling dialogue. Now it isn’t. Only one person can be blamed. I’ll continue what is presently happening : writing for an audience of one. Serves me right. Dear Diary…
The best responses are those which re-decorate the room already provided. I’d written in verse; you responded in verse. Not only that, you went in for self-deprecation, something you’d twitted me for in the past. You’re over-cruel about yourself and a moment’s reflection will confirm this. Among my other defects I’m an intellectual snob. Had you been a helpless mite I’d have passed by on the other side of the road.
I appreciate “spark the engine” but it will have to be by email. Tone Deaf must be allowed to gather dust, a monument to the benefits of satnav. Had Tom Tom devised a literary version – guiding readers through over-long novels of the eighteen-hundreds – it might still be wheezing into life on high days and holiday.
Bikes, music, advanced DIY, an acerbic eye, thanks for those and more.
I just went and read the April 13, 2017 post and comments. I see what you mean. Honestly, you don't really write like that much anymore. I think you spend too much time trying to write for the reader and to get comments, and not enough time writing your real thoughts. Sorry if I am blunt, or simply wrong, but the poem you posted here is provocative. Now I find myself trying to argue with you about death being a malady. It seems that every cell in our body has a sell-by date, and death might be that original sin we are supposed to all be born with.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am so happy to be provoked to think about these things.
DeleteShould be a period after "simply wrong," eliminate the "but" and give the a capital T.
DeleteColette: One could, of course, suppose that writing to get comments was part of of my real thoughts. But apart from dredging my frontal lobes you might ask yourself: was it felicitous? Were the words strung together with wit? As the Froggies say: Le style c'est l'homme..
DeleteMay I posit: death is hardly a sign of good health.
Original sin. You may suppose, I heartily reject.
Colette: Consider analysing your thoughts prior to the advent of this provocation. Much may hang on whether you accept or disdain these shallow apercus.
DeleteColette: I can't make head nor tail (double negative but it's an ancient apophthegm and they are sacrosanct) of the reasons behind this correction. It suggests you are in need of a travelling sub-editor. I have roughly forty years of experience but I don't do house-calls. Besides your garden would frighten the living daylights out of me. Too big. Too grandiose.
ReplyDeleteIt all goes back to, whom you are writing for. I personally love ragtag verse...that's the way my brain works in bits and pieces like a short film jamming in the projector. As far as responses, blogging is no longer mutual communication , comments are rare, while reader numbers are still okay, but it is not what it was 10 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI just had the son of my dear departed childhood pal contact me on facebook of all places. I'm sure he has gone through his dad's papers, maybe his emails and online interactions. The son and family have never met me, but my friend (1962) told me shortly before he passed, I was his longest living human he still had contact with other than his sister. Yes, I know of his father's youth and where all his 'bodies were buried'. So what do I tell him? Do I tell him his 'Papa' had a morbid fear of death by drowning, because he almost drowned as a child? That's so much responsibility. Perhaps we should share more with our families, even if they are only interested after we are dead.
Perhaps we blog and communicate to leave those bits of ourselves behind, that we don't share while living? Is it pretty much like the cavemen smearing ochre and charchol on the walls of his cave.
I'm just going to leave bits of myself here and there, I have reams of poetry, short stories, novels printed out and filed. Roderick, I enjoy your writings immensely, even if I don't always comment. It's all up to you. SM
C'est la vie, I've enjoyed every word...thank you, SM
DeleteSandi: You raise several interesting points, not least the one about scattering oneself here and there without identifiable purpose. Who knows what flowers - and weeds - may spring up?
DeleteAlso you cast light on the impossibility of what I'm asking for. Your comment is long enough and original enough to prove that time and intellectual effort have been involved. I appreciate that and have re-read it several times, knowing that it's unrealistic of me to expect a regular supply of such material from others.
Two things. I myself have have left longish comments with various long-standing contacts over the years, and there was a period - which I allude to in my response to Colette - when real dialogue was sustained. Significantly, many of those who contributed have either given up blogging or have died.
The truth is, apart from my singing lessons, writing is my primary interest. With most of my commenters it is secondary. My obsessions with writing style, with clichés as a corrupter of thought, with beauty through expression, with a constant search for originality are not their priorities. Of course this does not mean I think of them as in any way inferior. Or is that horribly patronising?
There are of course the few exceptions and it is they who caused me to dither. The reason for my pathetic gesture of appending my email address, knowing it won't be taken up. To this small list your name must be added.
So whom shall I address in my self-imposed loneliness? It will have to be fiction since - lacking living targets - fiction is the spur towards originality.
I should also concentrate on that last sentence of yours. For me it's no mean achievement.
Roderick, you always make me ponder...with your words and that alone is worthwhile. Your collective group of responders to your blogs are also so interesting, it seems this may be the 21st century version of the 19th century Salons, where like and unlike minded individuals gathered for discourse and amusement. I am not too old to learn something new and when humor is thrown in, all the better.
DeleteMy blogging is definitely easier than the machinations of producing novels, which I'm determined to try and finish before my own demise. But, it is such an isolation, even though one's mind is crowded with character's voices and opinions on just how...it all should be written. I'm sure you will keep writing, somehow!
Sandi: My apologies, I'm late responding here because I'd already responded to you elsewhere. And yes, I love the idea of a 21st century salon. Any other salon lover who wants to get in touch with me - without conceding their email address - may lay out an idea here and I will respond. Even if bears no relation to anything I've said in this post or anywhere else.
DeleteAs to "the machinations of producing novels", your choice of noun is both original and appropriate. But alas, we novelists - or potential novelists - may not complain at what we've taken on. It's our choice. Most people would agree, either speculatively or as a result at "having a go", that writing a novel is going to be hard. Straight off there's the mere scale of a project that requires assembling and managing at least 100,000 words. It's difficult to keep such agglomerations straight in our mind, even more difficult to propel the action - remaining logical and interesting - when we're so far into this forest of words. Does this latest move agree with what we were originally aiming for? Never forgetting that this is something we want to do.
And it doesn't get easier. I've written four complete novels, over the last fifteen years plus one or two less controlled works decades ago. Plus thirty short stories. You would have thought that I was at least capable of diagnosing why Rictangular Lenses (56,000 words written) is somehow unsatisfactory.
I'm just not sure and I've had to resort to a method that can only be described as "suck it and see". I know I have a tendency - the result of earning a living in journalism for 44 years - of cutting out material I imagine to be redundant. Might I have overdone this? As a result I've started at Word One of RL and am reading slowly, very slowly, trying to identify areas where I can - legitimately - add stuff which maintains interest and also enhances the logic of the plot. Then seeing whether these changes alter my view of the whole.
So... I'm looking for holes that may or may not exist. Hey! Good luck to me.