Lopate says that "what stands in the way of most personal essays in not technique but psychology. The emotional preparedness, if you will, to be honest and open to exposure". I agree that this is probably the hardest part of writing, nonfiction or otherwise. This is probably why it seems so difficult for the class to discuss our writing. Having an idea is one thing, but being able to share it with the world is quite another. I could easily write a thousand pages of whatever is on my mind at any given time, but my desire to share it would be quite low. I suppose it isn't a requirement of creative nonfiction to put your own emotions into it or to really expose yourself in your writing, but it seems an easier and more natural way to write.
I really enjoyed the way that Lott worked on defining creative writing. "The biography becomes creative nonfiction as the author increasingly identifies himself with [the subject of the book], increasingly recognizing in the stupidity of the boy's folly his own reckless self. [The author] sees himself in relation to the subject at hand." I really like the idea of a creative biography. I have read the book that Lott was talking about in this quote, Into the Wild by John Krakauer. The interesting thing is that I didn't really consider that book to be a biography when I was reading it, although in retrospect it's quite obvious. It's an excellent story, and Krakauer integrates a lot of his ideas and emotions into it. That realization has certainly served as a lesson to me. One of the saddest, most emotional books I ever read was a biography, and I didn't even know it because of how talented the author was at his craft.
Something else struck me as I was doing reading for my research class. When asked about her research for writing about Marilyn Monroe's life and acting, Joyce Carol Oates said, "Norma Jeane seems to have been a naturally gifted actress because, perhaps, she so lacked an inner core of identity." That is to say...Monroe was able to act (acting, of course, being a great lie,) because she herself did not feel or perhaps feel the need to include any sense of herself. Along the same lines, although quite the opposite, one must be able to feel to tell the truth. In order to write effective nonfiction, it's important for the writer to maintain a sense of self (aka a voice,) for the book to have real meaning. If you equate acting to fiction writing and real life to nonfiction writing, there is a definite parallel. Yes, creative nonfiction aims to tell the truth of a story, but to do it in a way that it really happened in life. I think this is a really important part of the creative process, to consider the impact on ones' audience. By adding the writer's voice to someone else's story, we are able to give it the flavor of a fictional story while maintaining the truth.
We have talked about the "moves" that writers make in creative nonfiction, and in particular I liked Simic's style. He creates blocks of text which don't necessarily relate to one another, but instead add different facets to his essay. The story is written in such a way that the reader doesn't know why Simic keeps telling these small anecdotes, and why he doesn't bother telling his audience anything that would tie the stories together. It isn't until the final paragraph that he explains himself. By not telling the audience, he keeps the story interesting, he keeps it flowing. Probably if the audience knew that he was telling bits of dreams or just spouting off old memories as "poetry", the essay would not keep anyone's attention. His moves are interesting, which makes the essay itself interesting. Simic proves that creative nonfiction can be poetry. Atwood's essay is similar in its setup, as it is blocked off into different stories, although hers are related and numbered. Hers shows us that creative nonfiction can also be prose.
No comments:
Post a Comment