Writing about Indiana: Or, Writing about Indiana as an Act of Defiance: Or, Convince Me Why all of My Assumptions about Your Assumptions about What's Important about Your Writing are Wrong
Writing about Indiana: Or, Writing about Indiana as an Act of Defiance: Or, Convince Me Why all of My Assumptions about Your Assumptions about What's Important about Your Writing are Wrong
Is it just me, or is the “rectangle” idea totally opaque? I kept thinking as I read the essay that there must be a simpler way to communicate these ideas. There’s something important here about genuine, engaging writing, but it’s obscured by the language of the essay itself.
I agree. I appreciate the fact that he tries to express what he wants as an editor in a creative and poetic way, but the essay comes off as windy and self-important. I'm one who actually likes theory talk (and he must be around my vintage, since that phrase "mediates the rift in consciousness" sounds like an almost heartwarming throwback to grad school!), but it isn't helping, here. That phrase, "the most Indiana of fish in the most Indiana of waters" ends up coming off as rather essentialist--he wants work that seems to embody the essence of whatever it is putatively about--? Say what? And it seems presumptive on his part to act like he could read an author's mind--would know what "assumptions" are furnishing it. Finally, "every story has a home somewhere" sounds like a condescending sop, after all that. Aren't some stories terrible and actually don't need to be published? As an editor, I have read them; as a writer, I have written them.
Is it just me, or is the “rectangle” idea totally opaque? I kept thinking as I read the essay that there must be a simpler way to communicate these ideas. There’s something important here about genuine, engaging writing, but it’s obscured by the language of the essay itself.
I agree. I appreciate the fact that he tries to express what he wants as an editor in a creative and poetic way, but the essay comes off as windy and self-important. I'm one who actually likes theory talk (and he must be around my vintage, since that phrase "mediates the rift in consciousness" sounds like an almost heartwarming throwback to grad school!), but it isn't helping, here. That phrase, "the most Indiana of fish in the most Indiana of waters" ends up coming off as rather essentialist--he wants work that seems to embody the essence of whatever it is putatively about--? Say what? And it seems presumptive on his part to act like he could read an author's mind--would know what "assumptions" are furnishing it. Finally, "every story has a home somewhere" sounds like a condescending sop, after all that. Aren't some stories terrible and actually don't need to be published? As an editor, I have read them; as a writer, I have written them.
Interestingly irritating essay, anyway! :)