tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post114015743499098047..comments2024-03-28T02:36:55.037-04:00Comments on Brooklyn Arden: Muddling ThroughCherylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05972029478350879112noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-1140187926349466202006-02-17T09:52:00.000-05:002006-02-17T09:52:00.000-05:00As someone who will be attending the Asilomar conf...As someone who will be attending the Asilomar conference and get to hear you in person can I just say I am really looking forward to your speech? <BR/><BR/>We love speakers with meat in their talks, as this one sounds like it will be. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and if you've never been to Asilomar, you're in for a treat. The place is beautiful. <BR/><BR/>Looking forward to meeting you.<BR/><BR/>Susan Taylor Brown<BR/>www.livejournal.com/users/susanwritesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-1140182087127589542006-02-17T08:14:00.000-05:002006-02-17T08:14:00.000-05:00My listeners usually don't have my English-major b...My listeners usually don't have my English-major background, you're right. But it would be a bad talk if I said anything that went over their heads, or if I was addressing my own interests and concerns (Austen, Forster, literary criticism, moral goods in novels, etc.) more than what's useful to them (how plots work, what is satisfying and unsatisfying in a plot, why we write). So my talk will be very much Aristotle & Austen 101 and how their techniques can work for my listeners, and I'll save all my personal obsessions with lit crit for my blog here -- as I just did. Usefulness, usefulness. Word of the week.Cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05972029478350879112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-1140177330155560022006-02-17T06:55:00.000-05:002006-02-17T06:55:00.000-05:00hmm...I wish to revise my earlier comment slightly...hmm...I wish to revise my earlier comment slightly. One of the advantages of listening to or reading how articulate, bright people analyze and explain things is that the world becomes more clear. Thoughts that were mere wisps become concrete. A good example is art: my sister, who has taken a number of history of art classes, has developed an eye and vocabulary for looking at, analyzing, and explaining art. (You have an eye too, though I don't think that it's developed in the same way as my sister's given the respective amount of time that I imagine the two of you having spent looking at paintings and the greater amount of formal training that she's had). Whereas I see a piece and think and say "I like this," she is actually able to explain why she likes it and why I like it. Therefore, I can see how your audience might appreciate your thoughts on plot, because you are basically teaching them how to "see." However, I wonder whether you are teaching them to "see" too much in that maybe they're not ready to "see" yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-1140176690035106592006-02-17T06:44:00.000-05:002006-02-17T06:44:00.000-05:00I hate to put it this way, but do you ever wonder ...I hate to put it this way, but do you ever wonder whether most of what you say goes over the head of your audience at SCBWI conferences?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4074861.post-1140171271458399732006-02-17T05:14:00.000-05:002006-02-17T05:14:00.000-05:00I need to reread the Zadie Smith piece, but I want...I need to reread the Zadie Smith piece, but I wanted to pick up on the 'screen time' given characters as a clue to the author's moral universe. When I began <I> Daniel Deronda </I> I was annoyed at having to spend so much time with Gwendolen. I really didn't like her. At all. And I didn't want to be inside her head. But Daniel's huge moral sympathy with most everybody in the world shamed me, and I tried to be more charitable toward Gwendolen. And it's working. I do like her better. That darn George Eliot. Nothing like being worked over morally and <I> enjoying </I> it. Sheesh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com