Pre-Workshop 2

I'm finding this draft to be more difficult than the first workshop. I'm wondering if I should scrap it and start over with a different story. What is working is the structure--the frame story--where I started off with the present went back to the past and then back to the present day. I think I need to add a lot more information into the story to better develop the characters and internal conflict. The story needs to be longer in order to give more back story or show why she chooses to marry the wrong guy and knows it. I think the story goes too fast in the middle when showing her fight with her husband, then she leaves. It might be better to show more of that to build the tension before she leaves. This would also be a good time to talk more about her past, her family and even get into why her husband changed so much over the past year.

As far as workshop, I'd like to address whether this story has any potential or if I should start over. For some reason, I'm feeling very unsure of this one but it could be all in my head. I'd like to know if the frame structure is actually the right way to present it or if there is a more effective way. I'd also like to get feedback on how I can develop the main character's inner struggle better, what is working and what is not.

Speaking of conflict, the main character is never named, but she struggles with trying to live up to her family's expectations and not disappoint them by divorcing her abusive husband. She has always been drawn to the wrong type of people, especially in relationships and she needs to figure out how to do what's right for her and stop caring what other people think.

Story Structure and Form

Carver's "Cathedral" is structured in a linear and chronological fashion. When I picture it being re-written as a frame story, I think it might have been more interesting because it would have started in the present, when Robert was at the house with the narrator and his wife and then gone back to the past to give more information. This may not have worked, however, in that it might be too confusing! Also, in telling the story in chronological order, we get the experience of the buildup of tension, and even suspense, with the narrator being nervous about the arrival of his wife's blind friend. The narrator has a choice to make near the end when Robert asks him to first describe, and then draw, a cathedral with him. He could have remained closed-off but instead he allows himself to open up to Robert. This is a change for him because throughout the story, he is sarcastic and less than excited about meeting his wife's friend because it makes him uncomfortable. He does seem to change at the end as he bonds with Robert. After they draw the cathedral together, the narrator keeps his eyes closed and says, "It's really something." This shows that Robert has taught him a different way of "seeing" things, so to speak. Because of this, the chronological structure is the best for the story because this is the most impactful way to end the story and show the narrator's change.

Perspective

In “How to Become a Writer,” Lorrie Moore is an unreliable narrator, giving (mostly) terrible advice to aspiring writers. She writes in the second person point of view so the essay is not so much about her struggle—although much of the advice could be taken from her own experience—but about what she thinks is necessary in becoming a writer. It is obvious from the tongue-in-cheek tone that she is not expecting readers to take her advice literally but then why write the piece? What she is telling us to do is unrealistic and full of bad life choices. She doesn’t expect us to follow her advice word for word; she is making the point that it is OK to make mistakes. It is OK to be a little irresponsible in youth, a little careless, because this is the only time you can get away with it. This is your time to find yourself. It is OK to veer off the path from time to time and find out who you are and what you want. 

The second person point of view is the most effective for this piece because it jumps out at you: do this, do that, make terrible mistakes, etc. It is more direct and has more of an impact than if she told the story in first person or third person. I would use this point of view—although I never have—if I thought the story needed it. So far, I haven’t written a story or essay in second person. It seems like it would be limiting and only work in a piece similar to Moore’s. There are probably many more possibilities but I think it would be fun to try.

   

Reflections from an Editor

   Having just completed the first round of workshop critiques, I feel like I have gotten better at trying to understand what the story is really about, noticing subtext, and being confident in suggesting both small and global changes to help the writer take the story to a new level. Many times, it is one small thing that is already in the story but not explored or developed enough. Focusing on this can make a huge difference and take a story from good to amazing. 

   This being an online class, we are only giving written responses and critiques. This can make it both easier and more difficult. It is almost easier to give written responses because you have time to think about what you will write and choose your words carefully. However, talking in person can be easier because you can rely on tone of voice and facial expressions to get your meaning across without offending the writer. I've done most workshops online so it's hard for me to compare in-person vs. written responses. I think in-person could be more effective because you could have a conversation and clarify things right away, whereas reading only written responses can lead to confusion. 

   What stood out to me the most from the Straub essay were his insights on how to present comments. It's important to not only explain your comments but also to try to "engage the writer in considering her choices and thinking about possible ways to improve the paper." I do find that I have the urge to change things in someone's story and say, "Do this!" not out of sheer bossiness but out of excitement and seeing the potential of the story. (This is why I love to have my work critiqued: as the writer, there are so many things that I miss but a different set of eyes can really offer suggestions to make my story so much better) I really try to focus on reigning in my excitement because the writer may have different intentions for the story and it's not my story to change, only to make suggestions and explain why.