The separator between the comment pane and the story pane is moveable. Drag it up or down if you need more room to read on the screen.
From: Gary Jordan
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 18 Mar 2002 18:49:32 GMT
Spin said:
I wouldn't change a word. The story cannot be improved, in my opinion. If it is not perfect, I don't see where it is not.
I will thank you, Sir, to remember that I am the torch bearer (ergo, cheerleader) for ASSD. Unqualified praise is my bailiwick! Should you usurp my position again, I shall have to break out my potato peeler and whittle away your katana, one thin strip at a time!
From: DrSpin
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 18 Mar 2002 20:14:06 -0800
In article <20020318134932.19648.00001315@mb-fu.aol.com>, Gary said ...
I will thank you, Sir, to remember that I am the torch bearer (ergo, cheerleader) for ASSD. Unqualified praise is my bailiwick! Should you usurp my position again, I shall have to break out my potato peeler and whittle away your katana, one thin strip at a time!
Okay, but get cracking on it, Gary. Never mind about these others. I have an Eiffel Tower ego and it needs constant maintenance and support.
Seriously, I could find nothing in Oosh's story to criticise. I've read other comments now, and I still can't. And I'm generally not that easy to please.
DrSpin
* also at neil@ruthiesclub.com and at http://www.ruthiesclub.com
From: Gary Jordan
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 19 Mar 2002 07:00:10 GMT
DrSpin prescribes:
In article <20020318134932.19648.00001315@mb-fu.aol.com>, Gary said ...
I will thank you, Sir, to remember that I am the torch bearer (ergo, cheerleader) for ASSD. Unqualified praise is my bailiwick! Should you usurp my position again, I shall have to break out my potato peeler and whittle away your katana, one thin strip at a time!
Okay, but get cracking on it, Gary. Never mind about these others. I have an Eiffel Tower ego and it needs constant maintenance and support.
Seriously, I could find nothing in Oosh's story to criticise. I've read other comments now, and I still can't. And I'm generally not that easy to please.
I am also a charter member of the Procrastinator's Club - or I will be, if I ever get around to joining.
Whether my hopper contains 3 or 103 hopperettes, my Fan Mail Hopper contains more unwritten and unsent mail.
In case of any (or in any case), I've read the comments so far as well, and while I can agree that a phrase or two might be tweaked, I see no need. Like you, I find it delightful 'as is.
Gary Jordan
"Old submariners never die. It's not within their scope."
http://www.asstr.org/~gary/
http://www.asstr.org/~gary/Clitorides/
http://www.asstr.org/~gary/ShonRichards/
http://www.asstr.org/spotlight.html
http://www.storiesonline.net/
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:38:59 -0600
On 18 Mar 2002 07:13:50 -0800, DrSpin <drspin@newsguy.com> wrote:
In article <20020318083512.05048.00001781@mb-mt.aol.com>, Desdmona offered ...
Caught
By Oosh
One thing:
Long ago, one of my friends tried to explain to me how the smallest, most subtle things elude the scientist: even the act of watching disturbs the intimate motions of what is observed.
Uncanny. I heard that line of dialogue in a television drama just half an hour before I read Oosh's story. It was in a different setting and the context was entirely different. But spooky all the same.
An exact duplicate, or just a close approximation. The principle is one which is well known, and it is a fundamental part of quantum physics.
At the practical level of human interaction, watching might be done without being observed.
If the line is a quote, it is a very nice one. If it is an original interpretation, I think it is still nice of course, but even better.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Gary Jordan
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 18 Mar 2002 18:33:55 GMT
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 things to improve
3) Try not to repeat!
Not fair! Not fair!
Spin already said what I wanted to say (except that I didn't hear that line on TV, just that observation in one form or another 'all my life'.)
The story is as exquisite and delicate as the dress she described.
Two things to improve?
Use a delicate cursive font.
Make the column narrower.
Gary Jordan
"Old submariners never die. It's not within their scope."
http://www.asstr.org/~gary/
http://www.asstr.org/~gary/Clitorides/
http://www.asstr.org/~gary/ShonRichards/
http://www.asstr.org/spotlight.html
http://www.storiesonline.net/
From: Vinnie Tesla
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:47:22 GMT
I might consider getting rid of the last two paragraphs. They remove unity of time & place, and eliminate the ambiguity about whether the thread is a product of the narrator's imagination or an actual magic (or psychic if you prefer) um ... item.
That's a lot of description of the dress (proportionately speaking). I'm not sure how much that actually serves the story.
I like the sensation of the other people on the street as an almost-undifferentiated mass. It reminds me of various images I've seen (mostly magazine ads, I think) with one or two people in an urban crowd scene colored, with everyone else in black-and-white. Both approaches I think capture a psychological truth about the filtering of attention a city-dweller has to do constantly.
The narrator's impulse to to go back and tell the clerks they shouldn't stop was both moving and funny.
-Vinnie
vinnie_tesla@yahoo.com
http://www.asstr.org/~vinnie_tesla/
He polishes birds of the Vista
From: Selena Jardine
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:27:34 GMT
Desdmona22 wrote:
I've decided to try a more informative approach to the upcoming weeks in the FishTank. I was thinking if writers were given a specific date, they might be more inclined to submit something. I sent out two requests this week. Both authors agreed without hesitation.(Thanks to you both!) So our calendar looks like this:
March 18, 2002 Submission by Oosh
March 25, 2002 Submission by Nicholas Urfe
April 1, 2002 Open
April 8, 2002 Open
If you're interested in filling one of the open spots, please email me at:
Desdmona22@aol.com.
********************************************** The following is a complete story. It is 828 words in length. This is an idea that Oosh has had in her head for awhile, but wrote just recently, specifically for the FishTank. Like a lot of authors, she would have shelved the story for a bit and then come back to it at a later date. Instead, she's offering it to us to see if we have any ideas about it. Same guidelines apply:
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 things to improve
3) Try not to repeat!
This submission and its comments will be stored at:
http://www.asstr.org/~Desdmona/FishTank/base
************************************************* Caught By Oosh
This story is absolutely exquisite. It is like a roundelay, with the title telling us the first line: the dress that catches the eye, the cuff that catches the eye, the fish caught by the hook, the heart caught by the hook. I feel, approaching it in the FishTank, as if I am approaching the dress Oosh describes in the window: I'd hate to try to get a wine-stain out of this gorgeous and delicate thing. Let me try to make a couple of very tiny suggestions about wording without spilling anything. (NB that these are all in the ear of the behearer; please ignore if I am merely being a dope or an American or both.)
I had to go that way myself; and so for a few moments I followed them, wondering: for now it was as if, despite their common uniform, they were utter strangers, or like friends no longer on speaking terms, as far apart from one another as they could possibly be on this broad and crowded pavement.
I would cut the word "like" in this sentence. In the first half, you say that it is as if they are utter strangers; it is not necessary in the second half to say that it is as if they are like friends.
The other tiny thing is the difference between "each other" and "one another." I believe that "each other" usually refers to relations two people, and "one another" to more than two. This distinction may now be completely obsolete, doctrinaire, and irrelevant to every ear but mine own.
This is a truly beautiful story.
Selena
selenajardine@yahoo.com
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:04:22 -0600
desdmona22@aol.com (Desdmona22) wrote:
1) 2 positive comments
Weird and wonderful.
2) 2 things to improve
I'm not too fond of stories that leave you completely guessing if it was real or not. Too much they remind me of those stories that end, " ... and she woke up in the morning, and it was all a dream."
No mention at all about the hook until the end.
And if the line went through her EARLIER ... Why wasn't she either caught in it then, or have it cut her in two?
Picky, picky, picky.
3) Try not to repeat!
Well ... Nobody else wanted to pick, so I did.
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 18 Mar 2002 23:16:16 GMT
" ... gradually the hook tore up, up through my left lung, and into my heart."
What a strong ending! But it doesn't quite work. Mostly, I think, because we haven't lived enough with the character. The story is brief and vivid, but the poetic force of this kind of ending isn't compelling. It's not that I doubt it, but for it to matter, I'd have to know the character much more. So a longer story might help. It might give me the time I need, the information I need. As it is, the character isn't fully developed enough for this kind of ending. To a lesser degree the ending fails because it's told to us, not demonstrated.
Much as I like the poetics of the last phrase, I'm not sure I'm convinced that the ending is even necessary. What would happened if the story ended with the narrator in the street caught between the two shop clerks? I think that might be enough.
I really like the undersea imagery and at the same time I think it's much to blatant. It makes the story feel more like a poem than a story. I'd like to see it toned down. Maybe the reference to the Cousteau could be implied instead of stated.
It seems to me that overstatement is a problem in the story. Examples:
For a little while I observed them, scarcely believing what I saw. I almost laughed, as the crowds hurried past them and me, that I alone could see the invisible silver thread that connected these two apparent strangers. Then,
reproaching myself once more, I hastened my step and passed between them. And
as I did so, I shuddered with a thrill of secret joy and pain, cut through by a filament of gossamer.
I find it hard to believe that the narrator would be quite that incredulous. "Scarcely believing" is too strong. If the narrator really feels that way, we need it to be shown, not told. "Reproaching" seems a little strong, as well.
I did not see the eye, turned on me in anger; but I felt it. Desolate, I turned and moved on - only to stop a few yards further on, too bemused by my
regret to continue. Instead, I stood there, an island in the middle of the
broad pavement, while people flowed to and fro around me, wishing that I had never been here, preferring never to have been born than to have disturbed that tender embrace.
"Desolate" seems too strong, and "bemused by regret," an interesting concept, doesn't quite fit with desolate. The final sentiment of the paragraph strikes me as the most hyperbolic. I find it incredible that the woman would rather never have been born than disturb the embrace.
I like the way that embrace is rendered. I like that the narrator makes so much of it (and her own involvement) - perhaps inaccurately. The relationship is delicate and delicious - I think an understated ending would fit it just fine.
A few possible issues with the writing. Here's one example:
and in the hot summer evening I fancied that I'd feel blithe and refreshed in a dress like that. Could I have worn it? Once, definitely. But now? Well, I'd not want to have to clean a wine-stain out of such a thing.
"Once" made me think at first that the dress could be worn one time. Something fitting there, I suppose, but still it's a stop. Lots of ways to fix. Tempting would be: "Once upon a time, definitely."
- Mat
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:48:16 -0000
Positive 1
I admired the description of the dress. I can't do clothes at all. Show me a woman in a beautiful outfit and I will be as amazed as anyone, but ask me to describe it and it's impact on me afterwards, and I'm stumped. So I'm madly jealous!
Positive 2
I had to read the thing twice before I realised that the two shop assistants were in fact both female (my stupidity, not yours!). If you take the idea that they were M/F, as I did, then the story itself sounds ather stupid and the narrator comes across as a bit of a 'dirty old woman'. But, and this is the strength of the story telling, despite the fact that I had that idea in my head, it still carried me along and I still felt I was reading real class.
Room for improvement 1
I'm really grasping here, but sometimes the imagery seemed a tad too flowery. The description of the window as 'the crystal floor of Cousteau's ship' actually threw me slightly. It was glass and didn't need to be anything else.
Room for improvement 2
The end needs thought. Perhaps the fishing hook idea didn't quite work for me anyway (though the overall 'deep sea' analogy was good), but I didnt think you needed to mention the left lung at all!
As a short story, it needs very little attention in my view (and, I see, the view of others), but it would also fit well as a section in a chapter of a novel that any publisher would snap up. Can you sustain the quality of the prose? (I'll have to read more to find out)
Nick
From: Conjugate
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:25:37 -0500
"Desdmona22" <desdmona22@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020318083512.05048.00001781@mb-mt.aol.com ...
1) 2 positive comments
2) 2 things to improve
3) Try not to repeat!
Elegant, suggestive. I like the nice use of language, the lack of explicit description in most cases.
However, there are two items I'd like to see corrected. One is, a bit more description of the character. Granted, she can't see the two in the back clearly, but she gets a look at them later. Then, too, who is the observer? Squeeze in a bit more information about her; why is she inclined to watch? Why is she, as she wants to cry to them, "your sister." and in what sense?
I suspect you may have hesitated to post this bit before now because you think it's incomplete, a little too short. All I can suggest is the obvious; perhaps the narrator meets one, or both, of the shop clerks at a social event. Perhaps she finds out that the tryst she observed was not entirely what it appears, that (perhaps) there is some underlying drama, a hint of NC or some odd history between the two that made it unthinkable that they try to repeat the experience that the narrator interrupted.
Conjugate
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:27:58 -0600
On 18 Mar 2002 13:35:12 GMT, desdmona22@aol.com (Desdmona22) wrote:
This is a hard story to critique. Repeating, but I just have to say that the story itself seems good as it is. Finding flaws, if there are any, requires looking at it in depth. Something that isn't easy to do without a lot of time to look it over.
OK, a minor flaw: It isn't coded nosex. The story is romantic, but not quite a sex story. It doesn't need to have sex in it, of course. Not sex per se, anyway. I'm not sure what to call what it does have, which is pretty erotic. A tease, maybe.
I'm not sure if that is something to improve on, or another positive. It is very well done.
Another positive: The whole sensory changing way of observing the scene as if it were in a fishtank (or oceanographic exhibit) is both intense and feels very right. The ordinary daydreaming turns into a discovery that the scene is much more than its mere appearance.
The ending seems a bit abrupt. The shock is fine, but it seems to just pop up in the last paragraph. I don't know if it must be longer, but I'd wish for a bit more to show how the situation develops.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: PleaseCain
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 19 Mar 2002 03:42:14 GMT
As always, your descriptions are wonderful, sprinkles of vivid detail: the invisible silver thread, the filament of gossamer, the deep-sea metaphor for the shop window, the hand hanging in the air like a tendril, your use of space along the sidewalk. In fact, I would like to see more of these kinds of descriptions about the parties on either side of the plate glass window. You have a strong premise - the woman watching through the shop window - and could easily develop it further, with a spicy sentence or two, and still end it with her wanting more.
Likewise, I'd prefer more physical detail in the concluding paragraph. You've got the makings here, with her sweet and sour swell of emotion, but what we have now seems a disembodied series of concepts. As a reader, I like a bit of ambiguity to make me think some, to let me share the story with the author, but adding a physical element here, like her touching herself, would ground the story more. Does this make sense, I wonder?
Your writing is a pleasure to read. Thanks for affording us a look-see into this one.
Cain
From: Katherine T.
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 03:46:49 GMT
Oosh's story is a gem, polished and with many facets. There is no more point in "criticizing" this than in criticizing a Modigliani drawing. How the hell do you criticize a Modigliani drawing? Do you say the woman's neck is too long? Oosh is one of the finest talents that I've seen here, too good for some of the apparent philistine hogs sniveling around for a wank rather than for art. Brava, Oosh!
Katherine T.
From: Always Horny
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:57:28 +0100
I had difficulty with this one: the things that turn me off most in the story, like the mannerisms, the affected style and the snobbery, those things are obviously deliberate. And possibly well done, as Spin's reaction shows. I agree with Michael (I think it was him) that there is no point in arguing with an author for writing a story different than what I would have enjoyed. So I'll keep my comment to a technicality:
...from a distance the fabric seemed muslin-light - though, as I approached ...
IMO the dash followed by a lowercase letter isn't quite right here. Maybe capitalize it, or use some other punctuation. But then again, it could be deliberate too, and just be one-upmanship to Semicolon Janey in the punctuation wars.
AH
A_H_01 at hotmail. com
From: Bradley Stoke
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 19 Mar 2002 03:55:01 -0800
Oosh
The structure of this exercise is to find two good things to say, two bad things and not to repeat something already said. I'm sure as a means of moderating the discussion so that it doesn't become a flame war for pieces of work that some readers dislike, this is an excellent approach. But what happens when it is difficult (really difficult) to think of anything negative to say.
There is a lovely, dreamy, out-of-body feel to the story. It floats around the streets and stores of Oxford Street, exactly like one does when shopping for clothes and focussed (truly focussed) on buying something. It's a strange sensation, which is well captured, and makes more sense the apparent shock of interrupting a personal moment and being jolted into wondering what the right response should be.
Together with the dreaminess, there is a sharp clarity. Everything is clear and prismed. The descriptions are of a world that is in very distinct relief. And yet the descriptions are very much part of the emotional inner world of the narrator as they are of the world beyond. A very delicate and difficult trick to pull off. And done very well.
The difficulty is focussing on the negative. Perhaps one might be the final line about "the hook tore up, up through my left lung, and into my heart." There is a very strong, personal image struggling to come out. I'm not sure it actually captures the feeling it tries to do. A second negative might be that the central event almost drifts past, unnoticed, on a casual glance over. Perhaps it could stand out more. But then. But then. Maybe it would break the very feel of the story that is its strength.
This is a story where 828 words were just not enough. I just wish there were more. Beautiful, subtle and evocative.
Bradley Stoke
From: celia batau
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:02:51 -0800
hi Oosh!
it's beautiful, Oosh. just like it is. :)
-cb
"Desdmona22" <desdmona22@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020318083512.05048.00001781@mb-mt.aol.com ...
Caught
By Oosh
From: Desdmona
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 21 Mar 2002 05:51:15 GMT
Caught
By Oosh
The part of the story where she's lingering over the attributes of the dress, and then she suddenly becomes aware of the scene behind the display, mirrors my initial reaction. This story is full of beautiful language flowing from one sentence to the next. The cadence of sentences and paragraphs float ethereally, poetically, marvelously. The language is so beautiful in fact, that I almost missed the story. I had to reread. I wonder if that makes sense? I guess it's like taking a picture - you're so focused on one thing that it's not until you look at it later that you notice all the lovely things you accidentally included. The surprises are sometimes the best part.
I half-heartedly agree with those that have asked for a little more description of the scene &/or the characters that the narrator observes. I think I want more because I'm greedy, not necessarily because it would benefit the story. More description might bring too much clarity to the scene and take away the subtle murkiness that adds to the whole underwater analogy.
The only real thing that niggled at me, and I hesitate to bring it up, for fear of showing my own ignorance, is the ending. What does it mean exactly? Is it that the narrator is actually the one who is caught? If so, what hooks her? Is she at this moment, this night, caught in a similar act? Is it an epiphany about her sexuality? Is it a hole in her soul for causing a familiar pain to someone else? Does it mean she's hooked into voyeurism and will be searching out shop windows more often? Is it a metaphor for an orgasm? I just don't know.
I love the imagery, the whole fishing line sort of idea of being lured in, caught, and then hooked beyond freedom ... but I wish I understood better what actually hooks her.
Thank you Oosh for sharing this beautiful piece and allowing us to pretend we might suggest something to make it better.
Des
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:46:00 GMT
First, my grateful thanks to all who took time and trouble over this very interesting FishTank session. We are all self-critical, and our different merits show the areas in which our critical faculties specialize. If you are like me, you are very afraid that, whilst you are polishing one aspect of your work to perfection, there is some other ghastly weakness to which you are blind, and which taints all your work. That is my personal nightmare.
I was amazed at the extreme positions people took over /Caught/. There were those who thought it was light and delicate, and those who thought it was heavy-handed and extreme. Some found it seductive, others confrontational. While some found the metaphor laboured, and others thought it was just right, others didn't seem to get the point of the story at all. I think that is in the nature of things. We all present what we see in a different way, and some will find one way better than another. That is the beauty of diversity.
I cannot blame those of you who felt confused. After all, in my head this should have been a poem. I just don't have the ability to write it as such. So, instead, it is a short prose piece, but using the thought-world of a poem. The happy result (for me) is that I have found a way to express it at all. I have been searching for a way to express this since last summer, feeling I needed to say something about it, but not knowing how.
I loved KT's Modigliani analogy, and was reminded of recent discussion of swan-like necks; but some of the more positive reactions to /Caught/ seemed almost overboard, just as my own piece seemed to others. That led me to think of the Mona Lisa, that apparently unquestionable paragon (shibboleth, almost) of "great art". For some, /Caught/ was like the Mona Lisa; others felt that it would work only as the culmination of a series; while others, again, felt that it would have been more suggestive if the artist had left a rectangular hole in the canvas where the smile ought to have been.
I ended up wondering if some of the criticisms were expressions of preference for other genres. While that's perfectly reasonable - as is the accusation that I chose the wrong genre - it isn't helpful without some hint as to what genre would have served my purpose better. But to know that, you have to know what my purpose was.
Some of you felt that certain things were rather confrontationally expressed, or even overblown, perhaps. To a limited extent, in a very short piece, I think this is justifiable. This is a miniature, and I don't have the space for subtle gradations or lengthy set-ups. I'm entitled to a spash of primary colour if I want. At the same time, I fear that I am prone to hyperbole and flowery language. I'm very glad that some of you were able to give me the kind of detailed pointer that I'm afraid I need if I am to become a better writer. "I don't like that choice of word" - that's helpful. Vague deprecations of my chosen style are not.
I don't believe that my use of metaphor was overdone. It is a well respected principle in poetry that one should use a coherent metaphorical framework, and use it consistently. Obviously, I chose the metaphor of fishing. I didn't use it indiscriminately. I could have had fish-shaped beads on the dress. I could have had the folds of the dress flowing like water. I could have had the pedestrians on the pavement passing me like schools of fish, and the flow on the pavement like that of a river. But I didn't. I applied my metaphor solely to the loving action of the two women, and my reaction to it. It's not overdone: it's just done. I didn't put it on with a trowel; equally, I didn't want to make it at all hard for the intelligent reader to pick up what I was doing. This was not a game of hide-and-seek. If you think that consistency and economy of metaphor somehow constitutes overkill, then I think you have a problem. It is not rational to dislike (say) football, because it uses a rectangular pitch, on the ground (pun intended) that other games use a hexagonal pitch or, like Cricket, a circular pitch. It's just the game I chose to play. If that bothers you, then really you do need to grow up. I am perfectly entitled to choose an established framework for my writing, just as you are free to dislike it. Don't imagine that this is "criticism" - it's a taste statement. I don't rebuke you for it: we are all entitled to our tastes. But don't use it to say rude things like "overblown" or "forced" (not that anybody did).
Some wanted me to fill out the characters more. But that was not what this story was about. I did not wish, in this reminiscence, to wander off into characterization. There were no characters involved save mine, the narrator's, and I hope you will understand when I say that this was not a story about me, but about what I saw and felt. This was an exercise in communication, not self-revelation (although that may happen by the way). I did not wish to talk about myself. David Hume would have said that I am the sum of my experiences, and there is a sense in which that is true (although not the one Hume had in mind).
Many of you disliked the ending. Rightly, some of you felt that I could have made it less jarring. Some found it totally bewildering. Asked to explain, I have found it extremely difficult - which might surprise you. I have spent longer thinking of how I might try and explain it than I spent actually writing the piece in the first place (two hours). That is because I did not proceed by first analyzing what I thought and felt, reaching a rational conclusion, and then dressing it up to make it into a story. /Caught/ was my first attempt at explaining my thoughts to myself. I suspect that if I had attempted a coherent logical explanation of what I felt, its intensity would have dissipated, and it would never have propelled me into the kind of fury that I need in order to write. I cannot write cold. I have to be beside myself - and I'm sure that many of you will know what I mean when I say that.
So - after so much thought, what explanation do I have for that terrible ending? Well, as some of you saw at once, the principal idea of the story was that while I had "caught" the two girls kissing, it was really they who had caught me. I used the word "caught" twice, early on, to give the false impression that I had "caught them out", or that they had been "caught at it". But after the world turns on its side, I begin to show (or try to) that it is really the other way round. Why did I think of saying that I was their "sister"? Why could I not forgive myself for breaking them apart? Why was my reaction so extreme that I was authoritatively accused of hyperbole?
I was trying to portray sympathy, an especially close sympathy, and the heartbreak at knowing that it was my own presence that has destroyed the precious thing that attracted my attention in the first place. Hence, when the two lovers leave the shop and pretend to have nothing to do with one another, I am the only one who knows of the invisible link between them. I am the only one who can feel something cut through me as I walk between them (but not when they walked past me shortly before).
The line that cuts through me is their love, and in the last paragraph I imply that it is drawing tight: the fishing line is being reeled in. In other words, they are together, in the small hours of the morning, and the bond between them has become suddenly much tighter, robbing me of breath, touching my heart, as if by some mystical knowledge of their union. All the sex of the story is in that tightening of the line. My pain is both the almost-pain of orgasm (their orgasm), and also the pain of knowing that I have done nothing but cast a cloud of anxiety over their relationship. The joy is the sympathetic joy of knowing that their relationhsip is consummated.
So there is the gutted fish, upon the dissecting-table, its entrails exposed for the class to examine. I think it was more beautiful when it was swimming in the sea.
At the same time, though, I think it is quite right that a poet should be called to account. Poetry is a mindset, and if you don't have it, it's like a granite wall. I must admit that when I'm writing poetry, logical dissection seems somehow indecent - analysis disrupts the motivating idea. But afterwards, when the work is done, it's perfectly reasonable to ask "what did you mean by this?" or "how do you justify that?" I often wish that people felt more free to ask such questions. It's not a question of being thought stupid. People don't necessarily write poetry (or flowery prose) in order to feel superior, or to make others feel stupid. We write in order to communicate something in a way that the poetic medium makes possible. Afterwards, we can turn off the hot tap and start to analyze with the rest of you. But it's just not compatible with the writing frame of mind. In my experience.
I thank extra much those who read the piece more than once. I hope that the effort was repaid. I have always tried to write so that re-reading will yield more and more meaning, and if possible more pleasure. I am not aiming at a kind of trick ending that will surprise you. With that kind of writing, once the cat is out of the bag, all the suspense of the first reading is lost for ever. I am aiming (as Selena successfully did in /Curtains/) to give you an excuse to read the story again - because it will gain, not lose, by your growing understanding of what the story is trying to do. I hope that by understanding not only what I am doing, but also how I am doing it, you will enjoy it more. It is quite the opposite of a conjuring-trick, where revelation of the secret dispels the mystery.
I'd like to think that upon re-reading, some of you may have ideas, and see dimensions, that I have not unfolded here, and which are still latent in the story. Really, what I gave you was not a tidy, well-organized account of a logically soluble problem. I gave you an enigmatic account of something I was (and am) struggling to articulate. I don't seek to explain or demystify. I seek to represent a reality that will always challenge my understanding, and perhaps yours too. I may not even be the best person to explain. This is the difference between what the psychologist or the philosopher does, and what the artist does.
So I am neither a confectioner of puzzles, nor a systematic explainer of human psychology. For me, the only reality is mysterious, and the only mystery is reality. I merely seek to reflect that reality as I see it, with its mystery intact. My creed? In the silence of our minds, the mystery sings to us a song that we each render differently, and hear differently, while still somehow recognizing that from each, to each, it is still the same song, the only song.
I hope that you will prepare the improved version of this story that I shall shortly be posting on my site and on ASSM. You have all contributed to what it now is. But the ending stays, for all it jars. I open a little door on to my mental world; I give you a glimpse inside. And then I slam it shut.
O.
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:34:08 -0600
oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
I cannot blame those of you who felt confused.
Well ... It WAS allegory. so it tends to be confusing, if we don't get the references.
Overall though, my impression was that most people liked it, even if confused.
It was HARD to pick specific things to complain about, so that might explain the extremes.
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Katherine T.
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:34:39 GMT
No, "Caught" is not "allegory" (there is no moral or religious principle underlying the narrative, or principle of general truth, as required by classical allegory), it's a prose poem, if it should be categorized at all. But no one calls Borges fiction "prose poems", so I won't call this piece that either, even if it reminds me of Borges. It's just literary fiction. What I find unsettling is the undercurrent here that everything in art must be "understood". I think that's worse than sophomoric. Do you understand everything in an Ingmar Bergman film (if you have seen them)? Even Bergman doesn't understand everything in his films, as he readily admits in his writings about them. In fact, one can find many, many instances of art where "meanings" are vague and accepted (especially by other artists) as vague and work taken as is. My own view is that if a reader requires that every word and image and allusion in a literary prose piece be explainable in ordinary language, then that reader should not be reading literary prose in the first place. On the other hand, if the focus is on stroke-book sex fiction for the mob out there, then of course everything should be easily apparent, because the mob simply wants a screenplay for the X-rated video they construct in their heads. I fail to see the usefulness of applying the standards of commercial sex fiction to literary erotic fiction, and I totally reject the idea that anything has to be "clear" in art. That is and always has been the primary attitude of people who know little about art.
Katherine T.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:34:08 -0600, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote:
Well ... It WAS allegory. so it tends to be confusing, if we don't get the references.
Overall though, my impression was that most people liked it, even if confused.
It was HARD to pick specific things to complain about, so that might explain the extremes.
-
___
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 23 Mar 2002 20:19:00 GMT
Katherine T writes:
What I find unsettling is the undercurrent here that everything in art must be "understood".
I'm not sure what you mean by "understood." Are the choices understood, misunderstood, and ignored?
Much as I admire "Caught," I'd say that it errs on the side of being too easily understood. The metaphors come close to sinking the story. Someone like Borges or Eli the Bearded might have flipped the metaphor entirely. In any event, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to understand art any more than there is anything wrong with discussing it, though I agree that the experience of it is what matters most. If I don't react very strongly to "Caught" it might be because it's weighed down by metaphor, or it might be because the climax is told to us. But I liked a lot about the ending, which must say something about its power. What I found most interesting is that the narrator becomes so effected by the situation. Quite possibly she's making more of her involvement than was ever there - at least as far as those two clerks were concerned. Okay, that's her right. The writer's job, though, is to convey the narrator's feelings and reactions so that they're credible. A daunting task in a piece like this. Here I think I understood the feelings, but to a degree my reactions were muted or diminished. At the critical moments the writer hasn't made me believe. I offered a couple of suggestions earlier, and having read all the discussion since, I stand by them. Tone down the metaphor. Tone down the hyperbole. Find a way to show us more and tell us less at the critical moments at the end.
- Mat Twassel
From: Katherine T.
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:43:03 GMT
I think the main point is being missed. Some of us LIKE the metaphorical ambiguities, in "Caught" and elsewhere. If one does not like such things, then one is in a different audience, different theater, maybe even a different country. Mr. Twassel tells the writer to "tone down the metaphor", and I would tell Mr. Twassel that in his own work he ought to tone UP the metaphor. We are not in the same audience, and the "success" of the piece "Caught" depends really on the size of the audience for it, and not on whether its metaphors are toned up or down.
Katherine T.
On 23 Mar 2002 20:19:00 GMT, mmtwassel@aol.com (mat twassel) wrote:
Katherine T writes:
What I find unsettling is the undercurrent here that everything in art must be "understood".
I'm not sure what you mean by "understood." Are the choices understood, misunderstood, and ignored?
Much as I admire "Caught," I'd say that it errs on the side of being too easily understood. The metaphors come close to sinking the story. Someone like Borges or Eli the Bearded might have flipped the metaphor entirely. In any event, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to understand art any more than there is anything wrong with discussing it, though I agree that the experience of it is what matters most. If I don't react very strongly to "Caught" it might be because it's weighed down by metaphor, or it might be because the climax is told to us. But I liked a lot about the ending, which must say something about its power. What I found most interesting is that the narrator becomes so effected by the situation. Quite possibly she's making more of her involvement than was ever there - at least as far as those two clerks were concerned. Okay, that's her right. The writer's job, though, is to convey the narrator's feelings and reactions so that they're credible. A daunting task in a piece like this. Here I think I understood the feelings, but to a degree my reactions were muted or diminished. At the critical moments the writer hasn't made me believe. I offered a couple of suggestions earlier, and having read all the discussion since, I stand by them. Tone down the metaphor. Tone down the hyperbole. Find a way to show us more and tell us less at the critical moments at the end.
- Mat Twassel
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:25:52 -0000
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9cf4c0.277889951@news.earthlink.net ...
I think the main point is being missed. Some of us LIKE the metaphorical ambiguities, in "Caught" and elsewhere. If one does not like such things, then one is in a different audience, different theater, maybe even a different country.
I think the use of ambiguous metaphor and abstract imagery is a potentially dangerous thing, especially for an amateur writer. People may read it as arrogant pretentiousness or shimmering genius, and most amateurs fall into the former category. Further, by its nature such writing tends to be very subjective, and often ones reaction is coloured by what one knows or feels about the writer.
The same principle applies to abstract and modern art. Many people can't understand Picasso's abstract work. For that reason a lot of them dislike it because they need a point of reference which they don't have. Some who dont understand it, still like it on the basis that; 'I don't know what the fuck it's about, but it touches something here'. They can live without that point of reference, and certainly for me, such work is far mor powertful than something which leads you by the nose.
But with Picasso, if you look at his early student work, it is conventional but very very good in a 'Mat Twassel' kind of way.
In my 'arty' days I tried copying a Matisse picture. It was a very simple one of a girl in a green dress sitting on a chair. It was the kind of picture of which people say 'my 10 year old can do better'. Well, maybe, but I tried and didn't come anywhere close! That, I suppose, is the mark of genius.
All that said, I have to say that I don't see what it has to do with Oosh's story.
Nick
From: Katherine T.
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 05:14:35 GMT
Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
Katherine T.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:25:52 -0000, "Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9cf4c0.277889951@news.earthlink.net ... I think the main point is being missed. Some of us LIKE the metaphorical ambiguities, in "Caught" and elsewhere. If one does not like such things, then one is in a different audience, different theater, maybe even a different country.
I think the use of ambiguous metaphor and abstract imagery is a potentially dangerous thing, especially for an amateur writer. People may read it as arrogant pretentiousness or shimmering genius, and most amateurs fall into the former category. Further, by its nature such writing tends to be very subjective, and often ones reaction is coloured by what one knows or feels about the writer.
The same principle applies to abstract and modern art. Many people can't understand Picasso's abstract work. For that reason a lot of them dislike it because they need a point of reference which they don't have. Some who dont understand it, still like it on the basis that; 'I don't know what the fuck it's about, but it touches something here'. They can live without that point of reference, and certainly for me, such work is far mor powertful than something which leads you by the nose.
But with Picasso, if you look at his early student work, it is conventional but very very good in a 'Mat Twassel' kind of way.
In my 'arty' days I tried copying a Matisse picture. It was a very simple one of a girl in a green dress sitting on a chair. It was the kind of picture of which people say 'my 10 year old can do better'. Well, maybe, but I tried and didn't come anywhere close! That, I suppose, is the mark of genius.
All that said, I have to say that I don't see what it has to do with Oosh's story.
Nick
From: dennyw
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:10:20 -0800
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 05:14:35 GMT, divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) held forth, saying:
Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
I'm not Nick - but if I were to say 'amateur writer' I'd be meaning one who isn't paid for their writing; this could include some who in part of their lives DO get paid for certain writing. Example: a person who writes computer texts, but in his spare time writes sex fantasies for the Internet. In the latter pursuit, he (or she, of course) is an amateur.
-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor
Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:53:28 GMT
dennyw@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net wrote in
news:9fuq9ukdh3kvp4mac1rechp3stfo9893o9@4ax.com:
I'm not Nick - but if I were to say 'amateur writer' I'd be meaning one who isn't paid for their writing; this could include some who in part of their lives DO get paid for certain writing. Example: a person who writes computer texts, but in his spare time writes sex fantasies for the Internet. In the latter pursuit, he (or she, of course) is an amateur.
You're right about the literal meaning of "professional". I think the issue (if there really is an issue) here is not about the literal meaning of the word, though. It was perhaps an unfortunate word to drag into the discussion. What makes an author (or critic) valuable is not the mere fact that they've been paid for it (although that certainly counts for something), but their experience, ability and dedication to their art. I think there's a secondary sense of "professional" that implies these, just as there is a secondary sense of "amateur" that implies ineptitude. I'm not going to decry either sense of "professional", although I do decry the second sense of "amateur". I'm proud to be an amateur.
O.
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:45:14 -0600
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:53:28 GMT, oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
dennyw@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net wrote in
news:9fuq9ukdh3kvp4mac1rechp3stfo9893o9@4ax.com:
I'm not Nick - but if I were to say 'amateur writer' I'd be meaning one who isn't paid for their writing; this could include some who in part of their lives DO get paid for certain writing. Example: a person who writes computer texts, but in his spare time writes sex fantasies for the Internet. In the latter pursuit, he (or she, of course) is an amateur.
You're right about the literal meaning of "professional". I think the issue (if there really is an issue) here is not about the literal meaning of the word, though. It was perhaps an unfortunate word to drag into the discussion. What makes an author (or critic) valuable is not the mere fact that they've been paid for it (although that certainly counts for something), but their experience, ability and dedication to their art. I think there's a secondary sense of "professional" that implies these, just as there is a secondary sense of "amateur" that implies ineptitude. I'm not going to decry either sense of "professional", although I do decry the second sense of "amateur". I'm proud to be an amateur.
I think there is room for ineptitude at every pay level. I did, and do, think it makes sense to categorize those of us who write and post stories as amateurs. There aren't a lot of professional sex story writers, though, and I don't know that the pay issue makes the story better. Our free story market may not pay money, but it has a solid audience and a lot of room for skill, talent, experience, whatever else to show.
I have no plans to turn pro at sex story writing.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:33:13 -0000
oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
You're right about the literal meaning of "professional". I think the issue (if there really is an issue) here is not about the literal meaning of the word, though. It was perhaps an unfortunate word to drag into the discussion. What makes an author (or critic) valuable is not the mere fact that they've been paid for it (although that certainly counts for something), but their experience, ability and dedication to their art.
Yes, but if you're making a living from it, the implication is that you will spend more time working at it and that your experience would therefore be greater. That's what I was getting at, though perhaps i should have been more specific and used the word 'inexperienced rather than 'amateur'.
Actually, no, that sounds even more patronising!
nick
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:54:31 -0000
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9d5f19.305119469@news.earthlink.net ...
Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
Katherine T.
Quite simply, one who doesn't do it for a living and who lacks sufficient background and experience. I suspect that includes most people here - you, me, Oosh ...
I sense you have a problem with this?
Nick
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 15:04:52 GMT
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9rc09elso0mf1@corp.supernews.com:
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9d5f19.305119469@news.earthlink.net ... Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
Katherine T.
Quite simply, one who doesn't do it for a living and who lacks sufficient background and experience. I suspect that includes most people here - you, me, Oosh ...
I sense you have a problem with this?
Well I certainly do. I happen to know that Katherine T. is a professional by your definition, and if you were to read any of her work (which I can strongly recommend!) you will see that she is a highly experienced writer who knows exactly what she's doing - and how to do it.
O.
From: Kelli Halliburton
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:47:40 GMT
"oosh" <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DB99B703E92ooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
Well I certainly do. I happen to know that Katherine T. is a professional by your definition, and if you were to read any of her work (which I can strongly recommend!) you will see that she is a highly experienced writer who knows exactly what she's doing - and how to do it.
I have no comment on the direction this thread has taken; I simply wish to say that I have read the recently updated version of the story, "Caught," and I find it a beautiful example of what literature can be. I had no struggles with the metaphor, no difficulty understanding what was transpiring, and it all fell into place with the ending, as the narrator simultaneously realized that she had somehow kept her awareness of the lovers' gossamer entwining and that the entwining itself had not been broken.
There is a part of me that wishes to see the story somehow continue. Perhaps not to further the tale of the store clerks at all, but to allow us deeper (or at least more) glimpses into the narrator's inner world as she travels through the outer world.
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:26:26 -0000
oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DB99B703E92ooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9rc09elso0mf1@corp.supernews.com:
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9d5f19.305119469@news.earthlink.net ... Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
Katherine T.
Quite simply, one who doesn't do it for a living and who lacks sufficient background and experience. I suspect that includes most people here - you, me, Oosh ...
I sense you have a problem with this?
Well I certainly do. I happen to know that Katherine T. is a professional by your definition, and if you were to read any of her work (which I can strongly recommend!) you will see that she is a highly experienced writer who knows exactly what she's doing - and how to do it.
I'm sorry, I'm still lost. I re-read my post, and, although I'd drunk a large amount of wine when I wrote it (for which I'm still suffering!), I don't think I said anything particularly contentious.
If K is a professional writer then I'd genuinely like to know what her problem with it was. I'm not trying to make enemies here.
That said, there*is* something about her delivery that provokes me to tease her a little. She shouldnt get upset by that, I mean no harm - at least not yet!
Nick
PS If I'm going to be beaten up over this, may I repsectfully suggest that we 'step outside' the Fishtank, the whole idea of its structure is to avoid fights!
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:47:56 GMT
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9s6fitms9m4c3@corp.supernews.com:
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9d5f19.305119469@news.earthlink.net ... Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
Katherine T.
Quite simply, one who doesn't do it for a living and who lacks sufficient background and experience. I suspect that includes most people here - you, me, Oosh ...
I sense you have a problem with this?
Well I certainly do. I happen to know that Katherine T. is a professional by your definition, and if you were to read any of her work (which I can strongly recommend!) you will see that she is a highly experienced writer who knows exactly what she's doing - and how to do it.
I'm sorry, I'm still lost. I re-read my post, and, although I'd drunk a large amount of wine when I wrote it (for which I'm still suffering!), I don't think I said anything particularly contentious.
The only contentious thing you said was that KT was an amateur like you and me. She isn't. I just wanted to warn you before you said something particularly contentious.
I hope it was good wine, by the way. Perhaps you should stick to G&T. It sharpens the mind.
If K is a professional writer then I'd genuinely like to know what her problem with it was. I'm not trying to make enemies here.
It was you who introduced the word "problem", and I merely picked up on it in order to say that yes, I did have a "problem" with you describing KT as an amateur. I just wished to correct a misapprehension, not to quarrel.
That said, there*is* something about her delivery that provokes me to tease her a little.
I'm not a professional psychologist, but I think the inclination may not be mutual. In some cultures, while teasing may be OK, it presumes upon a considerable degree of familiarity. Again, this is intended as a friendly, helpful tip: I see no hint of malice or bad will in what you've written, but for my own humble part I think we could all benefit from the advice of experienced professional writers.
O.
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:13:39 -0000
oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DBE83D56670ooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9s6fitms9m4c3@corp.supernews.com:
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9d5f19.305119469@news.earthlink.net ... Since Desdamona is waiting in the wings, I won't say what I'd like to say. But I will ask: Please tell what you think an "amateur writer" is. Are you speaking of yourself, or of Oosh, or what?
Katherine T.
Quite simply, one who doesn't do it for a living and who lacks sufficient background and experience. I suspect that includes most people here - you, me, Oosh ...
I sense you have a problem with this?
Well I certainly do. I happen to know that Katherine T. is a professional by your definition, and if you were to read any of her work (which I can strongly recommend!) you will see that she is a highly experienced writer who knows exactly what she's doing - and how to do it.
I'm sorry, I'm still lost. I re-read my post, and, although I'd drunk a large amount of wine when I wrote it (for which I'm still suffering!), I don't think I said anything particularly contentious.
The only contentious thing you said was that KT was an amateur like you and me. She isn't. I just wanted to warn you before you said something particularly contentious.
Oh, OK, I see what you're saying. Thanks!
I hope it was good wine, by the way. Perhaps you should stick to G&T. It sharpens the mind.
It was a Merlot. It hit the spot, but I'm normally on Scotch at that time of night! :)
If K is a professional writer then I'd genuinely like to know what her problem with it was. I'm not trying to make enemies here.
It was you who introduced the word "problem", and I merely picked up on it in order to say that yes, I did have a "problem" with you describing KT as an amateur. I just wished to correct a misapprehension, not to quarrel.
Yes, but I was referring more to the 'other things' she had to say
That said, there*is* something about her delivery that provokes me to tease her a little.
I'm not a professional psychologist, but I think the inclination may not be mutual. In some cultures, while teasing may be OK, it presumes upon a considerable degree of familiarity. Again, this is intended as a friendly, helpful tip: I see no hint of malice or bad will in what you've written, but for my own humble part I think we could all benefit from the advice of experienced professional writers.
I agree.
Nick
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:40:46 GMT
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9snac9jg15q25@corp.supernews.com:
It was a Merlot. It hit the spot, but I'm normally on Scotch at that time of night! :)
I can see that you're in need of some education. Merlot is very nice for rounding out a particularly acerbic Cabernet Sauvignon, but as a varietal I think it's just a bit too boiled-sweet-tasting. You should look at grapes with more complexity. If you're in the USA, try your excellent Pinots Noirs (you will see "Pinot Noir" on the label) - they're not common, but they're very interesting.
Let me know how you get on.
O.
From: Conjugate
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:36:04 -0500
"oosh" <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DBF1320AD65ooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9snac9jg15q25@corp.supernews.com:
It was a Merlot. It hit the spot, but I'm normally on Scotch at that time of night! :)
I can see that you're in need of some education. Merlot is very nice for rounding out a particularly acerbic Cabernet Sauvignon, but as a varietal I think it's just a bit too boiled-sweet-tasting. You should look at grapes with more complexity. If you're in the USA, try your excellent Pinots Noirs (you will see "Pinot Noir" on the label) - they're not common, but they're very interesting.
Let me know how you get on.
O.
Mostly, I see Merlots blended with other wines; they're a bit unpleasant to my taste (with some exceptions). For reds, I'm fond of Cabernets, but am willing to experiment. And you can find a Pinot Noir hereabouts, but usually not cheap.
Conjugate
"Have you tried our Chateau Screwtop '02? Harsh bitter overtones, blending
into aftertastes of an unpleasantly acidic tanginess, hints of spoiled
persimmon and overripe plum with a fine woody taste - so woody, your palate
will get splinters."
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:10:42 GMT
"Conjugate" <conjugate@butter.toast.net> wrote in news:u9vd78aqvt31da@corp.supernews.com:
Mostly, I see Merlots blended with other wines ...
There you are, you see? There's a streak of sanity in you after all!
"Have you tried our Chateau Screwtop '02? Harsh bitter overtones, blending into aftertastes of an unpleasantly acidic tanginess, hints of spoiled persimmon and overripe plum with a fine woody taste - so woody, your palate will get splinters."
Oops! - Splurt! - spoke too soon ... Pass a napkin ...
O.
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:36:39 -0000
oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DBF1320AD65ooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
"Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:u9snac9jg15q25@corp.supernews.com:
It was a Merlot. It hit the spot, but I'm normally on Scotch at that time of night! :)
I can see that you're in need of some education. Merlot is very nice for rounding out a particularly acerbic Cabernet Sauvignon, but as a varietal I think it's just a bit too boiled-sweet-tasting. You should look at grapes with more complexity. If you're in the USA, try your excellent Pinots Noirs (you will see "Pinot Noir" on the label) - they're not common, but they're very interesting.
Oosh, I opened this bottle of wine and it said 'take me - take all of me'. What the hell, I have a low impedance!
Nick
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:02:46 -0600
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:25:52 -0000, "Nick" <nick_cassandra@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9cf4c0.277889951@news.earthlink.net ... I think the main point is being missed. Some of us LIKE the metaphorical ambiguities, in "Caught" and elsewhere. If one does not like such things, then one is in a different audience, different theater, maybe even a different country.
I think the use of ambiguous metaphor and abstract imagery is a potentially dangerous thing, especially for an amateur writer. People may read it as arrogant pretentiousness or shimmering genius, and most amateurs fall into the former category. Further, by its nature such writing tends to be very subjective, and often ones reaction is coloured by what one knows or feels about the writer.
I don't think it is quite so bad as that. I do think that a lot of the online sex story audience is going to skip over an abstract story, not getting it nor caring to, but that doesn't matter. Some will like it.
I think this is the same as any other amateur writing of any sort. If it works for an audience - any audience - then you are successful. You can't expect to write a story which pleases everyone.
The same principle applies to abstract and modern art. Many people can't understand Picasso's abstract work. For that reason a lot of them dislike it because they need a point of reference which they don't have. Some who dont understand it, still like it on the basis that; 'I don't know what the fuck it's about, but it touches something here'. They can live without that point of reference, and certainly for me, such work is far mor powertful than something which leads you by the nose.
But with Picasso, if you look at his early student work, it is conventional but very very good in a 'Mat Twassel' kind of way.
In my 'arty' days I tried copying a Matisse picture. It was a very simple one of a girl in a green dress sitting on a chair. It was the kind of picture of which people say 'my 10 year old can do better'. Well, maybe, but I tried and didn't come anywhere close! That, I suppose, is the mark of genius.
All that said, I have to say that I don't see what it has to do with Oosh's story.
Nope. Everyone seemed to like it, even if they didn't understand all of it.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Mat Twassel
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 24 Mar 2002 15:54:30 -0800
divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote in message news:<3c9cf4c0.277889951@news.earthlink.net> ...
I think the main point is being missed. Some of us LIKE the metaphorical ambiguities, in "Caught" and elsewhere. If one does not like such things, then one is in a different audience, different theater, maybe even a different country. Mr. Twassel tells the writer to "tone down the metaphor", and I would tell Mr. Twassel that in his own work he ought to tone UP the metaphor. We are not in the same audience, and the "success" of the piece "Caught" depends really on the size of the audience for it, and not on whether its metaphors are toned up or down.
In fact I like metaphors and ambiguities. My only quibble with some of those in "Caught" are that they don't completely fit the moment from the perspective of the character in that moment. The one I pointed to was the narrator's recognition that she was watching a scene as if through the bottom of one of Cousteau's boats. While the comparison is wonderfully apt in retrospect, isn't it unlikely that the character would consider such a thing at the time? True, the piece is a reflection. But this is a critical point in the scene, so anything that takes the reader away from the character at that moment distances us from the character and the moment. That was my initial impression. Okay, I have a bias for putting the reader in the action and not having the narrator have to explain it.
I'm not sure I understand the comment about about size of audience.
I'm also not sure what toning UP metaphors in my stories has to do with this story. Is it to point out that I don't understand metaphor? That I don't understand story? Certainly I'd be interested in knowing more about this. Much as I enjoy Tom Robbins' wildly comic metaphors, in general I think that the most successful metaphors are those that are most transparent.
- Mat
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 01:32:10 GMT
mmtwassel@aol.com (mat twassel) wrote in news:84f54cf6.0203241554.738c43c6@posting.google.com:
The one I pointed to
was the narrator's recognition that she was watching a scene as if through the bottom of one of Cousteau's boats. While the comparison is wonderfully apt in retrospect, isn't it unlikely that the character would consider such a thing at the time?
Quite right. The comparison was the fruit of long reflection, including thought about how the hell I was going to turn this into a piece of writing. I usually write in the present tense, and for this piece I used the past because I wanted to indicate that I was reflecting back on something that had happened to me.
True, the piece is a
reflection. But this is a critical point in the scene, so anything that takes the reader away from the character at that moment distances us from the character and the moment. That was my initial impression. Okay, I have a bias for putting the reader in the action and not having the narrator have to explain it.
Here I am both witness and narrator, and there is a considerable lapse of time between witness and narration. I honestly think that my use of the past tense allows me to interpret what I then thought, even as I describe what I then thought.
I'm also not sure what toning UP metaphors in my stories has to do with this story.
I think that a point has been made very delicately, and that it shouldn't be further discussed here.
Anyhow, I do hope that the revised version of /Caught/ will seem better to you. Your comments have been important to me, and I have tried to address them while staying true to my original idea. I'm glad that you have spoken freely. In another forum, a question was posed: "what kind of criticism is most helpful?" I think that a writer can always learn from honest criticism. This is what I wrote:
"What writers want from criticism is perhaps as complicated as what we get from it. As a writer, I'm almost too concerned with my own needs to be able to ascend to a higher level of meta-criticism and say what criticism is best. I've read some very authoritative and sensible-sounding opinions, but to be honest, I find honest reactions, honestly expressed, are something I can learn from, whether or not they fit the artificial criteria of helpful criticism. I've learned from gushing praise. I've learned from the carping criticism of those who seem determined to misunderstand me at every step. You will find critics of all persuasions everywhere. I think more needs to be said about how a writer handles criticism, and less about what critics ought to say."
I repeat: I hope that the revised version of /Caught/ will please you better. Whether or not it does, it owes something to you. I am always grateful for honest opinions, honestly expressed.
O.
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:59:30 GMT
mmtwassel@aol.com (mat twassel) wrote in news:20020323151900.17533.00002620@mb-mm.aol.com:
Much as I admire "Caught,"
This is telling, not showing.
I'd say that it errs on the side of being too easily understood.
That is what I'd call a felix culpa. That's exactly the mistake I want to make. I'm not trying to hide my meaning. I'm trying to make my thought accessible. To my hopelessly twisted mind, there is no such thing as being "too easily understood". For me, writing is an exercise in communication.
The metaphors come close to sinking the story.
There's only one metaphor, and it is the whole purpose and motive of the story. I find it strange that its central backbone, its one connecting thread, should be also its fatal flaw - much though you said you admired the story.
Someone like Borges
Who is like Borges?
or Eli the Bearded
Crikey.
might have flipped the metaphor entirely.
What is "flipping the metaphor"? This is an expression I've not encountered before. To flip something means (to me) tossing something over on to its back. Are you saying that they'd just throw it away or dispense with it? Well, I'm sorry, but my story was about the metaphor, not with the facts that inspired it. Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't do this, because Borges and Eli didn't? I might name one or two writers who did, but I don't want to turn this into a name-dropping exercise.
If I don't react very strongly to "Caught" it might be because it's
weighed down by metaphor, or it might be because the climax is told to us.
I think you're reacting very strongly! You don't seem able to leave it alone. I say this because, to my knowledge, nobody has ever written anything like as much about one of my pieces before as you have. Moreover, some of what you write seems rather paradoxical to me. And thanks for the "either ...or". But I'd guess that you're saying "both ...and", and trying to make it sound less crushing.
But I liked a lot about the ending, which must say something about its power.
That doesn't come across from everything else you say. (That's what I mean by "paradoxical".) The fact that you say you liked it says nothing about its power - or not to me. If the ending has power, why? Is it because it tells, rather than shows? Is it because it is unjustified by what went before? Or is it, perhaps, because it is weighted down by a metaphor that threatens to sink it? Whence, really, this mysterious power?
What I found most interesting is that the narrator becomes so
effected by the situation.
Affected.
Quite possibly she's making more of her involvement than was ever
there - at least as far as those two clerks were concerned.
Now you're telling me about how I /really/ felt. Is this the "omniscient author" point of view?
Find a way to show us more and tell us less at the critical moments
at the end.
"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? / Thou art more lovely, and more temperate."
Shakespeare doesn't show us that she's lovely or temperate. He just tells us.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the narrator should do what she can to justify her strong feelings, and I hope that the second draft will go some way to addressing your unease on this point. I'd just like to point out that the "critical moments" at the end aren't really critical moments at all. The last paragraph is not so much narration as myth. It is completely symbolic (and I hope obviously so).
O.
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:54:24 GMT
divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote in news:3c9cc3ba.265338029 @news.earthlink.net:
What I find unsettling is the undercurrent here that everything in art must be "understood". I think that's worse than sophomoric. Do you understand everything in an Ingmar Bergman film (if you have seen them)? Even Bergman doesn't understand everything in his films, as he readily admits in his writings about them. In fact, one can find many, many instances of art where "meanings" are vague and accepted (especially by other artists) as vague and work taken as is.
While not wishing to make a virtue of unclarity, I do agree with Katherine T. about this. There are certain genres of fiction writing where clarity is an important goal. Crime stories might serve as a good example. But there are other styles that aim to represent reality itself, rather than an analysis of reality - and poetry (it's hard to generalize, even here) would be the obvious example. Sometimes a literary work may permit more than one analysis. This does not mean that it is unanalyzable or somehow incoherent, but it does mean that no one analysis will adequately "explain" the work. And I do think that it is legitimate for art to represent those aspects of reality that are seen, but not understood.
It's interesting that in common speech, the word "mystery" is used to mean "puzzle" - as if mysteries can be "solved". The original sense of the word, I think, has more to do with realities that are perceived, but that cannot be adequately described. People's minds are mysterious in that sense.
O.
From: Katherine T.
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:12:00 GMT
Painting is a good example of an art where ambiguity is rampant. A painter friend once told me that when she writes for the catalog to one of her shows, she gets drunk and makes things up, because the purpose of the words is to get people who know little about art to buy the paintings. She says that if what she does in a painting (and what the painting does to her as she creates it) could be put into words, she wouldn't paint, she would write.
I suppose there are "amateurs" here, and I suppose there are "professionals" here, but I don't want to focus on such distinctions because I think they don't help anyone. I assume the people who read and post in the ASSD group are interested in writing. I think that if one is interested in writing as an art form, one has an obligation to read widely in modern literature to at least understand the boundaries of modern fiction. What disturbs me is that some people here seem to be unaware of what's out there. In the case of Oosh's "Caught", I assure you, as a writer and editor of long experience, that if this piece involved the narrator accidentally witnessing an adulterous kiss between a man and a woman, rather than between two women, it might be picked up immediately by any one of a number of literary reviews. The piece is technically polished, without any technical flaws, and all else is art. If you don't like the art, pass on to the next picture, please.
I'm also wondering if the lesbian aspect in "Caught" is in the background of some of the odd criticism of the piece. I think it's possible that many people fail to understand the delicate strands that are often involved in a secret homoerotic relationship. What Oosh has done is write a piece whose style and tone are exactly suited to such delicacy. Obviously, many people here have not appreciated that. Which does not surprise me. As some of you know, I'm currently the editor of the online lesbian literary review DIVA, which came into existence just a few months ago, and was announced to this group and a few other non-lesbian fiction groups. People were invited to receive the first few issues by Email, and many responded by subscribing. We received much Email from readers, one of the earliest of which consisted of a single sentence: "All dykes are hoes (sic) who need a dick up their asses."
That is not the audience for "Caught", even if, apparently, it is indeed the audience for much of the fiction posted at ASSM.
In any case, I apologize for my presence here and for this rant.
Katherine T.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:54:24 GMT, oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote in news:3c9cc3ba.265338029 @news.earthlink.net:
What I find unsettling is the undercurrent here that everything in art must be "understood". I think that's worse than sophomoric. Do you understand everything in an Ingmar Bergman film (if you have seen them)? Even Bergman doesn't understand everything in his films, as he readily admits in his writings about them. In fact, one can find many, many instances of art where "meanings" are vague and accepted (especially by other artists) as vague and work taken as is.
While not wishing to make a virtue of unclarity, I do agree with Katherine T. about this. There are certain genres of fiction writing where clarity is an important goal. Crime stories might serve as a good example. But there are other styles that aim to represent reality itself, rather than an analysis of reality - and poetry (it's hard to generalize, even here) would be the obvious example. Sometimes a literary work may permit more than one analysis. This does not mean that it is unanalyzable or somehow incoherent, but it does mean that no one analysis will adequately "explain" the work. And I do think that it is legitimate for art to represent those aspects of reality that are seen, but not understood.
It's interesting that in common speech, the word "mystery" is used to mean "puzzle" - as if mysteries can be "solved". The original sense of the word, I think, has more to do with realities that are perceived, but that cannot be adequately described. People's minds are mysterious in that sense.
O.
From: DrSpin
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 24 Mar 2002 09:44:49 -0800
In article <3c9dfc9e.345447827@news.earthlink.net>, Katherine T said ...
I'm also wondering if the lesbian aspect in "Caught" is in the background of some of the odd criticism of the piece.
How odd. Maybe I missed some posts in the thread. I had the distinct impression the story was as lauded as any that have appeared in Fish Tank, if not the most lauded of all 30 or so submissions that have been posted. In my own case, I said I thought the story damn near perfect - and I do not throw such compliments around like confetti.
I also did not see any poster being snippy about lesbian aspects.
Controversy? What controversy?
DrSpin
* also at neil@ruthiesclub.com and at http://www.ruthiesclub.com
From: dennyw
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:33:12 -0800
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:12:00 GMT, divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) held forth, saying:
I'm also wondering if the lesbian aspect in "Caught" is in the background of some of the odd criticism of the piece.
"odd" - meaning different? For the Fish Tank, "Caught" is odd in that sense, so some of the criticism would be. Another factor may be that as there's so little to criticize about the piece, folk are stretching a bit. The FT is after all an invitation to comment, praise, and criticize (note that all respondents are asked for two each praises and criticisms). I saw no criticism of the piece that seemed to me in any way related to the lesbian aspect.
As some of you know, I'm currently the editor of the online lesbian literary review DIVA, which came into existence just a few months ago, and was announced to this group and a few other non-lesbian fiction groups. People were invited to receive the first few issues by Email, and many responded by subscribing. We received much Email from readers, one of the earliest of which consisted of a single sentence: "All dykes are hoes (sic) who need a dick up their asses."
You're surprised? There are Neanderthals online, just as there are offline. I doubt that email came from any regular poster to ASSD. A lurker, maybe. But what's your point?
That is not the audience for "Caught", even if, apparently, it is indeed the audience for much of the fiction posted at ASSM.
The bigoted mind isn't the audience for much of the ASSM fiction; certainly there's an aspect (though I've not seen any 'lesbian fucked by men and she turns hetero' stuff in at least 2 years) which would appeal to such.
In any case, I apologize for my presence here and for this rant.
What's to apologize? You speak your thoughts, usually very clearly. You comment incisively on stories and critics. As to your rant - for a rant, 'tis mild indeed, milady Katherine. :)
-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor
Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
From: Conjugate
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:28:08 -0500
"Katherine T." <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c9dfc9e.345447827@news.earthlink.net ...
In any case, I apologize for my presence here and for this rant.
Katherine T.
You should apologize for neither; your voice has as much right here as anyone's. It's worthwhile hearing different voices with different opinions, and if this irritates some of us, well, that shouldn't be your problem. Besides, what's wrong with irritating Nick? It's one of our favorite pastimes. I won't say the same for Oosh, but only because she's less irritable. Let's see, whom else is involved in this exchange, Frank and Mat? Well, not to worry, then.
The problem, in my humble opinion, is that too many people have the wrong attitude about the terrible solemn realities and truths of this life. Things such as art, as beauty, as civil liberties and love for one's fellow human being. People take all these things so very seriously. That's a bad idea, since we (again, in my opinion) are living in a world that's an enormous practical joke.
My suggestion is to fight fire with water, or something like that. I propose responding to Nick with a long, carefully-written elegant diatribe consisting of beatiful, profound poetic references to some nonexistent French poet, using elegant phrases and many words that do not actually exist. If I know Nick (and I don't, of course - who amongst us can ever claim to know another?) it will ruin him. Treat him to a passage such as the following:
As Rímbelaìre chose to (so beautifully!) put it, Ne donc le vraìxiemíste vuélerons pas, and I could not have said it better myself. Indeed, the elegant tristesse of the passage in which this appears puts so much better my emotions than I myself could, that I can only recommend his works to you. For, after all, are we not, each of us, in the end, but quotations from a greater Work begun by our ancestors, themselves but the products of the dreams of others? Indeed, dear Nick, ....
He will read this, and his first impulse will be (quite properly) that you are yanking his chain mercilessly. As indeed you will be, since the foregoing paragraph is unadulterated swill. At least I hope it is; I've never heard of anything like that, but then I am illiterate in French (haven't looked at it in more years than I care to admit, any more). But then, doubt will set in, for Nick is a sensitive, thoughtful, introspective creature, like many writers, and the possibility that he is merely ignorant of one of the great French philosophers will begin to suggest itself to him. And the unlikelihood that anybody could try to pull off such a blatant fake will begin to make itself felt. He won't, of course, find many of those words in any dictionary (I hope; I know no French to speak of, having only read a little as a misguided youth), but is that a reflection on the words, or on the inadequacies of his tiny little Pocket Larrouche? The web will find nothing (I hope), yet he will not be able to rid himself of the nagging fear that the words are relics of a distant time, and not to be found in more recent form anywhere. (I know this is true in some languages; you won't, I suspect, find much mention of the Spanish verb peguntar, which is not the one you're thinking of; it means to permanently scar a cow by pouring hot pitch on it.) Yes, I think you could probably cause Nick a week's worth of sleepless nights if you went about it the right way. I recommend this technique to you without reservation.
Conjugate
who feels, as Shakespeare chose (so beautifully) not to put it, that
if he cannot be a villain to anger these flame-heavy times, that
he is determined to be a clown.
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:25:32 GMT
divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote in news:3c9dfc9e.345447827@news.earthlink.net:
Painting is a good example of an art where ambiguity is rampant. A painter friend once told me that when she writes for the catalog to one of her shows, she gets drunk and makes things up, because the purpose of the words is to get people who know little about art to buy the paintings. She says that if what she does in a painting (and what the painting does to her as she creates it) could be put into words, she wouldn't paint, she would write.
I am reminded of the strikingly vivid word-painting of your own recent work.
I too have a painter friend, and she is one of the best and most articulate writers I know. Her letters are just beautiful (private, but beautiful). I keep telling her that she should try art-writing, but she won't listen. Whenever an idea comes to her, the result is a painting or a sculpture. I'm sure she knows best.
I'm also wondering if the lesbian aspect in "Caught" is in the background of some of the odd criticism of the piece.
I think you're on to something, but at the same time I've not picked up any hint of heterosexism here.
Perhaps we've seen these polarized reactions because the story was written very much from a closet-Lesbian perspective, and did nothing to elucidate that perspective (save to invite the reader to share it, of course). The irony of a middle-aged dyke startling two young lovers into a panic, and the powerful sympathy that that would obviously (if one thinks about it) evoke from someone who was once herself tortured by their fear and guilt - that is clear once you've really placed the story, and I hope that in some of my little changes I have made that background more accessible. (At the same time, I didn't want to encumber the story with explanations.)
To those in the majority, the intensity of feeling of those in any minority (be it racial or of sexual orientation or income group or education or whatever) may indicate a kind of "foreignness" that excites an instinctive mistrust.
I think there is also a kind of polarization between those for whom action and events are primary, and those for whom feeling and emotion are the most important thing. In the end, though, I think we're heading for the same destination.
I'm extremely grateful that here, in a quite open context, many who do not share my particular experience have nevertheless opened themselves to my writing and to my view of the world, and I'd like nothing better than to think that by my writing I am deepening and enhancing that understanding. I am trying to do my bit.
O.
From: celia batau
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:49:32 -0800
hi Oosh!
we think art is communication. it can communicate meaning or it can communicate beauty or any number of emotions or different messages layered. we don't believe in any kind of objective criticism in art. the communication with the reader is personal, completely subjective to how that reader interprets it, you know?
so if someone says they love it or hate it in the FishTank, then it only applies to them. "Professional" and "Amatuer" have little to do with it except when maybe discussing something technical about a particular form or genre. We think "professional" is a state of mind and a level of commitment to the art, and not a paycheque or a line on one's resume.
if "Caught" expresses what you want expressed in the way you wanted to express it, then leave it like it is. but if someone says something that makes you realize how it could be made better and makes your work stronger, then that's a very good thing. but, please, Oosh, don't change your vision bc someone wants you to change it to match theirs.
-cb
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
I retch pity, feed on
the hate in their minds.
They look through me.
Stone under the lids of
my eyes. A laughing girl
I am not.
-mkdancer
"oosh" <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DBEE9D78A3Fooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote in news:3c9dfc9e.345447827@news.earthlink.net: I'm extremely grateful that here, in a quite open context, many who do not share my particular experience have nevertheless opened themselves to my writing and to my view of the world, and I'd like nothing better than to think that by my writing I am deepening and enhancing that understanding. I am trying to do my bit.
O.
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:19:30 GMT
"celia batau" <pinataheart@bigplanet.com> wrote in news:1017025355.598095@news2.bigplanet.com:
we think art is communication.
So do I.
it can communicate meaning or it can
communicate beauty or any number of emotions or different messages layered.
If it communicates, I think there has to be meaning of some kind. I think of beauty as being a by-product of that process, that the more communicative something is, the more beautiful, and vice versa.
we don't believe in any kind of objective criticism in art. the communication with the reader is personal, completely subjective to how that reader interprets it, you know?
I think the beginning of wisdom is to ditch those treacherous words "objective" and "subjective".
"Professional" and "Amatuer" have little to do with it except when maybe discussing something technical about a particular form or genre.
I think they're unhelpful words.
We think "professional" is a state of mind and a level of commitment to the art, and not a paycheque or a line on one's resume.
Yes. I like commitment (or dedication) - that speaks more to me.
if "Caught" expresses what you want expressed in the way you wanted to express it, then leave it like it is. but if someone says something that makes you realize how it could be made better and makes your work stronger, then that's a very good thing. but, please, Oosh, don't change your vision bc someone wants you to change it to match theirs.
You must judge that. I think I've just made it a little more communicative. I hope so!
O.
From: celia batau
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:03:37 -0800
hi Oosh!
"oosh" <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:Xns91DD222D4776Aooshgmxnet@212.134.15.212 ...
If it communicates, I think there has to be meaning of some kind. I think of beauty as being a by-product of that process, that the more communicative something is, the more beautiful, and vice versa.
yeah, we think it can be that too.
-cb
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
"Now she's going to lie down peacefully in a vast room. If I were to follow after her bawling and sobbing, it would show that I don't understand anything about fate. So I stopped." -Chuang Tzu
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:00:23 -0600
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:25:32 GMT, oosh <oosh@gmx.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote in news:3c9dfc9e.345447827@news.earthlink.net:
Painting is a good example of an art where ambiguity is rampant. A painter friend once told me that when she writes for the catalog to one of her shows, she gets drunk and makes things up, because the purpose of the words is to get people who know little about art to buy the paintings. She says that if what she does in a painting (and what the painting does to her as she creates it) could be put into words, she wouldn't paint, she would write.
I am reminded of the strikingly vivid word-painting of your own recent work.
I too have a painter friend, and she is one of the best and most articulate writers I know. Her letters are just beautiful (private, but beautiful). I keep telling her that she should try art-writing, but she won't listen. Whenever an idea comes to her, the result is a painting or a sculpture. I'm sure she knows best.
Doing what is fun, and what feels best, makes sense to me.
I'm also wondering if the lesbian aspect in "Caught" is in the background of some of the odd criticism of the piece.
I think you're on to something, but at the same time I've not picked up any hint of heterosexism here.
Perhaps we've seen these polarized reactions because the story was written very much from a closet-Lesbian perspective, and did nothing to elucidate that perspective (save to invite the reader to share it, of course). The irony of a middle-aged dyke startling two young lovers into a panic, and the powerful sympathy that that would obviously (if one thinks about it) evoke from someone who was once herself tortured by their fear and guilt - that is clear once you've really placed the story, and I hope that in some of my little changes I have made that background more accessible. (At the same time, I didn't want to encumber the story with explanations.)
And you didn't. I knew nothing certain about the observer's relationships or inclinations. I don't know that it is better with the changes. The story was already perfect. Maybe the revision is also perfect?
Anyway, I'm not sure that the assumption of perspective matters. Anyone could be tortured by the guilt of exposure for some secret, and could recognize the damage their unwitting watching caused.
To those in the majority, the intensity of feeling of those in any minority (be it racial or of sexual orientation or income group or education or whatever) may indicate a kind of "foreignness" that excites an instinctive mistrust.
That is so true.
I think there is also a kind of polarization between those for whom action and events are primary, and those for whom feeling and emotion are the most important thing. In the end, though, I think we're heading for the same destination.
My assumption is that by describing actions and events, the readers will empathically feel what I'd feel in those situations. I don't need to spell out the emotions. If I do a story which involves more emotions than actions, I worry that my audience won't know what is going on.
I could be wrong with either assumption.
I'm extremely grateful that here, in a quite open context, many who do not share my particular experience have nevertheless opened themselves to my writing and to my view of the world, and I'd like nothing better than to think that by my writing I am deepening and enhancing that understanding. I am trying to do my bit.
That is a good thing. Your "Caught" story was a problem for a the FishTank as well. It was just too good to easily criticize. My natural reaction was that it was already perfect, no changes needed unless you wanted to make a different sort of story.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: Jeff Zephyr
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:19:29 -0600
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:12:00 GMT, divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote:
Painting is a good example of an art where ambiguity is rampant. A painter friend once told me that when she writes for the catalog to one of her shows, she gets drunk and makes things up, because the purpose of the words is to get people who know little about art to buy the paintings. She says that if what she does in a painting (and what the painting does to her as she creates it) could be put into words, she wouldn't paint, she would write.
I suppose there are "amateurs" here, and I suppose there are "professionals" here, but I don't want to focus on such distinctions because I think they don't help anyone. I assume the people who read and post in the ASSD group are interested in writing. I think that if one is interested in writing as an art form, one has an obligation to read widely in modern literature to at least understand the boundaries of modern fiction. What disturbs me is that some people here seem to be unaware of what's out there. In the case of Oosh's "Caught", I assure you, as a writer and editor of long experience, that if this piece involved the narrator accidentally witnessing an adulterous kiss between a man and a woman, rather than between two women, it might be picked up immediately by any one of a number of literary reviews. The piece is technically polished, without any technical flaws, and all else is art. If you don't like the art, pass on to the next picture, please.
I'm not a good judge for literary magazines, but I felt that the story was good regardless of the gender of the caught kissers. The art of the storytelling would remain, I'd hope, if they were changed. Little else would truly need to be changed to pull off a gender switch. It just isn't necessary for the story.
BTW, I think it would have worked as well with two men caught kissing.
I'm also wondering if the lesbian aspect in "Caught" is in the background of some of the odd criticism of the piece. I think it's possible that many people fail to understand the delicate strands that are often involved in a secret homoerotic relationship. What Oosh has done is write a piece whose style and tone are exactly suited to such delicacy. Obviously, many people here have not appreciated that. Which does not surprise me. As some of you know, I'm currently the editor of the online lesbian literary review DIVA, which came into existence just a few months ago, and was announced to this group and a few other non-lesbian fiction groups. People were invited to receive the first few issues by Email, and many responded by subscribing. We received much Email from readers, one of the earliest of which consisted of a single sentence: "All dykes are hoes (sic) who need a dick up their asses."
I can't say, as the Fishtank "criticism" didn't seem to dwell on that aspect at all. I think it was more a matter of not understanding the imagery, not appreciating the abstraction, things like that.
That is not the audience for "Caught", even if, apparently, it is indeed the audience for much of the fiction posted at ASSM.
In any case, I apologize for my presence here and for this rant.
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/ For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
From: spd3432
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:39:17 -0800
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:12:00 GMT, divamag@earthlink.net (Katherine T.) wrote:
In any case, I apologize for my presence here and for this rant.
Katherine T.
I hope I'm misinterpreting this, but this reads to me as if Katherine T. has no plans to post here again.
I'm not a writer and don't think I ever will be. However, I do read, even this newsgroup. I don't read everything that comes through here or ASSM. There are subjects that don't appeal to me so I skip them. No two people are going to read the same story the same way. What works for one may work for another but totally miss a third person. Unless I've missed the point of the FishTank, it is supposed to be a place where constructive criticism is welcome and when kept on that level, no apologies are needed.
Sean
just my $.02 worth
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:08:27 GMT
Sorry! I don't know where the word "prepare" in the last paragraph came from. It should be "prefer". I must have become momentarily distracted. Apologies.
O.
From: oosh
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:57:38 GMT
Selena Jardine <selenajardine@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3C9669F7.8050008@yahoo.com:
The other tiny thing is the difference between "each other" and "one another." I believe that "each other" usually refers to relations two people, and "one another" to more than two. This distinction may now be completely obsolete, doctrinaire, and irrelevant to every ear but mine own.
This is what Fowler says: "Some writers use 'each other' only when no more than two things are referred to, 'one another' being similarly appropriated to larger numbers; but this differentiation is neither of present utility nor based on historical usage."
I confess that sometimes "each other" just seems scratchy on my ears, and when it does, I prefern "one another"!
O.
From: Nick
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:44:25 -0000
Katherine T. <divamag@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3c980382.436580432@news.earthlink.net ...
Oosh's story is a gem, polished and with many facets. There is no more point in "criticizing" this than in criticizing a Modigliani drawing. How the hell do you criticize a Modigliani drawing? Do you say the woman's neck is too long? Oosh is one of the finest talents that I've seen here, too good for some of the apparent philistine hogs sniveling around for a wank rather than for art. Brava, Oosh!
It's a bit like a crystal that you can turn over in your mind examining its many facets and letting the patterns play in your imagination.
For me, there's sufficient material in this story to turn my bedsheets into hardboard. After all, as denny says in another thread, the #1 erogenous zone is the imagination.
Nick
Katherine T.
From: Frank McCoy
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:51:26 -0600
Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote:
desdmona22@aol.com (Desdmona22) wrote:
1) 2 positive comments
Weird and wonderful.
2) 2 things to improve
I'm not too fond of stories that leave you completely guessing if it was real or not. Too much they remind me of those stories that end, " ... and she woke up in the morning, and it was all a dream."
No mention at all about the hook until the end.
And if the line went through her EARLIER ... Why wasn't she either caught in it then, or have it cut her in two?
Liked your fix in the released version. Thanks.
Picky, picky, picky.
3) Try not to repeat!
Well ... Nobody else wanted to pick, so I did.
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, . __ /
(/ / ((/|/ / </ <
Note that all the comments archived here were culled from active discussions occuring in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.stories.d. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please join us in ASSD and say your piece. Everyone is welcome.
If you do not know how to read Usenet newsgroups, there is a nice, free web interface on Google: http://groups.google.com/. If you have any problems, send us email. If we're lucky, we'll get you set up and contributing in no time!
If you have not done so, please read the Comment Guidelines. We ask that all comments include two positive remarks and two suggestions for improvement. Please, try not to repeat!
From: DrSpin
Re: Caught, by Oosh
Date: 18 Mar 2002 07:13:50 -0800
In article <20020318083512.05048.00001781@mb-mt.aol.com>, Desdmona offered ...
I wouldn't change a word. The story cannot be improved, in my opinion. If it is not perfect, I don't see where it is not.
I thought I'd be going back to the lead paragraph to suggest where it could be broken up into smaller bites. After a second look, though, I would not even change that. Simply, it works.
Maybe others will find some faults here. Buggered if I can.
What I really, really like is that the narrator followed them. That's exactly right. I know I would have done that.
In a word - excellent.
One thing:
Uncanny. I heard that line of dialogue in a television drama just half an hour before I read Oosh's story. It was in a different setting and the context was entirely different. But spooky all the same.
DrSpin
* also at neil@ruthiesclub.com and at http://www.ruthiesclub.com