 |
| Fenway Park at Night |
As I read Almond, I am struck with the feeling of two Steves. I sense an almost expatriate, Vonnegut resignation, but I also find him digging up nostalgic American bones. How do I, as a reader, balance phrases like: "The peculiar sickness of the American mindset may be located in the peculiar notion that the professional athlete . . . should serve as a moral exemplar" against phrases like: "Sometimes I need to pretend. Sometimes I need a broken-down old stadium, stinking of beer and mustard, and rain falling like flour before the sodium lights?" (For Frank: this is "Red-Sox Anti-Christ.") Or: "Our obsession with sport is clearly a symptom of imperial doom. We must remember: All that held Rome together at the end was spectacle" against: "the chance to surrender my will is not without its sacred pleasures--a language, however primitive, with which to seek the solace of other men."
I think about how we talked, in class, of his self-effacement, his honesty, his outright brutality against a critic followed by his admission of pain, and I wonder: is it more beautiful to admit the ugliness we make? To lean forward to our readers without our makeup on? It seems to me that the writers I love the most make sacrifice to their own, god-like readers this way. It seems to me that I trust them more, then, feel more "involved" in their rants, diatribes, or observations than I would otherwise--even if I have been offended. It's more, well, human. It's the least we can ask of someone who would like a moment of our time.
I shared my story with you all on Wednesday. It put me at personal risk. Yet, aren't I asking the same of you? To write yourselves into being? To put yourselves on the old proverbial line and not hammer out some craptastic five-paragraph essay? I enjoy Almond because he seems to get that I need, as his reader, to feel him present in his craft. Anything else feels like cheating.
At the very beginning of his book, we have a quote from Vonnegut:
And Lot's wife, of course, was told not to look back where all those people and their homes had been. But she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human.
And here we have it, don't we? A writer looking back at American failure, broken ideals, salt marking the spot where a dream had been. Not because he never had faith, or out of some misguided sense of smug, self-righteous finality, but out of grief. Humanity.
Personally? I like the bar that high.
I also noticed the presence of "two Steves" while reading Almond's work. There is the sarcastic, narcissistic Steve who is extremely prominent in the "Blog Love" section. I actually found him rather irritating and obnoxious during his "conflict" with his blog nemesis Sargas. But then there is the nostalgic and sentimental Steve, with real anxieties and real emotions, that comes through in "Heart Radical" and the Kurt Vonnegut tribute.
ReplyDeleteI find him extremely likeable because of his ability to present both sides of himself. He is able to make you laugh, piss you off, and bring you into his true feelings all within the same piece.
Because really there are different sides to everybody. Everyone has layers (just like Ogres and Onions). On the surface, we are tough, quick to defend ourselves and to judge others (much like Almond with Sargas at first). But then as you peel back the layers, you are introduced to the softer, more insecure sides of yourself. You are able to reach that point where you are no longer sitting on your high horse, but you realize that you are only human. We are all only human.
My friends, who are all extremely jaded and cynical, are baffled by my faith in humanity. But I continue to believe that everyone has the ability to peel back the layers of their soul to reveal their better parts.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Steve Almond is human. He gets mad, cranky, sarcastic, apathetic, sympathetic, a little emotional when considering his past humilities, lonely, and he occasionally opens his soul up just enough for us to see his fears and uncertainties. It can be a little bit of a roller coaster ride experiencing his “rants, exploits, and obsessions,” but I personally prefer roller coasters with flips, twists, and the occasional drop over the really boring rides where safety is limited to a single metal bar: Give me the harness and buckles any day.
ReplyDeleteI don’t find Almond’s frankness annoying, but rather endearing. I feel I know him, really know him, and that’s because he doesn’t leave room for guessing, since he puts it all out on the table. This makes it understandable as to why he may be greatly liked or disliked by groups of people, because unlike authors who have a tendency to gloss over the rougher edges of their stories, he just ploughs straight through. And because we get it all, it’s fairly easier to discern exactly who he is and whether or not you like him. I find this highly likeable. I don’t know of many other attributes that take as much courage as being as openly vulnerable as he is.
Vulnerable. Perhaps it seems strange to call Almond vulnerable because you don’t get the impression of him being a softy. But he talks about his humiliations, fantasies, fears, doubts, character flaws, and all of these take great amounts of vulnerability. I think when you’re as open as Almond there is a greater chance of being disliked, and not just for what you’ve written, but for who you are, what you believe, and what you stand for. That’s scary.
I wish all authors were as transparent. I find that my favorite novels and short stories are those that are the most human. I don’t want to read something that feels forced and false. I want to read something that I’ve felt, that I’ve experiences, or that I’ve thought. Almond gives me those. I’ve been horribly embarrassed as a growing teen in the awkward stages of life, I’ve been forced to face those people who openly disliked me, and I too am a dork who would chose a novel and a cozy corner in order to compare myself to a favorite writer.
I think one reason I like Almond as I do is because in the moments when he is being most vulnerable, I find myself, too, being vulnerable. As if I were in a conversation with him.
“I’d sit there and read a sentence like ‘I’m going to die from love’ and start crying.”
“Oh my gosh Almond, I’ve done that too!”
“And what is strange is that it feels so good to cry, there was a kind of joy in it, because all feeling is joy, because the capacity for feeling is the great unstated human achievement”
“I know exactly what you’re saying. It gets old day in and day out being the same person. All day, every day. Like happy is a mode we’re all stuck in. like robots. And then you read that novel where the author is so human, so real, and you know that everything you feel and want, well, they feel and want it too. So it’s okay.
What I find funny now is that the way he responded to the author of Airships, the author who felt all and revealed all, is exactly how I see Almond. Is his book the greatest thing I’ve ever read, no. But the way he writes and the way in which he just opens himself to be so scrutinized is beyond bravery to me, and I find it highly admirable.
Duality is such a cliche topic most times that I often try to avoid talking about it, but it doesn't mean that it's not there is all of us. I definitely consider myself similar to Almond. There are parts of him that are completely irreverent at times, but at other times he bears his soul to the reader and expresses what his feelings really are about something. While I was reading the "Vonnegut" section of the book, at times I felt as if I could overlook the irreverent and humorous parts effortlessly and see through to his true feelings. There is an emotion present in his writing that comes out regardless of how you feel about his humor.
ReplyDeleteI like to think there are more versions of me than I can or like to think of. I don't think I'm two different people; that would be hypocritical. I simply like to think of myself as a extroverted introvert. I like to talk. I like to express how I feel. I can hold a conversation if not run the damn thing. However, at most times during any given day, I'm consumed with quiet thought, perceptions of other people and situations, meditations, etc. I think these qualities make me a better person when it comes to self-expression because it provides variety. On a deeper level, it makes me feel that I can justify my psyche because I am comfortable in my own thoughts.
When you strip all the crap away, you get something relateable that reaches your core. I may be alone in this, but when I am reading my eyes often skim over the parts that say things like "The rose was so lovely with its red, glistening petals" and on to more interesting things. Things that are interesting because they are real.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Steve's dualities because he isn't trying to have dualities. It's who he is. Both are easy to grasp because we all have our triumphs and pitfalls.
When you reveal your real self, you take a huge risk. There is a chance people will judge you and won't like you.
If you don't reveal your real self, you run an even greater risk to yourself. You risk stifling yourself or even worse becoming what you are pretending to be, killing parts of your soul in the process.
This was a short example of how I like to ramble. I'm not even sure if this is on topic, actually. Bottom line is this: whatever it is Steve Almond is trying to say about Oprah, Vonnegut, baseball, and blogs is fine by me because it's raw and real.
Being real. That seems to be what everything so far boils down to; and what we're all lauding Steve Almond for. But is he, really? Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the book immensely, and yes, he is definitely showing us multiple sides of himself - some of them not very pretty. But ultimately, it's still a highly edited, scripted piece of writing. Life isn't scripted, and it sure as hell isn't edited. While I appreciate the style, it bugs me when I hear people say things along the lines of "I really know this person because of the what they write." Intimacy is a two-sided concept. It requires not just that I grok* someone, but that they also grok me. I can't be close to a person I've never met. I can read his or her writing, I can identify with the emotions expressed on the page, I can see myself in both the good and the bad that has been enumerated there, but I don't know THEM. I couldn't tell you what they look like when they're trying to side-step an issue, or how they sound as they walk up behind me, or what they're thinking when their mouth quirks in that peculiar little way. Most of the time, I couldn't even tell you their favourite colour, or the name of their childhood pet. Because, ultimately, all of this identifying and false closeness to an author adds up to increasing our self knowledge. This, of course, is a good thing, as long as it is recognized for what it is. I learn something about myself by reading Almond's writings; I learn that sometimes life is convoluted, and it's OK to have seemingly opposing feelings about it, and maybe I learn something about the "human condition." But I don't learn who HE is. I don't get the same experience through reading his books as I do by sitting down with a glass of Riesling and talking to a friend, or working through issues with someone that are so frustrating we both just want to scream at each other. Those things are real. They are complicated, difficult, messy, some times unresolvable, always unpredictable, unedited, and glorious. Much though I like Almond's writing, it can never replace moments of true intimacy with people I actually know and cherish. He writes about life he's lived and people he's known; how are we to do the same if we don't have interactions more diverse than carefully chosen words on a page?
ReplyDelete*grok: word coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his book Stranger in a Strange Land. The term both encompasses and surpasses the idea of knowing and understanding another person. It's knowing someone or something so completely that you no longer think of it as an "out there" but rather as a part of yourself. Sorry to use a strange term, but I really could think of nothing else that fit what I was trying to say. BTW, Heinlein is a really great writer, with some really neat ideas, that is well worth checking out if you get the chance.
I've come to find that Steve - yes, I feel like through reading this, we're on a first-name basis - is like my friend. There are days that a friend may drone on and on.. and on about their boyfriend, or the boy they want to be their boyfriend (in a similar fashion he went on and on about Vonnegut). There are also days that they rant on and on and on about their arch enemy (much like with Sargas). So, Not That You Asked feels more like a conversation I'm having with a friend, then a book I have to read for class. I am dreading finishing this. I hate when that happens, when I finish a book and I'm not ready for it to end. I hate getting too attached to the characters (even though I can't help it!) because when I run out of pages, I feel like I'm losing a friend.
ReplyDeleteOh, and in case you were wondering my favorite part is still the "These were the good old days. Why hadn't I noticed." I think I've read that passage to almost everyone I know (including my mom, sister, grandmother, roommate, suitemate, and several friends that go to Mizzou/Loyola/OSU). I've never heard someone be able to describe it quite like that - in that real, raw, total non-cheese way.
Also, I appreciate you being so honest with us - I've never had a professor be that blatantly open about anything, especially their story. Thank you, you have no idea how much that means to me.
A writing instructor from my past told me that I should sleep a night on anything that I write. The theory, though at times sparing me embarrassment or regret, is a practice that opposes what we love about Almond. I suggest that Almond may have wanted to edit out some of the chapters and paragraphs that we've read. I don't mean that I think Almond disapproved of the quality of his writing, but that he may have written some passages while in a certain mood, or after a certain fight, or before a revelation, or in a passions--and all of these things, these thoughts are subject to change. I think that the message, not the words but the act of writing the words that Almond wrote, I think that that message is ultimately a message of authenticity. He sees through the "spectacle", of sports, he KNOWS that there are pretenders, and he knows that he may not be able to trust even himself completely. But he still write. And he, and we, believe his writing because he didn't sleep on it, he recognized that just because "it" isn't "true", doesn't mean that it wasn't--or that it won't be.
ReplyDeleteSteven has shown two sides of himself, but ultimately their two sides to the same trick coin. The painful honesty which sometimes even falls into vulnerability. This is my favorite aspect of his writing, yet, something has been eating at me about his writing, even from the beginning. I enjoyed reading his stories but there wasn't ever that chest jolt telling me I need to read this, what's being said is important. Pay attention closely. To me he has the rhetorical ability and ability to communicate and relate to the audience to be one of the GREAT authors, yet something's missing. I think what he lacks can best be seen in his love of Kurt Vonnegut. He basically respected Kurt and loved him so much because he was able to convey through words his own pain, beliefs, and philosophy of life. Kurt merely re-stated his own beliefs in a way he couldn't up to that point. It writes later about how it was embarrassing how few other books he read while in school. This shows that for him writing is meant to take what people already believe and word more eloquently. This is a miss. To me, the test of truly great literature is it's ability to change ones mind, to be beyond the belief you had before you picked up the work or push an idea in a new way. If his relationship with Kurt is the prototype in which he has with his own audience then it creates a sadness for me because it means the honesty is used as a ploy and not for the sake of being honest and simply a way to avoid looking like a hypocrite and relating to "his" audience. In all honesty it often seems he writes for "us" against "them" mentality. HIs hero Kurt wrote to try to change people and get people to be more loving to one another so the earth could be saved. Steven seems to be writing so all of us who aren't as fucked up as all of "them" can say we told you so when it all burns down and it's going to, just watch. He's a brilliant writer and a brilliant mind and can convey feelings everyone has is a refreshingly simple way. I think he uses this duality with exact purpose and shows his mastery of his craft. What's missing is more existential or philosophical than craft.
ReplyDeleteReading this book is like getting really close to a person I would never be friends with in the real world. There are awkward parts and some parts where I want to slap him out of his diatribe. But then there will be a moment when he makes me laugh and there is a sweetness in reading his thoughts. His notes to Oprah have been read by most of my close friends, so I feel like the two of us have mutual friends now. This book is so seemingly personal that it almost makes me want to get to know his family and his background. What makes him so relateable?
ReplyDeleteHe invites the reader into his head with seeming contradictions, like Dr P mentioned in the opening blog. Aren’t we all walking contradictions? Sounds cliché, and it is, but how many of us answer “Yes” when we really mean “No” or push away the very person we want to get close to. Almond’s contradictions made me feel like a normal human being and created a bond between us, like when you find out that you and the person you just met have the same favorite band, or some other thing. It’s those similarities that binds humanity and crosses cultural lines. Wow. Now that was a Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood moment. Thank you, Steve Almond.
This is different for me in some ways because I don't really like Almond all that much-- I think he's often very focused on shock value rather than telling a story that really matters. All that being said, I recognize that he's primarily a humor writer, and humor is a VERY hard thing to write.
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate the two sides of the coin, and to me they're both honesty-- one is this kind of humorous, shock value honesty. The other kind is much more meaningful than that. It's the honesty that seeps through his desire to be funny and liked and makes his work worth reading. These are the moments that establish Almond as a force to be reckoned with: his ideas about "all feeling is joy", the concept that sometimes life itself is reason enough to keep living, his genuine goodwill for a person who doesn't like him. That kind of honesty is infinitely more real to me than the superficial honesty of his early sexual experiences, etc. All that being said, I appreciate what Almond's doing and I see where he's going with it, but those beautiful moments of prose hidden in sometimes rambling narratives make me feel that he sometimes sells himself short.
When writing for an audience my biggest fear has always been sounding fake and cheesey, using cliches, or overused analogies. The way Steve writes, we can see him struggle through that. He goes on about one thing, then quickly swings back to another. It is as if I can see his writing process on the page, and I love him for that. He includes cinical and sarcastic comments that other writers leave out to avoid sounding "unprofessional". His wit and humor find a place in every sentence, every story, and every thought that he leaves on the page. It is this kind of writing I wish I could accomplish.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to knowing Steve Almond I really feel like I do. Someone earlier commented that we don't know him because we don't know his favorite color, his physical appearance, or his first pet. But do knowing these things mean you know someone? Those trivial personal facts do not makeup the person that you know. Its getting in their mind, understanding their thoughts and feelings, and knowing their pain and their pleasure that makes you really know someone. I once dated someone for six months before remembering his birthday and middle name, but does that mean I didn't know him? Of course not, I knew him more than anyone else did.. Steve writes in a way that we can know him by knowing the most important aspects of him, seeing his duality, his bitterness and his happiness, his weaknesses and his strengths. The writers that just share their favorite color and first pet are the bad ones, the phony ones, the uttertly boring and expected ones. Its writers like Almond that leave their true self on the page, that are the brilliant ones.
I really like what azl0003 wrote. "It's getting in their mind, understanding their thoughts and feelings, and knowing their pain and pleasure that makes you really know someone." Perhaps this is one of the strengths of the nonfiction that Steve Almond writes. The process is on the page. Reading Almond as he pens a thought toward its conclusion is like having a chance to watch a complex machine run without its coverings. I'm not sure that I agree that the details, the little things like color and pets, are unimportant. After all, Almond shines through the clearest when he is discussing his favorite author, but I do agree that the workings of his mind and of the people we know are very important.
ReplyDeleteHe's not simple. And he's not concerned with making complete sense. When I am reading Almond I feel as if the only thing that I am sure of is that he is attempting to chase his thoughts down every alley. When we follow him, sometimes we get glimpses of the places in his mind that he wants us to see, sometimes we see things that he might not want to expose, but the beauty of his work is that he lets us follow him in because of how necessary it is for readers to see these places on the way to the place that he is taking them. We had a discussion last week about the editing and filtering of writing. The best thing about Almond is that even though his voice is edited, it remains human and real, which seem to be some of the most difficult attributes to maintain.
I tend to fall on the side that argues that Steve is merely presenting two sides of himself, albeit in a scripted, predictable manner. I find that his vulgarities are meant to remind us of the vulgar tendencies that we all have. On the other hand, I see his critique of things such as our infatuation with professional athletes, and the willingness of a person to hide their favorite authors in the fear of being looked down upon, as evidence of the hypocrisies within every person. And although I do like his writing, I find it the constant barrage of contradictory messages somewhat nauseating. Sometimes I feel like yelling at him through the book, in a "I know what you are saying, Get to the damn point" manner. I have to swallow that urge, just for the fact that I share some of his less-appealing attributes. I certainly read some authors that I wouldn't bring up in polite conversation. I bitch and moan about the problems with our tabloid news media, but I keep tuning in. I hate the overpaid athletes that, for the majority, ignore the importance of the fan, but I can't stop buying Braves merchandise. What does this say about me? Really, nothing. The fact that I can see myself in his writing, shows how gifted he is at showing the duality of human consciousness. I have to admit, though, that because his meaning is somewhat easy to grasp, I find myself with an uneasy feeling. Not because of the vulgarities, or the hypocrisies, or the heavy-handedness of his message. No, I'm uneasy because I don't want to be read that easily. So why does he?
ReplyDeleteMy initial post is not showing up, so here's my second attempt:
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate Almond's sarcastic style of writing. His balls for confessing the twisted things going on in his mind and in his life.
Outside of reading his book through widened eyes, I don't find myself connecting with him as a pal. His writing is extremely entertaining and keeps me turning the pages, with his wild escapades and wacky perspectives.
I conflict with Almond in a lot of his beliefs and ideals and perspectives. That's fine. Totally cool. He's Steve, I'm Paul.
While it takes guts to put yourself out there like he does, and do so with such a bold presentation, I don't think it helps in his sympathy for the failure of humanity.
We're all hypocrites, dualistic, yadda, yadda, yadda. Absolutely true. But what I think Almond doesn't see is that our unwillingness to show some self-constraint and discretion in what we do and say allows for our failures in being true to ourselves, and allows for our success in being two-faced. We have become too self-centered ("I'll say what I want and I don't care what you think" attitude) to care more for others than ourselves, and help out humanity. Blasting people, groups, ideas in a book and revealing dark personal thoughts to the world doesn't speak to me as "I sympathize with Vonnegut in his disappointment in the failures of man." What happened to being humble? Having respect? Being accepting and taking the high road even when you can't agree with others who don't share your thoughts?
Personally, I like the way Steve writes. What I like the most about it is that I seriously doubt that you could just walk up to him, ask him about his life's story, and have him tell you everything he's written in his book. The book (like a blog, ironically enough) gives him a barrier of pseudo-anonymity that he can hide behind. He can write things in his book that he would never say to thousands of complete strangers, because the vast majority of those people will never see him face-to-face. It allows him to be far more honest and telling in his writing, which is something I really appreciate. He can pretty much write what he wants in his book, regardless of his mood, and there it is, for all the world to see.
ReplyDeleteI think Steve is a phenomenal writer. His writing has two completely different styles, yet, they seem to blend together seamlessly. In my opinion, his whit and charm come across effortlessly and his ability to completely open up about serious things instantly makes the audience want to read more. He is a very likable and relatable person and I think that is what makes a good author.
ReplyDeleteGranted, his writing is not for the faint of heart because he is very blunt and has crude innuendos all throughout his book. I can see where people would be offended by some of the things he has to say, but if taken with a grain of salt I think people could really find Steve entertaining.
I suppose I should not have read every previous comment before replying myself because now I agree with all of you.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone has found something about his they find mysteriously relatable and I find myself no different. Each thought or experience he divulges (perhaps excluding the unassigned portions) reminds me in part of my own or of a friend. As for his dual-nature, I feel that if we weren't made aware of it by his writing we would hate him, or worse - not believe him. His conjectures are the only thing that made "Red Sox Anti Christ" readable. Baseball on paper? Gag me.
Because of my major and huge time constraints I don’t read anything humorous, unless you consider obesity a real chuckle. I love how his stories prove that jack-asses are still subject to heartbreak, rejection (a given), and do in fact experience such wholesome emotions as joy and humility.
My favorite passages have been “Pretty Authors Make Graves” and “Heart Radical,” which I feel are his most vulnerable moments. I absolutely adore the self-deprecation in each and lines like, “I only trust the ugly writers, anyway.” I guess I appreciate these peeks into his obsessions, his reflexive ruthlessness because they remind me that humanity still exists underneath everything we have artfully piled on top of it, tried to drown it out with
Even though I don't particularly like baseball, I found "Red Sox Anti-Christ" easy to read. It's not some much what Steve says most of the time but how he writes it. He's very clever. He's not the normal writer that writes politically correct and worries about grammar and what not, but one that simply writes how and what he feels to portray his feelings and emotions. While reading his work, I find myself sad or smirking or angry because that’s how he feels at the moment...I relate to him. This book to me is pretty much raw and straight to the point, making it more relatable to his audience (aside from the people that are mentally stuck on the right way of doing and saying things). I like his work.
ReplyDeleteTo Wilson's comment of, "...but that he may have written some passages while in a certain mood, or after a certain fight, or before a revelation, or in a passions--and all of these things, these thoughts are subject to change..." I find that those are the moments that are most memorable because they are not immutable. By capturing the odor of humanity at the times in which he is most vulnerable, at the times when he is most inflamed or overjoyed, aren't those the ones reading? This reminds me of Dr. Wehrs' lecture on Plato--while he disavows poetry and literature due to its irrational nature, its appeal to the emotions and humanity's irrationality, aren't those the parts that appeal most to our humanity, to the "affections of the soul?" If anything, Almond reflects on his irrational actions often within his own works as self-criticism, it seems. Like in the moment when (I'm not sure if everyone has read this because my computer can't open PDFs and I don't know why) he is at a signing, and his was-going-to-be-student comes in and unintentionally makes him feel horrible for his tirade on Condoleezza Rice's Commencement speech. Here, he is clearly regretful for his actions. This regret is demonstrative of his own humanity and the humanity captured and presented within his own writing, the "affection of the soul" of doing something that later, is perhaps the action that you have most regretted in your life.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression of Steve Almond, was “Oh no. Am I going to have to read another person who can not stand the conservative view and rants about things in the world that really don’t even matter?” But as I have continued to press on with my reading I am finding that his writing style is ok and pretty easy to read. I don’t think that he is dry in any way and his quick wit and humor help to make the pages turn quicker and the time to go by. One thing that I love is that I don’t think that I would have picked this book off the shelf in a bookstore, but I am glad that I have read it so I can learn different writing styles and see what other people’s point of views are.
ReplyDeleteBecause he is so outspoken it is like getting inside of his head. I think that in person he would intimidate me and I would be a little scared to ever come in contact with him. But being able to read his stuff and understand who he is has been really interesting. Some of his ranting does get on my nerves a little bit, but hey not everyone is going to agree with what I say either. I do enjoy his wit and humor. He does make me laugh and I find myself relating to him or understanding what he is saying better than I thought I would.
The first thing that I love about Steve Almond is that the type of writing he does is my comfort zone. This is the type of writing I feel most comfortable doing, and it's the type of writing I can see myself doing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find myself being disappointed when he puts in in stories that aren't really that entertaining to begin with, and then are repetitive. I do not know this man at all, and yet I feel like I do, and I feel like I expected more from him. Weird? Yeah.
I do like the feeling of two Steves though. Everyone has different sides to them, heck, I think I have about 5, but who's counting? It's a vulnerability of his Vonnegut chapter that peeks its little head out that I love, and it's the hardness in the defense against the blogger that I love as well. Because that is how people are. We don't act the same, or have the same moods all the time, we are shifting, and constantly going, never the same.
Today's reading of "How Reality TV Ate My Life" may not have been the most well-expressed piece in this collection of Steve Almonds's, but I do think that it shows the essential theme to his writings. He understands that the search for something truer than the facts and figures we are daily spoon fed and rarely question is a deep longing that many of us have. I think he best reaches this sincerity through vulnerability. In order to write something beautiful it doesn't have to be complicated. It only needs to be simple and true, and by true I mean honest, even if that truth is honestly not pretty.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated you being honest with your students about what you have experienced. I don't feel like it would be fair to expect us to pour out our souls without slightly breaking down that wall of formality that often bears down on creativity in a classroom.
Deciphering the complicated unknown is important, but I think it is harder to be completely truthful in one's writing. Yet, when that happens it tends to hit home and the connection created between author and writer, two fallen human beings, establishes the best and clearest pathway for meaning to be communicated.
From our discussions in class, overall I think most people have negative feelings towards Steve Almond. Personally, I like him and that odd writing style of his. Obviously it's not just our class, he is about to publish a book called "Letters from People Who Hate Me", so I'm guessing it's a trend. I find most of his stories and rants to be funny, obviously the sexual stories get old after awhile and our last reading assignment about Reality TV wasn't exactly my definition of entertainment, but like Wilson said in the last class, his honesty really shows in his writing. Most of the stories seem very conversational, which I find to be very similar to my style. Also, his final statements, usually found in the last page or so, really help get a grasp for his purpose and you get to know your author and find what these events mean to them. More than anything I find that Steve's writing style keeps us reading no matter how boring it is; we know most of his stories are interesting and funny so even if I'm not intrigued by a particular story, I always seem to be waiting for the next laugh.
ReplyDeleteI actually like Steve Almond’s writing style. It is different and unconventional, so it actually grabs my attention. I think we have been beat over the head for so long about how we should write and sticking to the rubric of structure that we forget writing can actually be fun and personal I think Almond is a very inspiring writer in the fact that he is not afraid to be himself and let that shine through in his writing. Now, don’t get me wrong, sometimes I have no clue what he is talking about, but the fact that he is standing behind what he says and he says in a way that almost persuades you to re-think what you may have initially thought about the subject.
ReplyDelete