My initial view of Almond stands based on several very clear conclusions that I’ve come to on my own, and through reading other responses.
1. Sometimes I think he’s funny, and sometime I think he’s a jackass. 2. I could only view him from these two extremes if he presented himself as so. 3. If Steve Almond were any vegetable, he’d be an onion (thanks AlyFronk )
It’s been quite some time since I’ve read Not That You Asked, but the fact that I can still remember the title of his book, that awkward chapter with the angry blogger, and the fact that I still think about him quitting his job over Condoleezza Rice tells me a lot about him as a writer. He’s memorable. Why? Because he’s honest, he’s real, and he’s, well, he’s just Steve Almond….no filler or substitutes, and most of you would agree from what I’ve read of your responses.
I remember thinking he was a little extreme or weird sometimes, but I mostly remember him being brave. In the end, more than I learned to quickly pass of the title of the book with a baby wearing boxing gloves on it to nosy passer-byers, I learned to be a little more honest in my writing. I learned sarcasm can be fun when used wisely, and I learned that to hold the attention span of your readers, they actually need to know who it is they’re reading…
“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” (azl0003). “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” (Portia). “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” (Josh).
We were saying it about Steve, but now we’re saying it about ourselves. We haven’t found it, but if you compare our recent posts to the earliest ones, there’s proof of a search. The lamp is overturned, the drawers are pulled out, the papers are ruffled, and we’ve at least figured out where truth isn’t. We’re becoming the naked machine, the revealed duality of humanity, and to the lonely world we’ve become familiar.
My favorite blog here was probably Paul’s… “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…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?” Boom. There. There’s what I’d been trying to say the whole time, and Paul had the words and the sense I lacked to make it logical: all self-constraint is not untruthfulness. We must maintain dignity to maintain respect. I’m only worth listening to if I meet at least two of these criteria: 1. I am not bullshitting you, 2. If I am bullshitting you, I am doing so with class and style, 3. Sometimes I can write about things that are not bullshit, and 4. I will accept that not everyone in the world who disagrees with my bullshit falls under criteria 2. We’re all dualistic, yeah, and amen—I like that Paul just calls it what it is via Almond sometimes calling it what it’s not.
My iTunes has moved on now to Philip Selway: “By Some Miracle.” It was a free download from Starbucks. Sometimes I am a Starbucks whore, which is not to be confused with whoring myself out to people at Starbucks. 12:25.
"I 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"-Aly
I agree. FML I now find him even more likeable since he was by far my favorite thing we read.
I think if I ever met Steve Almond we would be good friends. What you all don't know about me is that my sense of humor and Steve's are alllmost identical. It's hard getting that side of me across, but it's the truth I assure you.
Steve Almond gave me a sigh of relief. "People write like this?? Like me??" is kinda what I thought. I felt like I actually had a shot now.
I finished reading this book somewhere in Indiana on the way to Chicago. A group of four of us drove up there from Huntsville at 1 am, watched a DMB concert later that night and went home Sunday.
And yes, that last part (even though it was true) was so you guys would think I was cool and spontaneous. Which I am of course :)
This post on Almond was valuable to me, not because I loved talking about him, but because I got to know everyone in a different way from their response to this blog in particular. Aly’s reference to the ogre in Almond was pivotal – even more accurate than just labeling his style as “duality”. Even simple “I like him[s]” were nice to see. And kudos to Rebecca for admitting she had almost written him off. Glad you ended up enjoying him – I certainly did.
I agree with Courtney that this was the best thing we read all semester and Dr. P was right when she said we would miss him, even the ones he offended. Through reading others’ interpretations of his dual nature I began to assess my own, and be ok with it. We all ended up guilty of the same crime anyway. What we were on the internet was not what we were in the classroom, not even the most honest among us. It’s just different, and I think Almond taught us that there is still virtue in writing something that maybe isn’t always true, something that you don’t believe every day. The things I consider my best writing was just a spattering of a moments’ emotion.
Thank God we were judged in this class for honesty rather than truth. I loved how we each had our version of both.
Oh Steve how we began to miss you when Ursula was trying to teach to teach Steering of the Craft, or when the depressing stories began to pop up each week in the Fourth Genre. . . . hmmm but I will never forget sitting on the transit or in public places holding my head so that no one would see the boxing baby on the front of the book. I still feel the same way about Steve Almond that I did then. He was funny and entertaining though I don’t think that we will ever be best friends. I loved what Christine said about him I think it was exactly how I felt. “Reading 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”
That person that you have an awkward love hate relationship with. But like so many of us I did like that he wasn’t trying to be someone that he wasn’t. I think so much of this class time was focused on being yourself and not hiding letting all the dirty grunge hang out and his writing is definitely that. Though I will say I will probably not be reading another Steve Almond book in the future, it did teach me things that I think were important this semester.
As all authors do when they leave their writing out there for the world, Steve Almond was torn apart. We gave him two parts, two sides. We questioned his vulgar language, his blunt delivery, his perhaps phony realism. We wondered about his intentions, his writing process, and his point. And then we praised him. We admired his seemingly unadulterated truthfulness, and simply gawked at his ballsy-ness to enlighten us on almost any topic of his choosing. We likened him to a friend who rambles on about almost anything that we somehow don't mind listening to. Like a person who by the description of their actions sounds crazy, but because you KNOW them, you know they are not. This became all things Steve Almond. Craziness, refined into well-written relatable text. I am green with envy. I want to write "Dear Steve Almond, please teach me your ways...because without this skill I really am crazy, I am the annoying blabbering friend, not the interesting one." Almond's stories reflect exactly his thoughts at the time. Wilson points out a certain mood, fight, or revelation could have prompted any one of these things- and I am sure the same thing happens to us. Annemarie wrote, "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 worth reading?" Yes. Absolutely. And the same goes for the blogs. I decide here that I want to read things full of madness, desire, and change. When I look back at all of my blogs I can pinpoint this as the exact moment my writing transforms from facts and boring sentences filling in the lines, to strong sentimental thoughts and possibly harsh ideas. EEEK! What was I thinking? But I should not fear, because next we learn about warrants, and after another brief learning experience, all will seem right in the world again (for a short, short time).
I'm sticking by my original guns on this one. I enjoyed Almond, I really did. I still say that he was far more fake than we like to acknowledge. Yeah, he wrote things about himself that weren't pretty. But he still edited that book, he still had an editor - probably an entire team of editors - who went over it multiple times before it ever saw the public light of day. It's a highly constructed piece of writing designed to make us think it was dashed off in a rush of emotion and passion. And it probably originally was - but that doesn't mean it stayed that way. Almond gave us multiple sides of himself and let us see the differing moods and thoughts he had, but I guarantee you that every one of those moods was carefully considered before it went to print. I don't feel like I know Almond because he wrote in this style. In fact, I feel I know him less than someone like Tolkien or Madeleine L'Engle who spent years pouring themselves into their fiction - and inevitably let their true essence shine through. Again, this is not meant to bash Almond because I did enjoy his book, and it was well written. I just get frustrated with this false intimacy that genre - like reality TV - seems to embrace and promote.
Every chapter Steve showed us a different side of himself, but there was one thing that was always consistent: he was honest. That was the number one thing I learned from him, be honest, or your readers will call bullshit. I remember seeing the cover of the book, and being extremely excited. I had never heard of this author before, but I definitely was thrilled. The most we learned in our class was from his book. I learned about writing techniques, I learned how engage the reader, we learned about warrants, but most of all, I learned to leave out all the bullshit. To me, writing is letting go. It's being inhibited in a world where normally I am being careful about what I say and do. I can say what I feel and not be embarrassed or ashamed. All right, maybe a little embarrassed, but to own who you are, flaws and all. There are three moments from his book that I believe will always stick with me. The first was when his pregnant wife wanted to go home, and he wanted to keep studying Vonnegut, he was saying, I know I was an ass, I’m sorry for that, but what can I do about it now other than acknowledge it? And it’s that acknowledgment of his flaws, and the sincere apology behind it (I don’t think Steve is the kind of guy to apologize) in knowing it was wrong that made me love him. The second was the lobster chapter. He was me. His friends were my friends, and to me, watching someone love, makes me fall in love with them. The third would be his chapter about his daughter. For the same reason as the last one. Reading Steve made me a stronger writer. It made me say, cut out the lies, drop the front, and be who are you, because who you are is beautiful.
Looking back, Steve was an incredibly fun author to read. I have two friends who just finished reading Slaughter House 5 by Vonnegut. I gave them Mr. Almond’s book so they could read about his obsession with SH5’s author. There were a wide variety of responses to him. Trillium still believes we never knew him. Others would say: “Thank God we were judged in this class for honesty rather than truth. I loved how we each had our version of both.”
I like the idea that honesty and truth may not be the same thing. I don’t know if Steve was truthful on the page, but I believe he was honest. He said what he believed, he made us laugh, he made us remember some distant or difficult place that we’ve been to, and he helped us understand that other people have experienced the same things.
Steve taught me that creative non-fiction can be whatever we make it, but our conversations made me understand the responsibility that we have to the reader, which became relevant in our next blog about warrants. I realized that when I write, people expect a certain amount of truthfulness and a certain amount of honesty. Knowing how to convey that comfortably, and knowing that others might not have the same type of relationship to my writing, is something that I have come to accept. I think it freed me of a writing burden that I didn’t know I was struggling under.
Steve Almond was the alka-seltzer in our coke bottle- it was exciting watching the explosions, but still fizzled out and made a mess. Quite the entertainer, Steve was to our class, and that's what I walked away from his book with- entertainment. But, I don't think Trillium could have said it any better, "he still edited that book," and he knew what he was doing, he's a professional writer (define professional writer?- I cannot).
The duality that we examined in Steve, and in ourselves, revealed a side that wanted some fame and money (nothing out of the norm), so why wouldn't he create an embarrassing piece full of gut busters and jaw gapers? He showed me that using the voice in you, the one that you're not always proud of (the voice that can seem a little ugly) can open the door to very characterized and personable writing.
Conservative views aside, I love to hate Steve and hate that I love his writing style/voice. It wasn't pretty, but as a class I think that we are able to understand now, that it's okay to appreciate a good book and a good author even when you're sometimes offended through the process.
I....LOVE.... Steven Almond. I want to have a beer with that guy. I've recommended this book to so many friends. The first section I read, knowing his kind of humor, was the one about his sexual failures. That shit was hilarious and so true. I hated the candy section. I thought if I saw the word "candy" one more time, I was gonna stab myself in the temple with a candy cane. But such a funny, crass, honest, and talented writer. Spot on, sir. Spot on.
I really liked Wilson's interpretation of Steve Almond's writing, "...he knows that he may not be able to trust even himself completely. But he still writes. 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."
Sometimes I felt Almond was lying to us, often thinking to myself, "okay, this has to be bullsh**", but he was always convincing. Honesty or at least portraying a real life situation kept me reading all the way to his final statements of each chapter, where I really got a grasp for his purpose.
I said in the original post that 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. Now after writing an essay portraying a style of his, I realized how important his various styles really were to his book. It may be ugly or unorganized at times, but sometimes a one word sentence, or a word in all CAPS, or even an ellipsis between thoughts, is necessary. Thanks a lot Steve!
Steve Almond. Reading him first spoiled us. Nothing else seemed quite as fun. That being said, I stand by what I said earlier about Steve being like ogres and onions. And I think that I appreciate that fact even more now that I have written more pieces this semester, in this class, for other classes, and personally. I have written a couple pieces for this class where I thought afterwards, “Damn, I really don’t like myself for saying all of those things”. At first, I was afraid to submit these pieces because I knew that if I didn’t like myself, how could anyone else? I think you have to take that risk as a writer. I think that if you just put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) and let the words come out, the result is your immediate and truest feelings. However, Trillium brought up a good point that he ultimately edited his book. Which makes me wonder, what was taken out? I feel like so much of him is on the page of the finished product. What could we possibly be missing? Do we even really want to know? Maybe that’s the layer we really don’t want to peel back…
If I could sum up Steve Almond using a couple of sentences, this is what it would be...
Everyone has layers just like Ogres and Onions.(AlyFronk) ...Steve Almond is human.(Martha Lee Anne)There is an emotion present in his writing that comes out regardless of how you feel about his humor.(Nightlymeds)I appreciate Steve's dualities because he isn't trying to have dualities. It's who he is.(Courtney Paige)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.(Wilson)He's a brilliant writer and a brilliant mind and can convey feelings everyone has in a refreshingly simple way.(Nick Brown) 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.(azl0003)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.(Josh) His wit and charm come across effortlessly and his ability to completely open up about serious things instantly makes the audience want to read more.(Catherine Wright)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.(Myself)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.(TeNesha Jones)
Oh, Steve. How we barely knew ye. Or...knew ye a little better than some of us had hoped. Or maybe we never actually knew ye at all, and you fooled us all into buying your book, in which case...well done, sir.
I loved Steve's book. The book may or may not have been true to you, or may not have spoken to you the same way, but that book was filled with experiences and fears and regrets and so many other things that I can connect with. When he feels like he's a failure as a writer, teacher, husband, father, whatever, I can connect with him (not because I'm any of those last three things) because I can find all of those fears and shortcomings in myself.
"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"-Martha Lee.
Beautifully written Martha Lee-way to wrap all of the beauties and harsh realities of Steve into a nice little present for us.
I LOVE Steve- I guess it's true" absence really does make the heart grow fonder." I wish we could have hung out with him all semester instead of that bull shit that was part of the original class. (Dr. PD, I can't thank you enough for taking this class into your own hands and actually teaching us something worth while and introducing us to the creepy baby covered book).
Steve is by far one of my top authors now. His sarcasm mixed with his need to let his audience peak into his soul in infallible. I think he is just a relate-able kind of guy. He is just Steve and nothing more, and that to me is something to be commended for.
I could mirror my favorite people's posts and say "I LOVE STEVE," but seeing as I'm not doing so well writing two paragraphs so far, I think I will have to bore you and stretch it out longer.
Really, now, I suppose I don't "love" Steve. Reading other things while writing this post, a favorite character of mine says to his boyfriend, "Don't say you love me. If you say it, I'll assume you mean you want to fuck me." There's something encompassing in the word 'love,' and I don't think I know Steve well enough to say it. But what I do know, I think I 'like.' Because I don't want to expend the physical effort of getting out of my blankets and walk through my 20 degree apartment to get the book, you'll have to do with my memory, which tends to serve me correctly at times. There was that chapter that he was told to "roll in candy," and he refused. I think at that point, which was rather late, he won me over. There was something about that demeaning request that collided with his integrity, and he kept it at the cost of more publicity for himself and his works. It is a beautiful demonstration of someone defending individualism and shows that doing so is worth it.
I’m still reading people the letters to Oprah and I’m still laughing about it. My mantra this semester has been "These were the good old days. Why hadn't I noticed." Steve was an awesome way to start off the semester and I think he really brought us, as a class, out of our shells. Thank God. Can you imagine how much longer it would have taken for us to actually have an interesting conversation if we had started with “Steering the Craft”? Answer: way too long.
I loved Steve. And AlyFronk stated it best, “there are different sides to everybody. Everyone has layers (just like Ogres and Onions).” We were able to peel back the different layers of sarcasm, wit, and impressive use of ellipses/parentheses/all caps/etc. in ridiculous segments to see parts of him.
“Reading this book is like getting really close to a person I would never be friends with in the real world” (Christine). And reading this book in this class allowed me to break the ice with a group of people I never would have talked to otherwise. The bizarre cover gave me something to laugh at with the people who sat around me on the first few classes and the book itself gave us enough material to talk in class for the entire fifty minutes those first couple of weeks.
A lot of times when I read things for classes it all runs together and I can safely admit that I cannot decipher who said what at the end unless it was some extravagant writer, who the teacher beat the class over the head with over and over. Most of the time we were beat was to persuade us to believe what that writer believed because usually if the professor picked the literature she/he believed in it too. But, this was not the case with this Almond guy. (Good job Dr. P.) This was one of the most real and uncut reading I have ever done for a class. I enjoyed it because it was untraditional and unexpected. I guess not much with this course was expected or could have been foreseen so it fit perfectly. From reading Steve Almond I feel like he showed us that freedom can be appreciated and it can be accepted. Don’t get me wrong people do not always accept the whole authors being free to write however and whatever they choose, but it is our right as writers. Honestly, I have always wanted to write a book on things that have happened to me, my friends and even people that I am not that fond of. I always thought that I was not good enough to be a successful writer, but Steve Almond definitely gave me the attitude of “Who really cares??” He is right. I do not care if I am not the traditionally accepted writer or even English Major for the matter, but I am me and I know what I can do. I guess you could see Almond was somewhat of an inspiration for me and what I would like to become.
I love to hate Steve Almond. I would like to be stuck in an elevator with him, but not on a blind date. Absence has made my heart grow fonder, but still his humor is too grating for my personal taste.
Azl0003: "It's getting in their mind, understanding their thoughts and feelings, and knowing their pain and pleasure that makes you really know someone." So true. My closest friends are the ones who I have opened up completely with, who I have dared to hold closer than arm’s length. While Steve Almond and I in real life would never be friends, I feel like the writer Steve Almond and I have a bond. The man he portrays is just that, a man. Not an idea, not an enigma. But a man- zits, farts, internet stalkers and all. And that is what Almond has taught me, to be myself. To be without care for what everyone thinks. To not write with the reader at arm’s length, but to get up close. And that’s when you can see the zits the best. Almond showed me that you can be real and still be loved and appreciated.
"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."
I wrote this. And it's an opinion that I still hold so true...that language and writing are beautiful because the way that one can capture and create and entire world. Human nature. The most beautiful to the most horrific. But now I am beginning to question that "truth". Can we really tell the truth about ourselves?
Trillum points out that of course this book has been scripted and edited and, "Life isn't scripted and it isn't edited". But also like Courtney said, "I appriciate Steves dualities because he isn't trying to have dualities."
I can see both sides. The thing is that I don't want it to be clear. I think Almond is a little crazy, and whether it is the complete truth or not, he has opened the curtain and let us peak in to see the wizard. Maybe we don't know how the machine works, but we know there is someone back there trying to tell us something. And isn't that sort of the fun part? Figuring it out for yourself? I don't think I ever want to try to tell the truth, I just want to say it.
My initial view of Almond stands based on several very clear conclusions that I’ve come to on my own, and through reading other responses.
ReplyDelete1. Sometimes I think he’s funny, and sometime I think he’s a jackass.
2. I could only view him from these two extremes if he presented himself as so.
3. If Steve Almond were any vegetable, he’d be an onion (thanks AlyFronk )
It’s been quite some time since I’ve read Not That You Asked, but the fact that I can still remember the title of his book, that awkward chapter with the angry blogger, and the fact that I still think about him quitting his job over Condoleezza Rice tells me a lot about him as a writer. He’s memorable. Why? Because he’s honest, he’s real, and he’s, well, he’s just Steve Almond….no filler or substitutes, and most of you would agree from what I’ve read of your responses.
I remember thinking he was a little extreme or weird sometimes, but I mostly remember him being brave. In the end, more than I learned to quickly pass of the title of the book with a baby wearing boxing gloves on it to nosy passer-byers, I learned to be a little more honest in my writing. I learned sarcasm can be fun when used wisely, and I learned that to hold the attention span of your readers, they actually need to know who it is they’re reading…
“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” (azl0003). “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” (Portia). “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” (Josh).
ReplyDeleteWe were saying it about Steve, but now we’re saying it about ourselves. We haven’t found it, but if you compare our recent posts to the earliest ones, there’s proof of a search. The lamp is overturned, the drawers are pulled out, the papers are ruffled, and we’ve at least figured out where truth isn’t. We’re becoming the naked machine, the revealed duality of humanity, and to the lonely world we’ve become familiar.
My favorite blog here was probably Paul’s… “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…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?” Boom. There. There’s what I’d been trying to say the whole time, and Paul had the words and the sense I lacked to make it logical: all self-constraint is not untruthfulness. We must maintain dignity to maintain respect. I’m only worth listening to if I meet at least two of these criteria: 1. I am not bullshitting you, 2. If I am bullshitting you, I am doing so with class and style, 3. Sometimes I can write about things that are not bullshit, and 4. I will accept that not everyone in the world who disagrees with my bullshit falls under criteria 2. We’re all dualistic, yeah, and amen—I like that Paul just calls it what it is via Almond sometimes calling it what it’s not.
ReplyDeleteMy iTunes has moved on now to Philip Selway: “By Some Miracle.” It was a free download from Starbucks. Sometimes I am a Starbucks whore, which is not to be confused with whoring myself out to people at Starbucks. 12:25.
"I 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"-Aly
ReplyDeleteI agree. FML I now find him even more likeable since he was by far my favorite thing we read.
I think if I ever met Steve Almond we would be good friends. What you all don't know about me is that my sense of humor and Steve's are alllmost identical. It's hard getting that side of me across, but it's the truth I assure you.
Steve Almond gave me a sigh of relief. "People write like this?? Like me??" is kinda what I thought. I felt like I actually had a shot now.
I finished reading this book somewhere in Indiana on the way to Chicago. A group of four of us drove up there from Huntsville at 1 am, watched a DMB concert later that night and went home Sunday.
And yes, that last part (even though it was true) was so you guys would think I was cool and spontaneous. Which I am of course :)
This post on Almond was valuable to me, not because I loved talking about him, but because I got to know everyone in a different way from their response to this blog in particular. Aly’s reference to the ogre in Almond was pivotal – even more accurate than just labeling his style as “duality”. Even simple “I like him[s]” were nice to see. And kudos to Rebecca for admitting she had almost written him off. Glad you ended up enjoying him – I certainly did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Courtney that this was the best thing we read all semester and Dr. P was right when she said we would miss him, even the ones he offended. Through reading others’ interpretations of his dual nature I began to assess my own, and be ok with it. We all ended up guilty of the same crime anyway. What we were on the internet was not what we were in the classroom, not even the most honest among us. It’s just different, and I think Almond taught us that there is still virtue in writing something that maybe isn’t always true, something that you don’t believe every day. The things I consider my best writing was just a spattering of a moments’ emotion.
Thank God we were judged in this class for honesty rather than truth. I loved how we each had our version of both.
Oh Steve how we began to miss you when Ursula was trying to teach to teach Steering of the Craft, or when the depressing stories began to pop up each week in the Fourth Genre. . . . hmmm but I will never forget sitting on the transit or in public places holding my head so that no one would see the boxing baby on the front of the book.
ReplyDeleteI still feel the same way about Steve Almond that I did then. He was funny and entertaining though I don’t think that we will ever be best friends. I loved what Christine said about him I think it was exactly how I felt.
“Reading 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”
That person that you have an awkward love hate relationship with. But like so many of us I did like that he wasn’t trying to be someone that he wasn’t. I think so much of this class time was focused on being yourself and not hiding letting all the dirty grunge hang out and his writing is definitely that. Though I will say I will probably not be reading another Steve Almond book in the future, it did teach me things that I think were important this semester.
As all authors do when they leave their writing out there for the world, Steve Almond was torn apart. We gave him two parts, two sides. We questioned his vulgar language, his blunt delivery, his perhaps phony realism. We wondered about his intentions, his writing process, and his point. And then we praised him. We admired his seemingly unadulterated truthfulness, and simply gawked at his ballsy-ness to enlighten us on almost any topic of his choosing. We likened him to a friend who rambles on about almost anything that we somehow don't mind listening to. Like a person who by the description of their actions sounds crazy, but because you KNOW them, you know they are not. This became all things Steve Almond. Craziness, refined into well-written relatable text. I am green with envy. I want to write "Dear Steve Almond, please teach me your ways...because without this skill I really am crazy, I am the annoying blabbering friend, not the interesting one." Almond's stories reflect exactly his thoughts at the time. Wilson points out a certain mood, fight, or revelation could have prompted any one of these things- and I am sure the same thing happens to us. Annemarie wrote, "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 worth reading?" Yes. Absolutely. And the same goes for the blogs. I decide here that I want to read things full of madness, desire, and change. When I look back at all of my blogs I can pinpoint this as the exact moment my writing transforms from facts and boring sentences filling in the lines, to strong sentimental thoughts and possibly harsh ideas. EEEK! What was I thinking? But I should not fear, because next we learn about warrants, and after another brief learning experience, all will seem right in the world again (for a short, short time).
ReplyDeleteI'm sticking by my original guns on this one. I enjoyed Almond, I really did. I still say that he was far more fake than we like to acknowledge. Yeah, he wrote things about himself that weren't pretty. But he still edited that book, he still had an editor - probably an entire team of editors - who went over it multiple times before it ever saw the public light of day. It's a highly constructed piece of writing designed to make us think it was dashed off in a rush of emotion and passion. And it probably originally was - but that doesn't mean it stayed that way. Almond gave us multiple sides of himself and let us see the differing moods and thoughts he had, but I guarantee you that every one of those moods was carefully considered before it went to print. I don't feel like I know Almond because he wrote in this style. In fact, I feel I know him less than someone like Tolkien or Madeleine L'Engle who spent years pouring themselves into their fiction - and inevitably let their true essence shine through. Again, this is not meant to bash Almond because I did enjoy his book, and it was well written. I just get frustrated with this false intimacy that genre - like reality TV - seems to embrace and promote.
ReplyDeleteEvery chapter Steve showed us a different side of himself, but there was one thing that was always consistent: he was honest. That was the number one thing I learned from him, be honest, or your readers will call bullshit. I remember seeing the cover of the book, and being extremely excited. I had never heard of this author before, but I definitely was thrilled.
ReplyDeleteThe most we learned in our class was from his book. I learned about writing techniques, I learned how engage the reader, we learned about warrants, but most of all, I learned to leave out all the bullshit. To me, writing is letting go. It's being inhibited in a world where normally I am being careful about what I say and do. I can say what I feel and not be embarrassed or ashamed. All right, maybe a little embarrassed, but to own who you are, flaws and all. There are three moments from his book that I believe will always stick with me. The first was when his pregnant wife wanted to go home, and he wanted to keep studying Vonnegut, he was saying, I know I was an ass, I’m sorry for that, but what can I do about it now other than acknowledge it? And it’s that acknowledgment of his flaws, and the sincere apology behind it (I don’t think Steve is the kind of guy to apologize) in knowing it was wrong that made me love him. The second was the lobster chapter. He was me. His friends were my friends, and to me, watching someone love, makes me fall in love with them. The third would be his chapter about his daughter. For the same reason as the last one.
Reading Steve made me a stronger writer. It made me say, cut out the lies, drop the front, and be who are you, because who you are is beautiful.
Looking back, Steve was an incredibly fun author to read. I have two friends who just finished reading Slaughter House 5 by Vonnegut. I gave them Mr. Almond’s book so they could read about his obsession with SH5’s author. There were a wide variety of responses to him. Trillium still believes we never knew him. Others would say: “Thank God we were judged in this class for honesty rather than truth. I loved how we each had our version of both.”
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that honesty and truth may not be the same thing. I don’t know if Steve was truthful on the page, but I believe he was honest. He said what he believed, he made us laugh, he made us remember some distant or difficult place that we’ve been to, and he helped us understand that other people have experienced the same things.
Steve taught me that creative non-fiction can be whatever we make it, but our conversations made me understand the responsibility that we have to the reader, which became relevant in our next blog about warrants. I realized that when I write, people expect a certain amount of truthfulness and a certain amount of honesty. Knowing how to convey that comfortably, and knowing that others might not have the same type of relationship to my writing, is something that I have come to accept. I think it freed me of a writing burden that I didn’t know I was struggling under.
Steve Almond was the alka-seltzer in our coke bottle- it was exciting watching the explosions, but still fizzled out and made a mess. Quite the entertainer, Steve was to our class, and that's what I walked away from his book with- entertainment. But, I don't think Trillium could have said it any better, "he still edited that book," and he knew what he was doing, he's a professional writer (define professional writer?- I cannot).
ReplyDeleteThe duality that we examined in Steve, and in ourselves, revealed a side that wanted some fame and money (nothing out of the norm), so why wouldn't he create an embarrassing piece full of gut busters and jaw gapers? He showed me that using the voice in you, the one that you're not always proud of (the voice that can seem a little ugly) can open the door to very characterized and personable writing.
Conservative views aside, I love to hate Steve and hate that I love his writing style/voice. It wasn't pretty, but as a class I think that we are able to understand now, that it's okay to appreciate a good book and a good author even when you're sometimes offended through the process.
I....LOVE.... Steven Almond. I want to have a beer with that guy. I've recommended this book to so many friends. The first section I read, knowing his kind of humor, was the one about his sexual failures. That shit was hilarious and so true. I hated the candy section. I thought if I saw the word "candy" one more time, I was gonna stab myself in the temple with a candy cane. But such a funny, crass, honest, and talented writer. Spot on, sir. Spot on.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Wilson's interpretation of Steve Almond's writing, "...he knows that he may not be able to trust even himself completely. But he still writes. 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."
ReplyDeleteSometimes I felt Almond was lying to us, often thinking to myself, "okay, this has to be bullsh**", but he was always convincing. Honesty or at least portraying a real life situation kept me reading all the way to his final statements of each chapter, where I really got a grasp for his purpose.
I said in the original post that 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.
Now after writing an essay portraying a style of his, I realized how important his various styles really were to his book. It may be ugly or unorganized at times, but sometimes a one word sentence, or a word in all CAPS, or even an ellipsis between thoughts, is necessary. Thanks a lot Steve!
Steve Almond. Reading him first spoiled us. Nothing else seemed quite as fun.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I stand by what I said earlier about Steve being like ogres and onions. And I think that I appreciate that fact even more now that I have written more pieces this semester, in this class, for other classes, and personally. I have written a couple pieces for this class where I thought afterwards, “Damn, I really don’t like myself for saying all of those things”. At first, I was afraid to submit these pieces because I knew that if I didn’t like myself, how could anyone else? I think you have to take that risk as a writer. I think that if you just put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) and let the words come out, the result is your immediate and truest feelings.
However, Trillium brought up a good point that he ultimately edited his book. Which makes me wonder, what was taken out? I feel like so much of him is on the page of the finished product. What could we possibly be missing? Do we even really want to know? Maybe that’s the layer we really don’t want to peel back…
If I could sum up Steve Almond using a couple of sentences, this is what it would be...
ReplyDeleteEveryone has layers just like Ogres and Onions.(AlyFronk) ...Steve Almond is human.(Martha Lee Anne)There is an emotion present in his writing that comes out regardless of how you feel about his humor.(Nightlymeds)I appreciate Steve's dualities because he isn't trying to have dualities. It's who he is.(Courtney Paige)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.(Wilson)He's a brilliant writer and a brilliant mind and can convey feelings everyone has in a refreshingly simple way.(Nick Brown) 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.(azl0003)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.(Josh) His wit and charm come across effortlessly and his ability to completely open up about serious things instantly makes the audience want to read more.(Catherine Wright)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.(Myself)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.(TeNesha Jones)
Oh, Steve. How we barely knew ye. Or...knew ye a little better than some of us had hoped. Or maybe we never actually knew ye at all, and you fooled us all into buying your book, in which case...well done, sir.
ReplyDeleteI loved Steve's book. The book may or may not have been true to you, or may not have spoken to you the same way, but that book was filled with experiences and fears and regrets and so many other things that I can connect with. When he feels like he's a failure as a writer, teacher, husband, father, whatever, I can connect with him (not because I'm any of those last three things) because I can find all of those fears and shortcomings in myself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"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"-Martha Lee.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully written Martha Lee-way to wrap all of the beauties and harsh realities of Steve into a nice little present for us.
I LOVE Steve- I guess it's true" absence really does make the heart grow fonder." I wish we could have hung out with him all semester instead of that bull shit that was part of the original class. (Dr. PD, I can't thank you enough for taking this class into your own hands and actually teaching us something worth while and introducing us to the creepy baby covered book).
Steve is by far one of my top authors now. His sarcasm mixed with his need to let his audience peak into his soul in infallible. I think he is just a relate-able kind of guy. He is just Steve and nothing more, and that to me is something to be commended for.
I could mirror my favorite people's posts and say "I LOVE STEVE," but seeing as I'm not doing so well writing two paragraphs so far, I think I will have to bore you and stretch it out longer.
ReplyDeleteReally, now, I suppose I don't "love" Steve. Reading other things while writing this post, a favorite character of mine says to his boyfriend, "Don't say you love me. If you say it, I'll assume you mean you want to fuck me." There's something encompassing in the word 'love,' and I don't think I know Steve well enough to say it. But what I do know, I think I 'like.' Because I don't want to expend the physical effort of getting out of my blankets and walk through my 20 degree apartment to get the book, you'll have to do with my memory, which tends to serve me correctly at times. There was that chapter that he was told to "roll in candy," and he refused. I think at that point, which was rather late, he won me over. There was something about that demeaning request that collided with his integrity, and he kept it at the cost of more publicity for himself and his works. It is a beautiful demonstration of someone defending individualism and shows that doing so is worth it.
I’m still reading people the letters to Oprah and I’m still laughing about it. My mantra this semester has been "These were the good old days. Why hadn't I noticed." Steve was an awesome way to start off the semester and I think he really brought us, as a class, out of our shells. Thank God. Can you imagine how much longer it would have taken for us to actually have an interesting conversation if we had started with “Steering the Craft”? Answer: way too long.
ReplyDeleteI loved Steve. And AlyFronk stated it best, “there are different sides to everybody. Everyone has layers (just like Ogres and Onions).” We were able to peel back the different layers of sarcasm, wit, and impressive use of ellipses/parentheses/all caps/etc. in ridiculous segments to see parts of him.
“Reading this book is like getting really close to a person I would never be friends with in the real world” (Christine). And reading this book in this class allowed me to break the ice with a group of people I never would have talked to otherwise. The bizarre cover gave me something to laugh at with the people who sat around me on the first few classes and the book itself gave us enough material to talk in class for the entire fifty minutes those first couple of weeks.
A lot of times when I read things for classes it all runs together and I can safely admit that I cannot decipher who said what at the end unless it was some extravagant writer, who the teacher beat the class over the head with over and over. Most of the time we were beat was to persuade us to believe what that writer believed because usually if the professor picked the literature she/he believed in it too. But, this was not the case with this Almond guy. (Good job Dr. P.) This was one of the most real and uncut reading I have ever done for a class. I enjoyed it because it was untraditional and unexpected. I guess not much with this course was expected or could have been foreseen so it fit perfectly.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading Steve Almond I feel like he showed us that freedom can be appreciated and it can be accepted. Don’t get me wrong people do not always accept the whole authors being free to write however and whatever they choose, but it is our right as writers. Honestly, I have always wanted to write a book on things that have happened to me, my friends and even people that I am not that fond of. I always thought that I was not good enough to be a successful writer, but Steve Almond definitely gave me the attitude of “Who really cares??”
He is right. I do not care if I am not the traditionally accepted writer or even English Major for the matter, but I am me and I know what I can do. I guess you could see Almond was somewhat of an inspiration for me and what I would like to become.
I love to hate Steve Almond. I would like to be stuck in an elevator with him, but not on a blind date. Absence has made my heart grow fonder, but still his humor is too grating for my personal taste.
ReplyDeleteAzl0003: "It's getting in their mind, understanding their thoughts and feelings, and knowing their pain and pleasure that makes you really know someone." So true. My closest friends are the ones who I have opened up completely with, who I have dared to hold closer than arm’s length. While Steve Almond and I in real life would never be friends, I feel like the writer Steve Almond and I have a bond. The man he portrays is just that, a man. Not an idea, not an enigma. But a man- zits, farts, internet stalkers and all. And that is what Almond has taught me, to be myself. To be without care for what everyone thinks. To not write with the reader at arm’s length, but to get up close. And that’s when you can see the zits the best. Almond showed me that you can be real and still be loved and appreciated.
"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."
ReplyDeleteI wrote this. And it's an opinion that I still hold so true...that language and writing are beautiful because the way that one can capture and create and entire world. Human nature. The most beautiful to the most horrific.
But now I am beginning to question that "truth". Can we really tell the truth about ourselves?
Trillum points out that of course this book has been scripted and edited and, "Life isn't scripted and it isn't edited". But also like Courtney said, "I appriciate Steves dualities because he isn't trying to have dualities."
I can see both sides. The thing is that I don't want it to be clear. I think Almond is a little crazy, and whether it is the complete truth or not, he has opened the curtain and let us peak in to see the wizard. Maybe we don't know how the machine works, but we know there is someone back there trying to tell us something.
And isn't that sort of the fun part? Figuring it out for yourself? I don't think I ever want to try to tell the truth, I just want to say it.