Honestly after reading the "Finding Traction" essay, I didn't know what to think. I had to reread certain parts just to understand what the author was trying to say. The one part that really had me thinking was when the author said, "and address the resistance of the open attention". I have no clue what that means. But, from what I attempted to understand, the author thinks the whole traction thing is how an author manages to keep or lose a reader's attention. Maybe? If that is the case, I think that Didion's piece does meet Birkert's definition. While reading the piece I kept asking myself questions like "What does this have to do with that?" and "Who are these people in these scenes?". I also thought that the different blurbs of texts were interesting because the topics kept me interested.
this may help alicia -- i think what birkert is saying is that the old literary formulas and the old literary language aren't up to the task of capturing the surreal nature of contemporary reality. "traction" occurs when a piece of writing engages not just his interest, but his interest because it also approaches life as its now lived -- at warp speed, in fragments -- in an engaging way.
I agree with Alicia. I didn't understand what Birket was trying to say. His article was too wordy and sophisticated for my liking. HIs words got in the way of what he was trying to say. Professor Good, your explanation helped me understand his word jumble. Didion's piece captured the element of traction. It describes life as people live it now. Her article was news worthy and interesting. These high powered winds that she was describing are foreign to me. I thought the most interesting part of her story was the medical effects that the winds have on people. The fact that weather can send people in to a type of hysteria is intriguing.
let me try this again. . . this isn't about whether the "plot" is interesting. . . indeed, plot, as birkert's essay suggests, has perhaps become irrelevant. . . nothing much happens in didion's article but it is still compelling. . . why? structure may be one reason. . .language may be another. . . writing creates a world out of language. . .
and if birkert is confusing, try harder to understand what he's saying. . . i would never knowingly assign something that is badly written. . . yes, it's difficult essay. . . i said it was. . . but it's difficult because he's trying to find a way to say the unsayable
Birkert's piece wasn't the easiest to comprehend but I gave it a try.
I think Didion's piece meets Sven Birkert's definition of "traction." Birkert mentions in his essay that a writer cannot begin or unfold in a way that assumes a basic condition of business as usual. Didion begins her piece with "These is something uneasy in the Los Angeles air this afternoon, some unnatural stillness, some tension." Didion meets Birkert's definition of traction with her sentence rhythm and tone. Her first sentence brings out this sort of eerie feeling that seems almost frightening. Birkert also mentions that good writers, in his mind, should measure the transformation of culture. Didion does this by explaining the Santa Ana winds and different cases and scenarios and how different people handled the experience. At the end of the first part of this piece, the author writes "The wind will show us how close to the edge we are." The language of this sentence scratches the resistance of the open attention. I feel that Didion writing this piece undertands the literary culture and culture of this geographic region, she describes.
So when I first started reading Birket’s essay, I couldn’t help but think, “Wow…this guy’s kind of a dick” (I know, really eloquent, right?),but by the end, he had me convinced that his ideas about literature are completely accurate. The John Maloney sentence, after the first read, seemed fine (I can’t grant it a better adjective), but when Birket broke it down and explained why it was so bland and amateur, it made me want to go through everything I’ve written in the past month and make sure I’m up to par, that I could “grab” Birket if I wanted to (probably not). I think Didion’s piece can accommodate Birket’s definition because it’s so engaging. I haven’t read much Didion prior to this so I didn’t really know what to expect, but the first section was just…so good. On the most basic level, I think all Birket is trying to say is, “If it doesn’t make me say ‘hmm’ and want to keep reading, it’s not worth it.” Didion could have worded the beginning like, “the hot winds billowed down the mountains,” which, yeah, makes perfect sense, but it’s not exactly original. She chose “…a hot wind from the northeast whining down…drying the hills and the nerve to the flash point.” She was able to describe the scene in a fresh way while also slipping in the foundation for the tense emotional tone that she uses for the rest of the piece. She’s achieving originality and eloquence all in one shot and I think that’s what Birket is trying to explain as to the new path that literature is taking.
I agree with Jordan. I never thought about writing quite the way that Berkert explains it. I think part of it is because when I'm writing, I don't think about the way writing and literature has changed. I read novels and literature from a time when Postmodernism ruled and everything else was being phased out. I don't realize that the old ways are old for a reason. I try to emulate certain writers from that time period when I'm writing. But Berkert's explanation makes me rethink everything when it comes to my wiring style.
When I first read Didion's piece, the first thing that popped into my head was, " How Postmodern of her." The fragmented story reminded for some reason of The Wasteland by Eliot. Everything that the setting of the story revolved around was falling apart. I also related the piece back to Yeats as well so it seemed like Didion's piece was highly focused on Postmodern values.
Berkert's essay however made me rethink this however. Yes, Didion's piece had Postmodern elements to it, but I think the difference was she knew that when she was writing. Everything's he wrote seemed fresh, new. And yes, I never read anything by Didion before this, but there was something about her piece that made it stick. Something that didn't just mush into the mess of endless Postmodern literature. I think that's the traction Berkert was talking about; a piece that recognizes the past while realizing the changes going on around it.
Yes, Joan Didion’s “LA Notebook” meets Sven Birkerts' definition(s) of “traction” because Birkert argues that “a work of prose (or poetry) can no longer assume continuity, not as it could in former times. It cannot begin, or unfold, in a way that assumes a basic condition of business as usual.”
By this rubric, Didion’s piece scores high, as it begins and unfolds in a description that Los Angeles is not in its usual state– the Santa Anas change the ambiance, or energy, of the city.It already assumes a position of the abnormal.
LA Notebook is not continuous. It is choppy, incomplete, a collection of moments similar to memories. The alternation of first- and third-person point of view illustrates the conscious inner monologue versus the semi-conscious state of awareness.
I correlate Birkerts' explanation of what is wrong with the traditional subject-predicate-object sentence structure to art today. ““John Maloney shrugged” cannot make a place for itself, except as an obvious parody of a former mode,” Birkerts writes. Whereas once a simple landscape or still life, both straightforward and accurate depictions of reality, were respected as art,neither is considered interesting anymore. It’s considered practice, or student work, or beginner. Amateur. The art that gets noticed, bought, put in galleries, the art that matters, is that art that says something new and is "edgy."
If your literary journalism isn’t "edgy," raw, saying something, doesn’t have a point or a purpose, Birkerts is saying it’s boring and any editor worth his salt will throw it in the trash where it belongs.
To begin, I agree that this essay was a challenging read. In fact, I had to read it about three times just to begin to understand it. However, instead of focusing on what I do not understand, I'd rather pick apart a few parts that stuck with me. Thus, maybe "traction" occurred for me with this piece after all. Who knows -- I don't really understand this at all.
Regardless, I was immediately thrown off guard that “John Maloney hunched his shoulders against the bitter wind coming off the lake” was not good enough for Birkets. The sentence sounds like something I would write, so I felt embarrassed reading Birkets pick it apart. Hopefully every time I write, I will remember Birkets and try to never have as bland of a sentence as that.
In addition, the first sentence of the final paragraph stood out to me -- "We should be alert, but not despairing." For no particular reason, this sentence truly brought back my interest to this piece. Maybe it was because it was so simple and understandable, or maybe it was because I realized I was finally approaching the end. Or maybe it was because it was good advice to carry with me into the future of my writing.
Overall, even though the essay confused me, I hope to be able to write up to Birkets' standards one day.
"The sentence acts as if writing were just a matter of supplying the declarative sentence in the old straightforward manner of Hemingway" This had to have been my favorite quote that Birkert writes in his essay. I don't know how far from the truth I'm am, but I think what he is trying to say is that writers need to keep it simple. For example, the felt that Malony's sentences were full of unnecessary words. Sometimes when you add an excess amount of words, the readers can get lost. With that being said, I could agree that Didion's work is traction. She kept the wording simple and consistent. The way she describes certain scenarios is clear, and makes it easier for the reader to translate. Her choice of words are more blunt rather than just showing off that she can write.
I agree with Kelsey and Jordan about the language that Didion uses in the reading. "Finding Traction" made it clear to me about the use of language and the work he was reading in that essay was bland and did not use language that was unique enough to stand out to an experienced writer or editor.
I think that Didion does a good job with finding traction. I agree with Kelsey about the way that L.A. was described in the first piece, its is unusual.
I also feel like the fifth piece is a good example also. The way Didion tied in song titles was interesting to me.
The article made me understand what traction was and although I don't think that Didions piece would work as a textbook example for traction, I do think that she achieved not being bland and boring, which Birket's described in his article.
I found Birkert's essay very interesting. As others mentioned, when I first read the sentence he so blatantly criticized, I was very surprised. I found the sentence to be fine, if not well written. I kept rereading it, and then continued to read his explanation and it began to make more sense. He goes on to define "traction" as his "code for the way that a sentence or a paragraph or a page of prose lands, how it does or does not anticipate and then address the resistance of the open attention." At times I was confused with what he was trying to say .
I think Didion's piece meets this definition. Her descriptions were realistic and truly engages the reader. I feel like the sentence structure and overall style of writing meets Birkert's criteria for traction. She was able to capture the reality and culture.
I found Birkerts' argument to be very engaging, and also very helpful. With that being said, I do believe that Didion's piece "Los Angeles Notebook" meets Birkerts definition (definitions, as faith implied, because there seems to be more than one, or at least a great emphasis on the one he presents.) of "traction." For starters, nothing about Didion's piece seems as if she isn't responding to her own perceptions and imaging. Although she is talking about something people from LA might be familiar with, her voice is uniquely identifiable. By the Birkerts' definition of "traction," I'd say that the "LA Notebook" addresses the resistance of the open attention, by not assuming that a common world already exist, and by world, I didn't think he meant that in a literal sense, though it can be taken that way depending on the context of a written work. I don't know if that really makes sense, the way I explained it. I think what the world Birkerts is referring to is the literary world (Which may have been already extremely obvious). I agree with Faith, that the "LA Notebook" is choppy, going from scene to scene, yet still remaining relevant to what she's talking about. Yet, she is creating her own world by doing so.
I didn’t really understand Birkert’s essay as a whole, but I feel that I was able to understand his sentences and what he was trying to say in most of them. After reading his essay the first time, I read Didion’s piece and because I read Birkert’s first, I felt that I was actually paying closer attention to the words and the format that Didion used and the way she described the culture and how we live. After that I went back and reread Birkert’s essay.
Birkert seems to have extremely high standards when it comes to what he looks for in writing, but I do think that Didion’s piece meets the definition for “traction.” Birkert argues that traction is “the way that a sentence or a paragraph or a page of prose lands, how it does or does not anticipate and then address the resistance of the open attention.” The format in “Los Angeles Notebook” intrigued me because each section was on a different topic and each section did not flow into the next, creating for a choppy story. I then realized that maybe this choppiness was a symbol for how each part of our culture does not flow with the other parts and that there are different portions of life. Birkert expands on culture and how the writer needs to understand it and I think that Didion understands the culture and how we live in it.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. I looked at it a couple times before today, reading over the first line or so, thinking that it would be a simple, one, two, three reading, but it grabbed my attention in a lot deeper. Especially since I had to go back and forth to dictionary.com a few times. I'd expect a man like Birkerts thought process to be a bit complex, given what brought him to write the piece in the first place. What I took from this piece in short, and as you stated yourself Professor Good, in the reply to Alicia's comment, that in the new day, literature must be addressed as that; as new day literature. The old, conventional ways are not in my opinion totally written out, but that it would not have much of an impression on it's readers, simply because it'll remind them of what's already been done. Like Birkerts mentions about the use of the word "hunched." I feel that Didion's piece meets every standard set by Birkerts
i thought what bikerts was criticizing with the maloney sentence was that it was more derived from other sentences than from life. do you see what i mean?
by the way, for those of you who didn't read the assignment or post a response -- shame, shame!
I'm so sorry this is late but I have been busy spending time with family and haven't had much time to use the computer. Reading Birkert's 'Finding Traction,' reminded me a lot of what we discussed in class about our own stories. While it has to be important and interesting for us to write and to read, it also needs to hold some sort of social commentary. With that kind of thought Didion's piece fits in. Didion's piece about the LA weather and the Santa Ana winds driving people insane is prose and informational. I think Birkert also stresses about cutting out nonsense. Tell the story and start it right away. A lot of the stories he denies sounds like they try to create the same mysterious building. A person doing something for unknwon reasons. Boring. Birket wants to be dropped in the action and engaged. A lot can be said without saying it at all, and I think Didion's piece reflects how superstition and some cosmic workings of the universe can create a temporary pandemonium, and that makes it an effective read under the description of traction.
Although Birkert's essay was certainly dense, I believe I was able to grasp the general gist of it. The way I understood it was that a writer should be able to connect with the reader seamlessly, almost as a continuation of thoughts and experiences. The story being told should give a glimpse into culture as a whole and give a wider context, rather than simply conforming to what may be popular or expected of them. Dideon's piece struck me as posessing serious traction right away. For instance, the story opens by talking about these monumental winds that gain complete control over people for a period of time. In other words, the scene being set by Dideon isn't just one isolated incident but is part of a force of nature known as the Santa Ana winds. Dideons use of traction became increasingly clear as Birkert went on to say that "no tired assumptions remain in place", and that the writer must create their own world. This is absolutely true of Los Angeles Notebook, because as soon as Dideon begins describing the bizarre nature of the winds it becomes clear that during this period there can be no assumptions about what is "normal".
28 comments:
Honestly after reading the "Finding Traction" essay, I didn't know what to think. I had to reread certain parts just to understand what the author was trying to say. The one part that really had me thinking was when the author said, "and address the resistance of the open attention". I have no clue what that means. But, from what I attempted to understand, the author thinks the whole traction thing is how an author manages to keep or lose a reader's attention. Maybe? If that is the case, I think that Didion's piece does meet Birkert's definition. While reading the piece I kept asking myself questions like "What does this have to do with that?" and "Who are these people in these scenes?". I also thought that the different blurbs of texts were interesting because the topics kept me interested.
this may help alicia -- i think what birkert is saying is that the old literary formulas and the old literary language aren't up to the task of capturing the surreal nature of contemporary reality.
"traction" occurs when a piece of writing engages not just his interest, but his interest because it also approaches life as its now lived -- at warp speed, in fragments -- in an engaging way.
I agree with Alicia. I didn't understand what Birket was trying to say. His article was too wordy and sophisticated for my liking. HIs words got in the way of what he was trying to say. Professor Good, your explanation helped me understand his word jumble. Didion's piece captured the element of traction. It describes life as people live it now. Her article was news worthy and interesting. These high powered winds that she was describing are foreign to me. I thought the most interesting part of her story was the medical effects that the winds have on people. The fact that weather can send people in to a type of hysteria is intriguing.
let me try this again. . . this isn't about whether the "plot" is interesting. . . indeed, plot, as birkert's essay suggests, has perhaps become irrelevant. . . nothing much happens in didion's article but it is still compelling. . . why? structure may be one reason. . .language may be another. . . writing creates a world out of language. . .
and if birkert is confusing, try harder to understand what he's saying. . . i would never knowingly assign something that is badly written. . . yes, it's difficult essay. . . i said it was. . . but it's difficult because he's trying to find a way to say the unsayable
Birkert's piece wasn't the easiest to comprehend but I gave it a try.
I think Didion's piece meets Sven Birkert's definition of "traction." Birkert mentions in his essay that a writer cannot begin or unfold in a way that assumes a basic condition of business as usual. Didion begins her piece with "These is something uneasy in the Los Angeles air this afternoon, some unnatural stillness, some tension." Didion meets Birkert's definition of traction with her sentence rhythm and tone. Her first sentence brings out this sort of eerie feeling that seems almost frightening. Birkert also mentions that good writers, in his mind, should measure the transformation of culture. Didion does this by explaining the Santa Ana winds and different cases and scenarios and how different people handled the experience. At the end of the first part of this piece, the author writes "The wind will show us how close to the edge we are." The language of this sentence scratches the resistance of the open attention. I feel that Didion writing this piece undertands the literary culture and culture of this geographic region, she describes.
So when I first started reading Birket’s essay, I couldn’t help but think, “Wow…this guy’s kind of a dick” (I know, really eloquent, right?),but by the end, he had me convinced that his ideas about literature are completely accurate. The John Maloney sentence, after the first read, seemed fine (I can’t grant it a better adjective), but when Birket broke it down and explained why it was so bland and amateur, it made me want to go through everything I’ve written in the past month and make sure I’m up to par, that I could “grab” Birket if I wanted to (probably not). I think Didion’s piece can accommodate Birket’s definition because it’s so engaging. I haven’t read much Didion prior to this so I didn’t really know what to expect, but the first section was just…so good. On the most basic level, I think all Birket is trying to say is, “If it doesn’t make me say ‘hmm’ and want to keep reading, it’s not worth it.” Didion could have worded the beginning like, “the hot winds billowed down the mountains,” which, yeah, makes perfect sense, but it’s not exactly original. She chose “…a hot wind from the northeast whining down…drying the hills and the nerve to the flash point.” She was able to describe the scene in a fresh way while also slipping in the foundation for the tense emotional tone that she uses for the rest of the piece. She’s achieving originality and eloquence all in one shot and I think that’s what Birket is trying to explain as to the new path that literature is taking.
I agree with Jordan. I never thought about writing quite the way that Berkert explains it. I think part of it is because when I'm writing, I don't think about the way writing and literature has changed. I read novels and literature from a time when Postmodernism ruled and everything else was being phased out. I don't realize that the old ways are old for a reason. I try to emulate certain writers from that time period when I'm writing. But Berkert's explanation makes me rethink everything when it comes to my wiring style.
When I first read Didion's piece, the first thing that popped into my head was, " How Postmodern of her." The fragmented story reminded for some reason of The Wasteland by Eliot. Everything that the setting of the story revolved around was falling apart. I also related the piece back to Yeats as well so it seemed like Didion's piece was highly focused on Postmodern values.
Berkert's essay however made me rethink this however. Yes, Didion's piece had Postmodern elements to it, but I think the difference was she knew that when she was writing. Everything's he wrote seemed fresh, new. And yes, I never read anything by Didion before this, but there was something about her piece that made it stick. Something that didn't just mush into the mess of endless Postmodern literature. I think that's the traction Berkert was talking about; a piece that recognizes the past while realizing the changes going on around it.
Yes, Joan Didion’s “LA Notebook” meets Sven Birkerts' definition(s) of “traction” because Birkert argues that “a work of prose (or poetry) can no longer assume continuity, not as it could in former times. It cannot begin, or unfold, in a way that assumes a basic condition of business as usual.”
By this rubric, Didion’s piece scores high, as it begins and unfolds in a description that Los Angeles is not in its usual state– the Santa Anas change the ambiance, or energy, of the city.It already assumes a position of the abnormal.
LA Notebook is not continuous. It is choppy, incomplete, a collection of moments similar to memories. The alternation of first- and third-person point of view illustrates the conscious inner monologue versus the semi-conscious state of awareness.
I correlate Birkerts' explanation of what is wrong with the traditional subject-predicate-object sentence structure to art today. ““John Maloney shrugged” cannot make a place for itself, except as an obvious parody of a former mode,” Birkerts writes. Whereas once a simple landscape or still life, both straightforward and accurate depictions of reality, were respected as art,neither is considered interesting anymore. It’s considered practice, or student work, or beginner. Amateur. The art that gets noticed, bought, put in galleries, the art that matters, is that art that says something new and is "edgy."
If your literary journalism isn’t "edgy," raw, saying something, doesn’t have a point or a purpose, Birkerts is saying it’s boring and any editor worth his salt will throw it in the trash where it belongs.
To begin, I agree that this essay was a challenging read. In fact, I had to read it about three times just to begin to understand it. However, instead of focusing on what I do not understand, I'd rather pick apart a few parts that stuck with me. Thus, maybe "traction" occurred for me with this piece after all. Who knows -- I don't really understand this at all.
Regardless, I was immediately thrown off guard that “John Maloney hunched his shoulders against the bitter wind coming off the lake” was not good enough for Birkets. The sentence sounds like something I would write, so I felt embarrassed reading Birkets pick it apart. Hopefully every time I write, I will remember Birkets and try to never have as bland of a sentence as that.
In addition, the first sentence of the final paragraph stood out to me -- "We should be alert, but not despairing." For no particular reason, this sentence truly brought back my interest to this piece. Maybe it was because it was so simple and understandable, or maybe it was because I realized I was finally approaching the end. Or maybe it was because it was good advice to carry with me into the future of my writing.
Overall, even though the essay confused me, I hope to be able to write up to Birkets' standards one day.
"The sentence acts as if writing were just a matter of supplying the declarative sentence in the old straightforward manner of Hemingway" This had to have been my favorite quote that Birkert writes in his essay. I don't know how far from the truth I'm am, but I think what he is trying to say is that writers need to keep it simple. For example, the felt that Malony's sentences were full of unnecessary words. Sometimes when you add an excess amount of words, the readers can get lost.
With that being said, I could agree that Didion's work is traction. She kept the wording simple and consistent. The way she describes certain scenarios is clear, and makes it easier for the reader to translate. Her choice of words are more blunt rather than just showing off that she can write.
I agree with Kelsey and Jordan about the language that Didion uses in the reading. "Finding Traction" made it clear to me about the use of language and the work he was reading in that essay was bland and did not use language that was unique enough to stand out to an experienced writer or editor.
I think that Didion does a good job with finding traction. I agree with Kelsey about the way that L.A. was described in the first piece, its is unusual.
I also feel like the fifth piece is a good example also. The way Didion tied in song titles was interesting to me.
The article made me understand what traction was and although I don't think that Didions piece would work as a textbook example for traction, I do think that she achieved not being bland and boring, which Birket's described in his article.
I found Birkert's essay very interesting. As others mentioned, when I first read the sentence he so blatantly criticized, I was very surprised. I found the sentence to be fine, if not well written. I kept rereading it, and then continued to read his explanation and it began to make more sense. He goes on to define "traction" as his "code for the way that a sentence or a paragraph or a page of prose lands, how it does or does not anticipate and then address the resistance of the open attention." At times I was confused with what he was trying to say .
I think Didion's piece meets this definition. Her descriptions were realistic and truly engages the reader. I feel like the sentence structure and overall style of writing meets Birkert's criteria for traction. She was able to capture the reality and culture.
I found Birkerts' argument to be very engaging, and also very helpful. With that being said, I do believe that Didion's piece "Los Angeles Notebook" meets Birkerts definition (definitions, as faith implied, because there seems to be more than one, or at least a great emphasis on the one he presents.) of "traction." For starters, nothing about Didion's piece seems as if she isn't responding to her own perceptions and imaging. Although she is talking about something people from LA might be familiar with, her voice is uniquely identifiable. By the Birkerts' definition of "traction," I'd say that the "LA Notebook" addresses the resistance of the open attention, by not assuming that a common world already exist, and by world, I didn't think he meant that in a literal sense, though it can be taken that way depending on the context of a written work. I don't know if that really makes sense, the way I explained it. I think what the world Birkerts is referring to is the literary world (Which may have been already extremely obvious). I agree with Faith, that the "LA Notebook" is choppy, going from scene to scene, yet still remaining relevant to what she's talking about. Yet, she is creating her own world by doing so.
I didn’t really understand Birkert’s essay as a whole, but I feel that I was able to understand his sentences and what he was trying to say in most of them. After reading his essay the first time, I read Didion’s piece and because I read Birkert’s first, I felt that I was actually paying closer attention to the words and the format that Didion used and the way she described the culture and how we live. After that I went back and reread Birkert’s essay.
Birkert seems to have extremely high standards when it comes to what he looks for in writing, but I do think that Didion’s piece meets the definition for “traction.” Birkert argues that traction is “the way that a sentence or a paragraph or a page of prose lands, how it does or does not anticipate and then address the resistance of the open attention.” The format in “Los Angeles Notebook” intrigued me because each section was on a different topic and each section did not flow into the next, creating for a choppy story. I then realized that maybe this choppiness was a symbol for how each part of our culture does not flow with the other parts and that there are different portions of life. Birkert expands on culture and how the writer needs to understand it and I think that Didion understands the culture and how we live in it.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. I looked at it a couple times before today, reading over the first line or so, thinking that it would be a simple, one, two, three reading, but it grabbed my attention in a lot deeper. Especially since I had to go back and forth to dictionary.com a few times. I'd expect a man like Birkerts thought process to be a bit complex, given what brought him to write the piece in the first place. What I took from this piece in short, and as you stated yourself Professor Good, in the reply to Alicia's comment, that in the new day, literature must be addressed as that; as new day literature. The old, conventional ways are not in my opinion totally written out, but that it would not have much of an impression on it's readers, simply because it'll remind them of what's already been done. Like Birkerts mentions about the use of the word "hunched." I feel that Didion's piece meets every standard set by Birkerts
i thought what bikerts was criticizing with the maloney sentence was that it was more derived from other sentences than from life. do you see what i mean?
by the way, for those of you who didn't read the assignment or post a response -- shame, shame!
I'm so sorry this is late but I have been busy spending time with family and haven't had much time to use the computer. Reading Birkert's 'Finding Traction,' reminded me a lot of what we discussed in class about our own stories. While it has to be important and interesting for us to write and to read, it also needs to hold some sort of social commentary. With that kind of thought Didion's piece fits in. Didion's piece about the LA weather and the Santa Ana winds driving people insane is prose and informational. I think Birkert also stresses about cutting out nonsense. Tell the story and start it right away. A lot of the stories he denies sounds like they try to create the same mysterious building. A person doing something for unknwon reasons. Boring. Birket wants to be dropped in the action and engaged.
A lot can be said without saying it at all, and I think Didion's piece reflects how superstition and some cosmic workings of the universe can create a temporary pandemonium, and that makes it an effective read under the description of traction.
Although Birkert's essay was certainly dense, I believe I was able to grasp the general gist of it. The way I understood it was that a writer should be able to connect with the reader seamlessly, almost as a continuation of thoughts and experiences. The story being told should give a glimpse into culture as a whole and give a wider context, rather than simply conforming to what may be popular or expected of them. Dideon's piece struck me as posessing serious traction right away. For instance, the story opens by talking about these monumental winds that gain complete control over people for a period of time. In other words, the scene being set by Dideon isn't just one isolated incident but is part of a force of nature known as the Santa Ana winds. Dideons use of traction became increasingly clear as Birkert went on to say that "no tired assumptions remain in place", and that the writer must create their own world. This is absolutely true of Los Angeles Notebook, because as soon as Dideon begins describing the bizarre nature of the winds it becomes clear that during this period there can be no assumptions about what is "normal".
Oh okay, yeah, I do see what you mean Professor Good. That's what I meant too, I just used the word "hunched." Overall, I believe I got the idea.
Post a Comment