Writing Experiment (Week 3)

This week's writing experiment will be thrilling and multi-dimensional:

1. Compose a short story (2pg ?) in which the main character is not physically present in the narrative (this is interpretable as it might take on several different solutions).

OR

2. Loosely translate the general narrative of your favourite movie into a sonnet (a 14-line poem-- don't worry about rhyme or meter unless you care to). Be witty and liberal in your conversion.

Don't forget to read and bring in your notes (initial reactions, observations) on Robert Fitterman's War, the musical to class on Tuesday. While you are only responsible for having read the first half, I strongly encourage you to finish it in one sitting if possible.

Thoughts on The Activist.....

Once I cracked the binding of The Activist, I got lost in the writing of only the first chapter. It was not a lost that made me confused, but a lost that dragged me into the story. I felt like it was coming straight from the speaker’s mind, as if it was a stream of consciences. It got a picture in my head of the author sitting down at a type writer, writing on a long strand of telitote paper, sort of like how Jack Kerouac wrote “On the Road”. As I continued, it reminded me of the way I find writing in a journal appears. Long wordy sentences, obscure reference, and yet a clear picture coming to mind. I appreciated this, because I knew in the beginning it was about some one reporting on some sort of events. I didn’t know it would be on a radical activist group, or suburban guerilla warfare; but I knew that some for of reporting would take place.

fragmentation in activist

There seems to be some sort of balance between the ambiguous and impersonal and the specific and personal. In post-modern fiction, an integration has occurred where the author uses more ambiguous and impersonal elements to transfer more of the meaning-bearing elements into the reader. Because less meaning is explicitly conferred within the text, the meanings conveyed will have a lot to do with the readers meaning generating structures. This method, however, makes the specific elements and sections of continuous narrative stick out more by contrast.

Why would the author utilize ambiguity and fragmentation in her narrative if it only emphasized the specific/personal elements? My guess is that there is supposed to be a special dynamic between the clear aspects of the Activist and the fragmented aspects. At the same time that certain continuous sections or repetitive themes jump out at the reader, the inter-subjective chaos of the activists renders these elements in an unstable way.

This dynamic is barely held together by the time the second section featuring the reporter comes around. Every image and piece of dialog, such as “America for Americans!” or a clear statement of intention by the reporter seems like the author is giving something away. Then on the return to the hideout of the activists, the fragmentation is quite stark by comparison. The atmosphere, however, is interesting at this point. Monique’s hideout is a quiet house with familiar things like telephones, refrigerators, sleep and sex. There is a tense feeling but calm, like the eye of a storm. This I quite liked.

JE

Discussion Questions (week 3)

Discussion questions for this week:

• How would you define or characterize a typical "Renee-Gladman-sentence"? What habits or repeated tendencies can you find in Gladman's sentence structures/style? What effect do those habits or tendencies have on the text's narrative? flow? mood? enjoyablity?
  
• What are all the different meanings of the word "authority"? In what different ways is "authority" addressed in The Activist? How do we excercise "authority" in our own lives? as writers? as citizens? as students? as X?
• What role does ambiguity play in the book? What about transformation? Can you discuss examples where ambiguity or transformation effects both FORM and CONTENT? What is the effect? How can you "read" or make meaning of ambiguity?
• What is the difference between reporting and confession in this book? Where/How are personal language and public language distinguished in The Activist? Where/How are they converged or confused?
• What did you like best about the book? What was your favourite section? What did you like least? What section did you care for the least? What revisions might you make if you were editing the text? Did you make any useful discoveries about or observations on writing? reading? thinking? acting?

And some hidden tracks:

• Gladman discussing her own ideas about writing and narrativity, here and here
• A recording of Gladman reading her work (not the BEST sound quality, but still a great reading)
  

Activest and 1st Writing Experiment

Sample of Activist notes:

The Bridge
This definitely speaks to me about politics these days.
Ideas:

* Regular commuters rebelling against investigation
* Sharpe/President insisting the Bridge blew up and is rubble
* Commuters give one name, who no one knows
* Government rounding up and questioning Mendozas
* Canadian Specialist say there never was a bridge
* Finally, when Sharpe asked about CPL, insisted "silence is golden" rhetoric.

Commuters could represent a ppl demanding something, the gov is real gov, denying it for unknown political reasons, while Canadians say Americans never had it.
This "it" could very well be freedom:
"Give us our freedom back!" says Citizens.
"Can't you see the blast has destroyed freedom?" says US government
"You guys never had freedom..." says Canadians.

The whole "leader of the commuters" thing seems like a tangent for some hidden agenda by the government. Its like the war in Iraq, which happened the year the book was published. There was lots of speculation about attacking Iraq, and Afghanistan had been invaded. US was looking for Osama bin Laden for 9/11, then focus on him dropped completely in lieu of Iraq. Sharpe was investigating bridge, but now there is hunt for Alonso Mendoza, and stopped looking for bridge bombers.

The last idea reflects how when ppl start questioning the government on its apparent shift of interest (so much so that it is extremely suspicious), the administration says "shut up and trust us".

I finished the book and decided its not as abstract as I thought, and one can identify the Narrators. Some observations:
The book's main characters are:
Monique, Alonso, Lomarlo, and Stefani
Also, there is a reporter who narrates twice.
The book seems to take place immediately before and after 9/11.
Stefani and Monique are lovers, but evidence suggests Stefani was having an affair. The narrator for both Tour (and maybe even Headlines) chapters is the Reporter. Lomarlo was the narrator for Interrogation, Monique for The State and White City II, Radical's Plan is third person, and Never Again Anywhere and White City are Stefani. This book feels like its on fast forward.

My 1st Writing Experiment:

Drawing and Quartering
By Rob Hagelstein

Jorge precariously hung on the railing of the reactor core, desperately trying to fix the problem in the ill-placed control box. Fronswa dangerously dangled from a ledge beside him.

“Shit!” exclaimed Fronswa, pulling himself up.

“Not what I expected…” said Jorge, discovering the problem inside the box.

Fronswa stood and brushed himself off. “I have a bio lab tonight and class at five”
“Rice and beans?” Gasped Jorge, puzzled, as he removed a handful of said produce from the control box, and was about to drop them when Fronswa shouted:

“Don’t throw them out!” He pointed to the unstable core pulsing far beneath them. Jorge instead placed them on Fronswa’s platform.

Jorge reached in farther and his brow furrowed.

“This is a Veggie Burrito!” He declared, withdrawing one.

“I have never seen it this crowded in here.” Continued Jorge.

Suddenly Jorge lost his grasp, and would have fallen to his death if Fronswa had not saved him.

“Erg! Sticky Slip!” Grunted Jorge.

Fronswa looked at his watch, and wiped the sweat from his brow.

“2 hours… it’s 4:10…” He said.

Jorge reached in farther, withdrawing his hand, now covered in a red goo. He tasted it, and his face scrunched up.

“Hot Sauce” he said.

“They must have a Shaw’s somewhere…” Deduced Fronswa, rubbing the fuzz on his chin.

“Wait… general eating sounds…” said Jorge, observing said suspicious noises. He leaned in further.

After moving more food around, he discovered…

“Oh my God! It’s Bob Saget!!!” Cried out Jorge, reeling in horror.

“WANT CORN!!” Demanded the Fiend Saget!

“Ah! Uh… Endless Servings!” Promised Jorge nervously, trying to appease Saget’s demonic hunger.

But Jorge had captured Bob Saget’s twisted gleaming eyes.

“USDA choice…” he muttered greedily to himself, licking his gnarled and crusted jaws. He pointed to Jorge, and with a crude gestured from his curled fingers, motioned to his mouth, than his vile, smelly posterior.

“Down the 1st isle and out the other!!!” He screamed as he pulled the terrified Jorge into the box to be devoured. Fronswa screamed and tried to run, but Saget’s scaly tentacles were too fast for him.

“You go too! Together!!” Cackled Saget Maliciously as he dragged the shrieking Fronswa into his layer.

“Let the Drawing and Quartering Begin!” He screamed with delight.