Advertisement
Writing
Crafting Poetry, Part IV PDF Print E-mail
Written by Brad Fruhauff   
Monday, 13 October 2008

ImagePoetry Editor Brad Fruhauff responds to comments on a previous blog regarding poetry and writing from a faith perspective.

Rhetoric, Experience and Faith: A Reply

Some time ago, a thoughtful reader of our blog, going by the name of Chestertonian Rambler, responded to one of my posts with some comments that seemed worth a reply. It had been so long, however, since s/he had so commented, that I decided to devote a whole post to it.

To paraphrase: CR agreed that our beliefs condition our experiences, but questioned whether anyone is so thoroughly Christian that her experiences would be purely or 100% sanctified. S/he went on to point out that atheists can appropriate religious poetry, and Christian poets can express “genuine rage, bitterness, despair, doubt, or a variety of other decidedly non-Christian impulses or ideas.” S/he ended with:

It’s a very good thing to say “love God, then write what you will.” But I think that, to some extent, one question every poet needs to ask is how far to allow his or her sinfulness and rebellion to be expressed in published poetry. Should one “write poetry, and then try to love God?” Or should one wait until a certain amount of certainty of writing God-centered poetry before writing?

I’ll reply in three parts.

 

1. Never Accept an Absolute—That’s Rhetoric, for You

People who know me know to be careful about taking too many of my statements as absolutes. In the first place, I don’t believe language is the most stable medium for the transmission of absolutes (this is why we continue to interpret the Bible), but also, where CR quotes me, I am pushing towards polemic for rhetorical purposes. Sometimes, for an idea to stick, it has to be phrased in a ‘sticky’ way. As a reader, I appreciate the well-turned phrase, but I know that few statements can be true all the time. As a writer, I expect my readers, similarly, to reflect on what I write and not to get too legalistic about each sentence.

CR, of course, is a reflective reader, which is why his or her comments merit their own reflection.

 

2. “Christian” in Scare Quotes, Again

I very much agree that becoming Christian isn’t like flipping a switch, turning from blue to red, or anything like that, as I hope I don’t need to tell anyone. A Christian’s experience is not so alien from a Buddhist’s or Hindu’s that they can’t relate or find many things in common. My point is more that Christian writers should rely on their own experience rather than try to add ingredients they think will make their writing “count” as “Christian.”

I would also add that emotions of “rage, bitterness, despair, [or] doubt” do not strike me as “decidedly non-Christian impulses.” The Bible is full of believers who experience all these—indeed, Relief would be in trouble if we excluded these emotions from our conception of “Christian” literature.

 

3. Sin and Sensationalism

What CR probably means is that we don’t love God in all we do all the time, so maybe we should be careful about how much of our own sinfulness we share with others—“do not tempt your brother,” on the one hand, and do not revel in your sin, on the other. This is an important topic.

To begin with, there’s a kind of sacred angst in this sort of issue, and I’d caution anyone against the kind of thing we do all the time at church and in our small groups, i.e. spiritualize our insecurities and anxieties, and then validate our own inaction as a form of seeking God’s will or awaiting some unspecified spiritual event called “certainty.”

Seek conviction rather than certainty. Abraham had to be convicted that he should murder his son, but he wasn’t so “certain” that he couldn’t be talked out of it when he heard the ram in the brush.

The pursuit of God requires movement—pursuit, following, carrying out. I am against any waiting for certainty that is in fact a fear of falling. My exhortation should in fact read: “Love God;write what you will.” The two do not happen in any chronological order; we have to love God in the things we do.

We shouldn’t write about sin and evil for sensational purposes, or to scandalize anyone, and we shouldn’t want to. Nor should we fear writing about them, since they are a part of our experience. How do you discuss spiritual struggles with friends? Surely you don’t try to offend or upset them, and yet you can talk about some dark things at the same time. Honesty won’t always be pretty, or even PG, but there’s a difference between sex and porn, violence and gore (to put it pithily).

Each poet has to search her own heart on this one. There’s a sick pleasure in confessing your worldliness to someone who is trying to stay pure, but that’s not the kind of pleasure a Christian should accept in herself or in her writing—it shows a heart that values the wrong things. But if God loves us while we are yet sinners, then that sin is part of the Christian experience that is the legitimate material for our poetry.

 
Crafting Fiction: Keeping It Real, Part I PDF Print E-mail
Written by Alan Ackmann   
Monday, 06 October 2008

ImageFiction Editor Alan Ackmann shares some thoughts on why authors should concern themselves with the details.

Every avid reader has that person (or those people) in their life they really wish would read more. Sometimes it’s a selfish desire, as we yearn to discuss the books we love with the people we love, and sometimes it’s altruistic; we want others to share in our joy. Whenever Christmas rolls around, I spend hours in bookstores looking for that one, perfectly selected book that will turn someone into a reader—it’s strangely evangelical, as though I’m out for a conversion.

When I was in graduate school, a professor told me a story about such a desire. One Christmas, he bought his father a book set in the Ozark mountains—a setting very similar to where his father spent most of his life. I’ve forgotten the name of the book, if I ever knew it at all, but his father read it, and my old professor was no doubt hoping for the best when he asked the old man for his thoughts. I’m glad to report they were positive.

His father’s opening compliment: “Sunofabitch sure knows his mules.”

This, I’m led to believe, qualified as effusive praise.

There’s an important lesson here, I think, about one of the things readers value most, but writers often curiously dismiss: factual authenticity. Many writers place a high premium on emotional authenticity—whether a character’s actions feel believable—but pay little heed to good old fashioned worldly accuracy. I’ve had countless authors submit to Relief whose cover letters contained things like: “I took some liberties with the history / science / politics / geography / scripture” and their argument is always the same: that’s why it’s called fiction. There’s a perception, a false one, I think, that writers can warp the details if it suits their purposes. I’ve had workshop leaders wave off comments about factual details with a dismissive, “Oh, come now—you don’t need to care about those things,” and it troubles me because readers seem to care about them so much. Even the opening notes to Richard Bausch’s Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. America, and All the Ships at Sea contain this sentiment: “This is a work of fiction. I made everything up except the facts and the politics, which everyone knows are of little importance.”

I love Bausch’s work, and suspect a tongue in cheek quality to his assertion, but it still seems like writers careening valiantly over the facts bothers me more than it does most people.

I suspect it’s my background. I was a history major for a brief period in college, and gained a great affection for historical trivia, and a great disdain for writers who opportunistically embrace some facts but disregard others. For me, though, it’s a not just a question of bespectacled fussiness; it’s a question of trust. My professor’s father liked the book that he was given, among other reasons, because the writer got the details right—the mules, one can assume, behaved in believable ways and were credibly presented to someone who knew that subject well. And because the writer respected his material enough to treat it carefully, the reader respected the writer and was more willing to embrace the story that he had to tell.

Winning a reader over is one of the hardest things for a writer to accomplish, and one of the best ways to do it is to show a reader that you value the same things they do.

Besides, as most writers know, one of the most irritating games that readers (whatever their training) like to play is “Spot the Anachronism”. I’ve had workshop readers tell me the VW Beatle my character drives wasn’t manufactured when I said it was, or that my description of a cancer treatment wasn’t completely right. My favorite moment came a few summers ago, when I gave a reading in Tennessee for a group of writers I desperately wanted to impress. The story was a hit, and I got a lot of compliments. But there was also an older man who came up afterwards, shook my hand, and told me I’d gotten a date wrong in the civil war. When he said it, he was grinning.

Stuff like that can really rile your dander.

Is factual accuracy the most important thing? Of course not. It falls below characterization, conflict, emotionally compelling situations, clear prose, authorial humility, and lots of other things. I’m not even sure it would crack my top ten, to tell you the truth. Unless detail oriented facts make up a crucial plot point, they are secondary concerns, ranking somewhere below stylistic sentence variety and somewhere above grammatical correctness.

Okay, maybe not that far down. But it’s important nonetheless.

As with all things, though, there are ways to focus on the factual details well and ways to do it poorly. In the next entry for our “crafting fiction” series, which will be posted two weeks from today, I’ll highlight some of the common pitfalls with this concept and present some authors who, in my opinion, do it well.

Hope to see you there.

 
Before You Submit that Cover Letter PDF Print E-mail
Written by Alan Ackmann   
Monday, 08 September 2008
ImageFiction Editor Alan Ackmann shares some pointers about what NOT to do in your submission’s cover letter.

Blogger Kevin Lucia recently gave some very solid advice about what you need to include in your cover letter. The counterpoint to his advice, of course, is what you shouldn’t be doing. We here at Relief consistently see people doing things in cover letters that (forgive us) are better left undone. So I thought I’d build on Kevin’s earlier blog by adding a few tips about what not to include in your cover letter.

But first, a few disclaimers:

(1) None of the quotes used here are taken word for word from actual cover letters. They are simply meant to illustrate miscalculations we see many writers making.

(2) If you see a mistake you’ve made listed here, try not to freak out. The reason we’re featuring that error is because many, many, many people made it—not just one. So you’re probably in good company.

(3) Making one of these errors, by itself, does not constitute an automatic rejection, nor has it ever. We read and evaluate everything that comes in here at Relief regardless of its cover letter. We have accepted works whose cover letters made these errors, and will surely do so again. But that’s not an excuse for not putting your best foot forward.

(4) I’m drawing examples from fiction here, but the advice applies to non-fiction and poetry as well.

Now on to the proclamations!

Do not include a complete synopsis of the story.

When I read a submitted story, I like it to unfurl naturally, and for my experience to be as close an approximation to reading the magazine as is possible. If a cover letter includes a detailed, moment by moment account of the story, that effect is lost, making the story harder to assess. Think of it like a movie. Isn’t it harder to watch when somebody’s already told you the ending? Same thing.

Including a synopsis is sometimes appropriate when submitting a book-length manuscript to an agent or publisher, but since fifteen pages isn’t nearly the same time-suck as four-hundred pages a summary is typically not needed for a short story.

Do not give a lengthy explanation about why the story is Christian.

There are several reasons. First, if the story is “Christian” (whatever that means) it will be clear in the work itself, and stating it is therefore redundant. Second, explaining why the story is “Christian” can be borderline insulting if not done tactfully, as when writers say things like (and I’m paraphrasing) “there are some scriptural references here. I hope you pick up on them” or “my main character, who sacrifices himself for other people, is a lot like Christ.” It’s risky to assume that a panel of Christian editors needs the Christianity explained, at least in highly specific terms—besides, if we did need a cover letter to fill knowledge gaps in the story, other readers would as well. And since they won’t have a cover letter, that’s a problem.

Second, our aesthetic here at Relief is actually resistant to stories that are too up front about their Christian-ness. We don’t go much for allegory, and if your climax hinges on the “right” interpretation of a Bible verse or some such thing, that’s often something we have to overcome—not something we embrace. I’m more interested in good storytelling and strong characterization than in whether something is overtly “Christian.” In a well-told story, Christian content comes through subtly; it doesn’t need a spotlight.

The exception to this is if you are explaining why you sent a story to Relief. It is fine to state that the story’s content matches what we’re looking for; that can show awareness of your market. But such an explanation should be get-in-and-get-out, with efficiency being key. There is a fine line between explaining why someone should read your work, and belaboring how they should read it.

Do not emphasize that you think the story is good.

Despite all those editors, students, critics, and cliffs-notes, good writing arguably needs no explanation. If the writing is of a high standard, it will get noticed on its own. Sometimes writers take the same approach with a submission cover letter as they do with a job cover letter, where you have to sell your qualifications. In a job cover letter, you want to play up your strengths. But in a submission cover letter, statements like “everyone I’ve shown this to thinks it’s awesome” or “this is a grand, important statement about the condition of Christianity today” or “teachers have always praised my ability to create characters, and I think this story is a prime example” make a writer seem arrogant rather confident. And no matter what the circumstance, you should never make a reader feel privileged for reading your work.

Do not say that all the foolish people who read the story before us missed the point.

This is one is similar to not explaining why the story is good. Some people say things like, “I’ve lost track of how many people have rejected this! Hopefully you won’t make the same mistake.” Now, stories get rejected for all sorts of reasons—but it isn’t smart to tell us openly that others have already formed a negative impression of your work. Similarly, don’t say things like “all the members of my writing group hated this story, but hopefully you’ll enjoy it!” or “no-one seems to understand what I’m doing with this, so I thought I’d show it to professionals.” It may be true that you’re an unappreciated genius with philistine friends who are incapable of comprehending you. But that still shouldn’t be your ice-breaker at the party. Remember, you want us to be forming our own opinion, not deciding whether we agree with someone else’s.

Do not apologize for what you’re submitting.

This one is the counterpoint to the previous two. You don’t want to come off as brash in a cover letter, but also don’t want to seem mousy or insecure. Statements like, “I’ve always been afraid to submit my work” or “This is the first story I ever wrote in college” raise red flags. In that vein, don’t say “even though this isn’t as good as I’d hoped, I’m sending it anyway,” or “this story probably isn’t what you’re looking for, but I thought I’d give it a shot.” Writing is a vulnerable activity, and we’re all insecure about our work (and I’m always cautious around writers who aren’t). But a cover letter is not the time for sheepishness. After all, if you don’t think the story is good enough to be published, why should we?

Do not turn your cover letter into a lengthy biography.

Again, this is a question of degrees. In your cover letter, it’s wise to give editors a brief idea who you are, as well as to convey relevant information that might help us read your work. But the important words there were brief and relevant. When sharing where you’ve studied, for example, or with whom, you don’t need to give a detailed account of your coursework, or what your tutor is like in the classroom. It also isn’t necessary to give a full account of how you came to writing, what it’s meant to you, or what your favorite books are. Such things often distract from the business at hand: getting the editor to read your story, and to take it seriously.

For that matter, only mention non-writing information if it somehow applies to your story. If you’ve worked in an emergency room, and your main character is an EMT, its fine to mention your familiarity with that world. But if the information doesn’t apply to the story, take it out. I’ve had writers tell me where they were born, how many kids they have, what their pet’s names are, what music they listen to while they work, what the weather is like while they’re submitting, and other questionable chatter. Again, this distracts from the business—that’s business—at hand. So try to keep things professional, at least for your first impression.

Do not express your disdain for the electronic submission system.

Okay. Computers can be scary. We get that. We also get that attaching a file to a website and tapping a mouse-key doesn’t bring the same tactile satisfaction as stuffing an envelope and paying for postage. But the advantages to our electronic submission system are both profound and numerous. Here are just a few:

First, storing our submissions in an electronic database means they aren’t stored in filing cabinets or on countertops, which limits overhead for storage, office space, and secretarial fees. Second, the electronic system at least triples the speed with which we respond to authors; it is much more navigable than your typical filing system. Third, the system means we can access work from anywhere, and (again) much more quickly—which is handy for all of you with submission queries. Fourth, the fact that we can access work anywhere means we have staff anywhere. Relief staffers can be found in Illinois, Arkansas, Texas, Indiana, and elsewhere. We can recruit better people and more of them, and they can all use the system at once.

In short, it is not an exaggeration to say that without the electronic submissions system (lovingly built and maintained by our own Coach Culbertson) Relief could not exist.

If you have questions about the system you can consult our on-line submission guidelines, posted near the writer’s network. You can also contact us with questions. But don’t use your cover letter to complain about how you really prefer the old-fashioned way. As Dylan said, the times they are a’ changing.

Do not make a big deal about how willing you are to revise.

We do have an editorial process here at Relief, and have been known to work with writers on their stories—most frequently on the sentence level, but occasionally on the level of plot or characterization. We never change things without permission, but often find that a creative give and take (not at all uncommon in publishing) can benefit the work. I view stories submitted to Relief the way I view stories I submit to magazines myself: as an invitation to discuss the work, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

That’s how I roll.

With that in mind, I view every writer submitting to Relief as having an implied willingness to discuss further revision—that’s part of being a professional. It is therefore unnecessary to state this willingness in the cover letter. You certainly don’t need to overstate it, and claims like “I am willing to change anything you want if it means you’ll publish the story” often make a writer seem desperate rather than agreeable. If you’re willing to discuss revision, good for you! You’re humble enough to consider alternate perspectives. But again, you probably don’t need to say so. In fact, when a cover letter indicates willingness to revise, I wonder whether there’s some flaw in the piece the writer wants help fixing. Now, when I or any editor reads a story, it is with the sincere hope that the story will be good—and when writers state their willingness to revise I stop looking for what’s good and start looking for what’s bad. That isn’t the reaction you want.

Do not italicize when you should use quotes, or vice versa.

 

This one comes directly from our former English teacher and current editor-in-chief, whose red pen has never entirely left her stern, presumably well-moisturized hand. It’s not that we’re nitpicky (although we are, as our proofreaders can tell you); it’s that a cover letter which does not follow conventions of punctuation raises questions about the writer’s mastery of other aspects of craft. It’s like any other business document—the point isn’t that there’s an error, it’s that this error damages both credibility and professionalism. So please, don’t give us reason to be suspicious.

For the record, here are the conventions: the names of books and literary magazines are italicized, and the names of short stories and poems are put into quotations. Repeat it five times and it’s yours.

And finally…

 

Do not tell us that God wants us to publish you.

Lots of people tell us we should accept a story because God told them to write it. Some imply—or even say—that if we don’t accept a story we’re going against His wishes. Now, we certainly believe that the Spirit can move in people when they write, and that God’s hand, especially when requested, is capable of guiding creativity. This fact alone, however, is not a free pass to publication. And telling an editor up front that they’re sinning if they don’t publish you is a really good way to bias your reading.

Um…so what the heck DO I say?

After all this advice about things you shouldn’t do, it might cross your mind that any cover letter abstaining from all these things wouldn’t be more than a few sentences. Well, you’d be right and that wouldn’t be wrong. Cover letters are business writing, and in business writing efficiency is key. In many ways, the best cover letters are the shortest ones. As Kevin said, you don’t need to do much more than the following: tell us what you’re submitting; mention how you found the journal; give some brief, relevant, information about yourself; and thank us for our time. And that’s pretty much all it should take.

After all, you want us to be focused on your work—not your cover letter. So let the work speak for itself as much as possible.

 

 
Take a step back, folks PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kimberly Culbertson   
Monday, 25 August 2008

ImageHelicopter Parenting


In a facinating article, O Magazine recently examined the roles of parents in their children's high school, college, and even adult lives. In "Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... Supermom!" (July 2008) Amanda Robb reported that the trendline is on the rise for "helicopter parenting," a term coined in 1977 by Jim Fay and Foster Cline, cofounders of the Love and Logic Institute. The term labels parents who "hover" over their children so much as to be involved in the minute details of their lives.

Robb notes that "In a study of 60 public universities and colleges... 40 to 60 percent of parents engage in some type of helicopter parenting, such as helping with academic assignments, and as many as 10 percent actually write their children's papers for them." I find this amazing, as my parents were thrilled to have me away at college and certainly never offered to do my homework for me. And yet, the parents discussed in the article drove hours to do their college students' laundry, grocery shopping, and cleaning. They contacted teachers and possible employers to discuss assignments and benefits. They emailed and phoned daily to advise, and found ways to be assured that their student was taking their advice. One parent even had the password to her son's email account so that she could read any emails from professors and ask her son about why he missed appointments or failed assignments. On another strange note, the students studied in Robb's article did not mind, and even appreciated their parent's uberinvolvement.

George Kuh, PhD, who conducts the annual National Survey of student Engagement to measure what conditions make for the most eneficial college experience, admits that students with involved parents tend to succeed more, but states that there is "a tipping point between beneficial contact and the kind that stunts personal growth." Not to mention how the people around these spoiled students must just want to pound them...

I share this story for two reason: First, I really am just facinated. My parents were involved and accessible while I was in college, but certainly did not hover. In fact, I'm pretty sure I helped with laundry in grade school. It's hard for me to imagine wanting to stunt your child's development by doing everything for him or her. (But then, I do have background as a teacher.) But second, as I pondered the article, I began to make the easy connections between writing and parenting. And I began to wonder if this phenomena doesn't exist in publishing, and especially in Christian publishing.

Helicopter Authoring


I have lost count of the number of authors who correlate submitting their work to Relief with "sending their baby out into the world." Before I sound too pretentious, I'll admit, I've had similar feelings. You work so hard to shape a story (or a poem or essay or picture or...) but eventually it has to make it in the big world and you just have to hope you've done enough. But there does come a point when you just have to let go, and trust the story to survive without you.

And after that point, some of us just keep on writing.

We explain to the reader exactly how to read the story. In doing so we smother any subtlety in the piece and insult the reader. We're so afraid that he or she will miss the point or that the story isn't good enough to make the point on it's own that we throw in the "here's the moral" section toward the end.

Here at Relief, this "helicopter authoring" is probably the fastest way to get a rejection note. Former fiction editor J. Mark Bertrand once mused to me that every once in a while a story can pull off the moral-at-the-end trick, but it better earn the right to do it. So, like a parent who's not quite ready to trust her child in the big world, when we feel the urge to hover, we might ask ourselves if we're really helping the story, or just trying to reassure ourselves that we've done a good job.

Oops, that might have been a moral... oh well ;-}
 
Thoughts on Avoiding Cliché PDF Print E-mail
Written by Brad Fruhauff   
Monday, 04 August 2008

ImagePoetry Editor Brad Fruhauff shares his advice regarding cliché.


I don’t blame people for slipping into the cliché—I find myself fighting it often enough in my own writing. In the TV series, Dead Like Me, George’s English professor father gives a lecture on Shakespeare’s sonnets and notes that a line about his heart and a tree feels cliché. But he goes on to suggest that clichés are the things that stick, the ideas or phrases that capture a phenomenon so well for so many of us that we can’t say it better ourselves.

There’s something to that. Cliché is the idiom of the exceptional, a street jargon of mots justs for everyday use. But we know that in writing we’re not supposed to be using language in its everyday application (trust me, this goes whether you write realistic fiction or poetry). That’s because they’re so available, so common, that to use them looks like a cop-out, a failure to put something into your own words. The word cliché comes from the French, “to click,” and refers to “the striking of melted lead in order to obtain a proof or cast” (OED); it’s related to stereotype, which was a metal plate used for printing. It’s what “clicks,” but what clicks over and over again.

The trick with avoiding cliché, I think, is to recognize one when you see it. This means attending to your language and to your ideas and sentiments. When you notice one, ask, “Is this meaningful here?” Some clichés are probably admissible in those places where they continue to signify, but what makes them cliché is that they’ve ceased to glow for us, and we tend to just gloss over them as we read. You want every word to mean something.

But don’t overdo it. Word usage can be cliché, too. Adjectives, for instance, are overused because people think they are intrinsically poetic and a way to avoid cliché. They’re not either. In fact, next time you want to use a lot of adjectives, think of Lunch-lady Doris making horse-meat chili: “More testicles mean more iron!” (That ought to put a funny taste in your mouth.) More adjectives do not mean more iron.

Tend to your nouns, first, like exercising your “core” muscles or adjusting the macro focus on your camera (notice my metaphors don’t work for an automatic age). Bring in modifiers to tweak and add a meaningful zest to your words. You adject wisely when you judiciously adject.

Be aware that when you try to describe some event, emotion, person, idea, etc., the first thing that comes to mind will probably be something cliché, so be wary and try to come up with something else. Once you’ve done that, ask whether you haven’t just come up with something meaningless, forced, pedantic, or cutesy. By cutesy I mean the kind of writing that tries to play on words or ideas and to be self-consciously ironic about it at the same time. This is actually hard to do, and most people end up sounding like they’re trying to initiate the reader into some special club that “gets it,” only the reader thinks it so obvious that there’s no one who doesn’t get it, and so the author just looks foolish. You don’t want to look foolish.

One last thought—a dangerous thought, perhaps, but I stand by it. Bible verses and hymns can be cliché, too. Just because you quoted a psalm doesn’t mean you’ve shared a spiritual experience with your reader. Many poets can reference or quote Scripture powerfully, but it becomes cliché when you rely on it to do the work you are supposed to do as the writer—which is the main point about clichés, after all: they don’t work if you’re not working, and you have to work hard to make them work.
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 9 of 18