I subscribed only for the Invitational; I have trouble keeping up with the rest of The Gene Pool content (I almost never click to read the comments or updated Q&As) and am definitely not in the market for more.
Love the stories. I like the connection to other “broken records”. What we regret is the loss of our own youth, replacing of our treasured memory by someone else, likely someone whose name we can’t remember.
If I were either young or retired or childless, this would be something I'd love to do. But as I will certainly not be doing any writing except for work and the occasional Invite entry if something strikes me in the first 10 minutes, I won't pretend that I will have the time to benefit from it. I hope those who want to develop their writing step up in sufficient numbers.
I put that I'd absolutely do The Write Stuff. A. Because I admire Tom Wolfe's sociological insights and think The Right Stuff was his best book. B. Because I don't trust my own judgment and think I have a great deal to learn, esp from people who actually let their writing be seen in public. For instance, I liked Gene's two stories, esp the one about baseball (and I even excuse his being a Yankees fan) because I love baseball, esp the baseball that was being played when he and I were kids. So to the remark about sour grapes. One commenter said, "zing, that was so good." Whereas I thought that was put in to sound clever and to make the writer seem hip. And I don't know which is correct. I read somewhere that you will never write something no one else has ever written before. Being original means writing exactly what you think yourself. But I think what I think myself is what a lot of people have written before me because that's what I've read. So do I need writing advice or therapy?
Two observations (yes I know, just two --- shocking, but live with it). About that "Write Stuff" writing clinic. Don't. At least not in lieu of a possible alternative of more new GW prose. It's not the money, although I'm sure that will be an issue. It would be the monotony. Along with actors banging on about their "craft," I, for one, find authors and other writers describing their creative impulses or fruits of word processing --- and especially in surgical detail --- to be a variation of watching paint dry. But then again, I’m not a big fan of "peeking behind the curtain" when it comes to creative or artistic endeavors; I really don’t need to know how the magic trick works or why a director chose one approach over another. Creating means making choices. The choices a creative makes either work for me personally or they don’t, and knowing why they made them rarely either improves my enjoyment or lessens my disappointment. Also, in a so-called "creative writing" class or clinic setting, "how I do/did it" seldom translates into meaningful guidance or practical applications for those who naively think they can actually learn how to "write." I suggest creative writing at a reasonably high level is a calling, much like becoming a member of the clergy, although perhaps more cloistered and less remunerative.
On the other hand, I would willingly pay a premium for a regular "long-form Weingarten" similar to what has given you your well-deserved claim to fame (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). Which allows me to smoothly segue into my second observation --- about that very reason for your notoriety (literary, of course). A couple of months ago, I offered a moderately heartfelt tut-tut over you saying the Von Drehle Nixon funeral piece "... is better than anything I have ever written, or could ever write."(The Gene Pool, Aug. 8). Yes, it is axiomatic that if "Gene says it, it's so," I said at the time, but when it comes to human interest stories I start with degree of difficulty and go from there. IMO --- a funeral --- and the funeral of a notorious politician, in particular --- ranks only somewhere near the middle of the range, however colorfully or poetically it is described. To my mind, the more obvious the human interest, the less the degree of difficulty which sustains my interest. The tale of a fiddler well below the roof, the starling trapped in a window or when a middle-aged man tries to find the girl he loved in second grade -- to name just a few of a multitude of life's little moments turned into transcendent truths (or close thereto) --- there's range-topping degree of difficulty for you. As befits the Greg Louganis of popular prose.
The pieces were great, by the way, though the link to "On a Wing and a Prayer" links to one headlined "For a Fearful City, A Sweet Release." I assume this is the intended column, just (stupidly) retitled.
I'd like to think I'm not too old a dog to learn new tricks, but I am already overextended financially just by subscribing to the Gene Pool (not to mention pressed for time just to read what already comes to my Inbox), so I have to say no, thanks.
I subscribed only for the Invitational; I have trouble keeping up with the rest of The Gene Pool content (I almost never click to read the comments or updated Q&As) and am definitely not in the market for more.
Love the stories. I like the connection to other “broken records”. What we regret is the loss of our own youth, replacing of our treasured memory by someone else, likely someone whose name we can’t remember.
If I were either young or retired or childless, this would be something I'd love to do. But as I will certainly not be doing any writing except for work and the occasional Invite entry if something strikes me in the first 10 minutes, I won't pretend that I will have the time to benefit from it. I hope those who want to develop their writing step up in sufficient numbers.
But I hope you'll just occasionally post old columns you love like these for the rest of us.
I put that I'd absolutely do The Write Stuff. A. Because I admire Tom Wolfe's sociological insights and think The Right Stuff was his best book. B. Because I don't trust my own judgment and think I have a great deal to learn, esp from people who actually let their writing be seen in public. For instance, I liked Gene's two stories, esp the one about baseball (and I even excuse his being a Yankees fan) because I love baseball, esp the baseball that was being played when he and I were kids. So to the remark about sour grapes. One commenter said, "zing, that was so good." Whereas I thought that was put in to sound clever and to make the writer seem hip. And I don't know which is correct. I read somewhere that you will never write something no one else has ever written before. Being original means writing exactly what you think yourself. But I think what I think myself is what a lot of people have written before me because that's what I've read. So do I need writing advice or therapy?
Two observations (yes I know, just two --- shocking, but live with it). About that "Write Stuff" writing clinic. Don't. At least not in lieu of a possible alternative of more new GW prose. It's not the money, although I'm sure that will be an issue. It would be the monotony. Along with actors banging on about their "craft," I, for one, find authors and other writers describing their creative impulses or fruits of word processing --- and especially in surgical detail --- to be a variation of watching paint dry. But then again, I’m not a big fan of "peeking behind the curtain" when it comes to creative or artistic endeavors; I really don’t need to know how the magic trick works or why a director chose one approach over another. Creating means making choices. The choices a creative makes either work for me personally or they don’t, and knowing why they made them rarely either improves my enjoyment or lessens my disappointment. Also, in a so-called "creative writing" class or clinic setting, "how I do/did it" seldom translates into meaningful guidance or practical applications for those who naively think they can actually learn how to "write." I suggest creative writing at a reasonably high level is a calling, much like becoming a member of the clergy, although perhaps more cloistered and less remunerative.
On the other hand, I would willingly pay a premium for a regular "long-form Weingarten" similar to what has given you your well-deserved claim to fame (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). Which allows me to smoothly segue into my second observation --- about that very reason for your notoriety (literary, of course). A couple of months ago, I offered a moderately heartfelt tut-tut over you saying the Von Drehle Nixon funeral piece "... is better than anything I have ever written, or could ever write."(The Gene Pool, Aug. 8). Yes, it is axiomatic that if "Gene says it, it's so," I said at the time, but when it comes to human interest stories I start with degree of difficulty and go from there. IMO --- a funeral --- and the funeral of a notorious politician, in particular --- ranks only somewhere near the middle of the range, however colorfully or poetically it is described. To my mind, the more obvious the human interest, the less the degree of difficulty which sustains my interest. The tale of a fiddler well below the roof, the starling trapped in a window or when a middle-aged man tries to find the girl he loved in second grade -- to name just a few of a multitude of life's little moments turned into transcendent truths (or close thereto) --- there's range-topping degree of difficulty for you. As befits the Greg Louganis of popular prose.
Just a quick note here: “… and sour grapes.” Zing, that’s so good.
The pieces were great, by the way, though the link to "On a Wing and a Prayer" links to one headlined "For a Fearful City, A Sweet Release." I assume this is the intended column, just (stupidly) retitled.
I'd like to think I'm not too old a dog to learn new tricks, but I am already overextended financially just by subscribing to the Gene Pool (not to mention pressed for time just to read what already comes to my Inbox), so I have to say no, thanks.