 Writers' Community! |
|
| Home Page Two Columnists Q&A Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login |
Wayoot WordsHannah Quinn (18,393)     Hannah Quinn   Too-Write! Professional Services The Hungry Ghosts by Anne BerryPosted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 (102 days 12 hours ago.) Viewed 292 times. "This then is how I come to stave off death, with nothing but my will for weaponry. And it is how, paradoxically, I find myself housed in a sepulchre of death. My voice might be weaker but still it cries, I am not ready yet. Not yet.' Then one day the children come. Among them is Alice." Anne Berry has written an accomplished tale of two beings entwined: one a ghost, one living a ghostlike existence. The Hungry Ghosts covers lives and time, from war ravished Hong Kong to modern day England and Paris. There are many weavings of individual stories, the impact each entity has on the whole, the complexities and levels every member of any group brings to the mix. There is always a level of dysfunction in a family, but sometimes that dysfunction is more extreme than average'. Such it is in Alice's family and she, the youngest daughter and second youngest child, is the scapegoat, not only for her family but for her ghosts. She is haunted, but it comes to be her norm, her family, her true reality, one in which there is no place for her real family. The writing and language in The Hungry Ghosts is almost ethereal at times, adding its own layering to the complex story being told. The descriptions are textured and highly defined, coloured with lyrical language that hypnotises and draws the reader on, deeper and deeper into the haunting and haunted world of Alice and Lin Shui. Tragedy and pathos are ever present; darkness, despair and familial injustice; but there is humour and beauty, love and questing, and a final knowing of self that is as poignant as it is satisfying. I would not hesitate to recommend this book for the lover of ghost stories and the lover of good, well told stories alike. I look forward to Anne Berry's future books with wonder and expectation. 
Permalink Comments (32) Can You Teach A Writer How to Write?Posted Thursday, June 04, 2009 (157 days 11 hours ago.) Viewed 952 times. Yes! (and) No! This is a common and interesting debate, and often carries a touch of snobbery about it - on the anti side that is, which doesn't automatically make the anti side incorrect. But, is it? First, what does it mean: teach writing? Obviously, we are all taught to write, hopefully while still young. We are taught grammar and spelling, at least the basics, and punctuation. We learn to 'read' writing, not the content, but the method and purpose. All this is done at school. It's often elementary, but it stands us in good stead for the most part. This said, it is not the real subject of the debate. Even when I've taught writing (to adults), this can be one of the many topics we discuss, and is often raised by a student. Some genuinely want to know. Some want to know if their investment is generally worth it. Some want to know when they can expect to be published, become famous and rich. This is where the debate really exists. Most students of writing will improve some can't, some won't for a variety of reasons; but that's probably a topic for a different article. I started writing at age six, that is to say, I knew from that age that who I am is a writer. I have a natural aptitude for it, have always been good at English classes and was a natural reader, as well as a vociferous one. I wrote my first two novels at age 12 and my first play at 15. I was regularly moved to advanced English classes and, when I couldn't get my hands on anything else, spent hours reading the dictionary! (Yes, I know, tragic.) Yet, when I decided to undertake a tertiary Professional Writing and Editing Diploma, I was surprised at how little I knew! One way to look at this debate is to look at why people come to writing classes. Often, there are young people filling in time between leaving secondary education and deciding what they want to do with their lives. Some young students are there because they had to take something, often due to family pressure/expectation, and it seemed like the soft option. Older people are there because they already write or know they want to. Not all but most want to be published, and some want to make it their career and come with dreams of wealth, fame and longevity - often an unrealistic ambition or belief. Obviously, there is an ongoing need to teach grammar and punctuation, and sometimes spelling - not an easy subject to teach. One of the first modern rules of spelling is not to rely on spell check on your computer, because there are many words with optional meanings and spellings, plus the spell check will miss a word automatically adjusted by your word processor, which might be the wrong choice altogether. There are rules to spelling, but many exceptions, which can be confusing as to when to apply. An example of this is the "i before e except after c" rule. That exception has it's own exceptions. Why are there so many exceptions in English? It's because the English language is made up of a variety of other languages rather than having all it's own roots and origins and derivatives. This came about because the Roman's invaded before a single language had become widespread across all the peoples of the British Isles, and like all invaders, proceeded to ban the local languages. This lasted for hundreds of years, so it's no wonder that most of the basics were long gone! Then, there are the wars and European rulers at various periods where the King's own native language was the one spoken. This resulted in a 'Bastard' language, that is, one without a 'proper' parentage. Therefore, the one rule with English is, always check with a reputable and suitable dictionary. If in Australia, use an Australian dictionary; if in America, use an American dictionary; if in the UK, use a British dictionary. There are differences between all three in many instances. You'll see some here if you are not Australian, as I am. For example, I include the letter u in the word labour. This isn't done in American, it is in the UK. Yet, if I'm talking about the political party which is currently in government here, the spelling is Labor, but in the UK, the political party uses the Labour spelling. Confusing, isn't it? This is a little off topic specificity, though. So, back to the real issue: Teaching Writers to Write. What does that mean? It means many things, the main ones being (and not necessarily in this order):
Each of the above subjects can then be broken down into a number of segments, e.g.: Characterisation:
Some writers never have trouble finding a subject to write about, or a story to tell, a character to explore, or an idea to express. Others, often good writers, find it difficult. How to find ideas and subjects can take up a whole lesson on its own. It includes how to develop from a basic idea, as well, including ways to go about turning a phrase, sentence, news headline, snatch of conversation, instant impressions (on people, music, scenery, words, etc.) into a fully structured, plotted and developed story. These are all things that can be taught. There is far more than that which can be taught about writing, including the study of famous writers, famous (or not so famous) novels, the breakdown of any piece of writing to see why and how it works or does not work. One of the most valuable learning tools for writing is workshopping. This is when you present your work for discussion and feedback. It can be a painful, even destructive exercise if not handled maturely and purposely by the teacher but, when done in a constructive environment, can be the most relevant, important and developmental part of learning to write. Even the most famous and successful writers have trusted people who vet the manuscript along the way; just look at their dedication and thank you pages! Workshopping brings perspective; helps define what works and what doesn't; if the characters are believable, interesting, worth staying with, speak in different voices; help discover and overcome cliches; if the story being read is the same as what is being written - believe me, there is often a discrepancy between the two! - and much more. It also, and especially, hones our 'public' muscles, because if we are putting our writing into the public arena, we are going to be scrutinised and criticised, even if we make it to the best seller's list. There are all the above reasons and more for why the answer to the question posed in the title is Yes. So, what about the No? What can't be taught to a writer? The intrinsic artistic talent that makes a writer exceptional. Literature, like painting, sculpture, music, dance, etc is art. You cannot teach a person to create art. A good piece of writing is not necessarily, or automatically art, either. Art is one of those innate, indefinable things that some people have and most do not. You can teach skill and craft, both of which are important and necessary to success, but that's not art. Some writers have an innate alacrity with story telling; some with language; some with presence; some with all of these. Even so, this does not automatically mean art. Either people have it or they don't. It cannot be taught. But, if that innate something is not crafted and honed, remains untrained, taken for granted, left to its own devices, then it is likely to flounder. Not always, obviously. Many successful and great writers never attend a writing course. Some, most, do have mentors, advisers, good old fashioned editors. Like most artists, however, writers need some training. Yet, no-one questions that artists need training. Da Vinci, Mozart and Bach, Margot Fonteyn - all were trained and honed in their craft. All dedicated their lives to perfecting their art - something many writers don't want to do. They were all taught their craft, (yes, even Mozart, although he was a child prodigy) and we both expect and accept that. They had innate artistic gifts, obviously, but not left to grow wild or turn to seed. It is the same for writers, great or not so great. I wonder if, one day, it will be acknowledged without question that the answer is always Yes and No, just as it is for all artists. In the meantime, I shall enjoy the times I teach writing, especially when a student has any type of success. By success, I don't necessarily mean fame and fortune; I mean learning to unleash their innate talent, to trust it, to love it, to want to pursue it and always take it to the next level. That's what real success is.
Permalink Comments (4) Art, Nudity, Censorship and ChildrenPosted Saturday, June 14, 2008 (1 year 146 days ago.) Viewed 1,048 times. The recent furore over the latest Bill Henson exhibition has, largely, died down. To recap: Henson was due to open his latest photographic exhibition at Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Sydney on 22nd May, 2008. A few hours before the due opening, the police arrived, closed the doors and confiscated 20 of the works. Art lovers arrived only to be turned away. Why did this happen? The photographs are of young children and pre-adolescent children, in particular a young girl who was 12 at the time, and the children are sans vêtements. The reaction was immediate, on both sides, but the loudest was the anti side. After a few days, the police said they would lay charges. They prepared their case and it went to the DPP (Public Prosecutors) but, in the end, they believed there was no case to proceed with. The photographs have since been returned to the gallery, although they are not currently on display. They might go on display in the future. Henson is free to choose. Do I consider the works are art? Yes. I do. Do I consider art should be censored? No, not in any form. Do I think these photographs should go on display? No - not at this time. It is never easy to resolve issues such as this one. I abhor censorship in art and literature. Some things which are called art, aren't - but they all go the way of the dodo, so no censorship is required. Natural attrition will see their demise even if there is an initial 'voyeuristic' or 'shock' quality to them. I remember when there was a play on at a small, fringe theatre here in Melbourne in the 1970s and the single character did the entire piece naked on a toilet - which he actually used. The season was relatively successful but, thankfully, short. I fail to see what edification was inherent in the piece. It wasn't art, it was 'shock and awe' and is now (hopefully) permanently flushed. When it comes to censorship, some marvellous artefacts have been lost to history, as evidenced by the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan by the Taliban; or the destruction of murals and stained glass windows in English churches during the Reformation; or the book burnings that occurred in Nazi Germany under Hitler. History is replete with such instances. Far more serious, however, is the loss of free speech which rigid censorship brings. That, to us in the free world, is anathema: as it should be. The current sedition laws in the like countries of Britain, the US and Australia are deplorable, and a far greater risk to freedom than terrorists. But, that is slightly off the point of this article. The real issue I want to discuss here is the exhibition of children au naturel in an era when children, especially girls, and especially prepubescent girls, are often and highly sexualised. One of the first concepts of true art is to reflect, discuss, expose, explore, develop, interpret and/or portray the culture in which it occurs. Of course, this is not meant to be done in a documentary way, although it can be; and it is always an expression of the artist rather than the people. It cannot exist without influence, however. And that influence is personal, intrapersonal, interpersonal and cultural. Art does not happen in a vacuum and its intricacies, and its vagaries, are always pertinent to the times in which it occurs. That sets some (loose) parameters for my views on Henson's latest works, and his overall focus for his art. Let me also add that I don't believe artists 'choose' their focus; I believe it 'chooses' them. Not, of course, in some magical way, but it develops from all the above parameters and the innate senses and individualism of the artist. The focus of Henson's work, not all by any means, but a substantial number of his works, is on children, especially prepubescent and adolescent children. Most of his works are dark - in both context and physicality. There is a strong physicality in his works, and a profound mood. The subject of his works are legitimate. They are not pornographic. Some have strong elements of eroticism about them. They reflect an age of development we all go through; and they do so with our vulnerability on full display. My concern is not the art itself, but the real life of the subjects. It's one thing to model for art; I modelled for a sculpture class when I was 16 - only for a bust (I wouldn't have done a naked modelling, but that is a personal choice not an arbitrary one). It's flattering, it's fun, its fascinating, it's hard work. None of the students went on to become well-known, but the teacher, Phil Dunn, was an acclaimed sculptor and potter during his lifetime. I enjoyed the experience and it was both funny and embarrassing to see my 'head' on display in various places. No matter where we live, we all have a relative small circle of life and most of what we do is known within this circle. This is our real life. The main subject of this latest work by Henson is a teenage girl, now 13. Her family have known Henson for a long time so they are associated with the art world. I think this does make a difference - but not enough. Let's return to the focus of Henson's works. He wants to explore the vulnerability, the angst, the juxtaposition of child and adult we experience at that age of transition - and he does it well. Those who experienced darkness at this age - and we all experience some - find it especially compelling. The eroticism of some of the photos is intentional, also a legitimate exploration of art, and some of it is natural to the age. None of this is reason to call the works anything less than art or to ban their display. All that said, my concerns, and the widespread opposition and calls for Henson to be charged are also a reflection of the age and culture we live in. As I stated above, children in general and young girls in particular are highly sexualised in this time. This is a concern for all areas of life, art included. Another problem with these works is the intimacy of photography, especially with such a proficient exponent as Henson. And, obviously, the prime concern is whether children can give informed consent. The parents all gave consent. I can't see that any but a few would say children of this age can give informed consent. Of those who say they can, many are not saying so for the sake of art, or the children. Even the parents, who might be well informed and well meaning, cannot know what is in their child's future or how their child will handle issues that arise in an adult world. We all know how formative the teenage years are, and how different most children want to be to their parents - even though they probably will become their parents to some degree later on. However, one of the prime tenets of a free society is the freedom and the right to choose. And the choices we make bring responsibility with them as well as freedom. Within that responsibility is the acknowledgement of cause and effect, in other words, of consequence. As adults, we know those consequences can be intense, long lasting, profound. We accept that our choices can affect, long term, our entire lives and might have unforeseeable consequences. Children cannot know this. Their development in awareness and understanding of cause and effect, consequence, is a slow and ongoing one. Even as young adults, the long term consequences of some choices are beyond us. As more is discovered about the brain, the more we realise how long it takes to fully develop understanding of consequences. The current literature poses that 25 is the 'mean' age for full brain development - that's more than double the age of the subject in the main series of work under discussion. In other words, the fact of our incomplete development means we cannot be informed about longterm cause and effect or consequences. A child is incapable of knowing or anticipating what might arise from a decision made at the age of 12. They should not be put in the position of having to make a decision which could affect their entire lives. To do so is to force them into an adult position for which they are not ready. Look at the consequences of this exhibition. I'm sure even the adults involved could not foresee what lay ahead. The children definitely could not. The cause and effect of the circumstances that have arisen from one person contacting the police after seeing the brochure for the exhibition could have profound and long term consequences for these children and their families. An adult must accept these consequences as part of the responsibility for freedom of choice. Children are not able to, which is why adults, and the law, are charged with their care. In my original article on this subject, I suggested the only way to marry the need for protection of children and the need for free expression without censorship was to hold these works behind closed doors until each subject is an adult and can choose for themselves. Although other subjects, now adults, have come out and said they have no regrets, the focus of concern and awareness of the exploitation of children is far more intense now than it was 20 years ago, as is the media on which it can be widely distributed and is available to people with nefarious intent. Whilst it is reassuring that these previous subjects are content, it should not, however, be used as a justification or a licence to ignore the potential for harm to these children as they continue to grow and develop into adulthood. There is no place for censorship in art and literature in a free world; but there is also no place for failing to take great care when it comes to the wellbeing of our children as they grow and develop. For their sakes, and the sake of society at large, we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to the lives and wellbeing of our children. Art can always wait; children, and their protection, however, cannot. (Please note, all spellings are Australian and might appear incorrect to a US reader.)
Permalink Comments (2) |
Archives:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home |
Page Two |
FAQ's |
Contact |
Terms of Service |
Article Submission Guidelines |
Questions & Answers |
Privacy |
Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company