.jpg)
Today's post is part of the series Writer's Corner
I just finished reading a collection of Jane Austen's juvenilia and unfinished novels
. I couldn't help feeling the difference between her great novels, such as Pride and Prejudice or Sense and Sensibility and the writings from her youth.
I know it's not fair to judge her early material. I mean, 12-year-old Jane puts 26-year-old Paula to shame. My point is: I actually learned a thing or two about writing from these "not so great" novels. When comparing her juvenilia and unfinished novels with her more mature work, I learned that's important to:
1) Take your time
There's no use rushing towards things. Jane, despite being happy about the short length of your stories I had to go back and read them again constantly because I didn't really remember who you were talking about.
2) Properly develop your characters
While we're at it, we need to take the time to develop our characters, who they are, what motivates them. Quickly brushing through them will give the impression they are not real people.
3) Keep it classy
Far from me from accusing Lady Austen of being coarse, but some of her jokes were not as subtle as we are used to. If you're going to try humor, be careful.
4) Think outside of your comfort zone
One of the greatest stories I read in the book, Lady Susan, is not your usual Jane Austen story. It is written entirely in the form of letters and the main character is a selfish, vicious woman. That's probably why the novel is not so famous, but it is incredible nonetheless.So, it's Ok to try new things because they might turn out great too.
5) Persist (things get better)
I believe this is the best thing I learned from Austen juvenilia and you can learn that from many authors. The first things Austen wrote were far from being great. But she persisted and after some time and a lot of effort, she arrived at the level of Sense and Sensibility. As Ira Glass taught us, good writing takes time and lots of practice. Keep working hard and your writing will improve little by little.
I've learned so much by reading Austen's juvenilia and unfinished novels that I was encouraged to read my own archives and see if I can learn from my own (recent) juvenilia as well.
Have you read Austen's unfinished works? Do you like reading author's juvenilia or do you prefer their most famous works?
For more Writer's Corner posts and tips on writing, click here.
Image via The Creative Penn
For more Writer's Corner posts and tips on writing, click here.
Image via The Creative Penn
Art Deco is the name of an artistic style that began in the 1920's. Even though it originated in France, Art Deco found wide acceptance around the world. It represented luxury and prosperity as a reaction to the austerity imposed by World War I. One of the most famous examples of Art Deco architecture is probably the Chrysler building in New York.
The other day I went to a guided tour of an Art Deco collection and I learned a couple of interesting things about it:
1) The French and American Art Deco
styles are slightly different. The first focused mostly on furniture and was
incredibly individual and avant-garde. It was also inspired by French colonialism. Materials such as
ivory and ebony were being brought from the African colonies, so artists incorporated these new found materials in the creation of furniture.
2) Speaking of materials, Art Deco artists are known for using very unusual materials such as shark and snake skin and egg shelves.
3) Art Deco and Art Nouveau are different styles. (This is a question that always baffled me and I was happy to have understood the difference a little more). Art Nouveau draws inspiration from nature, so the shapes are flowing, like leaves of plants. The development of the microscope inspired Art Nouveau artists to depict smaller creatures such as dragon flies and butterflies. Art Deco draws inspiration from modernity and the City and its shapes are more geometrical.
4) Art Deco was also seen in jewelry. The aesthetics of the jewelry fitted the newest fashion (the sleek silhouettes of the dresses and women's short haircuts).
5) Artists had to adapt their creations during the Great Depression. For example, some jewelry was made to be worn in more than one way, like as a bracelet and as a brooch.
Do you like Art Deco architecture and aesthetics?
Illustrations by George Barbier, via The Wisteria Bridge
Major spoiler alert, kay?
Many movies criticize Tv and modern culture. Take Idiocracy for example. I love this movie, but it gets a little too painful (and gross) to watch. Other movies are more reflexive and dramatic such as Network. And then there's the Truman Show.
Truman Show is one of my favorite movies: it is entertaining and talks about serious things, it criticizes parts of modern life and it has some symbolism to pleases geeks like me. Plus, I'm a big Jim Carey fan, but don't hold that against me.
Jim Carey is Truman Burbank - the first baby legally adopted by a corporation - and he is the star of a reality show. He is also the only person who is unaware of it. The show is a big hit, with product placement pouring over checks to the network. The creator of the show, Cristof, seems to think Truman likes his reality. He says Truman could leave any time he wants and could find out the truth if he wanted to.
Things start getting tricky when Truman gets clues he is being watched, that the whole world revolves around him, that everything is fake.
An interesting question to me is: do we like watching the movie "The Truman Show" or do we like watching the reality show "The Truman Show"? Or both?
There a lot of different people who obsessively watch Truman in his reality show: people in a bar, old ladies, a guy in a tub, valets in a parking lot, a Japanese couple. But do we really identify ourselves with them? I am all for the "turn off the Tv, read a book" but does the movie really get the message across, like Idiocracy and Network?
I'd say yes, but not totally. We focus more on Truman and his predicament and less on the people that are addicted to the show. After all, we also want to know what will happen to Truman.
Things start getting tricky when Truman gets clues he is being watched, that the whole world revolves around him, that everything is fake.
An interesting question to me is: do we like watching the movie "The Truman Show" or do we like watching the reality show "The Truman Show"? Or both?
There a lot of different people who obsessively watch Truman in his reality show: people in a bar, old ladies, a guy in a tub, valets in a parking lot, a Japanese couple. But do we really identify ourselves with them? I am all for the "turn off the Tv, read a book" but does the movie really get the message across, like Idiocracy and Network?
I'd say yes, but not totally. We focus more on Truman and his predicament and less on the people that are addicted to the show. After all, we also want to know what will happen to Truman.
If criticism on Tv is secondary*, what do we get from Truman's personal story? Here's the part I prefer not to think about too much.
Some people say that it is an agnostic movie. Truman needs to break free from this entity who watches and controls him all the time. The knowledge that he is being watched is actually despairing and his highest goal should be to achieve independence and freedom.
Not only the names Truman and Cristof support this, but there's also the fact that in the script there was another character involved in the production of the show named Moses (!).
Some people say that it is an agnostic movie. Truman needs to break free from this entity who watches and controls him all the time. The knowledge that he is being watched is actually despairing and his highest goal should be to achieve independence and freedom.
Not only the names Truman and Cristof support this, but there's also the fact that in the script there was another character involved in the production of the show named Moses (!).
Truman's ship has the number 139 in the sail which is a recognized reference to Psalm 139 ("whither shall I go from thy spirit?")
But there's another possible opposite interpretation. Cristof could represent the devil. He created a fake world, mimicking the real world and forcing Truman to believe his make-believe world, which is devoid of truth etc.
But there's another possible opposite interpretation. Cristof could represent the devil. He created a fake world, mimicking the real world and forcing Truman to believe his make-believe world, which is devoid of truth etc.
Now, I can't seem to decide which interpretation fits best but all this really bugs me, because if I had to take a guess I'd say the 1st interpretation is more accurate. And going down this road makes me a bit paranoid in the sense that you always feel movies are trying to sell you something you're against without you knowing it.
I'd love to discover that deep down the 2nd interpretation is the most accurate but still, I think The Truman Show makes a good point when it comes to Tv and our addiction to it, even if that's not the main focus.
What is your interpretation of The Truman Show? Do you like Jim Carey on more dramatic roles?
* There actually exists a medical condition called "The Truman Show Delusion": a person believes his life is a reality show.
I am posting one day in advance of schedule to take part on Broke and Bookish's meme Top 10 Tuesday. Today's theme is bookish people you want to meet. My list consist mostly of dead people, which isn't very realistic, but let's face it when am I ever going to meet John Green?
1) Dostoyevsky
In the dispute Tolstoy versus Dostoyvesky, I say without stuttering (even though I mistyped stuttering five times) Dostoyevksy rules. Dostoyevsky once said that it made him really happy when people wrote him saying they liked The Idiot and that he considered that person his soul mate. I guess he only said that because he didn't meet me (I prefer Brothers Karamazov, by the way).
2) Jane Austen
One of my favorite author of all times. I'd love to co-host a tea party with her.
3) Albert Camus
Let's get real here, Camus was the cat's pajamas.
4) Louis MacNeice
My favorite poet ever and a pretty interesting person too. Besides being a poet he also traveled a lot and wrote radio plays for the BBC. Plus, what a great voice he had.
5) C. S. Lewis
I might be wrong but I have the impression Lewis was a very funny person. I'd probably be very comfortable around him.
6) Oscar Wilde
I can only imagine us in a party, drinking champagne, laughing and making witty remarks about the other guests. In this particular fantasy, I'm capable of making witty remarks.
7) Shakespeare
It seems we know so little about Shakespeare's life. What did he look like? Did he really write all those plays? What kind of fruit did he like? So many pressing questions.
8) Paul Auster
I once read about a young man that hanged around in Brooklyn long enough to bump into Paul Auster. They had a cup of coffee while Auster gave him tips on writing. How I wish that had happened to me.
9) Rainer Maria Rilke
I'd love to be friends with him, not only because he's one of my favorite poets, but because when he did something annoying I would tell him the only sentence I know in German: "You must change your life!" That's probably why he hasn't called.
10) Tolstoy
Ok, I know I sort of dissed Tolstoy in number one, but I just remembered Tolstoy ran away from home when he was 80. How amazing is that? He was also a radical anarchist and I don't really like his books, so I guess he's more of a wild card.
Ok, I know I sort of dissed Tolstoy in number one, but I just remembered Tolstoy ran away from home when he was 80. How amazing is that? He was also a radical anarchist and I don't really like his books, so I guess he's more of a wild card.
Which bookish people would you like to meet?
Untitled by Mark Rothko, 1960
The other day I went
out with Mark Rothko. And by that I mean that I saw his painting in real life
for the first time.
I had already heard a
lot about him before and because of that I was very anxious. Jackson Pollock
told me: “Come on Paula, you like Abstract expressionism, right? So…You’ll love
my boy Mark.”
Simon Schama told me
all about him. How it was difficult growing up as a Jew in Russia. How his real
name is Rothkowitz but he changed it to Rothko because of the rising
anti-semitism. His struggles to paint the Seagram murals and to free color from
form. How tortured he was and how he was inspired by Greek tragedies and
Nietzsche.
It was with great
expectations that I saw the above painting.
I had everything to
like it. Willem de Kooning stood behind us smiling and whispering: “I think
they’ll get along”.
But something wasn’t
right. Do you know that Seinfeld episode where a girl breaks up with Jerry
because she didn’t like his comedy act? It’s what happened between me and Rothko.
It seems that his personality
and who he was (or at least who we think he was) are more interesting than his
art. I stared at the painting asking: “What do you mean?” Rothko stared back angrily asking: “What do you mean?”
I guess it wasn’t meant
to be.
What do you think of Rothko’s
paintings? Have you ever liked an artist’s personality more than his art?
You can watch Simon Schama's documentary on Rothko here and the Seinfeld episode here (This Monday just keeps getting better and better huh?)
UPDATE
I've just read this is I. A. Richard's Practical Criticism and believe it applies perfectly here: "There cannot be much doubt that when we know we are reading Milton or Shelley, a great deal of our approval and admiration is being accorded not to the poetry but to an idol. (...) Far more than we like to admit, we take a hint for our response from the poet's reputation". p. 297
UPDATE
I've just read this is I. A. Richard's Practical Criticism and believe it applies perfectly here: "There cannot be much doubt that when we know we are reading Milton or Shelley, a great deal of our approval and admiration is being accorded not to the poetry but to an idol. (...) Far more than we like to admit, we take a hint for our response from the poet's reputation". p. 297
