326

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

Another quick North American lingo question, please.

Generally speaking, would an East Coast, North American, 'get round to doing something' or 'get around to doing it?' or are the two interchangeable?

Thanks!

I've heard both and something in-between that sounds almost like half an a. If your speaker were an enunciator, it probably would be best to have around. If he were the colonist equivalent of a cockney, I'd go for round. When I hear anyone but an enunciator, I believe they think they are saying around

Memphis

327

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

Isn't it obvious?  "What do you want me for?" or "What do you want with/of me?"


'Anant' means 'on the subject of'.

Yes!

Although what it means in context wasn't totally obvious to me, my translation guess seems spot on.  I guess I have Elizabethan English in my DNA.

My demure mountain paramour, unwilling to have filthy lucre as part of any possible liaison elided "pay to listen" from "What would you (pay to listen) with me?". Of course, since I stretch my phone sex budget at 5 quid to the breaking point, I will now have a wellworn rejoinder that should put a sparkle in a paramour's eyes: "Priceless!"

Memphis

328

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Memphis Trace wrote:
njc wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

If my fuzzy memory serves, those are the words of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar to the 'Ides of March' soothsayer.

Anant =Albion's Seed=, I think you'll enjoy the part about the 19th century bowdlerizing your maps.

I've ordered Albion's Seed and another of  Fischer's books. I hoped to get them for my Kindle but they don't come that way.

I will run right over to Julius Caesar to check out the context of "What would you with me?" to see how close it came to the meaning I ascribed to it in my guess.

Memphis

I found "What would you with me?" in Much Ado about Nothing, Act III, Scene V:

What would you with me, honest neighbour?    
DOGBERRY  Marry, sir, I would have some confidence with you    
    that decerns you nearly.    
LEONATO     Brief, I pray you; for you see it is a busy time with me.
DOGBERRY  Marry, this it is, sir.    
VERGES     Yes, in truth it is, sir.    
LEONATO     What is it, my good friends?     8    
DOGBERRY  Goodman Verges, sir, speaks a little off the    
    matter: an old man, sir, and his wits are not so
    blunt as, God help, I would desire they were; but,    
    in faith, honest as the skin between his brows.


How would you translate it, njc? And what does anant mean?

Memphis

329

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:
njc wrote:

So if I said "What would you with me?" you could answer?

Memphis Trace wrote:

With "What would you with me?" I'll venture a quick guess (in context) that it is a potential paramour—overhearing my praise of another pretty woman's skin-deep beauty—demurely asking how much I would pay to listen to her piss in a tin can over the telephone. Ladies of the mountains rarely mention money in matters of the heart.

If my fuzzy memory serves, those are the words of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar to the 'Ides of March' soothsayer.

Anant =Albion's Seed=, I think you'll enjoy the part about the 19th century bowdlerizing your maps.

I've ordered Albion's Seed and another of  Fischer's books. I hoped to get them for my Kindle but they don't come that way.

I will run right over to Julius Caesar to check out the context of "What would you with me?" to see how close it came to the meaning I ascribed to it in my guess.

Memphis

330

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

For years after the 1960s, long after tin cans went out of use, the highest compliment I could pay a pretty woman was "I'd pay 5 quid to listen to her piss in a tin can over the telephone."

Of course, it was said about the part of Appalachia I came from that we spoke the purest Elizabethan English still being spoken in the world. So there was that.
Memphis Trace

So if I said "What would you with me?" you could answer?

Memphis Trace wrote:

I might if I plied my brumous memory sedulously for a few days. But any Elizabethan English I learnt as a youngster, I've mostly unlearnt—particularly elisions. It is a grand delight when some words or phrases creep in from whatever source, be it remembered or reminded of ones.

With "What would you with me?" I'll venture a quick guess (in context) that it is a potential paramour—overhearing my praise of another pretty woman's skin-deep beauty—demurely asking how much I would pay to listen to her piss in a tin can over the telephone. Ladies of the mountains rarely mention money in matters of the heart.

Have you read =Albion's Seed=, by, I think, David Hackett?  It's a study of the cultures and "Folkways" that came from the British Isles at different times in different migrations.

Memphis Trace wrote:

I have just googled it and am mightily in your debt for mentioning it here. The excerpt I found http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albion/albion2.html is something I need to read. The author David Hackett Fischer apparently had something to do with the University of Virginia when he wrote it. This excerpt has lots of references to the culture exported from England to my birth region, which is the Cumberland Gap region of Virginia. I will go right away to see if I can purchase it from Amazon. I talk about this some, ignorantly for the most part, in a novel I am working on.

Thank you mightily,

Memphis Traced

331

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

TirzahLaughs wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:

My question is about cans/tins. I’m from the UK but writing some lines featuring a North American male, from Boston.

In terms of tinned (or canned) food or drink would he say;

‘A can of Coke.’ or ‘A tin of Coke.’  ‘Tinned food.’ or ‘Canned food.’ ‘can-opener’ or ‘tin-opener’ or would it even matter i.e. are the two expressions completely interchangeable, neither sounding alien to the American ear?

Thanks in advance, Dill.

In the US?  I have never heard any one use the word tin to refer to cans.

Tin cans as a description—accurate description, I might add—of cans sealed to protect the contents was used up until about the time I graduated from high school (1961). 

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_can says it best:
No cans currently in wide use are composed primarily or wholly of tin;[citation needed] that term rather reflects the nearly exclusive use in cans, until the second half of the 20th century, of tinplate steel which combined the physical strength and relatively low price of steel with the corrosion resistance of tin. Depending on the contents and available coatings. Tin-free steel is also used.

After I graduated from high school, I study metallurgical engineering in college. During the 1960s my learned professors made a big thing—in front of everybody in class, no less—of correcting me for calling them tin cans. In my education as a Metallurgical Engineer, I can rightfully say, as Mark Twain so wisely said, "Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned."

However, I am the poster child for what Mark Twain also wisely said—Everything has its limit—iron ore cannot be educated into gold.—about those who don't unlearn their metallurgy fast enough: For years after the 1960s, long after tin cans went out of use, the highest compliment I could pay a pretty woman was "I'd pay 5 quid to listen to her piss in a tin can over the telephone."

Of course, it was said about the part of Appalachia I came from that we spoke the purest Elizabethan English still being spoken in the world. So there was that.

Memphis Trace

332

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

........$35 million theme park called Dogpatch USA near Harrison, Arkansas.

Memphis Trace

Wow! Thanks MT
Dogpatch USA! Truth as ever, being stranger than fiction.

With my character I'm not looking at poking fun at the guy by suggesting him a hillbilly or bumpkin. These are fine fighting men and I've nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude toward them all. 

This character is within a cameo role rather than a main player in the story.

Many of the 82nd Airborne had been stationed and training in England for some time building up to the D-Day invasion. Having had some time to acclimatise and assimilate, by the time of my story, I guess these guys would be somewhat familiar with quirky English and European ways. However later on that year, by the time of the ‘Market Garden Operation’ hundreds of replacement troops were shipped in from the States and entered service in Europe almost directly from their training bases in  Camp Claiborne, Louisiana or Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

I want to promote that ‘fish out of water’ or traveller in a strange land quality. The 1940’s North American backwoodsman is suddenly propelled from the US into Holland, fighting the Germans and alongside the Polish, brewing tea and eating bully-beef with the British Guards Armoured division (i.e. a mixture of English Grenadier and Coldstream Guards, Welsh Guards, Scots Guards and Irish Guards). If I could possibly capture an air of his unfamiliarity and astonishment I’d be very happy.

In my own experience at aged eighteen and two days -- and after only having previously been abroad for very civilized family holidays in France, Spain and Switzerland -- being thrust into the epi-centre of an African civil-war with the UN. One day I was in the snug of an English country pub, eating pie and mash with a pint of Guinness by the fireside. The next, in 105 °F in a country resembling the surface of the moon, loading machete mutilated corpses onto a pyre for cremation. Dinner was a very warm tin of peaches, pieces of goat and water that tasted of diesel fuel and swimming pool.

I must have cut a fine figure; the warrior, petrified out of his lilly-white skin with ill-fitting boots, teenage acne and knock knees.

So at least I have that to draw upon

Here's another hillbilly hero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_York_(film)
An excerpt:
Alvin York (Gary Cooper), a poor young Tennessee hillbilly, is an exceptional marksman, but a ne'er-do-well prone to drinking and fighting, which does not make things any easier for his patient mother (Margaret Wycherly). He changes when he meets Gracie Williams (Joan Leslie), and works night and day to buy a good farm so she'll marry him. When he's cheated out of it at the last minute, he returns to his dissolute ways.
Late that night, he is struck by lightning during a rainstorm. Finding himself outside the meeting house where a revival is going, he goes in and undergoes a religious awakening and vows never to get angry at anyone ever again. He makes amends with the men who cheated him out of the land and tries to with Gracie.
When the U.S. declares war in World War I, York tries to avoid induction into the Army as a conscientious objector because of his religious beliefs, but is drafted nonetheless. His status as a conscientious objector is rejected since his church has no official standing, and he reluctantly reports to Camp Gordon for basic training. His superiors discover that he is a phenomenal marksman and decide to promote him to corporal.
York still wants nothing to do with the Army and killing. Major Buxton (Stanley Ridges), his sympathetic commanding officer, tries to change York's mind, citing sacrifices made by others all throughout the history of the United States. He gives York a leave to go home and think it over. He promises York a recommendation for his exemption as a conscientious objector if York remains unconvinced.
While York is fasting and pondering, the wind blows his Bible open to the verse "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." York reports back for duty and tells his superiors that he can serve his country, despite not having everything figured out to his satisfaction, leaving the matter in God's hands.

Memphis

333

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Linda Lee wrote:

Bostonian's would call that canned beef.

Thanks Linda

Although, I'm thinking now of having my character coming from somewhere less urban/cosmopolitan and more of a rural, remote origin to make the character more insular and less worldly-wise. An American/British half-blood here at work has suggested the Ozarks region of Missouri as a good location of origin for a character who might have a limited international experience and knowledge (especially in the 1940’s).
I’m not sure if I trust her judgement, I think I’ve been to the USA more often than she has.

No offence to anyone intended, but the Ozarks region of Missouri for a stereotypical someone who is less than worldly-wise in 1940? Good choice or wide of the mark?

I think the Ozarks would be a good choice for someone who is less than worldly-wise. Also, Appalachia, where I hail from.

Li'L Abner by Al Capp may give you some grist for you mill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%27l_Abner

Dogpatch[edit]
Exceeding every burlesque stereotype of Appalachia, the impoverished backwater of Dogpatch consisted mostly of hopelessly ramshackle log cabins, "tarnip" fields, pine trees and "hawg" wallows. Most Dogpatchers were shiftless and ignorant, the remainder were scoundrels and thieves. The menfolk were too lazy to work, yet Dogpatch gals were desperate enough to chase them (see Sadie Hawkins Day). Those who farmed their turnip fields watched "Turnip termites" swarm by the billions every year, locust-like, to devour Dogpatch's only crop, (along with their homes, their livestock and all their clothing.) The local geography was fluid and vividly complex; Capp continually changed it to suit either his whims or the current storyline. Natural landmarks included (at various times) Teeterin' Rock, Onneccessary Mountain, Bottomless Canyon, and Kissin' Rock, (handy to Suicide Cliff). Local attractions that reappeared in the strip included the West Po'k Chop Railroad, the "Skonk Works"—a dilapidated factory located on the remote outskirts of Dogpatch, and the General Jubilation T. Cornpone memorial statue.

In the midst of the Great Depression, the hardscrabble residents of lowly Dogpatch allowed suffering Americans to laugh at yokels even worse off than themselves.[24] In Al Capp's own words, Dogpatch was "an average stone-age community nestled in a bleak valley, between two cheap and uninteresting hills somewhere." Early in the continuity Capp a few times referred to Dogpatch being in Kentucky, but he was careful afterwards to keep its location generic, probably to avoid cancellations from offended subscribing Kentucky newspapers. From then on, he referred to it as Dogpatch, USA and did not give any specific location as to excatly where it was supposed to be located. Humorously enough, many states tried to claim ownership to the little town (Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, etc), yet Capp would not budge. He left it at Dogpatch USA so there would be no headaches and problems. Like the Coconino County depicted in George Herriman's Krazy Kat and the Okefenokee Swamp of Walt Kelly's Pogo, Dogpatch's distinctive cartoon landscape became as identified with the strip as any of its characters. Later, Capp licensed and was part-owner of an 800-acre (3.2 km2) $35 million theme park called Dogpatch USA near Harrison, Arkansas.

Memphis Trace

njc wrote:

The link points to an article explaining, among other things, why a particular story is an extraordinary work of literature.  The story is definitely a commercial success and, on the analysis of the article's author, it is a masterwork of story construction as well as a recognized masterpiece in its genre.  It is -not- a formula novel.

Because it's still under copyright, quotations and such will have to be kept within the 'for study' Fair Use carveout--not difficult.

What opens up for me is a chat room called TVTropes.

These are the first words in the discussion going on:
Ok, a look at known factions in the various conspiracies, and various issues involved.
There's the Knights of Jove: old farts who drink brandy, dream of the old days, track the line of descent from the first Storm King, and some of whom almost certainly did not want to be swallowed up by Mongfish ambitions and fealty to Lucrezia. They may be interested in Other-tech, but it's likely to be in an Arms Race sort of sense, or a purely defensive sort of need-to-know. You can't fight what you don't remotely understand. Possible, and indeed likely allies of Anevka and Tarvek, neither of whom were loyal to Lucrezia (unlike Aaronev) and both of whom were trying to get control over Other-tech while suppressing the Other-loyal Gheisters.

Am I in the right place?

Memphis Trace

njc wrote:

If you want to study extant, published works (under copyright) I pass along  this recommendation.

I'm not sure exactly what I am meant to learn about  >>>interactive discussion threads and workshop activities, mainly the evaluation, critique and in-depth analysis of commercial literature<<< from the hyperlink you cited. Are there some issues about copyright violations?

Memphis Trace

336

(8 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

vern wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:
SolN wrote:

Many of you have already seen the notice about the short story competition. Go ahead and get your stories in! One item that I want to mention for those who haven't participated in a site contest before is that you can update your story up until the deadline. Use the feedback you are receiving to make your entry(ies) even better.

Good luck!

http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/contest … etition-13

I tried to enter one of the stories I've had posted for a couple of years. It was transferred over from the old site.

Is this possible without using points to do it.

Memphis

This from the contest guidelines:
Posting Date: Postings that are eligible for this contest must be published on site after September 23, 2015

According to this, you would need to republish. Take care. Vern

Thanks, vern.

Memphis

337

(8 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

SolN wrote:

Many of you have already seen the notice about the short story competition. Go ahead and get your stories in! One item that I want to mention for those who haven't participated in a site contest before is that you can update your story up until the deadline. Use the feedback you are receiving to make your entry(ies) even better.

Good luck!

http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/contest … etition-13

I tried to enter one of the stories I've had posted for a couple of years. It was transferred over from the old site.

Is this possible without using points to do it.

Memphis

338

(12 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Paul Negri, TNBW stalwart aka skeptikoi, after a few years of near misses, has won the competition in the novella category of the William Faulkner-William Wisdom Competition for his story The Virginal Grip. Paul's success mirrors his always encouraging efforts as a great critic here on TNBW. Great to see him astride his favorite writing category of shorter fiction.

Besides the win in the novella category, he placed 2nd in the Short Story competition for his story "My Best Shot".

From the announcement http://wordsandmusic.org/2015-finalists/

Winners announced on William Faulkner’s Birthday, September 25th will be presented formally at Faulkner for All, the Society’s gala black tie annual meeting on October 31st.

I have to believe Halloween in New Orleans is special in itself, but I want to see Paul strutting his hour on the stage in a black tie.

Memphis Trace

339

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

I've not heard the Lincoln/Fredrick Douglas story. For the most part I am dubious of historical works. I believe fiction is the place where the great truths of men's advancement (or decline) are told. I like to read about our shuffle to the grave through the eyes of thinkers unfettered by the constraints of dubious agendas, lost records, or secret conversations. I like well-thought out fiction that rips at the fabric of history as written by historians.

It is perhaps, also, where one might find the great truths of women's advancement. smile

Memphis Trace wrote:

I thought when I wrote men's I should have written man's—as the graceful collective for humans, and meant to change it but forgot. I have resisted in my writing and conversation life the sensitivity of writing his/her and other affected gender collectives when meaning the collective human race we belong to. I know it to be prideful writing not pride of gender I'm beset with. All that said, man's was the proper word I meant to use to convey my thoughts, afflicted as they may be by narcissism.

Do you mean you prefer historical fiction because it turns history into art? Into an exploration of the "who are we and why are we here" question -- into moments like Hamlet's soliloquy?

Memphis Trace wrote:

To the extent I know what I mean, I believe history, compared to fiction, to be the artful dodge, and it is up to the great writers of fiction to parse these artful dodges into an account that captures the kernel of truth in man's slow accumulation of IQ. I guess I believe the great storytellers have no agenda for slanting history—or herstory, if you will—and by processing the raw data will arrive at a truer account than the great historian.

As someone who likes to reduce the chaos of existence to as few words as possible, I am currently holding that We—collectively and individually—are what we choose to remember.

I think my favorite sort of history is primary source material. Perhaps because I get to think up my own agenda? I just love the hunt -- the discovery as I read old papers and put together my own little incomplete patchwork idea of things. Probably my next favorite is biographies and memoirs (certainly biased as well.) Then classics (a sort of primary source material for me. Example: Clarissa by Samuel Richardson. You want crazy history? Read that!)

Memphis Trace wrote:

Yours is certainly the scholarly way to discover man's history, and should serve you well as a thinker and a fictioneer with an agenda to write the greater truths. It has not been the shining path I've taken. I've learnt my history more by gossip and unlearning what I've been told. If you are a contrarian, your path, corra, is along the high, hard road.

A fictional character I created best expresses what I believe: What you remember is what you are. An unvarnished memory is worth more to me than a hundred well thought out truths.

I think part of the fun of history is exploring why the agenda is present in a document in the first place. For example, what someone insists is true is often in reaction to the reality of a moment, which didn't make it into any documents but can be inferred.

Memphis Trace wrote:

With your thought—which didn't make it into any documents but can be inferred—you've more eloquently stated why I believe it is up to fictioneers to write the real truth of man's advancement.

Most of my adult life has been in the suburbs of history, reacting to untruths. I've fancied myself as someone who sees into the agendas of the historians inside the gates by virtue of being exposed to the reactions of the citizens outside the gates.

I was going through court reports, letters, some journal entries, and pamphlets from Early Modern Britain several months ago. There were so many books on manners printed which outlined the rules for women: "Be good wives, be good mothers, pray this many times, do not wear this sort of skirt, do not speak in church." An historian could read those pamphlets and assume that women must have been very pious and quiet in the early modern era. Or one could conclude that there must have been a lot of women who weren't being pious and good to require all those advice manuals on how to be pious and good.

Memphis Trace wrote:

It took a courageous woman, Emmeline Pankhurst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Pankhurst to finally set Britain on a proper course. Not to mention to kick start America's proper course with her powerful and pivotal Freedom or Death speech delivered in Hartford, Connecticut in 1913 to American suffragettes. I learned in research for a story I've been futzing with that Katharine Hepburn's mother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine … on_Hepburn was the American women's leader who invited Pankhurst to Hartford.

(I) think a great part of the fun is contemplating the very agenda that is present in any sort of literary work, be it creative or history. I like to contemplate the force of those agendas. People who write historical fiction are reflecting upon their own creative and subjective interpretation of the subjective analysis of limited source material. There really is no way to get a clear look at history without being there. (I think.)

Memphis Trace wrote:

¿Being there? ¿As the best way to get a clear look at history?

Gonna have to disagree with you there, Corra, and try to bolster your dubiety. The History Machine—while I've been here—has churned out brumous propaganda meant to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Being there has served more to confuse than to teach me. Or as Mark Twain said, "Education consists mainly of what I have unlearned." I liked Jerzy Kozinski's look at Being There http://www.amazon.com/Being-There-Jerzy … 0802136346

I read a potentially good historical fiction once, about the captivation of Mary Rowlandson by Native Americans. The author tried to reimagine her original captivation narrative (from the 1600s) by giving her more obvious intellectual autonomy. She let us into the fictional Mary's mind. The original narrative (which I read right after the novel) is a Puritan story which was written after she was returned to New England from captivity. The narrative's audience was clearly the Puritan community, who were facing a lot of violence due to King Philip's War. The narrative strongly suggests that following God saved Mary, and that the Native Americans are evil. The clear agenda was to keep everyone strong in faith and united against the opposition.

The author of the historical fiction I read reimagined Rowlandson's captivity narrative as being propaganda published by one of the men in the community. Mary Rowlandson (in the novel) is coerced into writing it according to his rules. She doesn't love her husband in the novel, and while she's in captivity she falls in love with a Native American. During captivity, instead of praying and looking to God, she prays and thinks about female oppression and compares the more liberal Native American lifestyle for women against the Puritan lifestyle. (This while working as a slave.)

I tell you what, Memphis. I didn't know what to think. I enjoyed the read just at the story level, and I didn't mind the suggestion that Rowlandson may have been transformed by her experience, and that naturally that fact didn't make it into the history. But then, without any documentation that she was coerced by Puritan leaders to write, I wondered about the erasure of her actual story? If what she actually wanted to write was the captivity story as it stands, what are we doing three hundred years later rewriting her tale into something that makes more sense to us? We need the women of the Puritan era to have a concept of freedom that matches our own? Challenging the agenda of Rowlandson's tale either illuminates female history in America (which I like) or pretties it up for our own era, thereby diluting history (which I don't like). I've read a lot of female perspectives from the era, and they weren't (as far as I can tell) questioning things heavily. Some were certainly -- but others viewed the male-dominated structure as shielding and exactly right.

All of which I bring up only to suggest that there are shades of agenda in historical fiction, as well. This author (perhaps fairly) wanted to consider a historical woman from an alternate viewpoint -- to tell what may have happened and never made it into documented history. I appreciate that, and I question that, simultaneously.

Memphis Trace wrote:

And I think you are as right to question the truth of fiction as to question the truth of history. Looking at what you've told me, I would say that the author of the tale superimposed upon Rowlandson an uncommon prescience that tells a greater truth than what the Puritan propagandists demanded of their returning captives. Was it the Puritans who burned witches? Which reminds me to recommend The Last Witchfinder http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/books … .html?_r=0 by James Morrow. The way I read your synopsis of the tale, Rowlandson blanched at telling a greater truth, opting to tell what the propagandists chose her to remember and the author was free to set the record straight in a reimagining.

I like well-thought out fiction that rips at the fabric of history as written by historians.

So do I! I also like well-thought out history that rips at the fabric of history as written by other historians. smile Ultimately the best thing to do is get in there and research it yourself, I think. Read a few different interpretations. The truth is somewhere in the middle of everything that has been written. Which may be precisely what you mean. I believe the very best historical fiction can fill in some of the interpretation without sacrificing what is documented fact. (For example, well-known dates.)

Memphis Trace wrote:

You are probably surer of what I mean than I am, Corra. I am choosing to label what I choose to remember as the truth of my shuffle to the grave. I sort of look at the advancement of our mores and culture to be the truth that should have been the history codified in print, but wasn't. Mine is a backward look at man's advancement, an advancement hindered by and a history put into print by those in power, but reimagined from the mountain of man's accumulated moral structure and more eloquent language. I guess I'm saying what we truly know has been built brick by brick, word by word, thought by thought from living an examined life.

A slow crawl—¿Maybe because of man's imagination limitations?—this thing we call history: man condemned to repeat what he is unwilling to unlearn.

Memphis

cobber wrote:

Seems to me that the community is fine. People came and went from the old site all of the time also. I think issues with the forums are vastly overblown. If you want to post something, there are plenty of places to do it. Some people are getting tied up in the changes to the site when the functionality is the same, or even better. On the old site, you needed to go to a totally separate tab to view the forum, here it is on the homepage. Now if I want to send someone a private message, I can. If I want to communiate with a broader group, I can.

I realize some people define community as having every communication and conversation out in the open where all can see. I think this was more a limitation of the old site than a benefit. The site has matured. Not everyone likes it. Oh well, when did everyone like a change?

My guess is that a big majority of those members labeled Founders who were also active in the forums on the old TNBW are the ones who miss the old forum page. I will liken the old forum page to a marketplace with stalls labeled according to the ongoing discussions.

One could at a glance see something they might want to read or comment on.

With the new system, I feel like I'm walking into a marketplace of ideas that are all being discussed behind closed doors. Practically the only time I will read a conversation is if I see a familiar name from the old gang. I wonder how many of the old gang is even a member of the new TNBW.

And how do I get a glimpse of a new member without seeing examples of their critical thinking in the forums?

I've belonged to another site like TNBW for almost 2 years now while the new TNBW was getting up to speed. I feel that site is a much more vibrant community, reminiscent of the old TNBW. I have maintained my membership in both sites because I have ongoing conversations with several folks on the other site: and hope very much to renew old acquaintances and start new conversations on the new TNBW. I will likely renew my subscription for another year because I hope the new TNBW will once again become an open marketplace for literary and life discussions.

Memphis Trace

341

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:

I really appreciate your insight on these novels, Memphis. I wasn't around for the Civil Rights movement, so I don't have that memory to wear along with the read. I have read about the movement, but I've never experienced it. I can't imagine experiencing it. My mother has told me a bit about what it was like, and I've taken that information with me into my reading of To Kill a Mockingbird, knowing that it impacted that part of our history.

I love your suggestion that Atticus is even more heroic now. I completely agree with you! Though I hadn't worked that out until you mentioned it.

Memphis Trace wrote:

As the bits of information dribble out about how Go Set a Watchman and To Kill a Mockingbird were part of the whole story Lee meant to tell, I am fascinated by the editing that went on and the decisions made to elide Atticus's sub rosa role as a leader of the resistance to integrating blacks into the community.

Whoever decided that telling the story from the memories of a 6-9 year-old's in the POV of an adult must have realized they were putting before interested readers a false picture of Atticus. I can only believe it was Lee who, by relenting to that must have decided Atticus would never be exposed as a closet leader of the town's racists.

While Atticus's exposure in Go Set a Watchman as a sub rosa racist in To Kill a Mockingbird makes him an even bigger hero for me as a father, it casts a bright light on Harper Lee the writer. Some could say Lee chose to tell a lie (or at least not the whole truth) in To Kill a Mockingbird. I support this kind of editing, because I believe Lee's motives were pure to start with—those motives being to show the difficulties white southerners faced with the changing times. The southerners who supported integration in the south badly needed an unambiguous hero like Atticus to spark changes.

The only regret I have with the denouement in Go Set a Watchman was that there wasn't a deeper look at what Atticus went through with the Citizen's Council during the trial. To give Atticus his full due in To Kill a Mockingbird, I am left to imagine how he dealt with his role as a segregationist while posing as a saint for his children. As a father during that time, a father with some southern sensibilities, but one who was more aligned with the sensibilities Atticus imbued in Jean Louise, I have some sense of how difficult was Atticus's pose in To Kill a Mockingbird.

I wish there had been more time—or Lee had started earlier—to sort out the redemption of Atticus in Go Set a Watchman. In some ways, it felt like the editor (or Lee) was trying to redeem Lee the author for not telling the whole truth about Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. An uneeded redemption in the big picture to my way of thinking.

Atticus's reasons why he never told the grownup Scout of his secret life, seemed too contrived. I am going to have to read that whole denouement after digesting my thoughts about it, to see if there wasn't more to Atticus's coming out of the closet than just that he wanted it to spur Jean Louise to stand up and be counted, to show her stuff, to do something big Atticus could be proud of.

Didn't Abraham Lincoln want to ship off the enslaved Americans to Liberia? And wasn't the change in his opinion due to a good long conversation with Frederick Douglass in the White House? I think I read that somewhere. In a lot of ways, Atticus reminds me of Abraham Lincoln. I could see Lincoln fighting for a cause based on justice and law -- even if personally he didn't quite believe it. The fact that Douglass met and impacted Lincoln's life makes me feel hopeful about Atticus.

Memphis Trace wrote:

I've not heard the Lincoln/Fredrick Douglas story. For the most part I am dubious of historical works. I believe fiction is the place where the great truths of men's advancement (or decline) are told. I like to read about our shuffle to the grave through the eyes of thinkers unfettered by the constraints of dubious agendas, lost records, or secret conversations. I like well-thought out fiction that rips at the fabric of history as written by historians.

I reckon my latest mantra is We become what we choose to remember.

I've just been studying the politics behind the Harlem Renaissance. There is so much complication under the surface of history. I strongly appreciate that we see that complication in Atticus now.

Memphis Trace wrote:

I'm glad Atticus has been restored to me as a three-dimensional character as well as being kept a hero. I'm glad Lee kept her wits about her long enough to publish the greater truth of To Kill a Mockingbird.

I do indeed love To Kill a Mockingbird. It's one of my favorite novels. I think when I read it next, the read will be even richer because of Watchman.

Memphis Trace wrote:

It's almost like getting a transcript of a longheld family secret for me.

Cheers, Memphis! :)

Cheers for you,

Memphis

kiwi wrote:

Well I would love to see a Water Cooler on site. They do say a litre a day.   I agree that the forums were worthwhile on the old TNBW.  But not the shitty stuff, although that could have a fight club of its own just to relieve everyone else of the tedium of ignorance and obfuscation.  So - 2 new forum threads - Water Cooler and Fight Club....

Yeah?

After a few years of shutting down threads because they became too heated, and an occasional banishment of a rowdy member from the site, the membership prevailed upon TNBW administrators to give us a forum closed to public view for politics and religion and any other topics that tended to provoke mudslinging and bruised feelings.

Within a few months (weeks?) that forum in which anything went, petered out. I think it would be a great idea to have a group on this site in which we could get as exercised as we were able without danger of being banned from the site. All nasty arguments could be shipped into that group.

My prediction: That group would become seldom visited in short order. ¿Maybe 6 months?

Like illicit sex, politics and religion arguments would peter out if approved by the church elders.

Memphis Trace

343

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

Whatever her motives, the story of a young southern woman's life Lee has told with these novels combined rivals the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for my trophy as The Great American Novel.

Memphis Trace

That is saying something. He is a favorite, yes?

I can't say that I disagree with your suggestion that Watchman was written after Mockingbird. I did notice passages in Watchman that are repeated in Mockingbird but more strategically? I don't have a copy with me, so I can't point out specifics. But I recall (for example) that some of the opening history of Maycomb appears a few chapters into Watchman and is repeated early in Mockingbird with what felt to me as a little more precision and focus. This suggests to me that Watchman (may) be an early draft?

However, I wouldn't put your suggestion past Lee.

You've reminded me I wrote about this book back in July, right after I read it. I'm not sure how I forgot I did that. I feel like it's been a year since I read Watchman, not two months! I would have simply cut and pasted this for Vern if I'd recalled I'd written it. Anyway, I seem to gesture at the same strange sense you mention: that it reads like a sequel.

Here for the ages :) are my thoughts fresh off the read, probably with the tears still drying on my eyelashes.

July 2015 -

corra wrote:

I always imagined Jem & Scout would grow up to be lawyers. Probably because of the epigraph which begins To Kill a Mockingbird. I thought that Atticus would raise them to shoot straight up, like steel arrows. It turns out he did.

I tried to explain this book to a friend this morning, & I wasn't sure exactly how. I said, "It was... it was incredibly, incredibly upsetting. And yet somehow very beautiful."

Because I don't know how to exactly explain why I loved it so much, I'll begin at the beginning:

Scout is home on vacation for a few days. No one really calls her Scout anymore, except her father. He needs her to drive him places. The house is gone. Now it's an ice cream shop. A guy she grew up with wants to marry her.

This novel is not To Kill a Mockingbird. It is different. For one, many beloved characters are missing. There is no mention of Boo, & the adventures of Jem, Dill, and Scout on the front lawn of Atticus's house seem to have blown away, like so many childhood memories. Aunt Alexandra exists as a stern presence, scolding Scout for this or that unladylike infraction, but the mother figure in the Pulitzer-winning novel (Calpurnia) is altered, distant, unreachable. Scout is restless and cynical in Go Set a Watchman (not all that altered from childhood Scout). She still curses too much, shouts rather than listening, and relishes her unladylike pants. She still sits at parties & is appalled that this -- this endless chatter about babies & Maude's hat & the weather and husbands -- might be her destiny.

Fortunately, Maycomb brings back memories of the joyful childhood days which seem to be missing in Go Set a Watchman. Amid a marriage proposal and a scandalous dip in the water at Finch's Landing, Scout recalls her early days in Maycomb. Passages follow which are rich with nostalgia. Many reveal the seeds of To Kill a Mockingbird, which would be born out of Go Set a Watchman. Scout briefly recalls the famous trial in To Kill a Mockingbird, and her father's role in it. (Some editor clearly underlined this brief passage with five thousand red lines in the draft and said WRITE THIS!)

Other scenes go well beyond the few years which make up the frame of To Kill a Mockingbird, and these were especially fun to read because we see Scout, Dill, Jem, Atticus and Calpurnia beyond the walls of To Kill a Mockingbird. These scenes don't weave together neatly, the way they do in To Kill a Mockingbird. They're not directed toward a central theme: they are merely enjoyable memories. So they were fun to read, but perhaps would not have been as fun to read, if I didn't already love Scout & her friends.

There are long passages where Scout's an adult too. That's the larger story. Those passages were less rich for me, at first. They lack the detail and charm of the flashbacks, though they do have a thematic direction.

I think what made the novel really work for me in the early part was my familiarity with To Kill a Mockingbird: I craved Dill, Jem, Scout, Atticus, lemonade on the porch, Calpurnia, summers in the front yard, innocence. I craved more Atticus wisdom. Anything Atticus. I laughed out loud during one of the flashbacks, when Dill, Jem and Scout are playing revival and get caught by Atticus and the reverend. Oh, Scout! And Dill, bickering to be the one baptized! Those are the Finch adventures I remember. I loved reading those parts, thematic weave or not!

Then, about three-fourths in, we come to the shattering. Friends, I read with my jaw dropped. Horrible, cutting conversation which felt all too real. I think I've never read anything more disturbing than the chapters which begin about three-fourths in, in Go Set a Watchman. It was upsetting and excruciatingly affecting, because these are characters I love. I actually felt everything Scout feels, I think. It was in the final fifteen pages that the tears began for me, as they always do in the final pages of To Kill a Mockingbird.

As a writer, I find it interesting to contemplate the changes made from this manuscript to the final (To Kill a Mockingbird.) I find the final product subtler, more artistic, and more joyful. This one is blunt, & in places reads like a battering ram disguised as a novel. I do not object to the battering ram.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

It's interesting that in the revision of this novel (To Kill a Mockingbird) the hero is a man. What I notice, looking back on To Kill a Mockingbird, though, is that even in that novel, it was Scout, not her father, who reached for Boo Radley's hand.

This book changes & enriches To Kill a Mockingbird, because it suggests that one can be prejudiced for or against a person, without really knowing that person. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout misjudges the quiet Boo Radley. In Go Set a Watchman, we realize she has misjudged Atticus, too. In both books, the strong, strong message is: do not let your identity be so fully fixated on someone else's that you fail to see for yourself.

Chaos overtakes the novel, after the beautiful flashbacks. It goes dark, there is shouting, there is horrific truth unveiled. Aunt Alexandra's chatter about ladylike behavior, Jem's "I'm a gentleman, like Atticus." These bits start to fray, in the last three-fourths of the novel. What is a gentleman? What is a lady? Both shrink to nothing in the final scene with Calpurnia. But to be -- to be one's own watchman within all of the shouting? That was the magic of Atticus Finch. Whoever he was inside, whoever he was beneath his actions, he created an impression which has been with us for fifty years, which sowed a seed in this reader. Such an enormous seed I couldn't believe what I was reading yesterday, when that solid seed soured.

Disenchantment. Incredible frustration. How can you possibly actually be saying this? What should I believe in such a world? The chaos rising around me. The unimaginable actions of people, both beautiful & horrifically heinous. That's what Go Set a Watchman is about, through the point of view of a girl who still cannot believe what she is seeing, still must make some sense of utter innocence being shattered by the world around her -- only this time, she has nothing to cling to but herself. This time, the hero is not a silent, hard-working man with a set jaw & a pair of glasses. The hero is an awkward girl with a cigarette and a cowlick, who still curses, who doesn't know what she wants to do with her life, who loved a man in a pair of glasses with a quiet way & a newspaper, and who grew up believing that right is right, and wrong is wrong, and you stand up -- and you say it. No matter what.

When Scout screams at Atticus, "You sowed the seeds in me, Atticus!"-- I wanted to stand up and applaud, because I think that's the point in this novel. We are influenced in our childhood, for better or worse. Influenced by our heritage and culture, influenced by how others react to us, and finally (hopefully) influenced by the watchman within us. Atticus planted a watchman in Scout that even he couldn't unseat.

I find the release of this book incredibly timely. I mean, Lee gave us fifty years with the man. Fifty years to say, "Well, at least there's Atticus, though." She gave us hope. Fifty years to Scout's twenty. I feel like shaking him and screaming, "But you planted the seed in me, Atticus!"

I almost feel like, by publishing this book now, Lee is saying to all of us, "Go set a watchman. There is no Atticus, unless you make him out of yourselves. DO it." Because in a way, we are all the children of Atticus Finch, now. We are all the children of an America that we were told was good & honorable.

There is no way to end this review. I'm still reeling.

corra,

Your review is grounded much more carefully than mine that follows. It feels like you examined Go Set a Watchman almost sentence-by-sentence and side-by-side with your abiding memory—and love for To Kill a Mockingbird. I looked at Go Set a Watchman after becoming a bit disenchanted with To Kill a Mockingbird nearly 5 years ago.

Yes, the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a favorite. It became my favorite book in the early 80s. It started me reading everything Twain wrote. It was the first time I'd read it. Since then, it and Twain, have always bobbed to the surface when I'm asked what my favorite book(s) and author(s) are. Civil rights has been at the top of my agenda of things that need fixing for all of my adult life, so I look at books like he Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Go Set a Watchman with a jaundiced eye.

For a lot of years after I read To Kill a Mockingbird at about age 27, I listed it as my favorite novel. When I read it again at age 67, after living for 45 years in Washington, DC, through the most turbulent civil rights years, I found Atticus to be two-dimensional, and pretty much an unbelievable character.

He was unbelievable for me because of all I witnessed, knew secondhand, and read about how civil rights champions were treated during the time in which To Kill a Mockingbird was set, I believe Atticus would have been killed, or at least been otherwise dissuaded from his brave stand.

After reading Go Set a Watchman, I now understand how Atticus survived To Kill a Mockingbird. Basically, I am imagining he was attending the “White Citizens” meetings all the while he was being heroic to Scout and Jem. After reading Go Set a Watchman and imagining how Atticus might have faced down his “Citizens” cohorts at their meetings, To Kill a Mockingbird regained the believability that made it resonate so much for me as an innocent.

Go Set a Watchman killed my starry-eyed hero worship for Atticus the civil rights champion, and at the same time reminded me of how humans face the dilemmas of major cultural shifts, AND it made a bigger hero of Atticus. To me, a man going against his culturally embedded principles to stand on the moral high ground as an example for his children is about the biggest hero possible; if a man is too hidebound in his ways, at least he can see the good in not passing it on to his children.

To summarize my feelings about the effect of Go Set a Watchman: It makes Atticus a believable Alabama lawyer of the era, and makes what he did in To Kill a Mockingbird, vis-a-vis Scout and Jem, much more heroic.

Giving Atticus feet of clay makes a 3-dimensional character of him. In the hands of a good screenwriter, I think a movie that combines what we now know about Scout and Atticus with what we saw on the surface of Scout and Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird will be a an enduring triumph. Go Set a Watchman tells me the true story of what To Kill a Mockingbird showed.

In the end, I guess I have come to feel the country wasn’t ready for a complicated hero—like Atticus has become for me—when To Kill a Mockingbird was published in 1960 and made into a movie in 1962. From what I understand, To Kill a Mockingbird caused a lot of young people to take up the banner for civil rights.

If the content of Go Set a Watchman had been published first, or before the movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_a … ird_(film) To Kill a Mockingbird, I think it would have delayed passage of the Civil Rights Act by at least 20 years.

Two years after the movie, To Kill a Mockingbird, CORE’s Summer of Freedom peopled by many white activists going shoulder to shoulder with blacks was sparked. I believe To Kill a Mockingbird inspired and emboldened many Freedom Riders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders, some of whom, like Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississip … 27_murders were martyrs. Their murders contributed to Congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, federal legislation to enforce social justice and constitutional rights.

Memphis

344

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

From what I can glean, the original manuscript(s) Lee submitted of Go Set a Watchman and To Kill a Mockingbird was about a young woman disenchanted when she found out her father was just a run of the mill racist after believing as a child that he was an unambiguous saint.

Having just read Go Set a Watchman five or so years after reading To Kill a Mockingbird a second time as an old man—after reading it 40 years prior as a young man—it reads like a sequel rather than the sections of a work elided from a larger work containing both a young, idol worshiping daughter and a grownup daughter realizing her father had feet of clay. I would have to see the original manuscript with the To Kill a Mockingbird lines elided to believe Go Set a Watchman was part of one ms.

Once To Kill a Mockingbird made such a cardboard cutout, two-dimensional saint of Atticus—and a wealthy woman of Lee—I think she wisely decided it was in her best interests as an aspiring writer not to tell the whole story she set out to tell. And I fully understand why she would want to protect the sainthood she established for Atticus: it embodied her own ethic for race relations.

The little I know about Lee, she was was an enlightened daughter of the south, a woman who resisted allowing the prejudices swarming about her to make her into the unrepentant bigot her fictional hero Atticus was.

Without a shred of evidence, I believe Lee contrived the denouement of Go Set a Watchman many years after she had won the hearts and minds of non-Southern America with her heroic Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. This to make some sense of how her innocent Scout was able to have her values despite having a father she worshiped with an opposite set of values.

Her denouement in Go Set a Watchman completes the arc of the story of a grownup woman who maintained the goodness she showed as an innocent Scout. In essence, Go Set a Watchman is the telling part, the analyzed part, of the whole story of Jean Louise Finch. To fully admire Lee, I will choose to believe that she courageously, in full command of her wits, chose to finally tell the truer story she set out to tell when she was an aspiring, young writer trying to write the great American novel.

Whatever her motives, the story of a young southern woman's life Lee has told with these novels combined rivals the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for my trophy as The Great American Novel.

Memphis Trace

Linda Lee wrote:

This is the correct link :

http://old.thenextbigwriter.com/index.html

You can access the forums from there easily.

Thanks for this, Linda.

I don't know how that s crept into the address I had.

Memphis

A.T.Schlesinger wrote:

As topic.  Do the old forums still exist in any form? I had some great stuff there.

This link https://old.thenextbigwriter.com/forum/index.php used to get you there.

Memphis Trace

347

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
Elisheva Free wrote:

Sorry. :) I'm a very literal person.

-Elisheva

s'alright -Elisheva, you’re okay. Mighty fine.

I was being a complete arse. It used to be my permanent role upon the previous iteration of this site.

I haven’t been around in a long while and was just looking for a pulse; waving the red rag. I knew that I’d invoke a few pilgrims and an innocent or two, but I was fishing; seeing if I couldn’t raise one of my old hard-bitten tNBW lady friends to smack me down verbally.

I suppose they’ve all passed away by now. For they were all very old with shrivelled hearts and other peoples hair and teeth; and yet I loved them dearly.

'Vern the Wise', site transition survivor; he’s heard it all and seen it all before. Several times.

'Twouldn't be the same without your wit and wisdom, Dill. 'Twas like the good old days yesterday.

Memphis

348

(2 replies, posted in Writers Afar)

Linda and Tom,

I hope the other members who asked to be a part of the group at the outset back in March will take your prompt to push the boat out of dry dock.

Early on we seemed to be pushing with some vigor to establish the rules of engagement. We seemed to be talking about our druthers with the idea that we would launch our maiden voyage when the charter group filled with rules of engagement in place. Several members, interested in being part of the group, were committed at that time to finishing up busy times in their lives.

At this time, it may be worthwhile to put out another call to fill the group and finalize our rules of engagement. Since the idea for such a group was mine, I am loath to recruit from among my TNBW acquaintances, or be more than a contributor to our rules of engagement. I do not like the idea of having a leader of the group.

While I've kept the dream of being a part of such a group online on life support, I joined another group on a different workshop site that I thought was going to do the same thing. I thought wrong, and it has become little more than an insular community of folks who take turns reviewing each other and with the original perpetrator now at large somewhere in Europe. There is no reviewing the reviewers, or any mandate that the reviewee respond to the reviews and the reviews of the reviews.

If you two are still interested in being part of a group in which there is a review of reviews and a required response from the reviewee, I will join with you to see if the interest remains with the original bunch who asked to join, and to rattle cages in other TNBW forums.

Here is a link to the Writers Afar forums in which folks started to sort out and suggest rules of engagement: http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/group-writers-afar-61

I am a few days away from going to Chautauqua for 3 weeks, much of which I hope to use to clear my buffers and to set my thoughts loose for free-range grazing. If nothing goes agley from best laid plans, I hope to spend some of that time looking at the lake with a poet http://thebackwaterspress.com/our-authors/greg-kuzma/ and hearing about his lifetime of wrestling with the language.

It may be a good time for me to help ground Writers Afar for a good run. 

Memphis

349

(28 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Be well.

Memphis

350

(37 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Check out these stories with prologues.
All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr
Empire Falls by Richard Russo
Shining City by Seth Greenland
The Bones by Seth Greenland
Two Pulitzer Prize winners and two other fine stories that would have suffered mightily without prologues.

Memphis Trace