LITR 3731: Creative Writing
Student Journal / Portfolio Sample Submission 2003
Liz Little
12-5-03
Journal Portfolio
The following journal portfolio documents the pieces of work that I produced during the semester of creative writing. Within this journal, I discuss the interaction that took place between me, the class and the professor. I also explain the revision process that transpired as a result of the feedback I received. I feel that my writing skills evolved considerably during this time period. The influences that shaped my writing first came from the direction of the class text: Three Genres by Stephen Minot. With the help of the text, I began to develop my writing assignments before I presented them for comment. As for the class workshops and email exchanges, these brought a new awareness of a reader’s point of view.
My writing in poetry, fiction and drama became clearer and more concise as I worked through this revision process. My poetry assignment had begun with a theme that conveyed more than one meaning. My imagery was not connected and held no central image or controlling image. As I began to revise my poem for an audience, I tried to organize my imagery so that it conveyed one theme, and so that it seemed to be connected by a common concrete image rather than loosely related to an abstract idea. Through the sharing process, I learned that readers had no idea what I was trying to convey unless I made organized connections throughout the work and presented a clear theme. The revisions that I made could only have come about through interaction with readers.
For my fiction assignment, I found difficulty in coming up with the story itself. I composed a short story with much of the setting and theme in mind. Through an interactive revision process with other classmates, I found that much of what I had explained through setting and description needed to be made clearer through action, and more direct character dialogue. I began to see that the reader needed my story to move more quickly, and that not all of my sentences were clear and concise.
My class presentation of the drama assignment and the following commentary enabled me to gain insight into what the class had heard from my dialogue. The work needed to be modified in various ways. As I had suspected, some of the lines were too long. The class helped me to focus on one specific character who had too much to say. The class comments helped me to revise the work, so that it sounded more like real life. I revised my work with hopefully a more realistic version, but I left in some of the more inspired and unreal dialogue in order to express my theme.
Although a writer can have an instinctive view of what his or her work will convey to a reader, he or she truly cannot know what kind of reactions a reader will have. I did not feel this way before I participated in this class. I considered my writing to be more for myself, and the process of writing more an act of personal meaning and inspiration. My idea of technique and process of revision were more of a hit or miss effort with no specific direction. When writing is done in this way, it is merely an act that flows from a writer. The value I placed on my writing came more from what I thought I was saying rather than what a reader got out of it. The journal that follows displays the revision of my work through the open process of workshop and e-mail exchanges with Dr. White and other classmates. All page references are from the Minot text used in class.
The poem that I have previously submitted has not been changed. My first draft went through changes after the class sharing, and then again after my note and grade. There were three drafts in all that were shared. The first was shared with class, the second revised for submission of the assignment to the professor, and the 3rd was the result of another revision after the note and grade were received. There were no further major revisions made. For my fiction assignment, I e-mailed a draft to three students and revised three times accordingly. A second draft was created for submission. After receiving additional comments from Dr. White, I have been reworking the draft. I have made no new major changes at this time, as I see that the work needs to come together as a whole. The drama assignment was shared with class and revised after the session. A link to the final draft can be found in the drama section.
Poetry section
The poem, “Loose Words,” began as a continuation of an older work. The final draft of the poem I will discuss can be accessed through this link, LINK TO POETRY SUBMISSION. After reading the Minot text, I revised and old poem using some of the points from the chapters on poetry. Minot says that poems begin with a concrete image not an abstract one. Concrete nouns or images are anything that we can respond to with the five senses. These are different from abstract concepts that the mind can only grasp like “imagination.” This sounds so simple. But, when I kept these distinctions in mind, I was able to revise a poem that had been lost in obscurity. The poem I chose did not have a central concrete or controlling image, but rather expressed its theme through an abstract idea. The poem was unclear as it had a theme with more than one meaning (136). Also, the poem had varying images rather than connected ones. I read through the poem and found a “controlling image” (118) with which I could connect other imagery in the poem. From the first two stanzas of the old poem I chose the concrete image of “words”:
My heart is firmer than water
More liquid than the land
A human taste washes my mouth
And the moon rises from my hand
My words bounce off of anchored roots
To drift through air not mine
Embraced by daily chaos
Disorder forces the divine.
Through this focus upon the imagery of “words,” I was able to come up with specific questions regarding my message in this poem. This lead the poem out of obscurity. I used connected images of a beating “heart,” “pulse” and “raw sounds” to express humanness. I then created “image clusters” (68) relating to “words”: “sounds,” “lines,” “telling pieces,” “utterance,” “warbling, and “blurt” etc. The words “line” and “stringy” helped me to create another related set of imagery having to do with “spin,” “spool,” “strands,” and “wire.”
This connected imagery helped me to stay focused on my theme: that words come from our true feelings, yet, no matter how carefully crafted or controlled they are, once they’re let loose they take on meaning of their own in other’s ears.
Approximately 22 revisions took place before I shared my poem with the class. I went into class expressing my quandary of wanting a little vagueness in my poem. Obscurity seemed more poetic than organized imagery and clear theme. The poem seemed too clear to me. The class response was that my poem was not as clear as I had thought.
Before sharing with the class, I had focused on mechanical images like “pump,” “spout,” “reel” in order to make the poem concrete. The class comments suggested that people like more organic images. I changed the word “pump” to “heart” in the first line. Then “terse Reason manages a cranking spool” became “Terse Reason minds a cranking spool.” The word “minds” seemed milder than “manages,” and also opened up the imagery of the mind as an organ connected with “Reason.” The word “running” in the 4th stanza became “humming” and with later revision “bounding.” From the class comments I was able to revise the poem so that it became easier for a reader to follow my meaning.
In class it was suggested that people want density, but also something for the moment as well. A poem needs to be such that it can be read in one reading, and the reader able to gain some immediate pleasure. I modified the 2nd and 3rd stanzas to hopefully make them a less labored read. The class draft read as follows:
2nd Unraveled strands of utterance from warbling
Weight to wire pull toward meaningful material
While terse Reason manages speeding string
With fingers pressed burning on the reel.
3rd Colliding conversation, a blurt
From the cranking-spool snags blue-printed
Twine, as chaos hook on to tightening threads
And exposes slim patterns divine.
I decided to begin the 2nd stanza with the personified “Reason,” and I placed the action under this personified image. I then chose to use the simple action of “letting out” and “stopping” to put forth clear action. The following is an example from the revised draft:
Terse Reason minds a cranking spool as
Unraveled strands of utterance from warbling
weight to wire pull toward meaningful material.
Letting out, letting out, stopping.
I continued to change any mechanical imagery into more organic imagery: “pump” to “pulse,”and “spout” to “lips.” I tried to open up 3rd stanza, which was said to be “too tightly packed,” and “labored” by moving “cranking-spool” out and up to second stanza.
Another revision took place after Dr. White e-mailed my note and grade. I focused on his comments regarding the challenges that were still present for the reader. He suggested that in some places the poem “slipped.” I took this to mean that I had dropped away from what should be a consistent pattern of clear meaning and imagery. I specifically looked at the place in the poem that was commented on to have the most problems, the transition between the last two stanzas. In order to revise this I changed the last line of the 4th stanza that transitions to the 5th stanza. I tried to continue along the lines of the established imagery of the poem. The line:
“now cannot hold the form, humming”
became
“cannot hold the sticky form, of bounding / string”
I added the words “sticky” and “bounding string” and kept the word “form.” All of these words “sticky,” “string” and “form” refer back to the 1st stanza where “raw sounds form fleshy,” and then “jelly” and “go stringy.” I also used the word “bounding” to present a clearer action of words leaving the mouth with a force.
All of the above changes were made with the goal of giving the reader a clearer path to my meaning, and more connected and visual organic and concrete imagery.
Although I cannot consider the poem a finished product, I am ready to move away from this poem and begin another. I look forward to taking what I have learned and applying it to other old poems that I have as well as to new ones that come along. The weaknesses of the above poem are related to its density and lack of clarity. It does have strength in its rhythm, enjambment and other rhyme muting techniques (76-79) such as placing the rhymes within the lines rather than at the end of each line. These comments about the poem’s strengths came out of the class workshop and grading note. I feel that I can only take this process so far without a reader to respond to my work. I look forward to seeking out poetry groups, and pursuing another writing course at some point. As for any other future goals for my poetry, I might also pursue any writing contest opportunity that may come along.
Fiction Section
The fictional scenes I will discuss can be found through the following link: LINK TO FICTION SUBMISSION. The work began with the characters. From the class readings in the Minot text, I focused on the idea that well written fiction is usually rooted in some truth. I began to create a list of characters from people that I know (162). I also listed events and experiences. As the Minot text suggests, I began to look for characters that already had a relationship to see if a conflict might naturally develop between them (219). I began to see the relationship and conflicts between three people I know. Because these were real people, I used the process of “transformation” (163). My grandmother became a combination of other people such as aunts, friends, etc. These people still fit the social character type I had in mind. I split this character in two and came up with a mother and daughter: “Faye” and the nameless mother in the story. The central character was based on a real person, and in order to stay away from an inhibiting route (feeling awkward about writing about someone I know) I began to combine more people together and created “Deanna.” This Frankenstein character manufacturing freed me up to create some fiction on top of roots of truth. After the characters began to take shape, so did the conflict within the relationship of the characters. From the Minot text, I learned that my work would be easier if I focused on a specific piece of the event in my story. On page 165 Minot states, “You can save yourself a good deal of revision work if you ask yourself just what aspect of the episode you plan to highlight.” I focused on the mother’s mental breakdown and how the more imperfect character was cast out as a result of that breakdown. I began to focus more on symbolic elements of the setting that expressed my theme rather than action and clear and purposeful dialogue. I came to find out through e-mail exchanges that although this seemed to work for me as the writer, this did not work so well for a reader.
I revised my work through e-mail exchange. Through the exchanges I found that many of my adjectives did not connect such as in a mixed metaphor. I took the following sentence from scene 3, page 1:
“The yard was aged with a thick measured perfection from years of repetitive lawn tasks.”
And revised it with:
“The manicured shrubs had not grown an inch beyond their strictly molded forms, imposed upon them by years of precise clippings.”
The previous sentence had been pointed to as unclear. I found that I was trying to be to poetic and deep with my description, and that I needed to be more clear and direct. This was true throughout most of my descriptions. I modified them accordingly.
I also found through e-mail comments that some of my sentences had been too wordy and unclear.
Here is an unrevised portion from scene 3, page one:
“Overwhelming delight ran through them and out upon their skin with goose pimpled excitement as they competed to find the most brown crunchy shells. These delicate tree latchings snapped dryly from the ridges of wrinkled wood.”
I changed this by removing a drawn out flash back. It simply became a brief memory by the character Deanna that was combined with the character’s actions. I revised as follows:
“Deanna caught sight of the wooden clothespins that filled old coffee cans out on the back porch. She laughed at the thought of her and Tim frustrating their mother by dumping out those pins years ago and filling the can with dried cicada shells; each raced to collect the most.” This revision moved the section along with action rather than slowing it down with long description.
Along the same lines, it was also suggested that my use of “interesting words” was something that made a reader “slow down and take notice,” but at the same time it tangled the reader up in “artsy prose.” This made it hard for the reader to hear what my character was trying to say. I found that a lot of these instances of “artsy prose” could be eliminated. Although it was fun to go on and on while writing, it obviously presented a long winded product for my reader. Instead of revisions, these sentences were completely cut, and the story began to take a better more efficient direction and shape.
Another helpful comment was made concerning my choice of names of one of my characters. Iris, Deanna’s best friend, comes from a family of seven boys, and she is introduced as she meets with Deanna in her own home. Her original name was Wallace. I felt that this conveyed a southern influence that helped to define the character. Instead, I found that the reader became completely confused because of the odd gender switch here.
The name I was so attached to did nothing to develop my character as I had thought. This revision from “Wallace” to “Iris” led me to describe physical aspects of the character instead of relying on a name to say more than it actually did. I found myself moved to give a physical description of the character. This helped the reader to see more of what I am seeing, and better defined my character for me as the writer. Also, the name “Iris” tied in better with the flower theme that runs throughout the story, a symbol that I hoped could convey perfect beauty that arises from chaotic and wild patterns of nature.
I would like to finish this piece as a whole in the form of a short story. For the purposes of the assignment, I worked with two specific scenes. I would now like to shrink it all down. I would like to focus on the first scene in which the mother’s breakdown is presented.
From the comments that I received from Dr. White in my note and grade along with my e-mail exchange comments, I felt that my reader needs more plot and direction. I think I left these elements out of the 2nd and 3rd scenes that were shared in the hope that things were more exciting in the 1st and last scene. This was a definite weakness for these scenes. As Dr. White has stated in class, and Minot from the text, there has to be a dynamic opening. I need an action to begin the story. I also need more of a continuation of that action to move my reader along. Narrative and the character’s actions toward each other should also define the relationships more than dialogue alone. In summary, my plot must move along more rapidly to keep up the interest of the reader. The strengths of this work exist in the setting and theme. I felt strongly about developing these.
I do not want to set a goal to publish this story. I would like to finish it, and then consider sharing it in a writer’s group in order to learn more about writing.
Drama Section
This work can be found at the following sight: LINK TO DRAMA SUBMISSION. This assignment, for me, began among feelings of absolute horror. This work unlike the others presented the challenge of a very open process of writing. By this I mean that I had to be totally conscious of my readers and speakers at all times. I noticed that the dramas in class that seemed to be successful were ones with which the whole class could relate. I began to go through my mental files of comments from the first day of class and so on. I focused on things that the class had in common as writers like scrawling notes on pieces of paper or cards rather than a journal, and not having enough time to write. We all seemed to have some personal interest and topic. Each of these very different reasons to write ranged from religion to comedy and from parenting to politics. We all came from different places, but we all stood on the common ground of wanting to write. I knew that if, we, as beginning student writers had spoken about aspects of writing then other writers surely had as well. I felt that I should be able to find a great writer that could join in the discussion. I began to read Hemingway, and Faulkner quotes on writing. Then works by Dickinson, Shakespeare, and Whitman. I felt inspired as I read what these great writers had to say. Whitman seemed to speak the most directly to my purpose. I chose a Whitman poem called “Poets To Come” and tried to only use a part of it so that the quoted segment would not seemed forced. The rest of the drama fell into place as I just started letting classmates speak in my head. I began to classify them according to the interests that their comments and writing had seemed to portray. My first words on a page were those of a group of students discussing why they were taking a creative writing class, just as we did on the first day. Then, comments of writing problems began to surface that I felt we all could relate to. I hoped that Whitman would fit in naturally.
In sharing my draft with the class, the problems of my drama became clear. One comment suggested that “Travis’” lines were too long. I cut his lines in three places.
From page two, I took out two complete sentences that had no effect on the message I was trying to get across. I continued this through two more parts of “Travis’” dialogue.
This cutting made the material move more quickly.
The following is an example of the revisions on Travis’ lines. The underlined words were removed:
Travis: (starts calmly, but becomes more passionate.) I don’t mean literally “why write,” I know why writers write, but why should “we” write? Who cares if I write or not? I won’t be in this class, and I won’t have the pressure of deadlines. I’m sorry to burst your collective bubble, but there’s a real world out there, people! And they’re not going to ask for your journal portfolio at your next job interview.
There was also a comment made that contractions were needed within the dialogue so that the lines sounded more like casual speech. I changed this throughout where it was appropriate.
Another student suggested that the professor needed to introduce the class discussion. I made this change. The character of “Dr. White” was given a new set of lines that open up the discussion for the class and also introduce the topic of “why write.” He also in this segment explains the importance of needing to hear this from our peers, and not just from our writing teacher from whom we would expect to hear reasons to write.
It was also suggested that a student would probably not have the Whitman quote memorized and handy for such a discussion. I revised this by giving “Robin” some action before the quote. She begins to thumb through a text from a different class, and introduces the Whitman quote by saying that her class has been studying the poet.
Other student and professor comments suggested that language of the play seemed “artificial.” One student suggested that the dialogue sounded “a little bit like propaganda.” I focused on lines that did not relate to my specific characters. I completely removed “Reani’s” lines in two places at the end of the drama, and found that the message of the play carried through without her parts. I had her character reinforcing a message that already stood on its own. When “Reani” had spoken to the class in the previous draft, she said that Whitman answered Travis’ question. She then proceeded to explain the quote. I felt that this dialogue did nothing to strengthen my drama, and in fact made it seem more contrived. A character should not have to explain your main point to the audience if you have already made that point.
This piece had weaknesses in that it put unrealistic words into the character’s mouths. Hopefully, some of this problem has been resolved. The strengths of this piece as commented on in class were that it covered a topic with which we could all relate. The inspirational quote of Whitman gave the work a pivotal moment that the audience could detect.
Concerning future developments of this work, I don’t see myself revising further. But, this experience has helped me to understand drama and its portrayal of real life as art. This segment of the class has frustrated me the most, but I have been amazed at the class’s talent and interest in this area. I would definitely use drama in my own classroom if I were to teach. I think this would go well in a middle school atmosphere. I think the use of student created dramas would teach elements of the genre that students would not get just from being exposed to the finished product. Actually going through the dramatic writing process seems to be much more beneficial in teaching drama than just reading it. And, people like to do it.
Summary
My overall progress in this course has been widespread. My writing in each genre has changed in order to take my audience or reader into consideration. My work has moved from obscurity to more clarity of meaning. I have learned to leave unnecessary writing out, and to be more direct. As a creative writer, I see myself moving forward into a more social arena. From reading the text, I have learned that reading other’s works is so much more helpful than avoiding them for fear of imitation. There is a lot to learn from the published writers as well as local writing groups and public literary readings. I see my position as a creative writer as a more open and expanded one. Before I took this class I had not spent time around others who enjoy writing.
My strongest genre is poetry. I enjoy it. I did not feel that with the other areas of fiction and drama. I like the density of poetry and the compactness of it. I realize though that too much density is not a good thing.
I feel that the knowledge I have gained from this class will help me to continue to write poetry. I have written it since I was young, and now feel that I have gained some skills in revising the poetry I already have as well as new poems. From the fiction section of the course, I have gained insight into the elements of fiction. I feel that this will help in my literary studies and in teaching literary fiction. Writing fiction opened up the genre for me where before I did not see it as clearly. Elements of theme, setting, symbolism, characterization, style and tone as well as action and dialogue seem more distinct to me now because I have had to actually create these rather than just locate them within a text.
Working with a group in a classroom setting and by e-mail exchanges presented new challenges to my writing and helped me to make worthwhile and purposeful revisions as opposed to just guessing at what I needed to change. Working within a classroom setting: hearing other’s works and sharing my own was awkward. Aside from this, the process did work. I felt uncomfortable at times telling others about their work, but I found that I could detect problems more easily if they were someone else’s problems. This became a more sharpened skill and in turn helped me to find the same types of problems in my own works that I had not seen previously. I preferred the online e-mail exchange because it gave me time to actually think as well as offering a less inhibited forum in which to respond. I found that it was difficult to take in someone else’s draft and immediately respond in class. Others in the class had no problem with this and were very skilled at quickly summing up problems. Maybe, this is a skill that can be learned if one knows exactly what to look for.
The workshop environment overall was rewarding and positive. Even when I did not agree with comments, these insights were still a view to my work that proved beneficial.
When I had to work with others, my internal thought process began to invite perspectives that I would normally not consider. This new development of being able to be more aware of my reader could be applied to my revisions and the reward was positive.
Appendix
Poetry comments made during my in class presentation:
*The word “pump” in the first line is unclear. The word “heart” makes more sense.
*Dr. White - People prefer organic imagery as opposed to mechanical.
*Dr. White – People want density, but need something for the moment as well, an experience that is both unlabored and dense.
*The enjambment and alliterating is done well.
*There is beauty and spontaneity, but it is more latent than in the previous draft.
*The poem needs to be read slowly.
*I need to pay attention to the way I read it. This is different from the written draft.
*Dr. White – the 3rd stanza is too much to manage, overpacked.
*The last stanza contains open language that gives the reader some room.
Dr. White commented through the e-mailed note and grade that the poem had “slipped” in places. He especially pointed to the transition between the last two stanzas as problematic. Dr. White added positive remarks about the work as well.
Fiction comments were received via e-mail exchange. Two of the e-mail exchanges done by Laurie Eckhart and Robin Stone were very informative. These were done as in text comments. Basically, sentences were pointed out to be too wordy, awkward and unclear. Some of my descriptive adjectives were shown to be unconnected. My draft was considered thoroughly by both.
Dawn Dobson commented on my work through e-mail as well. Here are some of her comments. “I really like the way you put interesting words together that make the reader slow down and take notice.” “On the downside, I found myself getting a bit tangled and lost in the sometimes “artsy” prose. “…with some streamlining and a bit more clarity as to the direction you are taking, you will have a very interesting story.” “…I think you have some editing to do so that your reader doesn’t have to edit.”
She also commented that the name of Deanna’s friend, a girl with seven brothers, be changed to a more feminine name. The original name was “Wallace.” Dawn commented on this name as confusing for the reader.
The drama assignment was presented to the class. These comments followed:
*Travis’ lines need to be condensed.
*Dialogue needs contractions in order to sound more like speech.
*Good global or common concept. Audience can relate to it.
*The language sounds artificial.
*It sounds a bit like propaganda.
*Professor needs to introduce the class discussion.
*Student who quotes Whitman needs to have a reason that she had the quote ready.
*The Whitman quote served as a pivotal point of transition that the audience could detect.