I'm all good with what you say here - I do intuitively agree that the gist of what makes a writer's work enjoyable is something unlearnable, at least from guidebooks - what I think it is has more to do with that peculiar cocktail of influences and subjective aesthetics that I mentioned in the other thread in connection with Armando's post about Picasso etc.
I regret that my example from Nabokov was not the best possible - what I was getting at here has to do with the notion of "howness": see my attempt to clean the slate in the newly opened thread. I think it might also clear up what you correctly criticised about my confusing use of the word "decisions". 19. maaliskuuta 2012 21.22 <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > I asked John: > > Do this, John: Give us an example of what you hope to find when >> you successfully pursue access to Emily's deciding? > > John replied: > > "I'll get back to you in this tomorrow, but meanwhile I'll give you an > example of what Nabokov did find when he successfully pursued access > to Flaubert's deciding: > > "I want to draw attention to Flaubert's use of the word 'and' preceded > by a semicolon. This 'semicolon-and' comes after an enumeration of > actions or states or objects; then the semicolon creates a pause and > the 'and' proceeds to round up the paragraph, to introduce a > culminating image, or a vivid detail, descriptive, poetic, melancholy, > or amusing." He then quotes several instances of this technique at > work in "Bovary", and goes on to enumerate several other comparable > techniques in the book." > > I respond: > > Nabokov's reflections on Flaubert's use of the semi-colon do have their > interest, and, indeed, their utility for would-be "creative writers". I'm a > playwright. I have learned that theater professionals are regularly irked by > what they consider an excess of "stage directions" in the script, especially > speech-delivery instructions ("angrily", "dismissively", "ardently", > "slowly", "oozing contempt and boredom"). > > Still, as a playwright listening to actors give my script its open-book > first reading, I used to be startled occasionally by an actor's "misreading" - > delivering the line with a totally wrong tone because he didn't grasp what > the character was "thinking" as he spoke. > > To keep the "stage directions" to a minimum, and yet enhance the chances > the actor would "get" what the character was about at that moment, I worked at > developing a "craft" of using typographical and punctuational guides, much > like what Nabokov was discussing in Flaubert. > > Dramaturgy textbooks tend to struggle at conveying a distinction between > what might be called the "craft" and the "art" of playwriting. I think there > are certain generic "lessons" that a playwright can learn, and that therefore > can be taught. In an arbitrary verbal stipulation, I'd call the things that > can be learned "craft". This is not to diminish their importance. I aim > to occasion a.e.'s in the audience, and the canny use of learned craft can > be key to that. > > Nevertheless, the learnable elements of craft are a cut below the > unlearnable inspired inventions and decisions always displayed in plays that occasion > a.e.'s in me. > > To the extent that a study of a given playwright's use "craft" would > satisfy John's desire to understand the "making" of "a work of art", he could find > a wealth of it in the many handbooks and "how-to's" available on the > playwriting shelf in the library. > > Those of you who are still reading this unexciting posting may find some > interest in the following paragraph that now appears in the front matter of > any script I write: > > SCRIPT NOTE > > Deciding a pre-production script-style for silent readers and the company > simultaneously can be problematic. Many of the stage directions, > word-stresses, three-dot pauses, and phoneticized accents in the script are primarily > for lay-readers, designed to convey attitudinal postures and expressions, > emphases, potential pacing, and other clues their inner eye and ear may not > easily contribute. They are descriptions of what I saw and heard as I wrote, so > perhaps they may be helpful in discerning authorial intent, but they are not > an attempt to micro-manage the director or the actors. I write this > preemptive note for those hands-on theater-professionals who much prefer not to be > treated as other than exactly that - creative professionals who know their > art.
