Final proofing a manuscript is like an eye exam...

Those of you who have sat through at least one session with an optometrist might understand that moment when he or she says: which is clearer: slide one; or two? One or two?

You're sitting there in the chair, trying not to squint (because you'll get told not to) and, for the life of you, the difference between slide one and two is... umm... Well, you pick one just to keep the doctor happy.

My editor has made a few changes in my manuscript which makes me feel like I'm in that chair again: is it better to say: he looked straight into the eyes of.... OR he found himself looking straight into the eyes of....?

I read these either or choices aloud to my husband. It is he who says it's as difficult as saying which is clearer - one or two. He's right of course and so the final decision rests with me. The editor has made the change because something jarred for her so I am back reading the entire manuscript out loud to ensure there is smoothness. In some parts, though, it's like trying to iron out the wrinkles in the cover-seal of one of my daughter's exercise books.

As I read, I see a word and it does the job but it's not EXACTLY what I mean. So, I go hunting in my thesaurus and can spend up to 30 mins trying to find the right word. Sometimes, I confess, it's too hard and I give up. I did this this morning with the word 'excitement'. I wanted/meant glee/delight/nasty joy but could not find the right one to fit with the sentence. I chose another word to excitement and, if it is not quite right, I'm certain no one will really notice.

And, to further muddy the metaphor waters, I will quote other experts who understood all too well the process we writers go through to get it just right for you, the reader:

Oscar Wilde: I have spent most of the day putting in a comma and the rest of the day taking it out. 

Charles Pierre Péguy: A word is not the same with one writer as with another. One tears it from his guts. The other pulls it out of his overcoat pocket.

Finally, I will leave you with a quote I've used before but it pretty much is how I feel about my own work:

Maurice Gee: I could go on tinkering with my books forever. When I reread them I’m constantly recognising lost fictional opportunities, ways I could have made someone do something more interesting. 

Perhaps this is why I don't like reading my books once they are published. I do love touching them and looking at their shiny covers and feeling the weight of them in my hands. To read them, however, is too terrifying - what if I remember that exact word I wanted when it is far too late?

interesting reasons for visitors to my blog

I have a programme which tells me where a visitor comes from and how they got to me, how long they stay, what pages they read and where they go to next.

I have to say, some of those 'how they got to me' are quite funny and I suspect come from students who have been given a homework assignment (because, as a teacher, they're the sorts of questions I might ask my students to think about).

Here is a recent selection:

what information and advice would banquo share to Fleance.

three adjectives that describe Fleance banqo's son

Describe Banquo from his son's point of view.

what Fleance and Banquo were talking about before Banquo got killed

A description of Macbeth from Banquo's son's point of view

These are simple thinking questions which a teacher is using to get his or her students unpacking the text.  What's sad is that students from all over the world are, rather than trusting in their own ideas, putting the question into a search engine and getting someone else to answer it for them.

'Why is Shakespeare so famous, Miss?'

As expected, this question was asked by a Year 10 (14yo) student on Friday after I had read the class 'My Mistress Eyes' and 'Shall I Compare thee to a summer's Day' and we've watched Dire Straits strut their stuff in an 80s music video 'A love struck Romeo sings a sweet song serenade...'

I answered as I promised I would in the last post (with a slightly amended language as per the reading experience of these particular kids). I'm not sure, really, if the question asker was entirely convinced with my response but, by the end of the year, if she hasn't understood the why of her question then I have failed her.

Last night, I had a few friends around for dinner - all well read. I was discussing my desire to provide Fleance with a clear way of rallying the troops for one last go despite the odds being against them and having suffered terrible losses.

Ah, I can hear the Shakespeare lovers out there beginning to quote Henry V. Exactly but I'd not read Henry the V nor did I know the story but one of my guests began to quote the St Crispen's Speech and then we watched Kenneth Branagh on YouTube and I knew I had what I needed.

Here's the part that I particularly love:

This story shall the good man teach his son;

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother;

In reading the entire speech, I read it through the lens of my own story's arc. I don't know the play as I've said but that doesn't matter because I find a connection for my characters and their situation in the words Shakespeare has written.

Why?

Because his thoughts and understandings of the human condition, of our hopes and desires and dreams, is universal and timeless. How else could a man from the turn of the 17th Century be able to write a speech for an English king during a battle set in 1415 in such a way, with such turns of phrases that a 47 year old New Zealand writer connects with and uses for her own creation's speech set in 11th Century Scotland?

THAT'S why he's so famous, Miss.

The Validity of Teaching Shakespeare

Here in New Zealand, for the first time since Adam named the apple, Shakespeare will NOT be a compulsory part of the curriculum for Year 13 (our final year for students). There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the changes were first mooted and some press on the matter (falling standards yaddi yaddi yaddi).

True, the assessments on offer COULD squeeze out the bard if the teacher let them but all the English teachers I've had the privilege of rubbing shoulders with - whether literally or in the virtual world - are committed to bringing to the attention of their charges a taste of what the world of language and literature can offer them.

Because, honestly, that's all we can do really - whet their appetite. My personal passion for Shakespeare means that, each year for 23 years, a new group of about 130 secondary students have been exposed to him in many forms in my classroom and, God willing, so it will be for the next 23 years. And the classics, and New Zealand poets and short story writers, and the war poets, and Australian writers, and John Green, Neil Gaiman, Shaun Tan, my children lit writing buddies, as well as film and YouTube Clips and articles in The Guardian (and the cute cats memes sometimes too).

And, every year, some sophisticated bunny asks the same question: why do we have to DO Shakespeare?

Great question. Needs to be asked because kids are always seeking for relevance; always looking for where they stand at the centre of the world we are showing them.

This year, I'm going to let some others answer that question before I do.
Firstly, I'll get good old Jane Austen to have her say:

"But Shakespeare one gets acquainted with without knowing how. It is a part of an Englishman's constitution. His thoughts and beauties are so spread abroad that one touches them every where, one is intimate with him by instinct.—No man of any brain can open at a good part of one of his plays, without falling into the flow of his meaning immediately."

"No doubt, one is familiar with Shakespeare in a degree," said Edmund, "from one's earliest years. His celebrated passages are quoted by every body; they are in half the books we open, and we all talk Shakespeare, use his similes, and describe with his descriptions; but this is totally distinct from giving his sense as you gave it. To know him in bits and scraps, is common enough; to know him pretty thoroughly, is, perhaps, not uncommon; but to read him well aloud, is no every-day talent."
Mr Henry Crawford and Mr Edmund Bertram.
Mansfield Park by Jane Austen Chapter 34

Then, I'm going to give them a print out of this article whereby Ray A. Harvey provides a collection of quotable praises and justifications of Shakespeare's skill. "It’s long been observed that one of the best measures of literature is when you can discuss the characters of a story or play as if those characters were real people: when you can talk about their personalities, when you can psychologize over them, their choice of careers, their deeds, when you can pick their brains and discuss their addictions and predispositions as if these characters were actual human beings. Many playwrights and novelists, and even many modern-day screenplay-writers, have created characters that meet this criteria. But no one — and I mean no one — has come close to creating the sheer number of these characters that Shakespeare did. Love his people or hate them, Shakespeare brought to life a gallery of women and men who are completely human — and he did it in a language whose prosody for practitioners still astounds."

I will not abide anyone (esp a teacher) declaring that Shakespeare is too hard for students. To that I say rubbish. It's all about how you sell it. Sure, the language can snag especially for the less read younger forms but we have such great resources available to us (and them) to unpack that language: No Fear Shakespeare website as a starter and then the illustrated/graphic novel type books of the plays; film adaptions; comic book adaptions like the stunning Kill Shakespeare. Even my own Fifteen and Twenty Minute Shakespeares or my edited plays for study if you will.

I have drawn an immense amount of inspiration from my reading of Shakespeare's plays and poetry. I see his characters in the modern day books and tv shows such as Walter White from Breaking Bad. To ask the question how Macbeth went from a loyal, fearless, noble soldier to a tyrannical murderer is to ask how a mild mannered chemistry teacher ends up being a murdering drug lord.

I have finished the final book in the trilogy and the whole experience has been a labour of love and tears which will eventually have taken five years from conception to the last book published. I will leave you with the words of my publisher after she read the re-written manuscript.

Congratulations! I finished Birthright last night and I loved it!
It’s compelling, it’s rich, it’s complex and the characters are glorious. I’m really very happy with it and I think it’s come miles and miles in a relatively short time. Be super, super proud! I’m going to come back next week with some thoughts for you. Nothing especially major this time. I might suggest the odd paragraph here and there ...{spoiler deleted}... but it feel very complete now and I honestly think you have done justice to the characters and will satisfy the readers. Huge respect and admiration for the work you’ve put in and the determination you’ve shown with this. I do believe it had paid off.

William Shakespeare is the master and I the pupil but I'm happy enough to continue to follow in his shadow.