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.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
How I feel about writing a sexual attack scene
I can do battles; I quite like writing about that (even if I still cover my eyes during some parts of Brave Heart). I've done car crash injuries (Grit, Runaway); I've written about dog fights (The Ring); I've even blown up some people (as yet to be published G-Force).
I don't usually read thrillers or crime fiction (unless written by my friends) although I did read Luther. And I do tend to enjoy watching Danish crime tv (The Killing and The Bridge) but when it comes to what I'm working on right now, I'm struggling...
Like a number women I know, I have been the victim of more than one sexual assault - one no more than a bit of a opportunist grope; the other more serious. In both cases, I knew the perpetrator. As a child, I was also subjected to sexual molestation over a period of many years and I reflected these experiences in my first novel.
It's not an area I like reading or writing about. I find it disturbing to read but even more disturbing to create.
I'm in the throes of shaping the last bit of the final book in the trilogy. I care about these characters and, for one of them, it has come about that a sexual attack has to happen. I'm struggling with the writing of it. Not because I can't write but because I want to write it well: to make sure I get it authentic. I want to frighten you. I want your heart to race (as mine does when I read over what I've written so far). I want you to feel sick (just a bit) but not so much that you put the book down. I want you to hang in there until my character is able to overcome and you are punching the air going 'Booyah!'
Personally, I don't know how other writers of darker works cope. Maybe I should just get it over and done with and trust in my skill as a story teller.
I don't usually read thrillers or crime fiction (unless written by my friends) although I did read Luther. And I do tend to enjoy watching Danish crime tv (The Killing and The Bridge) but when it comes to what I'm working on right now, I'm struggling...
Like a number women I know, I have been the victim of more than one sexual assault - one no more than a bit of a opportunist grope; the other more serious. In both cases, I knew the perpetrator. As a child, I was also subjected to sexual molestation over a period of many years and I reflected these experiences in my first novel.
It's not an area I like reading or writing about. I find it disturbing to read but even more disturbing to create.
I'm in the throes of shaping the last bit of the final book in the trilogy. I care about these characters and, for one of them, it has come about that a sexual attack has to happen. I'm struggling with the writing of it. Not because I can't write but because I want to write it well: to make sure I get it authentic. I want to frighten you. I want your heart to race (as mine does when I read over what I've written so far). I want you to feel sick (just a bit) but not so much that you put the book down. I want you to hang in there until my character is able to overcome and you are punching the air going 'Booyah!'
Personally, I don't know how other writers of darker works cope. Maybe I should just get it over and done with and trust in my skill as a story teller.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Finishing touches
I was trying to think of a clever analogy for what I'm doing with the edits but I can't. Instead I'll tell you plainly: it involves an atlas, discussions with my daughter about horse endurance and realising, even at this late stage, I missed some things.
The friar in Romeo and Juliet says to Romeo: they stumble that do run fast.
He's right. Though it may not have been for the best reasons (ill health, family concerns) that this last book has been delayed, it's a better book as a result of the time it's taken.
We read books very quickly in relation to how long it takes the writer to create it. And, we have high expectations as to the quality of the writing, the credibility of the narrative and the absence of mistakes. So we should.
I think historical fiction demands even more time - even if the writer is well-versed in the time period for which they are writing.
These are not excuses as to why it's taking so long but just an explanation and I am pleased with the outcome: the timbre and rhythm of the prose; the development of characters; the action; the twists and wee surprises. And, of course, the ending.
The friar in Romeo and Juliet says to Romeo: they stumble that do run fast.
He's right. Though it may not have been for the best reasons (ill health, family concerns) that this last book has been delayed, it's a better book as a result of the time it's taken.
We read books very quickly in relation to how long it takes the writer to create it. And, we have high expectations as to the quality of the writing, the credibility of the narrative and the absence of mistakes. So we should.
I think historical fiction demands even more time - even if the writer is well-versed in the time period for which they are writing.
These are not excuses as to why it's taking so long but just an explanation and I am pleased with the outcome: the timbre and rhythm of the prose; the development of characters; the action; the twists and wee surprises. And, of course, the ending.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
How much editorial say does the editor have?
People interested in the writing process and esp the relationship between writer and editor, often ask how much say the editor has in my work and how much power I have to control what goes into the final book.
The truth is, if a writer has a great editor (and I have been fortunate to have had stunning editors for almost every single book), then it really is up to the writer to trust the wisdom and skill of that editor. I think of it very similar to doctor/patient relationship or even your relationship with your hairdresser: there’s a bit of getting to know how each other ticks (which takes time), personality match, interest match, communication – going both ways.
With Katie (my editor/publisher), I rarely, rarely ‘reject’ her suggestions. Sometimes I’ve metaphorically put my hands my hips and gone ‘no, you can’t take that away from me!’ (only to, in almost all cases, gone and deleted it anyway. Or, I might ring (as I did a few days ago) and say (in a weedling pleading voice) ‘Can’t I please keep that bit. It DOES develop the character of Cawdor and you DID say you liked him..?’ Katie said I could keep it if I felt strongly about it but in the end I didn’t because she was right: it doesn’t add anything to the momentum of the story or the development of characters that we’ve not already realised in action.
Below are a few of her comments from the last lot of edits which will give readers a taste of some of the dialogue between writer and editor. I hope she doesn’t mind sharing our ‘conversations’. The first one made me laugh out loud. She was right, as always
1) I really think that the whole need to pee situation makes Charissa seem like a ninny. Even though she is sitting by a sick person’s bedside, she must know that getting up to go to the loo is unlikely to take long enough for Morag to deteriorate significantly. I also think the whole Charissa needs to pee idea seems a bit like an inappropriate bit of comedy in what is a very serious situation. Would urge you to leave the poor character’s bladder out of this particular instance!
2) Medieval wooden balls have been dug out of the Thames, so they might have had them in 11th C Scotland. It may also have been a spinning top that flew out of control. [I wrote ‘wooden thing’ ]
3) I think it’s stronger if you finish here. [then, she deletes a couple of pages!]
4) This is a very strong way to end the chapter. The scene with Margaret does just make it dribble away – sorry to describe it like that. The conversation between Fleance and the dowager explores themes that characters’ actions prove and as such it is exposition, not story. I feel like the ‘Get on with it’ scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail here . . . but get on with it! [again: delete/delete/delete. When we talked about it later, she said: I think it's pretty common to need to write in the ideas behind a book before taking them out. Like you need to be able to say before you can say it without saying it ... if you sort of know what I mean!]
5) There is no later mention of the bishop travelling with them, so I’ve taken him out and shuffled your dining plan! [This one I rejected – sorry Katie – but went back and made sure that we know the bishop is with the party as well (how else was he going to get to Scone before them all when we last saw him at Forres?)
6) Not clear what she is doing. [one of those moments when, as a writer, it’s damn difficult to put into words the action. What she was doing was systematically pushing the cuticles back on each of her fingers – like a stroking, comforting action. Meeeh. Didn’t work. I deleted it.
7) Watch out for cliché – just say black unless you can think of a more original way of putting it. [duh – raven hair – blerk! Really, Tania?]
8) I think this is the more useful argument for Bree. She doesn’t need to know that Graham wants to wipe out the family . . . She would see this an important bargaining chip. [I didn’t agree with Katie’s suggested rewrite but she was correct that it needed work. I’ve left that bit highlighted to go back to once I’ve mulled it over a bit.]
9) To use a scalp as a trophy is a very American Indian idea – and head is a bit more ghoulish [she also picks up my kiwi vernacular as well]
10) Give a little more description of this. How are they so well hidden? Can Rosie see how many men? How many tents? [hmm, good point. How DO you hide an army?]
11) I quite like the Thane of Cawdor and I don’t think he should vanish, he’s quite interesting. [I do too and I like him that he doesn't really like Fleance that much but is loyal because that is the proper thing to do. I wonder if they will become friends. I kind of see their relationship like that between Bones and Spock]
12) Why only one horse? Don’t understand. [Glad she spotted this. In Bloodlines, there was a continuity error over a couple of horses and I’m not going to make that mistake again]
I trust my hairdresser and I trust my doctor. I even trust my mechanic. I trust that they are skilled and have my best interests as their motivation (each has proven this fact to me over and over). They are not perfect and I do not blindly accept their advice but I give weight to what they say. It is the same attitude I have of my editor. As well as a huge amount of respect.
The truth is, if a writer has a great editor (and I have been fortunate to have had stunning editors for almost every single book), then it really is up to the writer to trust the wisdom and skill of that editor. I think of it very similar to doctor/patient relationship or even your relationship with your hairdresser: there’s a bit of getting to know how each other ticks (which takes time), personality match, interest match, communication – going both ways.
With Katie (my editor/publisher), I rarely, rarely ‘reject’ her suggestions. Sometimes I’ve metaphorically put my hands my hips and gone ‘no, you can’t take that away from me!’ (only to, in almost all cases, gone and deleted it anyway. Or, I might ring (as I did a few days ago) and say (in a weedling pleading voice) ‘Can’t I please keep that bit. It DOES develop the character of Cawdor and you DID say you liked him..?’ Katie said I could keep it if I felt strongly about it but in the end I didn’t because she was right: it doesn’t add anything to the momentum of the story or the development of characters that we’ve not already realised in action.
Below are a few of her comments from the last lot of edits which will give readers a taste of some of the dialogue between writer and editor. I hope she doesn’t mind sharing our ‘conversations’. The first one made me laugh out loud. She was right, as always
1) I really think that the whole need to pee situation makes Charissa seem like a ninny. Even though she is sitting by a sick person’s bedside, she must know that getting up to go to the loo is unlikely to take long enough for Morag to deteriorate significantly. I also think the whole Charissa needs to pee idea seems a bit like an inappropriate bit of comedy in what is a very serious situation. Would urge you to leave the poor character’s bladder out of this particular instance!
2) Medieval wooden balls have been dug out of the Thames, so they might have had them in 11th C Scotland. It may also have been a spinning top that flew out of control. [I wrote ‘wooden thing’ ]
3) I think it’s stronger if you finish here. [then, she deletes a couple of pages!]
4) This is a very strong way to end the chapter. The scene with Margaret does just make it dribble away – sorry to describe it like that. The conversation between Fleance and the dowager explores themes that characters’ actions prove and as such it is exposition, not story. I feel like the ‘Get on with it’ scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail here . . . but get on with it! [again: delete/delete/delete. When we talked about it later, she said: I think it's pretty common to need to write in the ideas behind a book before taking them out. Like you need to be able to say before you can say it without saying it ... if you sort of know what I mean!]
5) There is no later mention of the bishop travelling with them, so I’ve taken him out and shuffled your dining plan! [This one I rejected – sorry Katie – but went back and made sure that we know the bishop is with the party as well (how else was he going to get to Scone before them all when we last saw him at Forres?)
6) Not clear what she is doing. [one of those moments when, as a writer, it’s damn difficult to put into words the action. What she was doing was systematically pushing the cuticles back on each of her fingers – like a stroking, comforting action. Meeeh. Didn’t work. I deleted it.
7) Watch out for cliché – just say black unless you can think of a more original way of putting it. [duh – raven hair – blerk! Really, Tania?]
8) I think this is the more useful argument for Bree. She doesn’t need to know that Graham wants to wipe out the family . . . She would see this an important bargaining chip. [I didn’t agree with Katie’s suggested rewrite but she was correct that it needed work. I’ve left that bit highlighted to go back to once I’ve mulled it over a bit.]
9) To use a scalp as a trophy is a very American Indian idea – and head is a bit more ghoulish [she also picks up my kiwi vernacular as well]
10) Give a little more description of this. How are they so well hidden? Can Rosie see how many men? How many tents? [hmm, good point. How DO you hide an army?]
11) I quite like the Thane of Cawdor and I don’t think he should vanish, he’s quite interesting. [I do too and I like him that he doesn't really like Fleance that much but is loyal because that is the proper thing to do. I wonder if they will become friends. I kind of see their relationship like that between Bones and Spock]
12) Why only one horse? Don’t understand. [Glad she spotted this. In Bloodlines, there was a continuity error over a couple of horses and I’m not going to make that mistake again]
I trust my hairdresser and I trust my doctor. I even trust my mechanic. I trust that they are skilled and have my best interests as their motivation (each has proven this fact to me over and over). They are not perfect and I do not blindly accept their advice but I give weight to what they say. It is the same attitude I have of my editor. As well as a huge amount of respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)