Authors needed


Recommended Posts

There is a basic principle for good teaching: mostly it's not technique but how well the teacher knows the subject. There was a study done involving teachers of science and technical subjects. How well the students learned depended on how well the teachers themselves knew the subject, and they learned the material even when the teacher did not speak good English, it not being his native language.

Rand was the last great Russian novelist, not the beginning of an American literary tradition. After "Atlas" that was that; even she couldn't make the transition. This doesn't mean a writer cannot learn something about writing from her, far from it. But the fact is, I hardly ever read fiction. This and that. Basically it's not worth reading for me unless very, very special. And there is the problem of general literary decline. Back in the 1950s, "The Golden Age of Television," they were putting up live performances of plays. There has also been a general intellectual decline. Rand herself spoke of being able to debate the likes of Newton Minnow--but not who and what followed.

The culture and its society are imploding at an accelerating rate. Fewer people have the time and interest and education in reading for leisure as they are facing stark survival choices.

--Brant

fat cats don't get it but they will, eventually

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael,

I guess we just have different standards of teaching writing. I consider teaching writing--especially creative writing--a learned skill, which includes focus on techniques that nurture the student's talent, not simply creating a body of work and issuing opinions that vaguely influence other writers.

I'm not just verbally dueling, either. This stuff is serious to me because I have been correcting my own course. I went way off-course by trying to use Rand's jargon-related ideas like theme versus plot-theme and so forth. (Granted, theme is not jargon, but Rand's meaning of it is not the standard one. Rand's idea of theme is basically like the title of an encyclopedia article, and plot-theme is the action the subject does or is done with it. She didn't say it that way, but that's what they are.)

She put together some clever ideas, but they are not very useful for teaching creative writing, at least not to beginners. Once again, I point to the lack of people using them out in the culture.

I believe Nathaniel Branden was probably Rand's best nonfiction writing student. But his style vastly changed after the break, starting with Breaking Free.

As to Barbara, she is on record saying that she could only find her writing voice well after she got out from under the constant stern disapproval of Rand's eye. Barbara's style in The Passion of Ayn Rand does not really show the hallmarks of the major Objectivism-related points Rand made in the nonfiction writing book . A case could be made that she was more influenced by the fiction course Rand gave and projected her conflicts and climaxes well, but basically all writing teachers talk about conflict and climax. That permeates our culture. Barbara's lyrical bouncing back and forth between the actual events and probing the psychological possibilities of what motivated the people is something all her own. In fact, this aspect of her writing is one of the things that most offends the fundy Randists, and I think is one of the strongest points of her style.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, I make the better part of my living as a guitar instructor, and I have done that for 38 years. I overall agree with what MSK is saying about great artists not necessarily being the best teachers. In fact, some of them are horrible at it. I am convinced that, if you are to maintain a solid teaching practice, you must love doing it in a way that is outside of what you are teaching. You must love the process, the lifestyle it demands, itself--love it every bit if not more than you love being an artist.

To bring out the unique qualities of each individual through your teaching craft is a very sensitive process--it is always about watching, listening, encouraging them to find their own path. And that path might be very different from your own.

On the other hand, you can share with them what you have done, and how and why you do it. But if you are going about it cookie-cutter style, are generally in the business of engaging in cloning, you will defeat the purpose, which is to have the student learn how to teach themself.

A very sad thing I have seen over and over again through the years is the person who only teaches because they are not being successful enough as artists. They teach with a certain type of contempt, and the student picks it up at least on some visceral level. In other words, if the teacher weren't getting paid to cover their lack of career success, they likely would get honest and just say they really don't want to be doing it.

rde

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the theme versus plot-theme idea, here is an example of what I mean. Let's start with Rand's own words from The Romantic Manifesto, "Basic Principles of Literature":

The theme of a novel is the core of its abstract meaning—the plot-theme is the core of its events.

For example, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is: "The role of the mind in man's existence." The plot-theme is: "The men of the mind going on strike against an altruist-collectivist society."

The theme of Les Miserables is: "The injustice of society toward its lower classes." The plot-theme is: "The life-long flight of an ex-convict from the pursuit of a ruthless representative of the law."

The theme of Gone With the Wind is: "The impact of the Civil War on Southern society." The plot-theme is: "The romantic conflict of a woman who loves a man representing the old order, and is loved by another man, representing the new."

Now, let's suppose a writer was hired to do a continuation of the James Bond series. I am using an already existing series because we can isolate the fundamental organizing components and because this was a series Rand admired.

What is the theme of a James Bond story? Using Rand's "encyclopedia article title" format, it would be something like: "The workings of covert operations throughout the world." And the plot-theme would be: "The English government's secret agents, focusing on one in particular, protect the world against covert psychopathic genius power-mongers."

I don't know about you, but for me this is a major creative buzz-kill.

Let me rethink the James Bond series from a fresh thematic outlook. How about just plain old good versus evil? Boy, if that doesn't divide the waters, I don't know what does. I already feel the thing taking a broad shape. Some of the characters are going to be good guys and some bad guys.

And how about the major action driver? To me, it's easy. A James Bond story is essentially an extended duel. There is one major hero against one major villain. Two individuals and both are larger than life. All the others are supporting cast. Even the world of covert operations becomes a backdrop instead of a theme from this perspective. And I can feel the creative juices starting to flow.

Now here's an important point. What about glamor, high-tech gadgets/weaponry, and male/female beauty? Aren't they fundamental to to any James Bond story? You bet you they are. Just like hair-raising colorful chases are fundamental to the extended duel part.

Now we are getting somewhere.

I can easily make an initial outline just with these elements alone.

Starting from this point, if I want to tighten up the background, I would use the Randian theme and plot-theme ideas. But to use those as starting points--frankly they don't excite me in any manner. Fighting injustice excites me. Covert operations is just a passing interest.

Now for a controversial point. I believe the same kind of analysis can be applied to Atlas Shrugged. I contend that a strike against an altruist-collectivist society, even by men of the mind, was not Rand's primary driver nor her organizing message. There are several thematic messages in AS, but let's just mention the social one. The real social message is a portrayal of the injustice and evil of the altruist-collectivist society and an attempt to destroy it, while replacing it with something better. That kind of thing, I contend excited Rand. And it excites me. And I further contend that this is a more important theme in AS than the encyclopedia article title of: "The role of the mind in man's existence" or the bland statement, "The men of the mind going on strike against an altruist-collectivist society."

In fundamental terms, those are backdrops for a fight of good against evil, which is a far more fundamental abstract thematic driver and organizer than they ever could be.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:

There is a basic principle for good teaching: mostly it's not technique but how well the teacher knows the subject.

That is pretty much my view.

Rich:

To bring out the unique qualities of each individual through your teaching craft is a very sensitive process--it is always about watching, listening, encouraging them to find their own path. And that path might be very different from your own.

Ditto.

MSK:

I guess we just have different standards of teaching writing.

We are not connecting. You seemed to have looked at Rand as a writing mentor instead of a great artist sharing a few of her insights - and criticize her for not giving you the abc's of writing. You are finding others to help you out, great.

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seemed to have looked at Rand as a writing mentor instead of a great artist sharing a few of her insights - and criticize her for not giving you the abc's of writing.

Michael,

This is just another way of saying that Rand is not a good writing teacher, which is what I said in the first place.

I don't want to be a stickler on this point just to win an argument. I do want to remove the "Rand attacked/Rand defended" subtext from the discussion.

The original poster wants to make a publisher of Objectivist fiction and there ain't no works out there for him to publish. I think it is fruitful to discover why and try to fix it if possible. That's the original focus of my comments.

I came to Rand as a teenager. I know many others did/do, too. So if they read Rand talk about the swamp of the academic world and so forth, and she offers instruction in writing, it is reasonable for them to want to learn their abc's of creative writing from her, or at least from people who learned from her. That's where I was and it, ultimately, was not a good place to be--that is if I wanted to become a writer (and I did in addition to music).

I believe others who are in the position I was in are reading this thread. I believe my observations can save them years of wasted effort in their productive life.

This doesn't mean you have to throw out Rand or even her writing instruction. On the contrary, her works are incredibly inspiring and her writing instruction is good to go through, but in perspective. Just because she was not a good writing teacher, that doesn't mean you should not look at her writing instruction stuff. Instruction-wise, if you are already firm in your artistic vision and technique, she actually presents some very interesting things to think about (tying abstractions to concretes and so forth).

But don't let my words be the only ones for my view of her as an instructor. Let her own words--or at least her words as filtered by Tore Boeckmann--also indicate her approach. The following is from The Art of Fiction (pp. 51-52):

You have heard it said that "art cannot be taught." There is a sense in which writing cannot be taught; but in a different sense, it can. To learn sciences like physics or history is simply to absorb facts consciously. Such sciences can be taught since the facts involved can be communicated. Physical skills like typing can also be taught. But to learn to type, more is required than merely listening to a factual lecture: you have to practice. First you learn how to move your fingers and strike the keys—slowly and by conscious effort. Learning to type then consists of automatizing this skill.

At first you have to think of how to crook your fingers, how far to reach for each letter, how to keep in tempo. Then you practice, faster and faster, so that eventually, when you look at a page of copy which you have to type, your fingers do the rest "instinctively." If an experienced typist were to ask herself, "How do I do it ?" she would answer, "I just do it."

The same is true of dancing, or playing tennis, or any physical skill. First it is learned consciously—and you are in command of the skill when it becomes automatic, so that conscious attention is no longer required.

I pause on this analysis in order to illustrate what kind of automatic "instincts" have to be acquired in the realm of art.

I mentioned earlier the complexity involved in writing a single sentence [see pp. 1-2]. I said that you could not figure out the sentence consciously. You sit down to write, the sentence comes out a certain way, and with editing you can improve it—but you cannot compose the sentence consciously in the way that you can pass an examination in physics by stating the facts as you have learned and understood them.

This is why the process of writing cannot be taught—not because it is a mystical talent, but because so complex an integration is involved that no teacher can supervise the process for you. You can learn all the theory, but unless you practice—unless you actually write—you will not be able to apply the theory.

All that a teacher can do is explain the elements of writing and suggest a method of thinking and practicing that will enable you to write. I cannot give you rules sufficient to make you wake up one day with a talent for plot. But you can acquire such a talent if you know some general rules and the kind of mental exercises that will integrate into a plot ability.

This last paragraph is the most telling aspect of her pedagogic approach: "I cannot give you rules sufficient to make you..."

I submit that this is not what a good teacher does.

I remember a saying from my childhood. It was printed on every volume of an encyclopedia set for young people. I owned it and I would look at this saying often. It said, "Wisdom is not knowing all the answers, but knowing where to find them."

It is true that all teachers give you some rules. That is part of instruction. But a good teacher--not just a teacher--also points the way to discovery and fosters a raging hunger for learning in the student. I call it appetite-whetting. Like I said earlier, this is a learned skill and there are specific techniques you can employ that work with most any normal student. To a good teacher, this is a labor of love: teaching qua teaching and taking great pleasure and pride in the progress of students.

To those reading this, if you want good criteria for judging what teacher or mentor you want to use for creative writing--or anything for that matter, these are some of the best I have ever found.

Michael

(PS - I'm moving this to "Writing Techniques.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just another way of saying that Rand is not a good writing teacher, which is what I said in the first place.

Funny, that is not my opinion.

The original poster wants to make a publisher of Objectivist fiction and there ain't no works out there for him to publish. I think it is fruitful to discover why and try to fix it if possible. That's the original focus of my comments.

Again I think differently. There are fucking thousands of online articles and stories...that a publisher could contemplate, and nurture the writer. Go find them. And then convince the writers that you are the publisher for them.

...it is reasonable for them to want to learn their abc's of creative writing from her, or at least from people who learned from her. That's where I was and it, ultimately, was not a good place to be--that is if I wanted to become a writer (and I did in addition to music).

I would think the best place to learn writing or art is by studying it in school, college. Then through experience by submitting works, and getting advice from professionals. Not by deduction from a hand full of written pages. So no, I don't think it is reasonable.

All that a teacher can do is explain the elements of writing and suggest a method of thinking and practicing that will enable you to write. I cannot give you rules sufficient to make you wake up one day with a talent for plot. But you can acquire such a talent if you know some general rules and the kind of mental exercises that will integrate into a plot ability.

This last paragraph is the most telling aspect of her pedagogic approach: "I cannot give you rules sufficient to make you..."

I submit that this is not what a good teacher does.

I don't understand your conclusion. Teachers cannot give you talent you don't have. They at the very best can help you reach your innate potential. If you have no talent for signing all the coaching lessons in the world will not make you a successful opera singer.

It is true that all teachers give you some rules. That is part of instruction. But a good teacher--not just a teacher--also points the way to discovery and fosters a raging hunger for learning in the student. I call it appetite-whetting. Like I said earlier, this is a learned skill and there are specific techniques you can employ that work with most any normal student. To a good teacher, this is a labor of love: teaching qua teaching and taking great pleasure and pride in the progress of students.

I kind of have two standards here. The sensitive side of my teaching is to get the students to focus on s simple objective to the point in which time stops, and they feel nothing but the energy of the paint. As a student I only cared if the teacher's art spoke to me. I wasn't interested their process if I didn't like their work, regardless how nurturing they might have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of have two standards here.

I don't know, Michael.

I get the impression that the overriding standard is "thou shalt not criticize Ayn Rand as being bad at anything in art."

As to the "fucking thousands" of Objectivist works of fiction that are decent enough for publication, I'm all ears. Surely if you know enough to emphasize your numbers with "fucking" (which I take to mean that there are so many that only a moron could not find them), you could find a few yourself.

I know I've looked and the fiction I've found under the banner of Objectivism is not very good.

Maybe it's because I might be a fucking moron...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your conclusion. Teachers cannot give you talent you don't have. They at the very best can help you reach your innate potential. If you have no talent for signing all the coaching lessons in the world will not make you a successful opera singer.

Michael,

Do I take this to mean that you disagree with Rand when she says writers are made, not born?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your conclusion. Teachers cannot give you talent you don't have. They at the very best can help you reach your innate potential. If you have no talent for signing all the coaching lessons in the world will not make you a successful opera singer.

Michael,

Do I take this to mean that you disagree with Rand when she says writers are made, not born?

Michael

If I had a decent singing voice I'd have been a popular singer even if not as good as Sinatra. That's genes and that's that. What goes on inside your head and what comes out is another type of ballgame entirely which, however, one would make use of if one had the proper physiological equipment for singing. Writers, of course, are made. The amount of brains you have and how you use them plus character will help determine the quality of what you do. Basically, however, singers are made too. I can make myself into some sort of singing fool and singing it'd be, but I couldn't make anybody listen to it without tying them up: "Stop! Stop! I'll tell you anything you want to know! Just stop singing!"

--Brant

leaves no scars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I happen to agree that innate propensities for higher-than-normal development exist at birth. That includes writing, too. There are even physical reasons in the kind of chemical processing that is prevalent in your brain at birth (or in the "seed" part of your brain that develops with growth).

But that was not Rand's view. She flat-out denied that anything like innate talent existed. I would have to dig to find the quotes, but this has been discussed so many times with the quotes produced, is it really necessary?

Here, I found one from the Introduction to We The Living:

... no one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made.

Frankly, that's another strike against her has a teacher.

You have to correctly identify something before you work on it and do a decent job. That means, for a teacher, correctly identifying the innate capacities for growth of your students.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your conclusion. Teachers cannot give you talent you don't have. They at the very best can help you reach your innate potential. If you have no talent for signing all the coaching lessons in the world will not make you a successful opera singer.

Michael,

Do I take this to mean that you disagree with Rand when she says writers are made, not born?

Michael

(Chuckle)

It's easy to understand. Talent is innate, developing it is not. And a lot of gray around and in-between. (My own observation of people).

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I happen to agree that innate propensities for higher-than-normal development exist at birth. That includes writing, too. There are even physical reasons in the kind of chemical processing that is prevalent in your brain at birth (or in the "seed" part of your brain that develops with growth).

But that was not Rand's view. She flat-out denied that anything like innate talent existed. I would have to dig to find the quotes, but this has been discussed so many times with the quotes produced, is it really necessary?

Here, I found one from the Introduction to We The Living:

... no one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made.

Frankly, that's another strike against her has a teacher.

You have to correctly identify something before you work on it and do a decent job. That means, for a teacher, correctly identifying the innate capacities for growth of your students.

Michael

Michael,

I think part of the problem is that you're looking at the sample of people that agree with Rand philosophically. Also, trying to use Rand as a touchstone in writing when you don't have a visual, screenwriting sensibility can be problematic. Also, content matters. If I were to start writing seriously, I'd look more toward Michael Crichton who shared many of my interests. If there's one thing that writers can learn from both Rand and Crichton, it's the value of research, even in fiction writing and especially in novels.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

As to the "fucking thousands" of Objectivist works of fiction that are decent enough for publication, I'm all ears. Surely if you know enough to emphasize your numbers with "fucking" (which I take to mean that there are so many that only a moron could not find them), you could find a few yourself.

You alone have written thousands of posts, hundreds of longer ones, that could be turned into critical essays, and tens of stories. That is one person. So yes, you would be a moron not to see that. Jonathan could put together aesthetic essays if he had a publisher believing in him. Cambell, Perigo, Hong's story of coming of age in China, the shorts of Cordero, that doesn't even scratch the surface. Though they may not see themselves as writers. But the talent is there, at least for small works.

We clash about Rand because you need to let go of her perceived faults and the "harm" they caused you and just go for your own thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about Rembrandt and Michelangelo to comment on their teaching abilities. I know they were great painters, but would you call them great painting teachers?

Rembrandt had many students who perhaps didn't surpass him, but who nevertheless became great masters themselves: Gerard Dou, Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol, Carel Fabritius, Nicolaes Maes (see also here), Samuel van Hoogstraeten, to name a few. You can check their work with Google images. Not a bad result for a teacher I'd think. They all did find their own distinctive style and didn't become Rembrandt epigones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We clash about Rand because you need to let go of her perceived faults and the "harm" they caused you and just go for your own thing.

Michael,

Heh.

My radar never fails when I sense this love it or leave it attitude with Rand.

Personally, I have moved on to my own thing a long time ago. I have been writing for the benefit of novice writers who get stuck on the same things I have been stuck on.

Also, the material you mentioned is mostly written by people interested in Rand's ideas, but I would not qualify the fiction-sounding part of it as particularly Romantic Art of the type our OP was interested in.

My criticism for that kind of literature written by others still stands. I haven't seen much that I would categorize as passable.

But since you are in the mood to tell me what I need, here is one right back at you. I think you need to try to understand what someone is really saying when you read a criticism of Rand rather than jump right in imagining that the person is attacking her and that she needs to be defended. She, of all people, does not need defending on forum discussions of rather small traffic. Her body of work stands much, much taller than that.

I imagine it makes you feel good to do that, though...

:)

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist that last thing... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

But since you are in the mood to tell me what I need, here is one right back at you. I think you need to try to understand what someone is really saying when you read a criticism of Rand rather than jump right in imagining that the person is attacking her and that she needs to be defended. She, of all people, does not need defending on forum discussions of rather small traffic. Her body of work stands much, much taller than that.

You are probably right in one or two ways. But my psychology finds criticism of great artists pointless, of course there are somethings about every great artist one doesn't like - and my attitude is instead of bitching about them, create your own fucking alternative. I have seen many artists trying to elevate their egos by pointing out faults of great artists, and I always thought the opposite, what is the great artist doing great?--that is what one wants to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this painting of Fabritius, I think he died young in an arms explosion in Delft.

That's correct. Unfortunately most of his paintings were also destroyed in that accident.

Oh, man, tragic. I never saw that painting before, or, I think, ever heard of Fabritius. But that one makes me think he was plenty good.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thankful that [Rand] opted to spend ANY time writing about her process. Rembrandt wrote only one sentence!

What was it, pray tell?

Ellen

Hi Ellen,

"...to produce die meeste ende die natureelste beweechlickheyt - the greatest and most natural movement."

Robert Hughes, famous art critic, brought this subject up, followed by a hopeless opinion. I discuss his opinion in my art tutorial Rembrandt: Master of Eye Movement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I guess we just have different standards of teaching writing. I consider teaching writing--especially creative writing--a learned skill, which includes focus on techniques that nurture the student's talent, not simply creating a body of work and issuing opinions that vaguely influence other writers.

I'm not just verbally dueling, either. This stuff is serious to me because I have been correcting my own course. I went way off-course by trying to use Rand's jargon-related ideas like theme versus plot-theme and so forth. (Granted, theme is not jargon, but Rand's meaning of it is not the standard one. Rand's idea of theme is basically like the title of an encyclopedia article, and plot-theme is the action the subject does or is done with it. She didn't say it that way, but that's what they are.)

She put together some clever ideas, but they are not very useful for teaching creative writing, at least not to beginners. Once again, I point to the lack of people using them out in the culture.

I believe Nathaniel Branden was probably Rand's best nonfiction writing student. But his style vastly changed after the break, starting with Breaking Free.

As to Barbara, she is on record saying that she could only find her writing voice well after she got out from under the constant stern disapproval of Rand's eye. Barbara's style in The Passion of Ayn Rand does not really show the hallmarks of the major Objectivism-related points Rand made in the nonfiction writing book . A case could be made that she was more influenced by the fiction course Rand gave and projected her conflicts and climaxes well, but basically all writing teachers talk about conflict and climax. That permeates our culture. Barbara's lyrical bouncing back and forth between the actual events and probing the psychological possibilities of what motivated the people is something all her own. In fact, this aspect of her writing is one of the things that most offends the fundy Randists, and I think is one of the strongest points of her style.

Michael

Ok I am breaking my own rule for a second because I had to jump in here. I usually don't reply to a single post until I get caught up an all that followed so you may have said something somewhere else to expand, (rambling) so let me get to the point.

I made the horrible mistake of going to University (Yes I know, what a waste of money) I was told by all my Non-Socialist/Commie Profs (yes they did ID themselves as Socialists/Communists) that I should become a teacher or college professor. I was also told by most of my classmates that I should become a Professor (I retaught many classes after the Prof butchered the material). I will never be a professional educator for one plain and simple reason, I would want to kill half my students, and the other half would already be dead. I have an extremely low tolerance for willful ignorance. In the past I have taught Philosophy, Computer repair, writing, and other things informally, I never had more than 15 students at any given time and I had one rule if your an idiot don't bother showing up. In one particular philosophy course I expelled 8 students on the first day (I taught 3 students for the next six months). I loath the education system and feel much sympathy for good professors.

I like Rand believe that talent is not innate that it is in fact learned, I do make room for those born with an abnormally high intellectual capacity. The Capacity however is not the same as the exercise of that capacity, those born with higher intellectual capacities must still train them. I do not believe that Rand is one of these people, (on a personal note I do not consider myself in that category either incase your wondering). You can see very clearly in Rands early work the development of her thought and of her talent. For most people this is difficult to see because they do not realize the difference in the different types of writing that Mrs. Rand did, ie Silent film, vs talkies, vs play's, vs short stories, vs novels. beyond that if you read We the Living and than Atlas Shrugged you will see a vast difference and the leaps in development she had as a writer.

Michael I do not know if you have ever take an introductory art course however I am going to recommend that you do if you have not, (this goes for everyone actually). You can directly apply the principles that they teach in introduction to drawing to .This is more or less the basis of the re-write, when your learning to draw, or paint or anything like that you begin by copying. The principle is to use an existing work, say a drawing of a bowl of fruit, and to copy it exactly. You copy it and copy it until you get it perfect and have every line in its place. In Writing you cannot just copy another authors work that will not improve your skill but you use the skeleton of works they have already done to help improve your own writing. The best pieces of Lit to do rewrites with are journalistic works, as you do the re-write you see the flaws in the authors work, how it should have been described Romantically. The way I describe it is like doing a translation of a work from one language into another. I LOVE Latin, with a passion, I am also an autodidact, and have never taken a professional course to learn Latin yet I can translate most work now without a dictionary(I will come back to this). In the same way I translate a piece of Latin, I translate a journalistic novel into Romantic Art.

As to using Rand's terminology. When I teach a course I always revert the students back to the very beginning. Day 1 its (What ever you think you know forget it because its wrong). Depending on circumstances I will often times use translated words (sometimes German most of the time Latin) and define them. For your sake I will do it in Spanish, so Plot theme becomes Parcela Tema. What you end up doing is tricking the student by giving them a new term to use at the beginning of the class, then half way through the semester you start to phase out the spanish and instead use the English. The student then begins to replace the old definition of plot or plot theme with the new one. The confusion it sounds like your having from your students is that they are trying to use two definitions of the same term at the same time, the one they grew up with all their life and Mrs. Rand's. Also what I like to do is to break up the definition of a term and then expand it for my students, thus you break down Rand's term Plot Theme into several smaller digestible parts and then feed it to your students over a series of classes rather than all at once. There is a book I am going to suggest that you get if you can find it, the book is called "7+/-2". The book is about memory in Humans.

Another exercise for the students is for them to go online to CliffNotes and look up particular stories and have them find and define the Theme and Plot Theme from the CliffNotes. This concretizes the difference in their minds.

an interesting side note: do you know why phone numbers have as many numbers as they do? 7 + or - 2. How many numbers do you memorize when you memorize a phone number? 1-215-555-6171

The answer four sometimes five.

One - two one five - five hundred and fifty five - sixty one - seventy one.

even though you memorize the 215 part as two one five, your brian registers it as one number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now