I found it when I clicked the link Chuck put at the beginning. But when I tried to "like" it, I couldn't. Then went back to Lizzy's Substack homepage and it wasn't there. Confusing. But a good little story, I've subscribed, hopefully it comes back.
Hey Lizzy, you’ve got a nice beginning of a story there. Same as Chuck, for me the Big Voice at the beginning, it probably takes more space then it should. Maybe you could break it out throughout the rest of the chapter? The tweaks Chuck suggested will make it shine.
I think a good piece of writing is like architecture. We see a high building, a quick glimpse, we shrug. Ignoring all the work and balancing and design that went into it. Then we see the tower of Pisa and all there snapping selfies at its 4-degree lean. The beauty of writing is hiding the effort. The rest is all extra tilted degrees the reader notices.
Keep up the good work. The story has got really good potential.
Chuck has identified some things in your work that I do often, and I find it so much easier to understand the issue seeing it spelled in someone else’s writing.
I've been reading Denis Johnson's Jesus' Son recently, and noticed that he doesn't submerge the I, but also that it doesn't seem to harm his writing or the way I perceive it as the reader at all.
Would you say there is a time and a place for submerging the I, and if so, when is it actually acceptable not to submerge it in your writing?
It's something I've become very aware of in everything I read and write recently.
I’ve wondered about this also. My working theory -- until Chuck blows it out of the water -- is that the I works when a character has a definable personality wholly distinct and (probably) separate from that of the reader.
That's an interesting theory, might be close to the correct answer, if there is one.
I've found that when going back and removing the I from some of my past writing, rephrasing sentences etc to make it fit, completely changes the pacing of the story. It reads a lot snappier, puts the reader so much more in the story, in the action.
But I also worry that the reader might get bored after a while of the same style.
Could be that I'm just doing it wrong, of course. I'm still very much in the experimental learning phase, maybe I've gone too extreme with it.
But it does get me thinking hard about it when I read something as brilliant as the stories in Jesus' Son, where there's at least one I in almost every sentence, and yet I still feel completely involved in the scene.
Maybe it's just genius writing and, as such, an exception.
If I’m being honest, although I like the whole concept of submerging the I, and how being aware of it has added an interesting approach/awareness to my writing, it’s not necessarily something that I take to heart. I don’t treat it like a tenet that I have to adhere to because, like you mention, I’ve read a multitude of books where I is used liberally by characters, and it has seemingly never -- speaking for myself -- taken me out of the story or made me feel less interested in it. (Please have mercy on me if you read this, Chuck.)
I agree, although recently I have really been experimenting with removing I almost completely from my writing, I can think of a whole load of books with an I in every sentence, all perfectly excellent books.
I wonder if it's more a question of dogma than anything else. (i.e. This is minimalism, and if you want to write minimalism, this is how we do it).
I would agree that submerging the I is seemingly a minimalist trait. And I think that is perhaps where nuance comes into place -- how a writer can integrate minimalist conventions into their work, despite the fact that the work is not wholly minimalist though.
Denis is always good at keeping characters together, so we've always got the presence of other people and things. This makes Fuck Head more of a camera, recording his peers. Submerging the I is a fix for writers who tend to write too much about a character alone, brooding, and writers who seldom point the camera at other character/objects.
I push submerging the I because it's a good instant fix for some bad writing habits.
how can I view my own responses / comments to posts? Do I have to just keep track? I feel like I still need to think about all these things. I am a bad consumer. And there is thoughtful content sharing here. And most of is is by writers.;)
It is a new world this substack.
thx...
also...
I am told I get no low vision accommodations because I finally got 20/20 vision with glasses @ 54 y.o. although it is still slightly double vision. so this may still be a matter of still feeling around in the dark and light. ;)
Strong notes on this, Chuck. The Gloves Off series is my personal favorite on the stack. Offers a lot to chew on for anyone writing today.
Lizzy, thanks for putting your story on the operating table. Blood donation is a great scene to set a story in. Visceral and existential. I imagine the share is a little intimidating, but a real gift to us out here. <3
You had me at "Janet is my blood taker today." If this were my story, that would be my opening line. I like how you call out the costume jewelry the phlebotomist is wearing, and the comparison to bottle caps.
My mom worked for a lab, so when I was 17, she made me work summers as a phlebotomist. So in college, when I was scraping for cash, I had no problem visiting the plasma banks. I still, twenty years later, have a big pockmark in the crease of my left arm (the good side). I think a physical detail like that would be good up where Janet is noticing Tom's donated before.
I like the detail of how Tom "felt [him]self getting light again." His blood is draining into vials though, so I wonder if he is in fact donating blood. I guess they do draw a few into vials before they fill the bag? If you are donating plasma, then you have that cold saline running back into you. Still gives me chills thinking about it. But if you went the plasma route, you might play up the coldness of that saline with the "rehearsed lowering into the dirt" you mentioned earlier.
You've got my curiosity! Can't wait to see where you take this.
Nice work, thanks for sharing. Chuck, thanks for the excellent notes.
I found it when I clicked the link Chuck put at the beginning. But when I tried to "like" it, I couldn't. Then went back to Lizzy's Substack homepage and it wasn't there. Confusing. But a good little story, I've subscribed, hopefully it comes back.
It doesn’t work on the app – it just shows Lizzy’s profile.
I had to open this post on the web browser instead and then click on it.
Hey Lizzy, you’ve got a nice beginning of a story there. Same as Chuck, for me the Big Voice at the beginning, it probably takes more space then it should. Maybe you could break it out throughout the rest of the chapter? The tweaks Chuck suggested will make it shine.
I think a good piece of writing is like architecture. We see a high building, a quick glimpse, we shrug. Ignoring all the work and balancing and design that went into it. Then we see the tower of Pisa and all there snapping selfies at its 4-degree lean. The beauty of writing is hiding the effort. The rest is all extra tilted degrees the reader notices.
Keep up the good work. The story has got really good potential.
Thanks for sharing Lizzy.
Chuck has identified some things in your work that I do often, and I find it so much easier to understand the issue seeing it spelled in someone else’s writing.
Chuck, a question, if I may.
I've been reading Denis Johnson's Jesus' Son recently, and noticed that he doesn't submerge the I, but also that it doesn't seem to harm his writing or the way I perceive it as the reader at all.
Would you say there is a time and a place for submerging the I, and if so, when is it actually acceptable not to submerge it in your writing?
It's something I've become very aware of in everything I read and write recently.
Thanks in advance.
I’ve wondered about this also. My working theory -- until Chuck blows it out of the water -- is that the I works when a character has a definable personality wholly distinct and (probably) separate from that of the reader.
That's an interesting theory, might be close to the correct answer, if there is one.
I've found that when going back and removing the I from some of my past writing, rephrasing sentences etc to make it fit, completely changes the pacing of the story. It reads a lot snappier, puts the reader so much more in the story, in the action.
But I also worry that the reader might get bored after a while of the same style.
Could be that I'm just doing it wrong, of course. I'm still very much in the experimental learning phase, maybe I've gone too extreme with it.
But it does get me thinking hard about it when I read something as brilliant as the stories in Jesus' Son, where there's at least one I in almost every sentence, and yet I still feel completely involved in the scene.
Maybe it's just genius writing and, as such, an exception.
If I’m being honest, although I like the whole concept of submerging the I, and how being aware of it has added an interesting approach/awareness to my writing, it’s not necessarily something that I take to heart. I don’t treat it like a tenet that I have to adhere to because, like you mention, I’ve read a multitude of books where I is used liberally by characters, and it has seemingly never -- speaking for myself -- taken me out of the story or made me feel less interested in it. (Please have mercy on me if you read this, Chuck.)
I agree, although recently I have really been experimenting with removing I almost completely from my writing, I can think of a whole load of books with an I in every sentence, all perfectly excellent books.
I wonder if it's more a question of dogma than anything else. (i.e. This is minimalism, and if you want to write minimalism, this is how we do it).
I would agree that submerging the I is seemingly a minimalist trait. And I think that is perhaps where nuance comes into place -- how a writer can integrate minimalist conventions into their work, despite the fact that the work is not wholly minimalist though.
I think that's it.
Really curious to hear Chuck's input on this. Maybe put us both straight, add a bit of depth.
And when the narrator/character is open and aware of other characters.
Denis is always good at keeping characters together, so we've always got the presence of other people and things. This makes Fuck Head more of a camera, recording his peers. Submerging the I is a fix for writers who tend to write too much about a character alone, brooding, and writers who seldom point the camera at other character/objects.
I push submerging the I because it's a good instant fix for some bad writing habits.
Thank you, Chuck, that makes perfect sense and also puts me a bit more at ease. Appreciate the reply.
ooooo
I will keep going over the 1st half...
and do the same with the 2nd half.
the set up of patterns and all of it.
p.s.
how can I view my own responses / comments to posts? Do I have to just keep track? I feel like I still need to think about all these things. I am a bad consumer. And there is thoughtful content sharing here. And most of is is by writers.;)
It is a new world this substack.
thx...
also...
I am told I get no low vision accommodations because I finally got 20/20 vision with glasses @ 54 y.o. although it is still slightly double vision. so this may still be a matter of still feeling around in the dark and light. ;)
ty for sharing so much... everyone!
maybe I just bookmark things to come back to ;)
digital paper trail?
Providing someone likes or responds to your comment, you'll always be able to find it by clicking "activity."
ty that is what I thought!
I am babying my interactions. ;)
I will bookmark where I comment till I can stop having 2nd thought.
Strong notes on this, Chuck. The Gloves Off series is my personal favorite on the stack. Offers a lot to chew on for anyone writing today.
Lizzy, thanks for putting your story on the operating table. Blood donation is a great scene to set a story in. Visceral and existential. I imagine the share is a little intimidating, but a real gift to us out here. <3
Hi Lizzy! Thank you for sharing your story.
You had me at "Janet is my blood taker today." If this were my story, that would be my opening line. I like how you call out the costume jewelry the phlebotomist is wearing, and the comparison to bottle caps.
My mom worked for a lab, so when I was 17, she made me work summers as a phlebotomist. So in college, when I was scraping for cash, I had no problem visiting the plasma banks. I still, twenty years later, have a big pockmark in the crease of my left arm (the good side). I think a physical detail like that would be good up where Janet is noticing Tom's donated before.
I like the detail of how Tom "felt [him]self getting light again." His blood is draining into vials though, so I wonder if he is in fact donating blood. I guess they do draw a few into vials before they fill the bag? If you are donating plasma, then you have that cold saline running back into you. Still gives me chills thinking about it. But if you went the plasma route, you might play up the coldness of that saline with the "rehearsed lowering into the dirt" you mentioned earlier.
You've got my curiosity! Can't wait to see where you take this.
Nice work, thanks for sharing. Chuck, thanks for the excellent notes.