My assigned reading collided with personal reading this week.

A writer-friend suggested a Sunday New York Times Op-Ed to me .  A novelist explained how language affects a reader's perception and how the right combination of words can echo through time.

Flash forward to Wednesday's assigned reading of the comic, "Blood in the Gutter", and the chapter, "Clarity", from Williams and Columb.

The core of each lesson is communicating effectively.

My favorite lesson from "Blood in the Gutter" was the East / West storytelling dichotomy between "being there" versus "getting there".  My western brain is trained to get to the point - "chop-chop".  However, my over-wrought senses crave languishing in the moment, taking in what is offered, and reflecting on the lesson.

.

.

.

"Blood in the Gutter" reinforced my believe of leaving gutters in my writing - providing negative space in my narrative for my reader to breathe, ponder, and draw their own conclusions.  I like the idea of reader participation.  Why must I spoon feed the reader every bit of information to tell my story?  Devices such as "closure" gives the reader the opportunity to commit their own "special crimes."

One of my favorite types of books when I was kid were participatory novels where the story reached a fork in the road - a decision point.  The reader was given a chance to choose the direction for the protagonist.  Turn to page X if you want the hero to sell his prized cow for magic beans or Page Y to sell his cow for a few shillings?  See where it takes you.  I can imagine gutters operating much the same way if used effectively.

Depending on the medium, purpose, and audience, writing may need laser sharp clarity and perception.  But, if the situation permits, I see nothing wrong with playing in the theatre of the absurd.

Back to My WTI Portfolio