Jolly writes a story

hmmmm....now you got me thinkin' even more about this character

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jphmmmm....now you got me thinkin' even more about this character

Remember, he's an "unwitting student." He doesn't realize that the lesson is played out right in front of his face.

"unwitting" sorry my bad :o i went back to read it as you wrote the last post..you can't skim jolly works

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jp"unwitting" sorry my bad :o

Hey, no harm no foul. Can't catch everything, believe me, I'm still analyzing my own friggin' story! :eek:

Originally Posted by: z0s0_jp"unwitting" sorry my bad :o i went back to read it as you wrote the last post..you can't skim jolly works

Haha, not this one at least. But it's dense and thus almost asks to be skimmed. Gotta exercise a lot of self-control, each word is important to the theme.

I don't mean to sound like I'm tooting my own horn. It's true, every word is important to the theme. However, I could very well have chosen poor words. This narrator is not omniscient, and I'm not yet sure who he is. Obviously as with every element, the story is in my head somewhere, but the narrator has a best persona...holy ****, I think I've got it.

I think I'll play from the museum's viewpoint. I'd have to change a few words here and there.

Originally Posted by: acapellaWell, I'm just going to say I liked it. And leave it at that.

Well Jolly, Brendon tells me that you are some kind of genius at English, and the fact that a dullard like myself was even able to read and understand the words is amazing. So, that makes me feel happy inside.

Originally Posted by: acapellaWell Jolly, Brendon tells me that you are some kind of genius at English, and the fact that a dullard like myself was even able to read and understand the words is amazing. So, that makes me feel happy inside.

Brendon lied about two things. I am not a genius, and you are not a dullard.

Edited again. I fleshed out Thomas's character a little more, I think you guys will like it.

Wow Jolly, I really enjoyed that... I'm glad I waited though until I got home and could spend some time reading it without interruption.

Definitely awoke the voyeur within me. Although Thomas/Tommis seemed a bit pompous for my liking. I definitely found myself getting into the story and wondering about his motives..

Great job Jolly.. If you write anymore about this character, I would love to read it.

Originally Posted by: Tonja_ReneeWow Jolly, I really enjoyed that... I'm glad I waited though until I got home and could spend some time reading it without interruption.

Definitely awoke the voyeur within me. Although Thomas/Tommis seemed a bit pompous for my liking. I definitely found myself getting into the story and wondering about his motives..

Great job Jolly.. If you write anymore about this character, I would love to read it.

Thanks a lot, Tonja! However, could you point out an example of Thomas's pompousness? The curators' and academics' words on "art" at the beginning were meant to be the most blatant examples, and I'm concerned that Thomas's private arrogance played through so strongly to you without those overshadowing it.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonThanks a lot, Tonja! However, could you point out an example of Thomas's pompousness? The curators' and academics' words on "art" at the beginning were meant to be the most blatant examples, and I'm concerned that Thomas's private arrogance played through so strongly to you without those overshadowing it.

Well it was just a feeling I got from the first couple of paragraphs.. there wasn't one word or sentence that made me think he was pompous.. I guess it was just the continuous negativity he portrayed, almost like he thought everything was laughable. Nothing was real or worthy.

Originally Posted by: Tonja_ReneeWell it was just a feeling I got from the first couple of paragraphs.. there wasn't one word or sentence that made me think he was pompous.. I guess it was just the continuous negativity he portrayed, almost like he thought everything was laughable. Nothing was real or worthy.

Hmm...interesting. I'll see what I can do. Thanks!

Now technically the point of the story is that all this "art" is a facade, a denial of reality. However, there are a few points I'm looking at now where I can definitely see your point. Right after "Venus De Milo" where Thomas thinks "Can't ****, can't wipe." I need to rephrase that to something less blatant, because the "shat" just before that part provides plenty of counterbalance. In fact, it's the same reason I changed "balls but no rectum" to "scrotum but no rectum." Well, that and the latinate parallel. There, changed it to "fertilizer of fallow fields."

Thomas is, after all, disillusioned with the museum. His problem is in seeking some sexual gratification here, he simply looks back on a time when he wasn't disillusioned, as unfertile as David's marble (plaster) genitalia or the Venus de Milo. Thomas lives in a world of preconceived notions, of a solid past, a past to which he wishes to return. Like the Monet, Thomas is stuck in a stiff framework confining him to his stasis, to his routine and habit. The disillusionment charges, then, a backwardlooking cynicism, not an enlightenment.

Interestingly, I really disliked this when I first read it - I found it was over-thought, images milked for every last drop, and too clever for it's own good. As a former student of literature, I owed it a second read so as to make whatever negative comment I was going to make as constructive as possible.

BLAM! I enjoyed it! Can't explain the turnaround, but hey....

I do think there's still some validity to my original reading - to put it in guitar terms, your technique is unquestionably good, but whether your use of it ends up detracting from the music - maybe you're the only one who can answer that. It's probably also dependant on audience.

Are you studying literature at the moment?

Originally Posted by: zreynoldspAre you studying literature at the moment?

Yeah, I am. Admittedly I'm still rough around the edges with this technique. Trying to cut back on one or two of the complexities. It's possible that on the second read you simply read a more thought-out version of the story.

It's also possible that after all the years I spent with my head in a book / reading criticism / discussing / blah that I've just had my fill of this end of the spectrum...

Either way, much respect for putting it out there for us.... nuts on the block so to speak.... :D

I personally found it difficult to modify the very complex use of language in essays / academic discussions etc, so as to make it more accessible for the majority of people who don't want to 'work' to enjoy reading... if that's the best way to phrase it...

And.... I'm not saying I could do better either dude...

Originally Posted by: zreynoldspIt's also possible that after all the years I spent with my head in a book / reading criticism / discussing / blah that I've just had my fill of this end of the spectrum...

Either way, much respect for putting it out there for us.... nuts on the block so to speak.... :D

I personally found it difficult to modify the very complex use of language in essays / academic discussions etc, so as to make it more accessible for the majority of people who don't want to 'work' to enjoy reading... if that's the best way to phrase it...

And.... I'm not saying I could do better either dude...

Nuts have to go on the block; they always can be sewn back on. I see what you mean. I've tried to give the language a tonailty, some way of coming off the tongue, that allows those who don't want to have to work for some deeper meaning (which, by the way is a perfectly reasonable and EQUALLY valid approach to the one I prefer) to be able to still get through and enjoy it. I'm glad you enjoyed it on the second run-through. I'm hoping it was the touch-ups I did on the language...

Also, don't worry, I'm never going to take offense to well-meant criticism. God knows I'll never say "Why don't YOU try writing something better!?" That's not a constructive way to improve my writing, and it's a fantastic way to say it to someone who can and will write something better.

I decided to post the email I sent to my friend explaining three of the more prevalent themes:

Justin,

This isn't so much an explanation as it is a schema, a guide. Remember when you see art,think language, not art.

One of the themes, and probably the most central, is that language denies reality and ugliness. Remember that in LITERARY terms, "reality" means ugliness, horror, waste, and generally disagreeable things that are still part of life. The main images under that theme are the plaster statue, the lack of an anus in classical sculpting, the "marble" floor and pillars revealed as limestone, and the fact that the curator and this secretary are having sex hidden behind a wall.

Inadvertently limiting progress by confining oneself to both preconceived notions and the past is another major theme. Ancient art, the old architecture of pillars, Vanessa (who, to beat in the somewhat clear similarity, parallels the Venus de Milo), and both Thomas and the curator's scheduled repetitions all conform to an idea of a linear time frame. A sense of time that can be controlled and manipulated, but always locked in past action, habit, and routine. The frame of the Monet, the "plastershell" statue, and the reference to "Procrustes" all define self-imposed limitations and borders that ultimately lead to imprisonment and decay.

The final theme that I'll mention is infertility, the inability of this elevated,
supposedly superior art (language) to produce viable offspring. David, decaying in plaster, brings in the first example with his genitalia sculpted as they are--flaccid. Venus de Milo, of course, is without a vagina as well as without a rectum (the denial of the vulgar or waste). Though she does have breasts, and can feed her young, she cannot birth them. So here we see the necessity of that "higher" language, though it cannot survive on its own. Thomas ejaculates in his pants, an obviously infertile sexual experience, and the curator is "Protected, a Son of Troy" (aka wearing a condom). Hiding
this sexuality has lead to infertility, as living in the past also leads to an inability to create for the future.

Hope that clears up anything about which you may have had questions,
-Evan

Well after reading this whole thread over again, starting with the story, and doing some research into the symbolism that was used, I think I understand a lot more than I did at first. I don't dare say that I understand it all, as I'm sure there's a lot that I missed or misinterpreted, but it's becoming a lot clearer.

Originally Posted by: acapellaWell after reading this whole thread over again, starting with the story, and doing some research into the symbolism that was used, I think I understand a lot more than I did at first. I don't dare say that I understand it all, as I'm sure there's a lot that I missed or misinterpreted, but it's becoming a lot clearer.

I did want to write something that needed multiple readings, the first to enjoy, the second and third etc to understand. I'm glad you worked at this, man, and really proud that I wrote something you guys felt was worth the time to analyze! Acapella, I'm gonna pm you my email address, I still want to see how you worked out the Holden Caufield parallel.