>I wish the beginning worked as well as the end. It was about a very
>strange, "defining" moment and it is very hard to describe the interplay
>between human and animal because all the thinking for the animal is
>assumed by the human. Traps: sentimentality, or what I did--a kind of
>hardassed tone with somewhat extraneous material that doesn't get at
>what I began to get at only midway through, the action itself minus
>set-ups, etc.
Yes, Ken, I think it does seem a "very strange 'defining' moment', that's there,
and perhaps the trouble with the beginning is the staging, where you start out
from a rather distanced view "Grant this" and then zero in, incremently. You
could try something like this,
Chain your intellect to the fencepost and let it bare its teeth at Old Yeller
or So Dear To My Heart. Know you are wearing a neck chain and your teeth will
not
reach.
This is a dog story, but the dog is not shaggy, he combines Rottweiler,
Shepherd, and jerk,
which means there are no apologies here save to the insulted and the injured.
Grant this: He is the woman's dog, but I have lately adopted him to the heart.
He is not an Ours because when it comes to this dog there is no Us.
A kind of interweaving, instead of the view moving in upon the 'action' by
marked delineations, and I hope you don't mind the suggestion! And I wouldn't
worry about the line being from Meister Eckhardt via some Landinsky; since it's
that sort of line, perhaps because as you say Landinsky is the sort of 'translator
who makes everyone sound like himself' it sounds like a line from anyone, as in
the sense, of those medieval morality plays, "Everyman".
best,
Rebecca
>I wish the beginning worked as well as the end. It was about a very
>strange, "defining" moment and it is very hard to describe the interplay
>between human and animal because all the thinking for the animal is
>assumed by the human. Traps: sentimentality, or what I did--a kind of
>hardassed tone with somewhat extraneous material that doesn't get at
>what I began to get at only midway through, the action itself minus
>set-ups, etc.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:01:34 -0500
>From: Ken Wolman <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: "Power"/too late to be a snap, oh well
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Rebecca Seiferle wrote:
>
>>I like your snap, Ken, so honest to so many not always pleasant
>>intersecting realities and agree with Andrew about the fine turn of the end,
>>
>>
>>
>>>What is wrong with him, I sometimes wonder? He does not thrive on
>>>anger. He is forgiving. He is not human.
>>>Love does that.
>>>
>>>
>>a real questioning of being,
>>
>>best,
>>
>>Rebecca
>>
>>
>I wish the beginning worked as well as the end. It was about a very
>strange, "defining" moment and it is very hard to describe the interplay
>between human and animal because all the thinking for the animal is
>assumed by the human. Traps: sentimentality, or what I did--a kind of
>hardassed tone with somewhat extraneous material that doesn't get at
>what I began to get at only midway through, the action itself minus
>set-ups, etc.
>
>"Love Does That." I hate to admit this, but I stole the words from a
>poem about an overburdened donkey fed by a passer-by; I think it was
>written by Master Eckhard filtered through a guy named Daniel Ladinsky,
>who I've seen condemned as (gasp) New Age and, worse, as a translator
>who makes everyone sound like himself. I wish I could find the original
>poem which I remember as a sweet, simple look at the kind of
>communication I tried to describe.
>
>ken
>
>--
>Kenneth Wolman
>Proposal Development Department
>Room SW334
>Sarnoff Corporation
>609-734-2538
|