What do you think?
Rate this book
Да поставиш дявола на колене: Писането на проза като занаят и живот
Есетата в сборникa „Да поставиш дявола на колене” представят обсъждането на въпросите, които си задават група писатели – въпроси, свързани със занаята, със знанието и с практиката, която позволява на автора на художествена проза да надскочи обикновената умелост.
Текстовете са разделени в три групи. Първата е посветена на онези проблеми, които най-често включваме в широката категория на техническите похвати. Това са два текста, посветени на темата за гласа, като единият от гласовете е този на Чък Уоктъл, а другият – на Стивън Шуорц; есето на Ричард Русо, което се занимава с гледната точка, като отделя специално внимание на всезнаещия разказвач; разсъжденията на Джоун Силбър върху „тежестта“ – усещането за важността на определена тема в кратките прозаични форми. Чарлз Бакстър, от своя страна, предлага някои бележки върху модулацията; Сюзън Невил разглежда съзнателното злодейство като необходима опора на сюжета, а Джим Шепърд ни предупреждава,че епифанията крие опасности.
Сборникът няма за цел да предложи набор от отговори. В оптималния случай книгата ще внушава (в добрия смисъл на думата), ще информира и ще вдъхновява. Без да са сляпо самоуверени, авторите предлагат възможности, като приемат, че читателят на тези текстове проявява траен интерес към писането като житейска дейност и е прекалено мъдър, за да си мисли, че има лесен път към една достойна крайна цел.
Текстовете са разделени в три групи. Първата е посветена на онези проблеми, които най-често включваме в широката категория на техническите похвати. Това са два текста, посветени на темата за гласа, като единият от гласовете е този на Чък Уоктъл, а другият – на Стивън Шуорц; есето на Ричард Русо, което се занимава с гледната точка, като отделя специално внимание на всезнаещия разказвач; разсъжденията на Джоун Силбър върху „тежестта“ – усещането за важността на определена тема в кратките прозаични форми. Чарлз Бакстър, от своя страна, предлага някои бележки върху модулацията; Сюзън Невил разглежда съзнателното злодейство като необходима опора на сюжета, а Джим Шепърд ни предупреждава,че епифанията крие опасности.
Сборникът няма за цел да предложи набор от отговори. В оптималния случай книгата ще внушава (в добрия смисъл на думата), ще информира и ще вдъхновява. Без да са сляпо самоуверени, авторите предлагат възможности, като приемат, че читателят на тези текстове проявява траен интерес към писането като житейска дейност и е прекалено мъдър, за да си мисли, че има лесен път към една достойна крайна цел.
Paperback
First published June 4, 2001
18 people are currently reading
280 people want to read
About the author
Charles Baxter
94 books428 followersCharles Baxter was born in Minneapolis and graduated from Macalester College, in Saint Paul. After completing graduate work in English at the State University of New York at Buffalo, he taught for several years at Wayne State University in Detroit. In 1989, he moved to the Department of English at the University of Michigan--Ann Arbor and its MFA program. He now teaches at the University of Minnesota.
Baxter is the author of 4 novels, 4 collections of short stories, 3 collections of poems, a collection of essays on fiction and is the editor of other works. His works of fiction include Believers , The Feast of Love (nominated for the National Book Award), Saul and Patsy , and Through the Safety Net . He lives in Minneapolis.
Baxter is the author of 4 novels, 4 collections of short stories, 3 collections of poems, a collection of essays on fiction and is the editor of other works. His works of fiction include Believers , The Feast of Love (nominated for the National Book Award), Saul and Patsy , and Through the Safety Net . He lives in Minneapolis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 29, 2012
I'd say the value of any book on writing can be based on its ability to instruct or inspire. Most people buying these kinds of books are looking for advice on how to be better writers, or simply the spark that'll get them started. (I'm not counting the thornier issue of publication.) This collection of talks/essays from the Warren Wilson MFA writing program includes the following:
"Omniscience," Russo -- Claims that the all-knowing third person narrator is the most mature and thereby most desirable literary perspective. A little pompous in places, but entertaining (like most of Russo's work) and almost convincing. 4/5
"Know Myself," Shepard -- Argues that epiphanies are the siren songs of literature: authors think they need them, but they ruin plots. A compelling essay, but mostly it's just an evaluative praise piece for Robert Stone's short story, "Helping." 4/5
"Iago," Neville -- A treatise on how evil (or Evil) is the fire in the belly of all great stories. Juicy, insightful, and an all-around inspiring essay. 5/5
"Voice," Schwartz -- Short and too-the-point, and yet it resists all attempts at summation. Schwartz takes a complicated and overly-trendy subject -- how writers find their "voice" and what that even means -- and makes it relatable and workable. 5/5
"Mask," Wachtel -- Long, pointless, and over-written. Not only does the author fail to make any relevant or specific points at all, but he even admits as much at the end of the essay. Tries (and fails) to do in 17 pages what the previous essay just did in 6. 0/5
"Weight," Silber -- Brief and forgettable essay on perspective that makes a few interesting comparisons but fails to come to any real conclusions. 3/5
"Form," Havazelet -- Uses Chekov to describe how authors should seduce readers with proper form. He leaves the term "form" purposefully vague, and the essay turns into a deep, analytical discussion of the various symbolisms used in Chekov's stories. Certainly interesting, but not particularly applicable. 3/5
"Inflection," Baxter -- Goes over a few ways to provide emphasis and timing to inanimate text (without resorting to ellipses and italics). A nuts and bolts kind of essay that I agreed with but was also fairly bored by. 2/5
"First and Last," Spark -- An essay on opening and closing lines. The premise could easily turn into an excuse to list a bunch of interesting first and last sentences, but Spark actually leaves you thinking. 4/5
"Memory," Brennan - The author uses a tragic personal event to discuss how literature is an attempt to make sense of the world's random confluence of events. Touching and beautifully written, but also pretty opaque. 3/5
"Spandrels," Boswell - Perhaps my favorite essay in the book, Boswell discusses how fiction evolves from concept to finished product. The idea that any good story contains the seeds for its own proper ornamentation is fascinating and it also gets the creative juices flowing. 5/5
"Scene Beast," Hribal - A decent exploration of how to feed your audience's hunger for something to happen. Hribal discusses ways to sate that "scene beast," sometimes without actual scenes. Clever and fun. 5/5
"Cartographer," Turchi - Intelligent and illuminating essay on both perspective and destination in writing. The subject is vast, but Turchi doesn't labor over any points and uses the topic to both entertain and educate. 5/5
"Jokes," Nelson - Discusses the shape and mechanism of jokes and how that can inspire better writing. Intriguing points, but mostly inert. 3/5
"Ruins," Martone - Talks about ways that authors "ruin" their stories (read: buck trends for the sake of aesthetic principal). Ruins his own essay with lots of over-written meandering. 1/5
"Editors," McIlvoy - Basically a love letter to Stephen Crane and an affectionate analysis of his story, "The Open Boat." Suitably scholastic, but not really useful. 3/5
"Democracy," Medina - A complaint about the trend to nationalize authors and their works. I agree with the author, but can't understand how such an essay can be expected to assist writers. 1/5
"Readers," Grossman - A debate on whether or not it is useful or advisable to consider the audience when writing a piece. An excellent topic for an essay, but it isn't very thoroughly explored here. 3/5
"Truth," Livesey - Analyzing the concept of "true" stories. Clever but pointless essay. 2/5
"Omniscience," Russo -- Claims that the all-knowing third person narrator is the most mature and thereby most desirable literary perspective. A little pompous in places, but entertaining (like most of Russo's work) and almost convincing. 4/5
"Know Myself," Shepard -- Argues that epiphanies are the siren songs of literature: authors think they need them, but they ruin plots. A compelling essay, but mostly it's just an evaluative praise piece for Robert Stone's short story, "Helping." 4/5
"Iago," Neville -- A treatise on how evil (or Evil) is the fire in the belly of all great stories. Juicy, insightful, and an all-around inspiring essay. 5/5
"Voice," Schwartz -- Short and too-the-point, and yet it resists all attempts at summation. Schwartz takes a complicated and overly-trendy subject -- how writers find their "voice" and what that even means -- and makes it relatable and workable. 5/5
"Mask," Wachtel -- Long, pointless, and over-written. Not only does the author fail to make any relevant or specific points at all, but he even admits as much at the end of the essay. Tries (and fails) to do in 17 pages what the previous essay just did in 6. 0/5
"Weight," Silber -- Brief and forgettable essay on perspective that makes a few interesting comparisons but fails to come to any real conclusions. 3/5
"Form," Havazelet -- Uses Chekov to describe how authors should seduce readers with proper form. He leaves the term "form" purposefully vague, and the essay turns into a deep, analytical discussion of the various symbolisms used in Chekov's stories. Certainly interesting, but not particularly applicable. 3/5
"Inflection," Baxter -- Goes over a few ways to provide emphasis and timing to inanimate text (without resorting to ellipses and italics). A nuts and bolts kind of essay that I agreed with but was also fairly bored by. 2/5
"First and Last," Spark -- An essay on opening and closing lines. The premise could easily turn into an excuse to list a bunch of interesting first and last sentences, but Spark actually leaves you thinking. 4/5
"Memory," Brennan - The author uses a tragic personal event to discuss how literature is an attempt to make sense of the world's random confluence of events. Touching and beautifully written, but also pretty opaque. 3/5
"Spandrels," Boswell - Perhaps my favorite essay in the book, Boswell discusses how fiction evolves from concept to finished product. The idea that any good story contains the seeds for its own proper ornamentation is fascinating and it also gets the creative juices flowing. 5/5
"Scene Beast," Hribal - A decent exploration of how to feed your audience's hunger for something to happen. Hribal discusses ways to sate that "scene beast," sometimes without actual scenes. Clever and fun. 5/5
"Cartographer," Turchi - Intelligent and illuminating essay on both perspective and destination in writing. The subject is vast, but Turchi doesn't labor over any points and uses the topic to both entertain and educate. 5/5
"Jokes," Nelson - Discusses the shape and mechanism of jokes and how that can inspire better writing. Intriguing points, but mostly inert. 3/5
"Ruins," Martone - Talks about ways that authors "ruin" their stories (read: buck trends for the sake of aesthetic principal). Ruins his own essay with lots of over-written meandering. 1/5
"Editors," McIlvoy - Basically a love letter to Stephen Crane and an affectionate analysis of his story, "The Open Boat." Suitably scholastic, but not really useful. 3/5
"Democracy," Medina - A complaint about the trend to nationalize authors and their works. I agree with the author, but can't understand how such an essay can be expected to assist writers. 1/5
"Readers," Grossman - A debate on whether or not it is useful or advisable to consider the audience when writing a piece. An excellent topic for an essay, but it isn't very thoroughly explored here. 3/5
"Truth," Livesey - Analyzing the concept of "true" stories. Clever but pointless essay. 2/5
May 16, 2020
Ужасно досадна и протяжна книга, която не мога да кажа, че беше особено полезна. Буквално ме върна в часовете по литература в 12-и клас и кошмарните литературни анализи. Не бих я препоръчала на никого 😑
September 27, 2013
This is a VERY inconsistent anthology of essays about writing and the writing life. All the authors teach at Warren Wilson in Asheville. Some of these essays I LOVED (Sparks, I will follow you. I will.) . And a few I skimmed. The latter are the very academic ones -- and I know the authors ARE academics, but if the writing doesn't capture the reader, what's the good in those days and days of writing work. . . ?
The essays I enjoyed most are clearly transcribed lectures. They incorporate specific examples and humor and personal anecdotes and even asides. I'd love to see these professors in action.The more academic ones were dry and detailed and, to my mind, said the same thing over and over again. Critical analysis is fine, but it's not what I expected to find in this volume.
Whenever I read an anthology, I am always very aware of the purpose of the book. Is it to make the editor money? To promote a cause? To showcase the various contributing writers? It's usually one or a combination of these -- rarely is it "because it would make a great book" or even "because it will be required in the personal library of every ------ in the world." There needs to be a thread of continuity, and even a thread of... voice? setting? purpose? POV? These esays are all over the map. I am not so puffed up that I assume every single reader will like (or finish) the same essays I did, but the collection doesn't seem to have any particular audience in mind. Beginning writers? College MFA candidates? High school students? Other academics?
I was disappointed. But, as Santayana says, "if we are disillusioned, we have only our illusions to blame." I was expecting more energy and fun and fire, I guess. More about writing, rather than reading.
It IS a snapshot of the MFA faculty at WW many years ago, I guess. But snapshots, by definition, only really interest the people in them and those close to them. It's a great idea. But selected great essays on writing from a larger source group would have been more appreciated. "Essays on Writing from MFA Programs, 2013."
Don't steal that idea, by the way. It's mine.
The essays I enjoyed most are clearly transcribed lectures. They incorporate specific examples and humor and personal anecdotes and even asides. I'd love to see these professors in action.The more academic ones were dry and detailed and, to my mind, said the same thing over and over again. Critical analysis is fine, but it's not what I expected to find in this volume.
Whenever I read an anthology, I am always very aware of the purpose of the book. Is it to make the editor money? To promote a cause? To showcase the various contributing writers? It's usually one or a combination of these -- rarely is it "because it would make a great book" or even "because it will be required in the personal library of every ------ in the world." There needs to be a thread of continuity, and even a thread of... voice? setting? purpose? POV? These esays are all over the map. I am not so puffed up that I assume every single reader will like (or finish) the same essays I did, but the collection doesn't seem to have any particular audience in mind. Beginning writers? College MFA candidates? High school students? Other academics?
I was disappointed. But, as Santayana says, "if we are disillusioned, we have only our illusions to blame." I was expecting more energy and fun and fire, I guess. More about writing, rather than reading.
It IS a snapshot of the MFA faculty at WW many years ago, I guess. But snapshots, by definition, only really interest the people in them and those close to them. It's a great idea. But selected great essays on writing from a larger source group would have been more appreciated. "Essays on Writing from MFA Programs, 2013."
Don't steal that idea, by the way. It's mine.
September 12, 2007
I am still reading this (very slowly). Each chapter is by a different author about some writing topic. I would recommend this to anyone with an interest in writing or reading fiction. I am enjoying reading various writers' views of other writers, their analyses of how outstanding writers "do it", and their strong views on things like omniscience, epiphany, and other topics. It also is a way to discover new writers.
January 15, 2017
I read this for a class. Essays for those interested in the craft of writing. Overall a nice collection of some writers' best advice.
May 6, 2017
This collection of 19 essays is not a “how-to” writing book, but a meditation on various perplexities and problems that arise in writing fiction. The title comes from a 1888 quotation from Chekhov:
“I am displeased and bored with everything now being written, while everything in my head interests, moves, and excites, me – whence I draw the conclusion that no one is doing what is needed, and I alone know the secret of how it should be done. In all likelihood everyone who writes thinks that. In fact, the devil himself will be brought to his knees by these questions.”
The usefulness of the essays is variable, unsurprisingly. Richard Russo opens with a strong article in defense of omniscient narration, which has fallen out of favor. Everyone today seems to prefer third-close or third-limited, but he argues that third-omniscient gives most creative freedom to a mature writer who has something to say. If it sounds a little old-fashioned to the modern ear, so be it. It was a persuasive argument and will affect how I think about my next project.
Some essays are exercises in frustration. Three of them concern the question of voice. Everybody wants it. Editors call for it. Authors struggle to find it. What is it? The findings from three articles? Nobody knows what it is or how you get it.
Debra Spark has a halfway useful essay on beginnings and endings. It’s only half useful because the section on beginnings amounts to little more than a list of great opening lines and paragraphs, from which no generalizations are drawn to further the effort of writing one’s own openings. On endings however, she is very informative and helpful.
A way off-base article by Karen Brennan tries to argue that memory is an epiphenomenon of neurology, a thesis I just don’t buy on philosophical and empirical grounds. Her main point, that good writing needs a balance of wild free-association and careful narrative control is valid, but has nothing to do with neurology.
On the other hand, I did enjoy an essay by Robert Boswell, who drew a parallel between the theory of evolution in biology, and the evolution of symbol, device, and metaphor in fiction. Let those evolve organically from the writing, he argues, let them be discovered. If you plant them, it won’t work.
Perhaps one of the most practical essays was a humorous one by Kevin McIlvoy, a former editor who writes a rejection letter to Stephen Crane for The Red Badge of Courage, criticizing it (fairly) on many points. Then he writes an acceptance letter for the same submission, highlighting (fairly) the book’s many literary virtues. The lesson for me when critiquing: treat every story as if it were a masterpiece submitted by a master, and keep your ego in check.
These are just a few notes on a few essays, in a book filled with thoughtful observations and questions about the craft of writing.
“I am displeased and bored with everything now being written, while everything in my head interests, moves, and excites, me – whence I draw the conclusion that no one is doing what is needed, and I alone know the secret of how it should be done. In all likelihood everyone who writes thinks that. In fact, the devil himself will be brought to his knees by these questions.”
The usefulness of the essays is variable, unsurprisingly. Richard Russo opens with a strong article in defense of omniscient narration, which has fallen out of favor. Everyone today seems to prefer third-close or third-limited, but he argues that third-omniscient gives most creative freedom to a mature writer who has something to say. If it sounds a little old-fashioned to the modern ear, so be it. It was a persuasive argument and will affect how I think about my next project.
Some essays are exercises in frustration. Three of them concern the question of voice. Everybody wants it. Editors call for it. Authors struggle to find it. What is it? The findings from three articles? Nobody knows what it is or how you get it.
Debra Spark has a halfway useful essay on beginnings and endings. It’s only half useful because the section on beginnings amounts to little more than a list of great opening lines and paragraphs, from which no generalizations are drawn to further the effort of writing one’s own openings. On endings however, she is very informative and helpful.
A way off-base article by Karen Brennan tries to argue that memory is an epiphenomenon of neurology, a thesis I just don’t buy on philosophical and empirical grounds. Her main point, that good writing needs a balance of wild free-association and careful narrative control is valid, but has nothing to do with neurology.
On the other hand, I did enjoy an essay by Robert Boswell, who drew a parallel between the theory of evolution in biology, and the evolution of symbol, device, and metaphor in fiction. Let those evolve organically from the writing, he argues, let them be discovered. If you plant them, it won’t work.
Perhaps one of the most practical essays was a humorous one by Kevin McIlvoy, a former editor who writes a rejection letter to Stephen Crane for The Red Badge of Courage, criticizing it (fairly) on many points. Then he writes an acceptance letter for the same submission, highlighting (fairly) the book’s many literary virtues. The lesson for me when critiquing: treat every story as if it were a masterpiece submitted by a master, and keep your ego in check.
These are just a few notes on a few essays, in a book filled with thoughtful observations and questions about the craft of writing.
October 10, 2018
Some of the selections really stand out, and others feel a bit more forgettable. These are more philosophical selections, as opposed to concrete writing tips. Lots of references to great books to check out.
May 11, 2020
An education for readers and writers.
October 15, 2020
Very good.
Read
February 8, 2024Не обичам да взимам съвети за писане от нереализирани/второкласни писатели, които просто гледат да направят професия от цялото нещо.
July 4, 2015
Raises some interesting philosophical questions about writing stories. Why are stories without evil i.e. villainy inherently less dramatic? How are great stories related to stand-up comedy?
This is a collection of essays by a variety of writers. It's worth checking out for anyone interested in craft.
This is a collection of essays by a variety of writers. It's worth checking out for anyone interested in craft.
January 11, 2016
Most of the essays in this were great but I ended up skipping the one by Medina half way through. I really disagreed with every point I'm looking forward to reading some of the stories focused on in the essays and then rereading those essays. Fortunately most of their examples were famous stories I was already familiar with.
August 5, 2011
So far this is a good collection of essays, but you need to read them over time, and this copy was requested by another library user.
Want to read
January 15, 2009I love love love Susan Neville's essay "Where's Iago?"
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews