I was talking today with a friend about the movie Get Out, since Us just came out. I wrote about it two years ago when it came out, but I still don't really know what I think about it. I also talked with Mrs. Heretic this weekend about the recent remake of A Star is Born. I can't decide if it was a really good movie or just a so-so movie with two really amazing performances. I saw the movie months ago, but still can't make my mind up.
It takes a while for a story to marinate before I can really ingest it. So why do I read a story one day and review/analyze it the next? I guess for the same reason movie or video game reviewers have to post the moment something comes out. It's not quite as urgent for me--it's not like a book has the same life-span as a movie. But if I'm going to get through all of Pushcart or Best American Short Stories, I kind of need to keep moving. So I read, re-read, and then write.
I don't believe most people really have enough perspective on stories after a day to get to the heart of them. If all you need to do is give a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on going to see it, that's probably not a problem, but reviewers try to get to the heart of stories all the time without having spent enough time to really see what that story is about.
I'm just wondering how much I'm doing it.
This isn't an excuse, by the way, for how long it's taking me to do my next review. That's more because I have another project I'm working on. It's just something that's on my mind. It's not like I've spent no time or effort trying to get to the bottom of a story, but I do wonder what the right mix of time vs. timeliness is to be effective as a critic.
Lol, I thought you were subtweeting (subposting?) me at first. Since my intermission, I’ve been whipping through Pushcart at record pace, nearly a piece a day. I used to take several days to process a story – I’d read it, do some research, sleep on it, write up some notes, sleep on it again, do more research, read it again, and maybe, in 3 to 5 days, post something. For a complicated story with a lot of interlocking ideas or references, maybe more. And I’d spend at least an hour each day in between on concentrated note-writing, quote-pulling, research, plus random time spent thinking about stories it reminded me of, narrowing down what I did and didn’t like, etc.
ReplyDeleteI still spend a good 3 to 4 hours on each piece, but I don’t do the whole “marinating” thing. Part of that is general depression; part of it is my disappointment with Pushcart this year (though the middle,w hich usually sags a bit, has some interesting stuff). And part of it is peculiar to my own circumstances: until yesterday, I was still undergoing tests to see if I was in the early stages of a somewhat obscure cancer. Turns out, I’m fine (my spine may fall apart any minute, but that’s age, injury, and whatnot), but I was actually trying to wrap things up before the shit hit the fan. And now, no shit, no fan. I’m almost disappointed. It felt like a get-out-of-jail-free card (see “depression”, previous).
The thing is, I’m never really finished with a story. Some of them I forget, sure, but a lot of them lurk in corners, and in the future I come across something that reminds me of them. I might change my mind at that point, given new information. I might see something in the new story I’d have otherwise missed.
I’m ok with the express approach right now. Maybe I’ll slow down again, maybe not. I’ve already started gathering books for the interregnum. I enjoyed the book-reading spree I did last year; that’s part of it, too, giving myself more time to read books (which, oddly, includes books of short stories, but also novels and non-fiction). Who knows. Some other shit, some other fan, may turn up. We could all be in gulags next year.
I agree that Pushcart is a little disappointing this year. It's not really worth the marination time in some cases. Still, I feel bad passing judgment so quickly on something someone worked so hard on.
ReplyDelete