Learning from Davis

I’m reading Essays One by Lydia Davis. Some of the essays include her thinking about her own drafting, which I found fascinating. My thinking about my revision isn’t as interesting as hers, but here it is. Footnoting these sorts of changes is a great exercise.

The number after the title is a word count.

You think you know someone. 139[1]

My snooty boss asked me to help her move. Now, we’ve worked together a long time and we’ve been social, but she lives in a big house and she has money. She’s downsizing and can pay for this sort of thing. But I go. Job security, you know. I did not know but for room after room she has butterflies, all the colors, pinned and displayed in flat glass cases. A hundred of them at least. Not something I wanted to trust to movers, she said. And the big stuff, beds, tables, books was gone. We filled each others cars, my teammates and I, with her butterfly collection. It took time, but the lifting was light. And it was me; after we placed the last case in her new place, I said, Karaoke? and she took us all dancing.

You think you know someone. 117

My snooty boss asked me to help her move. Now,[2] we’ve been social, but she has money. She can pay for this sort of thing. But I go. Job security, you know.[3] For room after room she has butterflies, all the colors, pinned and displayed in flat glass cases.[4] A hundred of them at least.[5] “Not something I wanted to trust to movers,” she said. The big stuff, beds and desks, was gone.[6] We filled each other’s cars, my teammates and I,[7] with her butterfly collection.[8] It took time, but the lifting was light. And it was me; after we set the last case in her new condo, I said, Karaoke? and she took us all dancing.[9]

You Think You Know Someone[10]

My snooty boss asked me to help her move. Now, we chat occasionally, but she has money. She can afford professionals.[11] But I went. Job security, you know. The fridge and mattress were gone. She said, “These are not things I trust to movers.”[12] She had butterflies, every color, pinned and displayed in flat glass cases, ninety-three of them.[13] My teammates and I filled each other’s cars with her butterfly collection. It took time, but the lifting was light. I confess[14] after we set the last case in her new condo, I said, “Karaoke?” and she took us all dancing.[15]


[1] This is the first draft, written after a throw of a set of Story Cubes. I used three of the nine cubes. One of my favorite places to try and publish is 100WordStory, so my first revision goal is condensing. Cutting is usually a good revision technique. Footnoting additions (also a way to revise) could be interesting, but isn’t my project this time.

[2] I cut “we’ve worked together a long time and,” “lives in a big house and she,” and “’s downsizing and” because they are implied or common/cliched first-draft language. Leaving “She can pay for this sort of thing” characterizes as the narrator doubles-down.

[3] “But I go,” is a short sentence after longer ones. “Go” and “know” rhyme too much. I may change them yet. “Job security, you know” provides a motivation most people can probably relate to. It’s also colloquial, characterizes, and addresses the reader directly. The direct address is probably a small surprise which is likely to keep readers reading. “I did not know” is a rhyme too far and implied by the story itself. 

[4] The butterflies are intended as another surprise. I’m tempted to add more details like sizes and Latin names, in cursive handwriting on cards next to each insect.

[5] A shorter fragment after a longer sentence adds variety, but do I do it too much?

[6] I left this sentence for this draft, but it could be cut and traded for more details about the collection.

[7] Here is an action that shows community, at least a little, in contrast with the isolation and transactional relationships early in the story.

[8] This phrase is also a candidate for cutting. Maybe. It provides a nice summary, but is that needed in something this short? It does clarify what is filling the cars.

[9] “And it was me” implies a confession, which could be surprising, and the question of what will be confessed might maintain reader engagement. “Placed” becomes “set” and “place” becomes “condo” because the rhymes were too heavy. What is being confessed is a call for karaoke (probably anticlimactic, but not too serious), implying a desire for continuing unity with the team and the boss, though that is is “confessed” adds a layer of complicated feelings about it. The sentence also continues to suggest a change in how the narrator thinks of the boss, probably no longer “snooty.” The final phrase confirms the new understanding of the boss and may contain another surprise.

Although the draft has gone from 139 to 117 words, more needs to be cut. “Bosses” are presented very favorably. Could “boss” become “supervisor” or “manager” or “union rep”? “Subordinates”? Or if the narrator explicitly sees the call for help to move as a cry for companionship?

[10] The title is both a cliche and gives gives too much away. It tells the story or sums it up too completely.

[11] “Afford professionals” seems abstract but less abstract than “pay for this sort of thing.” It’s also fewer words.

[12] Moving sentences to earlier in the story increases clarity. It makes trimming more words possible.

[13] A shorter fragment after a longer sentence adds variety but I do it too much? I’ll combine it with the sentence before.

[14] Making the confession hidden in “And it was me” explicit allows for an implied question. What the narrator confesses becomes more interesting at the same time?

[15] I made other cuts to reach the 100-word formal constraint. Now I’ll let it sit for a while, then reread, hoping it feels finished and good. The class issues and title still bother me.

What can we expect of sentences?

An exercise by Donald Barthelme:

Assignment: Write a sentence with some attention to the notes below.

What can we reasonably expect, or even demand, of the sentences in fiction?

The first thing I want a sentence to do is surprise me. Let me give you an example, if I can. Here is a sentence: “My great desire in life is to sleep with–that is to say, have sexual intercourse with–the New York Review of Books.” Now this sentence might reasonably be called surprising. The proposition is, we might say, an unusual one. I have written a sentence that surprises. I congratulate myself. But unfortunately, my congratulation is premature.

Because it is not enough for a sentence to be surprising. We may also reasonably ask of it that it be in some sense true–and it is not true that my greatest desire in life is to have sexual intercourse with the New York Review of Books. Let us look then for a sentence which is both surprising and in some sense true. Here is an attempt: “The aim of literature is the creation of a strange object covered with fur, which breaks your heart.”

Let us test the sentence. Is it surprising? Because of the fur, perhaps. If one recalls while reading the sentence a famous Surrealist object of the thirties–Merit Oppenheim’s fur-lined teacup–your understanding of the sentence is perhaps enriched. But it is not necessary to know about the famous teacup to find the sentence odd, curious, surprising. Let us go on to ask if it is in any sense true.

“The aim of literature is the creation of a strange object covered with fur, which breaks your heart.” As dedicated relativists we know nothing is absolutely true; what we are asking is, does the sentence contain some truth? At least this much: the sentence is a demand, an “I want” statement. The speaker wishes literature to be this kind of thing–a strange object–and wants it also to break his heart. The structure of our language is such that a demand, a desire, an “I want” sentence, almost must be true, at least insofar as the speaker is concerned. I am telling you what I want. Assuming that the speaker is serious, sober, not simply putting us on, we are forced to grant his sentence a certain kind of truth.

Now, let us increase the pressure. Let us now ask for a sentence that is not only surprising and true, but also beautiful. And here I will call for help from a colleague, the Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Consider this sentence by Kraus: “A writer is someone who can make a riddle out of an answer.”

We test the sentence point by point. It is surprising in that it reverses the terms of the riddle/answer expectation in order to point to a truth. The truth is that the artist does not answer riddles–the riddle of the universe, for example–but proposes them. Now the philosopher Hebbel (a name you may forget as quickly as you wish, he’s inessential) says the same thing a much inferior way. “In a work of art the intellect asks questions; it does not answer them.” Why is Kraus’s way of saying the same thing so much more beautiful? Herr Hebbel speaks plainly, and plainness is a virtue. But Kraus’s sentence has paradox and elegance: in thirteen words he both announces a truth and allows us to feel the truth emotionally. I use the word “elegance” here as mathematicians do when they term the solution to a problem elegant, implying simplicity, economy, a certain kind of rightness.

There are many other ways in which a sentence can be beautiful–brutality can be as beautiful as elegance, awkwardness can be as beautiful as elegance, and so on.

So we have achieved, or rather borrowed, a sentence which is surprising, true, and beautiful, all at once. Can we now rest? No. We must ask, next, for a sentence that is at once surprising, true, beautiful, and also possessed of a metaphysical dimension.

By “metaphysical dimension” I mean a quality that turns the mind toward original questions, first principles, the deepest sort of search for meaning. “What is man?” is a metaphysical question. And for such a sentence, one reaches almost automatically for Kafka. Here is a sentence of Kafka’s: “Leopards break into the temple and drink the sacrificial chalices dry; this occurs repeatedly, again and again: finally it can be reckoned upon beforehand and becomes part of the ceremony.”

This sounds like three sentences but is in fact one, the parts separated by a semi-colon and colon. That it is both surprising and beautiful can, I think, be granted without argument. What we are testing for, then, is whether the sentence is true and whether is offers a metaphysical dimension. And one immediately understands that the two things are intimately related.

What we have in this beautiful sentence of Kafka’s is an appeal to the range of human experience called the religious, as well as a kind of critique of humanness. Reading the sentence one gets the feeling that before the leopards broke into the temple the ceremonies were somehow dry, artificial, routine, and that the intrusion of the leopards revived, gave new life to, the old procedures. The ceremonies must have been, like all ceremonies, the celebration of mystery; the leopards, breaking into the temple and drinking the wine, restore mystery to the mystery.

But the intrusion of the leopards, Kafka tells us, becomes itself routine. This is what gives the sentence its deepest dimension, raising the question of how men can make routine fabulous. It has ramifications in everything from the problem of sleeping with one’s spouse to the problem of torture in Chile. Kafka’s sentence is, with all of the reverberations, not a sentence but a book. But after all, only a sentence.

Here are examples, provided by Barthelme, with the exception of the last, which Chuck Wachtel added.

“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Areliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.” Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude

“His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.” James Joyce, The Dead

“There are some who eat too much and others like me who can no longer eat without spitting.” Antonin Artaud, letter to Paule Thevenin

“When on the third day, he again had to come down the ladder without having been hung, he raised his hands up in a fierce gesture and cursed the inhuman law that kept him from going to Hell.” Heinrich von Kleist, The Founding

“‘You should have killed yourself last week,’ he said the deaf man.” Ernest Hemingway, “A Clean, Well-lighted Place”

“In the dark, Naomi mistook a shard of broken light bulb for her contact lens.” Dick Stankridge, A Horror Story . . .

“As he crossed toward the pharmacy at the corner he involuntarily turned his head because of a burst of light that had ricocheted from his temple, and saw, with that quick smile with which we greet a rainbow or a rose, a blindingly white parallelogram of sky being unloaded from the van–a dresser with mirror, across which, as across a cinema screen, passed a flawlessly clear reflection of boughs, sliding and swaying not aboreally, but with a human vacillation, produced by the nature of those who were carrying this sky, these boughs, this gliding façade.” Vladimir Nabokov, The Gift