Charlie and Michael -- absolutely awesome essay! Two things stand out:
(1) Example rhythm. This concept reminds me (as you mentioned) of the WoP concept of writing music. I notice in my own writing how the most pleasing reading experience is created by weaving large stories with others that are just single words or sentences. Such a great point. Thank you for putting words to this.
(2) "Yes, showing is the visual half of writing that immerses your reader in a hallucinatory trance, but telling has its purposes too. It frames what you show, and it helps transition from scene to scene. " In my writing, I find myself using telling to (a) smash lessons and insights home that may be ambiguous and not straightforward from what I have shown with stories, etc. and (b) to provide guardrails for and tee up / tie up "showing sections" so the essay flows and makes sense.
Also I am curious -- as someone who wants to explore his work, where do you recommend I start?
Appreciate the depth of this and reliving me of the "NEVER TELL" burden I put on myself sometimes 🙏
What I like best about him is his voice— I love the sensation of listening to him explain something in detail, using words that may seem obscure (and many consider haughty) but are actually perfectly crafted arrows that strike at the heart of what he means. This works for both showing and telling: “The Sun like a sneaky keyhole view of hell.”
What is often difficult is trying to wrap your head around his argument and its flow. Which is what you attempted to do here. I think it’s pretty damn good, but I still don’t fully understand your format because I don’t think the questions are being answered. but having read the essay, I know enough to be able to follow along and comprehend what you’re getting at.
I do think sometimes he has that elephant in the room, but I think it’s more of a personality quirk where he honestly feels like he needs to talk around the issue, in an increasingly tight spiral until he can get to its center. “…the fundamental questions they involve are ones whose answers have to be literally worked out instead of merely found."
He also tends to take the most banal events and force himself to find something profound about them — a crappy sports memoir says something about the psychology of genius, a lousy cruise ship vacation says something about our relationship with death and decay, a review of a usage dictionary says something about the essence of democracy, etc.
Thanks also for bringing to attention with Charlie is doing, which seems really cool. The only memoirs I’ve read are from writers and I’ve really enjoyed them: Stephen King’s “On Writing,” Haruki Murakami’s “what I talk about when I talk about running,” William Finnegan’s “Barbarian days” (mostly about surfing, but he was also a journalist about surfing, so it still counts. Also Mannon loves this one.)
Wow, this analysis is incredibly meticulous, Michael. I hope you continue doing them. I added a post-it note with "structural telling + rhythmic showing" to my desk.
...never a metaphor!...wild...if you want problematic male memoirs the kinski one goes hard and gross...i also rec'd david lee roth over in Charlie's stack so doing here also...the frank zappa autobiography is rad and truly rec'd though...
I love DFW and I'm not ashamed to admit it. DFW's best writing is in the footnotes! He's like Joyce in that he unveils, not what, but how a character thinks. Those asides are like peepholes into the soul, and a great example of show vs tell.
(Also, I read an article by someone who took a writing class with DFW where she expected to learn about things like show-don't-tell. But apparently DFW graded his students 100% on grammar mastery.)
I read this and watched your Miro walkthrough as soon as it landed in my inbox. A collab with Charlie? An in-depth analysis of one of my favorite DFW essays? And a new writing concept: structural telling, rhythmic showing? You're spoiling me, Michael. This was great! Thank you for spending the time to dissect "How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart" in such depth and detail.
You got me thinking about what the thesis of that essay is, and you made me realize how unique the structure is. It's almost like he has two theses. There's the one that's a book review: "Tracy Austin's memoir is horrible because...", and then there's the marco argument, for which the microcosm of Austin's memoir is evidence: "What makes athletes unable to articulate their experience is the same thing that makes them elite athletes."
He only gets away with it because the middle, his argument, serves both points. He's holding the micro and macro at once throughout the essay. When you finally read his macro thesis, he's already proven it. You already agree as soon as you read it. How it not be true?
DFW does a very similar thing with "The View from Ms. Thompson's" and "Authority and American Usage." There's a macro argument, and there's a microcosm that he uses as evidence for it.
Love this two-fer!
I will make the time to properly digest this, but...
1) A collaboration with Charlie is always super exciting and I can wait to dive deeper.
2) I will never stop telling you how gifted I think you are and how grateful I am that you share your gifts with the world.
Charlie and Michael -- absolutely awesome essay! Two things stand out:
(1) Example rhythm. This concept reminds me (as you mentioned) of the WoP concept of writing music. I notice in my own writing how the most pleasing reading experience is created by weaving large stories with others that are just single words or sentences. Such a great point. Thank you for putting words to this.
(2) "Yes, showing is the visual half of writing that immerses your reader in a hallucinatory trance, but telling has its purposes too. It frames what you show, and it helps transition from scene to scene. " In my writing, I find myself using telling to (a) smash lessons and insights home that may be ambiguous and not straightforward from what I have shown with stories, etc. and (b) to provide guardrails for and tee up / tie up "showing sections" so the essay flows and makes sense.
Also I am curious -- as someone who wants to explore his work, where do you recommend I start?
Appreciate the depth of this and reliving me of the "NEVER TELL" burden I put on myself sometimes 🙏
Cool analysis, Michael.
I love DFW and could riff on him every day.
What I like best about him is his voice— I love the sensation of listening to him explain something in detail, using words that may seem obscure (and many consider haughty) but are actually perfectly crafted arrows that strike at the heart of what he means. This works for both showing and telling: “The Sun like a sneaky keyhole view of hell.”
What is often difficult is trying to wrap your head around his argument and its flow. Which is what you attempted to do here. I think it’s pretty damn good, but I still don’t fully understand your format because I don’t think the questions are being answered. but having read the essay, I know enough to be able to follow along and comprehend what you’re getting at.
I do think sometimes he has that elephant in the room, but I think it’s more of a personality quirk where he honestly feels like he needs to talk around the issue, in an increasingly tight spiral until he can get to its center. “…the fundamental questions they involve are ones whose answers have to be literally worked out instead of merely found."
He also tends to take the most banal events and force himself to find something profound about them — a crappy sports memoir says something about the psychology of genius, a lousy cruise ship vacation says something about our relationship with death and decay, a review of a usage dictionary says something about the essence of democracy, etc.
Thanks also for bringing to attention with Charlie is doing, which seems really cool. The only memoirs I’ve read are from writers and I’ve really enjoyed them: Stephen King’s “On Writing,” Haruki Murakami’s “what I talk about when I talk about running,” William Finnegan’s “Barbarian days” (mostly about surfing, but he was also a journalist about surfing, so it still counts. Also Mannon loves this one.)
Wow, this analysis is incredibly meticulous, Michael. I hope you continue doing them. I added a post-it note with "structural telling + rhythmic showing" to my desk.
...never a metaphor!...wild...if you want problematic male memoirs the kinski one goes hard and gross...i also rec'd david lee roth over in Charlie's stack so doing here also...the frank zappa autobiography is rad and truly rec'd though...
I love DFW and I'm not ashamed to admit it. DFW's best writing is in the footnotes! He's like Joyce in that he unveils, not what, but how a character thinks. Those asides are like peepholes into the soul, and a great example of show vs tell.
(Also, I read an article by someone who took a writing class with DFW where she expected to learn about things like show-don't-tell. But apparently DFW graded his students 100% on grammar mastery.)
I read this and watched your Miro walkthrough as soon as it landed in my inbox. A collab with Charlie? An in-depth analysis of one of my favorite DFW essays? And a new writing concept: structural telling, rhythmic showing? You're spoiling me, Michael. This was great! Thank you for spending the time to dissect "How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart" in such depth and detail.
You got me thinking about what the thesis of that essay is, and you made me realize how unique the structure is. It's almost like he has two theses. There's the one that's a book review: "Tracy Austin's memoir is horrible because...", and then there's the marco argument, for which the microcosm of Austin's memoir is evidence: "What makes athletes unable to articulate their experience is the same thing that makes them elite athletes."
He only gets away with it because the middle, his argument, serves both points. He's holding the micro and macro at once throughout the essay. When you finally read his macro thesis, he's already proven it. You already agree as soon as you read it. How it not be true?
DFW does a very similar thing with "The View from Ms. Thompson's" and "Authority and American Usage." There's a macro argument, and there's a microcosm that he uses as evidence for it.