At a poetry reading I attended today, one of the poets talked about a term called Pivoting which she claimed to have learned through stand up comedians. She claimed that poets would make jokes similar to "Man, what is it with people at airports walking around with their peanuts..." (insert rest of joke and punching) and the next joke would segue into a joke about peanuts. The seemingly irrelevant object of the first section became the point of focus for the second section, so on and so forth. This idea really intrigued me and go me thinking about Amy Gustine's You Should Pity Us Instead (short story collection). In that series of short stories, Gustine uses a similar concept where a seemingly unimportant or small detail from the beginning comes back strongly in the end. My question for all of you is in what ways can you think of using this in the various writing genres (poetry, short stories, or novels)? What would make this most impactful? What would be creative ways to use this idea? Excerpt of this post comes from my progress journal - is copying myself without quoting considered plagiarism?
It's a typical device in mysteries, almost all of the ones I can think of. Peace, Tex And how about the Raven, nevermore.
It makes me think about a writing technique that I've just read about here: http://www.jenmanuel.com/margin-notes/anakana-schofield-and-riffing-the-narrative/ I think it would make a whole novel difficult to read, but could have great impact in an opening or at key moments in a story.
Well, each story has a "ring" of focuses. They all sort of connect up to each other in the end coming full circle. Those focal points eventually create the FEEL of the story and inform the experience. All of those points are adjacent, they then take their own unique tangent, until eventually you are back at the starting point. I believe it is necessary to structure all chapters this way, you start with a point, you go through a windy road and then you end at that point but with progress. The peanuts thing for example, the second peanut joke is about "being better than your obstacle" Peanuts were the obstacle in the first joke, so they then elaborate on a time the peanut obstacle was less of an issue (or more of an issue). So pivot around obstacles? By referencing them in an alternate context? Or I dunno, I'm just killing time late night in a haze, so sorry if that is incoherent. Erhm... Peanut = obstacle Pivot = context in which obstacle is percieved Punchline = juxtaposition of perceptions Effect = the tension created between two alternate perceptions being released in the form of a punchline "so thats why I never trust anyone who eats peanuts now, because I once knew a guy who loved peanuts and also wound up showing me his testicles" The effect being, he assosciates peanuts with testicles, and has trauma, so can't trust anyone who eats them. Which is rediculous but at the same time, just how the mind works, so you feel forced to relate and say "yeah thats true", no matter how rediculous. Shrug
Really interesting... I never realized this tactic until you described it as such... I think this may have happened in a few things I have written... where one anecdote or use of a word leads into a new direction or aspect. Thanks for sharing!