Finding the Flaw in the Gem
Diary of a Viva Ninja: Day 27
Imperfections in your ‘flawless’ thesis. The more you look, the more you’ll see…
A random tweet today from a fellow writer, Chrissy Derbyshire, apparently exhorting readers to ‘Don’t Torture the Ducklings’ (in fact, a reference to a Halloween-themed movie … obviously!) led to a brief, silly exchange in which I mentioned Arthur Quiller-Couch’s famous (and often incorrectly attributed advice) to ‘Murder your darlings’. After playing around with this and coming up with an amusing variant in my head (‘murder your ducklings’), I went on to read a provocative article by the novelist John Crowley, resisting Q’s ubiquitous (in writers’ workshops) advice: Spare the Darling. Although I think Crowley’s counter-intuitive and quasi-heretical critique of this hoary workshop wisdom is of some merit for its resistance to the often unquestioned ‘norms’ of pedagogic tradition, I wouldn’t throw the baby (or the rubber duck) out with the bathwater yet. In advocating editorial rigour it has clear benefit – most pieces of creative writing could do with editing. Students are sometimes afraid of editing, as though the editing would somehow ‘kill’ the spirit of the fragile, beautiful thing they have created; but I have yet to come across an over-edited piece of student work in nearly twenty years of teaching. We could always go further – as Lindsay Clarke advocates (2001: pp256-260),
‘hunting down those moments that unintentionally tip the reader out of the dream.’ (p258)
Of course, during the 4 years of my PhD I have had intensive feedback and gone through several drafts of the novel and commentary. This year in particular has seen exhaustive micro-editing (to the point of near-nausea and ‘word-blindness’: when I could no longer see the words for the trees, as it were). Yet even with several pairs of sharp eyes scrutinising the text it is inevitable that things slip through (especially when dealing with a complicated MS of 135000 words). Thus it is essential to go through it again, after submission. Today I made a list of corrections, and also a list of weaknesses (with responses), to pre-empt the revisions I will inevitably get back from my examiners. This will show you have critical awareness. Not that’s it’s advisory to point out weaknesses, but … if they come up in the Viva, you won’t be wrong-footed. Indeed by having a list of corrections handy you will show you have the mistake on your radar. It hasn’t slipped through the net, only the submission date. Anticipating the revisions that may be suggested will make a ‘pass with minor/or major revisions’ seem less of a blow. You will have an idea of what is expected and will be able to crack on with it. Such corrections often take less time than you think. It is the mindset which is difficult to inhabit. One may feel resentful at having to go back through the work again after you have slaved over it for years. But that is the price of quality. And your PhD.
So enjoy murdering those ducklings!
[image error]
Clarke, L., ‘Going the Last Inch’, in Bell, J. & Magrs, P., eds. (2001) The Creative Writing Coursebook. London: Macmillan.
Crowley, J. (2014) ‘Spare the Darling’, Harper’s Magazine. New York, NY. November. pp 4, 6-7.
