Literary Event – Undergraduate Prize Winners

Literary Event – Undergraduate Prize Winners

By Paul Kivelson

Sorry this is being posted so long after the actual event. I went to the Undergraduate Prize Winners and thought it was very interesting for a number of reasons. First and primarily it was to see different people’s reactions to standing up and reading, some of the undergraduates where really relaxed and in control, while others were clearly tense and a little bit on edge. Made me think about how great writing comes from myriad different types of individuals and was in a weird way strangely comforting and reassuring. However people do not go to reading for the readers - thought it was great seeing peers stand up and get honored – the main thing I thought about was the work itself.

               I went to this reading with the plan to listen and see what types and tricks successful undergraduates use to craft their stories. I was suppressed when I found how different the stories themselves where in tone and approach. The first was sad, eloquent, with complex vocabulary, and a pronounced powerful tone. The next story was a little hard to hear as the speaker had a very soft voice, but seemed to uses long extended descriptions to drive the piece and the emotional appeal. The story after that used different techniques also and by this point I found myself quite confused as I tried to figure out all the elements they used to elevate their story. This story was funny, focused mainly on larger than life characters and a strange setting. I have to admit I also enjoyed his reading because he changed his voice for the characters in fun ways. The next story had many vivid images and an interesting conceit of giving and apartment to an eight year old to do with as she would. She used colloquial diction with a combination of strong idea strong ideas and images. But the story that followed was very suppressing in its conception and made me pause and think. It was a story about a dog, the dog of a sultan, who clearly was not a nice man. It thought that the story really had a vivid character that shocked with its originality.

               I was left wondering what makes good writing, it is obviously not any one thing. I came to the conclusion that perhaps focusing on a couple of elements of a story is productive solution to making a powerful story. It seemed to me that the stories while strong in every area are all focused on a few aspects constructing a narrative mainly. I wondered if this is due to author preference/voice or is a conscious choice and if it is a conscious choice should it be fought against. Does a masterful author except what they are good at and focus on that or purposefully focus on other aspects. So in summary, I listened to some really great stories and got a bad headache from trying to figure out the answer to a series of question that do not really have a simple answer.