Students are to post reactions (minimum 250 words each) to the
assigned listening/reading linked below. Students are encouraged (but
not required) to additionally respond to other student reactions.
KELLY LINK Monster Librarian Interview: Kelly Link is the author of the young adult collection Pretty Monsters. She has written two other collections, Stranger Things Happen and Magic for Beginners. Her
novellas and short stories have won a variety of awards. Neil Gaiman
called her "the best short story writer out there, in any genre." She
co-founded Small Beer Press with her husband, Gavin Grant, and edits
the fantasy zine Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet. Click heading to read the interview.
KELLY LINK NPR Interview: Author
Kelly Link says her short stories are inspired by what she calls "night
time logic." In fiction that strives for realism, she says, everything
has a place. Everything makes sense. It's kind of like dream logic, she
tells NPR's Audie Cornish, "except that when you wake up from a dream,
you think, well, that didn't make sense. Night time logic in stories,
you think, I don't understand why that made sense, but I feel there was
a kind of emotional truth to it." Click heading to listen to NPR interview.
THE WEIRDEST STORY IDEAS COME FROM YOUR OWN OBSESSIONS by KELLY LINK: "One
of the most useful pieces of writing advice I've ever come across was
something Kate Wilhelm said. To roughly paraphrase, she suggests that
every writer indirectly collaborates with her subconscious — she calls
this collaborator your Silent Partner — who supplies you with ideas that
you then turn into stories."Click heading to read the rest of the essay.
THE SPECIALIST'S HAT by KELLY LINK:
"When you're Dead," Samantha says, "you don't have to brush your
teeth." "When you're Dead," Claire says, "you live in a box, and it's
always dark, but you're not ever afraid." Claire and Samantha are
identical twins. Their combined age is twenty years, four months, and
six days. Claire is better at being Dead than Samantha. Click heading to read the rest of the story.
10 comments:
I read the Gizmodo piece, and I really related to a lot of her practices and mindsets. I’ve never read Kelly Link, so I didn’t enter with an understanding of her tone or approach, which at first made me doubt her responses; however, by the fourth or fifth paragraph, I realized going in blind actually made me more susceptible to what she advised. The whole idea of a Silent Partner I connected with; I often feel like the ideas that will spontaneously pop up in my head are revised versions of past attempts or approaches. I’ve found that my SP is usually one step ahead of me, and will suggest ideas that feel revolutionary at first, but are really practices that fit into the design of something I’ve been working toward. I also want to note that this piece was written in 2010, and although phones, computers, and tech were around then, it’s nothing like it is today. I say this because the way the SP is described is very similar to how social media algorithms are described. This made me wonder how people treat their SP in today’s tech-driven world. Is the average person open to what the SP has to offer, or will they shoot an idea down the way they swipe away from a post they don’t care for?
I plan to try out the 50 first-sentences idea, because (I imagine most of the class will agree) first sentences can feel impossible, regardless of how good the story is. It’s the line I’ll second-guess the most. If I do this exercise, and only one is a keeper, that’s a win in my book. I also like the idea of using this exercise to find a first sentence for a story I’m currently writing. I often go back to my first sentence, change it, and then regret it once it’s too late. However, I would be open to this approach. One of her ideas that I am initially opposed to is the dialogue-first approach. This is mainly because I’ve never found my dialogue to be the sharpest, and I am more thrilled by a stunning description than a passionate discussion. But maybe this technique could change that mindset. In the last paragraph, it seems like she’s playing with the idea of how beneficial it can be to have multiple stories being written at once. This is something that intrigues me, but I’ve never tried it out. In the past, I thought the only way I could do this was to write my stories in different forms. I tend to write the first lines of poems, but don’t build on them until I finish a story. In the future, I want to work on my poems simultaneously with my short stories.
After reading the three articles and listening to the NPR interview, the option that stuck out to me the most was “The Specialist’s Hat”. In terms of the story itself, I thought it was excellent. Not only did Link do an exceptional job of giving the readers goose pimples, but she also gives personality to her characters which allows the readers to truly invest in the story, rather than simply being afraid. I really appreciate this feature because often, character development is left as a secondary thought. Her writing style is very similar to Crichton in this way (who I consider to be the greatest fictional writer), just in a different subgenre.
Building off that idea of character development, this is an area in which I can certainly grow. Instead of trying to invent feelings from scratch, she reconnects with how it actually felt to experience certain moments in her life. From my perspective, this is powerful because it means I don’t have to force authenticity. I can draw from emotions I already know. If I’m writing about loneliness, insecurity, jealousy, or grief, I can reflect on times when I’ve genuinely felt those things and translate that emotion onto the page. That makes characters more believable because their reactions aren’t abstract or exaggerated, they’re grounded in real experience. It also helps me avoid cliches, since my perspective is specific and personal. By trusting my own emotional history, I can create characters who feel layered and human rather than flat or performative.
After reading the Gizmodo article and "The Specialist's Hat," I can really see how Link's interests and writing process influences her work. I love the idea of the Silent Partner, and it's something I feel I've only encountered recently as I've started writing fiction. I'm often compelled by real world oddly specific/random things (waiting in shopping lines, power outages, looking for your glasses without your glasses) as kinds of scene/story starters in the way Link does with her literary fascinations (invented narratives, subterranean lakes, cults). I think it's true that these seemingly random things stick out in our minds and affect us in some silent ways, oftentimes in ways we don’t fully understand. But I think something like ‘The Specialist’s Hat” proves we don’t need to fully understand them in order to be moved or affected in some way.
Link places us right in the story as Samantha and Claire play “The Dead game.” We don’t really know who they are, where they live, etc. yet, but Link placing us in the heart of their weird obsession sets the tone for the rest of the story. As it continued, Link provides great descriptive details, eerie exposition, but little to no answers about what the hell is actually going on. I was constantly wondering things like who the Specialist was, or who’s a ghost and who isn’t, mainly due to how real the world felt. There’s definitely shades of Link’s own interests based on the Gizmodo article (twins, old mysteries, Cat in the Hat type characters ~ the babysitter). Like the logic of the Silent Partner, she doesn’t really say why or how these things impact her, they just manage to leave a distinct mark or feeling around them. And in “The Specialist Hat”, rather than reduce these things to answers or plot points, it feels like Link preserves the mystery or magic in all of them. I don’t know what happens to Samantha and Claire, but given how much I enjoyed the story, I don’t think I need to. Instead of answers, Link leaves us with these strong feelings/vibes that stick with us long past reading.
I read the Monster Librarian interview and found it pretty interesting. I haven’t read any of her published works, but Link’s way of tapping into the emotions of her characters is similar to what I do when I’m writing the emotions a character might be feeling. To me, it's all about those past experiences, whether they be happy or sad, channeling your own memories to really give life to the character that you are writing. Also, the way that she got into writing felt a bit inspiring. I didn’t get into it until recently, just last semester, but realizing how much I enjoy doing it was such a freeing experience. I like that piece of advice that she gave towards the end of that question. Submitting work to the places and editors that you admire most is definitely something to keep in mind. I also took note of what she said about others reading and critiquing your work, describing it as an act of generosity, as well as vice versa. I very much do agree with this. Having others read my work, and tell me what’s good as well as what needs some work is such a great resource to have. They want your story to be just as good as you want it to be. It’s a great environment to be a part of.
Our writing routines are a bit similar. I too have a mix that I listen to when I write, the ambiance of which may change depending on what exactly I am writing. Unlike Link, who likes to work in the afternoon, I like to describe myself as a nocturnal writer, since most of the time I am writing happens to be at night. Kowalewski also mentions Link’s references to horror, as well as incorporating other genres as well. The concept that she mentions of horror stories ending in a rush is definitely something I resonate with. I wrote a psychological horror piece not too long ago, the first arc of three, though admittedly, the only real horror is in that first arc. But still, I think that instinct of ending such a story in a rush, or incorporating that specific feeling throughout a piece in a genre like horror is spot on. Should I dive more into the genre, it’s definitely an element to add, but also experiment with as well.
While I have never read any of Kelly Link’s works beforehand, I found myself reflecting on hers regarding her writing practices as I read The Specialist’s Hat. Sometimes the story we come up with doesn't make tangible sense in our logical, waking world- but that does not mean it can not work at all. The rules of fiction are flexible and easily bendable to suit the needs of your narrative, and while we may instinctively want to over explain the functions of the world we create, it is usually better to simply let the world breathe. Use your skills and knowledge as a writer to make the rules of that world work and feel so real your writers become entrapped with it just as you have when writing it. That’s another thing- constantly encouraging yourself when writing. Sometimes we talk ourselves out of an idea either because it may not work or seems too nonsensical to really work. But if we always did that, then what creative ideas would we have left? How will any works of fiction be created that don’t end up sounding like regurgitated nonsense if we don’t allow ourselves to indulge in new ideas inspired by other works? I believe Kelly Link’s has a good idea in terms of how writers should treat their works, and while I continue to work on my own writing, I’ll keep her words in mind as I work on my other pieces.
Kelly Link's short story "The Specialist’s Hat" places the reader in a setting that feels almost familiar but at the same time, not quite. Growing up, the topics of haunted houses and attics were so persistently featured in horror media that the genre became too crowded with repetitive tropes. It often felt as if the audience already knew the setting, the characters, and even the plot—there was no need for worldbuilding at that point, because it was all too familiar. I noticed that both the aforementioned tropes were present on Link's list of things she likes in other people's fiction. However, I also noticed the inclusion of some out-of-the-box ideas, such as the "Cat in the Hat-types characters", which is not something that an audience frequently sees in media. I think the inclusion of the Specialist, who I perceived to be written based off the idea of a "Cat in the Hat-types characters", creates a plot point that deters the reader from their original biases and expectations of a horror short story. I think Link's piece is reflective of what we have been working on in class—taking a classic monster and making it unique by adding a personal characteristic to it. Link does a similar thing by taking a classic horror setting and plot and adding a fresh character to the mix. The reader has heard about ghosts and mummies before, but they don't know what a Specialist is, creating extra curiosity even amongst the readers who feel that they know the genre well.
The whole thing about a Silent Partner hanging around all the time feeding you ideas that you can then turn into stories reminds me a lot of a story I heard about the poet Ruth Stone and how she felt like ideas would barrel at her through the sky and she’d have to run like hell to a paper and a pen or the words would leave her. I think I’ve also run super dry on writing ideas for a while now. Honestly, reading about how Kelly Link believes that these Silent Partners would get fed up and stop offering you ideas if you get picky got me thinking a lot about how picky I’ve been about the things that inspire me. It’s like nothing feels as significant enough anymore, and maybe it doesn’t have to be.
I absolutely love the advice of just only starting to write ideas you aren’t sure how to tackle with just dialogue. Dialogue is my absolute favorite thing to write, and I believe the only thing that makes me truly believe a story is the way the characters interact and speak to each other. I get her sentiment. If I can get two characters talking to each other in a way that feels distinct enough with nothing but dialogue and line breaks, I truly feel like a story has already been created. I absolutely love character building, and when people feel… people-y in stories. I think that’s what Kelly Link meant when she said she wanted to see the distinction of characters before even writing a speech tag. I love the way that Kelly describes her writing process, and the way that she allows stories to flow from anywhere she can. Her silent partner definitely loves giving her ideas. I think I should be less picky.
Even though I’ve never read any of Kelly Link’s previous work, “The Specialist’s Hat”, immediately drew me in. I like her tone and use of language. It's simple but direct which works filtered through the perspective of two chilled. The straightforward diction makes the unsettling parts of the story feel more eerie but also realistic in an odd sort of way. Link relies on this childlike logic making the story feel original. She avoids overt horror and instead relies on the suggestion of horror. I especially liked her addition of the babysitter which adds a layer of tension because she exists between adulthood and childhood.
Something I found especially interesting was her thoughts on the Silent Partner. It really resonated with me because I often find that I’ll have a story idea land in my mind but then choose to ignore it because I feel like it isn’t good enough even though it's something I’m drawn to. I often try to write what I deem the public wants but her emphasis on relying more on your own mind is something that I will try to work on more.
One thing that struck me about Kelly Link’s NPR interview was the idea she discussed of staying in your hometown with a changing population. It reminded me a lot of Jersey Angel, the book I read from during our last class, which tells the story of a teenage girl living in a shore town over the course of the year and discusses how the “bennies” — tourists who come to take advantage of the summertime benefits — change life in the town during certain parts of the year. It’s an interesting way to think about looking at your own everyday life from a new perspective, and what the place you see every day means to someone who’s never been. After reading Link’s Gizmodo article, it brought up ideas for me about what my own “obsessions” are in writing: anything gross or unsettling in an unexpected way, especially exploring the way women and girls navigate the horrific, boundaries between the human and animal worlds and the animalistic within the human, medicine and surgery, eating things that aren’t edible, and codependence between characters were themes that came up. In her Monster Librarian interview, I was also intrigued by what Link said about how genre fiction is certainly not always formulaic, especially since realistic fiction is often “formulaic as hell.” I agree that to become a good writer one should be a good reader of all genres, and genre conventions offer incredible avenues and opportunities for creative innovation.
I am not much of a reader, but after reading her Monster Library interview, I have been inspired to read some of her work. Something that really resonated with me was the constant moving around she did as a kid, from one state to another. I had a similar upbringing, and each time my family moved, I found myself making fewer friends. Writing is the one escape that would allow you to express the different versions of yourself, the "mean" and "old". I was also really inspired by her constant motivation; despite the rejections from editors, she kept submitting. A lot of the answers to the questions were raw and from a place of honesty.
A lot of Kelly Link's stories end abruptly, as she believed that readers could continue the story in their heads rather than be offered a full ending, which makes sense, as the magical world can continue living in the reader long after finishing it. The story technically hasn't ended yet. Link believes that stories are not just written down and interpreted, but are drawn from our own past experiences.I am not much of a reader, but after reading er interview, I have been inspired go read some of hed work.
Post a Comment