CCBC-Net Archives
Bull Run, Seedfolks
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Paul Fleischman <fleischman>
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:29:42 -0700
I send good wishes to the teacher in Alabama coaching her students on reading BULL RUN. I, too, was aware of the title's northern slant
(southerners call the battle "Manassas" or "First Manassas"), for which reason I asked that the jacket art prominently feature the stream-?lled Bull Run by both sides--to try to link the title to that rather than to the battle. I doubt my Houdini-like escape attempt worked, and feel bad about it since a "northern" title undermines the book's purpose. Alas, it was the best title I could come up with. Vexation over titles is a little known, silent killer of writers, second only to DBLS (Despair over Bestseller List Syndrome).
One of the problems with readers' theater (when performed cold) is that those who aren't speaking are reading ahead or silently reading the lines being spoken. That foreknowledge undercuts their attention to the speakers; they're not an audience, waiting to hear what happens next. In a play, with lots of exchanges of dialogue, everyone needs to be looking at the script. In BULL RUN and SEEDFOLKS you have the chance to make the group both cast and audience by passing the book from speaker to speaker, keeping the listeners in the dark. I tried this at home with friends, reading a play by A. R. Gurney called THE DINING ROOM that features a series of two-person dialogues. We all found it more enjoyable than the usual method.
As for having the SEEDFOLKS characters return, I preferred to let the reader imagine what might happen with each of them--the way you do with people you meet in real life. In some cases, I gave the reader a peek by having characters late in the book mention some of the early characters. From the start, however, I knew they'd only have one speech. I liked the open-ended feeling. It's a book about beginnings.
Paul Fleischman
Received on Fri 23 May 1997 12:29:42 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:29:42 -0700
I send good wishes to the teacher in Alabama coaching her students on reading BULL RUN. I, too, was aware of the title's northern slant
(southerners call the battle "Manassas" or "First Manassas"), for which reason I asked that the jacket art prominently feature the stream-?lled Bull Run by both sides--to try to link the title to that rather than to the battle. I doubt my Houdini-like escape attempt worked, and feel bad about it since a "northern" title undermines the book's purpose. Alas, it was the best title I could come up with. Vexation over titles is a little known, silent killer of writers, second only to DBLS (Despair over Bestseller List Syndrome).
One of the problems with readers' theater (when performed cold) is that those who aren't speaking are reading ahead or silently reading the lines being spoken. That foreknowledge undercuts their attention to the speakers; they're not an audience, waiting to hear what happens next. In a play, with lots of exchanges of dialogue, everyone needs to be looking at the script. In BULL RUN and SEEDFOLKS you have the chance to make the group both cast and audience by passing the book from speaker to speaker, keeping the listeners in the dark. I tried this at home with friends, reading a play by A. R. Gurney called THE DINING ROOM that features a series of two-person dialogues. We all found it more enjoyable than the usual method.
As for having the SEEDFOLKS characters return, I preferred to let the reader imagine what might happen with each of them--the way you do with people you meet in real life. In some cases, I gave the reader a peek by having characters late in the book mention some of the early characters. From the start, however, I knew they'd only have one speech. I liked the open-ended feeling. It's a book about beginnings.
Paul Fleischman
Received on Fri 23 May 1997 12:29:42 PM CDT
