This won’t stay up forever, given what I want to use it for, but I thought I would share. I wrote this earlier this week in a fit of writing-fit writing, read it (or more accurately, handed it to an actor to read, and he did so wonderfully well) at my writers’ group last night, and got some fantastic and enthusiastic feedback from my fellow group members.
The group verdict, approximately and simplifying a bit, was that it needed more of the first person singular mixed in with the didacticism. Works for me, and it’s nice to have permission. So this goes into the hopper for some redrafting. In the meantime, here’s a glimpse.
In fact, it didn’t stay up forever. Thanks all for your comments.
[removed]
I read through this post last night, but was too tired to try to put together any kind of comment until this morning (tired from the past day’s events, not from reading your post). I agree with what the writing group is saying. The first few paragraphs give a sort of sweeping introduction to place, but they aren’t as effective at drawing me in as the the paragraph that begins “At night, from my favorite campsite in the Mojave Desert..” The problem with not feeling engaged until a few paragraphs along is that I think it’s important to establish a good connection with the reader closer to the start, especially in an intro piece like this—and I know you’re well aware of this, so I’m just making note of how the piece struck me. I immediately thought to myself, these first few paragraphs strike me as being a little on the dry side for Chris’s typical writing. Not sure how I would go about changing that, except perhaps to rearrange the order of some of these paragraphs (or something). Otherwise, it’s all up to your usual high standard.
Excellent! I really liked the way you pulled us in to your attachment to the trees.
I’ll second Bev’s comment: it’s not really that there’s not enough first person in the whole piece, but it should be introduced on the first page. That voice needs to “hit” on the first page so readers will know what to expect in pages to come.
For a lay audience, you might need to define terms like “monocot” and “vascular cambium,” just as you do later on for “potential evapotranspiration.” It’s mportant to not go overboard with definitions and insult your reader’s intelligence, but equally important to avoid narrowing the audience with too many undefined science terms. Hitting exactly the right tone can get sorted out in the editing stage, but showing that you can easily and entertainingly explain the technical terms will help sell the project to a publisher in the first place.
On the “deserted” issue, I was thinking about the “desertion” of the desert after the last ice age.
Great work! Keep going! Send out a proposal!
Beautiful work! I can’t wait to read the whole thing.
As for critiquing, the first person is a tad foggy when it comes in later. Bev, Larry and the writing gang are correct: That should set the tone first rather than feeling like a change of plan later.
And Larry hits a good nail on the scientific pedantry. His point leads me to a question: Who’s the audience? I have no problem with the terms used and have no feeling of reading above my learning, yet laymen won’t have that level of comfort. The point is not to be obtuse but rather to hit the target market (or thereabouts). Are you shooting for a common fan or a learned fan? Or something in between? That will help with knowing how much of the vernacular is wise and how much is linguistic ostentation.
Beautiful piece. Maybe because I’m used to your other writings, I knew that the dry factual narration at the beginning is the setup for the deeply personal punch to the gut that will come later. So I really didn’t find the beginning part boring. Untl I read Bev and Larry’s comments and realized it could be that way.
Also, I love dry narrations of geographic facts because I visualize the geography in my head when I read such descriptions. So I may not represent your normal reader. But as Jason points out, what kind of “normal” reader would pick up a book on Joshua trees? And would such a reader be similarly inclined to prefer such dry descriptions? Not sure.
This quote is my favorite sentence in this piece. If you edit it out, I will not buy the book :-)
This had me laughing out loud. Although I wonder if a first-time reader of your work would totally miss it because of the deadpan delivery. For those who know to expect it though, I think even the “ly tree-related” is a bit redundant. :-)
Count me among those fog-wreathed winds wending their way ever so evanescently to the evaporative aridity of your prose. If they can’t appreciate a little dry humor, well, so be it. I like it all. Don’t all critics start with “Just make it a little more personal - write what you know!”? I have more of a mind for Jeffers than Stegner - perhaps you as well?
I thought the beginning was pretty darned good. This is a single gemstone in a much larger piece of jewelry, with more glittery bits on both sides, both before and after it.
The factual beginning was stage-setting, and I appreciated it as it was.
Near as I could tell, there is only one word out of place:
“...and by the time you get there all the good places to sit therein are already occupied by snakes.”
If it was me, I’d lose the word “therein.”
As you know, I’m a huge fan of your writing, and so might not be the most useful commenter because my tendency is to simply say that I think it’s great - no matter what it is you put down. But here’s something you might find interesting: I really have no interest at all in Joshua trees. I love the wild coastlines and tall cedars of my own neck of the (literal) woods. But, with that introduction, you made me care about them. And that seems to me like a big part of why you’re writing this book.