Course Syllabus

IUPUI COURSE SYLLABUS – Spring 2016
ENG W40l (24645) Advanced Fiction Writing (3HRS)
ENG W511 (25143) Graduate Fiction Writing (4HRS)
M 6:00-8:40 PM in IT 065
Professor Robert Rebein (said Raybine)
OFFICE: Cavanaugh Hall 503 V / HOURS: M 4:00-5:30 PM & by appointment
OFFICE PHONE & VOICE MAIL: 274-1405
E-MAIL: rrebein@iupui.edu

CELL PHONE: 615-9871

COURSE DESCRIPTION
An advanced course in the theory and practice of fiction writing. Analysis of classic and contemporary models in the genre, seminar study of elements of narrative craft, workshop discussion of student work-in-progress, written assignments in analysis, story, and craft.

METHODS
The course will be run as a combo seminar/workshop. Using the seminar format, we will read and discuss a number of theoretical discussions of what a short story is and how fiction as a genre works. We will also give close attention to a number of classic and contemporary examples in the genre, and we will write a number of annotations based on analysis of this material. As drafts of student stories become available for discussion, we will slip into workshop mode, wherein student work-in-progress will be critiqued in both large and small-group formats.

TEXTS

All required:

Tom Bailey, On Writing Short Stories (Second Edition)

Charles Baxter and Peter Turchi, Bringing the Devil to His Knees

T.C. Boyle, The Best American Short Stories 2015

ASSIGNMENTS
Each student will write and revise THREE SHORT STORIES and present at least two of these stories to the workshop for critique.

In addition, each student will write FOUR ANNOTATIONS based on analysis of the semester’s readings. These will take the form of brief (500-750 word) analytical responses to a single work as seen through the lens of one craft element such as character, narration, setting, plot, etc.

Finally, students will write a number of one-page, single-spaced CRITIQUES of peer work-in-progress (see below).

Students enrolled in W511 will also be responsible for a 7-10 page CRAFT ESSAY on an aspect of the theory of fiction discussed in class (more on this later).

GRADING
Overall performance in the course will be assessed using the following percentages:

W401:

STORY 1 = 15%

STORY 2 = 15%

STORY 3 = 15%

ANNOTATIONS = 35%
PEER CRITIQUES = 20%

W511:

STORY 1 = 15%

STORY 2 = 15%

STORY 3 = 15%

ANNOTATIONS = 25%
CRAFT ESSAY = 10%

PEER CRITIQUES = 20%

GRADING SCALE
3.80 - 4.00 = A
3.67 - 3.79 = A-
3.66 - 3.33 = B+
3.32 - 3.00 = B
2.99 - 2.67 = B-
2.66 - 2.33 = C+
2.32 - 2.00 = C
1.99 - 1.67 = C-
1.66 - 1.33 = D+
1.32 - 1.00 = D
0.99 - 0.00 = F

ATTENDANCE
Attendance in a one-day-a-week writing course is absolutely essential, therefore I make no provision for cuts or excused absences, although I do recognize that emergencies do happen. In any case, it is the student's responsibility to notify me, in advance if possible, of any sessions that must be missed.

PLAGIARISM
The university demands academic honesty, which requires that all words and ideas that writers present as their own truly represent their own work. Plagiarism, defined as “offering the work of someone else as one’s own,” is a grave offense. In a word, it is cheating. Penalties range from a lowered grade in the course to dis-enrollment from the university. For more information, see any handbook on writing, as well as your School of Liberal Arts student guide.

TECHNOLOGY
To succeed in this course, students must be prepared to (1) use their IUPUI email address (or arrange to have messages sent there forwarded), (2) access our site on Canvas several times a week, (3) post their work on Canvas in a timely fashion and in the correct format (doc, docx, pdf) when asked to do so. Students who face obstacles in these areas should discuss those obstacles with me as soon as possible.

RECYCLED WORK
Students may not submit work for this class that was written for any other class, unless they receive permission from both instructors. If instructors discover a recycled assignment—and students should be aware that teachers consult each other regularly—that piece of writing will receive a zero in both classes.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
If you need any special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Adaptive Educational Services at (317) 274-3241. The office is located in CA 001E.


COURSE SCHEDULE

N.B. This syllabus is subject to change in order to better accommodate instructional and/or student needs. It is the student's responsibility to keep abreast of such changes.

On Writing Short Stories = OWS

Bringing the Devil to His Knees = BDK

Best American Short Stories = BASS

 

Mondays:

 

01/11 – Readings: Francine Prose, “What Makes a Short Story?” (Bailey, OWS), Joyce Carol Oates, “Reading as a Writer: The Artist as Craftsman” (OWS), Anton Chekhov, “The Lady with the Pet Dog” (OWS).

 

01/18 – MLK, Jr. Day – NO CLASS

 

01/25 – Readings: Tom Bailey, “Character, Plot, Setting and Time, Metaphor, and Voice” (OWS), Richard Russo, “In Defense of Omniscience” (BDK), Megan Mayhew Bergman, “The Siege at Whale Cay” (BASS). Annotation #1 due

 

 

02/01 – Readings: Frank Conroy, “The Writer’s Workshop” (OWS), Antonya Nelson, “Whose Story Is it?” (OWS), William Faulkner, “A Rose for Emily” (OWS), Diana Cook, “Moving On” (BASS).

 

Workshop 3 student stories: Thierry, Sarah, Lindsey

 

 

02/08 – Readings: Jim Shepherd, "I Know Myself Real Well.That's the Problem" (BDK), Flannery O'Connor, "Everything that Rises Must Converge" (OWS), Denis Johnson, "The Largesse of the Sea Maiden" (BASS).

 

Workshop 3 student stories: Rachel E, Grace, Andre

 

 

02/15 – Readings: Susan Neville, "Where's Iago?" (BDK), Ernest Hemingway, "Hills Like White Elephants" (OWSS), Ben Fowlkes, "You'll Apologize If You Have To" (BASS).

Readings: Annotation #2 due

 

Workshop 3 student stories: Anthony, Haylee, Oscar

 

 

02/22 – Readings: C.J. Hribal, "The Scene Beast is Hungry" (BDK), James Joyce "Eveline" (OWSS), Elizabeth McCracken, "Thunderstruck" (BASS).

 

Small group workshops: Story 1

 

 

 

02/29 –Readings: Peter Turchi, "The Writer as Cartographer" (BDK), Raymond Carver, "Cathedral" (BASS). Revised first story due

 

Workshop 3 student stories: Linsey, Beth, Seth

 

 

 

03/07 – Readings: Karen Brennan, "Dream, Memory, Story, and the Recovery of Narrative (BDK), Jhumpa Lahiri, "A Temporary Matter" (OWS). . Annotation #3 due.

 

Workshop 3 student stories: Rachel D, Sanad, Alex

 

 

03/14 – SPRING BREAK – NO CLASS

 

 

03/21 – Readings: Ozick, "The Shawl," Updike, "A&P" (both in OWS).

Workshop: Thierry, Sarah, Lindsey, Andre

 

 

03/28 – Readings: Michael Martone, "Ruining a Story" (BDK), Margaret Atwood, "Happy Endings" (OWS), Kevin Canty, "Happy Endings" (BASS).

 

Small group workshops: Story 2

 

 

 

04/04 –Readings: Kevin McIlvoy, "The Editor Comes Clean at Last" (BDK), Shobha Rao, "Kavitha and Mustafa" (BASS). Annotation #4 due.

 

 

Workshop 4 student stories: Rachel E, Grace, Anthony, Haylee

 

 

04/11 – Readings: Re-read Rao story above. Revised second story due.

 

Workshop 4 student stories: Oscar, Linsey, Beth, Seth

 

 

04/18 – Readings: Yukio Mishima's "Patriotism" (OWS).

 

 

Workshop 4 student stories: Rachel D, Sanad, Alex

 

 

04/25 – Readings: TBA. Craft Essay due (W511 only).

 

 

Small group workshops: Story 3

 

 

05/02 – Last Day of Class. Revised third story due.

 

 

Appendix 1: Critiques

 

Written critiques of peer work-in-progress should take the form of a letter to the author of the story in question and should be written with the aim of helping the author improve the story through revision. As such, these letters should focus on the big picture. Your job is not to nitpick on grammar, etc., but to offer interpretation and analysis as well as concrete suggestions for revision.

 

Critiques should be roughly three-quarters of a page to a full-page, single-spaced. Include the author’s name, the story title, the date of the critique, and your own name. Two copies of the critique are due in class the night we discuss the story in question. One copy will be handed in to me, and one copy will be given to the author of the piece. (In addition to this, I advise that you keep a digital copy for your files.) Late critiques will not be accepted.

 

Suggested topics for discussion:

 

1. Character. Are the story’s central characters well drawn and interesting? Are they believable? Do they exhibit desire? Are we made to care about what happens to them? Do they have a credible past? A credible inner life? Have we come upon them at a crucial moment in their lives? Is the use of point of view (first or third-person, etc.) appropriate to the story and the characters?
2. Setting or milieu. Is the world in which the characters operate specific and interesting? Is it rendered with sufficient detail? Do the people in the story have believable occupations? Do we come upon them on a specific day with a specific atmosphere and weather? Does all of these contribute to the overall meaning of the story?
3. Summary/scene. Does the story demonstrate an interesting and appropriate mix of summary and scene? Does the summary take us deeper into the characters and their inner lives? Do the scenes move the action of the story forward? Are the central moments of transformation or change sufficiently dramatized? Is the dialogue effective and interesting?
4. Story arch. Does the story establish sufficient reader interest and suspense? Have specific dramatic questions been posed and answered? Do we arrive somewhere different than where we began? Are the stakes in the story high enough to warrant our time and attention? Is what happens in the story surprising, interesting, unpredictable?
5. Style/voice. Is the story effective and interesting on a sentence level? Has the writer provided vivid details and imagery? Is the overall use of language careful and compelling?

 

 

Appendix 2: Sample Annotation

 

Student Y

ENG W401

Annotation # 1

Date

 

George Saunders’ Use of Repetitive Details in “Escape from Spiderhead”

 

            John Gardner (1983) claims that, above all else, a fiction writer (not writing metafiction) who has mastered his or her craft will achieve in writing the effect of the “vivid and continuous fictional dream” (The Art of Fiction, 97). Every element of the writing should fit underneath the umbrella of the fictional dream in order for the story to be successful, the dream uninterrupted. Part of this effect relies heavily on precise and accurate details. In George Saunders’ 2011 story “Escape From Spiderhead,” Saunders uses specific details in the writing—particularly through the use of repetition—to create a science fiction fantasy that draws the readers into the dream, convincing us, mostly without question, that his world exists and his characters are motivated to perform their actions.

            The first way that Saunders convinces us that his futuristic setting is real is through repetitive dialogue and scene. The first lines contain the exchange between and the scientist, Abnesti, and the narrator, Jeff: “Drip on,” … “Acknowledge.” At first we do not know what is going on, and when we find out that Jeff is being injected with futuristic mind-altering drugs, it seems a bit fantastic; however, we learn that these injections are all part of a scientific experiment. This pattern of dialogue is repeated before every series of injections, validating the methodic nature of documenting scientific experiments. This detail is minor, but it completely shapes the accuracy of the scientific setting. Additionally, Saunders even uses repetition for entire scenes, repeating the effects of the drug ED763 during Jeff’s sexual experiences with Heather and Rachel. Back to back, we are put through two scenes that are nearly identical, but the repetition confirms in the reader that the drugs’ effects are consistent and real.

            A detail that Gardner mentions is critical to maintaining the fictional dream is consistency in character voice, especially the voice of the narrator. Saunders is nearly able to throw that notion away by giving his narrator a drug that greatly enhances his diction, increasing his vocabulary by eighty percent. However, this effect could very easily be mismanaged, but Saunders makes it real by making sure it consistently coincides with the injection of the drug “Verbiluce™,” and that his language (in narration and dialogue) is deflated back to “baseline” as the drug wears off. In the repetitious scenes of his sexual encounters with Heather and Rachel, as well as during any of the scenes in which he is injected with Verbiluce™ in order for his thoughts to be truthfully recorded (truthfully, because he has also been injected with VeriTalk™), the same effect of elevated language and diction is repeated through his narration/dialogue.

            Earlier I mentioned that Saunders’ use of detail mostly convinces the readers that his characters are motivated. I found that Jeff’s ultimate heroic suicide was the only unconvincing action of the story. Other than being in prison and forced to participate in scientific experiments, there is little detail-supported evidence to convince us that Jeff is suicidal, or that he would sacrifice himself for someone who he has clearly stated he has no significant feelings for. In fact, other than the Darkenfloxx™ experiments, most of the experiments consisted of drug-induced intellectual and sexual ecstasy for Jeff, hardly something to get upset about. Although I feel it was the best ending for the story, the story did not show enough detail or present enough evidence to justify Jeff’s action.

 

Grade: 23/25

Instructor Comments:

Very nice job on this, although your ending is a cop-out.  Jeff has just witnessed another character's violent suicide on Darkenfloxx, so the notion that what he has experienced is “hardly something to get upset about” doesn't seem very accurate.  Your last sentence opens promising new ground, but you do nothing with it.  As it stands, the sentence is something of a paradox.

All in all, this is a nice start on annotations.  I especially like the way you clearly define Gardner’s notions of the Fictional Dream and Significant Detail and then go on to analyze Saunders’ fiction in light of these concepts.

 

Good luck on the next three.