My Creative Process in Writing "Always"

I've recently self-published a short story written in 2012 for one of my classes at uni. We were required to write a piece that "held a conversation" with a poem or short story from our readings, and to write an accompanying essay about the techniques we used and our creative process. This is a little baby bit a promotion of the story (here is a link to the download page if anyone is interested in the final product; it's totally free) but it's also an excuse for more writing theory!

Anyway, on to the essay (spoilers follow)...

Always holds a ‘conversation’ with Diane Thiel’s translation of A Knife by Nikos Kavadias. I chose A Knife because I felt that it failed to reach the potential of its concept, and I wanted to explore that concept in a way that succeeded in creating the intended emotional response from readers. A Knife seemed to want to have a jarringly dark tone, but in practise it fell flat; I chose to create the same tone using my choice of point-of-view. As a short poem, A Knife did not have the length to properly explore the ideas of the inevitability and morality of the knife that it introduced, so I decided to look in more depth at those ideas.

Kavadias touches on the idea of inevitability in A Knife when the old dealer tells the protagonist that “those who have owned it, one after another have all, at some time, killed someone close,” and I decided to play with it in more depth in my own piece through the nonlinear timeline. Always begins, rather than ends, with the outcome of the characters’ relationship. I set it out like this because if owning the knife will always ends in the death of “someone close,” then the woman’s death was always going to happen from the moment that the ‘you’ character falls in love with her; I dismissed several plotlines because there was something not-right to me about trying to hide or disguise a death as inevitable as hers. I chose then to use the inciting incident, the moment the ‘you’ character realises (s)he is in love, to frame my piece—beginning with a death and ending by answering why it happened.

When I began work on my story, it was clear that I needed to consider my stance on how the knife of Kavadias’ poem works. An important question was: “Are people more inclined to take ownership of the knife because they are more inclined to kill or can this demise into murderous intention toward a loved one happen to anyone?” And, secondly, “To what degree, then, is the owner of the knife a victim of circumstance and/or responsible for the crime (s)he committed?” I was leaning toward something of a mix of the elements involved, but I did not want to get too caught up in examining the morality of the situation—in asking whether “you” are as much of a victim as “she” is. In my writing, I would rather suggest my opinions to readers than be forceful about them, and I wanted to imply things in this piece, leaving readers to make up their own minds in the end. I used the narrator to do this; by having the narrator speaking to the ‘you’ character, I could have narration that was not only blasé about the murder, but also unbiased—while the ‘you’ character may be showing a hint of regret in hesitating to touch the body of his/her victim, the narrator neither excuses nor shames him/her for what (s)he did.

Possibly the most important decision I made in the process of writing Always was that of the point-of-view I used. I began with third-person limited, which I usually prefer, but I couldn’t capture the right tone, and it wasn’t until I was inspired to write a short vignette about my characters in second-person that I realised that this was what my piece was missing. A Knife contrasts an innocent rhythm against a dark theme in a way that was intended to be jarring, and I decided that, rather than trying to replicate this contrast, I could use the point-of-view to recreate that sensation in my readers. The second-person is perfect for this; it is such a rarely-used point-of-view that it surprises readers to find themselves being addressed. I wanted, also, to create a sense of intimacy, but thought that the level provided by first-person counteracted the unbiased narration that I wanted; again, second-person proved the perfect option as it allows readers to become entrenched by speaking to them along with the character, making the situations described feel personal and invasive. 

My creative process involved writing every word as it came to me rather than forcing myself to finish it in one go. I carry notebooks with me, so I’d scribble notes any time I had an idea and transcribe them to a word document when I had time. This transcription process allowed me to rewrite Always a number of times before I reached in-class peer review. I had three main problems in working on my piece—the word count, the organisation of my non-linear timeline, and parts that lacked clarity to readers. The first required that I find ways that scenes could be expanded or write new scenes that helped the story; I did this myself, but also asked at least three people if they felt that there was anything missing from the piece. As my timeline was non-linear, I needed to order the scenes in a way that made it feel most like a cohesive story. I did this after completing the writing stage; I read through it all and decided where each scene felt most appropriate. Once I had reordered it all, I had it looked through. Lastly, I received feedback that parts of the piece were confusing. Knowing what was intended by each of these parts, it was difficult to rewrite them to ensure clarity, but after each rewrite, I checked back to receive feedback regarding the changes. My peer review process involved not only the in-class sessions, but also a family member and six friends, each of whom gave me useful advice for changes. I revised and added to the piece between each feedback session, and though Always has ended up lower than the prescribed word count, I felt that it was better to avoid adding meaningless, unnecessary scenes that would damage the integrity of the piece.

There were a number of literary devices and themes that I explored during the creative process of writing Always, many that found small roles in the piece and some that had to be excluded entirely because they no longer suited my concept. I have focused particularly on the theme of inevitability, the nature and morality of the knife, and the second-person point-of-view, because these elements are critical to the success of my piece as a ‘conversation’ with Nikos Kavadias’ A Knife.