Can someone explain shock writing? I saw someone use the term and part of me thought, "That person loves Jesus a lot so they probably don't like to read about violent sex." The other part of me thought, "Is some of my writing shock writing?"
Can someone provide examples of shock writing?
I suppose it's like "Flarf Poetry"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flarf_poetry
ReplyDeleteWell, there's this (and not just because I know which side of the bed the writer in question prefers).
ReplyDeletehttp://htmlgiant.com/web-journals/31244/#comments
Thanks Donora. I missed that whole discussion
ReplyDeleteshock is anything exploitative; not genuine.
ReplyDeletei didn't find sean's poem particularly "shock". the title was a little.
some of sam pink's titles in his poetry books are "shock" writing.
man i just read through that comment section. i missed that dick dance.
ReplyDeleteI don't think 'shock' is necessarily exploitative, jereme. And I also don't buy lumping 'exploitative' w/ 'not genuine.' Think John Waters. Many people are shocked by his early work, and he's not exploiting anyone. I'd argue that he's having fun poking fun at people's bunched panties.
ReplyDeleteTo me, shock writing, so-called, is simply provocative writing that causes the reader to catch her breath. Usually, b/c we're in the U.S., themes or images or language that 'shock' are sex-related. It seems American audiences are immune or numb to the shock-and-awe of violence, but sex still manages to provoke, depending on personal history, of course, no? In some circles, religion seems to get a similar rise, so to speak.
I mean... my latest work is designed to provoke. It's intentionally blasphemous and morally challenging, depending on the reader's ability to approach the material in much the same way that the protagonist tries to, that is, non-judgmentally. And yet how far is too far? This is one of the novel's central questions for both the protag and the reader. The narrative's set up to get 'badder' as the pages turn, yet I've had some early readers freak out w/in the first third of the manuscript, while others aren't 'shocked' at all b/c they get what the story's about and they've got a broader range of life experiences, which I guess provide context as a buffer or something. In other words, one's shock is another's cake. Porn v. erotica, and so on.
You don't think Divine eating dog shit for the camera was just a tad exploitive? I heart John Waters, but need to disagree on that point.
ReplyDeleteI realize this is a tangent.
I think a part of shock writing deals with where the readers' attentions are drawn. In the event the reader is overwhelmed (or maybe just whelmed) by the "shock," then this might be enough to give it that label. But alas, labels are for commerce. If it sells more calling it something else, then by all means...
ReplyDeleteI dunno, Andrea. Didn't John Waters make Divine a cult hero? Was Divine "mentally challenged" or forced into doing that scene? As far as I know, no. I think he was an outrageous performance artist, and Waters gave him an opportunity to do the most ridiculous stuff for maximum "bad taste" value. I'm sure they were both on board with that. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done so many other films together, no?
ReplyDelete