Monday 13 May 2024 I started revising my Katyn manuscript. During the past week, I worked on the so-called “Afterward,” new written content. Motivated by King Arthur’s suggestion that I provide some kind of epilogue or postscript, I found myself writing new material but also revising blog drafts I decided were better suited for the manuscript. The dated entries below reveal an insider’s perspective into the revision process of a 630-plus page manuscript. Today’s blog is the first installment of my new blog series, THE REVISION DIARIES.
Saturday 04 May 2024
I began revision work by collating draft fragments I have saved from not publishing on the blogsite. First, I handwrote notes and reminders. I renamed the AFTERWARD to FADING OUTRO. AFTERWARD doesn’t capture what I want to say in this new manuscript section. Yes, it’s an AFTERWARD, but like the word “CONCLUSION,” AFTERWARD suggests closure, an ending. As with the manuscript’s concluding section—THE IMPOSSIBLE CONCLUSION—this so-called AFTERWARD can’t conclude the book either; it only can simply fade into oblivion, like a fading guitar outro solo that “ends” a song. Hence, dubbing this new manuscript section, FADING OUTRO.
Next, I organized the subsections for FADING OUTRO. 1. The Dialogue of Two Students of Socrates. This piece will recount the real-life argument on evil and how Prairie-Grown Euthyphro—a character from the other sections of the manuscript who held a rather simple understanding of evil—may have been correct, concerning his position on evil and war crimes. This piece is a very rough sketch, one that needs more attention.
I struggled momentarily deciding which draft fragment to place next: “Professor, Are You Cynical?” or “Who Am I? I Am…. To be clear, the “Who Am I? I Am… piece is an unused blog draft that I explore my takeaways from studying and living with Katyn. This unused blog was to serve as both an explanation of what the Katyn Massacres were and clarification of how I understood this war crime as a “literature” professor. The “Professor, Are You Cynical?” also is an unused blog that I write about a recent exchange between a student from my war class and me. The student’s question: “are you cynical?” prompted an extraordinary philosophical back-and-forth that ultimately answers not only the student’s question but my outlook on life after studying the Holocaust, war, genocide, authoritarianism, and justice.
I decided to place the “Who Am I? I Am… before “Professor, Are You Cynical?’ in that order because the first subsection provides the foundation of my philosophical and scholarly positions, and the latter one dramatizes them in a real-life scene.
Now, I must work on transitions and filling out paragraphs.
Monday 06 May 2024
An idea came to me while walking Laska. For the “Professor, Are You Cynical?” chapter. A voice says to me: “You think you’re smarter.” My reply: “No, that is why I ask the question again; why I change my answer again, why I can’t finish this book.”
Another idea fragment: “Once they’ve accepted the disasters Goya forces them to witness, they start asking they why questions. They’re going to kill that man anyway; why torture him; why prolong the process?” A central dilemma for The Dialogue of Two Students of Socrates. Observations from my current war class students, ones the cadets on the Russian trip couldn’t answer because of Prairie-Grown Euthyphro’s simple solution to every question: ‘It’s evil.’ A question for King Arthur and my narrative self to debate. How to poignantly dramatize this scene? During a text message exchange, I wrote to King Arthur, “What if Prairie-Grown Euthyphro wrote “It’s evil” to one of King Arthur’s philosophy exams or papers? How would he evaluate and grade such a claim? I like to develop that direct question. I think if Prairie-Grown Euthyphro is (?) right—as King Arthur’s character insists—I need better, stronger defense of such a claim. From the professor’s classroom perspective. I found in Primo Levi: “there is no why here (in Auschwitz).” This claim of “It’s evil” bothers me. When Prairie-Grown Euthyphro said it, the words stunned me. So, how do I dramatize this? I don’t want to resort to more of the same—what I perceive as more of the same—by echoing the Nietzschean abyss stares back rhetoric. Yes, but, in this final section—which, by the way, is a challenging and hard section to write—needs to be a standout, eloquent, impressive writing piece. I have the skeleton outline, but I think by writing about how as professors—King Arthur and I—we would grade this… would we fail Prairie-Grown Euthyphro for saying “It’s evil,” claiming that simple statement explains everything. Ugh, so hard to wrap my brain!
Tuesday 07 May 2024
Started filling in the details for the “It’s Evil” debate between King Arthur and me. The first sketch has the basic points and “road markers” so that I can dramatize how difficult this statement is. Stared at the computer screen for a while. Decided to attack small sections. Writing became easier. Wrote for an hour, then went to lunch with John.
Wednesday 08 May 2024
Yesterday while commuting to the city to lunch with John, I jotted notes. Ideas were flowing. I used them to continue this morning’s writing session. I think I’ve completed the “It’s Evil” section. Now, I need to think about King Arthur’s suggestion that I include the monologue I gave when the family and I visited his ranch last summer. Lady Genevieve asked me, “What’s your book about?” And I began with the stats of the Katyn Massacres, mentioned Ania’s great-uncle who was killed… even about Jan Paliwoda who was killed, too. But then, for some reason, I started talking about Steve and his pitiful death during First Wave COVID. The manuscript is christened in blood of so many people… the Katyn officers, Steve….
The challenge I am wrestling with is how to write that scene, the one King Arthur believes strongly I need to include? I need a walk.
Thursday 09 May 2024
Added the notes from yesterday’s train ride. Helpful because they had provided a framework to build upon. I think I finished the dialogue about evil. Emotional writing. Wrote the setup for the scene—the so-called monologue. Unsure how to write what I said. ‘Record what you said’… yes, but doing so isn’t easy because when I spoke those words, they were painful to say. There are several emotionally charged scenes in the manuscript, but this one feels somehow different. More vulnerable? I decided to stop working on it. Tomorrow?
Friday 10 May 2024
To evade potential writer’s block (the monologue), I worked on the “Professor, Are You Cynical?” chapter. I see more clearly why this piece would have been too much for the blogsite. Too many side-stories need to be explained first so the other stories make sense. The definitions for “skeptic” and “cynic” maybe are too long, but I’ll decide later—when this entire section, FADING OUTRO—is complete to cut or not. Not sure if these definition parts are too long or short.
Saturday 11 May 2024
Decided to work on the so-called “Inquisitor” section. Waited over 30 years to confront this real-life story. Won’t reveal here exactly the specifics, but the experience has played a role in my understanding of good and evil, skepticism and cynicism. As I’m typing these words, I realize that I’m reliving the past by writing this book. A memoir, after all. Exorcisms of those experiences, voices: an implicit theme in the book, and one that I have blogged about. Enough for now. Let me work of the “Inquisitor.”
Finished work on “Inquisitor.” A migraine… is by having one right now, a sign that I’m on to something?
Another small migraine as I wrote the monologue that King Arthur insisted I include in the Afterward. Classical cello music is my background music. The mournful, heavily reverbed ambiance of the playing tapped into my artistic unconscious.
These migraines aren’t debilitating. They’re not piercing. They’re like that dull, gentle, throbbing ebb and flow-like wave I feel while listening to the cello music. A kind of melancholy. Is this what King Arthur meant… what he expects in this part of the Afterward?
One doubt plagued all day: the definition parts in the cynical professor section. Looking at these definitions, I consider them boring and stilted. The definitions are “right,” but they don’t feel “right”? Does that make sense? It’s late, and I feel tired. Wrestle with it tomorrow or Monday; after all, tomorrow is Mother’s Day.