The Slam: Slammables
A Fairground
by Erica, Missouri
A fairground is a funny place -- a celebration of the cheap, the gaudy, and the sinister. No one at a fair is fooled by the clowns or the balloons. They come for the dirty undertones, the sharp metal corners, and the viscous flow of bodies across the trampled grass. "A brush with death and the disreputable," recited Cramer. "We sell them an experience, and they come like sharks in bloody water."
He said this to me when I was eight. We were sitting on a hill at seven in the morning, a few days after "Maudlin Marvin's Carnival Caravan" had become my surrogate home. The sun was floating behind us, spotlighting a scene of glorious desolation. The bestial forms of carnival rides were frozen in their nightly salutes around the field. The line of shuttered-up game booths formed a shadowy corridor, down which blew the remains of a fairground night. Cups, tickets, wrappers, cigarette butts, and souvenir photos all tripped over the muddy ground, urged along by the same wind that blew gustily in our faces.
"We're better than Church, really." He spoke like Shakespeare over the abjectly silent scene. "People go to Church to atone for their sins. Well, who wants to do that? It's better to revel in them. The people who come here are steeping their boring lives in depravity and getting a whole hell of a lot more out of it than a preacher's sermon. We're doing the public a favor, and you can bet we get twice the tithes that the Church does!"
This speech occurred before the other carnival-people had talked to me about Cramer. I hadn't seen the fake business card they made for him, reading "Josiah Cramer -- Sententious Windbag, soliloquies by the hour." I hadn't heard them cut him off mid-speech and pretend to stuff socks in his mouth. I hadn't been taken aside and told that I could do better than to spend time with a brain-fried stoner like Cramer.
Right there, on a rocky hilltop, I could only hear his brassy voice trumpeting a message to the trees. He was a talking statue, sending ancient words out like arrows to the world and letting them stick to whatever they pleased. As beaten-up and crazy as he was, Cramer was a good speaker. He let his words hang in the air, thrumming in the surrounding light. I looked up at his gray face and the deep sockets in which his eyes were barely visible, and I saw a revolutionary. Alexander and Caesar rolled up with just a hint of Ben Franklin. At eight years old, it wasn't hard to be awestruck.
He stayed silent for a while, smiling at his kingdom in front of us. A broken drink cup flew into the air and, hit by the sun, flashed a deep red at our hilltop. They come like sharks, I thought. If so, then surely it was Cramer who chummed the water. He and his infinite reserves of dark charisma, the speeches that fell through his lips like a creek. He was the attraction they unknowingly came for. And he was the iron figure who welded my imagination to the fairground.
Interesting characters. Good imagery as well. Cramer reminds me of someone I might think up, a very classic character. Unappreciated for his wisdom. But why did he talk in such old-fashioned speech ("atone"? "revel"? "tithe"?) It's fine to use those words in writing, but nobody has used them in dialogue since Shakespeare's time! Especially not demoralized stoners.
May 31, 2010
Whoa! Your vocabulary may be limited, Aaron, but I use the word "revel" on a fairly regular basis -- and I know lots of other people our age who do, too. "Atone" and "tithes" are perhaps a little "old-fashioned," but they have specific religious meanings that are completely relevant here. (I'd like to know what you would suggest as more "modern" synonyms...)
Even if this weren't the case, Cramer is a Sententious Windbag, after all! It's completely fitting to his character that he should use pretentious vocabulary -- even vocabulary far more ornate and "old-fashioned" than the relatively simple words you mention here!
May 31, 2010
The reason I and most other modern people don't use the word "revel" in casual speech is because it has outlived itself. The image conjured up by "revel" is old-fashioned, Renaissance fair, while when you actually are describing modern celebrations you can use words like "celebrating," "partying," "cheering"...
Words like "tithe" I bet you wouldn't even recognize if you didn't see it written down -- anything from "money," "dough," "income," "profit," "cash," "bucks," or "pay" would have worked to replace it.
Jun 7, 2010
Have you ever looked up the meanings of these words? "Revel" has completely different connotations from basic words like "celebrate" and "party." "Revel" comes from the Latin root meaning "to rebel"... Celebrating could be as calm and formal as a black-tie awards ceremony, but reveling has an element of madness and frenzy to it. The verb also has a secondary meaning "to take intense pleasure or satisfaction" in something (according to Merriam Webster). So when Cramer suggests that we "revel" in our sins, he conveys a sort of guilty, out-of-control pleasure that the word "celebrate" wouldn't begin to communicate.
As for "tithes," again, this has a completely different meaning from all-purpose words like "money" and "profit." A tithe is a formal payment (traditionally a full tenth of one's income) levied almost like a tax in order to support the Church. When Cramer says "we get twice the tithes that the Church does," the word "tithe" adds depth to the statement because it shows that Cramer is aware of this tradition, is probably resentful of it, and glorifies in the idea of turning the practice back upon itself.
Of course these words have historical contexts, of course they conjure up certain images. "Revel" can allude to Renaissance debauchery, if you like, or (more traditionally) the cult revelry of ancient Greece and Rome. "Tithe" probably conjures up a very traditional religious context, as well. But that's exactly what makes these words so rich. Erica isn't blindly invoking "old-fashioned" vocabulary; rather, she recognizes the connotations these words have, and uses those connotations to her advantage to help evoke the images she wants to convey.
To assume that any word is interchangeable with similar, more "modern" vocabulary does a disservice to the author, I think, and to the English language. That's the beauty of language: even seeming synonyms all have very different emotional impacts. Every word in a piece of writing -- no matter how short the work may be, or how long -- is a deliberate choice. Before we challenge that choice, the least we can do is to take the trouble to inform ourselves of the words' actual meanings and etymologies, to consider for a minute why the author might have specifically chosen that word over others. There's never going to be a circumstance, in any piece of writing, when seven different word choices will all have the same effect; each word must be judged independently, by its effectiveness in its context, rather than by arbitrary standards of what is "old-fashioned" and what is not. Mark Twain once said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug." Erica isn't content with lightning bugs; she puts in the effort to pick the words that convey the lightning. And for that I applaud her.
Jun 7, 2010
Anyone can memorize a bunch of words. Good writing is how you use them.
Jun 11, 2010
Not anyone, apparently.
Jun 11, 2010
My god, what intensity. I know this may not be an actual critique, but the fervor with which CuriousPoet attacks the argument is extremely thoughtful and very convincing. That's some good rhetoric, and now I'd have to agree.
But to actually talk about the piece, I really liked the atmosphere and how malleable and impressionable the narrator seems to the reader. It really catches the innocence of childhood and how this world can pry us away from that with all its pleasures and all its knowledge.
Jun 11, 2010
I was pretty enthralled by the piece, though I do understand where the other critiquers are coming from. At a few points, the vocabulary seemed to exist simply for its own sake. I shouldn't find myself wondering if carnival workers would know the word "sententious" or not, for example. So while your flare for vocab does create wonderful ambience, I'd caution you to choose your words wisely -- especially in a piece this short, in which every word may be scrutinized for meaning.
Jun 7, 2010
I think this is amazing. I loved Cramer's character. I could feel his charisma through the screen; it was kind of scary to be pulled into a fictional character like that actually. I will have to respectfully disagree with Aaron and say that Cramer's vocabulary made me love the character even more. I wish you had made it even more complex and "old-fashioned." I guess the vocabulary gave me a sense that he was smarter, more intelligent, generally better than me, and made me want to follow and listen to him even more.
I could easily see this being part of a larger whole; it's awesome.
Jun 7, 2010
I was very surprised by this piece, how it had some infinite, yet infinitesimally disguised, depth. Speaking for myself, I "reveled" in this narrative! A brilliant piece of fiction that borders on the side of dark, cerebral, philosophical simile and metaphor. I assume that it may not have been your intention, but when I read it I got the feeling of a sociological satire.
Please write something else; I'd love to read more of you.
Jun 11, 2010

Slammings