Bathhouse Presentation #1

Gail Scott Presentation
I find Gail Scott to be one of the more interesting presenters throughout the bathhouse readings. Typically, when a writer just stands at the podium and just regurgitates their words from the book into the microphone, it is generally mind numbing, but not with her. Her writing is so fluent and receptive that it was hard not to listen to it. At times, I found myself to be lost in thought, but she was absorbing the details with her descriptive characteristics and close attention to flow. She is a very down to earth person and it reflects in her writing and her style of writing. The style of writing has no restrictions or censors to help tone down any small feature from expressing itself.
Scott displays an interesting transition between proper complete subject-verb sentences and her sharp fragments. At times, the change in point of view can be confusing, but it generally comes back around to link itself together. For example, she used the second person view in most of the reading, but would then transform back to a first person very quickly. It made her reading of the story kind of shaky at times, but I still knew her intentions. In her Manifesto of Prose, she stated that “it never occurred to me, to be a poet,” which is obviously first person point of view, but later in the reading she changed the point of view slightly.
Another interesting part of her writing is her bold use of language to form a concrete feeling in the reader. She has no censors in her writing, which many writers tend to abide by for reasons that I, to this day, have no idea why. She uses the word “queer” often and provides a common discussion of homosexuality in her writing that most people would feel uncomfortable of pursuing. She states, “A story is something you can sink your teeth into,” which she clearly follows that rule; her description of forceful fragments provides a sense of want, a vigorous push for more. It wets the appetite for what is about to come or is not going to come. There is a lot of room for your mind to wander, in a positive way.
Along with the use of homosexuality in her paper, she also used the color purple on many occasions. The use of the color purple signifies that she is incorporating some personal preference into the piece. She never sticks purple to one certain thing; it is usually a dress or something in nature. If it was a favorite of the narrator, it seems that she would have declared purple as her favorite color. These commonalities in her writing bring a sense of personality in her writing; it brings the reminiscing memories and casual meetings with men to be that much more alive within the text.
In her piece with the character Rosen, whose “heart was in Chicago” speaks from a powerful point of view with three different voices. It reminds me of a softer “Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” type feel. It is not as psychologically exhausting as that book, but she uses the raw language to tone down any difficulties in the writing. For example, when she speaks in French it was a common difficulty for me because I do not understand the language; therefore when reading it, it felt like there was a minor void in many parts of the text. This took away from a lot of the feeling of My Paris, the only text I read all the way through. She did provide some mini-summaries of what the French meant in her presentation though, which helped clear up some of the confusion.
The French in her works makes the work considerably more authentic in it’s entirety. As I have said before, it builds character in how she writes. She is from Montreal, which has a co-dominant language of French. When she talks about her visits to Paris, the descriptions are almost dead on from what I view of France styled as. There is a definite appreciation for the world around her and she incorporates every single little detail. The fragments provide an abrupt bump that you just want to keep trying to smooth out, so you read on.