I’ve often imagined that, if my stories could be illustrated as a Venn diagram, it would depict that crucial intersection between the soul and sociology.
I was really intrigued by the discussion of titles and drafts in Sayrafiezadeh’s reflection:
I had no idea how this story would come together, considering that the early drafts were completely unrecognizable and, as I mentioned, the first scene took place in MOMA. My original title was “Now Is the Time for All Good Men to Come to the Aid of Their Country,” which I liked, and which lasted ten drafts, until I sadly saw that it wasn’t capturing what the story was actually trying to do. (The titles I use are critical, as much for me as they are for the reader—they guide me as I write, and I can generally sense when the title is not matching my intention, which is an uncomfortable feeling.) And so at some juncture, some nth iteration, the answer to your question becomes yes, I had all the major elements of the story—the art, the typing, etc.—and I could see clearly how they would eventually fit together. I knew how the “abstraction” of the home row of the typewriter keys was going to mirror the “language” of Abstract Expressionism, and how sitting in an art gallery, typing away on a manual typewriter, would dramatize this. I knew that I would have the “origin story” of the typing class, the vocational emphasis, and the essential phrase that the teacher utters, “A body never forgets,” which has darker implications. It’s at this point in the process that the story ceased being titled “Now Is the Time for All Good Men,” and became “A, S, D, F.” But this final version is so different from the story that I set out to write that I wonder if it’s even fair to say that they’re technically drafts of the same story.