Write from Scratch

I've called myself a writer for over twelve years now.

Recently, I had a novel accepted for publication. More
recently, my press folded, and the novel became just
another file on my laptop. That was four months ago. I've
hardly written a word since. It's time now, but it seems I've
forgotten how. I'm going to reteach myself how to write.
Though I have some background in writing, I've lost faith in
what I know. I'm starting over. I'm learning to write from
scratch.
Home
Scrap
Saturday, April 14, 2012
On Place and Space: The Vacuum
"As if the world were not what we make it, pulled by dogs down streets so dark, the sound of a river is
almost a kind of light." I lifted this line from George Looney's Animals Housed in the Pleasures of the
Flesh. And I wish I had written it before him. Let me be clear about two things: one, that's how I remember
the line, and I'm pretty sure it's close, but it might be a paraphrase; two, I lifted this line eleven years ago,
and I've been carrying it around with me ever since.

The sentiments in the line form currents, of course, in Scrap. Most notably: Nathan Daniels follows the
rivers this way, at night, in his memory, the sound guiding him, such that he can see the world, see the
trickle of water over pebbles, the splash of water against rock, the suck and silence of eddies, the gulp of
a quick undertow.

He knows the river by smell, too, that spring-time shitty muck -- that new life that smells just this side of
recent death -- which hangs in the thick night air. He could tell you in the darkest darkness how high
French Creek is on a particular limestone boulder, how many paces of river rock are exposed between
the tall grass and the water, by the smell and the sound of it all.

That is how we know the world, I'm certain of it, sensuously. That is why when Descartes tried to get at
some kind of primary truth, he had to first deny access to his senses. He couldn't do it. We can't do it. We
exist entirely in how we know the world, and, I'll say it again, we know the world in how we see it, taste it,
touch it, smell it, and hear it.

* * *

Nature abhors a vacuum -- what a fun thing to say! Say it in front of a class and your students will think
your intelligence has no limits -- Wow!, they'll think, this guy's deep. Say it at just the right moment during
a cocktail party, and your spouse will drag you home and smother you in enduring caresses. "Nature
abhors a vacuum," truly, a notion that is both a pleasure to think and a joy to say. The coupling of the long
a and the long u. The soft rs. The simple cadence -- here is the kind of sentence I wish could be the title
of my autobiography.

But it's not true, right? Part of the pleasure in saying it is the same pleasure in telling a small, meaningless
lie, like when we, for no apparent reason, blurt out that we're allergic to cheese. "Oh," someone will surely
say with raised eyebrows, and then we shrug, "Yep, can't eat cheese, though as a child it was my favorite
thing . . . just the smell of it brings me such joy and revulsion . . ." well, it goes on from there.

Nature, in truth, is indifferent to a vacuum. If nature has a consciousness it is in the knowledge of its own
cellular make-up, its quantum entanglements, its utter relationship to all things. Nature, that is, at a
cellular level exists just the same in a vacuum or in a Cuisanart. Society, on the other hand, culture, that
is, abhors a vacuum. The collective consciousness of humanity fears, hates, and dreads the absolute lack
of all things.

Nothing is more terrifying to a small child than the notion of a black hole. Can you remember learning of a
black hole for the first time? I can. An awful place whose gravity is so great even light can't escape, the
end of heaven and humanity, for sure -- this awful emptiness that will someday consume us all, the utter
lack of detail where one's notions of the world and a relevant afterlife no longer apply. What would that be
like? We have no words to describe it. The most terrifying notion of all, the absolute lack of description.

So, yes, while nature is indifferent to such things, humans abhor a vacuum.


Mies Van Der Rohe was right, the modernist architect, of course, that "God is in the details." Great
writers, as well as great builder -- artists of any ilk -- know this. And we hear it again and again from
Flannery O'Connor to Anne Lamott to Stephen King. Some of whom I'm sure to come back to, but first the
two things at play: the details and the utter lack of details.

I'm thinking here of The Neverending Story, and why it resonates so powerfully with children: the
resonance, of course, begins with the unique details -- the playful and tender giant flying poodle, the
racing snail and its rider's elegant burgundy riding suit, the dripping nostrils of the mountainous allergic
turtle -- these details are grand and precise, scaly, caked with mud and dead sticks, but their beauty, their
truth, is in how they are set up against the void. The Nothing.

The worst thing imaginable is not to be dead, but to have never existed, to be sucked into the
nothingness of a black hole. God is in the details. The black hole is the place where no details exist,
where no god exists -- it is The necessary Nothing, which threatens the imagination. As a child, imagining
the end of all things is far worse than imagining our own inevitable death. Consciousness, language, we
abhor a vacuum.

Meanwhile, we've all heard it said that a story that seems to take place nowhere, seems not to take place
at all -- the floating head story of our intro to creative writing classes. And, even as we point out that a
porch is not a place until we feel the dry sharp paint chips digging into our palms, until we see in the light
of a globeless bulb the fluttering of spring's first moth, until we toe the cigarette butts across the cracked
gravelly concrete with our sticky bare feet -- even as we mention this, our students say, "No, I'm not going
to change that; the story's not about the porch; it's about vampires." Such young writers, who resist the
sensuous, do not know their own world. They don't know the world they're writing, because they don't
know the world in which they live. They see at what they're looking, as Gertrude Stein said of every artist
except Picasso.

I said I've been reading Yi-Fu Tuan, and here he is (though he gets quickly enveloped by Niels Bohr):
"What is place? What gives a place its identity, its aura? These questions occurred to the physicists Niels
Bohr and Werner Heisenberg when they visited Kronberg Castle in Denmark. Bohr said to Heisenberg:
Isn't it strange how this castle changes as soon as one imagines that Hamlet lived here? As scientists we
believe that a castle consists only of stones, and admire the way the architect put them together. The
stones, the green roof with its patina, the wood carvings in the church, constitute the whole castle. None
of this should be changed by the fact that Hamlet lived here, and yet it is changed completely. Suddenly
the walls and the ramparts speak a quite different language. The courtyard becomes an entire world, a
dark corner reminds us of the darkness in the human soul, we hear hamlet's "To be or not to be." Yet all
we really know about Hamlet is that his name appears in a thirteenth-century chronicle. No one can prove
that he really lived, let alone that he lived here. But everyone knows the questions Shakespeare had him
ask, the human depth he was made to reveal, and so he, too, had to be found a place on earth, here in
Kronberg. And once we know that, Kronberg becomes quite a different castle for us. (Tuan)
Tuan's perspective of experience is rooted, entirely, in place -- this passage occurs early in his text (page
4), and the idea continues throughout the text.. So it is with Bohr. So it is with our writing. Flannery
O'Connor said something like "There are no things from ideas, only ideas from things." And that's what
this is all about. How many times have we heard or read or thought the line, "To be or not to be?" And in
hearing, how many of those times have we seen "The stones, the green roof with its patina, the wood
carvings in the church"? Probably never, right, or we see the director's interpretation if we're watching the
line performed. But go to the place, go to Kronberg, look into the dark corners, listen to the walls and
ramparts, and try not to hear "To be or not to be?" Only ideas from things. It cannot be the other way
around.

So the young writer wants to write a story about sorority girls who are actually vampires, she doesn't want
to describe the porch, because it's just a porch. Meanwhile, those vampires seem to exist nowhere and
therefor seem not to exist. Nobody built a castle in Transylvania,because something terrifying existed
there. Dracula exists because of the castle, because of the landscape, because of the rocks and the
woods and the rivers that make up that world, and so writers must go on, "pulled by dogs down streets so
dark . . ."
Posted by Jackson Connor at 2:21 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Hamlet, place, rivers
Friday, April 13, 2012
On Research-Based Creative Writing: The Bib
(As usual, I don't mean for any of this to sound instructive: this is not a how-to manual. Any advice I give,
at this point, can be taken with an ocean.)

I have, by now, written closer to 200,000 words that have had at their heart the early days of the oil
industry in Western Pennsylvania. The current incarnation of the project is calledPithole: The Wickedest
City -- a novel about the five hundred days of an oil boom town of the same name. In early 1865, a couple
fellas struck oil along an uninhabited stretch of Pit Hole Creek. A couple more fellas came there and
started building a town. Over the next eight months, more than 20,000 people moved there: by
September 1865, that is, the Pithole post office handled more mail than every other post office in the
state, except for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. By June 1866, Pithole was a ghost town. Warped gray
wood covered in a thick blanket of oil, scarred here and there by the dozens of fires that had burnt swaths
of the town to the ground.

A newspaper writer of the time called Pithole "The Wickedest City East of the Mississippi." My annotated
bibliography at this point is over 40 pages, single spaced -- including information from dozens of oil
books, Walden, Emerson's journals, The Bible, The Origin of the Species, and an ancient manual about
knots and related devices called "Tackle it Safely: Rigging Hand Book" -- and that phrase, specifically,
"The wickedest city," has stuck with me more than any other. For all those phrases that have not stuck
with me, I have my dear pal, annotated bib.

I can't remember who said, "All good novelists have bad memories."

That's a lie. It was Graham Greene, though, in my own defense, I have forgotten a great many other
things: many of which are far more important than Greene's notions about memory.

Which is why I keep an annotated bibliography. I'll admit it: it's not in MLA format, but it does house
hundreds of passages, biographical moments, contemporary philosophical inquiries, and other snippets
that I return to from time to time to check myself against the past. And most of the citation information is
accurate.

The bib, it turns out, has a life of its own. It is a project similar to, but independent from the historical
novel: Pithole. The bibliography has been a place for me to keep a great deal of information, without,
necessarily, committing it all to memory. Facts, dates, folk song lyrics -- I even have an attached glossary.

Still, liberating though the bibliography has been, I have at times also found it limiting. Let me turn to a pro
-- in fact, the place where I first found the above Greene quote -- to help me explain. In From Where You
Dream, Robert Olen Butler claims:
What you remember comes out as journalism. What you forget goes into the compost of the imagination.
. . . Greene's compost of the imagination is the same as the dreamspace, the white-hot center of the
unconscious. The point he's making is that not only is your mind the enemy, not only is your will, your
rational thinking, your analytic thinking the enemy, but your literal memories are also the enemy.
When used appropriately, the annotated bibliography has allowed me to gather all of my research and
compost it in a very real, visible, tangible form. When used poorly, the bibliography has been stifling,
instructive, telling me, "No, no. That's not what reallyhappened." When this occurs, when I become too
reliant on the bibliography, the story that I'm writing, the fiction, the narrative, becomes entirely untrue. I
lose the voice of the novel. I lose the narrative that has been roiling over and over inside me. I lose that
great unconscious drive that creates.

I solidly believe that good literary writing comes from an undefinable place in the imagination, a place that
an artist can access -- through the practice of a sustained, consistent effort -- but never truly know. This is
why writers can be so frustrating to talk to when you ask them the very simple question: "Where did you
get the idea for this story?" The idea for a story, for any kind of creative endeavor is something that
comes to the piece in its own creation. Stories, that is, are not ideas in and of themselves. They are
things. They are things made of things. Literary fiction arises out of the senses -- out of what we see,
hear, taste, touch, and smell -- ideas, morals, motifs: they are the result of the details, not the source. The
question -- Where did you get the idea for a story? -- can be most easily answered spiritually: the
narrative is the world speaking through me, nature speaking through me, god speaking through me,
society speaking through me. A creative narrative is the process of creating -- it is not fact gathering,
journalism, reproduction.

My annotated bibliography works when I enter the information, dwell on it, ruminate over it, read it, reread
it, and forget it. Set it aside. It works best when I copy a line from an existing text onto a blank computer
screen and let that language carry me for hours at a time. Sometimes it takes two or three pages just to
bury that line, to let it decompose into my own language and bring a new, different kind of life and
language to the surface. This new life is voice. It is narrative. It is at the white-hot center (Butler's words)
of literary fiction.

And, then, there's the one other thing, brought to us by Walt Whitman: "Walt, you know enough, why
not let it out then?" I have too often, in the process of my research, denied myself access to my writing. I
have, that is, privileged the research, and that has lead me, occasionally, to shame. If writing is the end
game, sometimes we must allow our annotated bibliographies to suffer*.

So, long story short, Step 1 for a research-based creative writing project: track your research.

*No actual harm was done to an annotated bibliography in the writing of this post.
Posted by Jackson Connor at 4:48 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: annotated bibliography, compost, research
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Out of the Forest
In many early fables, the troubled or desperate youth wanders or flees into the forest. The forest is
usually a dark place, mysterious, threatening -- often magical, or deemed magical for lack of
understanding. The forest is haunted, not often by mindless specters, hellbent on giving one the willies,
but usually by a primordial knowledge of the past, or the deeply frustrating notion that the youth is not
living up to her potential. When she emerges from the forest, she is changed. Though she might look
around at the world and see it differently, the real, knowable difference is her application of what she
learned in the forest. She is now magic, because she now understands what was so recently beyond
comprehension.

Our contemporary versions of those stories has a fella falling into a uranium pit. Or getting infected with
gene-altering chemicals. And rising out of that experience with some new knowledge, be it wisdom or
some sort of physical know-how.

At any rate, I guess I'm hoping that I arise at this moment as some sort of writing Spiderman . . .

But, first, let me tell you about my forest. I applied for this post-doctoral fellowship, which I currently
inhabit, about a year ago with the promise to speculate about research-based creative writing. I'd been
working on a novel about the early days of the oil industry for over a year -- I'd even had a short historical
story about Ida Tarbell published in a literary magazine.

I was awarded the fellowship about a week after receiving news that my novel deal had fallen through,
and, well, best-laid plans go to shit. Still, while it's taken some time to recover, I have had research on my
mind, and I have had Petrolia on my mind. As a result, I spent two weeks in March back in Western
Pennsylvania, wandering through the libraries in Oil City and Franklin, digging through old manuscripts,
scrolling through reams of microfilm.

In the meantime, I have been still hung up on some of the ideas from my most recent post -- from holy
moly over a month ago -- about landscape and fiction. I found the lesson in a book about oil, but went on
to read Place and Space: The Perspective of Experience by Yi-Fu Tuan. What a book! It really got my
literary spidey-senses tingling.

The rub: I have split my attention over the past month between a contemplation of landscape in fiction
and the practice of research. Over the next couple of weeks, this blog is going to be a place where I can
explore those ideas a bit, see if I've learned anything. In the meantime, I'll continue working daily
on Pithole, which should inform both the narrative of landscape and of research, while informing both
things.
Posted by Jackson Connor at 10:19 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: landscape, Pithole, research
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Found Lessons
There's no bad place to (re)learn a lesson about writing. The best thing I've learned today about writing
came to me from a book about the early days of the oil industry. Petrolia, published by Brian Black in
2000, is a ruminative, often poetic, examination of 19th Northwest Pennsylvania. I thought I was reading
the book to research historical events which are the basis for my own historical novel: Pithole: The
Wickedest City. Turns out, today, I'm reading the book for a lesson on setting in fiction.

Two weeks ago, my introduction to fiction writing class discussed Janet Burroway's chapter on setting in
her book Writing Fiction: "Far, Far Away." Great chapter. As always Burroway brings together the voices
of many writers' fictions and many writers' notions about fiction writing. The element that my class struck
on, perhaps the most important notion in the chapter (or even the whole book), is the simple statement:
"Like dialogue, setting must do more than one thing at once" (173). A statement no less poignant for its
simplicity. I would take it a step further even to say, "Every element of fiction must do more than one thing
at once," but we'll take that up another time.

Today, I found this passage:
A landscape is constructed of geology, hydrology, and biology; yet it also includes the creations of the
humans or other beings that inhabit and change the environment. Where nature and culture meet, they
construct a landscape. This construction is most obvious in its physical manifestations, yet humans also
determine its spiritual, social, and cultural meanings. Therefore, such a meeting between nature and
culture may not always result in a physical creation. A vision of a place can also form within the mind, as
humans reshape attitudes and valuesthereby adding a mythic component to the meaning of an
envisioned locale. In this fashion, a definition of place can be constructed externally by a larger culture.
Occupants may still form their own ideas of a place, but an external construct based in ideals of the larger
culture also encroaches on a places meaning. (Black 61)
Two weeks too late for the conversation about fictional place, proper, there is no bad time to learn a
lesson about writing.

Setting or place or landscape, I've found as a teacher of inexperienced writers, is often confused with
background, and background in writing (as opposed to visual arts) is often confused with the blank white
piece of paper on which one puts words describing a plot. This is problematic, of course, as Jerome Stern
points out, because a story that seems to take place nowhere doesn't really take place [paraphrase]. I
have, in fact, heard many experienced writers speak of setting in sad and general terms, almost as
though creating any sort of place is a burden that a writer must deal with in order to get to the sexier
things like characters and turmoil.

I was lucky enough to work with Ann Pancake as an undergrad. She taught me to see setting, not as
something to be slogged through but as an integral experience that carries a weight equal to the greatest
characters, the most poignant themes, the most descriptive detail. How did she teach me that? I would
like to say, "She told me, and I listened, and I learned." But I'm not so easily convinced. Rather, she told
me, and I shrugged and scrunched my face a bit, and said something like, "I don't think so." Such were
my undergraduate retorts. So she told me again, and I shrugged and smoked cigarettes and stared off
into the middle distance humming Lag Wagon lyrics -- I was a force! And then she let me read her short
story "Jolo" which begins:
Moving through air as sticky as the blood that moves inside her, same heat as the blood, the spit inside
her, that moves inside, so that here in the dark she forgets where she ends, forgets where her skin stops,
her skin does not stop, she is continuous. Moving through the weed smells, all the different green smells,
single, then symphonic, single, then symphonic, the river low and mucky, a fertile rotty smell, low low dog
days August smell. Not a bad smell, even though it is a just short of shit smell, but the river is not unloved
for it, no, actually loved by Connie more tender for it, for its spoiledness, its helplessness, for how people
have done it. Moving through the frog and bug burr, the chung, chung, chung, the tiny creature roar,
layers of ankles and throats and wings, a sobbing mesh, the sound, too, an extension of her, the sex
noise that shirrs the rind of her head, the kernel of her chest, again, Connie not knowing where her body
ends, her not knowing again, and say it. Jolo. The name carries a kind of wet heat, a back of the mouth
under the tongue, a you-know-what-I'm-saying-heat. You do. Carried in the syllables themselves. No, she
wants to say to the cop, it's not like that, she tries to say. Fires are a dry heat, she says, and Jolo's wet,
just say his name. Jolo.
More than one thing? How about a West Virginia dialect so thick the passage is hard to read out loud
without a drawl? The language rises out of the landscape, pushes up through the mud and the muck;
Connie's consciousness is the world around her -- this is not background; this is not burden; this is how
we know we're human. How about a character who sees herself in terms of her environment:"the rind of
her head, the kernel of her chest"? She sees herself (rind, kernel) as the product of her environment.
Connie doesn't know where she ends and where the world begins . . . but none of us do. We are the
union of the world we create and the world that is created for us. We are socially constructed as we
socially construct each other. We rise out of the landscape and fall back into it, and, in the meantime, we
are the rhythms of the world around us; for Connie, read it out loud, "Moving through the frog and bug
burr, the chung, chung, chung, the tiny creature roar." Read the whole passage out loud if you have a
moment, and you might just feel the river creeping between your toes.

Setting is not background. It is not generic.

I'm no musician. A dear friend asked me to stop whistling one day because I was so far out of tune the
noise was making her sad. Far far from a musician. And, yet, I try to imagine a world of music in which
composers, song writers, or singers simply thought of the noise from the instruments as a generic blank
backdrop, something that must be borne in order to rejoice in the lyrics. Now, I love lyrics, but without the
noise from the instruments, mighten we just as well be talking? Of course, there are those six or seven
singers throughout history whose voices are instrument enough (in similar fashion one could easily find
oneself in the middle of a Donald Barthleme story with no desire to understand where it takes place), but
most of us prefer accompaniment.

Well, shit, my hour's almost up, and I haven't even mentioned the passage I set out to discuss. Which is
probably for the best. The passage struck me, it strikes me now, as something terribly important to the
world, to my first-year composition classes, to my own writing, but I've had no time to compost it yet. I've
had no time to let it live and breathe in me, such that I can practically apply it. Still, speaking of a pleasure
to read out loud: "A landscape is constructed of geology, hydrology, and biology" -- a joy, in part, because
of the internal rhyme, but also, let's face it, because most of us have never said the word "hydrology" out
loud, and few of us (scientists aside) think hydrology when we think landscape. That is, the line is lovely,
in part, because learning is fun.

Final writerly lesson from a book about early oildom? "A landscape is constructed" -- the invisible hand of
god at play in the field of language. What we know about landscapes, this union of culture and nature, we
know because we have consciousness, because we are thinking creatures. As writers, our words are our
landscape. Writing, of course, is an artifice. Language is a construction, but it is a construction that rises
organically out of the characters, the consciousnesses, the landscapes, even as it creates them.
Posted by Jackson Connor at 2:10 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Ann Pancake, background, Burroway, landscape, oil, setting
Monday, February 20, 2012
There's No Good Way to Say This . . .
So I'm thinking about writing a book, which would share the title of this post, about the art of the query
letter. The book would rise from my absolute inability to craft such a letter. Can it really be as hard as I'm
making it? Shouldn't I just be able to reproduce my novel in one or two beautifully crafted sentences? Am
I over thinking this whole mess?

I don't know. And I don't know if I want to be good at writing a query letter.

The book would be based also on watching my spouse go through the process of writing a query letter. I
watched her spend a painstaking eight months crafting a beautiful literary page-turning novel about 1950s
burlesque in New Orleans. Each day, she would read me her thousand words, and each night I would go
to sleep wondering what might happen next. As she wrote the last few pages of the novel, I felt that
familiar feeling -- as though I were saying goodbye to a good friend, knowing that it would be some time
before I might see her again -- that I feel at the end of a great book.

I say familiar, but I mean the closing pages of Moby Dick, Nobody's Fool, The Things They Carried, The
Sound and the Fury, maybe twenty or thirty other books whose voice I know I'll miss, even as I'm enjoying
each ending. Like I say, I watched her research, live, and write this book for eight months, then I watched
her research, design, and craft a query letter for the next two months. I've seen and listened to twenty or
more drafts of her cover letter, and I think she's nailed it now. From her hook, to her synopsis, to her
closing salutation, she's written a compelling, exciting argument about why someone should publish her
book. I think she'll earn an agent very soon, certainly, I think, a book deal.

My spouse is way smarter than me, I think we've all come to terms with that.

In the meantime, I've been trying to write my own query. Here's what I have for a hook so far: "Stuff
happens in a steel mill and somebody probably dies." It's awful. It's an awful thing to write. I believe in the
book. I believe in the writing. But how in the hell do I write about the book? No, I think anybody who
followed the epic whining of "The History of My First Failed Novel . . ." should know I have no problem
writing about the book. More to the point, how do I write concisely about it?

Three more famous stories:

When Rimaud's mother asked him what a poem was about, he replied, "I have said what I have wanted to
say, literally and in every other way."

Flannery O'Connor said of her short stories, "If I could have written them any shorter, I would have."

Jeanette Winterson, apparently likes to say, "It's about what it's about."

I'm paraphrasing off the top of my head, not quoting: I just want to be clear.

Anyway, I'm including those quotes for two reasons. First off, because I love them; they speak so deeply
to the creative process and many of the things that I believe about art, that I celebrate them in papers and
at cocktail parties and around campfires, often to very serious head nodding. Secondly, because I love
them and use them as a constant excuse to not push myself harder to do the necessary writerly things
that might not be as pleasurable as writing literature.

Ouch. It hurts to admit that.

But it's true. I don't wanna write a query letter. I don't wanna read the submission guidelines. I don't
wanna buy a manila envelope to mail a manuscript to 10000ish zip code where, I'm almost certain, my
manuscripts are insulating some of the tallest buildings in the city.

The only things I ever want to do, as far as writing is concerned, are read and write. But that's never
enough. I think this might be a true story for a bunch of us out there in the world. For instance, by a show
of hands, how many folks out there, like me, somehow expect an agent to happen across a manuscript
and give you a call? (I'm typing with just the one hand right now, by the way.) Or it might be something
else -- shouldn't a particular press be seeking out your very own work this minute, because you'd be a
perfect fit for them?

Meanwhile, in my writing classes, one practice I insist my students engage is honesty -- not with the
world, though I find that important to, but with themselves. Find the places you're being lazy, I tell them,
and acknowledge that laziness. Often those lazinesses are easy to see. Some writers use a half dozen
semicolons to build a monster sentence that goes nowhere, because they don't know how to advance
their plot, their argument, their assertion. Others attempt to fit all 64 common prepositions into a single
paragraph, because they've written something off topic and can't figure out how to get back to their text.

You can't lie to yourself and be a good writer.

No, scratch that again, one can be completely misguided in how one reads the world -- that might be how
one creates such a compelling narrator.

But you can't lie to yourself about your writing and be a good writer. I'm working on a chapter right now in
my epic oil narrative history clusterfuck, and in this chapter, I know, I absolutely know that the perspective
is off. I've chosen, in fact, the completely wrong character to narrate this chapter. I've known that
intuitively for a long time, but just last week, I admitted it. I said it out loud: "This chapter belongs to a
different character." So after months of working and reworking a particular 5,000 words, I have to let it all
go, redream it, see it from another angle.

That I'd been employing the wrong narrator all this time was hard to accept, though I knew it to be the
truth. But, if I had recognized it earlier, I could have saved myself many headaches, countless frustrating
hours, a full ream of paper . . . I might have completed the book manuscript by now, had I been honest
with myself sooner.

So, okay, here I go: while what I want to be doing this afternoon is researching oil and writing awesome
epic asskicking adventures about the early days of the industry, I'm going to sit down with Scrap and try
to write two or three good sentences about it.

Such work is not glorious, not artful, but, if I must be truthful, necessary work.
Posted by Jackson Connor at 2:25 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: advice, Pithole, query, truth
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nothing in Isolation
"Nothing exists in isolation in the forest."

I was famously sitting in my family's cabin by the Allegheny River for the coldest six-month stretch of my
life. Late fall, I watched the ice gather on the river in small patches and form fields, which themselves
impinged on the shore like hour-long car wrecks, until the water was frozen solid. I was a college dropout
and a college grad. For an entire month, the high temperature did not rise above freezing. I was a steel-
mill worker and a hoddie. I was also an ex-all those things and, though I couldn't know it at the time, a
soon-to-be grad student. Mostly, I spent that winter reading and writing. I had visits from friends and
family on the weekend, but spent four or five days each week, not hearing a human voice or seeing a
human face (unless you count the folks on the other side of the river or the characters on the VCR tapes).

One of my favorite programs to watch at the time was a Nature Channel or Discovery Channel or National
Geographic Channel series about the world. I forget which channel, clearly, but I do know that the series
explored the tundra, the polar caps, and South American rain forests, specifically, as well as a few other
sweeping geographical generalizations. I learned a lot about the planet. My favorite detail came when a
flock of toucans, who had apparently eaten some sour berries, ate mud from a cliff. The mud had no
nutritional value, but provided a base to counter the negative effects of the acidic berries. Ha! Not a
pharmacist or an M.D. among them. Parrot, I thought, heal thyself! I knew they weren't parrots, though, so
it was a moot point.

Later in the same episode, the announcer in a conversation about one of the most complex ecosystems
in the known universe says, "Nothing exists in isolation in the forest." I paused and rewound and played
that line at least a dozen time. "Nothing exists in isolation in the forest." "Nothing," the announcer says,
"exists in isolation in the forest."

I had payed money for these tapes. That line was scripted. It's not as though the announcer were
commentating a live broadcast of the forest. He had been payed to say, very specifically, "Nothing exists
in isolation in the forest."

I felt duped.

* * *

On the other hand, I love Francine Prose's book Reading Like a Writer: A Guide for People Who Love
Books and for Those Who Want to Write Them. She insists that we all slow down and read and recall
what it's like to savor what we read and to learn from what we read such that when we read again or
when we read something else or when we write, we can enjoy again what we have read in other great
works. More than insist, she gives us permission to read thus.

She begins her book by insisting on close reading in her chapter 1 titled "Close Reading." She goes on to
focus on how a story might hinge or develop or change entirely as the result of a single word in her
chapter 2 titled "Words." Chapters 3, 4, and 5 -- "Sentences," "Paragraphs," and "Narration," respectively
-- grow larger in scope, but focus on language with the same kind of intensity as her previous discussion
of close reading and words. "Character," "Dialogue," "Details," and "Gesture" -- chapters 6-9 -- encourage
us to consider carefully the myriad ways in which an author develops a piece of fiction through such such
devices.

My students are to come to class today, ready to discuss "Character." In the chapter, Prose
discusses The Marquise of O by Heinrich Von Kleist, Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen, Pride and
Prejudice by Jane Austen, Middlemarch by George Eliot, Sentimental Education by Gustave Flaubert. Yet
another beautiful conversation by Prose in which she block quotes huge swaths of the texts and
discusses how they variously develop character through dialogue, thought, dress, narration, perception,
and other methods.

Something that struck me about twenty pages into her chapter, the impetus for this post, in fact, is that,
for a moment, I forgot the title of the chapter. During her discussion, I lost sight of whether this was a
chapter on narration or gesture, details or dialogue. I've read the book before, enough to recall lessons
from each of the various chapters. In reading the long passages she had quoted from the text, I found
myself applying Prose's lessons on several of the writerly things* her text addresses. What a pleasure, I
thought, to apply so much of what I've learned to just this one passage! Then, of course, the terror set in
that I would not be able to talk to my students this afternoon intelligently about character, and would end
up, again, tangentially describing the glories of free indirect discourse in narration. The horror, it was as if
something buried deep in my literary subconscious had uttered, the horror.

* * *
The summer after my longest, coldest Pennsylvania winter became the hottest, driest of my life. I started
working for a temp agency in April and ended up cleaning the scrap pits at a machine shop for three
weeks in June. There was a stretch of thirteen days where the high temperature each day was above a
hundred. On my lunch breaks, I sat on a bucket chewing tobacco and watched The Wasatch Mountains
burn. I didn't have much invested in saving the world, so I thought, Burn, baby, burn, at times, and at
others, thought, Shouldn't someone put that out?
At one point, in the machine shop, my boss got frantic and put me in charge of making rabble arms --
pieces for a ten-story industrial** furnace used to heat and slowly cool giant hunks of metal used in the
construction of submarines. The furnace was in Brazil. I was in Salt Lake City. The submarines would end
up in the ocean. The rabble arms were made of some strange sort of concrete I'd never seen before or
sense, the powder a finer consistency than even sifted flour. I mixed the mortar and poured buckets full of
a million tiny metal needles into the mixture. I have no idea why. For all I know, I might have been making
those car-wide curbs that keep cars from wondering off in parking lots. I was famous in the machine shop
for chewing tobacco and not knowing shit, so I continued to not ask questions.

Still that announcer haunted me, even then, even 1957 miles away from where I'd first heard his
narration, even months later and a hundred degrees hotter. "Nothing exists in isolation in the forest." The
awfulness. The sweeping generalization. The vagueness. The obviousness. The statement made more
sense to me at that moment -- in the desert building a product of steel and stone that will build a product
that will build a product that will swim through the deepest oceans -- it made more sense and sounded
more astute than any other statement I had ever heard.

And, today, here I am in Southeastern Ohio, reading Prose, thinking of a machine shop in Northern Utah,
wondering about a text: is it character? is it narration? is it dialogue? And this, traditionally, has been the
hardest part of teaching writing -- creative, composition, literary -- for me: you can't separate out the parts.
You have to learn and grow and write very intensely, applying all of what you've learned and grown into
and written, into every document as it comes out before you. Nothing exists in isolation in literature. Good
dialogue is good character development. Good setting is good plot. Good generalization is good detail.
Nothing exists in isolation in literature. We separate it out to talk about its pieces. We look at the toucans
and we look at the sloths. We live in the desert or we live in the hills. But nothing exists in isolation in
literature.

*Prose doesn't define or describe how she separates the chapters, so I don't know what she'd want to call
these things -- they're not themes or devices or techniques, necessarily, nor are they not not those things
either.

** For the record, I realize that if the furnace is ten stories tall, I probably don't have to mention that it's
industrial. I'm in too much of a hurry to bother with redundancies.
Posted by Jackson Connor at 12:00 PM 1 comment:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Francine Prose, isolation, Salt Lake City
Monday, February 6, 2012
On Teaching Creative Writing
I once (three days ago) famously (well, seven people responded, and only three of them were me)
tweeted, "I don't mean to sound preachy, but why would one take a creative writing class if one hates to
read and write?"

The question, I admit, sounds preachy. It looks facile. It seems as though I'm pissing and moaning about
a lack of effort on the part of some of my students. And that's all probably true, but something more
important than that is at stake for me. I, ultimately, don't have time to worry about how much effort my
students put into their studies, their careers, or their lives. On the other hand, the general lack of
commitment shown by many students who take creative writing courses, ultimately, devalues the entire
process of teaching creative writing.

But, here, let me tell you the story.

The catalyst for this post was my collecting student reading and writing journals last week for a midterm
update. The reading and writing journals, I believe, are the most important processes in the course. I
have written the following on this blog before; I have said it again and again in the company of many
writers; I make the same claims about practicing writing that I make about practicing running and
practicing math: if you want to improve your creative writing, you have to develop a sustained,
consistent effort. I've said it so often, I have, at times, believed I made up the phrase "sustained,
consistent effort." It's in my syllabus. It's on the assignment sheet for both journals. 50% of your grade,
my syllabus tells us, will be "the sustained, consistent effort you put into your reading and writing
journals."

So I collected both sets of journals last week and found that a full half of the class was not
only not halfway through the completion of their journals, but some had only written two or three writing-
journal entries out of a possible thirty. Some had less than ten percent of the minimum reading-journal
requirement completed.

Some students included apologetic notes, "I'm sorry. I know this journal isn't where it needs to be. I'll work
harder." To whom, I always wonder, are they apologizing? Certainly not me. They have not hurt my
feelings. They have not let me down. I have four kids, a spouse, two parents, some pets, several friends,
and my own thousand words a day to put on paper -- I have better things to do than be let down by
students. For me, grading is strictly business, nothing personal. I tell them, "I'm the Michael Corleone of
grading." I will help any student with any problem, academic or personal, to whatever extent that I can.
"Come to my office hours," I tell them, "if I can't help you, I'll find someone who can." But I am not going to
be sad about a student's lack of interest, intensity, or commitment.

Well, then, this seems like a non-issue, Jackson. If you don't care, and they don't care, then . . . what?

Just this: there seems to be a great sweeping belief that just signing up for creative writing classes, and
just showing up from time to time, and just talking about what one likes or does not like about a piece of
writing is enough to pass the course.

But such students are not going to pass my course. I tell them on the first day of class: "If you think you
can just show up and talk about what you like or don't like about a story and pass this class, you're
wrong." It's in my syllabus: "We are not here to talk about what you like or don't like about stories." Your
reading journals are a place to experiment with what you are learning through your reading -- through
imitation, celebration, and engagement. Your writing journals are the place where you will sit down every
day and give the muse access to your pen. Students who don't do the work in my course, fail my course. I
tell them this, and, each term, some of them are surprised by low grades. They then say awful things
about me, and that's too bad, I think, for everybody concerned, because it's hard to get a letter of
recommendation from a worthless piece of shit, but it's their prerogative.

The question has larger ramifications.

The best creative writing instructors* in the country, I believe are under constant scrutiny: "Can you
actually teach creative writing?" They are asked by students, administration, parents of students,
colleagues, other writers, each other, themselves: "Is it even possible to teach creative writing?" The easy
answer is: "Of course." And, for me, that's the truest answer. But, again, I point to an ancient Greek
whose name I can never remember, who once said, "Every question possesses a power that does not lie
in the answer."

*Let me take a moment to point out that I am not suggesting that I'm in this crowd of great cw instructors. I
have my moments, but, ultimately, have a lot to learn about teaching. I will, however, remind you that I
just compared myself to Michael Corleone.

Anis Shivani is the most recent writer I know of to garner a great deal of press for writing ascathing**
piece about teaching creative writing. He writes:
Creative writing is a subset of therapy, with the same essential modalities -- except, like everything else in
our culture, it comes in a stripped, dumbed down version that partakes little of the rigors of
psychotherapy. More appropriately, we might call it the Oprahfied mindset that penetrates workshop. Life
lessons and living a more authentic life are always just beneath the surface of any workshop discussion.
** I think Shivani would agree his piece is scathing. I think he means for it to be scathing. But I am not
writing this in an attempt to refute the creative writing naysayers, only to point out that they get a lot of
attention (some of it earned), and that attention (often unwarranted) hurts creative writing instructors. It
hurts the whole field.

That said: I have heard of this kind of creative writing course, where writing is synonymous with therapy. I
have imagined this kind of creative writing course. I have feared this kind of creative writing course. But it
has never been my experience. I have rather been taught by great teachers and writers to create a space
for myself to access the muse. I have been taught to learn from what I read and to practice craft and to
consider perspective and to weigh options and to think about the ways in which my own writing might fit
into writing throughout history. I have been taught to value, above all else as a creative writer, reading
and writing. It is not easy. Learning creative writing, I believe, is a constant lesson. It takes constant
practice. I don't imagine Melville saying, "Well, I guess that's all I need. I'll write Moby Dicknow." But
writing is not therapy. I have never written about my feelings. I have never been psychoanalyzed by a
peer or an instructor. I am not sure, exactly, what Shivani means by "the Oprahfied mindset that
penetrates workshop," but I'm pretty sure that's never happened to me.

Rather, I believe, we can teach creative writing. It was taught to me. I have seen it taught to others. I will
teach it to anybody who wants to learn. Still, the power of this question lies in the asking, rather than the
answering. I can't recall hearing or reading anybody ever ask: "Yeah, but, can anybody
really teach history?" or physics or astronomy -- three subjects that seem infinitely less teachable to me. I
mean, can anybody seriously imagine teachinghistory? What the hell would that look like? I can imagine
encouraging somebody to read a book. I can imagine grading somebody on how many dates and places
and events she remembers. I can even imagine suggesting to somebody that history books are always
written by the winners. But teaching somebody to weigh conflicting reports of a factual event; teaching
somebody to search through artifacts and determine which one is most accurate, most true (who would
say that? most true? what's that); teaching somebody to understand the ramifications of The Magna
Carta*** on contemporary American civil liberties . . . forget about it: can anybody really do that?

*** Turns out, it's not, in fact, spelled Magna Carter. Thank you, wikipedia.

For two years, as an undergraduate I studied secondary math education. I meant to be a middle school
math teacher. I wanted to teach math because I was awesome at it, and I wanted to teach sixth, seventh,
eighth grade, because I wanted to help kids through some rough years. But can one really teach math? In
my experience, it's no easier than teaching creative writing. I can draw numbers and symbols and apples
and arrows on the chalkboard for forty minutes a day; I can encourage students to practice at home; I can
collect and grade homeworks and quizzes; I can test students on their retention. But getting them to
understand math. Not a chance.

I think, in fact, we need to change the question. I think, when we say, "Can you even teach creative
writing?", maybe what we mean is, "Can you evaluate creative writing?"**** I think that's a much less
insulting question with a much more meaningful, if infinitely more complicated, answer. For the purposes
of the University system, of MFAs and Ph.D.s in creative writing, I think the notion of evaluation is much
more important, even if the individual answer is only relevant to a particular program, a particular school,
or a particular instructor.

For me, for the Introduction to Creative Writing Course that I'm teaching, I am not evaluating the quality of
students' creative work. I grade the quality of their self-analysis and the thoroughness of their peer
responses, but the 50% of their grade that is their creative practice, I only grade their sustained,
consistent effort.

I also make professional comments on a single work of fiction each quarter, and offer to them on a daily
basis that if they would like to meet with me in my office to discuss any aspect of writing (theirs or
somebody else's), I would be happy to do so.

**** In fact, the even better question might be, "Should we evaluate creative writing? And by whose
standards? And what kind of magical criteria?" But those questions, I think, have much more to do with
whether or not we're getting into Heaven than whether or not we're getting tenure.

[Meanwhile, I just thought I should note, given my belief in the power of questions, that I have changed
my initial (perhaps rhetorical) question to: "Why would anybody who refuses to read and/or write
take a creative writing course?" The hating is optional.]
Posted by Jackson Connor at 7:40 PM 1 comment:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: consistent, creative writing, journals, sustained
Older PostsHome
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Other Blogs I Write
Daddy or Something
During the Revolution
Meanface Moments
Other People's Promises
Running for the Middle
Followers
Blog Archive
2012 (17)
o April (3)
On Place and Space: The Vacuum
On Research-Based Creative Writing: The Bib
Out of the Forest
o February (4)
o January (10)
2011 (17)
Popular Posts
Unsolicited Advice from Jackson Connor to Jackson Connor
Interviewer: Leslie McGrath. Interviewee: Sabina Murray. From The Writer's Chronicle February 2012: McGrath: Your
first novel, Slo...
A Brief History of My First Failed Novel off the Top of My Head Part 12
"Living on the road, my friend, Was gonna make you free and clean. Now you wear your skin like iron Your breath's
as hard as ke...
Why Writing Is Impossible: A Quiet Diatribe Concerning the Craft Delivered in the Form of an Innocuous
Series of Blog Posts
It's hard to learn to write again for all the reasons I've mentioned -- fear, shame, humiliation -- but the emotional
difficulties ...
On Teaching Creative Writing
I once (three days ago) famously (well, seven people responded, and only three of them were me) tweeted, "I don't
mean to sound pr...
Fiction, the Healing Process Continues
Part of the process of learning to write again is studying craft again. Or is it studying craft for the first time? I'm not
sure how to...
On Place and Space: The Vacuum
"As if the world were not what we make it, pulled by dogs down streets so dark, the sound of a river is almost a kind
of light." ...
A Brief History of My First Failed Novel off the Top of My Head Part 9
I had the great good fortune of having several unbelievably fantastic mentors as an undergrad. All of whom agreed to
be my friend even afte...
A Brief History of My First Failed Novel off the Top of My Head Part 7
I wrote a character one time who "never once in his life under any set of circumstances, given any amount of peer
pressure or humidity...
There's No Good Way to Say This . . .
So I'm thinking about writing a book, which would share the title of this post, about the art of the query letter. The
book would rise ...
A Complete Narrative History of My First Failed Novel off the Top of My Head: Part 1
Scrap was initially a page and a half long. It was called "If Dan Were in Charge of Running the 756 Press, This Is
What He Would Te...
Simple template. Template images by gaffera. Powered by Blogger.