Monday, December 19, 2005

"Grief Garden," An Essay About Death

My father died five days before last Christmas. There was a foot of snow on the ground the day he was buried and his grave looked like a raw gaping wound all through a cold wet spring. It may be healed over with grass by now; I wouldn't know. I haven't been there lately. I've been too busy gardening.

When I first heard my father's prognosis (death-sentence), I instinctively turned to nature. I drove to where our house was being built, walked to the nearby creek and stood on its banks and watched the leaves fall from the trees. Each leaf's whispery flight was a sigh from my heart, a breath from my own life, leaving the earth with my father. He wasn't gone yet; this was only the beginning of the stages where we would bargain, deny, hope against hope that his case would be the exception to the rule, the special miracle from God.

But I think I knew even then, as I stood by the creek, that I would soon have a reason to never feel the same about fall, that I would never see a leaf float to the ground without thinking of the day I found out that my father had pancreatic cancer.

I had always been extremely close to my father. We didn't always talk that much, and I may have assumed more closeness than he really felt, but I had always counted him as my closest ally and friend. Besides that, he was a rarity: a genuinely good and kind man. I had always joked to my husband and children that they didn't want to be around me whenever he died, because didn't think I would handle it very well. I say “joked” because I always laughed when I said it. I didn't really believe that day would ever come. But it did, and my joke had become a nightmare. My chips were being called in. I was being forced to face the unimaginable.

To make matters even more complicated, we were in the last stages of having a house built, a house my father never even got to see except for in some Polaroids I took to the hospital about two weeks before he died. I had some more pictures ready to show him when I got the phone call saying he was gone.

We moved into our house and every day I walked through the barren woods and along the frozen creek. While everyone around me was complaining about the long siege of snow, I felt somewhat comforted by the bleak and frozen conditions that mimicked those of my heart.

Before my dad's illness I had been looking forward to the day when we would have a “virgin” yard in which to garden. We wouldn't have to put up with anyone else's concepts; everything we put into the ground could be entirely our choice. I devoured gardening books, magazines and catalogs, and even began to keep a gardening journal where I jotted down every idea and dream.

But after my dad's death, I lost my enthusiasm for almost everything: my writing, our new home, my family, my husband, my church and most of all for my garden. It seemed almost too painful to consider engaging in something that would remind me of our relentless journey from birth to death. I had yet to see the hope in the miracle of growth and rebirth.

Our new house has lots of light and a few weeks after he died, my mother sent me home with two ficus trees and a large palm because she and my father had agreed that they would prosper there. That was the day that my grieving process began. As so often happens with those who are grieving, I found myself engaging in ritualistic behavior, as if the steady repetition would somehow give my life a structure and therefore a meaning. Unfortunately for my family, my rituals did not include cleaning or cooking, What I did become almost obsessive about was my parents' plants.

I watered, rearranged, trimmed and fussed. I worried when the leaves dropped off, and my heart lifted, just a little, when they stopped. Then they began to grow. Though our sun-lit rooms began to come alive with life, I felt ambivalent. The growth seemed almost insulting. I had trouble accepting that anything could be alive, let alone thrive, when my father was dead. I hated being reminded that in some forms life continued.

But I was also comforted by the ritual of caring for the plants. Maybe fussing over the plants took the place of the care I could no longer give my father. His days in the hospital had been mercifully few, but I regretted not being able to nurse him there or at home. I had had no desire to see him suffer, but I had wanted to minister to him, soothe his pain, smooth his brow. One of the last times I visited him, I had stroked his head and he had closed his eyes and sighed, “That feels good, honey.” Now I had no head to stroke. I had only these plants of his to keep alive. And it seemed inordinately important to me to keep them alive, a feeling I soon transferred to my outdoor gardening efforts.

As soon as the spring rains slowed, I headed outside, puny trowel in hand, and began planting every plant I could get my hands on. I ordered flats of marigolds from the Boy Scouts and picked up an odd assortment of perennials at the local garden center. Every time I left the house I came home with a plant. I scoured the local discount store for bargains, or whatever struck my fancy. Not content with just our front garden, I bought window boxes and planted ivy and red salvia and white geraniums and blue lobelia, then fretted when the lobelia succumbed to the sun and the heat, and felt a small but recognizable thrill of excitement when a hummingbird paid daily visits to the salvia.

Meanwhile, most of the marigolds fell victim to bunnies and grasshoppers, and the sandwort and English daisy pomponnettes struggled in the unyielding and undrainable clay soil. A few plants shriveled away until I finally gave up and gave them a decent burial. Others clung to life with a tenacity that gave me pause on those days when I wondered what the point of living was.

Because I am middle-aged in a neighborhood of young families, I know how I must have looked to them, fussing in my garden morning, noon and night. I know I must have looked like my father had to his young neighbors, and the thought didn't make me sad.

There were many times when I wondered why I was going to all the effort to nurture something that would die in a few short weeks. It is only now as I write these words that I think to wonder the same thing about the creation of a human being. Why does God go to all that effort to create, to nurture, to sustain, when we are only going to be here for a few short “weeks”? But I would push that thought away and plunge my hands deep into the soil as if by doing so I could somehow become one with something eternal.

I didn't think of it at the time, but I look back now at all the symbolic burials I performed: digging the hole, leaving the mounds of dirt at the “graveside,” then depositing the plant which had only my ministrations to separate it from death. How wonderful to see a plant enter into its glory instead of decaying in the ground: to see the evidence of growth and the bloom of life. Even the daily nipping of spent blossoms did not diminish the steady progress of my precious plants' new life.

As the summer's heat bore down on my garden, I was careful to slake its thirst daily, then worried that I was drowning it Our tender young ash tree, which we did not pick or plant but which I was still determined to nurture through its infancy, began to turn yellow and lose its leaves as if it was fall. In my ignorance, I thought I had drowned it, until a friend assured me that, during that summer's drought, I couldn't water it enough. I also worried that it was suffering from still being wrapped tightly in its burial shroud. It was too late to remove it, but I did the next best thing: I pushed away the dirt, tore off the top layers of burlap, and then gently covered it over again—and watered and watered!

The next day I swore it looked perkier, and I made each member of the family examine it and offer his or her opinion. I'm sure they were humoring me when they agreed, but after two more weeks of incessant watering and despite the drought, our tree looked freshly green while all our neighbors' trees were yellow and shedding. Once more I felt as if I had scored a point on the side of life.

Summer wore on into August, and then suddenly the garden took off. The moon flower vine that had taken two months to look even remotely vine-like began to grow madly. The marigolds mustered their reserves and began to show off both foliage and flowers. The English daisies came back to life and rewarded me with a second blooming. The yarrow divested itself of its dessicated shoots while birthing feathery shootlets. The delicate moss roses offered flowers stunning in their intensity, as if to make up for the brevity of their existence. The eight miniature roses I had rescued, half-dead, from the local grocery's flower shop (for only $1.50 apiece) were developing cores of tiny buds and growing like crazy.

But even as the garden was bursting into life, I suddenly lost interest in mine. I withdrew into myself, caring little about anything. My husband faithfully took over the watering, and once reduced me to a stony silence when he accidentally sheared a newly planted azalea off at its base. One more piece of evidence that things die, I remember thinking. What's the use?

My depression deepened until I finally sought treatment. Weeks later, as I began to climb out of the hole in which I had been entombed, I saw my garden afresh. More beautiful than ever, it beckoned to me. Don't be afraid, it said. Enjoy me while you can; I will be gone soon enough, either dying or sleeping. But I can be reseeded and regrown, and I will emerge again, over and over, until the end of time.

In my shaky recovery, I fear the coming of winter, but I cling to my garden's promise. I am already making plans for next year's gardens (in the plural, you will note), and dreaming of a greenhouse someday. I am very busy these days pinching blossoms, ordering bulbs, and lining up large pots for the replanting of my father's ficus trees, which have grown too big for the pots they came in.

As I work, I absorb the silent lessons that my grief garden has taught me: that life is ever-changing, and death is not permanent. My garden assures me that my father's lifeless form was ministered to just as lovingly, until he reemerged in Another's garden, resplendent in his glory, and bursting with new life.



Does Writing Make a Writer?

If I write a blog, and no one ever reads it, does it really exist? This is a question that can be asked about a lot of things on the Internet. Of course, technically, if even one person can access it, it really exists. But does it make a difference? Does it accomplish what the writer intended for it to? Which brings me to another question? Why do people write blogs? If it's just to keep a journal, anyone can do that with pen and paper, or on one's own computer. Why does it need to be on the Internet? What difference does it make if it's "out there" or not? Are all of us hoping to be "discovered"? If so, by whom? So, why do we write? Who do we write for? Who do I picture as reading this as I'm writing it, or am I only writing for myself?

This is the same issue that comes up about being a writer in the first place. Can you consider yourself a writer if no one but you ever sees what you write? Conversely, if others do read your writings does that make you a writer?

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Me, Miteypen

I thought about going through my early posts and weeding out the ones that aren't really essays about writing (or essays at all). But then I decided to keep them in: they will show the path I've traveled to finally turn this blog into what I wanted it to be all along. Why didn't I write essays about writing from the beginning? Because I wasn't sure that I had anything to say, because I was lazy and busy (if that's possible?), and because I couldn't quite put myself out there as a writer. I think it's significant that I changed the name of this blog from "The Mighty Pen" to "Miteypen;" it shows that I've begun to forge an identity for myself. This is not a blog about writing as much as it is a blog about one writer: me. Not so much me as a person, but the me who has never wanted to be anything but a writer, is never satisfied with what she writes, is afraid to let others read her writing, will never be happy unless she makes it, and struggles daily with what "making it" means for her.

Now that I've begun to put more work into this blog, I can tell you at least part of what makes me feel like a real writer. It's when I really work on a piece of writing. There's nothing that makes me feel like I'm a working writer like having to sweat over what I write. If I don't rearrange and reconsider what I've written, I can never be sure that I've done the best that I can do. (I'm never sure of that but at least working at it makes me feel like a professional.)
It took me forever to write the blog about Christmas, for instance. I'm not saying that it turned out to be brilliant as a result, but it's certainly better than it was when I first dashed off my thoughts on the subject.

But there are also times when the writing flows like water. Those are the times when I feel that I've been given a gift.

I've stated before in this blog that I've been "Miteypen" on the web ever since I first got on it. The saying "The pen is mightier than the sword" inspired my name. I am only one person, weak and imperfect, trying to have my say and influence the world around me. I could never single-handedly win a war, or even a battle. But I can stir up emotions, make people think, and even, sometimes, inspire people to action. Ideally, this blog will help me to sharpen my weapons and perfect my skills.

I am only one "pen," but I am a miteypen.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Xmas By Any Other Name...

The current (and apparently annual) controversy over the use of phrases like "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" reminds me of a similar disagreement over the use of "X" to mean "Christ." Some Christians consider that to be blasphemous--or, at the least, disrespectful. I say, don't worry about it; God "gets" it. After all, He's the one who told us His name was YHWH (Yahweh).

But it seems that retail stores and greeting cards are making a special effort this year to downplay the religious aspect of Christmas. I'd like to ask the Christians who are calling for boycotts of these merchants to tell us what they're really upset about. Are they worried that people will forget what the season stands for? Well, the fact is, this time of the year means different things to different religions. Not only is there Hannukah and Kwaanza, but there's also the Winter Solstice. Are Christians willing to share the stage with others? Or are they afraid that the competition will put them out of business?

The "politically correct" option has existed for years and I for one have always been glad to find cards that will not offend those I am not sure are Christian. In an ideal world, we would send cards to commemorate everyone's celebrations. But frankly, I'm not entirely clear about who celebrates what. It's much easier--and safer, if your goal is truly to send best wishes and not offend others-- if we use cards with greetings that everyone can agree with. I've always been partial to "Peace On Earth"--who can argue with that? And there are always greetings like "May your season be bright" and "Joy to the World" (song lyrics come in especially handy for this purpose). I do find it a little excessive, though, when it takes me a half hour to find cards that actually contain the word "Christmas." But Christians should count their blessings: none of the cards used the abbreviation "Xmas." And the word "holiday" isn't as bad as they make it out to be. After all, its original meaning was "holy day."

I have a suggestion that might help to quell the controversy: what about writing your own greeting inside the card? Then you could explain in your own words what this season means to you. And while you're at it, get rid of the gifts and the Christmas trees. The Christmas tree and many other Christian (not just Christmas) traditions started out as pagan customs. And the only gifts we give should be those we give to God (like the little drummer boy's). Stores like Wal-mart and Target may not be exhibiting the true meaning of Christmas, but then, neither are we.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

"Word" As a Concept

I feel sure that the following is true: from the moment I understood what a word was, I fell in love with the concept. It has always seemed magical to me, that letters arranged in groups could have so much meaning. All words are a code, even ones that are not meant to be. How tragic that illiteracy guarantees that these codes cannot be broken. What would it be like to not be able to access all that is going on?

Those who say that reading is becoming a thing of the past are not paying attention. The spoken word is powerful, but there is an extra mystique and special power in the written word. For one thing, it cannot be taken back. It is a permanent record of what someone once expressed. For another, it can bridge the cap between those who speak and those who don't. It also causes us to elucidate our thoughts. Some people can think clearly on the fly--in other words, while they are speaking. But many of us--not just writers--are never completely sure what we mean until we try to put our thoughts into writing.

Even those who speak often rely on the written word as a basis for what they say. The most moving and meaningful speeches and sermons are rarely made up as the speaker goes along. Sometimes we doubt the sincerity of the message if we know that it was written down ahead of time. But should we? It might be that the act of having to write has the effect of making the speaker think more deeply about he or she wants to say. In fact, I believe that it does. That's one reason why using speechwriters seems suspect to me. Whose words are being expressed, the speaker's or the speechwriter's? And even worse is the scenario where the speechwriter uses a third party's words and passes them off as the speaker's. It was not only appropriate, but an honor to the author, that President Reagan referred to the Challenger crew as having "slipped the surly bonds of earth" to "touch the face of God," except that Reagan (or, rather, the speechwriter, Peggy Noonan) did not give the author credit. Considering the history of the poem that the lines were taken from, I think the speech would have been even more meaningful if the story of John Magee would have been included. Following is part of his story: (For more, follow the link below.)

"On 3 September 1941, Magee flew a high altitude (30,000 feet) test flight in a newer model of the Spitfire V. As he orbited and climbed upward, he was struck with the inspiration of a poem – “To touch the face of God.”

Once back on the ground, he wrote a letter to his parents. In it he commented, “I am enclosing a verse I wrote the other day. It started at 30,000 feet, and was finished soon after I landed.” On the back of the letter, he jotted down his poem, ‘High Flight’.

Just three months later, on 11 December 1941 (and only three days after the US entered the war), Pilot Officer John Gillespie Magee, Jr., was killed. The Spitfire V he was flying, VZ-H, collided with an Oxford Trainer from Cranwell Airfield flown by one Ernest Aubrey. The mid-air happened over the village of Roxholm which lies between RAF Cranwell and RAF Digby, in the county of Lincolnshire at about 400 feet AGL at 11:30. John was descending in the clouds. At the enquiry a farmer testified that he saw the Spitfire pilot struggle to push back the canopy. The pilot, he said, finally stood up to jump from the plane. John, however, was too close to the ground for his parachute to open. He died instantly. He was 19 years old."

How much poorer would be our heritage if John Magee had not written these words. After all, his words brought comfort to many when President Reagan spoke them. When Reagan's speechwriter neglected to give credit to James Magee (and essentially gave it to Reagan) the opportunity was lost to connect the present with the past and our country with a larger world.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Revision of Crappy First Draft

It took me several weeks and I stopped counting how many drafts to come up with the first revision of my crappy first draft. (See previous post.) I finally realized that even though I put all that effort into it and lengthened it from six pages to thirty-three, it is still just that: a revision, a slightly less crappy second draft. It was not encouraging to me when the teacher said that sometimes you have to write something forty times to get one good paragraph. I figure if I have to do that, I don't have much of an idea of what I want to write about or how I want to say it. Maybe instead of putting all that time and energy into one paragraph, I ought to start over completely. I know what my teacher was saying and I don't really disagree with her, but I hope she doesn't mean that I have to write that much for every good paragraph.
Sometimes I end up with a paragraph that is so good it stands by itself and then what do I do with it? Almost every revision has something worth saving, but what do I do when I end up with parts worth saving from several revisions and they don't fit together?
Another issue: how about length in non-fiction, essays, etc.? My teacher also said that most journals want essays that are around 15-25 pages long. I've always written short essays so that figure seems daunting. What is really daunting about it is that you have to be a helluva writer to keep someone reading for 15-25 pages. But what choice do I have? I have to keep trying. Quantity and quality.

Monday, February 07, 2005

Crappy First Draft

I just wrote the crappiest first draft* that I believe I have ever written, which is upsetting enough, but I handed it in as an assignment, which is humiliating. This is for a workshop class. Everyone was really kind in their comments, which at first I thought was encouraging, but then when I heard how kind they were about someone else's draft that was incomprehensible, I got nervous. Now I'm convinced that mine was almost as bad. It was comprehensible, but being so, it was easier for a reader to tell that it was an awful essay. The only thing it had going for it was my writing style, which made it easy to read (if not understand). If I ever get it cleaned up (which I have to do for a decent grade, God help me), I might put it up here, but I doubt it. It will be too long, for one thing. It'll have to be because of all the weaknesses I have to strengthen by expanding a comment here, creating a "scene" there. (The kind that brings vitality to one's writing, not that which I feel like doing).
Off to the writing board. Gulp.

*I owe this to Anne Lamott in her book Bird by Bird, only she was more vivid in her description. She has saved my sanity by writing, "Everyone should write a [crappy] first draft." Well, I've certainly done that.

Monday, January 31, 2005

Miteypen Types

I travel the net as miteypen and have ever since I got my first computer (and my first Internet account) in 1996. I actually had a (so-called) business named "The Mighty Pen," but there are so many references to the mighty pen out there (and not just in cyberspace), that I decided to rename it "miteypen" and be done with it. Miteypen is easier to type, too, and not just because it's shorter. I hate having to type words with "gh" in them. For instance, Light, Might and even words like Through and Although. There are more difficult words to type--the worst I've run across for its length being Egypt. There is a "yp" in miteypen but no "g" so I can live with that.

I may seem to be picky, but the way I type (there's another one), I have to be. I am not a "hunt-and-pecker" (now that didn't come out right), but I am a "looker" (neither did that). That is, for the most part I don't have to hunt for keys one by one and then peck at them (although I have yet to achieve proficiency with the numbers and anything around the edges) but I do have to look an awful lot, if not at the keyboard, then at the screen. I suppose most people look at the screen, but I am one who shouldn't. I do my best typing when I stare off into space and try to visualize the keyboard. I make mistakes whenI don't have my fingers in the right position to start with (which happens a lot) or when I don't reach far enough so that words come out like this: cisualise, finders, but the average spell-checker can usually handle mistakes like that. (I just tried it and I was wrong: cisualize stumped it completely and it skipped right over finders. Oh, what did we ever do without spell-checkers?)

Why is this interesting? It's not really, except in the sense that most writers struggle at least at first with this problem. I am much faster than I used to be, but I could never get a job as a secretary. But then I don't want one, so that works out okay. It would be nice, though, if I could type more quickly (words with "q" in them are also a pain).

I have experimented with talk and type programs (where the computer types for you as you speak--and electronic dictaphone, so to speak), but so far haven't found one that was easy to use. You usually have to train them to recognize your voice, accent and all. And that can take some time, depending on the software. One I found that works really well is called WYNN, but it costs around a thousand dollars (and does a lot of other things, too), so I guess I'll bumble on the way I've been going. If and when I find a good program, I'll let you know.

Anything to make word processing more "processible." (See a coming post about making up words.)

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Becoming A Writer

It has taken two years for me to finally get to the point: that this is a writer's blog. I've been using this space like a journal, meaning that it has only been interesting to me. So what's the difference now?

I've been telling myself that I'm a writer for years. I found that I had to do that: tell myself over and over that I do qualify. And how do I know that? It's not as if I have very much published--and when I first starting announcing my "writerhood" I hadn't published anything. Part of my motivation was psychological. I figured if I called myself a writer long enough, I might actually come to believe that I am. It worked, to a degree. But there is no such thing as suddenly becoming anything, from one's work identity to one's gender. (Seriously. Think about it. Have you always known exactly what it means for you to be the sex you are, let alone how to act like it?) And the worst (or best) part is that the process is never complete. I suspect I'll be talking myself into believing that I'm a writer--among other things-- until the day I die.

Two things have made the process speed up for me in the past two years. One has been going back to school and the other has been taking writing courses (I'm now on my second one.) Just being in school means that you're going to be writing, and the better your writing, the better your grade (assuming that you know what you're writing about). I've had to sweat buckets trying to improve especially the clarity of my writing. Philosophical musings (otherwise know as bullsh**ing) don't impress teachers who just want to see that you've "mastered" the information. Damn!

Ironically enough, choosing history as a major may well have caused my writing to improve more than English/Creative Writing would have. It can be much harder to write about history in an interesting way than to write about many other fields in the humanities. At least I've found that to be the case. But having to do so has sharpened my writing ability and that has carried over into my creative writing (I hope).

In a way, I'm glad I didn't take a writing class until after I'd improved my writing of history. Yet I can see now that I needed to take a writing class at some point to learn something else about myself: that other writers think I'm a writer. They may be a writer's harshest critics, but it's good to know that their standards are the same ones you want to meet and that you feel you must meet in order to feel like a real writer.

It could be that the writing course, besides teaching me more about how to write, has also served as a way to encourage me. A's and B's in history don't necessarily tell me that I am a Writer. Sometimes my good writing isn't even recognized (although I admit that it was a thrill to have one teacher tell me that my writing was "clear, concise and almost lyrical"). But there's something special about another writer telling you that your work is good. And I have a feeling that I will never stop needing that kind of encouragement.

I have never sought it out before. I've never joined a writing group (online or in "real" life) and it has only been in the past year that I've exposed myself to other writers' scrutiny. Since I figure that they would be hardest on my writing than anyone else (which is probably the main reason I never subjected myself to the experience before), it means all that much more when they praise it. It doesn't even have to be effusive praise!

The bottom line is, however, that the only fool-proof way to become a writer is to write. A lot. Which is why I'm here right now, spilling my thoughts (guts?) on the Internet. I doubt that anyone else will ever read them, but it does me a lot of good to write as if I think someone will. After all, you never know...

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Writing About Ourselves: Up Close and Personal

What about writing about ourselves? How personal do we want to get? What is the fall-out if we do?

These questions are almost a moot point for me: it seems that I just naturally spill my guts. My writing often reveals more about myself than I would be comfortable telling an acquaintance or a casual friend. So why am I willing to share my secrets with total strangers?

I don't think I'm alone in this. What makes us bare our souls in print where anyone can read it when we would be extremely hesitant to do so in any other context? As for me, when I write, I reveal; I can't seem to help it. It's as if the pen or keyboard is a confessional or a psychiatrist's couch. Want to know how many times I've been married, what my social class and income are, whether I believe in God, the mistakes I've made (and paid for)? Just hang around and keep on reading and you will eventually know me better than my own parents or children do.

But is it wise to be so revealing? What does it cost us emotionally and socially? Do readers really want to know about our inner demons and private joys or will they get tired of hearing more than they want to know about us?

Of course it depends upon what we're writing and the context in which we're being read. But I have a theory that people are willing and even eager to learn what makes a writer tick. Writing is a mysterious act, even to writers. Some readers feel that writers are bigger than life and more than human. (There are many more who think that anyone could write if they wanted to, so what's the big deal?) The words seem to float in space, in some kind of intellectual miasma, where only the writers really know what they mean or why what they have to say should matter. To some, personal essays are as difficult to access as poetry: not knowing where the writer comes from makes it almost impossible for the reader to understand what the writer wants to say. And yet, if we are not willing to reveal something of ourselves in our writing, our words may never connect with our readers.

But to what extent and at what cost? That depends on the writer. I recently wrote a piece that was quite explicit about a chronic problem I have (no, I'm not going to reveal it here, or at least not now). In fact, it was more revealing than was probably appropriate considering the topic and context. (It was the first assignment in a creative nonfiction writing course.} I dashed mine off pretty quickly (two revisions, and that was mainly to cut down the length), but was left with emotional fall-out to the point where I was afraid that I would get emotional when I read it out loud (in other words, cry). I should have thought of that when I wrote the piece, should have made sure I kept it lighter and less personal. But maybe what I wrote was what I needed to reveal, and not trusting my instincts kept me from sharing it with people with whom I'm going to be working closely over the next three months. (I skipped the class.)

I don't exactly regret that I missed this opportunity; I know there will be others. What concerned me the most was the way I was affected by what I wrote. All that day and the next I was emotionally raw and exhausted. And that was over a simple little writing exercise. Sometimes I wonder if I'm going to be able to keep this up. Other times I know that I have no choice.