Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Immortality

I am absolutely obsessed with journaling. I write almost every day, even when I haven't done any other writing. I write in my journals first. ( They are plural because I keep one on my computer, one that is handwritten and sometimes I write in journals that have specific themes, like my writing journal.) I've been trying to transfer this obsession over to blogging, but I still think that what I write in my blogs should have a point, which my journals rarely do.

A sample from May 20th:

That's weird. I was just watching House Hunters and the woman's name was Joanna and then I switched to What Not to Wear and the woman's name there was also Joanna. Guenther thinks I watch WNTW too much and it's making me paranoid about my looks. I disagree. I've always been paranoid about my looks! It's just that now the issues are different (somewhat); they're more about my aging than my weight. I'm not exactly happy about my weight, but I realize (partly because of WNTW) that I can still look good. And I love my hair now, the color and the style. I also know how to use makeup more skillfully—I even think that it makes me look younger and fresher. But I am sorely in need of plastic surgery, which I will never get. If I had the money, would I? If I had plenty of money I might, but I'd be scared, too. It's just my jawline—damn, damn, damn. Guenther keeps saying that I look great. He's nuts. I may look good for 56 but I want to look 40! Don't want too much, do I??


I include this sample because it's about one of my other obsessions: my concern about my looks, which I write about ad nauseum in my journals. I can't imagine how boring my journals would be to another person. Which brings up another point: What the hell am I going to do with all these journals? I've kept all of them since I was 20 (and I'm sorry I threw away the ones from high school). But I rarely even look at them. Why do I even write them? Somehow I feel as if my life is more real if I write about it. But instead of writing essays or articles based on my experiences, I write primarily in my journals.


I intend to hold onto my journals until I die and I've told my husband that I want him to keep them for my kids. That makes for uncomfortable writing sometimes; it's hard to be completely honest when you know there's a chance that someone else may be reading them later on. I try to be as honest as I can, but I know that I often hold back on my anger or my dislikes, because I don't want to hurt anyone. And I don't reveal everything about myself because I'm afraid I'd be embarrassed. But if no one reads them until I'm dead, what do I care?I guess I'm afraid that my kids will find out things about me that put me in an unflattering light. Maybe that's one reason I don't re-read my journals. I don't want to give in to the urge to edit them or throw them away.


Will anyone else ever read them? Maybe someone in the future will find them mildly interesting. I don't know. It's odd to think that you'd leave behind something about yourself that is so revealing, because you won't have the opportunity to explain anything. People will just think what they're going to think. Again, I'll be dead, so what will I care? I think the main reason I write in my journals--and intend to leave them behind--is so that I will have left a mark on the world. Maybe no one will be interested, maybe only a few will be. But at least my journals will be out there. I think that's better than just an epitaph on a gravestone.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Nothing to Say

It's been 13 days since I last wrote in here. I told myself that I was going to start blogging regularly, but it's easy to let it go by the wayside. And it doesn't help that I think I have to write entire essays instead of just jotting down what's going on in my life and my head on a given day. I'm not usually coherent enough to write a well-crafted piece, so I figure I don't have anything to say.

Well, I don't have anything to say today. Except that I dreamed last night that I got out into the world and started observing people and listening to their conversations. And as I dreamed, I noted to myself that this is what I should be doing to get material for my writing. (I actually dreamed that I was a writer!) I tend to shut myself up inside my house and try to pry something interesting out of my brain without putting anything in it to inspire me. But even when I'm in a group of people, I sit back and watch rather than be the center of attention. So I'm still alone, in a way.

Frankly, I question whether I ever have anything to say. I admire writers like Richard Selzer whose career as a surgeon so beautifully informs what he writes. What could I write that would possibly be of interest to people? No, more than that, what is it about my life that adds texture and depth to what I write?

On the surface, I'm a white married middle-aged mother of four and grandmother of one. I'm sure that's how my co-workers view me. But I've gone through three divorces, married four times, was once married to a minister, am now married to a man fourteen years my junior who is also German, worked at the post office for sixteen years, earned my Bachelor's degree when I was 53, live in the inner city and suffer from chronic depression and anxiety. There's a lot of material right there. But I have a tendency to discount my experiences because they're not as exciting or dramatic as some people's. I figure I have nothing to say that would add to the collective wisdom of humanity.

I need to get over this if I'm to be a writer. No life is inconsequential. If I can see the interesting things about others' lives, why can't I see them in my own? I think it has a lot to do with my lack of self-confidence. If I'm down on myself in general, I'm also going to be down on my writing. It takes a certain amount of ego to be a writer, and my ego has taken a beating. (It was never that strong to begin with.) I need to find what it is about myself that makes me worth knowing if I am ever going to be able to write anything worth reading.

Friday, May 09, 2008

My New Laptop

I just got a new computer, a laptop, and my husband has been knocking himself out trying to get my files off of my old computers (a Thinkpad and an iMac) and onto the new one. He's been using Box.net which has worked fine except for the Mariner files he uploaded from the iMac. This is unfortunate because my "novel" is almost entirely on the iMac. I guess I should have stuck to the Thinkpad. All those files are downloading just fine. I was just trying out the iMac to see if I liked it, but it was so old, it wasn't really a fair representation. At any rate, I'm back with Windows on a laptop.

I really liked my IBM Thinkpad. I bought it used on eBay for $400 and I've been using it for four years. The only problem I had was that the display went out. Possible an easy fix, but I never wanted to spend the money just to have it checked out. So I hooked up a monitor to the laptop, opened it and slid the display part under the top of a computer desk with the laptop on the keyboard shelf. Sort of a glorified keyboard, I guess. But I loved the feel of the keyboard and it was always reliable. It just ran out of memory. I couldn't fit much more on it and when I surfed the Internet it was really slow.

Now I have a Lenovo laptop and I love it. I don't know all its stats, but it runs beautifully and it's really fast. And of course the fact that I can take it anywhere is an added plus. I've been spending all my computer time on the sofa. Not having to be shut up in my office (so-called) has made it easier to spend more time writing. And when I get bored with television, I can still sit with my husband in the evenings and surf the Net or do some writing.

That might be a drawback. It's tempting to spend all my time on the computer now that I can settle in anywhere. And I'm not close to my files. But this way, I'm stripped down to just writing, not messing with stuff on my desk. I've been writing blogs like crazy, both for Miteypen and for Femagination. I've been organizing my files on this one computer (I was scattered over three!), collecting all my "works-in-progress" in one folder on my desktop, trying to determine which ones to go on and finish. And a side benefit is that I've been snacking less because my hands are on the keyboard more than they're in the cupboard!

I'm looking forward to taking my new laptop out in public. (Did I mention that it has Wi-fi?) I've always envied people who have been able to take their laptops to the local coffee shops. Now I can join them. I may only be surfing the Internet, but it will give me a chance to get out of the house and do a little people-watching at the same time. Writers do need to get out there once in a while.

Why did my husband buy me a laptop? It wasn't for a special occasion, which puzzled me. But then he said that he felt a writer needed to have the right equipment. He was right.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Giving Away Our Art

Today I "gave away" a story of mine to a website. It's not even one that showcases creative writing. It was just a "Share Your Story" set-up. Most of the stories there were simply things like "I have been depressed for 20 years" and "I have tried X (medication) and it doesn't work for me." Mine is an essay I wrote for a contest. I was one of seven finalists (I've been telling myself that surely there were more than seven entrants!). But I realized as I submitted the story that my writing is not about being published traditionally but about getting my stories out there in the hopes that what I've written can help someone else. Not only that, but just because most of the other stories are more like notes, doesn't mean that they aren't real writing. The writers may not consider what they wrote to be "creative writing." But anything that we create is art, and what is art but self-expression?

I would gladly write for free--at least for awhile. I haven't developed the commercial mindset. As long as my writing is published, I'm happy. The money is just a form of validation and the way that this society measures success. By that standard I am only remotely successful. I have made exactly $1400 in all the years that I've been writing. But one of my proudest accomplishments was the publishing of "Grief Garden" (see archives, 12/19/05) in an anthology called From Eulogy To Joy. I'm proud not only of the piece, but because of the venue in which it was published. I felt honored to be included in an anthology about how people have dealt with the loss of a loved one. I have no idea how many people have read my essay, or what they thought of it, but I know it's there, available to anyone who picks up the book.

What does it really matter if we're paid for our art? Oh, sure, we'd love to be able to make a living doing what we love. For one thing, then we'd have more time to do it. But I'm going to write anyway. And a lot of what happens to me at my "day job" informs what I write. I'd miss out on that input if I didn't do anything else but produce my art.

Of course, being paid is just one way to be recognized. I doubt that any of us would complain if we were mentioned in a public venue as one of this century's greatest writers, albeit an unpaid one. Maybe it would be better if no one was ever paid for his or her art. Then we could be sure that what was created was done for love of the art itself. I know I can tell a difference in my writing when I'm trying to write for publication and writing "for myself." I usually don't care for the former. I don't always care for the latter either, but at least I'm free from anxiety when I'm writing. Anxiety makes it difficult for me to be creative. I do better in an atmosphere of complete self-acceptance. When I feel that I have a God-given right to write.

Of course, with that right comes responsibility. (That's what "they" always say.) I have the responsibility to write as well as I can, to not put out any junk, at least not in my final versions. If God gave me the talent--and I believe that He did--then He intends for me to share it with the world, whether I get paid for it or not. He didn't say, "Don't feed the poor unless you get paid to do so." He said, simply, "Feed the poor. Give away the shirt on your back--don't sell it to the poor man who needs one. Treat others the way you want to be treated."

What if art were never shared freely? Sometimes I think that's a danger in this society when admissions to art exhibits, concerts, and plays are more than the average family spends in a week for groceries. (Or longer.) But when I open my eyes, I see that art is all around us, free for the experiencing. It's in the clothes we wear, the way we decorate our homes, the gardens we share with the neighborhood, even in the meals we cook. It most certainly is in nature. But I also see it in architecture and other man-made things. The only difference between these kinds of art and the kind the artist produces is that the artist is trying to reproduce in some way and interpret the meaning of the art in ordinary things.

I'm not saying that it isn't a worthy goal to be paid for our art. I just know that worrying about that stands in the way of my free self-expression. Art is to be shared or it is only the creator's possession. It may cost money to produce, and even to share, but being paid should never be the main motivation. That robs the artist of his joy.

Monday, May 05, 2008

Semantics and Politics

One of the most fascinating aspects of the race between Barack and Hillary is the role that words are playing. Both candidates are highly educated and well-spoken. They give the impression of knowing exactly what they're saying and the effect their words are having. That isn't always true with politicians, even the most polished ones. But I can just see Barack weighing all his words on a scale and Hillary practicing hers in front of a mirror. Some use the word "calculating" to describe Hillary, but the word is just as apt when applied to Barack. They are masters of the use of semantics.

Larry King had several people on his show the other night to gauge their reaction to Barack's denouncement of his ex-pastor. He showed a clip of a portion of Barack's speech. I saw a man who was being so careful to not step in the shit he could barely talk. But others had a whole other range of reactions: He was graciously trying hard to control his anger, he was brave, he was eloquent. Of course the ones who had such laudatory words to say about Barack were supporters of his. The man who supported Hillary was much more temperate in his assessment of Obama's performance. (Notice the tone when I use the word "performance.") Words were being batted around like shuttlecocks. For me, half the fun of political campaigns is dissecting the way words are used in every ad, commercial, debate, news story, op-ed column and sound bite. It isn't hard to tell who supports whom by the words that they use.

I'm especially sensitive about this on Hillary's behalf. She tends to draw out the most unflattering adjectives because of the fact that she's a woman bucking the male system. (Did I mention that I'm a feminist?) For example, there's a world of difference between calling her a fighter and calling her pugnacious. I'm sure that Barack draws his own share of unflattering (insulting?) adjectives but the media seem careful to not allow them to stink up the public arena. The kid gloves are off when it comes to Hillary. That may be my perception, but that's what I find so fascinating: how we use language to serve our purposes and support our positions.

I tend to try to write "equal time" essays where I'm really careful to give each point of view its due. But I think it's a lot more fun to be opinionated. It needs to be done in a classy way, though. And that's where a sophisticated use of language comes in. Throwing words around can be done by anyone. It takes a student of words to do it with style.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

The Imposter Syndrome

I was telling my therapist how I never feel that I'm good enough as a writer and he suggested that I might be suffering from "the imposter syndrome." No matter what accolades come my way, or how hard I worked to earn them, I always feel like they were given to me by mistake. The first time I was paid for something I wrote was in 1994. The publication was Ladies' Home Journal and I was paid $700. I was floored. But instead of thinking that my writing was good enough, I felt that they accepted what I wrote only because the topic was timely. I imagined the editors shaking their heads and saying, "Well, it's all we have to work with." The worst part was that I didn't even get a by-line; the column for which my piece was accepted was written anonymously because it was about things that women keep secret. (I won't divulge here what my secret was.)

My next sale I was a little more proud about even though I didn't get paid nearly as much. But it was an essay that I dashed off late one night in a fit of inspiration and so I figured that was just a fluke. It's when things don't come so easily that I get caught up in the imposter syndrome. Who am I to call myself a writer? I haven't published anything in years. Yes, I write everyday, but I never finish anything so I'm not a writer. What I really mean is that I'm not a famous writer, but how many writers are? And what do I mean by fame? How famous do I have to be before I'll stop feeling like I'm pulling something over on my readers?

The main reason I rarely write in this blog is because I feel presumptuous writing about the writing life as if I was really a writer. As if I had a thing to say that would be helpful or interesting to (other) writers. And the fact that no one except for my husband has visited this blog proves to me that I don't. It's easy for me to come to this conclusion because that's how I view everything I do: as uninteresting, unhelpful, unimportant. As my therapist says, "You never cut yourself a break, do you?" No, I don't. And I don't think I deserve to.

The other day it dawned on me that maybe I've been trying to write in the wrong voice. After all, I'm a gloomy and pessimistic person and I've been trying to write like Ms. Well-Adjusted. No wonder what I write comes out sounding false. It might not always be pleasant reading, but if I want to write "true," I have to let the real me come out. That's the only way I can stop feeling like an imposter. Or at least not as much of one.

If I do have anything to say to other writers it's that I know what it's like to doubt yourself. I wallow in doubt everyday. Some days the only reason I think I'm a writer is because I can't stop writing. I've tried to give it up and I can't. But most days that's not enough to make me feel like a "real" writer. Dr. S (the aforementioned therapist) says that I need to be realistic about what I'm shooting for. It's all right to shoot for the stars as long as you know what is likely to happen--or not happen. He told me that his father made him apply to Harvard and Yale when it came time for him to apply to medical school, even though he didn't have a chance in hell of getting in. Being rejected probably hurt even though he knew he wouldn't be accepted. But he also applied to other schools and was accepted into one of them and became a very good psychiatrist with a thriving practice. Is he a failure because he didn't go to an Ivy League school? If that's all you care about, yes. But if you look at things realistically, it's obvious that he has made it.

I don't submit to or query the top magazines for the same reason that I wouldn't have applied to Harvard or Yale: I don't want to be rejected. And I'm sure I would be. Dr.S's father reasoned that sometimes "ordinary" people get into Ivy League schools, but not if they don't try. I just don't have the guts to put that to the test with the big publications. If I did get something accepted, I would feel like they made a mistake, but that my piece might slip through if no one takes a really good look at it.

Years ago, I got up the nerve to say that I was a writer. I needed to be able to do that. Now I'm going through the same crisis of confidence. I'm older, I haven't published for a while, I'm harder on myself than I was then. I'm afraid that when I say I'm a writer, others are thinking, "Right." But they would probably think that unless I became the next Anne Tyler or Elizabeth Berg. And even then they might not be impressed. Why do I worry about the impression I make on people? The only one who can really say whether I'm a writer or not is myself. So I'm going to try to stop feeling like an imposter and say it proudly: "I am an authentic writer." And then get about the business of writing authentically.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Quickie Progress Report

In my last post I told you about my experience of trying to write a novel in one month. Did I end up with one? Not even a shitty first draft. It was more like I jotted down 1500 words' worth of notes every day for a month. Not a waste of time. But definitely not a novel. If anything, it taught me that I don't have a coherent idea for one.

NaNoWriMo books that have gone on to be published (according to About.com's Fiction Writing column): Sarah Gruen's "Flying Changes," Rebecca Agiewich's "Breakup Babe," Dave Wilson's "The Mote in Andrea's Eye," and Gayle Brandeis's "Self Storage."

For more information, click here: www.nanowrimo.org.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Writing Marathon

I've taken the idea of the National Novel Writing Month for my own. Since June 8th, I've been writing at least 1500 words a day of a novel that I've been wanting to write for at least six years. As of today I have 16,064 words, which averages 2000 words a day. So I'm a little ahead of schedule. I was really stuck yesterday--I still managed to get 1500 words out, but just barely. I kept looking up things on the Internet because there are so many facts I have to check. I can see why John Grisham needs all the researchers that I read he employs in order to be as prolific as he is. It's extremely time-consuming. Finally I just had to write some descriptions and let it go. Today I was back to primarily dialogue.

Is it working? I am getting down some ideas that have been percolating in my mind and I've gone in some directions I hadn't planned ahead of time. The truth is, I didn't have much planned before I started writing. So this is really a rough draft. But that's what it's meant to be, nothing more. I've discovered that I can crank out the words, but I still don't know if I can shape them into something worth reading. But, first things first.

I got some books out of the library that are along similar lines as my novel. I also got out a lot of possible resource books. Twenty books in all! I've designated a corner of our living room as a reading nook. All the books are stacked behind my favorite armchair. Along with piles of papers and other books. My favorite pens are there, too, as well as a lot of scrap paper. (Do I have scrap paper!) The only problem I can foresee is that I'm going to have limited time to write over the next week, because my grandson is coming to visit. Maybe I can get some input from him about how my novel should go, even if he is only eight!

The main result of all this industry is that fiction is no longer the scary form I thought it was. I had myself convinced that I can't write fiction, that my strong suit was essays and that's it. But the truth is, I'd never really tried to write fiction except for when I was young enough not to be afraid of things of it. (Which means I was maybe between eight and twelve.) I still don't know if I can write fiction, but at least I'm giving it a try, finally. Another result has been that I can't read anything now without comparing my writing with the author I'm reading and trying to glean tips from it. I suppose I should have been reading like that all along, but I think it took this boost of writing activity to make me see that.

Just a few thoughts about the process. I'll keep you posted on my progress.

Monday, January 01, 2007

First Day

I don't think there's anything magical about the changing of the years. Dates after all, are what we use to mark the passage time. Sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's merely depressing. With every day that goes by, I'm reminded that I have not yet "arrived," by which I mean some kind of recognition that my life counted for something. But maybe we never "arrive" till the day we die. Maybe we never "arrive" until our work here is finished.

Hallmark thought, I know. And it doesn't really help us figure out what our work is. I have an idea about that: I think our work is everything that we do in this life. Is it right to label just one thing as our "work" and then assume that as long as we do well in that one thing, we are successful? We've all heard of geniuses in their fields who were failures as spouses and parents and friends. No one expects us to be perfect in all that we do, but isn't it just as important to do our best in all areas of our lives and not just in our "work"? I'm reminded of a minister who put off doing things with his children because he had to do "God's work." What did he think being a parent was if not also God's work?

I happen to believe in God; it's a fact about me that can't be changed. But not everyone sees life in the terms I outlined above. So what? Don't we all seek some kind of recognition that we existed and that we mattered? This is mainly an existential matter, not a religious one. I don't know how many writers hope that their writing will leave behind some kind of evidence that they once existed, but I would guess that it's most of us, if we're honest. One reason I write this blog is to offer some kind of proof that I exist. Not a very permanent proof, I agree, given the nature of the Internet. But it's a start.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Perseverance and Self-Doubt

One of the things this blog has made me do is consider whether or not I should join or start a writer's group. The authors of Art and Fear make the observation that the attrition rate of artists after graduation is incredibly high; if it were that high for doctors after medical school there would be a Senate investigation. They recommend getting together a support system for when you are out of school, perhaps to take the place of the one you had while you were in there.


Myself, when I was taking my second writing class, I just found it intimidating. Oh, it had the result of making me write (I had to earn a grade, for one thing), but I was more discouraged than encouraged by my experience there. Part of that was my reaction to the other students. If I felt that anyone had written a better essay than I, I was demoralized completely. How is it communicated to a student/artist that their work is their own and stands on its own merits? Why can't I accept that for myself?


I couldn't write the essays the others wrote partly because I hadn't had the experiences they had had. I don't mean that in an existential way, either. I mean the actual experiences that they wrote about. Some events lend themselves to a more dramatic, or funnier, story than others. Some even dictate the style of writing. My topic was too big, too rambling, I bit off more than I could chew. I need to learn to deal with my life in my writing in more manageable pieces. (Or be prepared to write a much longer essay, which is what I eventually did).


But did that experience make me stop writing? Obviously not. So, although I think the writers of Art and Fear have a very good point about support systems, I still think that "real" writers won't quit. Or, if we do quit, we will be miserable. There have been many periods in my life when I didn't write a thing. Except for in my journal. And in there my most common criticism of myself was that I wasn't writing. And yet I was, if "only" in my journal. Because I couldn't stop writing no matter what was going on in my life or how I felt about myself. I just couldn't.




Gifted

My husband gave me a book to read called Art and Fear: Observations on the Perils and Rewards of Artmaking. The introduction of the book states that "it is about committing your future to your own hands, placing Free Will above predestination, choice above chance. It is about finding your own work.”


That brings up an interesting and bothersome idea: that God works through us. Does that mean that what we do is really God's doing, or our own? What does it mean exactly when we say that we have a gift from God? Is He the one who expresses the gift? Of course not: we're not automatons who are set in motion and robotically churn out works of art (or good deeds). We do have Free Will. Which implies that we can shirk our duties and ignore our gifts. I guess the real point is: how do we get ourselves to 1) recognize our gift(s); 2) accept our gifts; and 3) use our gifts to the best of our abilities? (A synonym for “gift” is “talent.”) Maybe #4 would be to dedicate the expression of our gifts to God. It might be that on our side all we need to do, to be in the will of God, is to work as hard as we can to bring our gifts to fruition. So, if I think that God has given me the talent of writing, a gift of communication, don't I owe it to God as much as to myself to really work at it? What that means fills countless “how-to” books; it is up to us to adapt the advice to our own situations. While it is good advice to say that I should write every day, only I can decide when I write and for how long (or how much). If I had my way, I would write all day long, off and on. It never feels like work to me. It's now 3 pm and I've been writing in here for at least three hours, maybe four. It doesn't look like it, I know; I've been putzing around doing other things now and again, but the main reason I've not showered or dressed yet is because I keep turning back to the keyboard and trying to say all that I want to say today.


That's probably what motivates me to write: I have things to say. And I want to write every day to find out what it is that I wanted or needed to say that day. Often I have no idea until I start writing. Oh, I'm thinking stuff all the time, but it doesn't really coalesce until I try to put that “stuff” on paper/computer.


Who's to say that my desire to write on any given day isn't God pushing me to use my gift? All my life I wanted time to write and now that I have as much as I want, I find that it's still not enough. I would spend every waking minute on the computer, writing, except when I'm reading.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) there are days that no matter how hard I try, I just can't write. But when it's going well, when the words are flowing and I can even type fairly quickly, I just want to go on forever. Maybe I ought to cut myself some slack and recognize that this is one of those days and that days like this make up for the days when I have zip to say.


The authors of Art and Fear write that “It's easy to imagine that artists doubted their calling less when working in the service of God than when working in the service of self.”Yes, but how do we know the difference? Is it working in God's service only when we paint religious paintings or write devotions? Or does any use of our gifts qualify as serving God? We would all draw the line somewhere I think, but where? Is it different for each person? Does it depend on our motivations?


Another point made in Art and Fear is that “the flawless creature wouldn't need to make art.” Does that mean that the only way we can even hope to compete with God is through artistic expression? That making art makes us like Him? After all, when we make art we are participating in the job usually reserved for God: that of the Creator. Could it be said that it is exactly our imperfections that give each of us our distinctive voices? We are limited in what we create only by what we can imagine but we are limited in our imagination by what our life experiences have been and how we came into this world? We are not all created equally. That doesn't mean that some people are better than others; rather, it means that we are all different.



A Writer's Resolutions

Same old, same old. Get published. Make money.

What else is a writer going to say? After all, you're not really a writer if you're not published. And if you make money at your writing, well, then you've arrived!

If you've read my previous blogs you know that I don't believe either of those "truths" about being a writer. But when I went to write my resolutions, these two items were right on the list. Why? Because it tells others that you're a writer. They probably won't believe you otherwise.

The first question I'm asked when I say that I'm a writer is "Where have you been published?" The unspoken question--or sometimes spoken one, if the asker is crass--is "Do you make any money at it?" Never mind that you write every day. Or that you made $700 in 1994 and only $600 since. You're not a real writer unless you've passed these two tests, consistently.

You can't change what other people think being a writer is. But you can change what you believe. Do you believe that you're a writer? What do you believe qualifies you as one? Maybe you should stop following the crowd and emancipate yourself as a writer: Make the proclamation! I'm a writer. Do you even say that when people ask what you do? Or do you judge yourself by the standards of others?

Let me ask you this: do you write almost every day? Could you give up your writing? Are you passionate about writing? Does it make you feel good when you write? Do you learn anything from your writing? If you can say yes to every one of these questions, then you're a writer, no question about it. If you can't, you'd probably be better off developing another of your talents.

Maybe the only resolution that really makes sense for a writer is this: Believe in myself as a writer. You don't have to resolve to write every day--you'd do that anyway. You don't have to be published--you can't control that. You don't have to make money at it--that's not really why you do it, is it?

Having said all this, there's nothing wrong with wanting to be published or to make money at your writing. If you must, put them down as resolutions. But if those are on the list, don't forget to also include: Explore the markets. Develop writing ideas. Send out query letters. Join (or start) a writer's group. Read a writing book. Take a writing course. But just remember, none of these activities qualify you to be a writer: writing does.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Journaling vs. Blogging

I cannot believe that I haven't written anything since the 5th of January! I keep a journal--a couple of them actually, one handwritten, one on my computer--but I forget that I have this blog that I can write in. But there's another reason why I rarely write here: I think that everything I write has to be nuggets of gold, because it's open to the public. Why else would anyone want to read what I write? I need to get past that attitude and write just for me. But if my thoughts aren't interesting to other people, so be it.

My writing has been shaped by my journaling. I've kept a journal since my teens and I've kept all of them but the earliest ones (and I now regret throwing those away). I rarely read them; it's just comforting to know that they're there. They are some kind of confirmation that my life has been worth something, even that I've actually been here. That's one reason why I write in the first place: the hope that something of me will still be here after I die. Of course, that presupposes that someone will hang on to them and want to read them. But what happens after I die is completely out of my control.

I don't use any clever techniques to get myself going when I journal. I just write. I don't feel like I'm in touch with my day--and my life--unless I write something. I'm often disappointed by what comes out of me. I'd like to think that I'm more interesting than the person who shows up in my journals. I can't say that I really know who that person is or how she comes across, though. But if I worried about that, I'd never write anything.

I haven't made the transition from journaling to blogging. I know that they aren't one and the same although they can feel that way. Journals are ultimately private. I can choose to share mine with people, but for the most part they are purely for me and I wouldn't want anyone else to read them (unless I'm dead; see above). But with blogs there is the presumption that someone else will read them, even the hope that that will be so. How does that shape what I write here?

In a blog, I'm writing for an audience (a potential one). I can't help but be somewhat self-conscious about what I write. But it also makes me think a little more deeply, try a little harder to be understood. Journaling can be like shorthand. A great deal of it means something only to me, and some of my posts are only meant to be reminders of what was going on in my life at the time. Blogs have to be more specific and fleshed out. I can't just say that my grandson came to visit, I have to elaborate. Why did he come for a visit? How old is he? How did he act? What was my response? Sometimes I cover these things in my journal but often I don't. I just assume that I will remember what the visit was like when I read that he came for one.

But that's a dangerous assumption. In my journals, I'm guilty of telling, not showing, because I figure that I'll remember the details. I need to write in them as if I'm writing to someone who doesn't know me because in the future I probably won't know the me that wrote in my journal. I've had that frustrating experience many times when I have read parts of my journals. Who was I talking about here? What did I really think about that?

This little entry has helped me to realize that I can write in my journals the same way that I would write in a blog, or a letter. Because a blog is like a letter more than it is like a journal. In a letter you're more informative (usually) because you want to reconsctruct what's been going on with you so that your reader will be able to understand. But there's no reason why I can't write letters to myself. In this way my journals can become like blogs, except that I'm the only reader. Perhaps then I'll become more aware of who I really am and what I really think.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Do Words Really Facilitate Communication?

Words are only powerful if they can be understood. The main reason that people have conflicts is either that they don't or don't want to understand one another. Could it be said that one reason we are in Iraq is because real communication does not exist between our two nations? And if so, whose fault is that?

Americans are not known for their foreign language skills, but then how many non-Americans really understand English? Should we be required to learn one another's language? Or is that simply idealistic?

It is impossible to learn all the languages of the countries that we have (or should have) dealings with. That is, it's impossible for most of us, who are too old or too busy just trying to make a living and live our own lives or who have always been language-challenged in the first place. I know. I took French in high school and 35 years later I still remember much of what I learned then (when my brain was more impressionable). For the past nine years I've been attempting to learn German, first on my own and then through college courses. I'm amused and at the same time frustrated by the many times I can think of the French word for something when I'm trying to access the German one. I'm not giving up, but I can't even imagine trying to learn something like Arabic, Japanese, Chinese or Russian (or any language with a completely different script).

That doesn't mean that one can't learn a language phonetically--many people have done so quite satisfactorily, but then they are usually limited to speaking and listening and are not capable of reading or writing. We see the problem all the time in second generation immigrants. They pick up their second language almost by osmosis, they can speak it and understand it, but their second language skills are woefully behind their verbal proficiency. Not only does this make it difficult to fully participate in their new country's educational and occupational life, it also makes it difficult for them to access the deeper meanings in the words that the majority of their new countrymen speak.

But what about the citizens of their new country? Should they be trying to fully understand and participate in the immigants' languages? Again, this may be an impossible or at the least a very difficult task. But should they be trying?

If we accept the reality that language barriers exist and will probably always exist (who knows? maybe someday we'll all carry devices which automatically translate any language into our own), then we need to explore other ways to facilitate our communications with one another. If we can't understand what we hear, then we need interpreters. Those who know both languages might be seen as having the responsibility to translate from between the two language groups. Efforts like these are already being made in many venues, such as hospitals, where it may be a matter of life and death if doctors, nurses and patients do not understand each other. But what about in political arenas? How can people be expected to vote at all let alone responsibly if they don't have a clue what the issues and platforms are? Is it all their responsibility to learn a high enough level of proficiency to be able to participate in all areas of life? Will we stop treating patients who don't understand our language? Will we even accept that wrong things may be communicated because there is no interpreter on the scene?

When we put the burden on the immigrant, we should never underestimate the his or her desire to please and to not appear ignorant. People who are not really conversant in a new language will nod their heads and say the few phrases they do know, hoping that somehow they will get by. Shouldn't we at least know how to say, "Do you understand English?" in their language? And then to do something about it if they don't?

I realize that it is not always possible for interpreters to be present on the spot. But organizations and venues that can reasonably expect to run into this problem and who have a concentration of of other-language-speaking people under their jurisdiction should most certainly attempt to have interpreters available at a moment's notice, even if it is over the phone.

Another thing that could be done is to have people who are willing and able to be bilingual interpreters registered and on call, so that any misunderstandings could be avoided in a reasonable amount of time. If you are trying to work out a transaction with a customer who speaks another language, wouldn't it be beneficial for both of you to have an interpreter available?

Another idea, a very simple one really, would to make use of bilingual dictionaries. You don't have to know all the grammar rules to be able to communicate in another's language. They don't even know all of their grammar rules (do you know yours?). The best thing I did in preparation for my visits to Germany was to learn as much vocabulary as I could. That doesn't make you sound like a native, to be sure, but it does give you a point to start from. (I had trouble opening doors all over Germany because I didn't know the words for "push" and "pull." Imagine not knowing the words for "men" and "women" let alone for "toilet." Have you ever considered how hard it is to accomplish anything if you don't know the names for anything?

One more point needs to be addressed specifically to English-speaking populations: Never ever assume that everyone you encounter will know how to speak English. This is not only true when traveling in other countries, but is also becoming increasingly true domestically. Be prepared to make the effort, both to be understood and to understand. Maybe then we can start to learn how to get along.

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.