Skip to content

On West Coast time

suits me very well. Never having been one of those people who can eat first thing in the morning, by the time I feel like it, it’s actually a reasonable time to be eating here (3 hours difference). Likewise, I’ve always felt quite alive in the night and have had a hard time settling down to sleep, reading on into the earlier morning hours. I had always imagined that my ancestors must have been ones responsible for keeping the tribal fires burning through the night. At 1:00 AM, it’s only 11 PM 10 PM! here, of course: there’s no longer a problem. It’s an unusual, mildly surprising, pleasant feeling to be in synch with those around me.

What I will miss about Cincinnati


Ayahuasca for writer’s block

I’m fascinated by Isabel Allende’s turning to ayahuasca to overcome writer’s block. Is this something you would do?

 ’It was the most intense, out-of-my-mind experience that I have ever had. It was very revealing and very important and opened up a lot of spaces inside me. But I don’t ever want to do it again.’

Isabel Allende is describing the time she experimented with a powerful hallucinogen in an attempt to punch through the writer’s block that was preventing her from completing a trilogy of adventure books she had promised her three grandchildren. It was a few years ago, and the Chilean novelist, now 65, decided to travel to South America with her second husband to ’subject myself to the shamanic experience of ayahuasca’, a potent vision-inducing potion made from jungle vines by Amazon Indians.

But after forcing down the foul-tasting brew, she was catapulted to a place so dark her husband feared he had ‘lost his wife to the world of spirits’. Her life flashed before her as the hallucinogen took hold. She faced demons, saw herself as a terrified four-year-old and curled up on the floor, shivering, retching and muttering for two days.

‘I think I went through an experience of death at a certain point, when I was no longer a body or a soul or a spirit or anything,’ Allende says matter-of-factly. ‘There was just a total, absolute void that you cannot even describe because you are not. And I think that’s death.’

What I saw

The weekend scenery on a drive from Cincinnati to the SC Midlands and back, an abbreviated list:

Horizontal flashes of lightening, in a lightening storm that lasted through NC, maybe about an hour-and-a-half. The most impressive lightening storm in my life yet.

Flashing hazard lights emerging now and again through sheets of rain during the rest of the trip down.

A semi jack-knifed on the opposite side of the highway; many miles of headlights of the cars stopped behind. (Where could everyone be going, in such a storm, that time of night - 9:30, 10:00) on that no-longer-lonely part of the highway, I wondered. Where do we all have to go, all the time, like this, that such an amount of traffic can accumulate in a comparatively short span of time?)

The welcomed, welcoming faces of loved ones we miss, one of whom had an important birthday. (Where we were going, why, in such a storm, etc.)

Under the sun, bloomed wisteria crawling upward, lavender-colored plumes, twisting over dead trees, abandoned shacks, rusting roofs, anything.

A traveling posse of red motorcycles riding in formation, five of them, the riders looking like family.

A bumper sticker (near Asheville): I’d rather being reading Bukowski.

wisteria everywhere in SC, April

Or the patio in good weather

On one of my fascinations, Bob Hicok saying how it is for me.

I don’t think about “my” audience. It would be fun to have an audience. I’d keep it in the garage. I don’t know how anyone could write with a group of people in mind. It’s difficult enough to rummage around in my own head, let alone estimate how my words will enter another life. Writers should be good at sensing where readers will be more or less confused, angry, emotionally or intellectually involved, in evaluating the content of their writing in general terms. But to think about readers while writing is to invite the hypothetical into the process in a way that stops me from being open to the actual, to myself.

What we talk about when

Everybody and her brother has appropriated Raymond Carver’s words/title.[What We Talk About When We Talk About Love] But that is what happens after you write a book, a story, a poem, an anything — “once the writer offers the story or poem or essay or book to the world, his or her part of the conversation is, for the most part, done.

Or, in a slight variation, as the lead character says to “Neruda” in Il Postino: Poetry is not for the people who wrote it, but for the people who need it. (This is a paraphrase; some scribbled notes remembered in my journal at the time that I saw the movie.)

I have a standing midweek late lunch date, which I’ve just returned from (and which was very difficult for me to commit to initially several months back and for which I am now pleased that I did, as I usually am, afterwards,) and which is the impetus for this blog entry.

My lunch companion is a fiction writer who had a short story I just happened to read in a journal just as I came to Cincinnati who was also coming from somewhere else (Nashville). (Difference is that M wanted to come here for personal, family-related reasons.) That particular story centered around the idea, or theme, of popularity, really resonating for me in thinking about popularity as a kind of value that’s very changed over time (think about, for example, valuing in small-town America the daughter who’s head of the cheerleading squad to some facebook persona who has all kinds of connections.)

It was a great story, M’s, and one I think is really rich and evocative; it was for me.

As I write this, I picture my parents’ faces, in adoration, over something to do with my younger sister, who was “popular” in their estimation, something very laudable, and then their faces, pinched and white, in connection with a particular incident involving me, when I “mouthed off” to my third grade teacher who was very angry because I and another classmate who had also been pulled out for our gifted program class were thereby, the two of us, disrupting her instruction on “new math” and how I/we must now, “gifted” as I was/we were figure it out for myself/ourselves.

My parents — who were exceptionally gifted, quite brilliant, really, but who did not experience this, their brilliance, in a positive way, to say the least — were very conflicted and torn over what were the traits and qualities and skills they wanted their children to possess, what they could accept and what they could not, what they might demand, since because they demanded it, it would manifest. They eventually decided on it all: genius *and* popularity. These are not necessarily compatible. While my older brother and I were identified as highly gifted and placed in the gifted program in our school (the top two in IQ test scoring in each grade), my younger sister (who they found enjoyable and easier) never did make it into the program, each year of testing.

Popularity is very important to people, even good people, who might not admit it.

This is a bit of a sidetrack from the conversation today at lunch with M and I. (Though we did talk at length about what does happen to the gifted child? What of the gifted child in prison? M taught prisoners for some years.)

What M and I talk about during our long-lasting lunches, for which I am always glad of, once I get there and have settled in, is a lot of writing-talk. Oh, not all of our talk is writing-talk, not by a long shot, because, of course, what bolsters writers in writing is not shop talk at all but everything but.

Yet, if you don’t have the opportunity to talk writing talk a lot (by that I mean as much as you might like at a given time) — which is my truth here in Cincinnati –that which is outside the circumference of a spouse (or a mate) who makes up the circumscription of that world in a sense — which is an entirely different (– and extensive, exceedingly! –) topic/world altogether; and in this, I mean face-to-face, in the flesh, in the real world, which is everything, or at minimum very important, in the very least — this can’t be underestimated in value or significance, and something like these lunches, during which you can just go on about writing, about what you’re trying to do, with writing, what you want to do, how to do it, chewing over ideas and the “models” that exist out there — i.e. who has written what; what you have read that might inform what the other’s trying to do, or thinking about, or is in some outerfield of proximity — these take on an importance that was for me today, again, deeply felt and appreciated.

What we talked about is how, in fact, that as someone so much wiser than me said somewhere, you don’t choose your material: it chooses you.

How important that is to remember, to acknowledge, again and again.

Sometimes you hit a place in which you have to give yourself permission (ugh! I hate that phrase, have fought against it for years, when it is, at bottom, true) time and again to write, to create this, whatever you are creating. This is where I am, daily, Daily, going through the struggle to give myself permission. I have to do it Everyday.

I am not kidding. It is hard for me to write these words. Because you, reader, can skim over it, and read it, and skim over it, and that is nothing like the struggle that takes place with me. And which I wish I was somehow so beyond, by virtue of all my (expensive) life experiences and degrees.

Look, there is the struggle that took place even before 9/11 that is like this: how can anyone sit and indulge herself, telling her little stories? Except, for me, this kind of struggle was going on long before that, before the blatant question.

There was me, being teacher, being mentor for domestic violence victims, being volunteer coordinator for the homeless shelter, for state coordinator of the beach and river pollution clean-up, etcetera and so on — me feeling like I must earn my way into spending a fraction of a fraction of my time and energy and focus on creating story. (9/11 only made it all the more pointed.)

Of course, the argument, and the struggle is not exactly about how dare we indulge ourselves while Rome burns.

Nevertheless, every day is a struggle for me. To remind myself of the the necessity of art, of the story, and the stories. And of mine.

And then the next step, to, again, understand that I can’t escape my material.

I think about Tom Spanbauer and of his approach: dangerous writing. How he said of one of his books, that it almost killed him to write it.

This is where I am.

I hate saying it. Why? I hate the idea that I might be viewed as being so dramatic. It takes so, so much to say this, out ahead of the fact.

This is what M and I talk about.

Here’s where I feel I have to say that I don’t think I am so important. I do not think that I have a pretty little life, like, Oh, look, I am having lunch with another important writer! or Oh, look at us, or even Oh, I live with another writer, Oh look at us, etcetera and so on. I am, in fact, self-conscious about what small aspects of my life that I do expose here, in this blog.

That is, I want to imagine that maybe I can somehow give something worthwhile and useful to someone who needs it (like the character earlier mentioned in Il Postino) — that I have something to give. While at the same time, my true writing voice, in fiction, in essay, in, for h’s sake, my journal, in email, isn’t the blog voice — and how that all feels so strange and weird and potentially freeing. I know it isn’t trendy to talk about,to keep talking about, to examine the purpose of the blogging. But it never really leaves me; it’s not possible. Many fiction writers, many writers period, are afraid of how their blogs and by extension blogging “voices” might paint them inaccurately [read negatively] when it comes to their crafted fiction. I understand. Still I go on.

M and I talk about yes, your material chooses you; how you do not get that choice. How it can feel like the most dangerous and devastating work ever. How do you manage it? I don’t know exactly. Here is what I am doing, and maybe this can help you. I work on many things right now. You have heard this before, if you are a serious writer trying to make your way. I know I did before. But it’s true. For me. Right now. A while back I wrote that I didn’t know what it was what I was doing, working on. Well, now I am well enough, “chapters” into the thing enough to understand what it is, what is going on. A novel, fictionalized truths — they all are, of course, to one degree or another, of course — and it is the most “dangerous” material and the most grueling to write. M and I talk about how this is. To experience again something I did not want to experience in the first place. To enter into it again. And again. Ugh. Afterwards, I am wrung out. Each time. Each day that I write it.

The extended work — the novel — is based on difficult circumstances, no, truths, of my life. And it was so hard to actually live, first time around, that this “committing to paper” — let alone the crafting of the story, the technical aspects of making it work for the reader — is not something I would choose.

Your material chooses you.

For a long, long time I have resisted writing this… novel. But your material chooses you.

Every time I write about it, I feel … turned upside down. That’s the safest equivalent way to put it. Many times I wished I had anything else to write about (Wait! I do! I have so much to write about. I have lived such an interesting life — that promises to only become more interesting …) but that is NOT how it works. Every time I stray… after a time, I am always called back. Your material chooses you.

It requires enormous spaces in between. So I am writing, in between, with pleasure, insofar as pleasure can be ascribed to it!, smaller Lydia-Davis like pieces, revisiting and revising stories, writing new stories, and some new poems. I am now able, since I have had a good solid time of it, to feel safe enough to say that it is working — the “block” is overridden. I am writing the novel and I am writing many other things.

Maybe this can help you, if you are looking for help, is to know that you can — and I would say, should — write many different other things along the way.

Even including blogs.

Want to hear it again? Your material chooses you.

Write for no reason at all

Salon advice columnist Cary Tennis gives a suffering post-master’s in writing (non-writing) writer advice on how to start writing.

The connection between writing … and writing for money or writing for success has to be broken. You need a good, strong, regular writing practice. The ego has to be broken for the voice to come through. The voice is what you want. The voice that makes no sense at first is what you want. The voice that sounds a little crazy is what you want. Try it.

You have to break the connection between ego and practice. The practice is the thing. How can you do that? You find a model in your life. What activities do you now practice for their own sake?

… Regardless of whether you sell your writing, you do it. Regardless of anything, you do it. It has to be a practice. There are many ways to get there.

… And I am comforted. I need to be comforted because I am uncomfortable; I am a harsh self-critic. Others are not so lucky. I often hate my work. I simply detest it. I want to burn it. I think that it shows me in the worst possible light, as a whining, mewling infant, an idiot, a selfish prick. Yes, I am full of the most detestable self-hatred. And I am utterly transparent. This I take to be part of the job. Others do not. Others more successful have exquisite control; they write and do not feel the need to confess. What of it? Being a writer is permission to be disreputable: That is my chosen tradition.

So give your self permission. Give your self permission to be wholly reprehensible. This is what they call the dark side. The dark side is where images arise unbidden before the ideas and the words. There is something there when you are not doing what you are supposed to do. So give yourself permission to be reprehensible because that is what is interesting and writing is not good or bad but only interesting.

…Do it for these reasons. Keep doing it for these reasons. Do it for no reason. Keep doing it for no reason. When you are doing it because it is your voice, then it will not matter who is publishing you. It will have become apparent that writing is your friend. It will be what you would do in prison if they locked you up. It keeps you sane. It saves you. That’s what it’s for. Doing it for others sucks us dry. We have to do it for ourselves, for the love of it, for it. We have to give ourselves over to it like giving ourselves over to a lover or to the water, like giving ourselves over to the waves and sinking under. We just give ourselves to it. We surrender to it. We don’t worry about who will publish it. We do it because we need to.

On being detail oriented in nature

Which is a funny phrase in and of itself.

An old journal entry. I wrote that an ex-mother-in-law once decried: “You notice everything!” and I felt bad about it. Yet it was/is a good thing to note on a resume “detail oriented.” As well, later my writing was praised for my “fine eye for detail.” Later I had a therapist who reminded me that kids who are identified as gifted and put in special classes don’t stop being gifted when they become adults . It all seems fundamental now, but back then, the support was crucial.

Running, writing, being driven

The project continues; it’s going to take some time, reading these journals accumulated from the past years. I had made a decision and an effort not to document or talk about my running in the notebooks, as I’d, after all, kept some other records when I was in training for, say, a particular race or marathon. But when have I ever been able to compartmentalize successfully? Right. Never. So the running creeps in. I talk about in a journal Sunday, Feb. 24, 1997, living at the beach then, training for a marathon (that I never made it to: I never successfully trained for a marathon, too crazy, too extreme, for example, winding up in a cast even once from running in the dark (in which I couldn’t see) and fracturing my ankle running over/off an uneven raised lip of concrete along the drainage side of a street); I talk about how as I was running, in fatigue mode, just charging forward, a driver, obviously late for services, turned into a church parking lot, cutting me off. At that point in the running, it is near impossible to just stop dead. I was bothered enough to write about it later, recording some rather humorous stuff along the lines of what would the lord think of you, crushing this woman under your wheels in a hurry to get to this service for which you’re already late, etc and so on. (The entry does turn into something more, a musing over structures that takes its starting point as the structures of religion and services [”we” have created] imposed on Sundays and why it might be felt as necessary to have ritual and impositions on what otherwise might be too loose-ended [for others, of course, not me, never me, just to be clear.])

I so much have the drive sometimes still to run, despite an MRI showing degenerative spine disease and experts pronouncing I should not ever run again. Still the urge doesn’t leave me. Reading the interview with Haruki Murakimi stirred this all up again, again, i.e.:

Murakami: I will go on running for as long as I can walk. You know what I would like to be written on my tombstone?

SPIEGEL: Tell us.

Murakami: “At least he never walked.”

So, I was talking about this a little with C, driving back from downtown at lunch today, where we’d gone together to lobby Senator Sherrod Brown as part of Amnesty International’s 2008 Darfur lobby week, for which C is this area’s delegation leader. (Aside: Are you in Cincinnati? Do you want to participate? There’s the rest of this week - contact me, if you’re interested.) The meeting in the Senator’s office went well. As we were in there, the snow began (again) to fall; I sat watching it drop thickly on the other side of the plate glass. I tried to feel sorry for myself so that I could feel a bit ashamed if I could manage it, self-sympathy, in the face of what was/is/goes on every second, of the dropping snowflakes, in Darfur.

Driving home, the thick snow falling showed its propensity to stick and it was then that I was thinking about how hard it must be to run here, run anywhere where’s there snow and ice obscured beneath it. I never had that to contend with, though there was a year in which I visited Boston in February (I always seem to go visiting in northern extremes, it turns out, from reading my journals, in February, at least as would seem like, determined from living in Florida and in South Carolina coastal areas: Boston, Montreal, and Ann Arbor just a week or so ago) and it was a year in which I was in top fanatical form about running. I got a Gore-tex suit and all kinds of stuff just in order to able to run along the Charles, where I understood that the path underfoot would be cleared enough for running. You can’t run with short, stilted steps, defensive against falling. Driving home, I was talking to C about how in our neighborhood there were sidewalks, and streets, that still held bumpy solid patches of ice not good for running over that now would be covered by snow. How do people here run, I wondered, real runners?

But, so, Murakami is having a book come out about his running. The interview is a good one. I would suggest reading it.

He talks about how it is to have the drive for a certain story. I think I will always love to read or hear about how other writers feel or describe this need for a story to be told. This is what Murakami says; I’ve added the emphases.

SPIEGEL: Are you a better writer because you run?

Murakami: Definitely. The stronger my muscles got, the clearer my mind became. I am convinced that artists who lead an unhealthy life burn out more quickly. Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin were the heroes of my youth — all of them died young, even though they didn’t deserve to. Only geniuses like Mozart or Pushkin deserve an early death. Jimi Hendrix was good, but not so smart because he took drugs. Working artistically is unhealthy; an artist should lead a healthy life to make up for it. Finding a story is a dangerous thing for an author; running helps me to avert that danger.

SPIEGEL: Could you explain that?

Murakami: When a writer develops a story, he is confronted with a poison that is inside him. If you don’t have that poison, your story will be boring and uninspired. It’s like fugu: The flesh of the pufferfish is extremely tasty, but the roe, the liver, the heart can be lethally toxic. My stories are located in a dark, dangerous part of my consciousness, I feel the poison in my mind, but I can fend off a high dose of it because I have a strong body. When you are young, you are strong; so you can usually conquer the poison even without being in training. But beyond the age of 40 your strength wanes, you can no longer cope with the poison if you lead an unhealthy life.

SPIEGEL: J.D. Salinger wrote his only novel, “Catcher in the Rye” when he was 32. Was he too weak for his poison?

Murakami: I translated the book into Japanese. It is quite good, but incomplete. The story becomes darker and darker, and the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, doesn’t find his way out of the dark world. I think Salinger himself didn’t find it either. Would sport have saved him too? I don’t know.

SPIEGEL: Does running give you the inspiration for stories?

Murakami: No, because I‘m not the kind of writer who reaches the source of a story playfully. I have to dig for the source. I have to dig very deep to reach the dark places in my soul where the story lies hidden. For that, too, you have to be physically strong. Since I started running, I have been able to concentrate for longer, and I have to concentrate for hours on my way into the darkness. On the way there you find everything: the images, the characters, the metaphors. If you are physically too weak, you miss them; you lack the strength to hold on to them and bring them back up to the surface of your consciousness. When you are writing, the main thing isn’t digging down to the source, but the way back out of the darkness. It’s the same with running. There is a finishing line that you have to cross, whatever the cost may be.

Bits of Tree of Smoke

Because it’s fresh on my mind, just having had with a friend a conversation about it — Denis Johnson’s Tree of Smokeand because I seem to, it turns out, mention in passing something I’m reading without ever saying more — always meaning to, of course — always thinking I’ll come back to this book or that, that I’ve mentioned, but then I’m off to something else and have forgotten. (What conclusions might be drawn? They’d be wrong. That’s one of the things that’s wrong about inferring from blogs. That’s wrong about keeping blogs! When I look back at what I mentioned as opposed to what I didn’t? It’s all luck and chance! Elsewhere, I’ve written — say, in my [current] journal, even — about what might be more pervasive in my consciousness, what’s more active in the forefront. Elsewhere, I’m talking about, or thinking about…what never gets said here. The blog is just random hit-or-miss, another bit of mix. Now, why I am talking about this: another conversation I was just having. The blog is just another drawer.)

And because just a few days ago — well, maybe, yes, it was last week, already, I watched again Apocalypse Now, which set me to thinking, again, about Johnson’s Tree of Smoke, and questioning for me what was one of it’s most immediate irritations — its structure. So crazy to have all this fragmented parts, so that in the beginning I was even jotting down, sketching out who was who, and when, and where. (I gave it up because I kept forgetting to have the little notepad handy whenever we were going to read, which, quite a lot of time, turned out to be when we were on the road driving to somewhere or other, far enough away for long distance reading.) That’s not the kind of investment I want to make in a novel. I don’t mean that I don’t want to be challenged, that I don’t want to invest myself — oh, of course I do. (I mean, that’s not the kind of stuff I write either or want to write — facile crap that doesn’t ask for your thought or engagement beyond spoon-feeding.) I mean, that I don’t want to be stopping and conferring along the way with C, who I’m reading aloud to, saying, “Now, who is this? Is this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ _ (so and so, who did this or did that, or was the subject of or involved in this or that)?” etc and so on. Having to get my bearings in a way that recalls to mind freshman year in high school, boning up on dates and facts before a chapter test. That’s irritating. That’s not thinking. It’s just a kind of extra, unnecessary activity that bugs me. But then, I am getting older, and I admit that, and maybe it’s not like that for everyone. Maybe if I was on Adderall (or something like).

I think the idea is, after watching the film I mentioned, given the times, etc, the structure is considered to be reflective of the subject matter and times; is given a pass, that actually, I still want to push past. I want to beseech, say, Denis Johnson, you are better than that! (But I am like that, unable to escape myself, a perfectionist prone to overexcitability.)

I love when Salon Books (Laura Miller?) says: (obviously my emphasis)
the Vietnam novel to end all Vietnam novels, Denis Johnson’s celebrated (and misunderstood) epic…

I love misunderstood.

Yet, still, I have my same criticism and desire, and wish that it wouldn’t have such a structure of lack of effective enough structure.

It made me always think throughout that the narrator or author was being ironic when he wasn’t. These obvious statements. And [novel] moments — I kept thinking that there must have been more to them than what was on the page; that they had to be ironic. Joking, even, sometimes. I hated learning or realizing that they were just [passages/bits] having to spell things out! I don’t think this would have happened if the structure would have been otherwise. When I would figure out that what the passage meant was what it meant — that it was to be taken at face value — I felt left out, ripped-off, abandoned, even! All this structural resetting the reader in each scene and time, the obviousness that had to go towards grounding the reader… it seems/seemed very wasted to me and easy to misinterpret (and misunderstand and then to, consequently, feel left down?)

I still don’t feel sure, or even close to, what Johnson may have wanted me to understand about characters’ ideas about the cosmos, and “supernatural” yearnings or tendencies or beliefs. I came away feeling either it was heavy-handed or ridiculous or beyond my comprehension. None of these possibilities please me!

Yet I still love Denis Johnson, and Jesus’ Son.

But back to the conversation, and what led me here to this post. The beautiful prose, Denis Johnson’s writing. What follows are some bits that arrested me.

The ville lay ten miles down the brown river. He walked. After the city, things smelled different here. The reeking water. The smoke from the burn piles of deadfall and trash had the odor of legend, the chicken droppings, even. Everything carried him off — where? To here. But not to this moment. Here he had fished from the back of a buffalo while beside him Brother Thu had held the string of a kite surging in the winds above…even then their lines plumbing opposite depths. One to high school and the air force, one to the monks.

He saw little traffic on the water. An old woman with an old woman’s mashed-in face poled past in a skiff keeping to the shallows, every push of the pole threatening to steal her last breath.

Minh walked under a gray sky, sorrow biting at his throat. He stepped into a banana grove and tore off three of the fruits and ate, tossing the peels in the water as he and Thu had done in a better world.

He imagined his brother burning — he often did — Thu’s body in the flame, dreadful pain outside, going up his nostrils and in. And then as a monkey holds two branches for an instant, lets go of the first and clings to the new one, he was no longer the body, but the fire.

********

The colonel, wearing his headset, sat next to Minh and studied the horizon and seemed to have forgotten the terrors of the morning. Skip, for his part, looked as if they’d never leave him. The colonel hadn’t mentioned his nephew’s behavior. Maybe it didn’t bear mentioning. Perhaps Skip thanked his God right now that he had no headset and that their transport was too loud for talk. But who can look into another’s thoughts? And Minh often felt of the Americans that behind their actions lay no thoughts anyway, only passions…