This Fragile “Real” America

Candles and wine

If you live in an area beset by snow and ice at the moment, best wishes getting through this attack of the cold.

Last week, on Wednesday, my power went out for about ten hours. About noon, the electricity went off, and all through the evening I watched the thermostat sink lower, degree by degree. Additionally, the roads outside were iced over, and as we live at the top of a very steep hill, this made any attempt to leave the house quite risky. Of course, many other people in Tennessee had it much worse–we know people who went days without lightbulbs and heat. During the storm, trees fell on power lines and knocked out whole communities.

For us, even before the power came back on, we were able to have pizza delivered, and it is hard to feel apocalyptic with warm pizza in hand.

I live in East Tennessee. We are one of those parts of the American South, scorned by all the Midwestern states, where, whenever one inch of snow falls, the schools close, supermarkets empty of food, and people start writing goodbye messages on Facebook. And on the one hand, this is simply because of the hills. When one’s journey to the nearest major road involves going up and down three 25 degree inclines, it doesn’t take much ice to make the journey dangerous. While lots of people here drive trucks–Ford has certainly sold a lot of F-150s–these don’t seem to be the kind of truck that can drive uphill on ice.

On the other hand, however, I do wonder about the inherent precariousness of this way of life. I am just blogging here: I have no facts. It may well be my London heritage speaking, my assumption that “normal” human life takes place within a large city.

But the part of Knoxville where I currently live seems predicated on the idea, firstly, that one lives far away enough from everything to feel secluded, but close enough that you aren’t actually fending (even remotely) for one’s self. The whole premise of “West” Knoxville is that you can drive ten + miles to work, to collect children from school, to get a hair cut. There are a vast number of cul-de-sacs burrowed into these hills which, when you drive down them, seem on the one hand remote, even quasi-country-ish, but which are actually only a short drive to the new pizza franchise that just opened on Kingston Pike. It’s all absolutely dependent on cars: there are no buses this far from downtown; the distances are too far to walk. So when the road is cut off, or the power goes out, there’s nothing outside one’s own house, reachable by any non-car means, that can be of assistance.

West Knoxville is like a city-without-a-city, and it seems to be thriving. In terms of restaurants and shops opening, this appears the most secure part of greater Knoxville / Farragut, and it’s where the majority of the well off inhabitants seem to wish to live. Still, I keep wondering what would happen if the price of petrol / gas rose dramatically. How would this area continue to function?

Anyway. Post your winter survival techniques in the comments, and best wishes for the remaining snow and ice.

Don’t Pre-Reject, Don’t Procrastinate

IMG_1367.JPG

These are two recent pieces I’ve really liked about the strange head-games artistic types play on themselves. I hope you like them, too.

The first is from Chuck Wendig, about “pre-rejection.” Warning, readers. Chuck swears a great deal.

See if you’ve ever done this:

You wrote something. Maybe you edited it. Maybe you didn’t. Maybe you didn’t even finish it. Then, you concoct a series of reasons inside your head why nobody will give a hot wet fuck about it. Nobody will wanna read it. Nobody will wanna buy it. You’ve got your reasons — maybe one reason, maybe a whole catalog full of them. And frankly? They all sound good. This isn’t the one, you tell yourself. It’s not yet right. And soon it becomes smart because, hey, you don’t want that thing you wrote out there. This is a sound business decision. This is a practical creative decision. Not everything you write is going to be aces. And so you open a drawer and you chuck this manuscript into it. It lands on top of five, ten, twenty others. A cloud of dust kicks up like an allergenic mushroom cloud — poof. And then you close the drawer.

That is pre-rejection.

You have killed the thing you created because you imagine its inevitable rejection.

It’s the same way you don’t ask that guy out because you already know how he’ll say no, and it’ll be embarrassing, and jeez even if you did date, he’d probably be a jerk, and even if he wasn’t a jerk, the marriage you’d eventually have would suck, and the kids would be shitheads, and it’d end in divorce and misery and death.

What I liked about this is how Wendig describes pre-rejection as a defence mechanism. We pre-reject because it hurts less. Better to reject your own work yourself than allow someone else to reject it, because that would really sting.

Of course, this means, over the long term, that you have no chance of success, either.

You need to be not just ready for rejection — you need to be willing to embrace rejection. Not your own — but proper rejection. Rejection you don’t control.

The whole piece is here. Again, prepare for some swearing.

The second is from Shawn Blanc, about the life-destroying power of procrastination.

To play devil’s advocate, in some ways putting off a project or task until the last minute can have some benefits. Eventually you’ll be forced to make a choice: are you going to do the project or not? Assuming you decide to do it, then by nature of waiting until the very last minute, you’ll be forced to focus on it (though probably immediately and under stress). But at least you’ve finally started to work on it and at least you’re focused. Right?

Blanc quickly demolishes his own devil advocation, pointing out that, consciously or not, you’ll be thinking about that task when you should be doing other things, that you’ll be stressed when you’ll finally get to it. Procrastinating until the deadline never gets you in your best creative mood.

Surely the most common reason to procrastinate is a lack of motivation. If we were motivated (or, instead of “motivated”, use the word “excited”) to accomplish a task, then we’d be doing it.

Oftentimes it takes that looming deadline or some other external force to motivate us to finally take care of the task. Or, if it’s a task with no deadline, we may find ourselves putting it off for months, if not years. “I’ll get to it someday,” we tell ourselves.

Meanwhile, there are other things we have no trouble staying motivated to do. Such as making time to eat, sleep, be with our family, read a book, watch a movie, go to the mall, go to our job, play video games, etc. And oftentimes it is these other tasks and hobbies that we turn to when we are procrastinating. For example, instead of cleaning out the garage like we’ve been meaning to, we watch a movie. Or instead of working on the next chapter of our book, we play a video game.

How then do we beat procrastination? Is the answer to only ever work on projects we’re excited about? If you were making a living from your passion, would you never deal with procrastination again?

Nope.

The adrenaline we get from fresh motivation only lasts so long. It’s awesome while it lasts, but it comes and goes. Don’t blame your tendency to procrastinate and your lack of motivation on external circumstances.

Blanc’s argument, which I recommend in full, is that we creative types have to look at our work as a daily practice, a continual effort. That must be the focus, not the dreaming of the completed book or website that we one day hope to have created. It’s the simple act of repeatedly working that makes the difference.

Not that dream of the finished task, but our daily practice of creativity, is where the magic truly is.

Procrastination robs us of this. It keeps us from showing up every day. It tells us that instead of showing up every day, we can just cram at the last minute. It tells us that there is always tomorrow. It lies to us, saying that just because we’re ignoring this task again and again doesn’t mean we’ve quit.

The only difference between a quitter and an habitual procrastinator is that the latter is lying to herself.

If what I’m saying is true, then procrastination is perhaps the greatest enemy to producing meaningful work. Because not only does procrastination keep us from doing the work, but in so doing, it also robs us from the process of sitting down every day to be creative.

Thinking about these two artistic vices, I can easily see myself suffering more from pre-rejection than procrastination. How about you?

Sentence Anxiety

I first posted this essay two years ago. But this blog has acquired many new readers since then, and I thought the piece deserved a second chance in the sunlight. I present it here, unchanged aside from a little punctuation.

Processed with VSCOcam with hb2 preset

Sentence Anxiety

Dinty Moore’s Brevity has published an excellent essay by Cynthia Newberry Martin on sentence-craft. If you’re interested in good prose, either as a reader or writer, you should take a look.

Yet, while I enjoyed the advice that Martin offers, something about her essay worries me. Essentially, the writers she cites (Michael Cunningham in particular) are proposing a particular standard by which to judge fiction writers: if you cannot write good sentences, you are not a real writer.

My question is, firstly: why? And secondly: if we do accept the central importance of prose style in literary fiction, what costs might come with such a choice?

Martin provides us with a central document on the importance of style: Michael Cunningham’s explanation of his role in the Pulitzer fiction jury.

I was the language crank, the one who swooned over sentences. I could forgive much in a book if it was written with force and beauty, if its story was told in a voice unlike anything I’d heard before, if the writer was finding new and mesmerizing ways to employ the same words that have been available to all American writers for hundreds of years. I tended to balk if a book contained some good lines but also some indifferent ones. I insisted that every line should be a good one. I was — and am — a bit fanatical on the subject.

In other words: if you want a shot at the Pulitzer prize, your prose style must meet Cunningham’s standards. And he is not as alone or cranky as he suggests. I could list many more essays and manifestoes that make similar claims to his (I have mentioned a few in this book review).

So Martin is completely right that a focus on sentences is a central concern for contemporary literary writers. She is also completely right to offer aspiring writers tools that might help them attain these stylistic standards.

The question remains, however, whether such a focus on sentence-level aesthetics is, overall, healthy. Because if we take Cunningham’s self-explanation seriously, it starts to look a little concerning.

It must be noted, for instance, that Cunningham’s standard for literary fiction is explicitly elite and writer-centric. In order to be able to apply Cunningham’s rule to a novel, you must be extraordinarily well-read, able to compare a new novel to the “hundreds of years” of American writers that preceded it. You have to have an understanding of prose so comprehensive that you can recognise a particular author’s voice as new.

So, if we accept such a rule, we must also accept that non-writers can have no idea why certain books win the Pulitzer. Even MFA students and aspiring amateurs will never be adequate judges of the history of American prose style.

Of course, if that’s the only sensible way to think about fiction, then complaining about its exclusivity rather misses the point. Who cares about elitism if the elite gets it right?

But I also cannot help overhearing, in Cunningham’s words, an immense weariness. You can sense the page-fatigue — the book-boredom — behind his requirements. Cunningham has read so much he needs to be dazzled, page by page, or he switches off. And even when a book does manage to dazzle him, he still does not sound particularly excited, commenting that “new and mesmerizing” prose merely allows him to “forgive much in a book.”

Even the books he likes need to be forgiven!

I suspect that most common readers — people who read novels but are not professionally connected to literature — simply don’t read like this. Not only do such readers lack the stylistic precision tell actual bad writing from, say, Nabokov or Joyce amusing themselves with marginally overblown prose, such readers do not approach books with the professional reader’s exhaustion, his frantic need for newness. Few common readers, I humbly posit, read the opening pages of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and cry, “Oh, God, not another school-based bildungsroman!”

In order to evaluate whether well-wrought sentences are indeed vital to good fiction, there’s a basic question we have to answer first. What is the value of good prose?

In other words: if, as Michael Cunningham says, “indifferent” prose damns a book, what is so valuable about good prose? What does it do? Why is it important?

One could certainly claim that good writing and flawless prose are inherently co-dependent. If you are a real writer you have flawless prose — and vice versa. The difficulty comes when we re-read The Great Gatsby, and notice all its adverbial dialogue tags. Do we then claim that those crowds of “-antly” adverbs make the novel worthless?

I’m not hoping, by asking this question, to disprove the value of prose style. I believe style matters a great deal. I love Virginia Woolf, William H. Gass, and James Baldwin at their most ambitious, their most baroque. I experience their sentences not simply as a pleasure: their writing seems to lift me into a heightened, more adoring state. As if the direct experience of beauty increases one’s capacity for experiencing it. Elevated prose elevates its reader.

If this is true, and I hope that it is, does that mean that among a page of celestial periods, one plain sentence will send us crashing out of heaven? The sentence adherents seem to be claiming so: heightened language must stayed heightened at all times, or the magic fails.

Martin recounts that when Pam Houston reviewed her novel manuscript, Houston commented that a particular sentence was “boring.” So, if I am writing a novel, and found that I have written a dull sentence, like one of these,

“Now he was walking with another companion.”

“There is someone behind her.”

“He was wearing his jacket and tie.”

“And Ralph got up from his chair and wandered to the fire.”

then I must be sure to come back and revise it later. Perhaps, for the first of those four sentences, I need to move “now” to the end, or to the middle. But whatever I decide, the key is that, as Martin says, I must avoid such “utilitarian” sentences; sentences which merely move us from A to B.

The complication, of course, is that those four sentences come from writers quite respected for their style: Nabokov (Pale Fire), Coetzee (Elizabeth Costello), Robinson (Home), and James (Portrait of a Lady). Did they get it wrong? Should an editor have caught these howlers before the books went to print?

I don’t think so. If literary prose is a pleasure and a heightening of consciousness, then perhaps, like many other heightening pleasures, it ideally moves up and down in intensity, rising and falling in waves, fading away only to come back stronger.

The best restaurants do not employ one waiter to hold your mouth open while a second jams food down your throat for twenty minutes without pause; that would not be enjoyable. No: there are separate courses, expository introductions, breaks for conversation. The meal has a rhythm. And the same is true for a symphony: you generally expect the music to build up to its crescendo, not have it blast you in the first bar.

Perhaps masterful prose style is like that, too. Perhaps some sentences are indeed meant to be enjoyed as complete dishes, ornate and surprising and deep. But perhaps, at the same time, some sentences really are just functional: they serve the perfectly respectable purpose of getting us from one height to the next. They make those heights mean something; they make them visible. To demand that such sentences stand alone as coherent art-objects is perhaps to ask of narrative prose something it isn’t meant to deliver.

I agree with Martin that prose should not be “slack.” I disagree that prose should never be “utilitarian.” Few people would accuse The Sound and the Fury of being a utilitarian book, but when Jason wants to get in his car, Faulkner just has him say that he is getting in his car. Simple language for simple things.

Similarly, in Portrait of a Lady, when Henry James wants a functional, plot-turning scene, he writes relatively plain sentences and a lot of quick dialogue. It’s what the scene needs. When he wants to illuminate deeply hidden truths about the torments of the human condition, well, then he reaches for more advanced stylistic techniques. James doesn’t seem to care that, in the moments when he isn’t trying very hard, his prose isn’t too different from John Grisham’s.

There is a difference, therefore, between “loving good prose” and “reading for the sentence.” Martin is right that every sentence should be “good.” There certainly should be, as she says, a bar to not slip below.

But I worry, if we are reading for the sentence, that this bar will have a tendency to rise and rise — and rise. Who really knows, after all, what Michael Cunningham considers an “indifferent” sentence? Who truly feels confident that each line she writes is “new and mesmerizing”?

The more anxious we become, the higher we will have to place that bar, just to be on the safe side. Because you don’t get a second chance if Cunningham’s reading. He isn’t reading for the plot.

It’s possible to see such bar-raising even within Martin’s essay.

She includes two sets of published sentences, the first group picked at random from books she owns, the second set offers as models of good prose. And the first set of sentences are indeed, as she says, “good.” They read smoothly. They show writers alert to language. But the second set of sentences are more than just “good.” They are self-conscious applications of technique. There is a distinct gulf between, from the first group, “Rebecca sips contemplatively at her coffee” to Pam Houston’s sentence, in the second group:

We were each locked inside our individual sorrows, didn’t know each other well enough to share, but we agreed, out loud, that like moose, pelicans were surely put on earth to act as suicide preventers, agreed we’d never kill ourselves within the sight of one.

This sentence is a tour de force. I admire it greatly. But I wouldn’t want every single sentence in a novel to try to match it. And were it any more complex, a non-professional reader would need genuine effort to comprehend it. Yet Martin’s essay presents both of these sentences as equally worthy candidates for “good.” Within a few paragraphs, the standard of “good” has drastically risen, risen to where one’s potential readership is starting to dwindle.

In our anxiety about the quality of our prose, we may be building an increasingly tight straitjacket for our art. At what point does sentence-anxiety start to interfere with the other tasks of novel-writing? At what point do we stop writing certain scenes, actions, characters, voices, genres, because it is just too hard to evoke them beautifully and uniquely? Faulkner seemed to think it was okay to have a guy just get in his car; we are wiser than him, and know better.

For myself, I hope to one day have such control and understanding of my own prose that when a teacher or editor complains that a particular sentence is “boring,” I will be able to respond, “It was meant to be.”