Posted tagged ‘writing’

Blocking Writer’s Block – Part X – Grow a Thicker Skin (But Not, Perhaps, A Carapace)

November 9, 2009

How do you inure yourself to criticism?  How do you view it as instructive rather than destructive?    (Note that when I  say “you”, I mean me.  This is a task I find truly difficult.)

When I first considered this question, I thought of a cockroach—something with not just a thick skin, but a hard carapace.  A creature that is at the height of evolutionary sustainability.  A survivor.

But I can’t quite stomach becoming more cockroach-like, and I don’t think I can advise it for you either.   Because, aside from its general lack of appeal, a cockroach scurries away from any bright light, which is exactly what a lot of criticism feels like–a too-bright light shone right into your eyes, or on your weak spots (that flap of flab at the back of a thigh.  Or worse, if you’re a writer:  those awkward transitions, that plot that just isn’t credible, that character, based on you, who’s simpering and inane.

The fear of criticism, or the experience of criticism, can be an old-style Berlin Wall to a struggling writer.  Not only is it an obstacle between your desire to work and your ability to work;  it is also a wall between the two halves of yourself—the half that really does want to learn and grow and improve, and the half which wants anything you do, no matter how flawed, to be called brilliant, at least, good enough.

Because I’m so bad at this, I can only give a few random clues as to how to get better:

1.  Don’t show work too early.  It can be both humiliating and paralyzing to have your reader point out problems that you would have caught yourself if you’d only waited a few weeks beyond the glow of completion.

2.   Take care to whom you show things.  It’s helpful if you truly believe that your reader respects you and your abilities, no matter what they say about the particular piece.

3.  Try to focus on what you can learn from a specific critique.   Keep in mind that even if some criticism may not be fully justified, it may still point out something that doesn’t fully work.

4.  After due consideration, if you feel your work is good, hold your ground.  Consider your reader’s perspective and taste.  Is it the same as yours?  Is it infallible?

5.  Distance yourself.  Those words on the page are not you.  What you wrote yesterday is not you today.  There are countless ways to skin a cat; it takes all types to make a world.  Which means—yes, you can revise it (no matter how impossible that feels).

6.  When all the above has been tried, and you really just can’t bear any more, scurry into a dark crevice.   But don’t just wait till it’s safe to come out again.  Work from there.  Keep working even from there.

For more on Writer’s Block, check other posts in this category.  And, as always, check out 1 Mississippi by Karin Gustafson, on Amazon or at link on ManicDDaily home page.

Blocking Writer’s Block – Part IX – An Exile of One’s Own

November 8, 2009

I’ve been thinking today about writer’s block in the context of both Virginia Woolf and James Joyce.  This is, in part, due to the stress inherent in a bifurcated modern life (that is, a life of both struggling writer and struggling person), and, in part, to one daughter telling me about a paper on Dubliners and another,  a course on Woolf.

While, to my mind, the work of each of Woolf and Joyce is incomparably great, both seemed to have difficulties with blocks of a sort–Woolf sinking into terrible depressions, Joyce into (some would say) incomprehensibility.  But I don’t want to write about their blocks today; what I’ve been thinking of were their specific devices for freeing blocks, devices for which they are respectively emblematic.

In Woolf’s case, I refer to the idea of having a room of one’s own; that is, space, time, and the confidence to work from.  She wrote about the particular need of women writers for these resources, and, while I believe women still have a harder time than men (women having to fight with themselves, as well as the outside world), getting a “room of one’s own” is hard for any struggling writer.

When I think of a writing tool important to Joyce, I think of self-imposed exile; Stephen Dedelus, leaving home, family, Ireland.    Exile represents freedom–from the bosom of the status quo, from one’s accepted identity, from responsibility to, and for, the feelings and well-being of loved ones, freedom even from the background noise and clutter of loved ones.

Exile also represents action, the conscious making of a commitment to one’s work.

I am probably not the best advisor on these points, as I (i) have rarely had a room of my own in my adult life; and (ii) can’t even bear imagining leaving my family.  I do think it is important to keep some form of these tools in mind, however, if you are a struggling writer or artist.

First, re Woolf:   A physical space of your own may not be possible,especially if you live in New York City, or some other high rent district.  Your private “room”, as it were,  may need to be on your laptop, in a notebook, in the simple habit of writing.  Strangely, this interior space may best be initially framed in public. It may be easier to block out the noises and antics of strangers than of loved ones (for example, music in a café may bother you considerably less than the TV in your living room.)

Don’t be picky.   Try making a room out of any quiet moment–a relatively uncrowded subway car, a bench in a museum, a wait for an appointment.

Carry your room with you.   Get a notebook of a size and shape that you like, buy a large number of good pens, and keep them in an easy-to-access spot—your purse or coat pocket rather than backpack.

Once you have your room (your writing habit),  go into it frequently, like a child for whom you’ve just built a fort or teepee.  Take delight in how easily you can enter, then exit, then enter again.   Enjoy the view, looking both in and out.   Don’t bother to wipe your feet.

“Exile” comes in the form of realism.  Know when you are simply not going to be able to work at home, and get your computer or notebook and drag them and yourself somewhere else.  Treat yourself to a cab if your computer is heavy, or, better yet, treat yourself to a lighter computer.  If you just can’t stand to leave home, pay family members to go to a sports bar.  (Hey!  It’s cheaper than moving to Paris.)  Don’t be afraid to be a little openly irritable, if, inside, you are extremely frustrated.

The point is that it’s possible to get micro-versions of Woolf’s room and Joyce’s exile.  And frankly, a micro-version may be all you are truly able to stomach.

Finally–if your “room” or your “exile” is on your laptop, then keep it truly private, truly remote–i.e. write when you are writing, don’t go online.  (Other than to ManicDDaily!)

Blocking Writer’s Block – Part VIII (at least) – Ignore Insignificance

November 7, 2009

One of the side effects of a tragedy like the shooting at Fort Hood is its overshadowing of so many other concerns.  The event is just so sad that it makes much else seem, at least, temporarily, insignificant.  (I say, temporarily, because, attention spans are short in our media-drenched culture.)

Such overshadowing can be especially problematic for a writer or artist suffering from writer/artist’s block.  One feels idiotic to even mention such an issue, but there it is–one more reason why one’s work feels stupid, not worth the trouble.   This is especially true if you are a writer or artist whose work doesn’t deal with these kinds of violent tragic impulses, this extent of sudden loss.

This reaction sounds terribly narcissistic.   But usually the struggling writer/artist feels the national tragedy deeply.  He/she may want to respond in some helpful, articulate, way, but can only come up with platitudes.  Writing well about politics and despair may simply not be one’s cup of tea.  However, in the midst of such events, writing about anything else may feel idiotic.

Don’t be driven into inaction because you feel insignificant.  Go on.  You are who you are.  You do the work you do.

This is not to say that you shouldn’t stretch yourself.  You absolutely should.  (Especially if you’re someone prone to blocks or avoidance.)   But don’t give up on something because you feel that it seems silly, inconsequential.

Think about (i)  Dutch interior paintings (Vermeer); and (ii) still lives (Cezanne, Braque, Picasso).

Think  about (i) Charlotte’s Web, (just about the most brilliant children’s book every written – about a pig, spider, and barn);  (ii) Ulysses (a day, mainly, in the life of humdrum Leopold Bloom, (iii) To the Lighthouse (which has, to my mind, one of the most heartbreaking descriptions of the changes in England wrought by World War I, told mainly by the wind rushing through an abandoned house, (iv) The Importance of Being Earnest, (v)  A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream; (vi) almost any poem by Robert Frost, William Carlos Williams, lots of  Chinese poets, (vii) too many others to name.

Don’t judge yourself so much.  If you are someone that writes about Columbine, or 9/11, or Fort Hood, that’s wonderful–our world needs help understanding these horrible events.    But don’t worry if you do not directly work on these things;  everything you are and know and think about is in the core, or texture, or background of what you do.  So just do it;  it will do.

PS – check out my many other posts re writer’s block, and writing, and writing exercises, by checking those categories.  Also, check out 1 Mississippi by Karin Gustafson at Amazon, or at link from home page.

What Makes Young People (And Some of Us Others) Re-read

October 27, 2009

For those of you who actually follow this blog, and don’t just click on a link that happens to mention Robsten or the Twilight Saga, I’m sorry!  There’s not been much poetry over the last couple of days, but a lot of clicks.

Yes, I like the clicks.  (And, strangely, “Robsten” seems to generate a whole bunch more than, let’s say, “sestina.”)

But I want to explain to you (who may not understand why in the world I write about this stuff) that I truly am interested in a couple of facets of Twilight mania (besides each of Rob’s cheekbones.)

First:  despite all the poetry I’ve posted on this blog, I am mainly a fiction writer, primarily for children and young adults.  As a result, I am fascinated by the question of what makes people read a book again and again.  And I have to say (without mentioning anything about my own experience) that the Twilight mania proves Twilight et al. to be a set of those much re-read books.

It’s a given that books that generate this type of obsessive re-reading are not always particularly “good” books, i.e. well-written.  In fact, many “good” books, that is, really profound, original, heart-wrenching, or poetic books, are not the most dog-eared at the end of the day (or lifetime.)  It’s almost as if such books are too sharp, too bitter, too stinging, to be savored again and again (in the same way that grapefruit is not typically considered a comfort food.)

This is not to say that much re-read books are poorly written!  (Charlotte’s Web and  Harry Potter are much re-read great books.) Only that good writing alone does not make a book a good re-read.  (Nor does a good plot, good jokes, good suspense, even though one or more of these is likely to be present.)

So what does make a book a good re-read?

To me, the distinguishing factor is that the book creates characters with whom readers like to spend time, sometimes, too, a world in which readers like to spend time.

Reading a book is a commitment.  It means hours in which you are not conversing, i-ming, watching TV; hours, in other words, in which you are alone.  Sometimes, in fact, a book is a way to be alone, a path to privacy in a place with hard-to-place boundaries, such as a subway, or, if you are a child, a family dinner.

Because of the inherent solitude of reading, it is important that the main character is good company—fun, cool (but not too cool as to be unempathetic), willing to share confidences.  Being admirable is helpful too, as long as there are also sympathetic and/or humorous failings and idiosyncrasies.  (Sam Vines, Captain Carrot, Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett, even Hercule Poirot in Agatha Christie.)

The world of a much re-read book can, of course, have its dark side.  But it is hard to repeatedly spend time in a world that is overwhelmingly creepy or frightening. (The Road, by Cormac McCarthy, and even Cold Mountain, by Charles Frazier, are obvious examples of wonderful books in which the worlds created, or re-created, are just too horrific to motivate re-reads.  On the children’s shelf, similarly, the later tomes of the wonderful, His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman, that is, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass, also, with the exception of certain scenes, get both too threatening and rarified for a child’s immediately repeated visits.)

Ideally, the created world, even if dark, has a fun, semi-magical side.  (Hogwarts, obviously; the barn in Charlotte‘s Web, Florida, as seen by Carl Hiassen, Discworld, as envisioned by Terry Pratchett.)

Re-reading is a particular practice of the young and the young (or perhaps, immature) at heart who can repeatedly find sustenance in something that’s already well-digested.  (Sort of like baby penguins.)   This may be because the young (and not young, but immature) are themselves subject to (i) so much fluctuation, and (ii) so much beyond their control, that they find special comfort in the predictability of a “known” fiction.   The combination of the familiar with the fantastical may be especially appealing.

Romance makes a great re-read as well.   First love is a story that has been told again and again and again; is it any wonder that some people don’t mind re-reading the exact same version of it?

Which brings me back to Twilight.

Tomorrow or in the near future (if I get time),  I’ll write about the second facet that I find interesting—that is, what makes people re-see a movie, as opposed to re-read a book.

In the meantime, check out 1 Mississippi by Karin Gustafson on Amazon.

No Rest For The Weary – Metered Feet

September 24, 2009

Went to bed at one a.m.  and woke up at five.  (The way in which ten cups of strong tea remain in your system never ceases to surprise me.)

I am not someone who particularly touts the benefits of sleep.  It’s great stuff, but the fact remains that there are only 24 hours in the day, and, when you have a day job, only so many (other) hours can be spent unconscious.  (That’s a joke, boss.)

Nonetheless, I do think that, over time, sleep deprivation can put a serious dent in creativity.  Great swathes of the sleep-deprived brain are spent on questions such as what is your husband’s cell phone number again, and where did you just put your purse, socks, apple, keys, and, most importantly, that fresh cup of tea?   Under those circumstances, it’s hard to make space for new combinations of brain waves.

As a result, I decided today to write about something kind of technical, which is meter in formal poetry.  Ta Da!

Or rather:  taDa taDa taDa TaDa TaDa.

The above, by the way, is my version of iambic pentameter, probably the most common form of meter in traditional English verse.  (I base this statement on the fact that iambic pentameter is the form of virtually all the lines of Shakespeare’s  plays, other than the prose dialogue of his commoner characters such as the Rude Mechanicals in a Midsummer’s Night Dream. )

There are variations.  But before going into these, I want to take a break to thank another blogger, Patrick Gillespie, who writes Poemshape at wordpress  and who kindly wrote about my poetry and blog: http://poemshape.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/another-poet-childrens-writer/.  Gillespie knows a great deal about poetic meter.  And although he inspired me to continue with this subject, I had oddly already started writing about this morning on the subway.

So:

If rhyme gives a kind of music to poetry, meter is what makes it dance.   Ironically, meter is measured in “feet” (sort of like toe-tappings.  Also, like the English system of distance measurement.)  A line which is written in “pentameter” has five feet.

A “foot” of poetry generally varies in length between one and three syllables.   (Two is probably the most common.)

There are various terms for the specific rhythm of a “foot” of a poem. An iambic rhythm is a ta-Da, with the emphasis on the second syllable.  A trochaic rhythm is the opposite of an iamb: Ta-da.  (A better example may be “Dada” as in Marcel Duchamps.)   A spondee is a foot with two syllables of equal stress as in “graveside”.  (Sorry for that one.)   Two types of feet which use one long syllable and two short unstressed ones are dactyls and anapests. (What comes to my mind is “Heidigger”, a dactyl, although a perhaps better, example is “Pattinson”.)

It’s all kind of complicated.  Which is why I tend to write poems using a syllabic count rather than using meter based on “feet.”  (Perhaps I should have told you this before the long explanation.)

Yes, it’s cheating.  And lazy.  But using a syllabic count is quite helpful to a striving poet, particularly when sleep deprived.

When writing formal poetry, I also aim for pentameter, because that length of line seems very natural.  To reach an approximation of pentameter, I try to keep the lines between 9 and ll syllables (though 12 can also sometimes work).

Keep in mind, if you try this technique, that a syllabic count really is not same as a count of feet.  You need to be careful that you are not reading the line in an odd or contrived way in order to get it to sound “right.”

I include below another example of a villanelle.  I chose this one because it describes the aging, sleep-deprived brain, although the meter is not that great and may not qualify as as “pentameter.”  The second repeating line: “as pink as dusk (not dawn), the half-light of the day” is a bit long but just about works because,  arguably, it ends with two “anapests.”

Villanelle to Wandering Brain

Sometimes my mind feels like it’s lost its way
and must make do with words that are in reach
as pink as dusk (not dawn), the half-light of the day,

when what it craves is crimson, noon in May,
the unscathed verb or complex forms of speech.
But sometimes my mind feels like it’s lost its way

and calls the egg a lightbulb, plan a tray,
and no matter how it search or how beseech
is pink as dusk (not dawn), the half-light of the day.

I try to make a joke of my decay
or say that busy-ness acts as the leech
that makes my mind feel like it’s lost its way,

but whole years seem as spent as last month’s pay,
lost in unmet dares to eat a peach
as pink as dusk (not dawn), the half-light of the day.

There is so much I think I still should say,
so press poor words like linens to heart’s breach,
but find my mind has somehow lost its way
as pink as dusk (not dawn), the half-light of the day.

(All rights reserved, Karin Gustafson)

Do check out1 Mississippi, my children’s counting book, Going on Somewhere, my book of poetry, and Nose Dive,  comic novel.

Also, I am linking this to The Purple Treehouse today, where C.C. Champagne is talking about syllables in poetry.

Sticking To Villanelles (For Today) – How To Write Them

September 8, 2009

A lot of things seem to be a bit stuck right now (at least to me) or moving in molasses motion, i.e. health care reform, opposition to Obama’s verbal waylaying of U.S. school children (ridiculous!), even the ever reliable Derek Jeter.   People running in the Democratic primary in New York are calling me every other minute, and I can’t rouse the energy to even listen to their messages.  (Not even the one from Ed Koch!)

Yesterday, I promised to continue to blog about villanelles, but frankly, this stuckness made the prospect about such an arcane, “out-of-the-loop” subject seem trivial.   Surely, I thought, there had to be something more exciting I could come up with.

Then, I walked home past Ground Zero—I live in downtown Manhattan—through all the barricades that are already set up in preparation for Friday, stepping between the policemen, already manning those barricades, past the cranes and lights and dirt pit, and, suddenly, blogging about something as possibly boring as how to write a villanelle really didn’t seem so terrible to me.

I also believe in keeping promises.

So:

How to Write a Villanelle:

The most important tip I can give to anyone writing any formal verse is to feel free to cheat.  For example, if rhyme is required, don’t worry about not being able to come up with perfect ones.  Use “almost rhymes” or “slant rhymes”  (that is, “not quite rhymes”).  Besides giving you more words to choose from, this will keep the poem from being so sing-songy.

If repeated lines are called for, as in the case of the villanelle, don’t worry if you have to vary them a bit, that is, if your repeating lines don’t in fact exactly repeat.   Remember that meaning always trumps form.

It’s helpful to think of the form as a kind of a map, a means to music.  It’s useful to have all the streets laid out, but occasionally, when you want your poem to actually reach a destination, you have to cut through some back yards.

The only place where I think cheating can truly backfire is with rhythm.  Your lines don’t have to scan exactly, but if they are really off, the poem just won’t sound well.  Respecting rhythm does not mean that you have to be stick to iambic pentameter, but some attention to line length, numbers of feet or syllables, should be paid.

All that said, you can’t cheat till you know the rules.  Here are the basics:

A villanelle is a seven stanza poem, that works with rhyme, meter and repeated lines.  There are two lines that repeat through the poem;  they also rhyme with each other.  For notation purposes, I call the first repeated line “A1” (like the steak sauce) and the second repeated line “A2” (not to be confused with the Pakistani mountain).   (Under rules of poetic notation, these are both referred to as “A” lines because they rhyme with each other, the “A” rhyme.)

Other lines which rhyme with A1 and A2, but which are not the repeated lines, are denoted below as just plain “A”.

The remaining lines of the poem, which do not rhyme with the A lines, but which rhyme with each other, are denoted as “B”.

Here’s the basic form:

A1
B
A2

A
B
A1

A
B
A2

A
B
A1

A
B
A2

A
B
A1
A2

An “easy” way to remember the form is that the all the stanzas. except the last one, have three lines.  The first one begins with your A1 line and ends with your A2 line;  the next four stanzas are in a kind of order with the first ending with A1, the second A2, the next A1, the next A2 again.  (It’s sort of like shampooing your hair—”wash, rinse, repeat.”)  The B lines intersect each stanza (sort of like a basting stitch.)

The last stanza has four lines, ending with a couplet made up of A1 and A2.

It sounds a lot more complicated than it is.  As mentioned in yesterday’s blog re Villanelles and Banana Pudding, the great thing about writing a Villanelle is that you really don’t need to come up with all that many lines.  You do need to think through your repeating lines though—to make sure that they are flexible, and also that they work as a couplet.

Ideally, you also want the meaning of the repeated lines to shift as the poem progresses, and not to simply repeat in a rote manner.  You do not want the repetition to feel formulaic, but somehow illuminating.

Punctuation can help here—it can be useful, for example, for the repeated lines to sometimes feed directly into the following line or stanza and not to always end with the pause of period or comma.

And of course,  cheating can be invaluable.  Shifting the words slightly, for example, so that the lines sound almost the same, but are a teensy bit different, can help your poem actually mean something.

If this is your first villanelle, pick relatively easy rhymes.  I also find it useful to list on a separate page, all the A rhymes and B rhymes that I can think of before I move on too far with poem.  I make the list in a completely dumb way, writing down every single rhyme or near rhyme I can come up with, without regard to the poem’s subject, simply to accumulate choices.  This sounds very “unheartfelt”, but such lists can really open up your thinking, helping you to come up with much more creative and meaningful combinations than you otherwise would.

Which brings up a final point.  Yes, the form is constraining, but the constraints force you out of your typical ruts.  To write a villanelle (or any formal poem), you have to work with something other than your normal brain patterns.   This seems, to me at least (Manic-D-Daily)  invaluable.)

Here’s another one of mine:

Burned Soldier (A Mask For Face)

He tried to smile but found that skin would balk;
a mask for face was not what he had planned.
Right action should give rise to right result,

saving the day as it called on God to halt
all burn and bite of bomb as if by wand;
he tried to smile but found that skin would balk.

When they talked of graft, he always thought of molt,
as if his flesh held feathers that could span
right action, then give rise to right result—

cheeks that were smooth but rough, but loose but taut—
it all had been so easy as a man.
He tried to smile but found that skin would balk.

Hate helped at times; to think it was their fault.
But how could “they” be numbered? Like grains of sand,
like actions that give rise to like result,

like eyes that fit in lids not white as salt.
This lead white face was not what he had planned.
He tried to smile but found that skin would balk;
right action should give rise to right result.

(All rights reserved, Karin Gustafson)

Ten Reasons Not To Blog

September 6, 2009

Six weeks ago when I first started “ManicDDaily”, I wrote (as my third post) “Five Good Reasons To Blog.”

I still admit to neophyte status as a blogger.  (I have yet to fully investigate the varieties of graphics and the word “widgets” just brings up strange math word problems.)

Even so, I now have enough experience under my belt to understand a bunch of good reasons not to blog.   I list ten of these below:

1.  If the word “daily” is in your title, your blog will cloud your brain for a significant portion of every single day.  On a very lucky day, it’s the cloud of a brain storm.  On a frustrating day, it’s just a plain old storm cloud (without the brain part), in which you thunder at anyone (a child or husband) who threatens to disturb your computer time.  On a normal day, it’s more like a heavy fog, thick and unnavigable.

2.   The blog (which comes with “Stats” as to the number of views per day) provides a whole new way in which you can feel rejected.  A bad day can go right on the failed marriage, questionable career, dwindling stock portfolio heap.  It can bring to mind, with really uncanny vividness, particular manuscript rejection letters,  poetry contests lost, that boyfriend in law school who (unbeknownst to you) had a real girlfriend, and even all those 4th of July swimming pool beauty contests that your mom made you enter from age 6-10 despite your increasingly poor track record.

3.  A good day (lots of views) brings a certain zing to the old step, but it also raises the question of whether the credit is truly owed to Robert Pattinson.  (See e.g. numerous posts on same.)

4.  You suddenly notice that you never have any time to do your “real writing”.

5.  And what happened to all those cute little paintings you used to make?

6.  Your family would really really like you to make dinner before 10, at least 11.

7.  Your boss would really really like you to get in before 10, at least 11.

8.  Your body would really like you to have a bit more energy for the gym.  (The stationary bike was not actually meant to be a notebook and pen bike.)

9.  Your personal yoga practice could really use a bit more focus.  Breaking off mid-pose, repeatedly, to check on early morning “Stats” rarely leads to Nirvana.  (See e.g. Reason No. 2 – a whole new way to feel rejected.)

10.  Your dog would really really like your laptop, charger, electrical cord, and notebook, to stop hogging the bed.

    Poor dog.

    Write you tomorrow.

    Cow-ardice

    August 29, 2009

    Can’t help it. I’m afraid of them.

    Not one on it’s own perhaps.

    But in the U.S. there is hardly ever just one cow out on its own.

    There’s usually a crowd.

    Okay, I’m even fine with a crowd, if it’s behind a fence. But I’m not so happy if it’s me with a crowd not behind a fence (that is, on the same side.)

    Yes, I know all about the archetype of the gentle cow. The patient, dull, cud-chewing cow. The sweet-breathed cow. (Though this last has always been a bit hard to swallow.)

    I’m even familiar with “la vache qui rit,” the laughing cow, red and smiley, staring knowingly from a wedge of processed cheese.

    But when I’m in a field with a bunch of them what comes immediately to mind is the less classic archetype of the “BIG cow.”

    And, “is any of them a bull?”

    And, “why are they staring at me?” (Their eyes like another set of their huge black nostrils only disconcertingly, gleemingly, intent.)

    I can’t help but feel that if several ran at me at once, at least some of them would be a whole lot faster than they look.

    I imagine the run of cows to take the form of an avalanche. One starts a determined scamper, sort of like the first pebble or snow ball, and then suddenly, they’ve all taken off.

    After me.

    I squint now. Is that huge one in front a bull or not?

    (I should point out that the cows in the fields near me are beef cattle rather than dairy. This somehow makes them feel inherently more aggressive, i.e. even the nursing mothers aren’t swayed by udders.)

    I run into the cows this morning (up in upstate New York) as I cross over from a deeply forested stream bed to the next field where I hope to ascend to some open air.

    The stream bed is beautiful, but, with all this rain, it is more peaty, musky, rotten-loggy and slippery than ever. Teeny fluorescent orange and yellow mushrooms sprout from the dark forest floor like wild flowers; interspersed are paler, bigger, knobbier ones.

    I felt extremely enterprising before leaving for the walk. As a result, I carry a small thermos of tea in one rain coat pocket, a small cup in the other.

    If one of my daughters were with me, we would probably be “herping” (engaging in herpetology), which means turning over damp rocks to search for salamanders. (There are tons, it turns out.)

    On my own, I am merely searching for a nice open, not too damp, spot, for a nice spot of tea. A cuppa with a view. I even have my notebook in tow. (Stuffed into the waistband of my trousers.)

    But, as I climb up to the field, there they are. Too many too count, especially since I instantly shrink back from their sight. Huge. Brown. Knobby kneed. All seemingly staring at me. Especially that imposing one in the front, whose underside is not completely clear to me.

    Needless to say, I back down the dark bank to the stream bed.

    And am now sitting on a regular bed, in a comfortable, if slightly musty house (it really has rained all summer), thermos open to my side.

    The only hint of cow, the milk in my still-steaming tea.

    If you prefer elephants to cows, check out 1 Mississippi (Karin Gustafson), link above or on amazon.

    Thinking About Kennedys

    August 26, 2009

    Thinking about the Kennedys today after watching videos on the news.   Very glad for Teddy’s relatively long life, his long service, and too, well, the simple fact that he died a natural death.

    He was not electric like his  political brothers (which may be part of why he lived so long).  But he also was exposed to a kind of public scrutiny that they never had to face.  Plus he had to deal with the simple difficulties of extended life.  Who knows how the reputations of John and Bobby would have fared had they lived longer?

    Even a eulogist would admit that Teddy was far from perfect.  But you have to admire people who just hunker down, and who,  despite disappointment, tragedy and disgrace, just try to do their part.

    Obviously, people tend to romanticize the Kennedy’s hugely.  We have such a cult of celebrity in this country;  they fit the bill very nicely, what with the looks, the memorable speech patterns, the sheer number and variety of the family members, the equally large numbers of tragedies, the money, the religion, and too, the very human vices.    And finally, they illustrated (for lack of a better word) a kind of archetypal nobility, a kind of Robin Hood quality.  Which came from the fact that they were rich people who worked for causes associated with the poor.   (It is hard to find the Bushes noble in the same way.  They seem, at least to me, to be a rich political family who works for the rich.)

    Then too, there is the fact that the deaths of Bob and Robert were simply so shocking.  This was because of their youth;  maybe too because of the relative youth of our media culture.  We were less bombarded then.  The deaths hit us so hard.

    Anyone old enough to remember the deaths at all remembers them exactly.  They know  where they were when they heard the news of John’s assassination; and then, five years later, the hours and hours they waited for Bobby to die. These were “Pearl Harbor” moments, airstrikes to the collective consciousness.

    JFK’s death was different for me than Bobby’s, of course;  in part because he was President, in part because he was the first, in part because it was 1963 and not 1968.  Bobby’s death came right on the heels of Martin Luther King’s death, and of course, in the middle of the Vietnam War.   But Bobby’s death was so sad.  Less aloof than JFK, he seemed so vulnerable, so warm.

    I do not bring up the deaths of Bobby and JFK to in any way diminish Teddy.    It’s simply hard to hear of his death without thinking of theirs.  He was so very dignified through these times.

    It all this reminded me of a piece I wrote several years ago, an excerpt from a novel called Nice that starts with RFK’s death.   I include it below:

    And then Bobby Kennedy was shot.  Kate had stayed up late, and her mom most of the night, watching the t.v. people try to decide whether he’d have brain damage.

    Her mom kept moaning, “oh why didn’t they watch him, they should have watched him.”  Then she’d whisper too, “what in the world is happening to this country?”

    That was the dark pool everyone stared into.  Most seemed afraid to actually say the words, but some came straight out with it.  “I just can’t understand what’s happening to this country,” one black woman cried from the screen.  “Jack, Martin, and now Bobby.”

    They had the t.v. on the next day at school too, while Bobby was being operated on.  The teachers opened up the sliding wall between the two sixth grades so they could all see.  The wall was a soft zig-zaggy thing that folded up like a blubbery fan.  The teachers had said at the beginning of the year they’d open it all the time for special activities but they never had before this.

    There was nothing much new on.  The announcers mainly just paused, their faces masks of seriousness.  Then said the same old stuff again in voices too tired for the normal attack dog edge.

    Still, it felt important to Kate that they keep watching.  If they all watched, the whole grade, the whole school, the whole country, it felt like they could somehow keep Bobby alive.  And if he lived long enough, they might even be able to force some miracle. If they just all tried.

    But the other kids were being so stupid about it, so dumb.  A bunch of boys played desk football, flicking a wadded-up triangle of paper back and forth.   A knot of girls had their heads down on their desks, passing notes under cover of folded arm.

    “I’m tired of this,” Bruce Beebee said, as his wad of paper flipped onto the floor.  “Can’t we just watch some cartoons?”

    Miss Carlson came over and whispered to him.

    “Oh man,” he said, turning his head away.  “I never liked the guy anyway.”

    The boys tittered.   The girls picked up their heads to get a better view.  Miss Carlson, a tall woman, bent over further so that her large face, squeezed into a tight fist, almost pressed into his.  She took his arm too, hard, whispered harder.

    Kate sat up straight so she could be seen to be watching the t.v., fearful that the teachers would get fed up, just turn it off.

    Some guy talked about the Secret Service.  Armed gunmen, line of fire.  Paid bodyguards and working the crowds.  Bruce stopped pulling from Miss Carlson, suddenly attentive.  The other boys turned up their heads too.  Safe for a little while, Kate lay her head down on her desk, facing a bulletin board.  She’d heard all this stuff the night before.  Maybe even twice.

    Miss Carlson had hung their reports about the Old West up there.  California.  Kate’s cover was made of red paper, filled by a setting sun.  The red looked purplish in the dark, the sun like a big eye.

    The thing was that Bobby seemed like a real person. Of course, Martin Luther King was a person too, and JFK.  But Bobby seemed somehow different, like a big boy, like one of his own kids.  Every once in a while, they showed pictures of them playing football, real football, blurs of teeth, hair, sweater.

    Though what they mainly showed was the other picture, his arms outstretched, his head cradled in blood, his eyes staring upwards as if watching a flight of the spirit.

    The room seemed suddenly darker, the splinters of light at the sides of the drawn shades softening to blurred bolts of shadow.   Though it was hard to see much beyond the dark shapes of things, she could sense Miss Carlson just to her side, her reddish cheeks covered with tears.  Mrs. Brown too.  Mrs. Brown with the round teased hair and pink skirt suits, who you could just tell was a Republican.

    Dear God, she suddenly prayed.  Let them come out now, let them say that he’s okay.

    Let him be President too, okay—just let him have it.

    Who even cares about president?  Just let him be okay.

    When the newsman said he had died, the teachers turned off the t.v.   It was already time to go home.

    The room was too bright, even though a few shades were still drawn, everything looked cheap, rundown, plastic.  Kids banged their chairs onto their desks, grabbing each other.  Buses were called over the loudspeaker.

    She wanted to cry.  She wanted to walk arm in arm with someone and cry.  That’s what the big kids had done when JFK had been shot.   They’d been taken out to the playground.  She’d only been in first grade back then and couldn’t really cry, had simply walked around watching them.

    But crying wasn’t what people were doing now, not the kids anyway.  They were talking and fighting and pushing each other; they were just getting out of there, the sense of shock left to the sides of the dim broad halls where the teachers stood, grim monitors of the crowd.

    All rights reserved (Karin Gustafson)

    Niceness – Writing – “Oh Plunge Your Hands In Water”

    August 19, 2009

    I was thinking today about women from my generation–I don’t quite want to confess what generation that is, let’s just say that we are just old enough to actually remember when President Kennedy was shot–and the internal pressure many of us feel to be “nice.”

    We are sometimes accused these days of being overly nice, or artificial or precious in our niceness, or just plain mamby-pamby.   This really is maddening.  Some of us are still too well-trained to get openly mad about these  unfair characterizations, but they are still upsetting.

    This piece  deals with that issue indirectly.   It was actually a writing exercise, written with my writing buddy, in a ten or fifteen minute session based on the phrase “Plunge Your Hands in Water” from the poem “As I Walked Out One Evening,” By W.H. Auden.

    (The Auden poem is simply wonderful.    Here’s a link to an online copy:  http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/as-i-walked-out-one-evening-3/.)

    The piece has been slightly edited since the original exercise, but it really still is an exercise.   (Sorry.)

    (Final point re my Blocking Writer’s Block series – a line from a poem can be a great starting point for a writing exercise.   While your exercise may be quite different from the poem, your work will may still get some depth from such an elevated jumping off point.)

    “Plunge Your Hands in Water”   – W.H. Auden

    At my elementary school cafeteria, the tiles were blue green grey and the trash cans were an amalgam of ketchup and fishstick skins and small red milk cartons usually half full.  The women were large and wore white stiff dresses like nurses.  They served the food in surgically cut portions on brown cafeteria trays, which were topped with mauve or yellow plates, the colors of everything an illustration of the word “faded.”  Their big rounded hair curved around their heads like the double breast that curved from their fronts, the hips from their sides.  It was good food–we all knew that–good meaning solid.  No one used the word nutrition much back then; what we knew was meat and starch, ketchup and pickle.

    We sat at long tables, whose benches folded out;  the tables were cleaned with vinegar water and the whole placed smelled of the Golgotha Christ, his side or head or thirst, a reminder that we were all there, undeservedly, to be saved.

    We were supposed to sit still but I dreamt that everyone ran from gorillas who chased us from spot to spot–through the lunch line, inbetween the line and the tables, then from the tables to the garbage cans.  They were big furry gorillas who ran on two legs, their forearms outstretched as they chased, while we ran, ran to do what we were supposed to do, and then sat where we were supposed to.

    It was an old-fashioned school;  ice cream did not appear for some years.  When it did, all hell broke loose.  No one would eat anything else and Scott entertained us all with taking the chocolate coating from his ice cream bar and spreading ketchup and mustard on the vanilla ice cream, then re-anointing it with its chocolate sheathe.  The girls squealed in horror, the boys howled and scowled, as he took a big smiling bite, the ketchup/mustard smearing his lips with variegated orange like a fire-eater’s.   The girls pretended to bend over in nausea, and Scott looked like he felt incredibly cool for a time, though he was a troubled boy, a sad boy, a boy on whom I felt somehow that belts had been used, and who, in first grade, sometimes peed in the little classroom bathroom with the door open.   I felt it my duty to always smile at him, and he, in turn, sent me a letter covered in huge slanted writing I LOVE YOU.

    I felt sadder than ever for Scott watching him eat that ice cream, thinking of his open-doored pee, and kept my head down, only looking up with the corners of my eyes, and even then trying to focus on the gorillas, the chase, and the fact that if I sat exactly where I was supposed to, they wouldn’t be able to get me, and maybe not anyone, no matter how they circled.