Monthly Archives: February 2010

too old to forget, too young to remember

As a short-timer, I am out of control with my teaching.  Next week I am teaching my students a Stephen King story (Shawshank Redemption), and this week I showed them a movie based on a graphic novel (Persepolis).  Before you know it, I will be giving them nap time and candy.  Anyway, Persepolis is a lovely movie, a powerful memoir told in a striking visual style.  There was  one aspect of Marjane Satrapi’s experience I related to, and that is being moved across the world as a teenager.  It is a very particular immigrant experience.  An adult who immigrates, as happy as she may become in her new country, will always be a person formed in her native land, and her interpretive filters will always be those of her first culture.  A child who immigrates, as a person still unformed, will adapt to her new home so fast and so fluidly that she will essentially adopt a new country and come to identify with it primarily.  An adolescent, as an in-between person already partially formed by her native culture but still in flux, will be caught in a peculiar bind.  She is too old to forget and too young to remember.  She is started in one place and finished in another, like a book that abruptly switches languages halfway in.  She will be one culture overlaid over an other like a palimpsest.  She will be no one from nowhere, everyone from everywhere.

It’s a strange combination of insider and outsider.  When I moved to the United States at 13 I wasn’t unfamiliar with being an outsider: a hypersensitive brainy kid is almost never popular.  Still, my transplant across the world was a whole new level of alienation–as a highly verbal person I suddenly found myself unable to express my thoughts to the people around me.  It was like being in linguistic prison.  The speed with which I learned English was a survival mechanism: I had to acquire language or fall apart.  There was a delay between my understanding English and my speaking it, however.  For some reason, I did not wish to speak English until I could do so well.

(It’s funny what people will say in front of you when they’re not aware that you understand them.  I related to that aspect of Chief Bromden’s character in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.)

I didn’t get to go back to France until I was in college, when I enrolled in the Overseas Studies program in Paris.  The experience was intensely emotional.  I remember walking around my old neighborhood the day after I landed with my hand over my mouth to keep from bursting into tears.  It seemed miraculous and unfathomable that the place still existed, what’s more almost entirely unchanged.  But it was not a homecoming.  I was, by then, too American.  I knew it even when I was affectionately told by my former neighbor, “don’t be silly, you are French.”  I was twenty years old but it was already too late.  I would always be as foreign to my native land as I was to my adopted one.

While there, I went out a couple of times with a graduate student in literature named Jean-François (he had books about Satan all over his apartment because he was writing his dissertation about representations of the devil).  He told me that I was not at all what he expected of an American, and I laughed.  I think this must have been why he was attracted to me: I was foreign but not really.  I was both home and away.  I was somehow exotic yet safe.  This is what I am: a liminal person.  Both in French and in English I speak with a tiny accent that no one can identify.  Je suis l’Un et l’Autre.

I will always carry in my heart the bewildered pain of a 13 year old girl suddenly torn away from everything she has ever known.  But this uprooting has made me into a more resilient plant that can survive in various climates, different types of soil.  What is more beneficial to the growth of a writer than silent observation of people who do not know they are being understood?

One thing is certain: a teenage immigrant can never, never go home again–but she can sharpen her gaze into the finest of scalpels.

Fuck the market, and other gems of wisdom.

Somewhere in the human brain there is a list-making gland.  Something about making lists is primally satisfying.  Like yawning, it is socially contagious.  I cannot read these lists of writing tips from authors without constructing one of my own, just like I cannot watch this cartoon without needing to eat fistfuls of fluffy, salty popcorn.

1. Do not use a big word when a smaller one will do.

2. But, sometimes, a smaller one will not do.  Do not artificially minimize your vocabulary in a mistaken bid to be more “real.”

3. Do not strive to write dialogue “the way people actually talk.”  Dialogue, like narrative, is carefully composed and stylized for a definite purpose.  If you don’t believe me, transcribe the next conversation you hear word for word.

4. Do not be overly alarmed if you are so embarrassed reading a first draft that you wish to be obliterated from existence.  This feeling is normal, and will fuel your subsequent drafts.

5. Write your story the best way you know how.  If it still sucks after all your effort, do not despair.  You will write this story again later, maybe years later, and it will suck a bit less.

6. What kind of arbitrary nitpicky bullshit is “don’t write prologues” and “don’t use the word ‘suddenly'”?  Seriously, if the story demands a prologue or the word ‘suddenly,’ tell that kind of advice to go fuck itself.

7. I do agree that writing accented or dialect dialogue phonetically is pretty annoying, and very seldom necessary.

8. Resist the impulse to show anyone your work for as long as possible.  If you can stand it, do not show a novel to anyone until it is done.

9. Don’t forget that characters have bodies and bodies make demands.  Overly cerebral writing will not connect with a reader.

10. Do not “know the market.”  Fuck the market until the story has been written.  Only when you start submitting it should you consider the market–you do, after all, have to make a pitch.  Then try to emphasize what in the story might interest the market, but do not violate the miraculous act of creation with concerns about The Market.

Okay, now I really have to go and make some popcorn.

Sophomore novel angst!

For the record, I’d like to state that Rogert Ebert is an awesome human being, and a great writer.  I still miss him on TV with Siskel (it wasn’t the same with Roeper!).  They had such a fabulous bickering rapport.  Here’s an outtake video of them riffing off each other:

I love the way they seamlessly slide into the announcement at the end.

Today I am going to comment on the subtitle of my blog, which is Sophomore Novel Angst.  This is a new feeling that has manifested with increasing urgency over the past few months.  I have, as a dutiful writer, always been angsty about my work (it’s in the Tortured Artist Handbook, or How to Get Laid if You’re Not Good-Looking*), mostly fretting about it being not good enough.  In past years I have always talked myself down from the ledge by telling myself, “so what if it sucks?  Who gives a shit!  It’s not like it’s going to get published.”  It was a nice double whammy, simultaneously reducing my anxiety level and turning my inability to get published into a comfort.

Now, I am obviously in a different position–a lucky and privileged one, but also one with higher stakes.  As I am struggling to find a strong narrative voice for my next novel, my brain hums with a new brand of crippling terror: “oh shit, what if I can’t do this again?  What if this book completely sucks and my editor turns it down?  Or worse, my agent won’t even consider it good enough to go out on the market?  FUCK!”

There is no seeming end to this sort of self-defeating freakout.  It makes me yearn for a security blanket, a stick to bite down on, a heavy narcotic.  I call this unfortunate condition sophomore novel angst, and it courses through my entire blood stream like an ever-duplicating virus.  I have yet to find an effective coping mechanism; hopefully I will happen upon one before my brain implodes from its self-inflicted pressure.  Hopefully, it will not involve Heminwayesque amounts of alcohol.

* I read some study once that claimed creative people have more sexual partners than the average person.  This may mean that being creative is attractive.  This may also mean that creative people are such a pain in the ass to live with that partners don’t generally stick around for long, and thus angsty artists have to find more bed pets.

Here is the cover!

“So are you saying that we’re all just, like, really excellent sheep?”

This fantastic article truly has its finger on the pulse of the American University.  I feel like I can do little more than froth in ecstatic agreement!  Nevertheless I will try to formulate some kind of response.  I’ll start here:

Throughout much of the 20th century, with the growth of the humanistic ideal in American colleges, students might have encountered the big questions in the classrooms of professors possessed of a strong sense of pedagogic mission. Teachers like that still exist in this country, but the increasingly dire exigencies of academic professionalization have made them all but extinct at elite universities. Professors at top research institutions are valued exclusively for the quality of their scholarly work; time spent on teaching is time lost.

Yes, it’s true.  Time spent on teaching is viewed as time lost, and that’s a shame.  The emphasis is on producing criticism by the ream, which pushes passionate teachers straight out of the academic rat race.  This pains me, because I believe that teaching is the main social function of a humanities professor. I wanted to be a professor to teach college kids to grow up not to be suckers for the advertising industry, but having to spout bullshit to put myself in a position where I could tell kids how not to listen to bullshit ultimately imploded the endeavor.  I always doubted by ability to see myself through the end of a PhD; there was always part of me waiting for academia to shit me back out.  I hung on because I felt I had to; ultimately I let go for the luckiest reason imaginable: I no longer had to.  I’ve been handed the opportunity to write what I always wanted.

I will miss teaching literature at the university.  I might still get a lectureship or an adjunct position one day, perhaps–but in a market saturated with PhDs who can’t get tenure-track positions, I’m not sure that I can.  It is a little giggle-worthy that I am not qualified to teach literature just because I write the stuff.  I’d have to be writing about the stuff.  In my chats with people about my decision to drop out, I’ve heard the opinion that it’s a shame academia doesn’t make room for artists.  It shouldn’t have to: it hardly has room for itself.  It is hemorrhaging qualified PhDs who cannot find a cell within its shrinking honeycomb.

Besides, there already is a place for artists in the academy; most English departments hire a few novelists and poets to teach creative writing classes.  Once my novel comes out, I could conceivably wiggle my way into one of these positions.  Yet the prospect of teaching people to write stories does not fill me with the same sense of urgency as teaching people to read them.  These stakes feel lower, plus making art feels less teachable to me than interpretive and critical thinking skills.

Another aspect of Deresiewicz’s article that resonated with me was his analysis of conformity at top-flight institutions, that to get into one of these places you have to be exceedingly compliant with The Machine and that once you come out the other side you have been equipped to be a fine little machinist indeed.  Having been at both a big-name private school and a mid-list state university, I am sometimes asked if the kids at Stanford are really that much smarter than the kids at UC Davis.  No, they are not; they are not gifted with some ineffable wisdom that cannot be accessed by the Great Unwashed Masses.  They are earnest strivers, usually from privileged backgrounds, who are especially good at doing exactly what they are told, that is all.  That has both its advantages and its drawbacks.  The main advantage being that they are well-tuned devices who know exactly how to channel their considerable gifts into getting the most positive feedback from society at large.  The main drawback being that they are well-tuned devices who know exactly how to channel their considerable gifts into getting the most positive feedback from society at large.  But Deresiewicz says it much better.