Thursday, 9 July 2009

Five . . . sorry, six . . . things to do when you have writers block and one thing not to do

 

writers-block3 This does not pretend to be a comprehensive list. It's just I remember what having a block used to be like – I'd wander round like some kind of wee lost soul for weeks – and you don't get the time back. A minute wasted is a minute lost. I turned fifty a few weeks ago and I'm starting to do my sums because that's me about two-thirds done bearing in mind that neither of my parents made it to seventy-five and it depresses the hell out of me how much of that two-thirds I frittered away on daft stuff like bemoaning my lot in life.

Also by the age of fifty one would hope that I've gained a bit of wisdom or if not wisdom exactly then at least experience. So here goes.

Things to do


1. Read

Every writer will agree that reading is vitally important. And personally I never have enough time to read. I stopped having a to-read pile a long time ago. I have a to-read shelf. Which is nice. Especially when I discover a book I'd forgotten I'd bought or been given. Reading is a great stimulus. Especially if it's good writing. I started a new book last night and the use of language is simply lovely. It's nicely understated, almost childlike. My first thought was: "Now, how could I use a voice like that?"

See: What Did You Read Today? 7 Reasons Writers Should Read Every Day


2. Revise

There is more to writing than first drafts. Personally I could spend all day polishing away. It's not that I hate first drafts, it's just they can be so hard. I'm talking prose here. The bottom line is that I'm a poet first and foremost. I rarely have problems with my poetry. But my point is, there is always something you can work on that progresses your writing.

See: Revise, Revise, Revise


3. Submit

And, if you're done with all the revising then send the ruddy stuff out. It's doing no good sitting in your drawer or folder or on your hard drive. This is an area I'm particularly bad at. Sure I save links to interesting sites – I have a folder on my desktop full of them – but I find the submission process . . . well, tedious is probably the best word for it, a chore.

See: Where Do I Send This Stuff? Notes on the Submission Process


4. Exercise

How many hours have you been sat in that chair today? Or in a succession of chairs and seats? Yes, the writing life is a sedentary one but it's not an especially healthy one either. And I'm not talking about taking a break to give your eyes a rest, maybe making a coffee and fixing a snack. I'm talking about closing down your machine, sticking on a pair of shoes and going for a walk or something more strenuous if you're up for it. I'm terrible about not exercising. I don't really have an excuse. Okay I'm fatigued to start off with. But my arms and legs still work and twenty minutes of fresh air isn't going to kill me.

See: What’s Wrong with a Sedentary Lifestyle?


5. Catch up on other things

Ironing Writing can take over your life. You stop hoovering, washing dishes, changing clothes, bathing. You sleep and work and maybe grab a bite to eat in the cracks. Writing should carry a government health warning.

Even if you're not quite at that stage there will still be the odd jobs you keep meaning to get round to and never do. I need to rearrange the shelves in my office since I swapped chairs. I have a nice, big, green, leather armchair in there now. It's lovely but it obscures part of my bookcase so I need to put the books I rarely look at it the bottom shelves so I can access the current stuff with greater ease. And I've been meaning to do that for weeks now.

And once all your chores are up to date then find a new project to occupy your mind. Distraction is the name of the game here, pure and simple. And not just for an hour or two. I need to learn how to use the camera my wife bought me for my birthday which is still sitting on the unit in the living room where I put it so that I could admire it.

See: How to Simplify Your Life


Thing not to do


You might think that this is easier said than done. It can be. If you make it. The thing about worry is that it isn't the slightest bit helpful. The question is: what is worry?

Worry is a special form of fear. It is what humans do with simple fear once it reaches the part of the brain called the cerebral cortex. We make fear complex adding anticipation, memory, imagination and emotion. – Edward Hallowell M.D., 'Why Worry?' – Psychology Today, (Nov. 1997)

Worry stems from vulnerability and powerlessness. When we worry we wrestle with larger monsters than we have to face in real life. And so when the time comes in the real world to tackle those monsters we're already in a weakened state through fighting with what we imagine those monsters will be. We will likely have lost sleep. We might have been skipping meals. It is unlikely that we will have done anything constructive while worrying that we could make use of when the real battle comes. Worrying is never useful. It handicaps and diminishes us.

Worry I speak from experience because the anxiety I suffer from constantly is really just worry that has got out of control. I wasn't always this bad and my anxiety is only one of my symptoms but I have always worried. The thing about worry is that it is never constructive. Things will play out whatever way they play out whether you worry about them or not.

Worry comes close to superstition: If I don't worry then such-and-such will/won't happen. Remember when you were a kid and you were worried about something and you'd set yourself some arbitrary task to complete: If I do such-and-such then the bad thing won't happen.

A lot of time worry comes out of ignorance. If you've never had writer's block before then the first time can be a bitch: What if I never write again? Then you never write again. You can be unhappy about that. That would be acceptable and expected behaviour. It still wouldn't solve the problem but unhappiness is a reaction to knowing there is no solution. Worry is not.

I had a bad bout of writer's block in the nineties. It lasted three years and I honestly thought I was done. I'd moved on. But it came back and with a vengeance too. All I had to do was relax. It's like trying to force your way out of a Chinese finger puzzle. It's not going to happen. And worrying about being stuck is counterproductive too.

I'm blocked right now. As far as my novel goes. I'm not worried about it. I'm writing poetry without any problem and even a few stories but I cannot connect the two parts of my novel together, not in my head and not on the page. Having four novels behind me and knowing I had much the same problem with the third one I really am not overly concerned about what's going to happen next. If I never wrote another thing I can sit back and be happy with the body of work that I've produced but there's still life in the old dog yet.

See How to Stop Worrying: Self Help Strategies for Anxiety Relief

The other thing is to tough it out. Joyce Carol Oates has been writing for as long as I've been alive (her first story was published in the August 1959 issue of Mademoiselle) and is probably the world's most prolific writer. And yet she still gets writer's block.

I have forced myself to begin writing when I've been utterly exhausted, when I've felt my soul as thin as a playing card, when nothing has seemed worth enduring for another five minutes . . . and somehow the activity of writing changes everything. Or appears to do so. – 'Joyce Carol Oates' in The Paris Review, Issue 74, Fall-Winter 1978

If you have nothing to write about then write about nothing.

Let me give you an example of her get-on-with it attitude. Last year her husband of forty-seven years died. What did she do? Seven months later she was remarried and getting on with things. And coming out with a collection of fresh work entitled Dear Husband. She's a writer. How else was she going to deal with his death?

I suppose that could have been a sixth point:

6. Write something else.

If you can't write what you're trying to write then write what needs to be written. Let the writing point you in the right direction and stop forcing yourself to work on what you think you should be working on. If your husband of forty-seven years dies then capitalise on the fact. Write a book about it. (I, of course, don't mean 'capitalise' in the financial sense.)

One last point:

The philosopher Ian Hacking has written about the problem of “dynamic nominalism,” meaning that once you invent a category—as, for example, the category of “homosexual” seems to have been invented in the late nineteenth century—people will sort themselves into it, behave according to the description, and thus contrive new ways of being. Possibly, some writers become blocked simply because the concept exists, and invoking it is easier for them than writing. Some may also find it a more interesting complaint to bring to a psychoanalyst than garden-variety inertia.Joan Acocella, 'Blocked', The New Yorker, June 14th, 2004

Now, let's not get into a debate over homosexuality here, but he does have a point. Everyone knows that self-diagnosis is a dangerous thing. We invariably jump to the worst case scenario: I can't write. Christ! I must have the dreaded writer's block. I'll never write again. My life is over. Shoot me. Shoot me now. Now, I'm not saying you ignore the symptom but don't assume the obvious answer is the only one. You might only be run down. You might need to recharge your batteries. Take a break. Read a book. Watch TV. Go for a run. Put up that shelf you've been meaning to for months. Just don't waste the time, eh?


Monday, 6 July 2009

Lowboy


Lowboy Cover I have not encountered the subject of mental illness very often in literature – films, yes, they're full of deranged individuals. The first time was in Gogol's short story, Diary of a Madman, generally regarded as one of the earliest portrayals of schizophrenia, where we witness the gradual disintegration of Poprishchin, a low-ranking civil servant, who comes to believe he is the king of Spain. The next was Chief Bromden, in Ken Kesey's novel, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A relatively minor character in the film, in the book he is the narrator. He has been diagnosed as an incurable paranoid schizophrenic, who pretends to be deaf and dumb, in order to protect himself from the forces of "The Combine", which he believes is a mechanised society intent on usurping freedom and individuality. The next book was the autobiographical novel, The Words to Say It, by Marie Cardinal in which she tells us about the seven years spent in psychoanalysis battling against "The Thing" within her. I'm not sure how much that qualifies me to pass judgement on John Wray's novel, Lowboy, but I thought it best to be up front about this. I've never suffered from schizophrenia myself but then neither has Wray, it seems, so I suspect we're both starting off at a disadvantage.

The question has to be asked if whether Wray's protagonist comes across as believable. In her book Cardinal has this to say about herself:

In the course of my illness, there were moments more intelligent, more lucid, than I had ever known. I have heartrending memories. Without my madness I would never have discovered certain pathways of the mind. I was capable of incredible intellectual ability.

This would not be a bad description of the young man we meet on an underground train in New York on 11th November. But it's not a crazy person that comes to mind when you start to read those opening pages. He looks just as normal as did another mentally ill young man on a train headed to New York back in 1951; that would be Holden Caulfield. Wray willingly acknowledged the similarity:

FW: Lowboy has been likened to Holden Caulfield in some early reviews. What do you think about this comparison?

JW: I don’t object to it, actually. I loved The Catcher in the Rye growing up, and it was an important touchstone while working on Lowboy. The two novels are different enough, in all the self-evident ways, that I don’t feel uncomfortable in Mr. Salinger’s shadow. – Flavorwire, interview with Fernanda Diaz, March 6, 2009

Salinger, however, is not the only shadow that looms over this book. He's in good company with Saul Bellow (The Adventures of Augie March), Dostoyevsky (Notes from the Underground), Kafka (Amerika) and James Joyce (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Ulysses) – these are authors Wray freely admits were in his mind as he wrote this novel – and that's not counting the other writers who reviewers say this novel tips its hat to such as the likes of Chuck Palahniuk, Graham Greene and Raymond Chandler.

Yes, they're an odd bunch to get thrown in the mix but it'll make sense in a bit so bear with me. And I've not even got to his filmic influences yet.

Certainly John Wray is a well read (and well read-to) writer:

Wray John Wray, whose mother is Austrian and father is Californian, was born in Washington, D.C., where his parents, both scientists, were employed by the National Institute of Health. He grew up in Buffalo, New York, and in Friesach, a small town in the southern Austrian state of Carinthia. When he was a boy, his mother began reading Penguin Classics at a rate of exactly one per week, as a way to improve her English: one of his fondest childhood memories is of having The Pickwick Papers read to him at far too young an age, and understanding next to nothing, but loving the sound and mood of it regardless. – KQED Arts

And all this great literature has caused him to have ambitions in that direction himself. The critics loved his first two novels. The Right Hand of Sleep, about a tortured friendship in his mother’s Austrian hometown under the growing shadow of Hitler, won him a Whiting Award – a frequent indicator of impending literary success. Two years following the release of his second novel, the violent Canaan’s Tongue, set during the American Civil War, he was named one of Granta’s Best Young American Novelists. And yet critical acclaim never translated into sales. Perhaps because the books have been labelled 'historical fiction' and subsequently sidelined.

So, what's an ambitious novelist to do? Lowboy is what he did, a contemporary novel that mixes genres. If this guy was a film maker we'd be looking at the next Stanley Kubrick. That sentence would please him I have no doubt because, in a 2008 issue of Esquire, he confessed, “You know, my dream, even when I started out, was to be to fiction something like Stanley Kubrick was to movies.” What he means by that is that he wanted to be an artist whose work isn’t easily classified.

[T]here's this thing that's kind of a curse on fiction in the 20th century, I don't know who it was in what writer's workshop who first thought of this "finding your voice" notion. I think it's destructive. … Kids in creative writing programs are told that there's a single, genuine voice inside them, only one, and that they have to find it. And I think you can really give a kid a complex with that. The truth is you are starting out your career and you have this whole spectrum. You can choose what you want and it'll be your book no matter what. And you can do that again with your next book or you can do something totally fucking different if you want. – Gothamist, interview with Hugh Merwin, May 5, 2009

I suspect this might cause him problems in the long run but I'm only really interested in what he's done with Lowboy today. The book's marketers, realising that the same fate could befall this book as befell his first two, have – wisely I suspect, knowing that the public like their thinking done for them – opted to market this book as more of a psychological thriller than anything else; it's a bit of a stretch but if it gets the book into people's hands then why not? The thing is, it's not really a thriller. The story revolves around a routine operation, tracking down a missing kid, and that is what happens; no subplots, no twists. There are a lot of things missing. It's simply not a thriller in the same way as The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a thriller. Nathan Englander, author of Ministry of Special Cases, described Lowboy as a “psychotic, subterranean, environmentally conscious, coming-of-age novel" and that pretty much works for me. It may not rack up the tension but it will keep your interest.

16-year-old William Heller has been released from the Bellavista Psychiatric Institution (a definite nod to Bellevue Hospital there) and heads Subway to the subway. The book's opening paragraph seems simple enough however it contains important information that you won't realise it till later on:

On November 11 Lowboy ran to catch a train. People were in his way but he was careful not to touch them. He ran up the platform’s corrugated yellow lip and kept his eyes on the train’s cab, commanding it to wait. The doors had closed already but they opened when he kicked them. He couldn’t help but take that as a sign.

For some reason hot on his tail are "Skull & Bones", I'm guessing two orderlies from the hospital, who he manages to evade by page 2. He seats himself beside an elderly Sikh and strikes up an odd conversation. "People call me Lowboy," he tells him, "because I get moody ... also because I like trains." It's not a name he chose for himself. One of the inmates, likely one called Baby, gave it to him. Needless to say 'Baby' is not his real name any more than the orderlies are called 'Skull' or 'Bones'. Names are important in this book. Most people have more than one. All apart from Emily which I think must be significant; I don't see Wray as the kind of guy who leaves things like that to chance.

Oh, and I should have mentioned that William's off his meds. How he manages to get released and then chased I'm a bit vague about; perhaps I missed something. It's not hugely important.

Since I've brought up Emily we may as well take this opportunity to go through all the major players.

  • Ali Lateef (given name Rufus Lamarck White) is an African American New York City detective whose expertise is in "Special Category Missings". It's his job to locate William before he harms himself or someone else. In a few deft strokes Wray describes him for us: "His anger and his reticence made Lateef a man of solitary pleasures. His tastes ran to 78-rpm records, statesmen's autobiographies, and single-malt Scotch, preferably from the Highlands; the women he knew referred to him, sometimes dismissively, sometimes wistfully, as Old Professor White." He's an interesting cocktail of a character. I could see him getting his own TV series.
  • Yda Heller - known to Will as "Violet" - has been devoted to her son and yet appears incapable of helping him. Indeed she may even have been the source of his troubles. She is Austrian although the detective struggles placing her accent for the longest time. It doesn't help that she's idiomatically-challenged (e.g. "all the tea in China" instead of "all the time in the world").

This mismatched pair head off onto the streets of New York to try and find her son. An interesting relationship develops between the two of them; sometimes they read like an old married couple, nit-picking and difficult with each other, at times they're supportive and for some of the time they even flirt. Although Lowboy is a more beguiling character, this first couple are more entertaining than William and Emily prove to be. They are at times the light relief – Lowboy is funny in his own way – but also a sane harbour for the reader especially as the book progresses and William gets worse.

At one point Det. Lateef considers the similarities between mother and son:

He remembered how the boy had looked running. From the back the resemblance to his mother had been absolute. He’d moved differently, of course – in a loose, disjointed way that called attention to his sickness – but that had only emphasized their sameness. His sickness somehow made him more like her. There was a mystery there that Lateef could not enter. Yda and William Heller. Violet and Will. In some way they were interchangeable.

This mystery is finally (and all too easily) revealed towards the end of the novel and it's not that great a revelation; the premise that it exposes is although I wouldn't have felt cheated had we known from page 1. It just makes Lateef out to be less of a detective than he probably is because he senses early on that the mother's holding something back, but he doesn't know what. Neither did Wray as it happens. He was a year into the book before he figured it out.

  • NationalGeographic-June2007-GlobalW William Heller (a.k.a. Lowboy) is a paranoid schizophrenic who believes that the world will end in ten hours due to a sudden, apocalyptic episode of global warming. Unless he loses his virginity. He thinks of this as releasing "the world inside" him, an idea he's picked up from a National Geographic article on Buddhism. He has mixed up global warming rhetoric with the pharmaceutically induced shifts in his body's temperature. In a letter he writes to his mother in code (Isn't it convenient that ciphers happen to be a hobby of the detective?) he says:

THE WORLD IS GETTING HOTTER NOT SLOW AND STEADY LIKE A SNOWBALL (NOT A JOKE) OR A MUDSLIDE GETTING FASTER ALL TIME. THIS IS NOT MY OWN INVENTION VIOLET BECAUSE I READ AND I SAW IT ON THE NEWS.

I WANT TO OPEN LIKE A FLOWER VIOLET. LIKE A FLOWER DOES IN POETRY. I THINK THAT IT MIGHT HELP AS THE WORLD INSIDE OF ME THAT WILL / MIGHT HELP TO COOL THE WORLD. POSSIBLY BODIES WILL HAVE TO GET COLD NOW VIOLET. MANY BODIES. ANYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD YOU COULD HELP ME WITH BUT NOT WITH THIS. IM SURE YOU KNOW THAT VIOLET.

It isn't actually that important who he has sex with it seems, in fact early on in the book he attempts to do just that with an obliging junkie confusing her with a woman he had a conversation with earlier on a station platform. They are interrupted by a policeman who is the first to report back to Det. Lateef the boy's whereabouts. William would prefer to have sex with Emily, his ex-girlfriend, and heads off to try and re-establish contact with her; they have not spoken since he was put away.

  • Emily Wallace is a 17-year-old girl who, though she knows better, might well do anything for the boy she loves. Her character is the least fleshed out of the four but it's clear that she's another misunderstood teen with problems of her own, a father who couldn't care less if she stays out all night for starters. William originally gets in trouble when she tried to hug him and he pushes her onto the subway tracks because he didn't like being touched. But she comes back for more, partly at least because William resembles Brad Pitt. She's convinced that the act was not malicious but she's also well aware that all is not right with William. At one point he says to her: "But I'm not your father," to which she replies, "That's true. You're fucked up in a totally different way."

Why all the dual names though? Even some of the minor characters have them. Wray had this to say:

I'm not sure why the notion of identity, and one's subjective relation to one's name, became so central to this novel in particular. Names have always interested me, but I suppose that's true for every novelist. Maybe I wanted to investigate ways in which the non-schizophrenic characters in the book also find their senses of self bent and/or distorted by the world around them, and they way they find a place for themselves within that misshapen environment. But that's just a guess. – Three Monkeys Online, Interview with Andrew Lawless, April 2009

The inspiration for the book comes from two main sources:

Growing up in Buffalo as John Henderson (Wray is a pen name), the author befriended “an amazing kid” who “seemed magically free of convention,” someone who would skateboard down their high-school hallway shouting, “The Silver Bullet!” as teachers dove for cover. Several years later, the student became schizophrenic and eventually committed suicide. “It was one of the most formative single events of my adolescence,” Wray says. – New York Books, March 1, 2009

and

Basically, this friend of mine told me about a news article she'd seen. I think in Austria, this middle-aged man's medication was wearing off and there was a manhunt for him. I thought that's a great premise for a thriller, and I think he was on the public transportation there. It just came to me in this package, like a little pellet. – Gothamist, interview with Hugh Merwin, May 5, 2009

I suppose I should mention that Wray's uncle helped to design the Vienna subway system, so he often visited those tunnels when he was growing up. Also he wrote the book while travelling on the subway, something that is evident in the details he slips in here and there:

Trains were easier to consider. There were thousands of them in the tunnel, pushing ghost trains of compressed air ahead of them, and every single one of them had a purpose. The train he was on was bound for Bedford Park Boulevard. Its coat-of-arms was a B in Helvetica type, rampant against a bright orange escutcheon. The train to his grandfather's house had the same colour: the colour of wax fruit, of sunsets painted on velvet, of light through half-closed eyelids at the beach.

The book was not written quickly and it shows. He aimed at 500 words a day. Sometimes he was done in an hour. Sometimes he was at it all day. The result is not a perfect book. It is a good book though and, a bit like Emily does with William, it's easy to forgive its flaws when you look at the whole package. The book mixes genres but it doesn't meld them; you get a slice of one thing and then the other, the odd chapters revolve around Lowboy and Emily, the even chapters focus on the detective and William's mother.

It is not a complicated book, at least the storyline is straightforward and this was deliberate. "Part of what appealed to me about the project," Wray said, "was that it was such a straightforward premise. There's nothing convoluted about the plot or the events. They could be described in a sentence." With a conventional thriller you don't know what's going to jump out of the dark at you next. Yes there were unknown elements in this book: just what's going on with William's mother? In what way might she be responsible for his condition? What will happen when William gets Emily back down to the subway? Is his mother right to believe that he won't hurt anyone? And what does he really expect to happen when he loses his cherry? And if that doesn't happen, then what? So, without making a big fuss about what it isn't what I can tell you is that you will keep turning those pages. I certainly did.

You'll have to decide for yourself if the ending Wray opts for is a surprise to you or a disappointment. Even if you anticipate it you'll still have to decide if you're disappointed by it. There are no real bad guys in this book. William is not going to be the next Hannibal Lecter. Conventional thrillers have bad guys and you know they're going to get their just desserts but what do any of the characters in this book deserve? A happy ending? If Hollywood does get its mitts on this one I'm sure there will be much debate about whether to keep the book's ending. There is no dénouement. You're left with you mouth hanging open. I think any scriptwriter who got this handed to him would at least tag on a scene where everything gets talked about and the audience can catch their breaths before the lights come on.

I mentioned Wray's filmic influences earlier. Here's why Lowboy might not be as enticing a prospect as one might first imagine:

I'm a hopeless film junkie, like a lot of writers I know, and I'm not surprised that bleeds into my writing. I certainly often conceive of scenes and descriptive passages in terms of camera position, depth of frame, tracking shots, and so on. But what's exciting to me about fiction are precisely those qualities – interiority, complexity of mood, subjective colouring – that can't be reproduced by any other medium. And I tend to privilege those elements in my writing, which of course makes my novels difficult to film, to put it mildly. Which doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see somebody try! – Three Monkeys Online, interview with Andrew Lawless, April 2009

ChiefBromden I'm not going to suggest that the book is unfilmable – too many unfilmable books have already been filmed – but a lot will be lost if they do, the better part I would say. I would hate to see William reduced in stature in the same way Chief Bromden was in the film adaptation of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Yes, it was a great film. It was a greater book.

But is Lowboy a great book? In ten years time, if I have to review another book with a schizophrenic protagonist will I be happy to add it to the three I listed in the opening paragraph? Time will tell. I'm not sure. There's a lot of good writing in this book, some beautiful images, like this one – "Just then the uptown B arrived and saved him. Its ghost blew into the station first, a tunnel-shaped clot of air the exact length of the train behind it, hot from its own great compression and speed, whipping the litter up into a cloud." – I mean, that's just lovely, but the detective storyline (not the character) does take away from its claim to greatness. Also anyone who doesn't live in New York will miss a number of subtle side swipes but I don't think the book suffers overly much because of that. I'm glad I read it. I'll be interested to see in what direction Wray heads next. Greatward I would expect.

There is a lot of information about this book online, a lot of reviews and quite a few interviews. Of them all, if you're still swithering, the one I would recommend you have a look at is on Portico's website. There are also a number of YouTube videos: There's an interview here and another in four parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. The podcast of the Bat Segundo Show that I quote from above can be heard here. There's a video of Wray reading part of the first chapter here and an audio file of him reading the entire first chapter here. If you like to do your own reading, though, the first chapter can be found online here too.

What I will leave you with is Wray reading a letter William wrote to Violet. The quality of the camerawork is not the best and the ambient music can be a bit grating but bear with it because his reading is entertaining and, more than anything I've written, this gives you a real taste of how this book feels once it gets into its stride.



Friday, 3 July 2009

Why I hate love poetry

 

2 Before we get onto the poetry let's start with the love. I hate love. I hate lots of words but whenever I need to think of an example 'love' always finds its way to the head of the queue. Regular readers may find this next bit familiar but bear with me; it's a rant I need to have every now and then. Really my gripe is with the entire English language. I would probably have similar gripes with other languages if I knew them well enough but I could devote a lifetime to it and I'd still not get done hating the English language.

There simply aren't enough words.

Yes, I know we're not a kick in the pants off a million words now but most of those are no use to man or beast. I mean I've only ever used the word chiggy pig once in my life and that was in this sentence. Shakespeare, it's estimated, got by quite nicely thank you very much with no more than 25,000. To do so he milked each one till it was dry and then some. Admittedly his palette is a little thin – human nature, love, war – but anyone who has ever studied Shakespeare will realise that you don't need a huge vocabulary to express some pretty profound ideas.

I love you. I wonder if that's the most overused sentence ever excluding all those that might take God's name in vain at times of emotional upheaval or sexual arousal? I suspect Was it good for you too? might be the top question. What do you think? In my novel Living with the Truth I couldn't resist recording my feelings about 'love' for posterity:

Greek’s much better; they’ve a word for everything and four words for love. You have to love your mother, father, country, cat, wife, job, strawberry yoghurt and fellow man all with the one word. Can’t be done.

Okay I'm being flippant. And I have no idea why I always include strawberry yoghurt in the list because I hate strawberry yoghurt; it just seems to go. My point is that the word has been bent completely out of shape so as to render it effectively meaningless. And even where the context suggests one thing even then you cannot be absolutely sure how a) the person saying 'I love you' views the word and b) how the person hearing 'I love you' might interpret that expression.

I tell my wife that I love her on a regular basis although too often in response to an 'I love you' on her part; I need to work on that. I really have no idea what she takes from that expression nor do I worry about it. The words themselves have become simply a token, a thing to say. They are verbal hugs and frankly I'm happier with tangible hugs any day of the week. I think it's something that comes naturally with age; we depend less and less on words. We recognise them for what they are.

Not so the young. Which brings us to love poetry.

If a person has had a crack at writing only one poem in his or her life I would bet that it was a love poem. The first poem I have a copy of is a love poem. Of sorts. It's me remember. It would have to be 'of sorts'. Love though is a subject I've found myself compelled to write about many times in my life. And usually badly. Unless it's the kind of love that isn't going smoothly. Poems that huddle together under that umbrella are quite a bit better. The reason for that is that love is not generally the driving force behind the poem. Love is just something I'd been going through whilst writing the poem. Big difference. Biiiiiiiiig difference. I really don't do my best work when drawing on positive emotions.

tatty175 But what makes love poetry so bad? Part of it I'm sure is the fact that we lose perspective when in love and we find it impossible to be objective about what we're writing. I've been spending some time looking at love poems and there are I think a number of signposts to look out for. I have no doubt that most of you will be able to add to this list but let's just see if I can make my point:

There are a number of things that make a love poem bad. An obvious one is that they often have ham-fisted rhyme schemes and use unnatural 'poetic' language:

For you I would climb
The highest mountain peak
Swim the deepest ocean
Your love I do seek.

I mean, who says, "Your love I do seek?" for God's sake?

Bad love poetry uses the most obvious metaphors:

In your eyes I see our present, our future and past,
By the way you look at me I know we will last.

They're invariably in the first person:

I don't think you could ever feel
all the love I have to give
and I'm sure you'll never realize
you've been my will to live.

They are generally so saccharine they should only be read as part of a calorie-controlled diet:

L oving
O nly for you
V erifying your love to me
E ternity together

They are so sincere that in their attempts at profundity they can often be unintentionally funny:

Love her boy and don’t take her for granite
For she has done so much for you even when she can't handle it

They give hyperbole a bad name:

I have passed through hell,
And I've known heaven --
I survived both; I am here.
I have seen too much; loved
Too deeply; Probably, I won't be free.

They so often state the bleedin' obvious and sometimes do so using inappropriate capitalisation (and in this case lacking appropriate punctuation):

I am Here, You are there
Across the World, In another place somewhere.
I think of you often, And I often Cry.
But its nice to know, We are under the same sky.

They often ask a lot of pointless questions with extra question marks for emphasis:

Why did he do this to me ????
Why does he feel he has to cut me down just to make it better for him!?
I just don't get it
Why me
Why now
If he cared even a little he wouldn't have done what he did
He just doesn't see the way I love him......

 

tatty19 Is that enough? I think that's enough. We all recognise the kind of thing I'm on about. I bet most of you are cringing right now because you just know you've expressed these exact thoughts. The thing is, and this is the worst part of it, every single poet I've quoted here will I am sure have been totally sincere when they wrote these lines and would be devastated if they found them here being made fun of. So, let's be clear – I'm not making fun of anyone; it's simply so much easier to make a point with an example. (And if you don’t want your bad poetry held up as an example, you shouldn’t leave it lying around on the internet.) Also, as you'll see further on, I don't always get it right either.

If it's so easy to say what makes a bad love poem the question has to be asked then, what makes a good love poem? Time to put my credibility on the line I think and offer up a few examples. My main approach to the subject is to avoid as many clichés as possible, if you like to reinvent the love poem. This was my first attempt:

YESTERDAY

love
healer

a hand out of blindness
to touch

words whispered

a place to be

memories will come

truth

a need for silence
(but not forced)

atonement
knowing

8 May 1977

I can tell you here and now that I'd just discovered William Carlos Williams at this point and this poem is heavily influenced by him although you may scratch your head and wonder where the connection is. It's not really important now. I think considering how young I was it's not a bad shot. What I think is good about it is that it could apply to anyone. And I think that's something we're looking for when we read other people's love poetry. I've written far better poems for individuals but you'd have to be the individual in question at that time and place for the thing to mean anything. Let's provide an example:

THE SPARK

She didn't see it at first
because the world was full of lights.

Then the lights went out
and the sky was filled with stars.

But when the stars fell down
and all was dark and cold
then she noticed it,
alone and unsure,
in a universe of darkness.

And it was for her.


(For Jeanette)


7 June 1994

Now, in terms of effect this second poem pulled out all the stops and hit every nail on the head if I can mix my metaphors for a moment. Suffice to say, it worked. Big time. I have no intention of explaining what was going on in Jeanette's life. I'm sure you can work up a scenario that would fit and you'd be wrong but that's all right. Where this is still a good poem is that it is open to interpretation. But it's not a good all purpose love poem. I don't think such a thing exists.

Now, let's consider at a poem which, looking back, I'm quite embarrassed over. It's exactly the kind of sentimental drivel that I've been slagging off:

YOU AND I, A POEM ABOUT IDENTITY

You are not me and yet to are -
you're that other part of me
that brings me to peace with myself.

Loneliness is incompletion
but you make me whole and still more:
you've let me see what I could be.

And I love you for that.


(for Jen, as if it could've been for anyone else)


17 August 1996

tatty21 The 'Jen' of this poem is the 'Jeanette' from the earlier poem. Two years have passed and I'm convinced that I'm still in love. But there's a rider to this poem. I let my boss at the time read it and she immediately wanted a copy. For her it became 'the Barry poem' and that's now how I think about the thing. I've managed to salvage some self respect because the poem at least became meaningful to one person. And in a big way actually. It expressed exactly how she felt about this guy called Barry.

But, let's be honest, it's a bad poem. And what was that dedication all about?

Now, thirty years on from that first poem, shall we see if I can actually pull off a decent love poem:

BROKEN THINGS

I don't know
how clocks work

or time works
or hearts work.

I know that
broken things

shouldn't work
but I know

that we work
though not how.

Some things don't
need a how

or a why.


(for Carrie)


Monday, 17 December 2007

Carrie quite often writes poems inside cards. I don't so often. I've never been very good at writing poems to order. This is a poem that came to me a few days before our wedding anniversary. It came out of the blue and I was very grateful. It's certainly not your typical love poem. For starters it's a love poem where the couple are no longer young or in good health. I said earlier that older couples frequently don't feel the same need to express themselves verbally. That doesn't mean we never do it.

It's a simple enough poem. The best always are. It's an admission that, after all these years (and quite a few loves), I still don't understand how love works. In my first poem I was looking forward to a time when we would be 'one' (at-one-ment) and would 'know', just know, and the fact is that thirty years on I'm happy to admit that not only do I not know, it doesn't matter that I don't know. Does my wife love me? Yes. I know that she loves me. But I don't know how she loves me.

I guess it's like the bumble bee. The bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly. Apparently he's aerodynamically unstable or something. Just as well he doesn't understand aerodynamics. And that's us.

I don't think I have too many love poems left in me. But one never knows. Maybe given another ten years I might have it nailed.

tatty159

Monday, 29 June 2009

The Very Thought of You

 

The Very Thought of You I swithered when I was first offered this book for review. It looked like it might be sentimental slush. It has one of those tug-at-the-heart-strings covers, a child, lagging behind, staring forlornly back as she heads off into the unknown with her fellow wartime evacuees. It felt contrived. It looked Photoshopped. I was looking for reasons not to like it but I'll come back to the cover later.

I don’t hate love stories; I've never gone out of my way to read one. In fact I had a quick scan of my bookshelves before I began writing this and I couldn't see a single love story there. Not a one.

When I replied I said I'd read the book if it was written from the child's perspective. I was told it was and the book duly arrived a few days later. The girl is certainly a key character but there are large chunks of the book without her. It was also written in the third person – I had hoped for a first person narrative (I've read a few books written from a child's perspective and I've liked them all) – but I'd got the book now, I might as well read the damn thing.

The Very Thought of You is not a love story. It is a story about love. There is a difference. Regarding this the author says:

I began with some shadowy but idealised lovers, and the entire story was so empty and untrue that the exercise felt mechanical. I had to excavate more deeply. Painfully and slowly, I came up with the cast of The Very Thought of You – various emotional cripples and misfits, who struggle to find connections with each other.

Yes, there is a love story at the centre of the book but it is not the novel's only love story. The book deals with two things: loves (of various kinds) and distances (for different reasons). There is a simple short paragraph towards the end of the book that follows a quote from Wordsworth's ode 'Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood' that makes what I think is a key point:

…But there's a tree – of many, one –
A single field which I have looked upon,
Both of them speak of something that is gone…

Perhaps life was one long story of separation, just as Wordsworth had said. From people, from places, from the past you could never quite reach even as you lived it.

There are a variety of loves described in the book: the love between parents and child, between husband and wife, the love of a teacher, for a lover, even the love of a housekeeper for her employer but most importantly, love from a distance. There is no unrequited love that I can think of although the love that is returned is not always what is expected or needed.

The story revolves around the evacuation of children from London to the relative safety of the countryside at the onset of World War II. We follow Anna Sands, an eight year-old, as she leaves her mother, Roberta, to go they know not where. All Anna hopes is that her final destination will be beside the sea:

"Is Leicester at the sea?" she asked a woman with a list of names.

"No, dear, nowhere near the sea."

That settled it. Anna did not want to stop here. She joined the queue for a new train, even through nobody seemed to know where they were going.

She made for a window seat.

"When do we get to the sea?" she asked a patrolling teacher. His eyes were quizzical.

"You mustn't be too disappointed if you don't end up at the seaside," he said. "Anyway, it's too cold for bathing at this time of year." Anna asked no more, but sensed with a sickening heart that she was on the wrong train.

As luck would have it Anna, along with more than eighty other evacuees, is swooped up by the elegant Elizabeth Ashton and bused to her husband's ancestral home, Ashton House.

She is there for a number of years but returns home before the war ends. Despite the fact she'll probably never get to use the bathing costume her mother bought her the day before her departure, Anna realises that she has won a watch ending up here. She writes to her mother:

Dear Mummy, my train went to Ashton Park in Yorkshire. It is huge. We play in the gardens a lot.

The story then suddenly shifts to Warsaw and to Clifford Norton and his wife 'Peter' (after Peter Pan). This was unexpected. But they don't stay in Poland very long. In fact in the next few pages we see them pack up and return to the "strange, corpse-like" city that London has become without the sound of children. The Nortons, who we learn are friends of the Ashtons, appear at the periphery of the main story and are a clever writerly device providing an external eye on the war because they get to go where the Ashtons can't. This could have been done using news reports but it's far more interesting to have a human perspective on things. In the acknowledgements at the end of the book we learn that these were a real life couple; Sir Clifford, as he ended up, was a cousin of the author and it was reading "his letters and dispatches from the Warsaw embassy" that piqued her interest in this period in history.

What I did begin to feel very early into my reading of this book was that it read like a novelisation rather than an original work. The reason I suspect is that Rosie Alison spent years working in television as a director and has learned how to structure a story in a particularly televisual way. (Notice in the quote above how she refers to the book's characters as its "cast".) This is not a criticism, merely an observation. I have watched a lot of TV over the years and it is no bad way to learn a certain kind of storytelling.

While staying at Ashton House young Anna gains some unexpected insight into the relationship between her hosts. The first happens one night when, having wet her bed, she is sneaking down to the laundry room for clean sheets so she won't be embarrassed in the morning. As she steals down the corridor she notices that the Ashton's bedroom door is ajar:

[S]he waited with dread to hear the clack-clack of Mrs Ashton's heels walking towards her. Blood pounded in her eats as she crouched there, still clutching the damp sheet.

No footsteps came near her, but there were sounds, and Anna strained to listen. She could hear an agitated voice – Mrs Ashton, she thought – from the next room, It must be the middle of the night. Didn't they know their door was open?

[…]

Though she could only catch snatches of what was being said, she recognised a desperation which frightened her. Mrs Ashton was swearing and choking on foul words at her husband. Violent language she had never heard before. Guttural sounds which chilled her.

She crept away as silently as she could.

Of course the book's omniscient narrator hangs around so we get to find out that what Elizabeth is so angry about is that her period had just arrived, ergo she is not pregnant – yet again.

Looking to the past our narrator informs us that the Ashtons were once pretty much the perfect couple until, during a holiday to Bruges in the summer of 1931, Thomas – Mr Ashton – takes ill:

By the evening, his throat was sorely inflamed, and in the early hours of the morning he lay semi-delirious with fever. A doctor was called to their hotel room, and his expression soon became grave.

"It is polio," he told Elizabeth. "We have an epidemic of it at the moment. You must not drink the water."

He is taken to hospital where he needs a tracheotomy to help him breathe but it is only his wife's insistence and finally intervention that he gets to return to England. Ultimately that saves his life. He recovers but several months in an iron lung take their inevitable toll on him. His legs begin to waste away and despite all his physiotherapist's efforts he winds up wheelchair bound.

Obviously this puts some strain on their marriage and the answer they come up with, like many couples whose marriages are heading towards the rocks, is to have a child to serve as an emotional bridge between them. But, as you've just read, it isn't happening.

bbc building In the midst of all this emotional turmoil Alison shifts our attention to Rosie, Anna's mum, who is also childless – in a metaphorical sense at least. She finds a job at the BBC and through that develops a circle of friends who help bring her out of herself. In time she even acquires a young lover.

Elizabeth too soon finds comfort in the arms of other men. At first they are nameless and faceless. She makes trips to London and comes back a different woman. Her husband is not a stupid man and realises what is going on but decides not to confront her. He throws himself into his teaching and his studies.

In time, however, he finds himself distracted by one of the young teachers, but being your typical stiff-upper-lipped English chappie he keeps those feelings to himself. Our friendly omniscient narrator reveals to us that his feelings are in fact reciprocated. Very much so. The girl, unable to cope with her feelings, decides to leave but right before she does she hands him a letter revealing the depths of her feelings for him. But then she's gone.

You may think by revealing what I have in the last couple of paragraphs I've spoiled the story for you but really these events are just the first tentative strokes. Two more people come into the Ashton's lives that ignite real passion and true love. And, of course, everything ends tragically. In the meantime Anna has to cope with a tragedy of her own which results in another significant encounter with the Ashtons, one that affects the rest of her life.

And then, with 60 pages to go, Anna is plucked from Ashton House and drawn back into life in war torn London. Surely the story had finished. What more needed to be said that required 60 pages? Maybe three or four to tidy things up. But no. We get to see the rest of Anna's life.

The book's prologue ends, a little unexpectedly, with this paragraph:

There is one tree which particularly draws the eye, a glorious ruddy copper beech which stands alone on a small lawn by the rose garden. It was on a bench under this tree that the duty staff recently found an elderly woman sitting alone after closing hours, apparently enjoying the view, On closer inspection she was found to be serenely dead, her fingers locked around a faded love letter.

It's no surprise to learn this is Anna who is drawn back to the house as an old woman. But this is not her only visit as an adult. There is one in the sixties where, as a grownup now, she can talk freely about the things that went on in their respective pasts and the effect it has had on her. The question we have to wait almost to the very end of the book to discover is: what letter is she holding because there are many letters in this book, some of which get delivered and some which do not.

There, if you think I've revealed too much just know that I've really told you very little.

GoBetweenNovel The blurb on the press release informed me that "[a]nyone who loved L. P. Hartley's The Go-Between or Ian McEwan's Atonement will fall for this extraordinary coming-of-age novel". In The Go-Between, Leo is pressurised into passing letters back and forth; in Atonement, Briony is only asked to deliver a single letter, the wrong letter as it happens, but, in The Very Thought of You Anna is merely asked to retrieve letters. All three books are very different but the key element is the same in each of them: the long-term (and to varying degrees detrimental) effects of children being exposed to adult relationships before they can fully grasp what they are witnessing.

But did I enjoy the book? Yes. Apart from one convenient discovery right at the very end of the book nothing felt contrived. Yes, there had to be a plot device to get Anna down the corridor that fateful night and her bed wetting was a perfect choice, much better than having her heading off for a midnight snack in the kitchen; that also would have worked but it would have changed the character of the girl.

Despite the fact that there was not as much of Anna in the book as I might have hoped she was well fleshed out. She too is a plot device if you think about it. She needs to be in certain places at certain times for things to move on but the things that happen to her feel believable. The same goes for all the supporting cast; even the minor characters managed to avoid feeling like cardboard cut-outs.

What I didn't like about the book was that it was a little too neat and clean. Neat in that all i's were dotted and t's crossed. Clean in that if this had been presented as a TV movie I would have been quite happy to watch it with my wife but I'm sure she would have enjoyed it more than me. There is also nothing graphic about the book. There is swearing but no swearing, sex but no sex (no sex to speak of). In American cinematic parlance I'd have to describe it as 'very PG-13'. If Anna had been the narrator I could have understood this but not written in the third person.

I mentioned before that it felt like a novelisation. On the subject of adaptation, Alison had this to say over at Notes from the Underground:

As I look back over Heyday’s list of optioned novels, I wonder what have been the guiding principles behind those choices. When weighing up a novel’s dramatic potential, we look for compelling characters or relationships, an intriguing viewpoint, a powerful drama, and a story which reaches through to a satisfying destination. A distinct world is an advantage, as is a story with an urgent moral or dramatic imperative. Anything too meditative or internal is difficult, as is anything with a profusion of characters dispersed over too many years. Unity of time, place and action help.

If you take the points she raises above and make that a checklist then you could tick off every one when it comes to this book and I would be surprised to find the possibility of turning this into a film never crossed her mind as she was working on it. Heyday is the film company she works for by the way.

This is a well-written book. It's certainly not literary fiction but it is intelligently written with an eye for detail but just enough detail to get the readers' imaginations going. That I appreciate. At 306 pages it's about the right length but if it ever gets filmed I'm sure they'll lose a good 50 pages. We really don't need that history of the Ashton family as interesting as it might be. An audience will tolerate only so much back-story.

In his review of the book, Guy Fraser-Sampson (remember I reviewed his novel Major Benjy a while back) had this to say:

I fancy most men would run a mile from this book if they were to pick it up in a bookshop. When will publishers realise that a good book will sell on its own merits and does not have to be neatly pigeon-holed as "Chick Lit" or "Bloke Lit" or "A woman's book" in order to move off the shelves?

If you read his review you'll see it's very positive. That's two blokes that have enjoyed this novel. And I suspect others would but, and this is the point I made when I reviewed The Sonnets, this book could find a wider audience with a different cover. Why should they decide what I'm going to like?

Alma clearly does think this book is a seller though. According to Bookseller.com:

Alessandro Gallenzi, publishing director at Alma, said: "I thought I was reading a page from Jane Eyre or The Go-Between". The book is being positioned as Alma's lead title for [this] year. It will be published in trade paperback in June. Gallenzi said the initial print run would be about 10,000.

You can read the first three chapters here and make your own mind up. All I can say is that my wife is now looking to read the thing and that was simply based on the chat I had with her to order my thoughts before I sat down to work on this.

***

Rosie-Alison-web Born in 1964, Rosie Alison read English at Keble College, Oxford. She is Head of Children's Development at Heyday Films, which is the British production company behind the Harry Potter film series for Warner Bros. Prior to joining Heyday, Rosie had been a documentary producer/director for more than 10 years - working at the LWT arts department, BBC Music & Arts and Talkback Features. Her programme credits have included The South Bank Show, Omnibus, The Lipstick Years and Grand Designs. She has recently co-produced two feature films (The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, just released, and the forthcoming film Is There Anybody There?).


Thursday, 25 June 2009

Read me! Read me now!

 

stumbleupon-128x128 Most of you reading this just now will have your own blog. The odds are you're on Facebook and probably Twitter too. I probably read your blog and the blogs of your friends who probably read my blog and each other's blogs too. And those of you who aren't reading blogs are probably twittering away to each other and writing things on each other's walls. It's all the same names, the same faces, the same avatars. We all gather round our virtual water-coolers and pass the time of day.

Don't you find it all a bit claustrophobic?

So, how do you attract new readers and (hopefully) make new friends? It's a problem we all face. We want to be read. Desperately. We think we have something worth reading but how do we rise to the top of the morass of blogs out there? There are a few ways but they all come under the same umbrella: you get nothing for nothing. It feels about time for a chart. So let's have a chart:

clip_image002

It's a chart showing how many readers I get every day. The total for the month was 3289 so we're talking an average of 110 a day. Not bad. As you'll see some days peak at 200 while others dip down to 50; the highs follow new posts which are back up to two per week and we'll see how long I can keep that up. Let's just review where all those people are coming from:

clip_image004

It makes interesting reading because it shows that 1252 (38%) of my readers are coming to be via searches on Google. Yahoo makes the Top Ten with 66 visits but the rest barely register: Search (6), MSN (6), Ask (5) and Bing (4). Bing is Microsoft's new search engine in case you've never heard of it.

The next biggie is Stumbleupon and for the few seconds it takes me to log the post the return is well worthwhile – 449 visits. I also log every new post with Digg and Reddit but I couldn't see a single click originating from either site. The thing is, Digg has an Arts and Culture sub-heading. I checked, and the most dugg entry for the last year under that sub-heading, with 13902 diggs, was this photo of a wee kid fist bumping the President of the United States.

clip_image006

Yes it's cute. I guess it's even artistic but how is my story about a new translation of Kafka's letter to his dad (which, at time of writing, had one digg) going to compete with that?

We now move onto Entrecard which is made up of three entries totalling 473 visits. One of these is iamburaot.com/referral and this puzzled me, especially when I looked because I couldn't see anything pointing to my site. Then I noticed the Entredropper tab. This is a place where you can get a list of sites in batches where you can make quick drops to build up your Entrecard credits. The average time spent on my site from these 229 visits was 23 seconds each. So, although it adds to my stats these are meaningless numbers. I may get fewer hits with Stumbleupon but the quality is higher.

Entrecard, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is a blog advertising network where blog owners can exchange advertising on each others web sites. Like many things on the Web it started out as a good idea (and I've made a few good contacts through it) but in recent months I can see people losing interest. We've all found those sites that interest us and have them in our RSS feedreaders so why bother with Entrecard? The icon isn't hurting me so I'll leave it for just now but my days of resolutely clicking on 300 sites a day to try and attract visitors are long gone.

The other two entries of note are friends of mine, Ani Smith (down in me) and Colin McGuire (A Glaswegian Immaturity) both of whom I mention from time to time on my site and both of whom have links on their sites to mine. And there are lots of others that didn't make the Top Ten.

This is what I do when I put up a new post: I log onto Yahoo Buzz, LitMixx, Post on Fire, Reddit, Stumbleupon and Digg (all of which are community-based news article websites) and leave an entry for my site; I bookmark the site with Del.icio.us. I submit articles to the Just Write blog carnival and occasionally the Everything worth Reading carnival; if the post is a book review I'll also submit an article to the Book Review blog carnival. I've also started sending out broadcasts to my 'friends' on BlogCatalog. If the post is poetry related I sometimes drop Ron Silliman an e-mail and he very kindly puts up a link on his site.

I go through that for every post I put up and yet still about 40% of my readers come via search engines. It does make one wonder if all the effort is worth it.

Here's a graph that shows all visits that have originated solely through search engines since I started this blog nearly two years ago:

clip_image008

It's a slow but steady climb. And I'd like to see that continue.

Here's one last chart:

clip_image010

This is more comforting. These are figures for people who have clicked on direct links and the amount of time spent on my site. Not surprisingly my post that included the wee video clip of Samuel Beckett talking is the top post and I doubt it'll be toppled although it's gratifying to see just how popular When I was Five I Killed Myself is; it really is a lovely little book. What you have to bear in mind though is that I got 685 visits the day I posted that review and the bulk of them can be attributed to Stumbleupon (464 clicks). I've just discovered a similar site called Dropjack which I'm going to give a go too. It can't hurt.

When you type When I was Five I Killed Myself into Google my review comes up third which is not bad at all considering Amazon is #1. But why does Revish.com's review come in at #2 with 1771 views? Perhaps it's to do with tags. The tags for their entry are child dark family psychiatric and psychological. The tags for mine are: autism and book review. Would they make that much difference? Or is it simply down the number of hits?

When I first started my blog I read a lot about SEO (search engine optimisation) but the bottom line as far as I can see is that for wee sites like mine this is not an area to become obsessed over and I haven't. Maybe I should take more care choosing titles for my posts and maybe I should use headers more and embolden text and tweak the titles on my pictures but one has to weigh up the pros and cons and I already spend far more time working on my blog than I ever intended.

There have also been a few one-off things that I've done to drive traffic my way like registering with blog catalogues, e.g. britishblogs.co.uk (159), topblogarea.com (68), sitemeter.com (30) and fuelmyblog.com (7). Out of 60,000+ visits that's not a lot but, as the saying goes, it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I just discovered a new one, blog-search.com, and registered with them. It took less than a minute and if I only get one visitor I guess that's worth a minute of my time.

I've had a look to see if there are any niche-based social networking sites specifically dedicated to writing and I couldn't find a one. Well, that's not really true. There are a plethora of sites where you can post bits of your own writing, a chapter or two of your novel, and see if anyone reads the thing. I'm talking about sites like CompletelyNovel or Authonomy where loads of newbie authors wait around to see if they're going to be discovered. (And, yes, if you click on the Authonomy link you'll get my page.) There are loads and loads of people out there who want to be read fighting for the attention of a few readers. At least that's what it feels like to me.

Who goes to a site like Authonomy to find something to read? We already have a superabundance of stuff to read. I don't want to have to go searching for new talent, I want it to come looking for me, metaphorically speaking. I want a cute pop-up like I get with Digg telling me about new books, and plays, about film adaptations of novels; I want to know about writers and their lives, about the things they wrote; if there's a new explanation of The Waste Land out there then I want to know about it. So much stuff must be happening out there that if we don't tell each other about it then it'll pass us by. A good example of that was the recent BBC run of poetry programmes. If Rachel Fox hadn't gone on about them continually – continually in a nice way – then a lot of people would have missed out on them. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see in my pop-up!

To my mind the best kind of advertising is the kind you don't need to go looking for, the poster on the bus shelter or the promotional ad on your Mars Bar or the flyer that floats through your letter box. The last two are especially attention-grabbing because you have the thing in you hand.

So I guess I have two questions although there's much of a muchness about them.

What sites, if any, do you visit to search for literary content?

and

What efforts have you found successful in promoting your own site?

Oh, and here's a third question:

If you don't have an answer to either of those questions, could you at least do me the favour of stumbling this post? Just click on the icon below. Thank you very much.

Monday, 22 June 2009

The Plains


 The Plains Cover AU.jpg

I'm not really a fair dinkum writer. I've stopped short of writing everything I could have written - Gerald Murnane


Widely studied in Australian literature departments in the late seventies and eighties, Gerald Murnane was touted as an important new voice, someone to watch, perhaps even someone with the right credentials to one day snag the country’s second Nobel Prize. Early success never panned out into popular appeal, however, or even international recognition although for some reason he has always been very popular in Sweden where he is regarded as a major writer. In 1999 he won the Patrick White Award, an award given annually to an Australian writer whose work, in the opinion of the Award Committee, has not received adequate recognition. That seemed an understatement as most of his works were out of print by that time.

Jump forward to 2008 and we find Murnane picking up a cheque for $50,000 and an Australia Council Writers Emeritus Award which recognises the achievements of writers over the age of 65 who have made an outstanding contribution to Australian literature and who have created an acclaimed body of work. This year his ninth novel since 1974, Barley Patch, is being published. Might a Nobel Prize by about 2020 be a distinct possibility? We'll have to wait and see. In 2006 Ladbrokes set his odds at 33/1 – surely they must have improved since then.

His lack of commercial success is likely a direct result of his lack of interest in topical material although, like Beckett (who also eschewed topicality in his work), this affords his work a certain timeless quality. In interview on The Book Show, the full transcript of which you can read here, he said:

I call myself a marginal writer. I don't mean this as a disparagement of other writers at all, but I'll just say it in relation to myself; I am not the sort of writer who writes about the things that were yesterday's newspaper headlines. The things I write about tend to be more private matters. Again, the word 'marginal' comes to mind, but in a strange way my concerns have lasted for … as the reissue of [Tamarisk Row] proves, my concerns are still of interest to people, whereas had I written about yesterday's newspaper headlines I might have been old hat and passé by now.

He has always been a determinedly personal writer, fixated on questions of time, memory, and the self. One could say the same of Beckett and that certainly never got in the way of him getting a Nobel Prize. I'm not sure what his fan base was like in Sweden at the time. Needless to say Remembrance of Things Past would be one of Murnane's desert island books.

In the introduction to his Oxford monograph on Gerald Murnane, Imre Salusinszky writes:

Like Blake, Murnane has the courage of his own obsessions, following them through to their conclusions even when those conclusions may be unsettling or distressing for the reader; and his imaginative strength derives from this courage.

I'd like to hone in on the word 'obsessions' here for a minute for Murnane can certainly be described as obsessed on a bad day, preoccupied-to-a-fault perhaps on a good day. Any man who has taken the time to write a history of his bowel movements since the constipated, white-bread forties (admittedly not published) and has taught himself Hungarian without ever intending to visit the country, deserves a second glance. He has also written 50,000 words on "people who might have loved me", maintains a file of "miracles", and a "shame" file that documents the number of times he's put his foot in his mouth. All of this and more fill seven filing cabinets that line two walls of the plain, suburban room where he types, one-fingered, behind drawn curtains. "I am a person who needs to be in control of things," he says, "What you see is extremely neatly organised mess." That "mess" he expects his sons to pass onto a library after his death although he says that any biographer should not hold his breath looking for a file of dark confessions.

Rather than observing the real world, Murnane prefers to imagine what a person like him might find if he ventured out. He has hardly left Melbourne since 1949. He has never been on an aeroplane. He can't understand the workings of the International Date Line. He has no sense of smell and only a rudimentary sense of taste. He has never owned a television set. He has never seen an opera. He has never worn sunglasses. He has never leaned to swim. He cannot understand, nor does he believe in, the theory of evolution. He has never touched any button or switch or working part of any computer or fax or mobile telephone. He has never learned how to operate a camera. Since about 1980 he has never gone into a library except to attend a book launch or similar event. He believes "that a person reveals at least as much when he reports what he cannot do or has never done as when he reports what he has done or wants to do" which is why when he gave a lecture at the University of Newcastle in 2001 – that would be Newcastle, Australia – he included all the above facts about himself. I have no doubt that all are still applicable.

If you were only going to read one book by this author it really ought to be his slim 1982 novel, The Plains, the book in which he attained his mature style:

I admired the plainsmen because from a landscape of very little promise they could get much meaning. I like to think that from an apparently uneventful life I've got a great deal of meaning. – An Obsessive Imagination

The Plains Cover The Plains is a dense story about a filmmaker who spends years researching a film on the seemingly featureless Australian outback and its people. In place of the salt-of-the-earth sheep farmers one might expect to inhabit central Australia the narrator encounters an idealised world filled with aesthetics and intellectuals; wealthy landowners divided into factions idly speculating on metaphysics; I don't believe there's a sheep in the whole book.

The book opens with the following short paragraph:

Twenty years ago, when I first arrived on the plains, I kept my eyes open. I looked for anything in the landscape that seemed to hint at some elaborate meaning behind appearances.

It was his intention to make a film entitled, The Interior, about the outback and its effect on those living there. The title itself turns out to be metaphorical.

Murnane evokes grasslands and prairies, prizing their capacity for abstraction and indefiniteness, but the plains are also those of language, the "Interstitial Plain" that exists only as it posits the potentiality of every other plain, or plane, of existence. – Nicholas Birns, 'Gerald Murnane. The Plains', New Issues

Plainly he has some idea of this before he arrives in the nameless "large town" at the start of the book armed with "folders of notepaper and boxes of cards and an assortment of books with numbered tickets between their pages"; he has clearly done his research – at least he believes that he has.

His first task, though, is to find a patron; to persuade one of the landowners to bankroll his project. This problem he approaches in an oblique way by hanging round the local bars where he jumps on every opportunity to worm his way in with these men. There are clearly unspoken protocols to be adhered to. He begins by telling them he is on a journey, a journey that he has already begun in a far flung corner of the plains that no one has heard of. This was easy enough because "[t]he true extent of the plains had never been agreed on" and "many places far inland were subject to dispute":

I told them a story almost devoid of events or achievements. Outsiders would have made little of it, but the plainsmen understood. It was the kind of story that appealed to their own novelists and dramatists and poets.

[…]

The plainsman's heroes, in life and in art, were such as the man who went home every afternoon for thirty years to an unexceptional house with neat lawns and listless shrubs and sat late into the night deciding on the route of a journey that he might have followed for thirty years only to arrive at the place where he sat…

This, with the gift of hindsight, describes not only where we find our unnamed narrator, well down that imaginary road after twenty years living in the plains, but also, it would appear, Murnane himself, perhaps even as far back as 1982.

The great landowners hold audience in an inner room of one of "the labyrinths of saloon bars on the ground floor of the hotel" in which he is staying. He waits his turn. And he waits. And waits. The landowners are nothing less than capricious and when he is finally called we witness the only extended 'conversation' in the entire book. He finds himself in a room with seven landowners who appear in no great rush to interview him. They just sit around drinking and talking amongst themselves until finally one man, identified only as "7th landowner", who up until this point had been lying on a stretcher, gets up and approaches him at the bar at which point all the others stop talking. He senses his opening to present his case and steps to the centre of the bar:

I told them simply that I was preparing the script of a film whose last scenes would be set on the plains. Those same scenes were still not written, and any man present might offer his own property as a location, His paddocks with all their long vistas, his lawns and avenues and fishponds – all these could be the setting for the last act of an original drama. And if the man happened to have a daughter with certain qualifications, then I would be pleased to consult her and even to collaborate with her in preparing my last pages.

The plainsmen prize writing but find film too obviously visible. Most aren't interested but the 7th landowner's interest is piqued (we learn later that he is an enthusiastic amateur photographer) but before offering him a position in his household he points out some of the weaknesses in the filmmaker's pitch:

My proposal suggested that I had overlooked the most obvious qualities of the plains. How did I expect to find so easily what so many others had never found – a visible equivalent of the plains, as though they were mere surfaces reflecting sunlight? … He believed, nevertheless, that I might one day be capable of seeing what was worth seeing … [y]oung and blind as I was…

So the filmmaker moves his things into the man's house but barely leaves his mentor's library. As the years march on and he gets caught up in the prevalent philosophising over the nature of the plains. He begins himself to view them as a metaphor for everything in the lives of its inhabitants and gradually moves farther and father away from being able to make a start on his film. The external plains lose their fascination and he begins to see in the way the landowner hoped he might and explore these inner landscapes. Inner Australia has become a jumping off point, a point of departure, an approach Murnane uses in much of his other writing. Discussing his book of stories, Landscape with Landscape, Xavier Pons makes this observation:

The first story 'Landscape with Freckled Woman', introduces the narrator and his dreams of exploring 'inner space' of 'unfolding' the landscape in order to reach 'the real world' from his vantage point on St Kilda Road in Melbourne. This 'unfolding' implies a merger of spatial and temporal notions, and concerns the mental landscape that Murnane in other contexts refers to as 'the plains'. – Departures, p156

The preservation of history is another important thing to the landowners, "shaping from uneventful days in a flat landscape the substance of myth". He arrives intent on recording aspects of their heritage but in his researches he ends up discovering symbols, stories and parables that lead him down a very different path.

The second section of the book finds the filmmaker ten years down the line and he's still not shot any film. He spends his days in his mentor's library. There he becomes preoccupied with the landowner's wife who also spends some of her day there. Before you jump to the conclusion that we have the potential for an affair I should point out that, although they exchange polite conversation at other times, in this library they don't even acknowledge each other, she spending most of her time in the rooms devoted to Time: "we never spoke, and even when one of us looked across the library the other's eyes were always turned to some page of a text or some page awaiting its text'. For a while the compulsion to communicate something to her distracts him but it passes.

It's not giving away anything to tell you that he never makes his film. His life becomes completely occupied with doing research for it and even after twenty years the landowner shows no signs of tuffing him out on his ear. His hope is that his young protégé will finally get to see the invisible. Nicholas Birns, who I quoted above, says this far better than I can:

That is the presiding trope of the plains - the search for a meaning beyond the visible, the projection of the given onto an indiscernible horizon. This quest may be in vain, or it may actually have an object, albeit occluded and remote. As much as this search beyond visibility is mocked, Murnane's incantatory tones simultaneously privilege it.

The plains have been mapped in previous centuries. This is referred to as the Golden Age of Exploration. The events in this book take place in the Second Great Age of Exploration. The plainsmen now employ writers and artists whose remit it is to interpret the plains and to find new ways of understanding and inscribing this vast physical space.

In his paper, The photographic eye: the camera in recent Australian fiction, Paul Genoni explains how in the book's third and final section the filmmaker's patron gently redirects his interest from moving to still images leading him to a final metaphysical moment:

With his project in disarray, the film-maker is eventually prevailed upon by his patron to take up a camera, and to search for the essence of the Plains within ‘that darkness’. The patron in turn insists upon photographing the film-maker in the act of taking a photograph. But in this carefully composed tableau vivant, with which the novel concludes, the film-maker is posed with his camera reversed, with his eye not at the viewfinder but at the lens. He is photographed in the act of photographing his own eye, or indeed what lies behind it. He is about, ‘to expose to the film in its dark chamber the darkness that was the only visible sign of whatever I saw beyond myself’.

That is, the film-maker is caught in the act of photographing what it is that is entirely personal to him, Time. His project has collapsed in the knowledge that he cannot complete a project based on the unification of space around the common notion of place, because the unique element of Inner Australia is discovered to be Time, the Opposite Plain. This solipsistic and isolated gaze of the explorer of the Second Great Age of Exploration is the antithesis of the empire expanding gaze of the explorers who drew the maps in the Golden Age of Exploration.

The book is also not an easy read and reminds me of parts of Beckett's trilogy. I was pleased to see that it wasn't just me that sees the Beckett connection:

Imre Salusinszky's essay on Gerald Murnane bubbles with an enthusiasm which almost convinced me that I have underestimated the writer. He reads Murnane as a philosophical writer, placing him in a tradition stretching from Dostoevsky through Sartre and Beckett to Robbe-Grillet and Paul Auster. Undaunted by the resonance of big names, Salusinszky goes on to link Murnane's name with a range of philosophers, focussing principally on Derrida. Murnane's fiction is 'an adventure of consciousness', an exploration of human isolation in the face of a reality composed of ultimately unknowable structures. – Susan Lever, 'The cult of the author', Australian Literary Studies, Oct 93

What I find amusing is that Murnane himself in his essay, 'The Breathing Author', which is an edited version of the Newcastle lecture I mentioned earlier, explains that when he studies philosophy at the University of Melbourne in 1966, after handing in his first essay, his tutor took him aside and told him that he had failed to grasp even the basics of the subject. Despite this handicap he managed to obtain a second-class honours in Philosophy One purely by being able to recall passages from books and comments made on them by his tutors.

He does hold one piece of philosophy dear and which has served as a source of inspiration: "that everything exists in a state of potentiality; that is to say, anything can be said to have a possible existence". He explains:

A thing exists for me if I can see it in my mind, and a thing has meaning for me if I can see it in my mind as being connected to some other thing or things in my mind.

In my view, the thing we commonly call the real world is surrounded by a vast and possibly infinite landscape which is invisible to these eyes (points to eyes) but which I am able to apprehend by other means. The more I tell you about this landscape, the more inclined you might be to call it my mind. I myself call it my mind for sake of convenience. For me, however, it is not just my mind but the only mind.

That quote could slip seamlessly into The Plains and you wouldn't notice it. Clearly there is a lot of Murnane in the book and I doubt he would deny it.

The Plains is a strange book. Murnane is happy with the description 'fable' but whatever you want to label it this is certainly not a book to be taken literally. Very little happens over a long period of time but, when it does, Murnane doesn't dwell on it preferring to focus on the spaces in between. We discover almost nothing about any of the characters, in fact, huge chunks of what is a very slim volume, are devoted to outlining the history-come-mythology of this peculiar society; this is Australia but it is not Australia.

It is certainly not a book to read when tired. The subject matter aside, he writes in long sentences and doesn't make his points quickly. "One of my greatest pleasures as a writer of prose fiction," he writes, "has been to discover the endlessly varying shapes that a sentence may take." This book will not appeal to everyone. Many will not be able to finish it (it took me two goes) and even when they do finish it they'll wonder what it was all about. And that's fine. The book's protagonist finds himself in much the same situation trying to come to "see" the plains. In fairness the book does what I am sure he set out to do, to convey the inexplicableness of the plains and the mindset that comes from living there and in that respect it succeeds admirably. I would have no problem reading anything else by him.

***

Murnane was born in Coburg, Melbourne, in 1939 and has almost never left the state of Victoria. Parts of his childhood were spent in Bendigo and the Western District.

He briefly trained for the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1957 but abandoned this path, instead becoming a teacher in primary schools (from 1960 to 1968), and at the Victoria Racing Club's Apprentice Jockeys' School. He received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Melbourne in 1969 and then worked in the Victorian Education Department until 1973. From 1980 he began to teach creative writing at various tertiary institutions.

In 1969 Murnane moved to the Melbourne suburb of Macleod, where he has lived ever since.

He married in 1966 and has three sons.

 

Murnane

***

Recommended further reading:

Karin Hansson, Gerald Murnane's Changing Geographies

Paolo Bartolini, Triptychal Fiction: re-interpreting Murnane's work from The Plains to Emerald Blue

Sue Gillett, Gerald Murnane's "The Plains": a Convenient Source of Metaphors

 

This is an extended version of the review that originally appeared on the Canongate site.


Thursday, 18 June 2009

What does a poem do?

 

164-skeleton-with-skull-q90-315x500 If you'd like to take a moment to have a look over at Writers' Bloc you'll find a nice set of 5 poems that's I'd like you to have a look at and then I've a few words to say about them. The link will open in a new window.

For a very long time I have been preoccupied with what a poem is. I'm not talking about the multifarious and contrary opinions of what makes a poem a poem. I'm talking about fundamentals. All music is made up of rhythm and melody and usually harmony. Go back a step and you can reduce music to pure sound, sound organised in time if you want to be pedantic.

So, what happens when you apply that same kind of logic to poetry? When you peek behind the words, what do you see?

 

Something to Think About


Can a poem, for example, contain no poetry? That is the question I ask in 'Something to Think About'. What happens when you strip away all the rhymes (internal and external), the metaphors, the similes, the onomatopoeia, the alliteration and the everything-that-most-people-associate-with-poetry? What attracted me to Larkin's poem 'Mr. Bleaney' was the fact that it was just about the most barren thing I have ever read. Even its rhymes were arranged so that if you read the piece properly you missed out on most of them. And yet it was still a poem. Why? Why was it a poem?

The bottom line had to be that a poem was more than an amalgam of technique and form.

'Something to Think About' is a poem about thought. And poems are things to be thought about, not merely read. Every poem contains a poet's thoughts. That is all they contain. And what does the reader do? He thinks about them.

What I'm saying is that poetry at its core is a way of thinking. That's what I was on about in my poem 'Changeling':

Turning fourteen I started
thinking poetry.

At the time I never really considered what I meant by "thinking poetry". It was such a part of me that it was the expression made total sense and it still does. I had to lose that ability to appreciate it though. It's not as weird as it sounds. I simply find I can tune into the poetic possibilities of what's going on around. As the words pass through my head they sound like bits of poems, opening lines mainly, as if I'm testing out everything I experience to see if there's a poem in it. Most of the time there isn't.

 

A Thoughtful Poem


The idea of poetry as pure thought is developed further in 'A Thoughtful Poem' which states its purpose explicitly in its opening stanza:

The purpose
of this poem is to make you think.

It is completely up front with the reader. It is related to an earlier poem called 'Reader, Pleaser Supply Meaning' because I believe very strongly that meaning is the remit of the reader. A poet provides an environment, a framework of words, for the reader to use to hang a meaning on and that is it.

But where does the meaning come from? It comes from the only place it can come from, your life. If you have no knowledge of or experience with a subject then you will not be in a position to fully grasp what's going on. You need to go away and acquire the necessary knowledge before you proceed to the next level. The poem itself may provide that knowledge but you have to process it for it to work.

Do poems go off? People I find, and I include myself here, tend to go for new things. If I see a list of books by an author I'm always drawn to the most recent one. The same goes for a poetry magazine; I veer towards the wordsworth latest issue. Why? True some poems do date but it takes years; many years. Wordsworth's poetry hasn't gone bad but it has dated; it is no longer as accessible to an audience as it once was.

In this particular poem the point I'm making about additives and preservatives is that once you open up a poem it's no longer new; it affects you, it changes you. I'm talking about the immediacy of reading a poem for the first time. There's just you, alone with the poem. It's one of those moments that you can't get back. And so, I, the poet, leave the two of you together to take as long as you like. If you go back to it later it won't be the same. That's what I was on about in my poem 'Sons' where the poem says:

"What sex am I?"
the poem asked.

"You are a boy."

"Then there is life in me.
I shall go and sleep
with a virgin mind."

A poem is a catalyst, which, according to The American Heritage Dictionary is, "One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences." – italics mine.

This is what I was getting at in 'Mirror, Mirror':

(Because poems are whores;
they become what you want,
but there's always a price.)

A poem never changes. The words remain the same. No matter how many people read it, no matter how many different meanings they impose on it, a poem never changes. You do. No one has no reaction to a poem. No matter what they think they will have been affected. Just like an infection though some will shrug its effect off. Others will find their lives changes forever.

 

The Skeleton of a Poem


Beckett worked with sounds before anything else. If something doesn't sound right then it probably isn't right. A poem needs to flow in a way that prose does not. 'The Skeleton of a Poem' reduces a poem to its most basic elements. There are no proper words asking that you ascribe them with meaning. There are just 'das' and 'DUMs' and that's about it. This is a real poem – I forget which one – stripped down so that all you have is the sound and the rhythm. It is not without meaning because now you'll look at every poem you read and realise that underneath all the cleverness there is a skeleton that is essential of the poem will have to shape and shape is fundamental if you are to attribute any meaning to it.

When you hold a poem in you hand the first thing to feel for is its skeleton, its bone structure. You look for iambs and trochees. In accentual-syllabic verse we could describe an iamb as a foot that goes like this: da DUM. There are others and you can see a whole list in this Wikipedia entry.

If we look at the first stanza of this poem:

da DUM
da DUM DUM, DUM DUM,
DUM DUM da DUM

what we're presented with is a wee bit on the odd side. No nice iambic pentameters here, oh no. What we have is:

iamb
bacchius / spondee
spondee / iamb

in fact I toyed with the idea if a set of poems showing parts of speech and metrical feet but this one poem gets the basic idea over well enough. Visual poems aside you cannot have a poem without these. Indeed that could be an argument against visual poems being 'poems' but that's an issue for another time.

 

The Lowest Common Denominator


What does a poem do? What is the first thing it does? Take everything else away and what are you left with? It occupies time and space.

The function of
this poem is
to use up time.
There is no more.

This is the point to 'The Lowest Common Denominator'. The very least that anyone will do when reading a poem is use up time. Whether that 400px-P_fraction.svg becomes a waste of time depends on the individual. So I decided to write a poem that only set out to do that.

It admits up front what its function is. It does so mechanically, like a pre-recorded message. You could leave after the first stanza. You stay of your own free will. You have lost your time; the poem has it now and there are no refunds. You cannot appeal to a higher authority. You cannot ring me up and say, "Jim, could you change your poem so it does something else?" because that is all it was designed to do. Sorry.

The poem is a direct response to people who, after reading a poem or a story or interacting with any art form, come out with something like, "Well, that was a total waste of time." They annoy the hell out of me. Art requires time. Even more, it demands it. Before you get down to liking it or not liking it you have to be prepared to devote time to it. How much is up to you. As I walk around an art gallery I'll glance at every painting there but they do not all get the same amount of time. Some never get a second look. I make that call.

Think about that verb for a moment: devote. I chose it carefully. It has religious connotations, true, but the point I wanted to make was that poetry requires time specifically set aside for its appreciation. You can't have a poetry tape playing in the background while you work on your computer the way you can with music; there's no such a thing as background-poetry. Devotion also suggests zeal. You need to approach poetry with the right mindset. You need to be receptive, open.

 

Second Draft


The last poem, 'Second Draft', is related to 'A Thoughtful Poem' in that it is also concerned with the ageing process: how poems go off. This is more from a writer's perspective than a reader's I have to say. I look at some of my older poems and I want to take a hatchet to them. I don't of course. They were as good as I could do at the time and they also reflect my mindset when I wrote them. I would tackle the subjects in completely different ways now. It's also a comment on youthful poetry in general. When I see a lot of poems online I just know they're by newbies because they go on and on and on. Mine certainly did.

As I get older I find that I have less that really needs to be said and need less words to say it. I know what you're thinking: Christ, Jim, how can you say that when you look at the length of your posts? and you're quite churchill right. I offer in my defence Winston Churchill. An anecdote my dad was fond of telling concerned how much time Churchill needed before giving a speech:

Winston Churchill is said to have replied, "Two hours," when asked how long he needed to prepare a two-minute speech. When asked how long he needed to prepare a two-hour speech, he said, "I'm ready now." - The Confident Speaker by Harrison Monarth, Larina Kase, p 210

And I'm the same. I've set myself a goal of two posts a week and so I don't have the time to whittle them down to the bare essentials. My poems are a different matter entirely.

I had in mind Beckett's final poem, written on his deathbed, 'What is the Word?' when I wrote this poem. I find the image a very striking one, a dying man searching for that one last word that will give his life meaning. I suspect the word Beckett would have settled on actually would have been 'folly' because he was nothing less than disparaging of his own efforts.

But what are you really trying to say? I've had people ask that. Usually, being Scots, all I get is: Ah don get it. And that's when I know I've usually said too much. Basil Bunting, in his advice to young poets included this section:

Put your poem away till you forget it, then:

6. Cut out every word you dare.
7. Do it again a week later, and again.

It's good advice. I put it this way: Say what you have to say and get off the page.

I think I have done.

So, I'll go.

Bye.