Whee!

Whee! is how I felt when I received my copy of Stealing Time, A Literary Magazine for Parents, and opened to read my review of A Good Man by Mark Shriver. You can read it here: STM3_Relations_Howard

Schmoozing

Schmoozing (Photo credit: PTWithy)

And I will note, with my middle-aged-writerly wisdom hat snug around my sweaty summer brow, that I connected with this magazine via Sarah Martinez, author of Sex and Death in the  American Novel, a friend I made at Taos Summer Writer’s Conference. Which I signed up for despite the fact that I dread schmoozing, I hate small talk, I loathe crowds and I drip with sweat as I approach the noisy rooms wherein crowds are making small talk and schmoozing. Yet every single time I go into a noisy rooms to make small talk and schmooze, I come out with an interesting idea, new acquaintance/possible friend, or, worst case, an idea for an appetizer to try at home. It is never all bad.

Gas line explodes, neighborhood burns

Horrible like this: Gas line explodes, neighborhood burns (Photo credit: lucy huntzinger)

But my body insists it WILL BE HORRIBLE. Every single time. How fascinating! How misguided. How not-evidence-based. And thus how also an opportunity for dancing on the edge of self-awareness and obliviousness. It is in my awareness of my dueling dual selves that I learn the most, connect the most, open the most doors.

It’s summer. All the doors and windows can be open where I live. I’m going to hang out, and schmooze despite my hating, loathing, and dripping sweat. Whee!

“How fascinating!”

I am reading The Art of Possibility by Rosamund Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander and I am all lit up with its ideas. Their book is grounded in many concepts similar to those of non-violent communication — a technique that has informed my writing, see here.

Fascinate (1999)

Fascinate (1999) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They emphasize perceiving mistakes as fascinating (as in, that didn’t work? How fascinating!); on hearing others’ “no” as an invitation to spark a fire within them; on looking at what we, ourselves, have done (or not done) that has created the circumstances in which we find ourselves; accepting that whatever those circumstances, they are, simply, what is — not good or bad. It just is. Plus there’s Rule Number 6 (don’t take yourself so seriously). I LOVE IT ALL!

And as I’ve been devouring the Zanders’ words, it’s struck me that much of what they encourage as practice for possibility I do not do. I flee from interactions with  fellow writer-artists who lament (loudly and at great length), oh, literature is dead; publishing is dead; no-one even knows what a good sentence is any more, the only thing that gets published is violent and/or sexy dreck; no-one understands MY (brilliant) work; I’m  self-publishing; here, it’s a thousand pages, would you edit it for me I can’t pay but it’s so good you’ll be glad you had the chance.

This fits the “how fascinating” practice in two ways, for me.

First, how fascinating that when eighty-four agents decline your request for representation the problem is with agents/the industry/the reading public, not your concept/story/writing.

Second, how fascinating for me that I want to run away from you. Actually, I sprint away from these folks. You’d be surprised how fast my 47-y.o. legs move.

The Zanders also espouse the concept that those who are in a “downward spiral” haven’t received an invitation to engage in a way that lights them up — and it’s incumbent upon those of us who want to live out our imagined possibilities who must extend invitations that lights up others.

Invitation to the Dance (film)

Invitation to the Dance (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am not the world’s greatest invitation-issuer. I tend to think no one will want to come to whatever literal or figurative party I throw. However, upon reflection, I realize that this has never happened. How fascinating! that I have so effectively told myself this story that I am not acting on some of the possibilities I imagine for writing — possibilities, I realize as I type, that are still so tender that I’m reluctant to put them down in black and white. Holy cow. I’m pushing fifty, I have every possible advantage available to humans at this point, and I’m not going for it? How fascinating.

Pathetic is also a word that springs to mind but I’m sure the Zanders would re-cast that into: it’s not good or bad, it just is. And, don’t take yourself so seriously.

That said, the Zanders quote William James to great effect, and I will repeat it here in closing as well … this will be my summer of living and writing in the small moments (literally: we have a lot of family stuff happening) — and of striving to invite others into the possibilities I see, of noticing what is rather than despairing of what is-not-yet. And, to the relief of Engineer Hubby and sons: not taking myself so seriously.

I am done with great things and big plans and great institutions and big successes. I am for those tiny, invisible loving human forces that work from individual to individual, creeping through the crannies of the world like so many rootlets, or like the capillary oozing of water, yet which, if given time, will rend the hardest monuments of human pride.

— William James

Virginia Quarterly Review and the awesomeness of books and moves, with emphasis on Amour and Iron Man 3

I began this post shortly after seeing  Amour — a gorgeous film, IMO, with sets that convinced me to return for a second viewing, despite its difficult subject matter. And the depth and breadth of human experience it reveals  — well, for the week after enjoying this movie, I toyed with the idea that I should actually throw out my 40+ years of writing stories (yes, I started when I was six) and learn how to craft a screenplay.

Old Dog New Tricks

Old Dog New Tricks (Photo credit: maxymedia)

And. But. One: I’m an old dog, it’d be a new trick, etcetera; there is truth to adages. Two: I love stories more than I enjoy movies. Three: see my previous post; my short story has me in its howling grip and I can’t/won’t walk away from it.

Then: VQR arrived in the mail, with Richard Nash’s essay, What is the Business of Literature. He writes eloquently about the book as technology — like a chair! or the wheel! — and concludes, “Literature is about blowing sh*t up.” (He uses the entire s word. My kids read these posts so I’m making an effort to be family friendly.)

Then, in early May, we went to Iron Man 3. It is always a pleasure to watch Robert Downey Jr. in action. But the last, oh, 30-40 minutes is naught but explosions, and glistening-with-sweat near-death misses. The opposite of the still, quiet, physical-explosion-free Amour, which was, for me,  the more devestating movie.

Marcel Proust in 1900

Marcel Proust in 1900 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have pondered the appeal of each of these films, and the motivation behind those who imagined and created them. They are as different as Marcel Proust and formulaic romance novels, yet, like each of those genres, each holds its pleasures for this reader. They each have a place in the human experience; they each have something to teach us about how to behave with each other.

And they each started with a story in someone’s head. I don’t care if you write comic books or Great Literature, an effective story is both well-told and compelling. Check out Donald Maas’ comment on Julianna Baggott’s post at Writer (un)Boxed for his succinct analysis of the false dichotomy between stories that are sold to us as “literature” versus those promoted as “entertainment.”

In Amour, the sh*t that gets blown up, as in expanded, was my idea of end-of-life care and what it may require of us, as humans, lovers, family. In Iron Man 3, the sh*t that gets blown up is more literal: buildings, oil tankers, human beings. Eye-candy fireworks.

But it’s all about blowing it up.

Put in your ear plugs, strike your match and light your fuse. Let us see your explosion.