Temporarily Out of Commission

I’m sitting in my bedroom with a humidifier, trying not to cough. Illness is such a humbling experience, stripping us of all the airs of grandeur we dress in daily. This morning I got out of bed, smelling of menses and urine from when the cough was so bad I voided. I went straight to the shower, unable to stand myself. After that, it was breakfast, a conversation with my mother, and more cold medicine. I think I’m back to the yearly thing, the one that requires antibiotics and a stronger than usual cough suppressant. My mother says it’s time for the doctor, but since I haven’t had this long enough to obviate the lecture about how colds and viruses need a week to work themselves out of the body, I disagree. I want my $100.00 and my two-hours wasted to result in a prescription, not a follow-up (i.e., no prescription, one condescending lecture, an appointment for another $100.00 and two more hours wasted). By this point in my life, I know my own body and my own ailments well enough to distinguish between a cold and something more serious.

I’m not sure why I’m bringing this up here, in a blog about writing, except that Adrienne Rich has a poem about how coming out of a fever is like a resurrection, how you feel like a survivor afterward, like you left someone else behind. I always think of that poem when I’m sick because she captures exactly what it is to be well again.

I think too that it’s hard to write about the way the mind betrays us when the body doesn’t respond to whatever power we think we have over it. My novella is about a person who is falling apart in mind, body, and spirit. While each collapse has its source, the collapse of the body exacerbates the other two. It affects her judgment and her responses to things. When I had a friend read an early draft, she could not understand why the protagonist couldn’t just do this or that more obvious and normal thing, so I realized that I hadn’t done a good job of reproducing that mindset.

Speaking of mindsets, I started the story I mentioned last time. I got 345 words down. I don’t really know where I’m going with it. Usually I’ve got a good idea. But I’ve decided I’m going to go ahead with it because I’m afraid of talking myself out of it the way I talked myself out of writing the poem with the ball, the swing, and the woman at the foot of the stairs. This story is about extraterrestrials, not at all my cup of tea, so developing the right mindset for the characters and in turn for the reader is important.

Now I’m going to stop. I’m rambling far too much. Between the humidifier and the last of the cough medicine with codeine, I’m having to work less hard at not-coughing, so I may be able to sit here and knit while listening to one of my famous audio books. The one I’ve got on the player now is not very good. It’s called The Lost Diary of Don Juan. Normally, I love retellings, hearing the story from another character’s point of view, etc., but this very obviously made-for-film novel has so little to do with the play that I suspect its writer hasn’t actually read the source of his narrative. The two clearest details in support of that fact are that the galanteador of the retelling is in love with a woman named Ana while the one in the source play is in love with a woman named INEZ and that the Don Luis, best friend of Don Juan and betrothed to Dona Ana (with whom Don Juan has a payback quicky before meeting the saintly Dona INEZ), of the play is no where to be found in the novel. I haven’t read the poem by Byron, so it’s possible that this novel is based on that. Anyway, aside from giving me an excuse to be pedantic, this book is helping me understand that I stop reading altogether when I lose interest in something. I still can’t bring myself to not finish a book, however crappy, so I suppose that finishing it slowly is better than not finishing it at all.

When I consider How My Light Is Spent (Some more)

Ah, the post partal effluvia has receded. I read my Miltonian sonnet last night, and it has ceased to be the quintessential Miltonian sonnet, the one he would have written if his sensibilities were mine.

Fortunately, I still like it. I revised, of course, more editing than real revision, and I haven’t changed my mind about sending it out soon.

Most of the changes involved adding more periods. The poem was basically two long sentences, and while grammatical and perfectly clear, they made the whole thing overly dense. I broke it up, not easy when meter and rhyme need to be taken into account. The effect is to make the tone more anxious, angrier. That wasn’t quite what I was going for, but I think it works, so I’ll probably leave it alone.

The most significant changes, the ones that were real revisions, happened in the last line. It sounded very cryptic to me sans post partal effluvia, so I spent over an hour writing and rewriting it. Now its sense is clearer, but I’m not sure that it will have any meaning to the general reader.

What does that mean?

I made the mistake of Googling the sonnet. The blog entries I read discuss it in very conventional terms: the speaker wonders if he will be judged by God for not exercising his gifts to the fullest, then realizes (1) that God, the giver of all gifts, doesn’t need humans to do His work for Him and (2) that standing and waiting is work enough. Of course, the bloggers emphasize the tragedy of blindness, which is what prompts the speaker’s musings in the first place.

For the general reader, a sighted reader, that tragedy is one of the assumptions of the poem. For the speaker, blindness is a fact, and it’s a hardship, but its tragedy is that it may be a possible obstacle to salvation. My own reading of the situation, not the poem, is that what impedes the speaker from exercising his gifts is not his blindness, but the small mindedness of others, who, in not recognizing that he can be an instrument of God as well as they, fail to exercise the gift/responsibility of loving their neighbors as themselves. Saying all of this in a few short lines is hard. It’s even harder when the reader is unwilling to rethink the nature of the tragedy and his or her roll in it.

Another thing I noticed about my response to Milton’s sonnet is that one of the images (the bony whore) that was key during the writing seems to be unimportant now. It isn’t altogether irrelevant. It suggests by analogy. But what I’ll have to decide is whether that analogy or another will work best.

I should reread other poems now that I’m sitting in the arid glare of reality.

When I Consider How My Light Is Spent

Tonight I wrote a poem: a whole poem from beginning to end. I haven’t done that since graduate school. It took about two and a half hours to write.

Mostly it wrote itself, not quite dictation. I had to stop to look up the parable of the talents, and I had to stop to reread one of Milton’s sonnets, and I almost shut down during the sestet, but the write image came into my head (empty houses like tombs),,. With that, I was able to compress it from a line in order to push on to the end, where I now had more syllable space for the clincher, another image (digging in a field).

Yes, it’s another sonnet (Miltonian no less). It’s a response to Milton’s “When I Consider How My Light Is Spent,” which I’ve always wanted to rail against. In many ways, his final image is perfect: servants spend a lot of time standing and waiting, and having done a lot of that myself, there’s something to be said for the strength required to do it. But there’s little comfort in accepting the fate of living on perpetual hold until one is acknowledged to be human.

I think my response is clear, but this may be one of those situations where point of view gets in the reader’s way. I can’t really explain what I mean without going into detail about the poem, and I’m not ready to do that. The only thing I can really say is that we all have biases, some so deep we don’t know we have them. When we encounter an idea that goes against one of these biases, our response is incomprehension or anticlimax. Knowing how to write for that biased reader is really difficult because the risks are obscurity and dogma. For now, I want the poem to sit for a week or two so I can read it fresh.

The writing was amazingly fast, and I’m excited. It feels good, a little weird, a little hard to believe.

It still doesn’t have a title, except maybe “To Milton,” but that’s pretty sucky.

_The Woman in White_ and Other Controversies

I’m reading Wilkie Collins’ the Woman in White. Wikipedia classifies the genre as sensational. The term rings a bell, but a faint one, so I’ll find out more about it.

I chose this book because it sounded like a ghost story, and though I’m only a few chapters in, it reminds me of Dracula in the same quiet way that running into a person we know superficially brings to mind the cousin or roommate we know better: the layers of narrative, a night walk and the appearance of a mysterious woman wearing ordinary but completely white clothes, the arrival to a seemingly empty house, eccentric characters who smack of the morally corrupt (a perfectly proportioned dwarf [we know Victorians and their thoughts on deformity and disability], a mannish woman, and a womanish male invalid).

I’m reading it because it’s Halloween, a holiday I like for lots of reasons from children and candy to the acknowledgement of the metaphysical, the embodiment of forbidden impulses, and the fearless and even joyous confrontation with inevitable death and with the drives we can’t or won’t suppress.

I’ve always wanted to write a ghost story of my own, the kind Henry James and F. Marion Crawford wrote, silent, under-the-skin tales that get down deep because they’re based on an assumption that there is a soul and that day-to-day choices feed or dampen that soul. Some, the best of them, read like theology, and I think an otherwise resistant reader can be persuaded to consider God inside a ghost story.

For me, this is vital. So much of my work involves God—sometimes frightening, sometimes petty, sometimes indifferent, sometimes intense and protective, sometimes sexual. I don’t think “faith based” fiction has room for this kind of God. I’m not sure that a lot of other readers do.

Last night, I was having dinner with a friend. She’s in the final stages of her dissertation, which is on the sermons of a tenth-century monk. She was summarizing part of a chapter to me and said that, to her monk’s way of thinking, the male should close the gates of his senses and remove himself from women in order to enter into what she terms a dull Heaven that is devoid of sensory experience and burdened by continuous prayer.

My own thought was that concentrated sensory experience leads to small moments of magnified gratification, like the tension and release of orgasm, but the sustained sensory deprivation and focus of my friend’s monk is the instant prior to or immediately following climax. A body knows the anchor of the senses and does everything it can to find out what else is possible; a soul knows there is more and flounders against the lack of limits.

My fiction is about that struggle, and that eternal state of orgasm is what a lot of my characters strive for or work against. I don’t know how much value someone like my friend can find in my writing. I’m not sure how much of a market there is for this either.