writing Archive

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Procrastination Games

By amy ross | Filed in writing

stink eye

Why yes, that is an eyeball balanced on my wedding ring, sitting on my laptop. And in the background, you can see my attempt at creating a color-coded spreadsheet representing my characters’ motivations throughout the course of the novel.

In the past few years, I’ve seen any number of writers — both professional and aspiring — lecture each other on the dangers of the internet. It’s a terrible time suck! they cry. Every second you spend blogging or tweeting or watching videos of people popping zits is a second you’re not writing, and therefore another second of distance between you and the fulfillment of your literary dreams. Do you think Tolstoy wasted time googling random obscenities?

Probably not. But while some writers really can sit down and write for six hours straight, I don’t think that’s necessarily an achievable goal for most of us, internet or no. The web may be a time-wasting device of awe-inspiring power, but a true procrastinator has no need of such crutches. Why, I remember before the internet even existed, when I used to play solitaire (with actual cards!), watch old tv-shows in syndication until I could recite them, unravel blankets with loose threads, or, when all else failed, simply stare blankly into the middle distance.

I’ve spent a lot of my life beating myself up for these habits. How could I have failed to complete that chemistry homework? Why didn’t I leave myself more than three hours to write that paper? How many novels might I have completed in the time I spent constructing dioramas out of happy meal toys?

The thing is, I’m starting to wonder if all that procrastination doesn’t serve a greater purpose. Especially when it comes to something like writing… sometimes it needs to be forced, but maybe sometimes it needs to be ignored for a while in favor of something willfully unproductive. Don’t get me wrong — if you never sit down to write, well, nothing is ever going to get written. But if you’re an incorrigible procrastinator like I am, you might at least console yourself that your unconscious might be doing important work back there while you demolish your high score at tetris.

4 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , , ,

Microfiction Monday

By amy ross | Filed in microfiction

Gelateria

On summer days, the Piazza del Duomo is swollen with crabby, overheated tourists wearily checking off the one major site in their glossy guide books before turning back to their buses and cars to start for the next town.  By nightfall, the piazza is eerily empty and pale, the white marble edifices like a moonbeam mirage.

A few blocks away, the town is waking up, locals stumbling out of restaurants and apartments for their evening walk to the ice cream stand.  Nuns shove their way to the front of the line, pulling rank on the young lovers standing together with limbs intertwined.  The nuns take a profane delight in their treat, but who can begrudge them this one indulgence?

Behind them, groups of teenage boys jostle each other, shouting flirtatious comments at the serving girls.  Each night the love affair begins anew – the girl with the scoop is the most beautiful girl in the world, until she hands over the cone and is forgotten.

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , ,

Publish or Polish?

By amy ross | Filed in publishing, writing

Talking to a writer friend over drinks the other night got me thinking about the various paths to success in this industry.  Industry?  Or is it an art form?

Which kind of gets to my point.  Over the past few years, I have made the acquaintance of some very ambitious writers.  And on some level, I think we’d all like to be multi-published bestsellers as well as critical darlings with an assured place in the literary canon.  But at a certain point, most writers seem to make a choice – either they’re going to put all their energy into getting published, or they’re going to put it all into perfecting their craft.  And while the two approaches certainly aren’t mutually exclusive, they’re not identical, either.

Let’s take for granted that writers on either path will begin by writing a LOT.  Whether your goal is publication or aesthetic perfection, you’re not going to get anywhere without writing, writing, and more writing.

But that aside, the writer who wants, above all, the legitimacy of publication is going to take certain distinct steps toward his goal:  he’ll read all the agent blogs, follow the industry gossip, network with other aspiring writers, scan the best-seller lists, devour every book review that comes out.  All this research will help him discern what the popular trends are, and determine how he might “position himself in the current market”, as they say.  It will also prepare him to send out a dazzling query letter, impress people at conferences with his pithy pitch, and know exactly the right thing to say when an agent finally calls. It’s not an easy path, and it comes with no guarantees, but I think this route does prepare people for the realities of the publishing industry pretty well.  And if what you want is to get published, that can only be helpful.

On the other hand, the writer who is craft-focused may follow a pretty different path.  She’s going to start by reading a ton – the very best books she can get her hands on, in a variety of styles.  She may enter an MFA program, or look around for a hard-hitting critique group.  Or she may simply lock herself away with her work-in-progress and spend five to ten years honing it to near perfection.  She may seek out advice from the authors she most admires, attend writers’ retreats and conferences – whatever it takes to learn from the people who take craft seriously.  This is also not an easy path, and comes with no guarantees – but it’s probably the best bet for producing accomplished writing.

So then what?  Shall never these paths meet?  God, that’s a depressing thought – and not one I subscribe to.  From what I’ve seen, writers who are driven by publication usually find themselves working pretty hard on craft at some point, even if they come on it through the back door.  And those who devote themselves to great writing usually have to take a remedial course in “the bizz” before they find a home for their masterwork.

Still, even if our paths will inevitably cross here and there, we could probably all benefit from checking out the other route more often.

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Microfiction Monday

By amy ross | Filed in microfiction, writing

so this is a bit of a microfiction failure — more a fragment then a fully-formed story. I did have a story in mind, with characters and dialogue and conflict and everything, but I got caught up describing the setting and wound up edging the girl out of the story. She might show up next week… Oh yeah, this also has a weird hard-boiled quality that I was definitely not going for consciously. I don’t know what’s up with that.

Pickled Eggs

null

It was about two years ago that the kids started coming to Wally’s.

Wally’s had been Jack’s favorite bar for going on forty years now, if by favorite you meant the one closest to his apartment. The place held a lot of memories, almost none of them happy – Wally’s was where Jack used to go to get away from his wife, until she got away from him for good. It’s where he used to knock off early from work, back when he had it. These days it was where most of his pension checks went, after rent and a paper bag full of groceries.

Jack liked Wally’s for two reasons: the pickled eggs, and the fact that everyone who came in was as lonely and miserable as he was. There were no loudmouth, cheerful drunks here, or cozy couples cooing to each other in a booth. It was dark, it was quiet, and even the bartender knew enough to leave you alone with your thoughts.

Then two summers ago, a couple of kids stumbled in – mid-twenties, tight pants, one of them wearing a hat like Jack hadn’t seen since his father was a young man. The kids got a couple of beers and wound up snickering in the corner for half an hour before they left. But that was just the beginning – ever since then, more and more of these weirdo kids cluttered up the bar, tattooed like sailors, pierced like savages, popping quarters into a juke box that Jack hadn’t even known was there.

Tonight, they were daring each other to eat Wally’s pickled eggs, the best pickled eggs in the neighborhood, as if they thought they were chunks of brined dog shit.

2 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Fan Mail

By amy ross | Filed in authors, writing

A couple of years ago, I made a resolution to start writing fan mail to my favorite authors and artists.

Though it may sound selfish, I imagined it as paying into some karmic appreciation fund — some day, I hope to have readers who are sufficiently moved and inspired by my words that they will seek me out and tell me as much. By the same token, don’t I have an obligation to let the people who have inspired me (those who are still living, anyway) know how I have been affected by their work? Wouldn’t any writer be thrilled to hear such a thing? Of course it’s all very well and fulfilling, I’m sure, to hear that you’ve “moved a lot of product” in the past fiscal quarter. But ultimately, I imagine that most writers would value a note of heartfelt appreciation at least as much as a royalty statement.

A nice resolution, and not too difficult — these days, with email addresses posted so prominently on most authors’ websites, nothing could be easier than dashing off a quick little message of thanks.

But then the months came and went, and I think I sent a total of two. Or wait, maybe one? The other might be languishing in my drafts folder. Why was I having so much trouble with what seemed like a simple task?

I don’t know, maybe I overthought it. My first instinct had just been to send notes saying, essentially, “I love your work.” But that seemed so bland and insincere. If I received a note like that, it might bring a smile to my face, but would probably be forgotten by lunchtime. No, I wanted to go deeper — I wanted to tell these authors how fully I understood them and felt understood by them… how deeply I engaged with the project of their writing.

That’s where I ran into trouble. Because… what if I got it wrong? Or rather, not wrong exactly, but what if my understanding of the book was in fact totally different from what the author intended? As legitimate as my interpretation might be, it ran the risk of pissing off the author more than pleasing him. Which was pretty much the opposite of my intention.

So I was torn — send out vapid platitudes in hopes of remaining inoffensive? Or engage with the text in all its problematic glory, and run the risk of incurring the author’s wrath? Or maybe just avoid the trouble by keeping my big mouth shut?

So I went with the third option. But I wonder sometimes what the authors would say. Do authors have stories of “fan mail” which left them more annoyed than flattered? For what it’s worth, if I’m ever in their position, I’d rather hear something than nothing, and I would actually love to hear every odd or idiosyncratic interpretation of my work. But I lack confidence that others feel the same way.

6 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , ,

Microfiction Monday

By amy ross | Filed in microfiction

oh hey, classes are (almost) over, so I’m trying to get back on the horse. the blog horse. you know. anyway, we read some micro-fiction in my workshop this semester, and I was inspired to give it a shot. god willing, this will become a regular feature, and you can all watch me struggle with a brand new genre. be nice.

White Lie

When I was a kid, my aunt had this dog I just loved. Pretty little lap dog, all big eyes and fluffy fur – like a toy come to life. I only saw him a few times a year, but when we visited, I’d take him for walks and chase him up and down the stairs. Then one time when we visited, he wouldn’t run up the stairs anymore. Couldn’t get up on the couch without help.

Then next time I visited, my aunt told me the dog had gotten old, so she sent him away to live on a farm. Well, you’ve probably heard this story before – the classic thing grown-ups say to kids so they don’t have to tell them a pet died.

But when you’re a kid, you don’t know about those stories, and it doesn’t occur to you that anyone is trying to protect you. So for years, I walked around thinking my aunt was some kind of horrible person who’d give away a sick, old dog.

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , ,

The Seamy Side of MFAs

By amy ross | Filed in writing

All right, here’s a hoary old subject that has been done to death: MFA programs — are they valid?

The most recent incarnation of this question has been brought to you courtesy of Lionel Shriver, who tells Big Think that, despite having gone through an MFA program herself, and having had what appears to have been a pretty good time, she considers there to be “something a little corrupt… something unwholesome” in them.

Corrupt and unwholesome? Why that’s… that’s… perfectly delicious. Frankly, it makes me wonder if I’m not getting invited to the right parties.

nobutseriously. I understand what she means, about teachers teaching students to become teachers who teach students and oh was there some writing in there? There is something slightly claustrophobic — incestuous, even* — about the idea of going directly from writing student to writing teacher without ever making one’s living as a, you know, writer.

But if her argument is that most MFAs don’t go on to become professional writers… well, isn’t that true of most aspiring writers of all stripes? Anyway, the truth is most MFAs won’t even go on to be teachers or professors, either. I’m not positive, but I have a general sense that most MFAs wind up shivering in squats and playing harmonica for quarters. Either that or they go to law school.

So yes, Shriver is right — this isn’t a pre-professional degree. Getting an MFA is totally frivolous, completely impractical. But that’s kind of the fun of it, isn’t it? When else in your life as a writer, a teacher, or a harmonica playing bum are you ever going to get a chance to focus on pure craft — on writing for writing’s sake, independent of the whims of the market or your editors or an employer? Sure, it’s a little self-indulgent, but no more so than the concept of art itself.

(for another smart take on MFAs, if you’re not sick to death of this topic, see here)

———————-
*Wow, who knew MFA programs were so sordid?

2 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , ,

a short sharp shock

By amy ross | Filed in books, writing

The Elegant Variation has an interesting guest post by Marisa Silver on the short story, and its merits relative to the longer fiction narrative.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently, as I’m finishing up one class on reading the short story and another on writing them.

I once counted myself among the people Silver describes – the short story haters.  At the time, I had a lot of justifications for this position (short stories are unengaging? oblique? pretentious? I forget my specific grievances), but I’ve since concluded that I didn’t like the short story because I hadn’t read any good ones.  Thankfully, I’ve been cured of that ailment.

Still, that’s not to say novels and short stories are the same, or give pleasure in the same ways.  But what, precisely, is the difference?

One theory I’ve been playing with is that a (good) novel paints character so richly and distinctively, the reader feels as if he actually knows this person.  The short story simply doesn’t have time to offer such a deep and thorough investigation of character, so it tends to rely on recognizable character “types” that are instantly grasped and intuitively understood.  I don’t mean to suggest that short form writers rely on clichés or “stock” characters – rather that they make use of people who already feel familiar to the reader, because we run across them every day.

For example, even though it’s been years since I read Lolita, I still feel like I know Humbert Humbert as well as if he were an old school friend, or my next door neighbor growing up.  (Erm… maybe I shouldn’t have gone there.)  Whereas, even though I read What We Talk About When We Talk About Love a couple of weeks ago, I can’t name a single character in the collection – what I have instead is a vivid sense of the kind of people who inhabit Carver’s world.  I don’t need to know every detail about his characters, because their situations – crumbling marriages, alcoholism, anger and hopelessness – are universal enough to be instantly understandable.

So, I don’t know about this theory.  Maybe all I’ve really said is that Raymond Carver is not Nabokov, and Nabokov is not Carver.  But as I work on writing and revising more shorts (and, of course, writing and revising novels), I find myself thinking about which characters belong in which medium.

Anyone else who has dabbled in both forms – have you found any other crucial differences between them?  Or want to dispute this one?

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , , , , ,

E-Bards and Print Reviewers

By amy ross | Filed in books, writing

[Criticism] is not a profession and does not stand or fall with any particular business model. Criticism is a habit of mind, a discipline of writing, a way of life — a commitment to the independent, open-ended exploration of works of art in relation to one another and the world around them. As such, it is always apt to be misunderstood, undervalued and at odds with itself. Artists will complain, fans will tune out, but the arguments will never end.

YES. Yes, this. I admit, I have a special soft spot in my heart for A.O. Scott, based on the random fact that he went to my high school (though not at the same time as I did). But that aside, I feel like in all the recent debate about the future of criticism — whether blogs are killing newspapers or will newspapers turn into blogs, and why should anyone trust what some shmoe in a bathrobe* tells them about a book or a movie anyway — in all that hubub, I have been waiting and waiting for someone to express this take on the matter.

All I would add to Scott’s analysis is that criticism is a kind of writing — or, fine, let’s say a “mode of discourse”, so we can include critics who use tv or youtube as their medium. But either way, it’s like any other kind of writing/discourse — the only way to judge it is by how it performs. So I know that a lot of people are shocked — shocked! — that ordinary people are allowed to leave reviews of books and movies and other products on sites like Amazon or Librarything (—>), and worse yet, other innocent consumers who don’t know any better might read these reviews and, horror or horrors, believe them. But such horror misses the point of criticism entirely. Good critics produce interesting criticism, bad critics produce dull criticism. If a review on LibraryThing is well-reasoned, well-researched, eloquent, and fully engages with the material under review and its cultural context, can’t I, as a reader, be trusted to figure that out from reading the review itself? And why shouldn’t I incorporate that review into my understanding of the text, just because the writer doesn’t happen to have a syndicated newspaper column?

But of course, that’s not the real issue at stake. And believe me, I understand that people who write reviews for a living would like to continue to get paid, and thus feel threatened by e-reviews that are produced for fun, not profit. Hey, I’d like to get paid for writing reviews too! But I don’t see why the readers of reviews should be expected to care about such an issue. Let the cream rise to the top — if newspaper reviewers are so much better at this craft than bloggers, they should have nothing to fear from us.

————————–
*and I mean… aren’t like 90% of writers basically shmoes in our bathrobes? Well, personally I wear a sarong to write, but still.

2 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , , ,

Nine Billion Names of…

By amy ross | Filed in books, writing

Okay, I don’t have quite that many. Yet.

I’ll admit, I have a bit of a problem with names. I’ve had a few — given names, middle names, nicknames, and the like — over the course of a lifetime, but nothing has ever quite felt like me. And so, pretty much as soon as I started writing seriously, I started thinking about trading up — what would I name myself if I could pick any name in the world?

Plenty of admirable writers throughout history have been known by names other than the ones their parents gave them: Anthony Burgess, Lewis Carroll, Joseph Conrad, George Eliot, Molière, George Orwell, just to name a few of my own favorites. In days past, authors might seek to conceal their identities from fear of political repercussions, scandal, or prejudice. Nowadays, though, pen names aren’t so common. Indeed, the whole concept seems to have fallen into ill-repute — after all, why wouldn’t you use your real name? Are you ashamed of what you write? Or are you ashamed of who you are?

But what if you’re just not wild about your name? What if you just want something a little more glamorous? A little more literary?

There is one problem with picking your own name, though: there doesn’t seem much reason to hold onto it, once it’s lost some of its shine. When my first novel went on submission to editors, I decided to call myself Alma, after Alma Werfel, whom I knew and admired primarily thanks to the Tom Lehrer song. Her name was reasonably close to mine, but more distinctive — and who wouldn’t want to make all modern women jealous?

But when that book didn’t sell, I found myself feeling distanced from the name. I still had a fine future in front of me — Alma, however, was clearly a hack.

For my next novel, I went a different direction. I’d heard a rumor that, even in this day, there were certain books that sold better from male authors, and the thought struck fear into me — what if my brilliant novel was being ignored for no better reason than my sex? Not the most likely theory, but an attractive one, because that was a much easier problem to fix than a sluggish plot. In a nod to Sand and Eliot, I took on George as my new moniker, and sent the second book out.

And when that didn’t take? I’m not going to say it was George’s fault, but he certainly didn’t help, and I’d say we’ve grown rather less fond of each other since the ordeal. So — sorry, George! But it’s off to the pen name graveyard with you.

And now here I am, set to head back out into madness, and I’m trying to change things up a bit. For once, why not stick my own name on something?

Well, it turns out there is one modern reason why an author might want to change her name. My current name brings up 4,980,000 google hits, not one of which is referring to me; Amy Ross is just too damn common in this age of electronic searches. So I’ve solved the problem by rooting around in my family history: Introducing Amy Danziger Ross, who hopefully will have the modern magic combination of being easy to spell, easy to pronounce, easy to remember, and easy to google. (And hey, it wouldn’t hurt if she sold a book this time… I’m tired of coming up with new names.)

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Tags: , , , , , ,