Writing Difficulty

 

I’m working on a piece about something I didn’t want to write about. I didn’t want to write about it because I didn’t want to go back to that place. “But it’s such a good story,” I thought. And it is. There are coincidences and synchronicities that I couldn’t have planned any better if I was writing fiction. It’s a good story, and it’s going to be a good essay, because I tend to write best when I’m writing from a place of emotion.

I’m convincing myself to go back and work on it some more.

It’s odd, because writing has always been catharsis. Once I spew everything out onto the page, it’s out, and I feel better. Writing this feels like scratching a partially-healed wound. Maybe it was too early. Maybe I should have waited longer.

Natalia Ginzburg, in her essay, “My Craft” says, “I learned it was exhausting to write seriously. It’s a bad sign if you’re not exhausted . . . When you write something serious, you sink into it and drown right up to your eyes . . . to the extent that the writing is valid, and worthy of life, every other feeling will become dormant” (46, trans. Lynne Sharon Schwartz).

My friend Gary says, “Writing has been like unspooling a tightly wrapped ball of yarn into an itchy sweater. I’m always uncomfortable with what I’ve done but it feels like an accomplishment.”

Sometimes, we forget that writing is hard for everyone. I guess I did. I’m exhausted, I’m itching, but, thanks to Gary and Ginzburg, I’ll keep going.

And you, you out there, if you’re having a hard time writing, you keep going too.

City Sounds

I’m writing about Amsterdam, remembering Paris and worrying about Chennai while moving into an apartment in Chicago. It’s been a little confusing. So I closed my eyes, and was almost deafened by a cacophony of sounds. Cities are noisy. I noticed that only when I returned from Amsterdam to United States suburbia.

So, consider this a writing exercise. It’s all my tired brain can manage after two solid days of hauling boxes and assembling furniture.

Chennai: the paper-walla’s mid-afternoon shout of “Pay-paaaar! Pay-paar!” The thwack of tennis ball hitting the bat’s sweet spot and then disappearing, unfortunately, into the neighbour’s compound. My mom’s maami’s tinkling laugh. “Overaa pannadhey” and other phrases I only heard at BVM. The German Shepherd next door barking furiously. Ravi Shastri, Harsha Bhogle, Geoffrey Boycott, Michael Holding, Pommy Mbangwa and (unfortunately) Navjot Singh Sidhu’s cricket commentary. Hundred and thousand-wallas on Diwali night.

Amsterdam: Sirens at two in the morning. The bells of Sint Nicolaaskerk chiming the hour. “Joe hoe!”s at an unthinking pedestrian in the middle of the road. “Alstublieft” and “dank je wel.” Accents of all kinds–British, French, German, Dutch–molding into one mass of sound. The Dutch accents of our professors. The hiss of bike wheels.

Paris: Projection and spit-flying enunciation. Unexpected Tamil. A head-spinning amount of a language I thought I knew. More accents. Many more accents. And dialects. Language variety. Shouting, as a manif marched down the street.

Chicago: The L thundering by. The thuds of the people upstairs walking around. Creaking floorboards every time I move a muscle. Voices outside the window.

Reading Essays

You see, the problem is that you're not a writer... CC-BY-SA Nina Paley

You see, the problem is that you’re not a writer…
CC-BY-SA Nina Paley

I read fiction. I make no bones about that.

I read the occasional memoir. I did a project on memoirs. But that was in college.

I read pages and pages of academic criticism. And many pages more. But that was also in college.

I started reading theatre. First Shakespeare, then Corneille, Racine, Molière, Hugo, Sartre and much more.

Long before, when I was reading Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie and J.K. Rowling, I started writing essays. I had no clue how they looked. I had no clue how they sounded. I’d read some of my mother’s essays and articles, but that was about it.

Through the years that followed, I moved on to Toni Morrison, Dickens, Austen, Charlotte Brontë and Margaret Atwood. And I kept writing essays.

Now, finally, I have begun to read essays. And finally, I have understood the true meaning of the writer as thief, searching constantly for shiny tricks and turns of phrase to carry away, hoard, reconfigure and sell.

I started with Meghan Daum’s The Unspeakable: And Other Subjects of Discussion. My favorite thing about the book is its cover. Oh, the essays have punchy beginnings and, often, punchy endings. There are a few, just a few, which have that well-I-knew-that-but-I-just-didn’t-say-it feeling that the best essays often give me. But I see most of them as privileged whining. Still, I often learn best from the things with which I disagree deeply and fundamentally. I learned a lot from Meghan Daum. I learned that it takes a kind of bravery to put certain things in print. I learned that there’s value in writing unflinchingly about the unspeakable parts of the self. I learned that I will not write an essay thinking, “Even a bad reaction is a reaction.”

Now, I’m reading A Place to Live, Lynne Sharon Schwartz’s translation of selected essays by Natalia Ginzburg. It’s reopened my eyes to what drew me to nonfiction in the first place–the innovative turns of thought, the eye for odd details, the mind on the page. Ginzburg uses no lengthy words. Ginzburg writes simply, with deep feeling.

There’s room for the innovative. There’s room for the amusing. I enjoy writing innovatively and with humor. But I aim to write simply, with deep feeling.

That’s the most difficult, most vulnerable kind of writing to do.

A Writer’s Life?

Comic by xkcd.com

For a long time, I didn’t even call myself a writer. The title stank too much of the flannel-wearing, cigarette-smoking hipster who spent days holed up in a smoke-filled apartment, ignoring food and non-alcoholic beverages in favor of frenzied typing, churning out something that no one would understand anyway. I was just someone who liked to write.

And now, I’m going to start my MFA in approximately a week, I’m registered in a workshop in which, for the first time, I’m not being told what to write and I’m about to embark on what’s called a writer’s life.

Oh sure, I’ve submitted to magazines and journals and contests before. Just a couple of days ago, I received a rejection notice. I’ve been published and won prizes. I’ve written thousands of words each day for a prolonged period of time. I’ve struggled through writer’s block, edited a piece until I was sick of the sight of it and then kept editing. I’ve participated in many of the components of a writer’s life.

But there was always other stuff. There was theatre. There was sociology. There was academic writing. There was literature.

And now, there’s going to be writing and reading and, eventually, teaching writing. Specialization. Just what they told me grad school would be. And in spite of all the assurances I received at orientation that it was recommended, no, encouraged, that I take classes outside my discipline, the truth is that I have one, maybe two classes in which to exercise that latitude.

Most of the time, I’ll just be writing. I’ve been bemoaning the fact, for the last four years, that I never had time to write what wasn’t required of me. And now, I seem to be intimidated by the prospect of that time. I try to convince myself that this is like the pulse-pounding moments before going on stage, when I pace and try to breathe deeply, try to stay in character, waiting, waiting for my cue. Once I go on stage, in a rush of adrenaline, it’ll just be me and my fellow Nonfiction MFAs, the lights too bright to see beyond the first row of the audience. I’ll take a deep breath and I’ll plunge in. And when the lights are turned off and I’m out of costume, I’ll analyze our performance half to death until I stop myself and realize that the show is over and what happened happened.

And maybe I’ll sit down and do what I’m doing now–write myself into peace of mind.

National Hug a Code-Switcher Day

You are probably one of the many people who thinks that code-switching doesn’t really matter to you.

But think about this. Would you call a woman friend “Ma’am” in the way you might call your boss “Ma’am?” Or, would you greet your teacher (or your child’s teacher) with “Hey hey hey!” the way you would a friend? If you answered no to one or both questions, you code-switch.

Code-switching may not seem like a big deal. But, for someone who speaks with an accent or dialect that’s different from the majority, code-switching is a major part of life. That’s because accents, dialects and sometimes even languages come with stereotypes.

Let’s say you’re hanging out with two French friends. While you’re checking your phone, they exchange a couple of sentences in French.

“That sounds so beautiful!” you say.

“I just said that my dog died,” your friend says.

Suitably chastised, you sympathize.

But, even if your friend was saying how they love the sunshine, you probably shouldn’t have ignored the meaning of what they said to focus on the sound.

If your friend interacts with twenty people in a day, half of whom have the same reaction you did, it can get pretty annoying. They’re just speaking normally. They might not want to be singled out because of how they’re saying something. And further, they might not feel listened to. If ten people paid no attention to what you said, you’d probably be pretty upset too.

On the other end of the spectrum, code-switching (or the failure to do so) can lead to some pretty serious consequences. Stanford linguistics professor John Rickford argues that prejudice against Ebonics may have influenced the trial of George Zimmerman. One of the prosecution’s chief witnesses, Rachel Jeantel, may have been “discredited and misunderstood by the jury because of the way she talks” (read the whole article here). So, a woman was disbelieved based on the sound of what she was saying, instead of the meaning.

Because of all this, many people adopt the accent or dialect of the majority to try to fit in. And, naturally, some people are better at it than others. Some people (including me) change their accent depending on who they’re talking to. Whatever the case, it is deeply unfair to make value judgements about someone on the basis of how they speak.

What if your boss overheard you talking on the phone to a friend, and fired you because you didn’t use perfect grammar? What if your friends thought you were “trying to be posh” when they heard you speaking to your boss? Unfair, right? Code-switchers often face these same, unfair judgements.

It’s interesting when someone speaks differently from you and yes, it sometimes gives you a clue about their background or personality. But there is a way to ask someone about their accent or dialect without discounting and ignoring the content of what they say. Ask them to repeat what they said. Ask them where their accent is from. Start a conversation about language or dialect.

And remember that, in small ways, you code-switch as well. Just please, please don’t make value judgements about a perfectly normal way of talking. The person you’re talking to may already feel self-conscious enough about it.

Vanishing History

From User Ghyomm on Gnome Art

From User Ghyomm on Gnome Art

I heard, on the train from Chicago, that another piece of history had vanished. We were passing greenery, neat houses flashing by as we entered more and more suburban territory. Only two more stops.

And then the phone rang.

“Where are you?”

“I’m near the racetrack, Mum. I’ll be there soon.”

“So how was group?”

“Oh, it was okay.”

“Just okay? What happened?” My mother’s discussion group at a local senior living community is one of the highlights of her week. She leads her seniors in a discussion of various aspects of their lives, always grateful that she helps, in some small way, preserve history.

“Yeah. I got the news that Chakkarai Paati passed away.”

“What? I–I’ll be there soon.”

“Yeah, I know. I’m fine.”

As the greenery and neat houses continued to flick by, changing occasionally into storefronts and cars, I thought. I was more shocked than anything. Not upset, because I hadn’t exactly been close to Chakkarai Paati. She was one of those relatives who seem impossibly ancient to a young child. A great-grandmother. My great-grandmother.

All I really remember of Chakkarai Paati in health is her upright posture, her tight bun of coconut-oiled hair, her silk sari gleaming as she sat in state and imperiously directed her son, daughter-in-law and maids whenever we went to visit. The TV would usually be on, tuned either to cricket or her favorite Tamil serials. My last memory of her is of her daughter-in-law yelling that I was going to do a namaskaaram before leaving. I knelt in front of her and pressed my forehead to the ground, remembering the feel of her soft, fine skin, stretched almost too tightly over the bones of the hand she’d offered me when I arrived. She muttered a blessing over me, though I could barely hear what she said. And then I stood up and left, saddened by the rubber sheet on the bed and the discussion about adult diapers.

The train arrived and I rushed to the car to give my mother a hug. It was only when we got home and she began to reminisce that I realized just how much history had just left the earth.

Chakkarai Paati was married at age 9. As happened in those days, she stayed with her family until she hit puberty, then was sent off to live with her husband. There followed a 74-year relationship, broken only when my great-grandfather died.

In a patriarchal society, Chakkarai Paati was undisputedly the matriarch of her family. My great-grandfather might have been the one who brought the money and the status as an accountant at Fraser & Ross. He might have been the reason for the numerous trips to England, the strawberries and cream at Wimbledon, the invitations to balls (yes, balls) in British-ruled Madras in the first half of the twentieth century. He might have been one of the cream of the Indian crop who got to associate with the British on at least nominally equal footing. But she was the one who ran the household, far into her seventies and eighties. She negotiated with the gardener. She disciplined her rambunctious grandchildren. She made such wonderful food that my mother always took care to visit just in time for lunch. Her husband was a mild-mannered man who delighted his grandchildren by taking them to the Woodlands Drive-In once in a while. She fed them every day during the summer vacations they spent at the house. She disciplined them when they broke something or made too much noise.

Everyone was a little afraid of her.

But she lived through Independence. She traveled abroad at a time when many women never traveled out of their hometowns. She lived through Partition and Gandhi’s assassination and some of the most fractious times in India’s history. She lived through plenty of suffering in her own family’s history.

And now, she is no more.

As always, I now think of a hundred questions I should have asked about her life. But my parents and I console ourselves. She’d have been delighted that, decades later, we followed in her footsteps to Wimbledon.

The Importance of Multiplicity

Patricia Arquette did something different. “To every woman who gave birth to every citizen and taxpayer of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights,” she said, in her Oscar acceptance speech. “It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

And, at once, the chorus began.

“Patricia Arquette is awesome! Patricia Arquette is great! We’ve come so far.”

“What about women of color? What about queer women? What about gender minorities?”

Both valid points.

But why do “We have come so far” and “We have so far to go” have to be in opposition to one another? Why can we not acknowledge how far we have come, without forgetting that there is still a long way to go?

Days like today demonstrate the multiplicity of our experience.

Today, June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-4 vote, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

Today, June 26, 2015, President Barack Obama delivered a eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down during Bible study last Wednesday at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, along with Cynthia Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel Simmons, Sharon Coleman-Singleton and Myra Thompson.

Today is a day of great joy. It is also a day of continued sadness.

Most of all, today is a day to remember that we have come so far. In the US, gay marriage is legal, the President made a speech on LGBTQ issues, and, I would argue, LGBTQIA+ individuals are more widely visible than at any time in the past.

BUT: trans people (not to mention trans people of color) still face tremendous amounts of discrimination, coming out is still an ordeal for LGBQTIA+ youth and there remain 39 states where a person can be fired or evicted for being who they are.

Condemnation of the Charleston church shootings has come from most corners of the country and the world (aside from a few Republican presidential candidates).

BUT: the very fact that someone could come to believe in the inherent inferiority of black people (I’m not quoting such ideas, so you can go read them yourself) in the twenty-first century is mind-boggling, mental illness or not. It speaks to a system of racism that is still institutionalized in this country, still present in its social fabric, no matter what laws have been changed.

It’s this kind of thinking that makes my head hurt.

BUT: it’s this kind of thinking that’s necessary today. It’s why words like “intersectionality” have become so important. Because there’s multiplicity in every issue and every event. We’d do well to remember and acknowledge that multiplicity.

Why Ferguson Matters

black lives matter

I don’t know whether Darren Wilson was justified in shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown. I believe that a trial would have given us more information. Sadly, a trial didn’t occur. I’d urge you to read the Grand Jury testimony here and form your own opinions. These are mine.

Michael Brown’s death is tragic in the way that the death of any young person is tragic, in the way that any life ended too soon is tragic, in the way that a life taken by another human being is tragic. But what makes Michael Brown’s death especially tragic is that it is an example and a symbol of institutionalized racism. Whether Darren Wilson was justified in using deadly force is a question for lawyers to answer.

If Brown did in fact charge an officer, who was “afraid he would kill me,” Wilson may have been justified. But consider this. This summer in Nevada, a cattle rancher aided by armed militia got into an armed standoff with federal officials over the fact that his cattle were grazing on federal land. The worst that happened to the rancher and the militia–arrests and tasing. No one was shot. No one got seriously injured, in spite of the fact that a police dog was kicked and officers were assaulted. Obviously, these are slightly different cases, but they can still be compared. Federal officials knew that the rancher’s militia allies were armed. Wilson suspected that Brown was armed. Officers were assaulted in both cases. Look at the difference in the force used.

But this is still arguable. Maybe Wilson reacted instinctively because he felt he was in more immediate danger of his life. Maybe. Would a trial have cleared all of this up? No. Would it have given us more evidence. Most definitely. In the absence of a trial, the symbolic value of Michael Brown’s death has exploded. A very intelligent black woman told me that what’s saddest about Ferguson is that it makes her feel like her life doesn’t matter anymore. If a Grand Jury is not even willing to go to trial on this issue to investigate further, are they likely to investigate the killings of other black people? More broadly, if we are not willing to take the killing of a black teenager to trial, how can we be ready to combat the more subtle forms of racism entrenched in society today?

Being black in America is still profoundly different from being of any other race. I’m a racial minority, but I am part of a model minority. People expect good behavior out of me. People seem to expect the opposite out of people who are black. A white neighbor called the police when she saw a Harvard professor trying to force his way into his own home when he returned from a trip to China. The door was jammed. He is black. An eighteen-year-old boy was pepper-sprayed when police entered his home after a neighbor mistook him for a burglar. He is the foster son of a white family who had just moved to a new neighborhood. He is also black.

People don’t call the police when they see white people trying to force a jammed door. They don’t call the police when they see an unfamiliar white person entering the house belonging to those new neighbors they haven’t met yet. Police officers don’t seem so quick to pull triggers when white people are involved.

This is why Ferguson matters. This is why Trayvon Martin’s death matters. This is why Tamir Rice‘s death matters. This is why Ferguson is a race issue, though black people kill other black people, white people kill other white people and black people kill white people everyday. Because when prejudice becomes a part of society, when it seeps into the institutions that are supposed to keep us safe, it corrupts the very foundations of those institutions.  Because when part of a population who are citizens of this country can feel like they don’t matter, like they are unjustly labeled when they are doing something entirely innocent, that is a significant problem.

Sans Teeth, Sans Eyes, Sans Computer

Is this not all of our lives? Comic by xkcd.com.

Is this not all of our lives? Comic by xkcd.com.

The reason I’ve been away from this blog for two months now (aside from the seductive tones of 25-page papers) is because I haven’t had a computer. I should have known better than to make promises of “next week”, but I couldn’t have predicted this length of time because of a bum hard drive and miscommunication in the IT department.

Living without a computer to call my own has been… instructive. Oh, I haven’t been living like a Luddite. Phones nowadays don’t permit that. But my computer time was restricted to the library and, having written over a hundred pages last term, there was a lot of it. But, aside from a few brief glances at NBA news when I simply couldn’t stand the thought of French theater for one second longer, my computer time was strictly business.

I didn’t think I was that dependent on my computer. I’m not permanently attached to it. My computer time leaps when I have homework to do–evidence that I don’t spend that much time on it for pleasure. But maybe I was a little bit attached to my computer. Because it was strangely refreshing not to have one of my own.

I read more. I actually managed to read half a book (Snakes and Ladders by Gita Mehta) in the three weeks before finals, right in the thick of my paper writing.

I talked to my roommates. Instead of curling up in my room with FoodNetwork.com’s excellent selection of videos after a hard day of work and homework, I read in the living room or the kitchen. So, when my roommates came by, we chatted for a little bit before returning to our homework or distractions.

Most importantly, I was much more motivated just to get things done. I learned that there’s a significant difference between setting out to write five pages on my couch at home, and setting out to write five pages in the library’s computer lab. There was much more noise in the lab (especially when Investing Club decides to rehearse a presentation about buying stock in CVS). There were more people around. But I got so much done in so little time. I was motivated to get back home to my couch. I didn’t want to stay in the library until midnight and later. So I worked harder, I focused more and I routinely found myself writing seven pages in three hours instead of the five I’d set as my goal.

Sometimes, I walked into the house, exhausted and bad-tempered, unzipped my sweatshirt in my room, threw my backpack down in a corner and slumped down on my bed, aching for a few minutes’ rest before I moved on to my next task. My spirits never failed to rise when I realized that I had no next task. I could read. I could bake. I could–frabjous day–sleep! So I also got much more sleep than I ever have in the week leading up to finals. When I’m tired of thinking, it’s so tempting to fool around on the internet a little–read a few Buzzed lists, catch up on some NBA news, go on Facebook–before I go to bed. “A little” turns into “for two hours” and then I’m relaxed, but it’s also 1 am and I have to wake up in six hours.

My computer’s been fixed. I’m delighted. Especially as it’s started to snow, it’s nice to think I won’t have to walk back from the library in twenty-degree weather. But I wonder what life (and my productivity) will be like now…

The Many Wonders of Theater

So what was I doing in Paris, you might ask. You would be quite right in asking, since I never really explained. I was invited to accompany a professor on a grant-funded summer research project. An expenses-paid, six-week-long trip to Paris? Why, don’t mind if I do.

For that reason, Paris wasn’t all fun, games, literary conversations and housekeeping staff. My professor and I saw twenty-five plays in six weeks. That’s twenty-five plays in forty-two days, more than a play every two days. Though I did spend a lot of time reading plays in my room (or outside in a park when the weather was at a pleasant point between cold, drippy faucet and steamer), I also spent a lot of time at various theaters big and small in various parts of Paris.

There was the memorable week when, for three consecutive days, we set up camp each afternoon outside the Comédie Française in order to buy last-minute tickets for plays, tickets “with reduced visibility” that had me unfolding myself very painfully from my seat at the end of each performance. There were the days when we dragged ourselves extremely unwillingly to see plays at a certain small theater in the Marais. The first show we saw there was awful. None of the others were any better. In six weeks, we saw good productions, bad productions, mediocre productions, outstanding productions and terrible productions. So I’ve decided to do a little series about my top five favorite plays in the order I saw them. Here’s number one…

Le Legs (The Legacyby Marivaux, Théâtre de Poche-Montparnasse

Le Legs is the first play I had a great time reading. Granted, I hadn’t read many plays in my life before the Paris trip but, while I’d appreciated most of the ones I’d read, I’d never had a rollicking good time. For the entire two hours or so that it took me to read Le Legs, I was enjoying the experience.

Marivaux is known for marivaudage, the eponymous concept of characters falling in love through language. In this play, the characters are already in love; they just don’t know it yet. Two couples–a stumbling, bumbling Marquis and a timid, seemingly frigid Countess, not to mention a sharply witty maid and a stuffy butler–and a couple of characters who create the obstacles. It’s an age-old concept and the characters aren’t anything new. But Le Legs is a masterpiece of pacing rendered even more enjoyable by the string of melodramatic, Romantic plays we’d been seeing, a true palate cleanser like lemon sorbet after a chocolate lava cake.

The production itself was a good, faithful rendering of the text. The Poche-Montparnasse is a tiny little theater down an uneven, cobblestoned alley with one of the smallest stages we saw. Yet, with the aid of backdrops and blocks, they had a set (something bigger theaters hadn’t bothered to do for artistic reasons). The actors were all good, the one who played the maid outstanding. Though they did attempt to turn it into a musical with Ronsard’s sonnets set to music and the Marquis really wasn’t much of a singer, it was on the whole a solid production. And given Marivaux’s text, that’s all it needed to be for a few hours of light-hearted fun.

Stay tuned next week for play number two!