Skip to content

Finding Books in the Future (now)

Quickly now, a snippet of cleanhanded searchlores: A method of finding free poetry that doesn’t step on any moral grass medians.

This question of morality in fetching information is a stickyslick one, and I haven’t plumbed the full track of its stone wall for uneven spots yet. (If you have thoughts, I would like to hear them: Where are the boundaries?) There are, and always will be, nefarious means of procuring reading material–and it’s wise to keep these methods shambling along, preserved for the hour when you need them for samizdat, to smuggle free speech beneath a hostile government–but remember, kids, writers like to get paid. If you don’t pay the writer, the writer may go away. So pay for what you value, and if you do, maybe your favorite writers won’t go away until they write you another book. (One way to get around this is to only love writers who are already dead. You can find their work in several places.)

Go now, my lemursnails of finding, and peruse what you may use.

Addendum: As I was about to post this, I learned that Fravia+, the genius of search, died last May. He taught me a lot, and I’m sad that he’s gone.

In Which A Soldier Describes the Primary Act of War

It’s not the first man. It’s the second and third and fourth and fifth; and they all become that first man. And by the fiftieth, and at close range, they all become the same face. When you kill, you kill the same guy over and over and over again.

—Samuel Fuller, quoted in The Typewriter, Rifle, and Movie Camera

The Age of the Shrug

Jessica saw the shrug, thought, This is the age of the shrug. […] Our civilization could well die of indifference within it before succumbing to external attack.

— Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

On the Subject of Retaining Ideas

So this post by Warren Ellis (who is a comics et al writer I enjoy very much, both for his stories and his howling pursuit of the future) about a writer’s equipment started me thinking about my own kit, and what tools I could try. This is a rambling post about minutiae, and will bore many of you. I proceed undeterred.

My grade eleven English teacher, Kristopher Koechling, who remains the best teacher I ever had on any subject in my layabout academic career (discounting the Clarion Writer’s Workshop 2009, during which I had 24 teachers of various stripe and twitchy skill, discounted because it’s not fair to compare any classroom teacher to people with whom one lives and works and reads), taught my first ever creative writing class in my final year of high school, and assigned everyone in the class to buy a little notebook to keep on their person and write something, anything at all, in their notebook every day. The notebook I keep in my back pocketI filled two small tear-out notebooks over that semester and continued after I left his class, writing in baby composition books with stitched binding. I admit, I stopped writing in them for about a year in college, but I carried a notebook in my back pocket even then. And I just started my fourteenth one.

I was going to copy a day’s entries here, as an example; then I read through the last week or so, and decided not to. But I don’t think the content—my recorded inanity or silliness or obscenity—invalidates the wisdom of a handy recording device. This sort of notebook is useful to me, as an idea-generator, to preserve ideas and patterns of ideas and recurring thoughts, to store output, not to decant brilliance (unless you’ve got it, in which case, knock yourself out). Even when I have writer’s block, I can usually still write in one of these because much of what I write down is what I see, or how what I see seems, or a similarity between what I see and what I’ve seen, or a comparison of what I see and something I heard about once, or an extrapolation, like, “What if what I see were this way but more so?” or “What if what I see were not this way but another?” (All that is one possible answer to the question, “Where do you get your ideas?”)

That was a longwinded way to say: I have a pocket notebook made of paper and I like it very much. As for a full kit, I don’t think my dream kit exists, exactly, or if it does, I certainly can’t afford it.

To write well, I need a device for:

  • Reading – Preferably an open reader with a legible display the size of a paperback book that also displays landscape, and that can deal well with double-page pdfs (my own scans), text files (Project Gutenberg), OpenOffice docs (proofreading my own work, critiquing fellow writers), the ebook format du jour (ePub or otherwise), and image archives (comics). Or, instead of a reader, I could stay with hardcopy books. And maybe an rss feed. But regardless of medium, I need to be able to read what’s been done in the past, and what’s happening now.
  • Writing stories – What’s not useful: I’ve written a novel longhand, and now it’s sitting in an unsharable lump on my desk (also it’s a terribly written book, which is a different problem). Longhand is good for getting the story out of my head, but it usually arrives unformed and knobbly, and needs a great deal of revision, plus the time to transfer from paper to a malleable digital form. I tried a typewriter and ended up with the same problem as when I wrote longhand: errors take up physical space, and when I’m done typing I have one copy that doesn’t incorporate edits easily. So I need a way to store my manuscripts that is friendly to revision and sharing, which right now means OpenOffice on my laptop.
  • Notes – I would be wisest to link my notes with a database, but I’m too lazy to input them all, and I rather like the haptic reality of ink on paper, so an electronic device is out. Rather, the decision is postponed. If the Android or something similarly small and versatile came with a comfortably sized keyboard that felt good to type on, I’d switch in a minute, maybe even use it for writing entirely and ditch the laptop. But until then, paper for notes and recopy the salient bits (poetry, story ideas, character sketches, &c) to my laptop. Mead just put out a series of notebooks with excellent paper that neither feathers nor bleeds. I bought a pocket-size a few weeks ago and have been filling it with embarrassing and inept poetry. (And hm, I need to remember to grab a 6″x9″ notebook the next time I’m out. Because what I need are more empty and quarter-filled notebooks of fine paper. Yes.)
  • Talking to people – I have a phone that does nothing but field calls and texts. It is a hunk of stone. A smart phone would be nice, one that would collate my notes to a database and give me chat and GPS, but do I absolutely need this to work? No. Not in the slightest. Warren Ellis does, but he collaborates more often than I do. I prefer face-to-face conversations anyhow, and glean from them an overflowing measure of creative juice. Talking is helpful, if not necessary. Maybe Skype is the answer? Periodical virtual dinner parties full of creative spitballing and noodling? Or, why not, let’s form that grouphouse I’ve been muttering about for years and all live like ferrets in a sock (i.e. in each others’ business).

I can achieve these purposes using separate devices, but I would prefer one. A fold-out, cardstock-thin, hyper-resilient, e-ink tablet with a flexinib stylus (in the shape of my Lamy 2000) that supports handwriting recognition, that also hooks into my mail, that I can keep in my back pocket in a little matte black case that double functions as a phone would work best, please. Science, I’m talking to you.

All this tech aside, the fact of the matter is: as neat and fresh as technology gets, the best, most original part of fiction or any other creative act is the part you contribute, that comes out of your brain, not the tool, and whatever means you use to get it out is your business. As Warren Ellis says, “Obviously [these devices] all serve different purposes, but they are all in fact bent to the same purpose, the essential purpose of writing: getting the idea down before you forget it. Doesn’t matter if the idea’s crap. Doesn’t matter if it’s not immediately useful. Doesn’t matter if it’s half-formed. Get it down.” But don’t waste work; be smart about it.

Nocturno a Rosario

I listened to Librivox’s first collection of Spanish poetry last night, even though I have very little Spanish. Mostly to hear the way the language fits together, and to feel the cadence of their speech. I especially liked one poem on first listen, Manuel Acuña’s Nocturno a Rosario (mp3). The translation doesn’t impress me—though, to be clear, I don’t mean the quality of the translation, which I can’t judge, and I certainly don’t mean to impugn the skills of long dead Ernest S. Green, nor his translating partner Harriet Von Lowenfels; I mean his actual subject matter—but I like the original’s rhythm enough to pardon the rest. He lived from 1849–1873, so I cut him some slack: it was a sentimental century.

(Too, he killed himself after writing it, so there’s that added weight.)

For your convenience, since I can’t find the English and Spanish side-by-side, or formatted in a readable way, I’ve included the poem below:

Nocturn to Rosario

Well, then, I am compelled
to say that I adore thee;
to tell thee that I love thee
with all my heart;
that there is much I suffer,
and that much I weep;
that more I can not bear,
and at the cry in which I implore
I entreat thee and speak in the name
of my lost illusions.
At night, when I rest
my temples on my pillow,
and towards another world
I wish to turn my mind,
I walk on, and on,
and at my journey’s end
the forms of my parents
are lost in vacancy,
and thou again returnest
to appear in my heart.
I understand thy kisses
are never to be mine;
I understand that in thine eyes
I ne’er shall see myself;
and I love thee, and in my mad
and ardent deliriums
I bless thy frowns;
I admire thy indifference.
And instead of loving thee less
I worship thee much more.
At times I think of giving thee
my eternal farewell;
to blot thee from my memory
and drown thee in my passion;
but if all be in vain,
and my soul forget thee not,
what wilt thou that I do,
part of my life,
what wilt thou that I do
with this—my heart?
And then, when thy sanctuary
was completed,
thy lamp was burning,
thy veil on the altar.
The sun of the morning
behind the belfry,
the torches emitting sparks,
the incensory smoking,
and there, open in the distance,
the door of my home.
I want you to know
that already many days
have I been ill and pallid
from so much lost sleep;
that all my hopes
have already died;
that my nights are dark—
so black and gloomy
that I know not even where
the future is fled.
How beautiful it would have been
to live beneath that roof,
we two united always,
and always loving each other;
thou always enamored;
I always contented;
we two a soul in one;
we two a single heart;
and between thee and me,
my mother like a god.
Imagine thou how beautiful
the hours of such a life!
How sweet and beautiful the journey
through such a land!
And I dreamed of that,
my holy betrothed,
and when upon it delirating
with my trembling heart,
I thought to be good
for thee, and for thee only.
Well knows God that this was
my most beautiful dream;
my anxiety and my hope;
my happiness and my joy.
Well knows God that in nothing
did I abridge my diligence,
but to love thee much
within the smiling home
that wrapped me in its kisses
when it saw my birth.
Such was my hope—
but now, against its brightness,
is opposed the deep abyss
that exists between the two.
Farewell for the last time,
love of my affections;
the light of my darkness,
the essence of my flowers
my poet’s lyre,
my youth, farewell!

Nocturno a Rosario

Pues bien, yo necesito
decirte que te adoro,
decirte que te quiero
con todo el corazón;
que es mucho lo que sufro,
que es mucho lo que lloro,
que ya no puedo tanto,
y al grito que te imploro
te imploro y te hablo en nombre
de mi última ilusión.
De noche cuando pongo
mis sienes en la almohada,
y hacia otro mundo quiero
mi espíritu volver,
camino mucho, mucho
y al fin de la jornada
las formas de mi madre
se pierden en la nada,
y tú de nuevo vuelves
en mi alma a aparecer.
Comprendo que tus besos
jamás han de ser míos;
comprendo que en tus ojos
no me he de ver jamás;
y te amo, y en mis locos
y ardientes desvaríos
bendigo tus desdenes,
adoro tus desvíos,
y en vez de amarte menos
te quiero mucho más.
A veces pienso en darte
mi eterna despedida,
borrarte en mis recuerdos
y huir de esta pasión;
mas si es en vano todo
y mi alma no te olvida,
¡qué quieres tú que yo haga
pedazo de mi vida;
qué quieres tú que yo haga
con este corazón!
Y luego que ya estaba?
concluido el santuario,
la lámpara encendida
tu velo en el altar,
el sol de la mañana
detrás del campanario,
chispeando las antorchas,
humeando el incensario,
y abierta allá a lo lejos
la puerta del hogar…
Yo quiero que tú sepas
que ya hace muchos días
estoy enfermo y pálido
de tanto no dormir;
que ya se han muerto todas
las esperanzas mías;
que están mis noches negras,
tan negras y sombrías
que ya no sé ni dónde
se alzaba el porvenir.
¡Que hermoso hubiera sido
vivir bajo aquel techo.
los dos unidos siempre
y amándonos los dos;
tú siempre enamorada,
yo siempre satisfecho,
los dos, un alma sola,
los dos, un solo pecho,
y en medio de nosotros
mi madre como un Díos!
¡Figúrate qué hermosas
las horas de la vida!
¡Qué dulce y bello el viaje
por una tierra así!
Y yo soñaba en eso,
mi santa prometida,
y al delirar en eso
con alma estremecida,
pensaba yo en ser bueno
por ti, no más por ti.
Bien sabe Díos que ése era
mi más hermoso sueño,
mi afán y mi esperanza,
mi dicha y mi placer;
¡bien sabe Díos que en nada
cifraba yo mi empeño,
sino en amarte mucho
en el hogar risueño
que me envolvió en sus besos
cuando me vio nacer!
Esa era mi esperanza…
mas ya que a sus fulgores
se opone el hondo abismo
que existe entre los dos,
¡adiós por la última vez,
amor de mis amores;
la luz de mis tinieblas,
la esencia de mis flores,
mi mira de poeta,
mi juventud, adiós!

Amerrrrrrikaaaaaaaaaah!

Yes, I made that.

We are of two different kinds…

“I am one of those who like to stay late at the café,” the older waiter said. “With all those who do not want to go to bed. With all those who need a light for the night.”

— Ernest Hemingway, A Clean, Well-Lighted Place

If Lions Could Speak and Other Stories

This volume collects an assortment of Paul Park’s early short stories, written between 1983 and 2002. Park is primarily a novelist, and an excellent one, and his short fiction affects me as well as his work in longer forms.

The Tourist is the first Park story I read. I found it online before I went to Clarion, and enjoyed it; though, like most of Park’s work, the story made me sad for the broken world and the sympathetic sad people who live in it. In this story, Park plays with time travel and personal loss; he asks, “What if cosmological time ran backward to our personal sense of it?” and “Will you forgive me, Suzanne?” Narrated in his characteristically soft-spoken, at times melancholy and self-referential, one-off first person.

He often casts this doppelganger voice, though the character differs from story to story&mdashthe various Paul Parks, who aren’t the physical writer, but who are sometimes also writers on their own, sometimes referring to fictional versions of the physical Paul Park’s other stories, sometimes reimagining their alternate universe spouses having conflicts in a once more removed universe. This could be confusing, but in the end I don’t think the myriad Paul Parks should distress anyone: in an interview with The SF Site, Park says: “It’s just that we all share the same name—a vexing coincidence, of course, but ultimately trivial.” And of course the other Paul Parks are Paul Park, but no more significantly than any other character he writes is Paul Park.

There was no story in this collection I disliked, which is a feat; the stories I liked and remember best are: If Lions Could Speak, The Breakthrough, Tachycardia, The Lost Sepulcher of Huascar Capac.

In Which Mr McCarthy Speaks

Some quotes from Cormac McCarthy, in this interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Mr McCarthy says:

Creative work is often driven by pain. It may be that if you don’t have something in the back of your head driving you nuts, you may not do anything. It’s not a good arrangement. If I were God, I wouldn’t have done it that way. Things I’ve written about are no longer of any interest to me, but they were certainly of interest before I wrote about them. So there’s something about writing about it that flattens them. You’ve used them up.

And, on the subject of the future and art:

Well, I don’t know what of our culture is going to survive, or if we survive. If you look at the Greek plays, they’re really good. And there’s just a handful of them. Well, how good would they be if there were 2,500 of them? But that’s the future looking back at us. Anything you can think of, there’s going to be millions of them. Just the sheer number of things will devalue them. I don’t care whether it’s art, literature, poetry or drama, whatever. The sheer volume of it will wash it out. I mean, if you had thousands of Greek plays to read, would they be that good? I don’t think so.

And, while talking about his forthcoming book, which is about a brother and sister, he says:

I was planning on writing about a woman for 50 years. I will never be competent enough to do so, but at some point you have to try.

Neil Gaiman said something similar about writing The Graveyard Book: he didn’t feel ready, waited a few years and tried again, but didn’t feel ready; and then, one day, he realized he wasn’t getting any better, so he sat down and wrote it. I wonder if there is any point of waiting for competence, then—working as one waits, of course—whether these two respectable writers achieved a new level of skill after waiting which made their stories manageable. Assuming the writer is basically competent initially, I suspect not. Some stories need time to simmer; it’s true, but writers improve themselves by daring to write stories that test the clarity of their vision.

Risk In Writing

Damien G. Walter wrote this call-out post asking for suggestions of currently working writers who are bold, who experiment, and who risk themselves. Somebody help him out; I want to know too.

I’ve been thinking about risk in literature lately—mostly in the context of wanting not to retread smooth ground—but I run into the same wall each time: by what criteria should I measure risk? (For an example of what he means by “creative risk,” Damien cites Bradbury, a writer of whose work I am, on the whole, embarrassingly ignorant, although I’ve read a few of his stories.)

Does risk lie in the writer’s fear of reprisal? Does experimentation lie in simple controversy (talking about what a society has quietly agreed to ignore), or telling stories in untried forms, or telling stories from a new point of view (a person, perhaps, previously ignored in that writer’s culture), or setting a story in a new sort of place? The writer can play with any aspect of fiction; there are no rules if the result works, and no penalty besides wasted time if he fails.

Short stories are an excellent medium for experimentation: they pose comparatively low risk, in terms of time invested. Elizabeth Bear compared the short story to the club scene in music: both are comprised of “bubble and boil;” they’re a conversation, one story to another, and their virtue is immediate feedback. Short stories are where we spy out the new land.

And what are the stakes? Are we risking only readers’ disapproval? I don’t think it’s mostly cowardice that stymies exploration; it’s complacency, or calcified imaginations. (And too, not every writer is by necessity an explorer. Some are homesteaders, and their role is valuable as well.)

What I want, and what is most difficult for me, is to write fresh stories, honest ones, without softening or misdirecting my words. Paul Park apparently suffers from none of this difficulty, if judged by his excellent fiction, yet he said the following in an interview, as he discussed the evolution of his style:

… the hardest thing for me as a writer is to speak without irony, without the protection of being misunderstood. To say, “this is what I think is important,” or “this is what I think is true, or beautiful, or funny, or moving”—that is what is difficult for me.

I strive toward greater honesty in all things. But is this greater personal clarity and vulnerability the sort of uncommon boldness we’re striving for, or is that process of flaying the lying layers from the writer’s heart simply called “writing well?”

At the last, whether all my other questions are answered or not, I want to know: where is the unpeopled frontier? Because I want to spy out the new land.