Home Truths

3004448866_0ac980ea3aLast night at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall here in Portland, poet Nikky Finney shared some home truths. I use the term because I think it’s an accurate assessment of the great gift she gave us: there are some truths generally shared at home, in quiet moments between parents and children, rather than at a podium in front of two thousand people.

That’s how many Portlanders paid upward of twenty-five bucks to see the woman who won the 2011 National Book Award for poetry, and we were not disappointed. The poet looked us all in the eye, so to speak, and told us one of the things that her grandmother impressed upon her, which has, more than anything, made her the poet she is: that to tell a lie is a sin of the highest order.

Considering how easily so many people lie these days, Finney told us, the truth is no small thing–and in the face of such rampant BS, a potent tool for any artist who seeks enter the arena and speak in the kind of voice that casts out fools, as this small woman did last night.

I’ve had a practice of late of taking up the challenges posed by writers I admire. (Such as, say, George Saunders.) So I’ve decided to follow Finney’s lead in sharing one of my own home truths, passed down to me from my mother.

My mother is a patient person, shy of confrontation, who grew up on a farm. While we had some teary altercations in high school–and, I’m sure, some battles of wills before that–it is to her great credit that I have but one real memory of her being angry with me as a child.

This was on a summer’s day–summer in the north country, when the sun doesn’t set until ten p.m., and if you are a child, whole lifetimes can pass in a single day. I was playing in my sandbox, I remember, in the front yard, the soft white sand warm on top and delightfully cold beneath. On this day, say, a breeze off Lake Michigan to the west riffled through the old oaks and maples down Church street, shifting green shadows through the sunshine–this is my memory of such days in childhood.

Like the sandboxes of most every kid around, my sandbox was homemade, framed by old railroad ties and filled with sand from the Big Lake. Which meant that just below that sand lay dirt. I had been entertaining myself with a spade and a set of measuring cups I’d been granted, digging down through the layers of sand to the soil beneath. And there I found a worm.

I had no concept of girlish squeamishness in the face of such a thing, which leads me to believe I must have been quite young–three or four at most. I remember being delighted to have found this wet, wriggling thing, clearly alive. My concept of worms at that point probably having a lot to do with Richard Scarry’s Lowly Worm Story Book, which was one of my favorites.

This worm seemed unhappy to have been taken from his home. So I packed him into one of my measuring cups with a heaping helping of sand and dirt. And promptly forgot about him.

Some time later, my mother appeared. I remember she was sitting on the picnic table in front of our house when I proudly fished out my find. Only it wasn’t wriggling anymore, and its skin felt different.

Someone else’s mother might have admonished me for playing in the dirt. Or gently chastised me for forgetting about my friend. But my mother was clearly seized by a great anger. Not a yelling kind of anger, but an anger wound tight. She told me that this animal had died because of what I had done. That it had suffered, stuck in that little cup in the hot sun. I was the one responsible for its death.

I cannot overstate the impact this statement had on me. It was, I believe, the first time I really understood what death was–that it could not be undone. It may also have been the first time I experienced what psychologists call theory of mind: I imagined what this worm had experienced, what it must have felt like to die that way.

And, let me say this clearly: I was ashamed.

I’ve spoken with my mother about it since, and as far as I can tell, she thinks she was maybe too heavy-handed. That she should have cut me more slack. I was just a kid, after all. I didn’t know any better.

But let me just say, for the record, thank you. To the woman who returned one day, greatly upset, from a friend’s wedding, where they had been given butterflies to release, and she’d opened her box to find her butterfly had broken its wing trying to free itself. Who told me once how the lone horse that remained on her family’s farm had broken free of its fences to visit the next horse down the road. Who eats meat on occasion, and once caught fish, but cannot bear wanton cruelty to any creature under our dominion.

Shame gets a bad rap, but I believe it has its place. Shame is what you should feel when you have bullied or abused others, no matter how seemingly inconsequential. Shame is the hot sting that should greet us when we have wounded what made us, makes us still: creation, our communities, families, and friends.

It’s the same shame, I imagine, Nikky Finney once felt, called out by her grandmother on a lie. And in its sting is the kiss of kindness. In its pain is a plain home truth: we cannot disregard our impact because we “don’t know better.” We are, all of us, responsible for one another.

(Kudos to Literary Arts’ Arts & Lectures series for bringing Finney to the Schnitz.)

Vernal, Equinox: Two Poems for the First Day of Spring

When last did you?

 

Vernal

When the moon shifts its subtle weight

and you leave at last what you love

to hate, the friends you thought ill of,

forsaken, will open their hands

like petals in your sun.

The vultures will swing lazily

about your neighborhood,

and whether it is love

or roadkill

you will not be able to say.

The name of the world

is self and not self.

The name of the world is written

in the light on the waves

of the wind.

Release the shadows of morning.

For spring will not take you

from behind without warning.

Spring will take you swimming in snowmelt

and warm that hard thing frozen

in your womb. When last did you

look up, when last did you notice

that watchful eye,

some new thing

circling?

Whether or not you believe we are

Equinox

Resurrection is not a matter of faith,

though also, of course,

it is. Winter’s hand at last

releases the egg,

balanced on end,

and day comes swaying past,

balancing night

upon its head.

Come, let us give occasion

to faith. These rituals

of sage and sweetgrass

are more necessary

than fodder. We forget

the taste of the holy,

those starchy roots

dissolving to sweetness

on the tongue, forget

that we are spinning,

dancing like angels

on a pin. In these

new days given us

however many, however

few, let us stitch ourselves

in time with time,

plant our desires

in the dark moon

of our dark hours

and rise with our savior

in the spring.

Whether or not we believe we are

miraculous, akin.

 

Word and Flesh: The Strange Worlds of Dennis Y. Ginoza

Screen Shot 2013-03-13 at 10.51.36 AM

This is not Dennis Y. Ginoza.

I’d like to introduce you to my friend, Dennis Ginoza.

I would, at least, like to think of him as my friend; I certainly would not want him as an enemy. He’s a mysterious figure, you see, a bit of enigma, who tends to spend his time (as far as I can tell) constructing alternate universes of often-alarming brilliance and brutality.  He is also one of the finest writers I know.

I started my MFA at Pacific University like so many others who’d been praised, perhaps inordinately, in undergrad, eager to prove myself as an exceptional writer. It requires a great deal of energy, that sort of proving, and I am forever indebted to Dennis for relieving me of it in the course of my second workshop at Pacific.

It was here he dropped the bomb that would come to be known as “Euler’s Identity” (later published by Prime Number, and collected in the first volume of its Editors’ Selections). It is the story of a teenage boy seduced by his math teacher and her mathematics, both of them elegant and beautiful and just a bit cruel. Every sentence of this story sings, and every image casts back the internal dimensions of the story like a hall of mirrors.

Here, at last, was the workshop young writers dream of: the one in which no one, not even the highly published rockstar ostensibly running the show, has anything to offer the story but unbridled praise, and perhaps even outright astonishment.

In the course of a residency I spent at the Vermont Studio Center, many years before, I remember the author David Gates telling us about another writer (I believe it was actually his ex-wife) who could write a serviceable novel in the course of just six weeks. That this was such an outrageous feat that he wasn’t even jealous of it, just the way he wasn’t jealous of people who could swim the English Channel–such a thing was simply out of his league.

That’s how I felt about “Euler’s Proof,” and about Dennis’s work in general. I know I’m not alone in this. One of our instructors at Pacific, Pete Fromm, went so far as to confide to me that his semester of “advising” Dennis Ginoza basically consisted of him pretending that he knew something, anything, that Dennis didn’t.

I’ve enjoyed Dennis’s work in various journals since we graduated, but reading his story in the most recent issue of Phantom Drift, in particular, felt like a blow to the head–I’m not at all surprised it was nominated for a 2012 Pushcart Prize. And because I take as much pleasure these days in discussing the work of writers I admire as I do in sharing my own work (maybe more), I asked Dennis if he might answer a few questions for us–his current and future fans.

1. In “Word and Flesh” and “Other Names, Other Histories,” both Christianity and the mutilation of the body play a key part in the dystopian worlds you have created. Can you speak to these themes in your work?

Although they were published as short stories, “Word and Flesh” and “Other Names, Other Histories,” are actually two chapters from a novel I am working on. The novel is set in a secondary world that mirrors many aspects of our own, including Roman Catholicism. I’ve long been fascinated by the Catholic intellectual tradition and the fact that the Catholic Church is the oldest continuously existing instiution in the world. How has it endured when so many other institutions have crumbled? And how would it evolve in a world whose physical laws were radically different from our own?

On a deeper level, I’m interested in faith. One of the paradoxes of Chistianity is the redemption of mankind through the crucifixtion of Jesus. Through His suffering and death, the transcendent is secured through the material, the spiritual is made manifest in the physical. I’m not a religous person, but to me this notion seems an apt metaphor for the human condition (or at least that aspect of the human condition which informs my work)– our bodies are meat and bones and blood, yet through them we are capable of imagining the infinite. Does the malleability of flesh mean that faith is also malleable? I think it does, it must. So what fills the space between the ineffable and the carnal? For me, the answer is yearning, maybe even grace. And that seems like something worth writing about.

2. Much of your published work touches on the transgressive in terms of sex and violence, but does so in a way that never feels cheap or merely graphic. What do you strive for in touching the dark, so to speak?

I think transgression is a tool that allows a writer to peel away the layers that encase situations and characters. Intent is key– to expose a beating heart, one has to cut through skin, muscle, bone. It’s a tricky line to walk, however. Transgression for its own sake is just pornography, whether it be sexual porn or violence porn. I’ve got nothing against porn, but it’s not something I want to write.

3. Who would you credit as your greatest influences?

Craft-wise, I’m drawn to writers who assert themselves through their prose– the lyricism of Michael Ondaatje and Peter Carey, the circularity of Kazuo Ishiguro and Jose Saramago, the dark beauty of Cormac McCarthy. The notion of authors “fading into the background” and being “invisible” troubles me. Writing that has a strong individual voice affirms itself in a way that dispels ingratiation or worse, the reek of authorial supplication.

Thematically, I like books that grapple with large things– Moby Dick, The Brother Karamazov, Shusaku Endo’s Silence. That’s not to say the small epiphany or domestic drama is unappealing, just that such novels tend not to linger in my mind. Ambition is often its own justification.

4. What are you working on at the moment? 

I stopped writing short stories to focus on my novel, but the damn things keep getting embedded in my head, lodging up there like splinters. The only way to tweeze them out seems to be writing them– my story “The Widower” will be published soon in Per Contra’s Spring Edition (www.percontra.net). I also occasionally post stuff to my website, akopos.net.

More Dennis Y. Ginoza:

“Other Names, Other Histories”, Short Story, Phantom Drift (Nominated for the 2012 Pushcart Prize)

“Word and Flesh”, Short Story, Shimmer Magazine

“The Widower”, Short Story, Per Contra (forthcoming)

“Daughter of Pierus”, Short Story, Underground Voices

“Euler’s Identity”, Short Story, Prime Number MagazinePrime Number Magazine, Editors’ Selections, Volume 1

“City of Desert Rain”, Short Story, Present Tense Writer’s Journal

“Chael”, Flash Fiction, Life With Objects

ginoza-199x300

This is Dennis Y. Ginoza.

On Becoming a Person, Part One: Faith Healing

teasel

Teasel, by Sarah Wimperis

When I was young, I believed in all kinds of God. God in the lakes and trees and rolling farmlands of Western Michigan, where I grew up, and in the wilds of all the world; God of the Old Testament, and of the New; God of the Hindus; God of the New Age. I had so much faith I was able to do dumb things quite fearlessly, as adolescents must, I believe, or doom the species to stasis.

But as I began to come down from youth–somewhere, say, in my mid-twenties–that faith began to wear thin. I don’t think I am alone in this. As we age, we become more reasonable. The wilds of the world begin to look more like a tapestry of competing self-interest; the faith traditions of humanity unpack themselves as pretty myths.

Faith is a fraught subject. If you challenge someone’s faith, it’s akin, maybe, to breaking and entering. Because faith is a fortress, a refuge in the storm.

I’ve been thinking lately about something the author George Saunders said in the course of a recent interview, to the effect that his work is informed by “the mild ass-kickings” he suffered or witnessed in his adult life “that had the effect of politicizing and tenderizing” him. It’s a statement that strikes me as a challenge for any writer, and a worthy one.

What made you who you are? To what have you borne witness? What has made you sweeter, less arrogant, more humane? And really–you who would speak–what do you know?

Much of what I write is fiction or poetry. Forms that reveal truth, you could say, by obscuring it. But to answer this challenge, I believe, I must speak clearly: I have come through illness. And it has changed me.

In the fall of 2004, the little magazine I’d worked for since graduating college was on the brink of folding. It had always been a gig, and I another gig going at a local nonprofit where I lived in Prescott, Arizona. But I’d hung my hopes on this magazine. All my life, I’d been told that you had a greater chance of being struck by lightning than making a living as a writer. Here, at twenty-five, I was doing it. Sort of.

Our publisher was a mysterious woman of catlike, Barbie beauty; rumor had it she’d worked as a Las Vegas escort, and the magazine was her way of trying to create the respectable career she believed she should have had, using other peoples’ money. But the mag, it seemed, had failed to break even, and other peoples’ money dried up. She decided to throw a concert as a last-ditch attempt to save the publication.

The concert, which arrived hot on the heels of the presidential election, was a colossal flop. I remember riding my bike home from our offices downtown wondering why my left knee was aching. By the time I woke up the next morning, my hip was hurting too.

After this came a series of symptoms I recognized as more extreme versions of those I had already been experiencing, on and off, for the last four years: stiff neck; heart palpitations; swollen lymph glands; brain fog; headache; fatigue; and joint pain.

There are people who would have called their general physician at this point. At thirty-six, I may now be one of those people. But there are some crucial differences between the person I am today and the person I was then. First, I have far more trust today in the American medical establishment, and Western medicine in general. Second, the person I am today has health insurance, and a relatively stable source of income. The person I was then had neither.

The person I was then did a whole lot of praying, and meditating too. I was possessed of the naive notion that if I knocked, the door would open; if I asked, I would receive. So I did a lot of asking–while paying for a whole lot of natural medicine, out of pocket–for around five years, with no discernible results. While other people my age were stressing about their relationships or jobs, I was wondering if the day would ever come when I didn’t wake up in pain. At twenty-seven, I felt seventy-seven.

The faith I’d had as a kid now seemed hopelessly misguided, the product of a life untested. How easy it is to believe in God when you have no reason not to. Pain changed this for me. Pain reminds us that we are not angels, but animals. That animals are subject to brutal, sometimes random forces, governed, it seems, by no higher pattern or intelligence.

Then one night, something happened. Something I cannot, with all my reason, reduce. I dreamed I was in some sort of volunteer-staffed medical clinic. A man and a woman were telling me–calmly, kindly–that I was sick because I had been bit by a tick.

The only sickness I knew of that was caused by a tick was Lyme disease. So I looked it up online. The easiest way to recognize Lyme infection is by the telltale red bull-eye rash that tends to immediately follow a bite (though in many cases, this rash never appears at all). Sure enough, I remembered this tick, and this odd rash, from the summer following my high school graduation.

If I had indeed contracted Lyme that summer, this meant that by the time I’d experienced my first real symptoms, in 2004, I’d already been carrying it for nearly ten years. Research told me that antibiotics usually wiped out the infection in its early stages, but that if you’d had it for over a year, the primary course of treatment was intravenous antibiotics, and chances of relapse were high.

Again, maybe the person I am now would simply have bit the bullet. But a factor then, as now, is the fact that my mother has a chronic illness falling somewhere on the spectrum between chronic fatigue and lupus. I’d done a lot of research on this because, as you might imagine, I was afraid that’s what I had.

In my research, I’d found longterm antibiotic use indicated as a factor in lupus. Most of us, as we grow into adulthood, fear that we’re turning into our parents. I feared this perhaps more literally than most. What was the point of recovering from Lyme, only to set up the conditions for another debilitating illness later on?

And so I persisted in what some would call my faith healing. It was, at the very least, a faith in healing. Because I had knocked, had I not? And some higher intelligence–if only that of my own body–had answered.

It took another three years and at least as many naturopathic doctors to arrive at a cure. And, contrary to my hopes, there was no single solution–rather, it was a constellation of natural antibiotics (garlic, grapefruit seed); supplements that interact with one of Lyme’s amplifiers, heavy metals (cilantro, chlorella); and finally, critically, a common weed called teasel.

Lyme disease is caused by the Borrelia burgdorferi spirochete. Like syphilis, another spirochetal infection, Lyme may affect several organ systems and proceed through several stages. The medicines I’d discovered, up to that point, had managed to halt its progression, and control my symptoms, but not to eradicate them.

Different people believe different things regarding Lyme’s persistence, but one line of thinking holds that this corkscrew-shaped spirochete simply drills itself into safe places to hide (organs, bones). According to the herbalist Susan Weed (yes), teasel essentially flushes Lyme out of hiding, allowing natural antibiotics and the body’s immune system to clear it.

It was this common weed that finally broke the back of the infection I’d had for nearly fifteen years. And as I learned to recognize its distinctive shape in the wild, I realized it grew virtually everywhere I’d ever lived: in Michigan, by the sides of those long country roads; in Arizona, along the mountain trails I’d hiked; and in Oregon, along the path beside the Willamette River I’d been walking for the better part of a year. Like so many of the herbs most useful for modern ills (such as detoxifiers like dandelion and milk thistle), teasel grows best in disturbed areas.

And this, finally, is something I take with me as adult, as a statement of faith: that the thing I need most desperately, whatever it is, is right beside me, if only I can learn to see it. That the higher intelligence in this world is not nearly as simple as those pretty myths, old or new, would have us believe. But it does, in fact, exist.

In this, I cannot speak for anyone currently suffering the brutalities of illness. I cannot even speak for others with Lyme, as each case of infection tends to respond to differently to treatment.

But for myself, waking up each day feeling, physically, the way I did at eighteen–that is, at home in my body–after nearly a decade of pain, this is my fortress. This is my faith.

George Saunders: My Strange Affliction

George Saunders, Jackson Free Press

Please, please do not tell George Saunders I have a boner for him. I would die. Seriously. Also, this picture is from the Jackson Free Press.

In his recent talk at Powell’s here in Portland, author George Saunders admitted that he, as a young man, was afflicted by a serious condition (which he believes also afflicts young women): a Hemmingway Boner.

Well, god help me. I’ve been reading Saunders pretty much nonstop for the past week, and seem to have contracted what I can only characterize as a Saunders Boner.

Saunders strikes me as the gloriously impossible lovechild of the only two other authors whose entire oeuvre I have devoured so quickly: Kurt Vonnegut and Richard Brautigan.

In his essay “Mr. Vonnegut in Sumatra,” Mr. Saunders all but admits it, at least as far as the former goes. In this essay, which appears in Braindead Megaphone, Saunders runs down how he–a young engineer, Ayn-Rand-Republican, and sufferer of the afore-mentioned affliction–discovered Vonnegut’s classic Slaughterhouse Five while working for the oil industry in Southeast Asia.

In this essay, Saunders touches on a number of things that struck him about Vonnegut’s work that also strike me about his (and which, by the way, cured him of that accursed hard on for Papa). The sense of humor, for one. The clear-eyed look at capitalism and its perhaps-accidental cruelties. The deep sense of empathy, and of our basic goodness as human beings. Both writers have masterfully skewered the dumb optimism and thoughtless brutality of that conundrum known as the United States of America. Both have embodied its beauty.

As a hypersenstive adolescent, allergic to cruelty and injustice in all forms–be it the sweatshop labor behind that shirt from the Gap or the nationwide war on dandelions–I felt as if I could barely breathe the air of my native land. Vonnegut changed that for me. Vonnegut is a writer who has changed as many lives, I believe, as AA, for a variety of reasons, but mine was this: He gave me an America I could believe in.

But Vonnegut, even when I was young, was old. Real old. Also, dead. And America, like the world itself, has changed in nearly unimaginable ways since what now seem the near-halcyon (!) days of Clinton. Discovering George Saunders has been like discovering that America all over again.

Saunders sees our crappy theme-park kitsch, our motivational Happy Speak disguising deep dysfunction, our desperate desire to become rich, even as we dig ourselves deeper in debt. He sees the way the near-constant stream of advertising we’re subjected to on a daily basis to is slowly rotting our brains.

He sees how easily we find a way to blame others for their own misfortunes, and believe ourselves somehow more worthy, more loved by god, if we happen to have been born with–or raised in a way that served us up–a bigger piece of the pie. He sees the way we cling to jobs that deeply degrade us, out of a potent mixture of fear and love for our families.

He has seen the darkness that lives in the unspeakable corners our sweet, stupid hearts, and holy shit, he loves us. In a way, maybe, that allows those of us hoarse from calling bullshit on the bullshit that we essentially also are to love ourselves.

In this essay, Saunders also notes that Slaughterhouse Five was a revelation to him in that it was fantastic. Which is to say, it’s a novel about World War II, and war in general, that is also about some aliens from Trafalmadore. Saunders says he was uncomfortable with this at first. “Aliens were great; I loved aliens in movies, but I did not want them in my Literature.” [sic] But over the course of the book, he realized that “Your real story may have nothing to do with actual experience.”

All of which is well and good. But the aliens of Trafalmadore aside–and The Sirens of Titan too–there seems a deep vein of outrageous absurdity coupled with formal innovation in Saunders’s work that I have heretofore only encountered in the work of Richard Brautigan.

Like Vonnegut, Brautigan was an old guy I discovered young. I read The Abortion: An Historical Romance, 1966 as a teenager and thought it was a hoot. I read Trout Fishing in America stoned on that terrifically nasty dirtweed trucked up from Texas by our local migrant workers that my buddies and I smoked like cigarettes in high school and understood not a word of it, but was so fascinated I read it again and again.

But it wasn’t until I worked my way through the rest of Brautigan’s work after undergrad that I began to see how deeply, inscrutably weird it is. On the one hand, you have a novel like A Confederate General from Big Sur, that’s essentially a funny story about a down-and-out dude whose friend may or may not have had an ancestor who was a Confederate general. On the other, you have a book like In Watermelon Sugar.

In Watermelon Sugar is a novella, if you can call it that, set in a world where the sun shines a different color every day, everyone worships at a temple called iDEATH, the narrator’s former lover has taken up with a person named inBOIL, and pretty much most things are made of some form of watermelon sugar. As a work of art, it is so seriously far out that it’s hilarious to me to see what the hive mind at Wikipedia has to come up with to say about it in terms of content and plot.

In this way, it’s not unlike Saunders’s bizarro novella, The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil. In this tale, the residents of Inner and Outer Horner–the country of Horner is home to around six people–become involved in a border dispute. Outer Horner, having a larger population than Inner Horner, and substantially more space, under the influence of a petty tyrant who rises to power, named Phil, at first relegates the residents of Inner Horner to a kind of refugee camp, then requisitions their natural resources (some dirt, a stream, and a single apple tree), then finishes off with an attempt at genocide.

While it’s clear that this story has some real political parallels–to the point where you could easily call it a parable–it’s also about characters who, as Eric Weinberger at the New York Times puts it, “have three legs or arms…plus further unique mechanical parts and foliage, whether tails, antlers, an ‘octagonal shovel-like receptacle’ or, in the case of one boy, two brains, ‘one on the side of his neck and the other on his hip.’”

I’m struck by a number of similarities between the work of Saunders and Brautigan. First, by their foregrounding of aesthetics. Saunders stories are set famously in various kinds of theme parks and captive audience arenas (seminars, workplaces, driving school) that create their own weird worlds. Second, both fearlessly embrace the absurd. (In “Semplica Girls,” a story in Saunders’s new collection, The Tenth of December, poor women from Third World countries serve as lawn ornaments for wealthy families, hung from a line strung–painlessly!–through their brains.) And third, both writers exhibit a relentless focus on diction.

In The Hawkline Monster, for instance, Brautigan mashes up the tropes of the gothic novel and the Western; in Saunders’s “My Chivalric Fiasco” (also from The Tenth of December), the noble sentiments and Extreme Capitalization of Olde English get mashed up with modern workspeak (“killer work ethic”). Brautigan wrote what is ostensibly a detective novel (Dreaming of Babylonabout a gumshoe who maintains an alternate existence in a cheesy version of ancient Babylon. In a similar vein, Saunders has penned the caveman version of Office Space (“Pastoralia”). The list goes on.

All of which is to say, if you’ve ever had a thing for either Vonnegut or Brautigan, you need to read George Saunders.

And even if you haven’t, you should read George Saunders.

And if you’ve read some George Saunders, hey, maybe you should read some more George Saunders.

More George Saunders:

Interview, PBS: http://video.pbs.org/video/2327040417 

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/magazine/george-saunders-just-wrote-the-best-book-youll-read-this-year.html?pagewanted=all

Gawker, to Saunders: Write a Goddamn Novel Already: http://gawker.com/5978325/writer-of-our-time-george-saunders-needs-to-write-a-goddamn-novel-already

The Rumpus Book Club Discussion with Saunders: http://therumpus.net/2013/02/the-rumpus-book-club-discussion-with-george-saunders/

The Powells interview: http://www.powells.com/blog/interviews/george-saunders-the-powells-com-interview-by-jill/

Disaster, Inc.: Or, Why Bad Things Must Happen in Fiction

Screen Shot 2013-01-16 at 11.44.38 AMAs writers, we’re advised to make things hard for our characters. To heap misery upon them—everything that can go wrong must go wrong! Everything that is gained in the story must be worked for! Don’t make it too easy on those suckers! Personally, I’ve always wondered why.

Maybe that’s because, as a writer, I’ve always been inspired by life. My own in particular. And my life–thankfully–hasn’t been filled with a whole lot of misery and disaster. What is has been filled with: long-term relationships in a multigenerational rural community. Loving parents. Good friends. Good love (with a few exceptions). Not to mention such items as the beauty of a sunrise after an ice-storm in the Smoky Mountains, and the darting of purple martins in flight.

But I’ve come lately to the realization that life is life, and story is story. And story is a beast with a fairly specific list of demands. (I’m reminded of an essay of Annie Dillard’s posted by the New York Times in which she says, “The writer studies literature, not the world.”)

Which is to say, we care more about the long-term relationships in the multigenerational rural community when Farmer John breaks that big taboo by sleeping with the midwife, his wife’s best friend. Thirty-some years of goodwill and co-parenting suddenly look a lot more interesting when that goodwill is challenged, do they not? The exception reveals the rule.

And that glittering sunrise, those dancing birds? Those images are going to be a whole lot more poignant in your fiction if the character observing them is, say, grieving the loss of a child, rather than simply reflecting on the beauty of the natural world.

They say adversity builds character. This may be figuratively true in life, but I’ve come to believe that it’s literally true in fiction. Disaster shows us who our characters really are.

I seem to keep returning these days to Lisa Cron’s book on brain science and fiction, Wired for Story. Perhaps because it feels as if this book helps to explain why so many of the things we’ve been taught about fiction actually work.

Cron states the opinion of a good many learned people in saying that the evolutionary purpose of stories is to prepare us for the unforeseen. And the unforeseen is almost always a disaster. In general, we don’t want our lives to change. (Unless it’s waking up to discover we’ve somehow magically lost that nagging ten pounds.)

Disaster is a commodity, as it turns out, across the aisle in prose, as my good friend Tabitha Blankenbiller, a nonfiction writer, recently posted on this topic via Hubris Press. (If you haven’t read this post, you should, as it is, among other things, hilarious.) In this post, she bemoans her own lack of a disastrous (personal) narrative as fodder in crafting compelling memoir.

Tabitha has a point. If Cheryl Strayed hadn’t lost her mother–and taken it hard–it seems unlikely that her trek up the Pacific Coast Trail would have seized the imagination of so many readers the way it did. Such a story would have been, with all apologies to Bill Bryson, A Walk in the Woods.

Call it rubbernecking. Call it human nature. Call it the fiction in its most basic form. Disaster hijacks our limbic system, and therefore our attention.

Neuroscience says that we’re constantly on the look out for what’s going to help or hurt us. What’s going to help us may be a little different for everyone (though Happily Ever After is generally a good place to start). But on average, absolutely no one wants to lose their mother. Or come home to find that their house has been foreclosed on.

And lest we conclude that disaster is simply some unfortunate but necessary bit of melodrama in fiction, consider its deeper purpose.

As Cron points out, disaster is simply an extreme form of change, and change is what fiction is all about. When we read about characters who manage to overcome adversity–and even go on to thrive–some part of our brains dedicated entirely to our survival and wellbeing is paying very close attention. And when disasters actually become opportunities, this little scribe is working overtime.

Disaster not only builds character, it shows us who we really are. In calling up all of our resources, it shows us what our resources are. It gives us high-stakes decisions to make, with consequences for making them. All of which we not only want, but demand from the stories we spend time with.

It doesn’t mean that trouble can’t come in smaller guises, more closely resembling our everyday lives. But we’re generally trying to stay the same in our everyday lives—maybe with a slight tweak here and there. Big Change calls us out into the realm of the heroic—the place where Story lives.

I’m reminded of something Barry Lopez–who writes both fiction and nonfiction–once said at a talk he presented at a Pacific University MFA residency, to the effect that when you build a map from the heart of despair to the heart of life, you have, in some way, healed the world.

Personally, that’s something I aspire to. And if I have to turn up the heat on my characters to accomplish that, well, so be it.

It Lives!: Fantastic Fiction, Neuroscience, and [Un]Reality Hunger

moonFantastic fiction takes us back to the very roots of the narrative impulse. When our ancestors gathered around fires, they told stories of fantastic things: of gods whose bodies stretched the length of the sky, of women turned to reeds, of monsters and giants and talking animals. For this reason, extraordinary stories form an indelible part of what psychologist Carl Jung termed the collective unconscious.

Likewise, extraordinary narratives are part and parcel of the history of literature. When Mary Shelley’s monster came to life, it wasn’t considered science fiction; when Poe’s House of Usher fell, it wasn’t considered horror; when Kafka’s Samsa underwent his strange transformation, it wasn’t considered slipstream or any other slippery term: it was considered literature.

But something happened in the last hundred years or so. The tradition of literature—American literature in particular—became a kind of heavily barricaded edifice: a castle, if you will.

Brick by brick, book by book, this castle barricaded itself against fantastic fiction. Serious literature, with a few exceptions, eschewed the extraordinary, and sought to hew ever more closely to the ordinary, to our lived, day-to-day experiences. This movement hit its apex with the “dirty realism” of authors like Raymond Carver and Bobbie Ann Mason, and those authors trafficking in the fantastic were banished to the hinterlands of genre fiction, that stuff deemed fit for geeky teenagers and other members of the unwashed masses. (Where, it’s worth noting, they have flourished.)

It’s also worth noting that the invention of these so-called genres was essentially a matter of marketing—a way to let the book-buying public know what they were in for, and how to find more of what they already liked, should they happen to be browsing the aisles of a bookstore. But as academia embraced these distinctions in matters of genre, so, it seemed, did writers, especially those who wanted to be taken seriously.

But by the 1950s, a hairline fracture had already appeared in the wall of the castle of literature, when the Latin American Magical Realists became known to the Western world. These authors—including Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Isabelle Allende, and Alejo Carpentier (and earlier authors who influenced their work, such as Jorge Luis Borges) presented such an undeniably literary version of extraordinary reality that there was no doubt that their work belonged to the canon. These writers helped to open the way for authors like Salman Rushdie, Louise Erdrich and Toni Morrison in the 80s—but still, by and large, an author writing about devils, talking animals and ghosts had to work very hard to be taken seriously by the literary establishment.

Increasingly, that’s no longer true. Not only have wizards, vampires and zombies enjoyed a stunning among of time on bestseller lists in the past decade or so, fantastic literature has quietly but assuredly been storming the castle of literary fiction.

We see this in the popularity of new writers taking bold leaps of the imagination in clearly literary ways—many of them  female writers, such as Aimee Bender, Kelly Link, Karen Russell, Alissa Nutting, and Kellie Wells.

They’re being met with help from within the edifice itself, by literary mainstays (many of them male) like Michael Chabon and Jonathan Lethem.

Additionally, the smash success of that stunningly surreal work of fiction known as 1Q84 by international literary heavyweight Haruki Murakami, published in 2011, seemed to leave no room for doubt: the book was hailed by The Guardian’s Douglas Haddow as “a global event in itself, [which] passionately defends the power of the novel,” and was selected as No. 2 in Amazon’s top books of that year.

Together, these and other writers have helped to uncover the trap door entrance, if you will, the hidden door opened by the golden key, the secret passageway in the castle of literature, that leads to a forgotten labyrinth in the basement, at the roots of the narrative impulse.

It would appear that fantastic fiction, like the zombie or the vampire—while it may appear vanquished at times—is virtually impossible to kill, and possesses perennial appeal.

As I noted earlier, the fantastic really does exist at the very root of our impulse to tell stories. So we know, first of all, that this type of works exercises a deep appeal at the level of the collective unconscious.

But neuroscience offers another lens by which we can understand the appeal of the fantastic. There’s a recent book by a writer teaching and story consultant named Lisa Cron entitled Wired for Story: The Writer’s Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence. This book doesn’t necessarily offer any earth-shattering advice on writing you won’t hear from me or many other qualified professional, but what it does offer is why this advice works, based on the latest in scientific research.

One of the most interesting takeaways, for me, is the fact that when we read about a character performing an action or enjoying a sensory experience, the same parts of our brains light up that would if we were actually performing this action or having this experience for ourselves. The human brain literally can’t tell the simulated experience from a real one—a fact we can easily verify from the experience our own dreams.

The stories we read, like our dreams, feel real while they’re happening. And later, they join the story of our memory, higgledy piggledy with those things that we actually have experienced. (That’s part of why it’s so extraordinary to read a book like The Great Gatsby, knowing that you are actually joining the vast ranks of people who have shared in the same “life experiences” of this story.)

Many of us have heard the old adage ‘show, don’t tell’? Here’s why I believe it’s so important: when we’re experiencing fiction in concrete, clear images, unfolding in what appears to be real time—as opposed to abstract summary and narration—our brains literally can’t tell the difference between the real and the imagined. We are in what the author John Gardner called “the vivid and continuous dream.”

How amazing is it, then, that fantastic fiction actually allows us to do and experience otherwise impossible things? Impossible things such as, say, spotting that unmistakably sinuous motion of a dragon in flight–or experiencing the subtle hiccup of realignment with local time as your faster-than-light space vessel arrives in port? This is part of why, as an editor specializing in fantasy and sci fi, I always tell my clients that the more extraordinary the thing is that you’re describing, the more concrete your physical description must be. To read fantastic fiction is to literally experience the impossible.

Another takeaway from modern neuroscience for fantastic fiction in particular is the fact that the evolutionary purpose of story, as far as many smart people can tell, is to prepare us for situations and conflicts we have not yet encountered, and hopefully give us the tools, emotional and otherwise, to survive the unforeseen. (This is, by the way, also the prevailing theory on the evolutionary purpose of dreams.)

To my mind, there is no form of fiction that so squarely hits that evolutionary imperative on the head as science fiction, be it hard, soft, or over easy. Ursula K. LeGuin’s protestations aside [if you want to know more about that, check out her brilliant introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness], I believe that sci fi does indeed look ahead, and help us both to choose the kind of future we want to live in, and prepare for the future we’re currently on track to collide with.

As far as why we’re experiencing a bit of a fantastic fiction revival at this particular point in time, I have my own theory.

Whether or not you have actually read Reality Hunger by David Shields, you have likely caught wind of Shields’ bold proposition that readers no longer care about fiction, and are turning instead towards nonfiction, as evinced by recent publishing trends.

These are fighting words for many of us. But it’s true that nonfiction and memoir really are hot right now. (As evidence of this, just count how many times you’ve run into some mention of Cheryl Strayed’s bestselling memoir Wild over the past year or so.) It occurs to me that we may be in a historical moment somewhat akin to the turn of the last century, when photography gained popularity as an art form, and, as a consequence, realist painting fell out of vogue.

Artists at that point in time seemed to be asking themselves, why painstakingly reproduce in paintings what can so easily be captured by film? It seems that perhaps both readers and writers are asking a similar question now: why should we painstakingly reproduce in realistic fiction what can nonfiction and memoir can now more faithfully represent?

In this sense, perhaps the current resurgence of fantastic fiction is not only something like a return to our traditional narrative diet of the extraordinary, but the fictional equivalent of Impressionism or Cubism—which is to say, it’s something you can only do in a made-up story.

[This post is an excerpt from a talk I recently presented at the Mid-Valley Chapter of Willamette Writers, as well as a version of a talk I presented at the Willamette Writers Conference in 2011. If you have thoughts on any of this, I would--of course!--love to hear them.]

Hot Robot Love: The Novel Via Dictation

Hot robot love

This is kind of how I see verbal storytelling getting together with dictation software. But that’s just me.

I’m doing something that’s really fun, possibly crazy, and almost certainly ill-advised. I’m composing a novel entirely via dictation.

In my last post here, I noted that I prefer to compose first drafts via methods that feel “softer” than word processing–namely handwriting and dictation. I also noted that I find the process of revising-while-copying to carry infinitely less burden than sitting in front of a whole lot of words that seem to have taken on a kind of inevitability, simply by virtue of the fact that they have appeared in a particular sequence in a Word .doc.

I’ve always been a process-oriented person. But this, I have to say, takes process to whole new level. Weirdly, it’s like marrying the very roots of storytelling–the oral tradition–with the computer, via dictation software. But more on that in posts to come.

Part of me wonders what Ursula K. LeGuin would have to say about this. The great lady once said,

“I am going to be rather hard-nosed and say that if you have to find devices to coax yourself to stay focused on writing, perhaps you should not be writing what you’re writing. And if this lack of motivation is a constant problem, perhaps writing is not your forte. I mean, what is the problem? If writing bores you, that is pretty fatal. If that is not the case, but you find that it is hard going and it just doesn’t flow, well, what did you expect? It is work; art is work.”

It could certainly be argued that composing via dictation is a device. But as far as coaxing myself goes, I find I have no resistance whatsoever to this process. I don’t have to be motivated to write this way. I don’t even have to know what I’m doing. It doesn’t feel like work–unlike the sort of writing I did in grad school, which almost always felt like pulling teeth.

Maybe it’s just the subject matter. The novel I’m writing now is science fiction, after all, and the novel I wrote in grad school is literary fiction.

But maybe not.

There’s a fascinating TED Talk by Daniel Pink entitled The Puzzle of Motivation. In it, he argues that the higher the stakes are–in terms of rewards and punishments–the worse people perform in completing tasks that require creativity.

Given that fact, it’s not difficult to see why writing with the desire to impress my mentors in grad school didn’t do much for my creativity. Nor, I would argue, does the simple act of trying to improve my work while I’m still writing it. As a professional editor, it’s extremely difficult for me to turn this part of my brain off. (In my experience, all writers either suffer from this syndrome or its opposite, as per my recent post for Indigo Editing & Publications.)

So let me amend Ms. Le Guin, if I may, in this way:  if you don’t enjoy the process of writing, maybe the way you’re writing doesn’t jive with the way your brain actually works.

I’ve found, over the course of the past four months, when I compose with recording software, I free myself to do a number of things:

1) Break the writing of fiction down to what is probably the smallest possible increment: two to ten sentences a day. (Which can be accomplished in 15-30 minutes–a big plus if your life is busy, the way mine has become since student loans hit. I imagine this might be useful for parents as well.) This might seem an extraordinarily slow way to compose, and maybe it is, but when you consider the fact that you never lose a single moment (or a word) to that internal editor, a story can move along quite quickly.

2) Compose by ear. Many of us who lean toward poetry edit our prose by ear. Why not compose that way? By repeating my sentences out loud before hitting record, I smooth them out by ear. I haven’t seen a single word of this yet (that’s the crazy part), but intuitively, I feel like this is significantly more polished work, at the level of the line, than is at all typical of my first drafts.

3) Start at the end. I suffer from the neurotic need to edit my novel from the beginning of the document whenever I open it. Left unchecked, that impulse keeps me spinning in place like a hamster on a wheel. With sound files, I never hear the beginning of my document–all I replay for myself is the last few sentences, then I come up with the next few sentences that follow.

4) Gestate story slowly. I am writing a science fiction story with no outline and virtually no notes. It’s a big world, with a lot of concepts and emotions, but I’m bringing it to light in just a few sentences at a time. This gives me plenty of time to daydream on what’s just up ahead in the headlights of the story–while I’m walking, say, or falling asleep at night. I generally know what I’ll say tomorrow, but have no idea where the story will be at its climax. So far, it seems to work better than speeding out ahead in a story and getting stymied by what I don’t know yet. This feels like a much more organic pace for dreaming–which, after all, is what the first draft is.

5) Concentrate on process, rather than product. I have never seen the novel I’m writing, and I’ve been working on it since July. All I have is the feeling of it, taking shape in some nether-space.

6) Intuit Freitag’s Pyramid. In the past, I’ve had a story (plot) for which I had to discover a world. For this project, I have a world, for which I need to discover a plot. Good news! Pretty much the only bit of anything you could call reproducible science in storytelling can be encapsulated by a very simple shape, called Freitag’s Pyramid. I know where I am in my plot, basically, because I know where I am on the classic scheme for rising action. It’s so simple (given the way I’ve written stories before) it’s boggling.

This novel, by the way, is a hot robot love story, ca. 2112, called K.U.B.L.A.I. I’m looking forward to sharing more about it with you in the weeks to come! =)

On Process: The Iterations

Longest way round is the shortest way home. — James Joyce

I’ve discovered something lately about the process of writing: it’s more fun when it’s moving. It’s less fun when it stops. And regardless of how much I agonize over it, it takes many, many iterations to reach anything approaching the speed of light.

In the season or so since I finished my MFA, I’ve taken the liberty of focusing on process. And I’ve discovered something: bringing a single work through multiple different forms, or iterations–from the spoken word to handwriting to the digital page–keeps the process moving for me. It keeps me from getting stuck.

This may seem crazy, and frankly, I’m not sure that it isn’t. Why trade the bullet-train of word processing for the wending footpath of the pen, or the ancient art of bushwhacking that is composition via the spoken word? Maybe for the same reason some of us like to walk to the store when we could just as easily drive. Because we see more. Because we like to stretch our legs. Because, in the end, it’s not just getting there, but how we get there that counts.

For me, there’s something horribly un-fun about staring at words on the screen, trying to imagine some way they might approximate what once appeared with such clarity inside my head. The words on the screen seem to have acquired a kind of rigidity I don’t find in my own loopy handwriting, and certainly not in the rambling musings of an audio recording. These, to me, are reaching, searching forms. They are seed puffs blown from the mind. By working with the ideas of the story before they’ve set up, so to speak, I feel far freer. Certainly freer than I did during the course of my MFA, staring untold hours at that damn screen, relying on what I’ve come to think of as the Brute Force Method to make those thoughts align.

For me, writing is a tremendously iterative process. It does not seem to matter how long I take on any one draft, or how much I agonize over it. It will still take at least five more. So why not work in a way that acknowledges that?

I like to tell stories. I like the shape of my own ridiculous handwriting, forever a testament to my childhood obsession with calligraphy. Truth to be told (geek that I am), I even really enjoy typing–the feeling of words unfolding through this muscle memory, this QWERTY language I internalized as a teenager, lying in bed at night, typing whatever thought ventured to mind, like a cat chasing butterflies in her sleep. (You can do it yourself right now, whether you’ve got your fingers on the keyboard or not: “like a cat chasing butterflies in her sleep.”) The only thing I don’t like is staring at the screen, trying to imagine how the hell this thing is ever going to reach the speed of light.

I seem to have found a kindred spirit on this subject (and various others) in Brandi Katherine Herrera, a poet/artist friend who happens to be obsessed with vintage typewriters. She told me recently that she enjoys the process of retyping the drafts of her poems on good old fashioned paper, as does the poet Matthew Zapruder, who had this to say in the course of an interview with The PEN American Center:

“…at first I used a computer, but found it frustrating, mostly because of my limitations as a poet. The computer was in a way too powerful a device…I started writing poems only on the typewriter, so every new draft I wanted to write—even if it was just to change one word, or a line break—I would have to retype the poem again. So for each poem in my first book (or at least most of them) there is somewhere a pile of anywhere between 50 and 250 individual sheets of paper, each with a version of the poem, usually only barely changed.”

Why engage such a maddening process? Possibly because it’s actually less maddening than staring at the screen, hour after hour, trying to make something happen that won’t. Because however little is actually changing during that process of typing and retyping, something is happening. The poem, like most things we think of as alive, is moving, however slowly–and therefore so the mind.

Brandi and I have both been starting the composition process lately with dictation (via a digital recording device for her, and the Garageband app for me), and I have to say, I’ve been startled by what has bubbled up for each of us through this process. A poem she shared recently hit me on an emotional level that poetry rarely does. A story I believed far on the periphery of my own consciousness turned out to be right there on the tip of my tongue.

I’m not sure that either of these artworks would have come to exist this way if they’d started out in response to that cursor on the screen, blinking like the eye of some great digital librarian asking us, can I help you? (Do you, in fact, have any idea what you came here for?)

Often, the answer to that question is no. But just as often, we can reach beyond what we think we know to those liminal truths at the far edge or great depths of our consciousness by keeping it loose, light, and searching–by taking the scenic route, as opposed to the short cut.

Monsoon Variations, A Hypertext

Monsoon Variation, No. 1

Heat stills the day and stops it. The dust has settled thickly into crevices, coating outdoor surfaces, stuck to flecks of petrified sap. The forest has gone without rain so long the veins of the trees have gone dry, and bark beetles worm their way among them. The blue of the sky is blinding. The ravens speak their own name for themselves. Silence.

Two small clouds appear and wander aimlessly across the sky.

They bring others, more substantial.

They begin to speak amongst themselves.

They grumble, flash testily at one another. The wind shifts.

The first drop falls like a hallucination.

The second, as if

hours later. Fine raindrops form wet circles on concrete. Hopes rise.

The rains retreat.

Now the first fat drops pelt the pavement in stumbling starts and stops,

splashing the sidewalks and soaking the sap; the raindrops build up speed and momentum

until the wet stains on concrete repeat rhythmically and connect, erasing the dust between.

Soon the rain is pounding overhead, suffusing the cool with juniper.

Neighbors open up the blinds, the windows, the doors, and lean on front porches, tank-topped, shirtless.

Kids run splashing down the streets.

The plants in the garden all nod in agreement.

The ravens gurgle.

Down below, the magic chord is struck.

Fat white grubs with eyes like small children

are waking.

Monsoon Variations, No. 2

The highest layers turn the whole of the sky as dark as a bruise, purpling the mountains in the distance. Middle layers of pale grey nimbus are sucked into updrafts of warm air rising, shaping themselves airily, like meringue. Perfectly opaque cumulus descend to the underlayers, whitecaps in an ocean of gray. The clouds coalesce in a vast Western stormscape, hot air rising up from the canyonlands, hitting the pockets of cool roiling in the upper atmosphere, descending, delivering

rain.

Lightning stitches the atmosphere, razing the high hills.

Thunder resounds like the bombastic cymbals in a Valkyrie opera, cracking the sky like an egg.

The clouds come rumbling back with kettle drums, accompanied by a high, singing wind.

Wind chimes whip around and pull themselves loose;

potted plants are overturned on back porches;

flags flail furiously downtown.

The clouds boom laughter and confrontation and assent.

They hurl wind at one another and bend the treetops.

They open up the sky and roar.

Rain pounds the pavement, the treetops, the rooftops, the cacti. Rain floods the gutters and storm drains, frothing. It washes out the washes, turning arroyos to rivers, adding inches to reservoirs. The sustained downpour strips the paint off old sheds and rusted trucks. It deafens drivers inside their cars. It pummels the mountain in rivulets, and sluices the cliff face clean.

The trees in their smoky voices are singing, come rain, come again, come from on high, come down and drown the spark of fire, come rain…

The clouds descend to the mountaintops and the temperature drops. They let loose a rain of hail.

In the ground, fat white grubs are growing, crystallizing the mineral caliche. They fight their way to the surface of the earth, scale the sides of trees and houses and wait.

Monsoon Variation, No. 3

The garden has run to riot, spilling over the fence. The snails have traced their silver mucus trails across the flagstone path. The worms have long since come up for air, died and dried in the morning sun, and gone mushy again in the rain.

In the woods, the creeks are running, cutting serpentine curves of granite into singing cataracts. Water drums in stone chambers, ephemeral streams echoing the rhythm of rain, days later, as it continues to fall, into cool green pools hung with sunlight.

Tiny, speckled frogs cling to speckled boulders, bathed in spray.

Rare salamanders hatch from a foam of eggs. Sensitive creatures with three tiny fingers, they hold to the submerged surface, their larval fishtails waving, circulating in the current of their miniature, shrinking world.

Wildflowers explode like fireworks in succession, red speckled flutes floating in the forest, contested by hummingbirds whirring white noise amid twining blue morning glories, wild yellow snapdragons, and sweet peas, blushing pinkly beside the trail.

The cicadas launched today have cracked the back of their mineral carapace open like an egg.

They have emerged, wet and wide-eyed, giant green bugs with disastrous wings.

Now the sun has sucked the moisture from those tentative organs, rendering them rigid.

Now the cicadas have joined the chorus, those raucous maracas lighting up each tree in turn in a wild, dense wall of sound.

All of them, together, are singing, come rain, come again. Come crack the wild weather overhead, come again, speak and crack the sky.

Dig a little deeper, come back,

come again.

 

Speak the words the wind has said,

come rainsong,

come again.

Thousands of unseen eyes are opening.

Life blooms from the molecules of the air.

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers