Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Dani Shapiro's Wise, Healing, Inspiring and Brutally Honest Advice about Writing.

Still writing: The Perils and Pleasures of a Creative Life, Dani Shapiro, Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2013.

Here's my review in one sentence: This is the best book about writing that I've ever read.

And here's my review in a few sentences: After more than thirty years of teaching writing workshops, Shapiro has distilled her hard won wisdom into a series of vignettes from her life, practical tips, suggestions, and observations about writing that I found delightful to read.

Dani is a superb writer. With her book organized into short, succinct, pithy chapters, I found myself enjoying it in quenching sips. I learned and was inspired each time I read it. And each time I returned, I was in a state of anticipatory pleasure. I was never disappointed. Even as I read Still Writing, I knew I was reading something very special; and I felt special and privileged to be reading it, too.

While other books about writing cover some of the same topics, reading Shapiro's words got me bubbling with excitement to write. No other writing book I've read did that to the degree and with the consistency that Still Writing did for me. I wanted to sit down and start writing the moment I started reading her. The wonder was that I was able to finish reading her book at all.

The most marvelous thing about the way Shapiro writes is her inclusive, personal style that invites readers into her book and into her life. Reading her, I felt she was writing to me alone.

She used so many details drawn from her real life that by the end of the book you know a lot about her. If you're like me, you develop a fondness for her. It's easy for me to imagine that if I were to meet Dani Shapiro at one of her readings, I might approach her like an old friend, when it fact we've never met.

Why does she call her book Still Writing? Because she thinks of writing as a practice, akin to a yoga practice, as something meant to be performed every day, or, at least, five days a week, which if practiced wisely and judiciously, will see one through one's entire lifetime.

She tells of writers who seemed to be on the verge of great fame and money who burned out and whose careers ended early.

Her wisdom on what it takes to maintain, to endure, a writing life over many decades is priceless: "The writing life requires courage, patience, persistence, empathy, openness, and the ability to deal with rejection. It requires the willingness to be alone with oneself. To be gentle with oneself. To look at the world without blinders on. To observe and withstand what one sees. To be disciplined, and, at the same time, to take risks. To be willing to fail, not just once, but again and again, over the course of a lifetime. 'Ever tried, ever failed,' Samuel Beckett once wrote. 'No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.'

Continues Dani Shapiro: "[The writing life] requires what the great editor Ted Solotoroff once called endurability. It is this quality, most of all that I think of when I look around a classroom at a group of aspiring writers. Some of them will be driven, ambitious for success or fame, rather than by the determination to do their best possible work. But of the students I have taught, it is not necessarily the most gifted, or the ones most focused on imminent literary fame (I think of those as short sprinters), but the ones who are still writing decades later."

Dani Shapiro is the only one I've run across who splays open the fallacy of the adage, "Write what you know about." It's not that there's anything wrong with this piece of advice in and of itself. The fallacy is in the shortsighted way in which this adage is usually interpreted. Taking a more nuanced approach, Shapiro writes, "There is a tremendous difference between writing from a place that haunts you, from the locus of your obsession and fear and desire, and writing about what you yourself have been through. We know more than we think we do."

Here are just a few examples of the wisdom we come across in her compact chapters:

In "Scars": Of all the facts of my early life that made me a writer, at or near the top, these two: I was an only child with older parents.

In "Riding the Wave": When you sit down to write, just be. Sit and be still. Be present. She writes: "It's hard, I know. I know just how hard it is, and I hate to tell you this, but it doesn't get easier. Get used to the discomfort."

And that, after all, is Dani Shapiro's prescription: Turn writing into a practice. Begin your practice each day by sitting still, by being present in the now.

In "A Short Bad Book" Dani writes about a friend of hers who started out to write exactly that, a short bad book, and how it was that announcing that intention to the world actually gave her a tremendous advantage so she could tackle a big, important story and wind up writing a best seller that took her many years to write. She short-circuited the willies that would have appeared if she announced to the world she actually intended to write a Large, Important Book. So each time you sit down to write, think to yourself, "All I want to do is write a short, bad book."

And in "Inner Censor": When you've written something you're sure others will hate, and your censor wants to shut you up, and delete what you've just written, Dani suggests, "Don't fight it, just recognize her. Say to your inner censor, 'Oh, hello. It's you again.' Accept her coexistence."

By the time I finished reading Still Writing, I felt I had bonded with a new, best friend. I couldn't help myself: Writing saved Dani Shapiro's life, just as writing saved my life. We survivors have to stick together.

Monday, November 23, 2015

What's wrong with passive voice (for goodness sakes)?

Consider an eight-year-old girl who has just dropped a quart of milk on the floor. She will usually say, “The milk spilled.” Rarely will she say, “I spilled the milk.” She won’t take responsibility for her action. Passive-voice sentences work that way. They give you information, but you always get the impression you’re not getting the full story. Passive voice doesn’t build trust. Active voice does.

When is it okay to “go passive?”

1. Passive voice works, and, in fact, is necessary when you don’t know who performed the action:

“The car was stolen.”

“The finalists were announced first.”

Even if you don’t know who acted, you can always turn those sentences into active voice by using, “Someone…”

“Someone stole the car.” That sentence is in active voice, but it doesn’t reveal who stole it.

2. Passive voice is okay when the action itself is more important than who did the actionand you don’t want to get involved in who did it.

“Our country was founded on the principle that ‘all men are created equal.’”

I wrote that sentence in passive voice because I didn’t want to get involved in telling you who founded our country. I really didn’t want to write, “The Founding Fathers based our country on the principle that ‘all men are created equal.’” I wanted to focus only on our country “being founded.” Passive voice to the rescue.

3. Passive voice works when tact is required. You may know very well who committed the action, but you may prefer not to say:

“The child was disciplined.”

“The laptop was taken from the office.”

If a program turned out to be a disaster, you may not want to bring up who started it. Thus, you might be advised to write, “The program was initiated”rather than writing, “Mayor Avery started the program.”

The worst abuse of passive voice

State-of-being verbs combined with past tense:

(is, was, were) + (past tense)

“…was produced by…”

“…were made to…”

“…is created for…”

“…is chased into…”

Don’t go there. Unless you really want to.

Tip:

You never have to write, “The program is comprised of four parts.” Write, “The program comprises four parts.”

Tip:

If you decide to use passive voice in one sentence, make certain the sentences before and after it are in active voice.

Summing up…

Active = Good

Passive = Bad

Except in certain cases where:

Active = Bad

Passive = Good

Could I be any clearer?

And if you really want some good advice:

Get a good night’s sleep.

Brush your teeth.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Dear Mister Essay Writer Guy

Dear Mister Essay Writer Guy: Advice and Confessions on Writing, Love, and Cannibals, Dinty W. Moore, 10 Speed Press, Berkeley, pps. 200.

Dear Mister Essay Writer Guy,

I learned so much from reading your book.

For example, the inventor of the essay was frenchman Michael de Montagne. He did not write his first essay on a cocktail napkin because cocktail napkins did not exist in the 1500s when he lived. He would have had to write it on a cloth napkin ''and the ink would cause a terrible mess.''

Dear ExcitingWriting Advisory Reader,

I wanted to write a letter to Mister Essay Writer Guy, but got sidetracked wondering if that letter would help you, my E.W.A. readers, figure out whether you should pick up and actually, truly, really read Dinty W. Moore's book and thereby participate with me in the author's conspiracy.

''Conspiracy?'' you ask. Yes, I affirm, conspiracy! Vast conspiracy!

Dear Mister Essay Writer Guy, J'accuse you of writing a non-fiction book of essays about the joy, wonder and commodious feelings that come from writing essays. Yes. Commodious feelings. I infer from what you imply: If everyone followed their essay bliss, they would go home right nowthis very momentand begin writing essayspersonal statements of longing, joy, love, separation, hate, brokenness, and cannibalism. Fact: One of Michael de Montagne's essays was on the subject of cannibalism.

I remain true to my thesis: Dinty Moore's book is a conspiracy, designed to cause everyone to become fabulously lost in the passionate act (in flagranti essai) of writing and reading essays. (No-surprise spoiler: Dinty W. Moore teaches non-fiction writing at Ohio State.)

Here's the setup of Dinty Moore's subterfuge: Imagine (''Why just imagine? Read!'') twenty famous writers of essays, that is ''essayists,'' who write sincerely curious, funny, gotta-know-now, and philosophically engaging letters that just happen to sum up in one form or another each essayist's writing style, area of concern, cultural angst, hangover, whatever.

Not only did each of the twenty authors write Dinty Moore the letter of inquiry (''with tongue firmly in cheek'') but then Dinty goes on to answer the question and write an essay-ette (A short essay. We owe so much to the French) which is more or less in the style of the essayist, sort of. Call it a parody. So by the time you get through reading all twenty of Mr. Moore's essays, if you are anything like me, you have learned of the existence of 18 essayists who you never heard of before even though some are pretty famous in their own right.

Dinty Moore possesses an infectious sense of humor. Yes, it's catching. My nose started to run. The enthusiasm; it overwhelms your defenses, moistens the tear ducts, keeps everything flowing. No, it never gets stuffy, stiff or self-conscious, which, I admit, it could, given the concept, but, Glorioski! Mr. Essay Writer Guy pulls it off with aplomb. He deserves congratulations for that alone if not a medal for public bravery; that is, bravely speaking openly of private things in public. What else is an essay for?

An example: Cheryl Strayed (Author of Wild) admits in a letter to Mister Essay Writer Guy that she has an obsession with em dashes: ''I have a hot dash on the em dash. What does my need to stuffwhile simultaneously fracturingmy sentenceswith the meandering, the explanatory, the discursive, the perhaps not-entirely necessarysay about me?''

Mr. Essay Guy writes back to Cheryl: ''You do realize that 99 percent of the civilized world has no idea what an em dash is, right?''

Another favorite of mine, his last essay in the book, Do not read this book where he laments everyone's attention deficit. Writing students are no longer requested to write. No one has time to read an essay, no less write one. He goes on to write one, anyway.

Other essayist queries request advice on selecting an essay topic, coming clean about how relatives traumatized one at an early age, and the importance of writing with clarity. Why be clear when one can be muddled and hint at so much while saying so little? Good question.

Kritika Narula, reviewing the book on GoodReads wrote: ''How can you read non-fiction like this and not fall in love with the genre? The whole genre owes you, Sir. Or your humor. I am not sure if we can separate the two. You know you will fall into this book as soon as it opens because of this [dedication page]: ''To the polar bears. Be gentle with me.''

I agree with Ms. Narula.

Mr. Moore's oeuvre is not a ''how-to-write-an-essay book'' so much as it is a ''why-should-I-bother-writing-essays?'' book, or a book that demonstrates some of the marvelous effects that can be accomplished by writing essays.

True, non-fiction story: I got the idea of writing an essay while reading Mr. Moore's book.

So gin-on-up to Dear Mister Essay Writer Guy, Dinty W. Moore's crazy, funny, hilarious, LOL romp through ''essaylandia,'' a collection of twenty parodies of well known essayists (not well known to me, but well known to those who have long loved this literary form), writers like Philip Lopate, Cheryl Strayed, Patrick Madden, Steve Almond and Judith Kitchen (who sadly recently passed away.) I had never heard of most of the names but, thank God, many better read than me have.

And therein lies the conspiracy. After reading Dinty Moore's twenty smart, funny essay parodies, you will be cajoled into Google-ing at least some of the essayists' names. You will read and gain a new appreciation of the essay you never had before.

Full disclosure: This author made me laugh out loud when he was an instructor and I, a participant, at the Kenyon College Writer's Conference some years ago. Dinty W. Moore is a fun guy who is fun to read.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Not-so-witty Tales of Punctuation and Grammar Reviewed by the Little Ol' Curmudgeon, Me.

Between You & Me, Confessions of a Comma Queen, Mary Norris, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2015, 228 pps.

Mary Norris has been a proofreader and copy editor at The New Yorker for more than 30 years, certainly time enough to qualify her to remark, wax elegantly, and, at times, pontificate about the finer points of punctuation and grammar. Ms. Norris does all three in her book entitled Between You & Me.

Wisely, the book covers more than writing issues; rather, it combines those discussions with mini-memoirs of her experiences editing some of The New Yorker's most famous writers along with descriptions of moments from her life, for example, her first job in high school as a ''foot checker.'' One summer she checked swimmers' feet at a local pool in her hometown in Cleveland, Ohio. (If you must know, she was checking for athlete's foot.)

I was fully expecting Norris to draw an admittedly tasteless parallel between checking feet and checking page proofs, you know, it's a stinky job but somebody's got to do it? But, no, her book never approaches that low point. Amazing, huh? Would that my suggestion be more aromatic than Mary Norris' approach. Alas, poor Yorick, while one might argue that her level of taste is higher; neither is she of infinite jest or most excellent fancy, I can assure you.

No, Ms. Norris often stays on the straight and narrow, and when you consider how few risks she takes, her writing certainly has paid off handsomely because her book has been praised by the likes of The New York Times,, National Public Radio, and The Guardian, among others who all seemed to agree that Norris' book is ''witty,'' and generally a rollicking good read.

I'm certain Ms. Norris will be crushed to learn that my review of her just-out book is not nearly as positive. I found the proof-reader's quibbles over grammar and punctuation at times tedious; her humor sometimes forced and some of her mini-memoir episodes irrelevant.

Between You & Me is not without its high points, however. Overall, I found it to be uneven. Reading it was like riding the E train back to Queens after work when I lived in NYC. Sweaty riders on all sides of you pushing in close. The train coming to a screeching halt and the lights going off every ten minutes. Then suddenly speeding along at sixty miles an hour until another crisis of confidence brings your reading to a screeching halt and leaves you in the dark. That is to say, Norris's book gets you home safe and sound.

Some of the high points that contribute to the book's overall worth:

Her admission of the futility of trying to edit the ''incomparable'' George Sanders admitting that ''the fix does violence to the writer's voice.'' (Pg. 54) As a fiction writer, I gloated at her admission. Of course, some might take the opposite view, i.e., that we writers are beyond both fix and salvation.

In her discussion of the awkward use of ''he'' and ''she'' caused by the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun in English, she let on that personal pronouns have such deeply imbedded identities that on one occasion a single pronoun slip-up (forgetting that ''he'' was now a ''she'') threatened to scuttle her loving relationship with her transgender sister. Very moving. (Pg. 72)

Of course, the title Between You & Me, pays homage to a common blunder, i.e., people saying, ''Between You & I,'' which simply isn't correct. (Pg. 77)

I loved this quote: ''I am not trying to fit anyone for a linguistic straight jacket.'' (Pg. 86).

Chapter 5 entitled, ''Comma Comma Comma Comma Chameleon!'' was great fun. (Pg. 93)

Chapter 6 entitled ''Who Put the Hyphen in Moby-Dick?'' I found sort of fascinating. (Yes and no.) She's right of course, although I had never noticed it before: In the title of the famous novel, Moby-Dick is hyphenated; however throughout the text it is not. Why? After descriptions of exhaustive research described in exhaustive detail (she certainly exhausted me), we learn that a copy editor inserted the hyphen on the title page because it was customary to do so in mid-1800s America: ''The hyphenated form refers to the book; the unhyphenated, to the whale.'' (Pg. 111)

I loved Chapter 9 in which she makes a convincing case for the use of profanity, saying it's fun and lively. (Pg. 157) The chapter opens with these words: ''Has the casual use of profanity in English reached a high tide? Fxxk yeah.'' (Well, sort of. Full disclosure: She put an entire irrelevant sentence between her ''high tide'' question and her witty answer, totally gutting its power.) It's sad for me to write, but it's true: Mary Norris needed an editor. For her next book, let's hope she gets one. The New York Times review let on that the reviewer found a typo in her book. That is not what an author wants to read in a review of her book.

More full disclosure: I wanted to adore this book once I learned that Mary Norris graduated from Douglas College, which in primordial times when I attended Rutgers University was my alma mater's woman's college just across town from Rutgers.

I used to hang out at the Douglas library because I liked brainy women who were literate. Still do. Married one. I might have met Mary there and asked her for a date except she graduated about a decade after me. (Or,is that ''after I?'')

Monday, August 24, 2015

How to Fail Your Way to Success.

This month I describe the method I'm following to become a best selling novelist:

For the last year and a half I've been working with writing coach and novelist Bridget Boland who most recently suggested this method. In fact, though, I've been using it for decades; first, to learn to play baseball when I was ten years old; then, to graduate from college; then, to improve my performance as a Peace Corps Volunteer; then, to become proficient as an advertising copywriter; and now to become a successful novelist.

The only success method that is steeped in failure.

With anything you want to accomplish, you're either a natural, or you're not. Here's my method for becoming successful at anything when you're not proclaimed a child genius; I call it ''Failing Your Way to Success.'' Follow these four steps:

Step #1: Try to accomplish something you really want to accomplish. Fail at it. (If you succeed, you can't use this method!)

Step #2: Find out why you failed. Ask others. Analyze it for yourself. Get to the root cause of your failure.

Step #3: The next time you try at this task, keep that root cause in mind. See if you can improve next time.

Step #4: Each time you fail or don't measure up to your expectations, fall forward until you do succeed to your satisfaction.

Imagine you're sculpting a standing figure out of a block of marble. Would you say it's advisable to finish sculpting the nose before beginning on other features of the statue's face? And would you say it's smart to finish the face before sculpting other parts of the statue?

I'm sure you agree that the smartest approach, and the one likely to lead to success, is to start with the end in mind. Rough out the entire standing figure, allotting space for the head, neck, torso, middle and legs. Then develop each major area of the sculpture.

It's the same when writing a novel. Working quickly, a novelist roughs out major portions of the story before finishing out each part.

As you go back over each part, you can assess how well your first attempt worked. If you decide it could work better, you try a different approach in hopes of getting a better result. This is called the experimental, or trial-and-error approach to writing.

I'm a trial-and-error writer.

I first realized that I'm a trial-and-error writer when I read an article by Malcolm Gladwell (author of Tipping Point and other groundbreaking works) entitled Late Bloomers: Why do we equate genius with precocity? published in the October 20, 2008 issue of The New Yorker.

Gladwell calls Ben Fountain a late-bloomer because he was nearly 50 when he published his first book, a collection of short stories entitled, Brief Encounters with Che Guevara.

I first dreamed of becoming a novelist when I was at The University of Iowa Writers' Workshop in my 20s. Soon after graduating with an MFA, feeling frustrated and depressed, I gave up writing novels and short stories to work as an advertising copywriter, first in New York City and then in Dallas. I did not begin writing fiction for a second time until 2002, a few years shy of my sixtieth birthday.

Now, in August 2015, I have stretched this late bloomer thing as far as it will go. Even compared to other late bloomers, I am incorrigibly late. What I am certain will be my first published novel, a trilogy entitled Charging the Jaguar, a story about a Peace Corps Volunteer in the late Sixties who goes on the dark side when he falls in love with a FARC revolutionary in the jungles of Colombia, remains unfinished. I promise you and myself that I will finish it and publish each of the three parts as they are complete. (You notice I did not promise when, only that I would.)

Gladwell's article was a revelation to me for three reasons:

Some artists encounter greatness later in life.

1) I learned that I made the same mistake as so many others, i.e., confusing genius with precocity, the word that has always been applied to Mozart and others who achieve astounding creative feats at a young age. Gladwell mentions, ''Orson Wells [who] made his masterpiece, Citizen Kane, at twenty-five. [And] Herman Melville [who] wrote a book a year through his late twenties, culminating at age thirty-two, with Moby-Dick.

Gladwell debunks the prevailing myth that ''doing something truly creative requires the freshness and exuberance and energy of youth.'' He gives many examples that prove artists often come upon greatness later in life, two of the more interesting being the painter Cézanne and the novelist Ben Fountain.

Have you heard of Ben Fountain? His novel, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk,published in 2012 was a finalist for the National Book Award. When I read Gladwell's article in 2008, I had never heard of Ben although by then he had published an acclaimed book of short stories entitled, Brief Encounters with Che Guevara.

I love Ben Fountain's Writing.

2. That was the second revelation I took away from Gladwell's article: After a bit of reading I discovered that Ben Fountain was a short story writer and novelist whose method, style of writing and subject matter I love; also the fact that he lives and works right here in Dallas makes things cozy. And here's the truly amazing thing: I actually met him years ago when he was a real estate attorney, and we both attended a dinner at the home of mutual friend in North Dallas. The reason he remembered me so many years after having only met me only once? I would like to think it was my brilliant personality; but, that was not the case at all. After meeting him I sent him an early version of this newsletter. He remembered my writing.

As I alluded just now, once I read Fountain's Brief Encounters, I learned that I loved the robustness of Ben's storytelling; its action and excitement which I found believable and engrossing. I don't respond that way to most writers. Overnight, Ben Fountain became my favorite contemporary fiction writer.

One other thing I learned that was nothing less than thrilling to me: The story in that collection I loved the most (and which Gladwell called ''one of the best'') is about an ornithologist taken hostage by the FARC guerrillas of Colombia.

Confronting the FARC.

In my novel my American hero, Jake Lancer, is never taken prisoner by the FARC, but, instead, he develops a relationship with a FARC soldier and begins to see the world through that soldier's eyes. He is then taken prisoner and interrogated by a CIA agent and a Colombian Army Intelligence officer because they believe he's sympathetic to the FARC.

This idea of a relatively innocent American having an up-close and personal encounter with the FARC: I didn't get it from Ben. I had been working on it before I read Brief Encounters in 2008. However, I did find myself tremendously encouraged by reading Ben's work. Obviously it depends on how well I write my novel, but I felt that if Ben could be successful with his story, perhaps I could be successful with mine.

3. Another revelation I got from Gladwell's article: I am an experimental or trial-and-error writer.

Gladwell's thesis is that precocious geniuses use the conceptual method of writing, where their works come out fully formed and finished. They have no use for experimentation. On the other hand, late bloomers like Ben Fountain use the experimental method of writing. They make a series of trial-and-error rewrites. As they do this, the work gets better and better over time until it springs to life fully formed with sufficient power and presence to turn readers into fans.

I also slowly honed my writing skills.

Another observation Gladwell made in his article about experimental writers: ''Experimental artists build their skills gradually over the course of their careers, improving their work slowly over long periods. These artists are perfectionists and are typically plagued by frustration at their inability to achieve their goal.''

I've certainly experienced frustration while writing fiction. When I stopped writing fiction and turned to advertising copywriting I did so specifically so that I would not turn into a chronically depressed crank. .

And as though to prove his point about we late bloomers (Ben and me, ;-))) being perfectionists, he quotes Ben, saying (about the same story I loved so much in his Brief Encounters collection), ''I struggled with that story. I always try to do too much. I mean, I probably wrote five hundred pages of it in various incarnations.''.

One thing that should be said here: Behind my trial-and-error process is my determination to never fall in love with any of my failures. To see them for what they are and jettison them as rapidly as possible and to continually find better solutions. To continually move forward through the entire work that way until I'm satisfied.

Does that make me a perfectionist? I don't think so. With me, making it better isn't a disease that feeds on itself and never ends. I know when my writing is at a sufficiently professional level that it is ready to be sent out into the world to seek its fortune.

I'm gratified that this far into the process of writing Charging the Jaguar, I feel part of a movement of late bloomers who I would wager, in our own estimations, are never late. We perform on our own schedules; and, as far as we're concerned, we're right on time.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

How to Write about Traumas in Your Life So You Can Heal.

Fearless Confessions: A Writer's Guide to Memoir, Sue William Silverman, The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, 2009, pps. 237.

Faithful readers of my monthly EWAs will recall that in May of this year I reviewed a book called The Secret Life of Pronouns by James W. Pennebaker, that recounted results of numerous studies he and others conducted all proving that disclosing emotionally powerful secrets is good for one's health. Doing so can literally boost immune function, drop blood pressure and reduce depression while elevating one's mood. (Note: There is no need to show your writing to anyone to gain these health improvements. Simply the act of writing, the act of telling your secrets to the paper you write them on makes the improvements. Is that not amazing? Or is it that I am easily amazed?)

This is the guide for everyone wishing to take full ownership of their lives by writing about traumatic episodes.

In Fearless Confessions: A Writer's Guide to Memoir, Sue William Silverman gives readers a six-step guide to writing memoirs and crafting them into art:

  • ''Savory Words'' discusses how to lift your prose out of the prosaic. Instead of writing that ''the sun rises on [a] homeless, hung-over man,'' write, ''Sunrays clanged in his ear.'' She discusses how external sensory imagery can be crafted to create mood and emotion. She writes, ''Don't just state your story, reveal your story.'' And she suggests, we ''move readers with active words.''
  • ''Writing on Key'' suggests how to unify a memoir with a single theme without oversimplifying. Novice writers often jump from theme to theme without focusing on a single one. Silverman gives suggestions for spotting this weakness and overcoming it.
  • ''Plotting your Life'' covers the ins and outs of effective plotting. I found her description of horizontal plots and vertical plots very valuable, something I had never seen explained before. She talks about how a writer of memoir can discover important meanings in life-events decades after they occur. I have experienced the life-changing power of these discoveries as I have made them and they have empowered me on my life journey.
  • ''Between Innocence and Experience” discusses the process of a writer finding his or her voice. I have certainly found over the years how my writing voice has improved as I migrated from first-person (which I always interpreted as being limited to the knowledge and vocabulary of the character) to close-third-person (where as a third-person narrator I feel far more freedom to be an effective advocate for my character and to be far better informed about what is going on in the story than the character may be.)
  • ''Mock Moons and Metaphor'' is about the process of crafting memoir story into art.
  • ''Writing in Style''discusses writing styles and how one goes about choosing a style of writing to match the story one is telling.

Added value makes it an excellent textbook.

Silverman supplements this core content with elements which make this book an excellent choice to use as a text in a literary non-fiction creative writing course:

  • Writing Exercises which give writers a jumping-off point to get started applying the content Silverman covers. Trust me: These exercises are not pushovers. One example: ''Write a short paragraph about the thing you were most afraid to tell your mother growing up, or the thing you’re still most afraid to tell her now.''
  • Short snippets called,''For your Reading Pleasure'' at the close of each chapter serve to illustrate the points Williams made within that chapter. They are also very entertaining.
  • An overview describing all the various subgenres of creative nonfiction. I was unaware all those subgenres even existed.
  • Four full-length essays at the end of the book giving the reader excellent models for how to craft superior memoir writing.
  • A reading list of contemporary literary non-fiction is categorized by kind; this listing is very valuable for someone who wishes to become better read in this exciting literary art form.
Coming face-to-face with adult predators and the trauma they cause.

As one might expect with a title like Fearless Confessions, the memoir material of her own that Silverman covers does not make for light, casual reading. On behalf of all those who have overcome childhood trauma, whether by writing about it or by other means, Silverman’s work struck me as important, not only for the author to write but for readers to read.

One caveat: Some have criticized her book for not telling enough stories of her own struggles as she wrote about her own trauma. If Silverman were to issue a revised edition of Fearless Confessions she would do well to remove any doubt from the reader’s mind about her willingness to tell her own story by moving chapter nine, entitled ''Confessional and (Finally) Proud of It,'' and calling it chapter two in her revised edition. (Chapter One tells the story of how she came to write her first memoir. That should remain chapter one.)

Why should chapter nine become chapter two? Because chapter nine reveals the author’s feelings about why she wrote this book, and other memoirs that she has published (some of them award-winning); also, the connections she has to her confessions and why they are both empowering and, redemptive. Perhaps humanizing might be the better word to use here, because when Silverman tells her trauma stories, she does seem to be reclaiming part of her human-hood, which the trauma blocked off access to until she was able to overcome it.

At first, everyone is hesitant to write about their traumas.

I believe most of us, at least at first, are hesitant to confess some of the traumas Sue Silverman details early on in her book and then again in chapter nine: She grew up with a father who sexually molested her; the homes she lived in were ''prisons'' to her. As an adult she spent many years in therapy to come to terms with her sexual addiction.

The author addresses the ethical issues.

At the heart of what causes many people to never write about their traumas are the ethical questions that inevitably come up. (Some would say, loyalty-to-the-predator questions.) Without doubt, trauma stories come with strings attached.

What about the relatives, often parents, who are inevitably the abusers, the predators? They are the monsters who hurt and cause the trauma. What about them? Totally uninterested bystanders might say, ''Aren’t the tellers of the stories accusing their parents or other close relatives of committing terrible sins? Don’t the relatives get a say in the matter?'' And what if relatives simply don’t wish to participate in this form of public confessional? What if they would rather be left out of it? Do they not have a right to say, ''Do not write about me or it. Write me out of it.''

Sue William Silverman addresses this issue; I think she builds a powerful case. Ultimately, when you are imprisoned by childhood traumas, one way to liberate yourself is by literally writing your way out of it. There are other ways, of course, but if you choose to write, you can hardly choose to avoid incriminating others. My opinion: Incest-predators like Silverman’s father should have thought of that when they perpetrated their crimes. (It is also important to point out: After you write a memoir, no one said you must publish it or make it public.) As Silverman expresses it:

''But what about other people involved in my secrets, especially my parents? Aren’t I, in my writing, supposed to protect their privacy?

''No.

''Since my family was involved in the creation of who I am, I feel justified, even obligated as a writer to reveal the roles they played. It was because my father molested me that I suffered from sex addiction, an eating disorder.

''How can I write a life, be a memoirist, without including members of my family? They are woven into the threads of every experience. If I don’t write, I will once again be silenced, just like the child-me; in essence, my father will silence me. If I don’t write my secrets I will, in effect, still be keeping his. Only my own words can finally fill that blank, empty space that once was me.

''Only by telling our family truths could we have been an authentic family. Only by telling my secrets can I be an authentic woman. This is the only way for me to be an authentic writer, as well.

''Writing is a way to remove the muzzle and blinders from childhood. Writing is a way to take possession of, to fully own, my life. Only I own my memories that dwell in the attic of my mind. As sole possessor of them, I am free to write.

''By doing so, I feel my own power. Through telling my story, listening to the stories of others, I am no longer a timid little girl, even as I still, at times, get scared. But I try not to allow fear to preclude me from writing. After years of silence, I have a voice.

''Write anyway! Whatever the roadblock. Write anyway!''

And what if you are one of those who say, I do not want to write about my traumatic childhood experiences. I would rather write about how happy my childhood was? Something tells me Fearless Confessions isn’t for you.

Ah, but if you are of the ilk who has wished you could put traumatic experiences down on paper, then pick up Fearless Confessions. Your health might improve as a result.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Caitlyn Jenner, and What Really Makes Women Different from Men?

The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us, James W. Pennebaker, Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2011, pps. 352.

A recent essay by Elinor Burkett, noted commentator and filmmaker, appearing in The New York Times made the point that the media frenzy over the publication of Caitlyn Jenner's photos in Vanity Faire and the way trending transgender social issues are being discussed seem to have put women back in a stereotypical box (e.g., ''more intuitive, nurturing, emotional, etc.'') that they only recently escaped.

According to Burkett, ''For me and many women, feminist and otherwise, one of the difficult parts of witnessing and wanting to rally behind the movement for transgender rights is the language that a growing number of trans individuals insist on, the notions of femininity that they're articulating and their disregard for the fact that being a woman means having accrued certain experiences, enduring certain indignities and relished certain courtesies in a culture that reacted to you as one.''

Male brain, female brain: Differences

Burkett's watershed piece of thought leadership continues: ''Brains are a good place to begin because one thing that science has learned about that is they're in fact shaped by experience, cultural and otherwise. The part of the brain that deals with navigation is enlarged in London taxi drivers, as is the region dealing with the movement of the fingers of the left hand in right-handed violinists.''

Do women and men have different brains? Do they speak and write differently? In my opinion that question was settled in 2011 with the publication of James W. Pennebaker's landmark book, The Secret Life of Pronouns.

In April's EWA, I described Pennebaker's life-long quest to develop the field of computational linguistics, which uses computers and specialized software to count the number and kind of words used in any message.

Function word use can predict the gender of the author.

Thanks to Pennemaker's groundbreaking research, the very shortest, insignificant words, what he calls function words, ''can lead to telling insights into personality, gender, deception, leadership, love, history, politics and groups.''

Function words, he says, include pronouns such as I, you, we and they; articles such as a, an, the; prepositions such as to, for, over; and other words which, along with function words, fit into a larger category he calls ''stealth words.'' Two examples: positive emotion words, for example, love, fun and good; and cognitive words like think, reason and believe.

As I wrote in April's EWA, Pennebaker asserts that hidden in patterns of stealth word use is a method that could be used to identify each of us by our gender.

Pennebaker's most important idea.

Here is the heart of Pennebaker's message: ''By listening to, counting, and analyzing stealth words, we can learn about people in ways that even they may not appreciate or comprehend. At the same time, the way people use stealth words can subtly affect how we perceive them and their messages.''

Do men and women use words differently? They do. Here are some of Pennebaker's findings. I'm quoting him.

-Women use first-person singular pronouns, or I-words, more than men.

-Men and women use first-person plural words, or we-words at the same rate. An interesting sidebar here mentioned by Pennebaker: ''The reason we is such a fun word is that half of the time it is used to bring the speaker closer to others, and the other half of the time to deflect responsibility away from the speaker. (For example, when a father says to his child, ''I think we need to do something about cutting the lawn; don't you agree it's about time?'') Women tend to use the warm we and men are more drawn to the distanced we.)

-Men use articles more than women do.

-No difference in the use of positive emotion words.

-Women use more cognitive words, which Pennebaker says is ''a slap in the face of Aristotle who believed that women were less rational than men and incapable of philosophical thought.'' (There's that box again.)

-And this most important conclusion: Women use more social words (any words related to other human beings.) Women do, indeed, think more and speak more about other people.

Other findings of Pennebaker's.

Men use more:

-Big words

-Nouns

-Propositions

-Numbers

-Words per sentence

-Swear words

Women use more:

-Personal pronouns

-Negative emotion (especially anxiety)

-Negations (no, not, never)

-Certainty words (always, absolutely)

-Hedge phrases (I think, I believe)

Pennebaker concludes, ''Males categorize their worlds by counting, naming and organizing the objects they confront. Women, in addition to personalizing their topics, talk in a more dynamic way, focusing on how their topics change. Discussions of change require more verbs.

What about Plays and Movies? Can Men Talk like Women?

As if that weren't enough, here is where Pennebaker's research findings become truly fascinating: He ran well known novels and plays through his Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software program and learned, for example, that William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet has ''both young lovers, especially Juliet, expressing themselves the ways that males tend do.'' He ran Quentin Tarantino's script for Pulp Fiction through his LIWC and found that both women and men in that film talk like men.

Here are a few movies where, according to Pennebaker, both the women and men characters speak like women:

-Nora Ephron's Sleepless in Seattle

-Sofia Coppola Lost in Translation

-Woody Allen Hannah and Her Sisters

He devotes many pages of his book to artistic literary analysis. (Playwrights and screenplay writers take note!)

In a time when we seem to be fascinated by the subject of what makes women female and men male, I believe Pennebaker's book is required reading. And what is the answer? My opinion: The differences in language processing, writing and speaking between men and women exist at a far deeper level than anatomical differences or surgical procedures can address.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Your Smallest Words Reveal the Biggest Secrets about who You Are.

This is my review of: The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us, James W. Pennebaker, Bloomsbury Press, New York, 2011, pps. 352.

Welcome back. With this month's EWA, we begin a new series that explores the research findings of James W. Pennebaker, a social psychologist at UT Austin who discovered the magic of short, forgettable words.

When you write any communication, you probably do so believing that content is its most important feature. However, author Pennebaker begs to differ; he asserts that the style of any communication can be more important than its content.

In his book, Pennebaker reflects on his decades of research in the field of computational linguistics, which uses computers and specialized software to count the number and kind of words used in any message. Over the years he has shown that an analysis of writing style can yield amazing insights about the person who wrote it.

How does Pennebaker define style?

By style, Pennebaker means the way any author of any communication (from a tweet to an entire nonfiction book, novel or play) uses the very shortest and most innocuous words, what Pennebaker calls ''function words.'' These include pronouns such as I, you, we and they; articles such as a, an, the; prepositions such as to, for, over; and other words he calls ''stealth words.''

By all appearances, function words seem to be the least significant words. Indeed, when you listen to anyone while they're speaking to you, function words are always the ones that ''fall out.'' They disappear without a trace.

Why do we need to pay close attention to function words?

According to Pennebaker, ''your brain is not wired to notice [function words], but if you pay close attention, you will start to see subtle patterns begin to emerge.''

You may remember the Biblical adage, ''The meek shall inherit the earth.'' Thanks to Pennebaker's groundbreaking research, the very meekest words have, if you will, inherited an important role in allowing us to de-code and read heretofore hidden information about the author of any communication.

What kind of hidden information can function word-analysis reveal?

''The analysis of function words [and how they're used in any given writing sample] can lead to new insights into personality, gender, deception, leadership, love, history, politics and groups,'' writes Pennebaker.

He asserts that hidden in patterns of functional-word use is a method that could identify each one of us as surely as if our fingerprints or iris-patterns had been used.

Making some amazing predictions

According to the book's dust jacket: ''Using innovative analytic techniques, Pennebaker x-rays everything from Craigslist advertisements to the Federalist Papers. Who would have predicted that the high school senior who uses too many verbs in her admission essay is likely to make lower grades in college? Or that a world leader's use of pronouns can reliably presage whether he will lead his country into war? ''

In commenting on the significance of his work and discussing his area of social research, Pennebaker writes, ''Ultimately, I'm interested in psychology and social behavior. Words, in my world, are a window into the inner workings of people, a fascinating and revealing way to think about language and its links to the world around us.''

Next Month

In next month's EWA (May), I will describe the research Pennebaker conducted at the beginning of his career that eventually led to him discovering the predictive nature of function-word patterns. His early research demonstrated the power of writing to help victims of severe emotional trauma heal when they write directly and repeatedly about their traumatic episode.

In June's EWA, I will cover how Pennebaker decided to ignore writing content and to focus exclusively on writing style, or the use of function words in writing. I'll describe some of Pennebaker's conclusions about how people express themselves and distinguish themselves through their use of function words.

In July's EWA, I will explore how men and women's use of function words varies. Yes, most men and women express themselves differently. It's not because men and women come from different planets; rather, it's because they rely on different patterns of functional word usage to express themselves.

Monday, March 30, 2015

More Words I Love.

Welcome back. It's okay to like certain words, but try not to fall in love with them. At the same time, don't neglect or forget them, either. Remember them as you might remember important moments in your life. And think about this: The words you use are indicators of the person you are; they also adumbrate the person you are becoming.

Omerta: noun, Italian. A secrecy sworn to by oath; a code of silence. Origin: In 1909 from the Italian,umilta, meaning humility, referring to the code of submission of individuals to the overriding group interest. From the Latin humilitas. Example: ''A time-honored culture of omerta often prevails at the Supreme Court.'' David Remick writing in The New Yorker, 2015.

Adumbrate trans. verb To outline; give a faint indication of; to foreshadow; to overshadow; to obscure. Origin: 1575-1585, from the Latin, adumbratus, meaning shaded equivalent to ad + umbra meaning shade, shadow + -atus. Example: The storming of the Bastille in 1789 was the adumbration of the French Revolution that rallied citizens to overthrow the king. Noun: Adumbration.

Delineate verb To trace the outline of; sketch or trace a visual representation of; to portray in words; describe precisely. Origin: Latin, Delineatus, meaning to outline. Entering English between 1550 and 1560. Example: In the President's speech he took great care to delineate the major components of the law. Related words: delineated, delineating, delineation.

Apercu noun French A hasty glance, a glimpse; an immediate judgment; understanding; insight; an outline or summary. Literal meaning in French: perceived. Example: They exchanged an ominous apercu.

Note how the words delineation and apercu have very different meanings, yet the word ''outline'' defines them both.

Beamish adj Bright, cheerful and optimistic. Origin: Between 1520 and 1530, coming from beam + ish. Example: He had a beamish smile.

Intenerate verb To make soft or tender; to soften. Origin: In the late 1500s. The word has its roots in the Latin term tener, meaning ''tender.'' Example: The leather was intenerated. Other forms: intenerates, intenerated.

Itinerant noun Traveling from place to place, especially on a circuit, as a minister, judge or laborer. Origin: 1560-1570. Late Latin from the present participle of itinerate, to journey. Example: Itinerant preacher.

Notice how different the words intenerate and itinerant are, even though they sound alike.

Anthesis noun used in botany The period or act of expansion in flowers, especially the maturing of the stamens. Origin: This word entered English in the 1800s. Its roots lie in the Greek anthesis, meaning bloom. Example: During anthesis the avocado tree is sensitive to temperature, which can severely disrupt the dichogamy mechanism.

Antithesis noun Opposition; contrast. The direct opposite (usually followed by of or to.) Example: Her reputation was that of a coward, but her behavior showed her to be the very antithesis of that.

Note: Do not confuse anthesis and antithesis.

Dysphemism noun The substitution of a harsh, disparaging or unpleasant expression for a more neutral one; an expression so substituted. Origin: The word entered English in the late 1800s. Derived from the Greek dys- meaning ill or bad + pheme meaning ''speaking.'' Example: In the charges, they decided to call the activity ''data collection'' after the term ''spying'' was excluded as a dysphemism.

Euphemism noun The substitution of a mild, indirect or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh or blunt. Origin: From the Latin, Euphonia, meaning to sound good. Example: ''To pass away'' is a commonly used euphemism for ''to die.'

'

Notice how dysphemism and euphemism have the exact opposite meaning.

More lovely words next month. Send in your favorites.

Monday, March 2, 2015

More Word Love

Welcome back. Falling in love with words is like falling in love with marble figurines. Basically, it is a narcissistic experience. Still I can't resist. Continuing on from last month, here are a few more words that have managed to worm their way into my heart.

Clutch: Of course as a noun it is a woman’s purse or part of an automobile, but I love it as a verb because one cannot clutch anything without there being passion or strong emotions involved in the holding of that thing, whatever it is.

Clenched: Whether it is a fist or teeth that are clenched, emotions run deep with this verb, which is also why I love it.

Downcast: In this iPhone age, we have all forgotten that we needn’t always write, ''He walked looking down.'' If we choose, we can write, ''He walked with downcast eyes,'' thereby causing the style of our writing to look up.

Harsh: Whether we are speaking of a harsh winter or harsh penalty calls in a sport, this admittedly old-fashioned and somewhat under-used word provides a wonderful alternative to old standbys such as punishing, strict, draconian, or unfair.

Seldom: Today this word is seldom used yet it exudes dignity, honor and a sense of importance. What a colorful alternative to ''rarely'' and ''infrequently.''

Slender: I put it to you, dear reader: Would you rather have a slender figure, a thin figure, a slim figure, or an emaciated figure? I rest my case. Yet today the word ''slender'' is rarely used. You can make your writing distinctive by calling upon it every once in a while.

Winnow: To drive or blow (chaff, dirt) away by fanning; to blow upon, fan; to separate. Note: the word parse that we covered last month also means to separate out, but applies to analyzing a sentence by its grammatical parts of speech.

Ephemera: The plural of ephemeron, which refers to anything that is short-lived or ephemeral.

Specious: Pleasing to the eye on the surface, but lacking genuine merit. Plausible. Usually used in reference to ideas or thinking.

Comely: Pleasing in appearance, attractive, fair. Usually used in reference to people, e.g., A comely maid.

Abhorrent: Detestable or loathsome.

Odious: Deserving hatred, detestable.

Sophistic: Fallacious, logically unsound.

Cohort: A companion or associate.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Words I love.

Welcome back. When you become smitten with words, prepare to endure unrequited love. Despite my best efforts to remain aloof from words and cold-hearted about them, a few have wormed their way into my heart. I am uplifted, enlivened and never, never bored by them. Here are a few of my favorites:

Vague: Indistinct, unclear

Evanescent: Vanishing, fading away, fleeting (''The evanescent glow of fireflies'')

Glance: A brief look

Diaphanous: Sheer, transparent or translucent

Footfall: Footstep

Aggress: To commit the first act of aggression

Smitten: Struck down, infatuated

Caress: An embrace, a light stroking (I particularly like ''aggress'' and ''caress'' used together. ''Shall I aggress or caress?'')

Ferocious: Fierce, savage, brutal, predatory

Lumpen: Dispossessed, displaced people who have lost social status. (I see lumps of clay. ''These are the lumps of the lumpen.'')

Vicious: Ferocious, brutal, dangerous, aggressive

Agon: A conflict, a struggle (''Job had an agon with God.'')

Bask: Laze, lie, lounge

Parse: To examine critically, to break down in component parts (''How could I begin to parse the sentiment behind that look?'')

Distracted: Preoccupied

Doleful: Sorrowful, mournful

Jiggling: Shaking, wiggling, fidgeting

Wayworn: Fatigued by travel

Flickering: Glimmering, dancing, twinkling, sparkling

Coruscate: Give off or reflect flashes of light (''They pulled up at the farthest end of a loop path that looked out over the great basin of the Rio Grande under brilliant, coruscating stars.'' Bill Roorback writing in Big Bend)

Aglow: Shining, radiating, smoldering

Swoon: To enter a state of ecstasy

Swirl: Whirl, eddy, billow, spiral

Rapture: Joyful ecstasy

Vague: Indistinct, unclear

Confabulation: Easy, unrestrained conversation

Evocative: Tending to evoke (''The fragrance was evocative of languid summer afternoons.'')

Sere: Dry, withered

Wizened: Shriveled, aged, white with age

Languid: Slow, listless

Rheumy: A mucous discharge from eyes or nose (sometimes snot)

Phantasmagoric: Deceptive appearances in a dream or created by the imagination

Languish: To become weak or feeble

Dear Reader, look for more evocative words next month. Send in your favorites.