By Phil C
AI Blog
For many of us, the indispensable economic enabler of writing is teaching. And, given the job market and our status as artists-not-yet-discovered-by-Oprah, that mostly means teaching first-year comp. As a colleague recently posted on Facebook: “Student paper conferences=the price I pay not to be a starving artist.”
And in a lot of ways, it’s a natural fit. Whether we use the technical rhetorical terms or not, our writing lives are governed by rhetorical considerations. We obsess over form and style. We worry about ethos (do I want the speaker of my poem to sound this standoffish?), pathos (have I given the reader enough reasons to be invested in this character’s fate), and logos (does it make sense for Suzy to join the circus in chapter six?). We live and die by metaphor. And, though we don’t always put it this way, we’re highly aware of our audiences and their needs—even if the audience is just our own readerly compulsions and interests. To teach, we simply have to learn to talk about these things self-consciously—which, in fairness, is disruptive to some writers’ processes, but, for many of us, less so than doing shift work would be.
All that said, there are adjustments to be made. One of them is squaring one’s own composition processes with the assumptions about process that are endemic to this profession. The default position in rhetoric and comp circles seems to be to honor one writing process above all others: the full draft-upon-full draft-upon-full draft process. Write your way to a thesis, we’re told (and told to tell our students). Make an outline, cover the territory the outline outlines, then carefully prune and revise.
There are writers who work this way, and, judging by the creative-writing prompt books and craft guides that I’ve read, they may be in the majority, since this is also the advice often given to first-time story writers. (I have no idea what first-time poets are told, or even how well the notion of “drafting” helps poets explain to themselves what they do.) But it is most emphatically not everybody’s process. Tom Robbins claims to polish and repolish each sentence till it’s done, then he moves on to the next. When the “draft” is done, the novel is. One might think this process invalidated by Robbins’s use of it, but Cynthia Ozick does the exact same thing. So, according to interviews, do/did Harold Bloom (it shows) and the late Stephen Jay Gould (not so much). Marilynne Robinson says simply, “I don’t draft.”
Similarly, a lot of writers, at least those who give interviews, seem to have set working hours (Garcia Marquez works mornings, James Baldwin wrote all night), but some very fine ones don’t, including, again, Robinson, as well as the novelist David Rhodes, who told me that he works when he feels like working. This is exactly what we’re supposed to tell our first-years never to do.
My process, insofar as I understand it, seems to be a mixture of both of these things. I start writing one story. I fiddle with it for several days. At some point I make a plan, which I try to cover, but I soon find myself bored by the whole thing. Yet there’s one paragraph that intrigues me. I take that and move it somewhere else and try to imagine a new story around it. This time, I make a plan and it works. I’ve done good work by sentence-to-sentence improvisation and also by trying to fulfill some larger design. I’ve done some of my best work over many drafts and over one draft.
Several years ago I was at a gathering of comp people. The workshop facilitator encouraged us to write about our own processes, and I uncovered what has proven, in the years since, to be a valuable insight about mine: at the time, I wasn’t approaching my (mostly unfinished and unsuccessful) fiction pieces in the same way I approached my (often finished and, to that extent, successful) nonfiction pieces. (At that point, my nonfiction writing was going well enough for me to have gotten my name onto the masthead of Paste Magazine under “Contributing Editors,” whatever that’s worth. It stayed there till issue 14 or 15, whereupon the editor I mostly worked with left, the book-review section got poleaxed for several issues, and I went to graduate school, my dreams of graduating from freelancing to being a jetset rock-magazine-book-critic likewise poleaxed. This blog posting was written over multiple drafting sessions. This digression survived both of them. So much for the magic of revision.)
The nonfiction-writing process that worked for me, back then—and to a lesser extent now—was to a) start thinking about something, b) take a walk, c) picture myself saying impressive things about my topic to a large crowd including several comely members of the opposite sex, d) go home and write a few stupid notes, e) wrinkle my nose, f) decide that I’d work better at a coffeeshop, g) go to a coffeeshop and end up reading Pauline Kael for several hours, h) go record shopping, i) go to bed, j) write more stupid notes every few days, k) perhaps move across state lines. After a few weeks or months, though, while repeating step b), I’d have some near-perfect sentence—lapidary, rhythmically complete, as lean and compact as a triathlete’s tummy—drop into my head, and the whole essay would, over a few additional days, work itself into shape around that one right sentence. (My “perfect sentences” were of course no such thing—the instant these pieces turned up in print, I’d see that as plainly as anyone—but they were good enough to kick something loose in my head.) It occurred to me, that day, in that roomful of comp people, that maybe the problem with my fiction was that I kept trying to will it into being via exactly the kind of minister’s-son application to planning and drafting then being advocated by that same roomful of comp people. Maybe, without giving in to laziness (perfect sentences don’t tend to come during a drunken “SpongeBob” marathon), I needed to wait for those sentences that I fell in love with to appear.
The comp person leading this workshop of comp people wanted us to share our insights, in that Quaker-like mania for group disclosure that always motivates people who are attracted to ideas like “knowledge is socially generated! The era of the individual genius is over!” So I shared mine. Here’s the interesting part—the workshop leader broke his own rule of noninterruption in order to discount what I’d had to say. “And isn’t it always the ‘perfect’ sentences that you end up throwing out,” he said, smiling the coercive smile of a game show host.
Process is awesome. But we need to be honest about the variety of processes that are out there. Creative writers are a valuable source of information about this variety, a diversity that, if we allowed ourselves to wrestle with it in full view of our colleagues in rhet/comp and literature, and in full view of our students, might benefit us all.