The Death of J.D. Salinger

J.D. Salinger died Wednesday of natural causes at the age of 91. I'm not going to explore the work of this legendary author and recluse, this eccentric, if not crazy, genius. Plenty of websites and blogs and media outlets will do that for us, pasting bits of his work in between long scrawls on his oddities.

Rather, I will use this as a chance to motivate others to do one thing -- write.

People make excuses about not writing. Life does get in the way, and yet somehow, even before his seclusion, life did not get in Salinger's way. He had to write.

According to the Associated Press:

• As a teenager, Salinger hid under his covers with a flashlight so he could write
• During World War II, he carried a typewriter with him so he could write hunkered in foxholes
• He has written 15 novels since "Catcher in the Rye." He wrote them even though he never intended to publish them.
• He hated writers and writing schools.

What these four bulletpoints have in common is that Salinger had to write. The stories had to come out of him, not for the reading public, not for the bottom line, but for J.D. Salinger.

There's a lesson in that for all our members and other aspiring writers, even if you never publish. Write the story. We are not likely to create another Holden Caulfield, but we will create something significant to ourselves.

Salinger saw the importance in that. Write the story.

Third Thursday Recap

Another round of spirited critiques, if somewhat less heated than that of two weeks ago. Kay did a nice job clearing up creative nonfiction, and I did a nice job not blacking out both before and after the meeting. We actually finished 15 minutes early, and gave no one short shrift. We welcomed two new members to the group -- Jerri and the aforementioned Alison (previous post). The latter has put us on notice for grammar abuse/misuse. Another editor with a sharp red pen is a blessing!

Over the years, we've had members with interesting lives. I mean, really, how many writers groups can boast of a twice-convicted bank robber? There have been two times when this group was really clicking, running on all cylinders, and it was when we had interesting people on board. We've once again entered such a period. We got to hear about Katie's foray into punk music, Zack's time playing at CBGB's, Cynthia's cross-Canada tour with crazy relatives, and Sandy's tradition of turkey for Thanksgiving breakfast with her crazy relatives. And that's only scratching the surface within their lives, not to mention what other members have done or accomplished. Is it any wonder the writing has gone up several notches? So have the members.

As for total submissions, yes, it's a bit lighter than it was when we met monthly, but still not bad. Next meeting we'll review mss from Katie (short story), Michelle (poem), Sandy and Cynthia (memoir), and Zack (novel). A diverse selection from a diverse group.

Third Thursday Time -- The Experiment Continues...

The GFWG's bi-weekly experiment gets its first test this Thursday:

1. Can we be as prolific as we have been at the past two monthly meetings?
2. How did people feel about having only two weeks, rather than four, to read all the submissions?

I don't think the extra reading is much of a burden. I can't imagine anyone reads the mss four weeks out and then sits around waiting for the next meeting. Even those who cram a few days out (me!) will just have to do it twice as often.

The two-week writing deadline is far more challenging. The real measure will be among the novelists. While they are likely to contribute every two weeks, will they submit that many more pages every month, or submit fewer pages to be covered at each meeting? Of course, the short story writers, poets, etc., should take up the challenge to submit more often, even if, unlike the novelists, they submit entire works.

Can't wait to find out. Of course, this Thursday is only step one. The big question is how will it play out over the months? I think we're up to it.

We'll be reviewing chapter selections from Zack, Katie, and Kay; a poem from Michelle; a section from Cynthia's memoir, and a family short from Sandy. We may also have a new member in attendance, an English teacher who emailed Brian. An English teacher would be a nice addition to the GFWG, so I hope she can make it. But, hey, no pressure (Alison!).

If you're interested in attending, please come to the Holden Room, Crandall Library, Thursday, 7-9pm, with optional social afterwards.

Jumping Genres

While reading's Kay's piece for this week's go round it occurred to me that half the group's long-term members regularly jump genres. We've experimented with other fields, played around until comfortable. No two members have done so more than Kay and I, begging the question -- Are we not yet comfortable, or are we too comfortable?

Zack and Jim write for adults and young adults, but generally stick with science fiction. Sandy generally focuses on short memoir, often with a humorous bent, but has stretched her pen to include a one-act play and other pieces. Even Joe, though always sticking to memoir, writes both serious reflections and humorous reminisces. Kay, though, has written essays, short stories, humorous pieces, murder mystery, science fiction, fantasy, and I'm sure I'm missing something...

As for me, well, when asked what I write, I always reply, "Whatever pops into my head." I've covered religious fiction, short stories, political satire, sketches, stand-up, poetry, non-fiction, journalism, and picture books. I even have a YA idea bouncing around in my head.

So, Kay, are we abundantly creative or entirely unfocused? Can we be both? Neither? Can one be the former and the other the latter? How does the writer's mind continually conceive new ideas, new projects, new approaches?

I have long argued that all work is autobiographical, even copy writing and journalism. Why did the author take that approach? That angle? Why focus on that aspect of a story or product? Perhaps a better phrase is all work is psychologically revealing, but it doesn't have the ring, the tone, of autobiographical. I can spot "me" in every work. Where it came from, what I'm saying, what scene, place, or person I'm re-creating. Even those that border on fantasy -- I know what I'm trying to say. My change in genre is brought about by what I want to say. And by having to say it, whether to adults, children, or more commonly, myself. I don't know exactly how the finished product will read, but I can't wait to type that final period. And then go back and change it all. I think, for me, it's a matter of being comfortable with myself and with experimentation, but rarely, if ever, the execution.

There is, of course, the other approach -- being too comfortable. Experimenting because you know the group will accept what you have done. Finding support for every effort, regardless of how the critiques come back. There is generally no reason to experiment when happy, but comfortable? Yes, sometimes all the more so. There is a psychological freedom in being comfortable, whether actors and authors like to admit it.

Before this becomes its own novel, author's jump genres for all sorts of reasons: boredom, excitement, inspiration, age, wisdom, drive, dissatisfaction, tragedy, rejection, revulsion.

Why have some of you jumped genres?

Writing the Wave

It was one of those surprising moments, entirely unexpected, that the believers among us see as kismet, divine intervention or a sign. And while I hold such ideas to be the sign of poor writing, I took the hint anyway.

Outside the Holden Room where the GFWG meets is the writer's resource section. Absolutely appropriate, if entirely accidental. Sandy and I were talking before the meeting last Thursday, waiting for two nonmembers to clear out, when I looked up and saw the book mentioned in the title of this post, Writing the Wave. It was written by Elizabeth Ayres, a poet under whom I studied at NYU a few years ago. It's a book full of writing tips and exercises, from which I managed to land several short stories. One of those, a writing exercise turned Aesop fable, has been written up twice, once for adults and once for children and was just submitted to Dial Books (And no, I don't take it as a sign. I had decided to send it to Dial two months ago. Now, if Dial miraculously agrees to publish it, I'll rethink this, briefly, as a sign...)

Sandy checked out the book, and I'm eager to see if she found it helpful. Did it provide her with the same inspiration it did me? I hope so.

As for kismet, well, I had been thinking about Writing the Wave a lot over the past few weeks, thinking I should pull out my copy to redo some of the exercises. An experiment, a chance to work the writing muscle, to see what I come up with now that I didn't come up with then. Weird that there it was, eye level, saying take me down and use me again. I have some time coming up in between writers groups. I think I'll sit down with Ms. Ayres once more and write the wave.

But not because I believe in signs or anything. It was simply the plan all along...

At least that's what I keep telling myself.

First Thursday Recap

If last night's meeting is any indication, we may not just have to meet every two weeks, but for three hours a night. We had no problem going the distance, and could have gone into overtime, given all the material -- and the depth of the material -- in front of us. The highlight of that was a spirited exchange between Zack and Michelle over the main character in Ann Marie's piece. They could still be discussing it for all I know. Good stuff.

We critiqued every submission, (except Jim's, who was not in attendance) although Kay and Sandy didn't get to read theirs aloud. Too bad, especially for Sandy, who reads her pieces with such verve and emotion. Still, she took the time constraints like a trouper.

If we stay this productive, and God I hope we do, we may have to bring certain rules about author participation, rules that were once standard for our group and exist in many others -- that is, no introductory explanations from writers, and writers do not speak during the critiques unless specifically asked a question. Worth considering, if it keeps us on schedule.

Particularly since the next meeting will be another busy one. We have submissions from Cynthia, Kay, Michelle, Bill, Sandy, Zack, and Katie. Keep Reading!

If you wish to join us, the next meeting is: Thu., January 21, 7pm, in the Holden Room at Crandall Library.

Off With a Bang

What a great meeting last night! Enthusiasm. Energy. Encouragement. Couldn't ask for a better start to 2010 and our new twice a month meeting plan.

That's it. Just wanted to weigh in while the glow was still on.

The First Thursday Experiment Begins

I'm excited about this coming Thursday's meeting for two reasons:

1. It's the beginning of our every two week experiment.
2. We have a lot of manuscripts to cover.

In reverse order: we don't have the variety of work to review this month, but there's much more of it. If our group can stay this productive throughout the spring I will be impressed (and will have to learn to read faster). We have short stories from Kay and Ann Marie, poetry from Michelle, and a reworked bio short from Sandy. We also have novel starts from Zack, Jim, and Katie, meaning that, if they continue these stories, we'll have assignments to read for quite some time. For the rest of the year, I should think.

Reading Sandy's piece made me realize how little we see of work once it's been critiqued. It's happened on occasions with novels. I've seen Zack's books once they've gone through the submit-and-crit process, and those of two former members, but never the short stuff. It gets read, often rewritten, and then is wiped from memory. In reading her story, you get to see what gets accepted, what works or doesn't work, and how to review a piece that's been reshaped. It's a difference process. It doesn't mean you have less to say. In fact, it could mean more as the piece stands on its own but is still wobbly. More of the author's intent becomes clear, and gives the editor that much with which to work. I see it when rewriting my own work, but was pleased to encounter it in someone else's next draft.

Now on to Point 1--the two-week experiment. I hope this works. I'm sure for awhile it will. It means a chance for novelists to move faster and for others to write more, to meet deadlines, to keep pace. Quality work should take time, but the meetings are about ensuring quality, turning black-inked copies into off-white diamonds. OK, very off-white. OK, milky sometimes. But then editing is the same as cutting at diamonds, until only the best, sharpest, most radiant facets are left. Meeting every two weeks rather than once a month is a chance to do that.

I'm looking forward to it!

Meeting Place & Time: Holden Room, upstairs at Crandall Library, from 7-9pm, First and Third Thursdays of the Month.

Instant Gratification

Writing rarely offers instant, or near instant, gratification. A writer may be happy with a particular piece, but what about the reading public? Even with the GFWG, barring the time put in, the piece is submitted and the writer waits a month (and soon, two weeks) for the good and the bad. So last week was a refreshing return to the past, away from novels, short stories, and picture books to write stand-up.

I had a New Year's Eve show for which I thought I'd better write some new material. Now, I've had bits take months, and in one case, years, to complete, before they felt write, and all parts click the way I imagined them. Instead, I wrote these pieces, 7 in all on Dec. 30 and 31st. I researched Fort Plain, NY, where the show was to be held, wrote some bits about the place, and actually wrote my opening line 10 minutes before the show based on something the woman who put it all together said to me.

This is where the veteran comic comes in. The two lines that I knew were the best turned out to be the best. Others I thought were questionable turned out to be questionable, and so on. Some lines had to be sold the right away (see an earlier post about a writer's voice changing the way things read on the page), but with the right trick, or nod, or inflection, the line got a laugh.

A large part of my stand-up career was the joy of writing, of creating something that worked. Part of me still likes that instant gratification, that return, that laugh, that groan, that wince at a cut to the bone. I also realized that I'm much better at spotting in my stand-up what works that what a reader enjoys or understands. Perhaps when I have as many years writing as I do performing, I will achieve that, too, although I doubt it. It should be, by its very nature, harder to do. It should be deeper, better constructed, without the performer's skills to elicit a response. Perhaps it should never receive instant gratification because it requires at least one extra step to construct.

So instant gratification will have to give way to self-satisfaction, at least until the critiques roll in.