This in from LILA member Brit Washburn:
Thanks to all who attended last night’s inaugural meeting of our writers workshop. There were nine of us present–a near-perfect-sized group for the kinds of conversations we had and hope to have.
After introductions, we laid out the basic format of the workshop. Each time we meet, we will begin by reading and discussing the work of another writer as a means of establishing a frame of reference for writerly discourse, followed by a 15-20 minute workshopping session for each piece provided by four participants in attendance the preceding week. Meetings will be contained to two hours, most likely twice a month, from 7-9 p.m.
Last night, we addressed Syliva Plath’s poem “Mirror” (http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/sylvia-plath/mirror/) and Dorianne Laux’s “Dark Charms” (http://www.thepedestalmagazine.com/gallery.php?item=2230), as well as Paul Mount’s “Pitch Pipe,” Cait Etherton’s “Pledge of a Good Conscience Toward God”, and Frances Pearce’s prose piece, “A Return Visit to the New World.”Next time we meet, we will look at the work of Denise K. James and Tim Taylor, along with something of mine and my co-facilitator, Bryan Penberthy.
Yesterday afternoon before we gathered, I stumbled upon a collection of essays by Marilynne Robinson entitled, “When I Was a Child I Read Books” at Blue Bicycle Books on King Street. It includes a piece called “Freedom of Thought” which struck me as relevant to our endeavor:
“For me, at least, writing consists very largely of exploring intuition. A character is really the sense of a character, embodied, attired, and given voice as he or she seems to require. Where does this creature come from? From watching, I suppose. From reading emotional significance in gestures and inflections, as we all do all the time. These moments of intuitive recognition float free from their particular occasions and recombine themselves into nonexistent people the writer and, if all goes well, the reader feel they know.
There is a great difference, in fiction and in life, between knowing someone and knowing about someone. When a writer knows about his character, he is writing for plot. When he knows his character, he is writing to explore, to feel reality on a set of nerves somehow not quite his own. Words like “sympathy,” “empathy,” and “compassion” are overworked and overcharged—there is no word for the experience of seeing an embrace at a subway stop or hearing an argument at the next table in a restaurant. Every such instant has its own emotional coloration, which memory retains or heightens, and so the most sidelong, unintended moment becomes a part of what we have seen of the world.
Then, I suppose, these moments, as they have seemed to us, constellate themselves into something a little like a spirit, a little like a human presence in its mystery and distinctiveness.Two questions I can’t really answer about fiction are (1) where it comes from, and (2) why we need it. But that we do create it and also crave it is beyond dispute. There is a tendency, considered highly rational, to reason from a narrow set of interests, say survival and procreation, which are supposed to govern our lives, and then to treat everything that does not fit this model as anomalous clutter, extraneous to what we are and probably best done without. But all we really know about what we are is what we do. There is a tendency to fit a tight and awkward carapace of definition over humankind, and to try to trim the living creature to fit the dead shell.
The advice I give my students is the same advice I give myself—forget definition, forget assumption, watch. We inhabit, we are part of, a reality for which explanation is much too poor and small. No physicist would dispute this, though he or she might be less ready than I am to have recourse to the old language and call reality miraculous. By my lights, fiction that does not acknowledge this at least tacitly is not true. Why is it possible to speak of fiction as true or false? I have no idea. But if a time comes when I seem not to be making the distinction with some degree of reliability in my own work, I hope someone will be kind enough to let me know.
When I write fiction, I suppose my attempt is to simulate the integrative work of a mind perceiving and reflecting, drawing upon culture, memory, conscience, belief or assumption, circumstance, fear, and desire—a mind shaping the moment of experience and response and then reshaping them both as narrative, holding one thought against another for the effect of affinity or contrast, evaluating and rationalizing, feeling compassion, taking offense. These things do happen simultaneously, after all. None of them is active by itself, and none of them is determinative, because there is that mysterious thing the cognitive scientists call self-awareness, the human ability to consider and appraise one’s own thoughts. I suspect this self-awareness is what people used to call the soul.
Modern discourse is not really comfortable with the word “soul,” and in my opinion the loss of the word has been disabling, not only to religion but to literature and political thought and to every humane pursuit. In contemporary religious circles, souls, if they are mentioned at all, tend to be spoken of as saved or lost, having answered some set of divine expectations or failed to answer them, having arrived at some crucial realization or failed to arrive at it. So the soul, the masterpiece of creation, is more or less reduced to a token signifying cosmic acceptance or rejection, having little or nothing to do with that miraculous thing, the felt experience of life, except insofar as life offers distractions or temptations.”
The rest of the essay may be found at http://chronicle.com/article/Reclaiming-a-Sense-of-the/130705/ Please stay tuned for more information about our next workshop. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please reply with “unsubscribe” in the subject line of your message.