Fear and self-loathing in Seattle

While preparing for the Richard Hugo Literary Series, a local author faced the biggest barrier to success and enjoyment: fear of failure.

Richard Hugo House

Greg White

Richard Hugo House

Suzanne Morrison, author of Yoga Bitch

Amanda Howse

Suzanne Morrison, author of Yoga Bitch

After I moved home to Seattle from New York seven years ago, I quickly developed a crippling, irrational fear of the Richard Hugo House, Capitol Hill’s literary arts center.

I had this idea that Seattle literary events were populated by hyper-intellectual hipsters whose junior high scars had hardened over time into a kind of shiny brittle exoskeleton, under which beat a cold, cynical PoMo heart. I feared these imaginary Seattleite smartypants would scorn narrative — which is more or less the only religion I practice — preferring, say, experimental poetry comprised exclusively of punctuation, or worse, cow patties thrown at readers to illustrate the failure of language in a post-colonial society.

The event that changed my mind about Seattle’s literary scene was the Hugo House’s Literary Series, an affair that takes place four times a year, in which three writers and one musician present new work based on a theme. A friend was presenting an autobiographical story at the Series, and the night was a hugely entertaining mix of graphic novel, memoir, and literary fiction. All my fears of Seattle’s literary scene slunk away, embarrassed by their own existence.

Soon enough, I summoned the courage to introduce myself to Brian McGuigan, the House’s program director, and was delighted to find that he wasn’t scary in the least. He was sincere. He loved stories and good writing, no matter what package they came in. We started talking about our work, and after my first book launched last August, he invited me to participate in the final Literary Series event, which took place last month. I was scheduled to read alongside the great comic novelist Sam Lipsyte and National Book Award finalist Ben Lerner, both from New York. The theme was "The End of the Line." I was thrilled — at first.

There are two types of failures I’ve grappled with as a writer, one that gets easier with time, and the other — well. Not so much.

Private failure has become an essential part of my job. I don’t fear it one bit, though it’s hardly something I enjoy. From the day I started writing seriously, I considered it my job to write failed stories, to pace my room, to wonder why my doomed novel, the one now interred in the attic, didn’t hang together well. Failing taught me to distinguish between writing that mostly works and writing that mostly fails.

So, I’m not afraid of private failure. But public failure? That's something else.

It’s not my job to imagine how readers will respond to my work. My job is to write as well as I can. But I am profoundly unenlightened, see, and so the thought of failing in public — at my favorite event in town, the Literary Series, no less — is not something I’m quite so sanguine about. I know I shouldn’t care. I know this. But every day when I sit down to write, I struggle to ignore the sadistic online commenter who lives in my head, the one who sneers at my subject matter, who verbally moons my devotion to narrative, who snickers and whispers that no one in the world wants to hear my story, no matter how entertaining I try to make it.

Even when I know this isn’t the case, when every inch of me knows I am writing something that matters to me and that the odds are good that it will matter to someone else — that’s usually how the math works — even then, that demon commenter, that Screwtape underminer, wants me to consider that I may be wrong.

In other words, it’s ego. I’m comfortable grappling with words and sentences, or as comfortable as it’s possible to be when working with such hard clay. But grappling with how my work will be perceived?

Oh, let me tell you: I am not comfortable with that at all.

At first, when there was a cushion of months between me and the Literary Series, I thought only of the honor, of how much I loved having been asked to participate. It’s not unlike selling a book on proposal, when you get to drink champagne and receive congratulations, but it hasn’t quite sunk in yet that this means you actually have to write an entire book.

I loved the thought of having a piece of writing commissioned. It sounded so antique, as if Brian McGuigan were actually the Pope commissioning me to scribble one of my vulgar little stories on the ceiling of his new chapel.

But with time, the thrill started to turn shrill, like it was actually an attack of hyperthyroidism that was going to give me insomnia for the next six months. I found myself repeating Brian’s words: I would be reading alongside the great comic novelist . . . National Book Award finalist . . . and that mean little online commenter in my head started muttering. You? Local girl author with the "narrative arc" and the jazz hands? Go back to the cave. Speak to no one. Subsist on bugs and pages of the OED. Attempt alcoholism.

I plugged my ears and started writing. I knew enough about failure to abort my first story, and to know I was on to something with the second. The writing went well, which is to say it was a bit like two months of hard dentistry with no drugs. I struggled. I revised. I found plot solutions and whole sentences while lying in bed, staring at the ceiling. I worked and worked.

But when I wasn’t writing, my ego, well — my ego was freaking out. Instead of thinking about how much fun the event was going to be, what a thrill it would be to read alongside such accomplished, inventive writers, instead of picturing the wonderful people I’ve met at the Hugo House, the writers and readers who love stories and words as much as I do — instead, I imagined Paul Constant, the Stranger’s book critic, live-tweeting Who is this local writer with the jazz hands? followed by a half-dozen shiny bookish hipsters tweeting in response LOL, right? Nice fiction,“Yoga Bitch.”

(To be clear: no one live-tweets the Lit Series. At least, I don’t think so. But this is a town that has silent-reading parties, so it could be just a matter of time.)

Yogis have this neat little mantra: This is not that. That is not this. Like all yogisms, it sounds a little moronic, but it’s actually a very practical reminder of what is real and what is not. It goes like this: you have a terrible vision of the future, and then you say to yourself, Self, that fearful reverie? That is not this. This is me, sitting at my desk, removing a sentence, adding another, rethinking a word.

Oh, how useful that mantra would be, if only I would have used it! It would have been useful to chant it around the time the first draft blues set in, when the story that was so vivid in my mind was finally down on paper, where it took on a sort of ragged, homemade look. When I realized for the umpteenth time that all stories are, in a sense, failures when compared to the Platonic version glowing in my mind.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Apr 16, 2:09 p.m. Inappropriate

Ahh, the great America quest for acceptance in the world of "creative writing junkies" judging the next great thing. As the writer here continues on, I'd advise her not to fear Seattle's 'creative class' underestimating good fiction or hyper-critiquing her work. I'd really not be so concerned about the vagaries of the creative writer-MFA program failure complex and the bemoaning of that Writing is more than a popularity contest, more than trying to understand some of the vapidity of a pretty bourgiose class of folkd that might be haunting Elliot Bay or Hugo House. Just write, and make it bigger than thy self, bigger than the Seattle audience. It has to mean something -- really, mean something. I'd stop worrying about the self and the value of American angst and our pedestrian sensibility. Write --

Here are some interesting critiques of the "great American novel." I'd love to have some real literary events where we can explode this creatie program mythology and look at the value of literature coming out of Kindle book land. Let's bust open this rarified and insulated world of "creative writing" insider stuff and begin deep, ugly, addictive, universal thinking as part of the fiction writer's mantra:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/03/why_americans_don_t_win_nobel/

As Bret Anthony Johnson, the director of the creative writing program at Harvard, noted in a recent Atlantic essay, our focus on the self will be our literary downfall, depriving literature of the oxygen on which it thrives: “Fiction brings with it an obligation to rise past the base level, to transcend the limitations of fact and history, and proceed skyward.” This sentiment is a sibling to Wallace’s anger — and both have a predecessor in T.S. Eliot’s 1919 essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” where he called art “a continual extinction of personality.”

The rising generation of writers behind Oates, Roth and DeLillo are dominated by Great Male Narcissists — even the writers who aren’t male (or white). Jhumpa Lahiri is a Great Male Narcissist whose characters tend to be upper-middle-class Indian-Americans living in the comfortable precincts of Boston or New York. Swap the identity to Chinese-American, move the story a couple of generations back on the immigrant’s well-trod saga, and you have Amy Tan. Colson Whitehead started promisingly with “The Intuitionist” and “John Henry Days” but his last novel, “Sag Harbor,” was little more than the bourgeoisie life made gently problematic by the issue of race. Jonathan Safran Foer is a narcissist disguised as a humanist. To his credit, Jonathan Franzen doesn’t even pretend.

That makes for a small literature, indeed. The following are words from citations for recent winners and runners-up of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, inarguably our most prominent commendation for a novelist: tender, warmth, heartbreaking, celebration, polished and sensuous. It’s all small-bore stuff, lack of imagination disguised as artistic humility.

Just look back to 2008, when the slight “Olive Kitteridge” won the Pulitzer, but the Irish-Turkish writer Joseph O’Neill told the story of America in “Netherland” with far more eloquence, insight and humor than an American writer had in more than a decade.

That’s not to say our literature is barren. Dave Eggers has written a novel about the Lost Boys of Sudan, “What Is the What,” and a fine “nonfiction novel” about Hurricane Katrina, “Zeitoun.” Best of all, his 826 reading centers have been a wholly selfless bid to get poor children reading and writing in eight cities. Then there is Aleksandar Hemon, son of Chicago and Sarajevo, who writes the kind of fiction that still seeks to span worlds. Johnston quotes him in the Atlantic: “I reserve the right to get engaged with any aspect of human experience, and so that means that I can — indeed I must — go beyond my experience to engage. That’s non-negotiable.”

Maybe it’s the same story as in politics and industry: America, once great, has been laid low. The difference is that great art needs no tariffs, no financial stimuli, no elections or military campaigns. It only requires courage — though a courage of a special kind — to see beyond oneself, to speak across both space and time via what Ralph Ellison once called “the lower frequencies.”

Indeed, compare the Pulitzer-winning descriptions with these words pulled from the citations of recent Nobel Prize-winners: Revolt, visionary, clash, oppression, subjugating, outsider, barbaric, suppressed. And lastly, the one word that seems most elusive to our writers today, so much so that I fear we’ve become afraid of it: universal.

Alexander Nazaryan, a member of the editorial board of the N.Y. Daily News, has written about culture for the New York Times, the New Republic and the Village Voice, among other publications.
Close.

Alexander Nazaryan is a writer and teacher ....

Or, these words and great piece --

"Stories aren’t about things. Stories are things.

Stories aren’t about actions. Stories are, unto themselves, actions."


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/08/don-rsquo-t-write-what-you-know/8576/

PaulKirk

Posted Tue, Apr 24, 4:46 p.m. Inappropriate

Well, PaulKirk, the focus on the self has not proven to be Philip Roth's downfall, nor has it displeased his readers. And what great art requires is not courage, but talent. Bad art quite often displays courage, to no one's benefit.

sarah90

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »