October 2009

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2009.

I gave my Nurturing Young Writers workshop to a small group of homeschoolers the other night. Part of the workshop is a quick exercise, which, judging from the reaction it gets, is effective. The following is a snippet from a book chapter I’m working on, explaining what I ask them to do.

writing workshop

      Participants in my workshop this summer. I must have taken this photo during the second part of the exercise: I only see one lefty.

     When I give workshops to homeschooling parents on nurturing their children’s writing, I often start with a writing exercise.  I allay their anxieties right off, explaining that they won’t have to share what they write. And I entice them with an assignment both simple and intriguing: write a description of the room we’re sitting in. “Focus on whatever interests you: the people, the room itself, the chairs, the walls. Use your senses and describe what you hear out the open door, what you smell, the feel of the desk beneath your fingers. Take two minutes, and try not to think too much. Just write.”

       And then, as they’re cracking their notebooks and picking up pens, I lay it on them: “Oh, but wait! I have a few constraints for you.”

       Whereupon I ask them to place their pens or pencils in their non-dominant hands: lefties will write with their right hands, righties with their left. Also, they should write from right to left, rather than the traditional (in English anyway) left-to-right. Each letter should be a mirror image of its usual form.  “And when it comes to vowels, I want you to think in alphabetical order: A-E-I-O-U. Each time you need to write a vowel, rather than writing the vowel you intend to, write the next vowel in A-E-I-O-U order: a‘s become e‘s; e‘s become i’s, and when you need a u, write an a instead.”

       They look at me baffled, as if I’ve just asked them to remove their tongues, and I pick up my timer and smile. “Ready?”

       It’s a fun two minutes. As they work, some giggle at their own ineptitude. Some groan. Others gasp in dismay.

       When the timer goes off, they exhale with drama. They drop heads to desks. I ask how much they got down. Most finish a single sentence; a few manage part of a second. Without discussing much more, I reset the timer and ask them to repeat the assignment once more, but this time they can write as they usually do. “A description of the room. Focus on what you want to. Don’t think too much. Two minutes. Go!”

        ”How much did you get down this time?” I ask the participants, as the timer goes off a second time.

        Most say they wrote at least five sentences. “I could have written more,” one woman points out, “but the sentences were more complex this time.”

        ”When you wrote the first time, what were you thinking as you wrote? Did you have a sense of where you were going, what you would write next?”

       “I just focused on one word at a time,” says another woman. “I couldn’t keep track of what I was trying to say.” She shakes her head back and forth slowly, like a sad farmer appraising the damage after a storm. “Now I know how my five-year-old feels when she writes.”

       Exactly. I want parents to remember how formidable it is to be a beginning writer.

Confusing as interchanging vowels might seem, it’s not nearly as difficult as spelling words is for a beginning writer, although the vowel-shuffling is my attempt to replicate that struggle somewhat. 

Regardless, the task is challenging. I encourage you, especially if you have a young child at home, to take five minutes to try it yourself. Just reading about it won’t give you the tangible experience of doing it. Try both parts of the exercise–first describing whatever room you’re in with the above-mentioned constraints, and then without–to experience the difference between the two. The difference between being a fledgling writer and a fluent one. 

Then maybe you’ll have a better sense of why I think taking dictation from young writers is so important.

For years I’ve struggled with the term unschooling. It’s such a great word, implying a complete departure from school. To me, it conveys a sense of kids leading their own educations, which is something we value around here. But it’s also come to imply, it seems, a certain lack of structure, and that’s the part that keeps me from embracing it. I’ve never felt that we could call ourselves unschoolers because we have a definite structure to our days. Or at least part of our days.

Structure. Now there’s another loaded word. Structure seems reinforced with negative connotations: rigidness, confinement, predictability.

I realize that I’ve written about this before. But it’s something that I think about often. And the more new homeschoolers I meet, the more I notice that many people still believe that there are two basic camps of homeschooling: unschooling and school-at-home. Sometimes new folks don’t realize that there’s a stunning variety of shades across that spectrum.

check out that dirty wrist!

I know I’ve said this before too, but here’s a nutshell history: when we started homeschooling, we were fairly schoolish. It had only been a few years since I’d been a classroom teacher myself, and that was what I knew. Granted, I was a pretty creative teacher, and I had lots of neat projects in mind! But my oldest child quickly cured me of all My Good Ideas. “I don’t want to do that art project,” he’d say, or “I don’t want to read that book.” He asked questions like, “Why should I write down my thinking on that math problem when I can just tell you? You’re sitting right next to me!”

Good points. He was right. When I let him do projects that interested him, he was immersed. When I forced him to do work he didn’t want to do, he was angry and frustrated and didn’t learn much. I learned to stop doing that. (Well, I slowly learned to stop doing that. Sometimes I’m still learning.)

I got better and better at dropping the schoolish thinking that had me teaching him, and planning lessons for him. But we kept the habit of working together for a few hours most morning. We had fun reading together, making things together. Knowing we had a few open hours meant we could take on big projects, make big messes. Plus, it was the one time of day that the kids knew they had my full attention, that I wasn’t going to get lost on the computer, or start talking on the phone. Still, the fact that we did it every day, at a particular time, made it a structured activity. With all those negative connotations.

designing a game

I finally came to terms with our homeschooling style a few years back when I read The Creative Habit, by choreographer Twyla Tharp. I read the book for help with my writing practice; only later did I realize its implications in our homeschooling life.

Tharp writes:

“There’s a paradox in the notion that creativity should be a habit. We think of creativity as a way of keeping everything fresh and new, while habit implies routine and repetition. That paradox intrigues me because it occupies the place where creativity and skill rub up against each other.”

And:

“I will keep stressing the point about creativity being augmented by routine and habit. Get used to it. In these pages a philosophical tug of war will periodically rear its head. It is the perennial debate, born in the Romantic era, between the beliefs that all creative acts are born of (a) some transcendent, inexplicable Dionysian act of inspiration, a kiss from God on your brow that allows you to give the world The Magic Flute, or (b) hard work. 

If it isn’t obvious already, I come down on the side of hard work. That’s why this book is called The Creative Habit. Creativity is a habit, and the best creativity is a result of good work habits. That’s it in a nutshell.”

Reading her book convinced me of what I’d already sensed: that scheduled practice doesn’t have to undermine creativity; rather, it can help it to thrive. I could see this with my writing. I don’t have the freedom at this point in my life to write whenever the muse strikes; instead I have to plan time for it. And I’ve done it for long enough now that my creative mind is conditioned to get right into the work, pretty quickly after I sit at my desk. I only have so much time, and I don’t want to waste it.

found poetry

I think it’s the same for my kids. Gathering in the kitchen at 9:30 or 10:00 each morning for tea and a snack is their cue to start thinking, start bouncing ideas from their heads to the ceiling to the yellow counters and back again. I’ll often throw out a few suggestions, depending on what they’re working on, but more often than not, they have their own ideas. Today Lulu wanted some ideas for writing and I pulled out our copy of the utterly fabulous Don’t Forget to Write for her. Something there gave her the idea to make found phrases poems from the newspaper. Mr. T wanted to do more work on the game he’s designing. Would they have done these activities later in the day, on their own? Maybe. They do lots of interesting projects on their own, in the afternoon. But this morning, Mr. T needed my help to write his game rules, and Lulu wanted help brainstorming a project. And I was there to help them. Then they were on their way.

lulu's found phrase poem

Sometimes I call what we do structured unschooling because the phrase is so laughably oxymoronic. But I think I’ll just strike the word structure from my vocabulary and use habit instead. A homeschooling habit. That’s what we have most mornings around here–complete with tea and snacks.

reading mary frances

random notes:

This has been a tough month for my essayist project. I’ve told you how I got distracted reading Spunk & Bite. I also have a seventeen-year-old applying to college this fall, so I’m suddenly busy with that, and reading books with ridiculous titles like How to Get Into the Top Colleges. 

I seemed to get around to Fisher just as I was going to bed each night. And then fell asleep soon after. Which prompts the ageless conundrum: Did I fall asleep because the book was boring? Or was the book boring because I was falling asleep?

Part of the problem was that I stubbornly stuck with Fisher’s The Gastronomical Me.  Philip Lopate, author of The Art of the Personal Essay and my unknowing mentor through this project, calls that book Fisher’s “best”. I’m going to respectfully disagree (and hope he doesn’t show up in the comments to argue). Turns out The Gastronomical Me was one of Fisher’s first books, and I found the writing uneven. There’s some fantastic stuff there (as you’ll see in the quotes below), but much of the book rambles, like stream-of-consciousness memory rather than shaped essays.

As October rolled around, I got desperate and picked up my sun-bleached copy of As They Were. I only had to reread the essay “Two Kitchens in Provence” to remember what I’ve long loved about Fisher. I suppose that’s sort of sappy and predictable. It reminds me of the time I told a landscape architect that I wanted to plant our front hillside all in lavender and he said, full of snot, “People are so sentimental about lavender.” Well, yeahI’ll take my lavender hillside and I’ll take Fisher’s memories of food and Provence, no matter how cliche they may seem.

Lopate writes, “Stylistically, Fisher had a taste for aphorisms, sentences of compressed wit that boldly cut through any dithering.” I’d say, to use a word from my recent readings, that she wrote with spunk. Her writing voice was opinionated and direct, refreshing for a woman of her time. And while she’s known for her food writing, it’s her mastery of details that makes her writing memorable. Yes, she could reconstruct a meal from decades before, course by course, but she could also convey the feel of a village in winter, or the driver of a traveling grocery cart: “The man who jolted it around that rocky country had a good face, like a tired village doctor or lawyer.”

Fisher’s insight into people is one of my favorite qualities in her writing, as much as those recollections of meals and time spent in France. She was perceptive, in what seems to me a very female way. And she’d surely make the ultimate dining companion.

a few lines to love:

On recollecting food, from “Once a Tramp, Always…”

It is said that a few connoisseurs, such as old George Saintsbury, can recall physically the bouquet of certain great vintages a half century after tasting them. I am a mouse among elephants now, but I can say just as surely that this minute, in a northern California valley, I can taste-smell-hear-see and then feel between my teeth the potato chips I ate slowly one November afternoon in 1936, in the bar of the Lausanne Palace. They were uneven in both thickness and color, probably made by a new apprentice in the hotel kitchen, and almost surely they smelled faintly of either chicken or fish, for that was always the case there. They were a little too salty, to encourage me to drink. They were ineffable. I am still nourished by them. That is probably why I can be so firm about not eating my way through barrels, tunnels, mountains more of them here in the land where they hang like square cellophane fruit on wire trees in all the grocery stores, to tempt me sharply every time I pass them.”

This essay was published in The New Yorker in 1968, thirty-two years after Fisher ate those chips. The particulars of the chips are impressive enough–but then there’s that description of modern-day chips that “hang there like square cellophane fruit on wire trees in all the grocery stores”. Dead food on dead trees–perfect.

Going back in time to her childhood:

“We spent our time in a stream under the cottonwoods, or with Old Mary the cook, watching her make butter in a great churn between her mountainous knees. She slapped it into pats, and put them down in the stream where it ran hurriedly through the darkness of the butter-house.”

I love the image of the churn between those “mountainous knees”.

On cooking for others:

“I was beginning to believe that is is foolish and perhaps pretentious and often boring, as well as damnably expensive, to make a meal of six or eight courses just because the guests who are to eat it have always been used to that many. Let them try eating two or three things, I said, so plentiful and interesting and so well cooked that they are satisfied. And if they aren’t satisfied, let them stay away from our table, and our leisurely comfortable friendship at that table.

I talked like that, and it worried Al a little, because he had been raised in a minister’s family and taught that the most courteous way to treat guests was to make them feel as if they were in their own homes.”

Gives you a sense of Fisher’s voice, her sass. She’s funny and practical and likable.

Here’s one of those character portraits that impress me so. She’s describing a waitress:

“She was very thin, and something about her was out of a drawing, out of an El Greco. Her eyes were bigger than human eyes, and slipped upwards and sideways; and her mouth was pale and beautiful. She was shadowy…a bad liver probably…but mysterious-looking. She wore black always, and her long hands picked up sizzling platters as if they were distasteful leaves from a tree. She had a light voice; and there was something good and fine about her, so that I always warmed to her.”

This is what I mean by Fisher’s female insight. Here we have a mix of the woman’s physical description, with those eyes and the way her long hands picked up platters, combined with the supposition about her liver, and the way Fisher feels about her. It reminds me of how a woman might talk with a friend over a cup of tea–if the woman had impressive gifts for description.

And here’s another waitress, only this time rendered in dialogue. This comes from an entertaining essay called “I Was Really Very Hungry” about a memorable meal that Fisher did not want, but which was thrust upon her by a maniacal waitress.

“‘You cannot, you cannot, Madame, serve old pastry!’ She seemed ready to beat her breast as she leaned across the table. ‘Look at that delicate crust! You may feel that you have eaten too much.’ (I nodded in idiotic agreement.) ‘But this pastry is like feathers–it is like snow. It is in fact good for you, a digestive! And why?’ She glared sternly at me. ‘Because Monsieur Paul did not even open the flour bin until he saw you coming! He could not, he could not have baked you one of his special apple tarts with old dough!’”

Funny. Fisher captures dialogue especially well.

And another portrait:

“One time we took Michel to the Raisin. He was the kind of short, virile, foxlike Frenchman who seems to have been born in a beret, the kind who is equally ready to shoot a wild boar, make love, or say something which seems witty until you think about it.”

It’s all good, but it’s the “seems witty until you think about it” surprise at the end that really does it.

And another, this time a girl Fisher’s younger brother has brought to visit, with whom he is obsessed.

“But the little blonde girl did not make a part of any of it. The game was too much for her, and the food was boring. She drooped wearily against the long crude table beside the alley, and whenever David seemed for a minute to forget her, she let her hand fall slowly toward him, let her soft pink fingers uncurl. It was wordless, and it was like the crack of a whip. He would drop anything…his bread and honey, the pins he was setting up, and come dazedly to watch her lift the fresh cigaret to her mouth and wait for him to light it.”

It’s all so carefully observed–I’m convinced of the girl’s dreadfulness. I especially like “It was wordless, and it was like the crack of a whip.”

On being driven home from the market in Provence in a taxi:

“Sometimes I would want him to go faster, for I could almost feel the food in the baskets swelling with juice, growing soft, splitting open in an explosive rush toward ripeness and disintegration. The fruits and vegetables in Provence are dying as they grow–literally leaping from the ancient soil, so filled with natural richnesses and bacilli and fungi that they seem a kind of summing up of whatever they are. A tomato there, for instance, is the essence of all tomatoes, of tomato-ness, the way a fragment from a Greek frieze is not a horse but horse itself.”

I love the analysis, especially the analogy in the last line.

Here’s her ending to the essay “Gare de Lyon”, about the restaurant in that train station.

“It comes down, I suppose, to a question of where one really chooses to be, and for how long. This is of course true of all such traffic hubs such as railway stations, but nowhere is there one with a second floor like that of the Gare de Lyon, so peculiarly lacy and golden. It has, in an enormous way, something of the seduction of a full-blown but respectable lady, post-Renior but pre-Picasso, waiting quietly in full sunlight for a chat with an old lover…”

That last line–and the whole essay–is a convincing argument for how much travel has changed. It makes you long for that respectable lady.

And one more, just because it’s the essence of M.F.K. Fisher, in three lines:

There might be one lamb chop left. It would not be good by noon. I would eat it cold for a secret breakfast, with a glass of red wine, after the family had scattered.”

Now I wish I’d started As They Were sooner. I want to keep reading, but it’s time to move on.

the plan for october:

Next up is Scott Russell Sanders. Years ago I read two of his essays, and I still remember their lyricism. I’m starting with A Private History of Awe.

Last week Molly and I were talking blog posts. She asked if I ever worried, when writing my essayists posts, that the writers might visit my blog and read what I’d written. She said she’d once written about a craft book, and the author had shown up and commented on it. (Luckily, what she’d written had been positive.)

“Nah,” I said. I don’t think the likes of Annie Dillard, Adam Gopnik and Joan Didion bother poking around on piddly blogs like mine.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been so sure. Remember how I posted this picture the other day, and praised Spunk and Bite? One guess as to what happened.

spunk & bite

Go ahead and click on the photo, which will take you to my flickr page. Read the comment below the photo. But promise you’ll come back.

Isn’t that fun?

Isn’t that terrifying?

What if Pico Iyer shows up and sees how I’ve been ribbing him? (After a whole post of lavishing, mind you.) What if the guy from Dead or Alive drops by and reads the comments on the spinner post and discovers how I’ve compared him to the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?

Oh dear. I never thought I’d say this, but I’m glad M.F.K. Fisher is dead. So I won’t gnaw my nails to the nubs as I write her essayist post in a few days.

I suppose there’s only one thing I can do if more famous folks mosey on over. I will simply take a deep breath and muster all my spunkiness.

We’re off for a few days of camping with our homeschooling buddies. Let me know if I should eat a s’more for you. See you next week.