Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Why I wrote

I wrote because it was fun. Because I was an inordinately verbal child -- demonstrably so, early. Because there were stories of pink monsters, who lived in pink houses and slept in the top drawer of my pink dresser, in dire need of telling. I wrote because I was told to, for school. I wrote because some short piece I'd dashed off moved my fourth-grade teacher to tears as she read it aloud to the class -- and that was really something. And then I wrote because people told me I did it well. For a long time, I did it simply because of that -- for the praise from grown-ups.


I wrote because I read. I read a lot. Somewhere in all the reading, the writing about reading became habit. Responding became habit.

Sometimes I didn't write and sometimes I did.

I wrote because someone said, "You wrote exactly what I felt." Or because someone said, "No one else could have said that the way you did." Or because someone said, "These are real poems." I wrote because I was unhappy -- with myself, my life, my world. I wrote because things outside of myself made me angry -- crazy angry -- or inconsolable. Because dissatisfaction gave me fuel and fire. Because I have always been solitary but needed to talk about it. Occasionally, I wrote in spite of being happy, though that's always been harder.


I wrote just to finish the goddamn manuscript. I wrote in spite of disappointment with myself. Or maybe I wrote to write myself out of that disappointment. I wrote because I went to grad school for the sole purpose of writing and I. Do. Not. Give up. I wrote to come to terms with what it means to be a white girl from the American south. I wrote because my body was teaching me something new every day -- things I deeply desired to shape into language. I wrote out of a desire to make something pretty, even trinket-like. I wrote because I'd fallen so madly in love with the oddities of my mother tongue. I wrote because I was supposed to be good at it, even though I wasn't. I wrote to get better. I used writing as a vehicle for sorting out how I wasn't in love anymore. To tell the tale of the demise of a relationship I'd held dear, and to obfuscate the tale with politics and some fancy Sanskrit words. I wrote to get a handle on my own sexual identity, which defied both the relationship and the world beyond the relationship. I wrote to know myself, then, right?


And then I didn't write. I didn't miss it. I didn't need it. Until I did. So, then, I wrote. For practice. And also, to keep from fighting with a friend about movies.


And then, I wrote to respond and to engage and to partake in so-called conversations with a world I never thought would answer me. Which were really just conversations with myself. Obviously. I wrote because I wanted the writing to serve as beacon, of sorts. Because what if someone else out there was working similar stones smooth? I wrote because I had a "project" and because the Internet is a fascinating, immersive place. Because the Internet is provocative, in one way or another, every damn minute. And so is the world that isn't the Internet. And I wrote and I wrote. For 10 days, I wrote just because I was really hungry. Other days, I wrote because I was heart-broken. Others still, because I was amped beyond cranial capacity. I wrote because it was the most important thing to me. And as I wrote, the writing became ever more so.


Sometimes, I wrote because I was turned on. Because I wanted to turn other people on. Because I had this fantasy that my writing could be so charged that it would draw folks to my bed in droves. At times, I thought I wrote simply in service of this fantasy. As though the writing amounted to so much sublimating, which, I'd secretly hoped, would inspire folks to provide me opportunity to sublimate no more. Or less, at least.


At some point along this trajectory, I began to write because I thought I was a writer. Because writing is what writers do. What I mean is that I wrote because doing so had become a facet of my identity, my personhood. Because if I didn't, what am I? I'm a girl with a job, that's what. Not a bad job -- a job that sustains me and for which I'm grateful -- but a job I wouldn't miss, for itself, if I didn't have it. I wrote because being a writer meant that my job didn't have to matter as much. And neither did my lack of investment in my obtuse notion of "career." And again, I wrote because I needed to. Because it made me part of conversations bigger than my own experience. Or because I wanted it to do that for me, maybe.


So, then, it's really a pain in my ass that it occurred to me that I don't actually need it. That, kinda, I don't miss it. Not enough. Or maybe just not often enough. And while I can enumerate a hundred and one reasons I once wrote, I can't name any for why I will or would write again. Save this nagging grunt in my mind that nudges, "Oh, but you should." What is this "should" business? What's the basis for "should?" Why should I? Because writers write. It's what they do.


So what, then, if I'm not a writer?


What if this role I've (at times, forcibly) adhered to my identity is bogus? What should I do then? Huh, mind? Huh? What fucking then?

Now, I write this not because I'm in need of a pep talk or because I'm feeling particularly inadequate in terms of my chops (though I do feel that way, and often). I'm writing this because, last night, a friend asked me why I wrote and he put it in past tense, just like that: "I want to come back to this. Why you wrote." In the moment, his past tense sunk me -- and then it kept me up all night, stewing. Of course, he clarified and said he meant for me to answer the question with a comparison between why I used to write and why I'll write in the future, but it's not like I'm not keenly aware that I am not writing at present. And that, besides this niggling feeling that I should be posting something, anything, because I've established expectations that I would (mainly from myself, but also from the handful of you out there who have so kindly asked me for more), I haven't felt any real tremendous compulsion to write, really, at all, lately. Therefore, though this may be just another bout of blockage, of the likes I've encountered in many iterations before, I think the question of how integral my writing is to me bears consideration.

So, that's what I'm doing. Considering. Because I can't help but notice that a nauseatingly high percentage of those reasons for which I've written in the past seem to be all about seeking external approval and cosseting my puny li'l ego. And I'm considering because I've never nursed any serious aspirations to get paid for my writing (likely out of chickenshittedness) anyway. Given that cold light, I think asking myself just exactly how much I profit from adopting a writerly persona at this juncture is entirely appropriate. Funny how I have to use words to do that, though, eh?

10 comments:

Ceolaf said...

what makes those bad reasons? what aren't those reasons good enough, if you actually have something to say?

who actually has better reasons than that?

brownrabbit said...

It's because there is yet another ego issue that gets in the way of my thinking the reasons I write are "enough," I think. It's that courting external approbation, at times, comes perilously close to groveling. Or it can. Or I worry that it does. And there's something undignified and insipid in that. As though some part of me feels I should be above needing it. And this may well be neurosis, but it's a thing about which I worry nonetheless.

So, really, sometimes it's just really hard to tell if writing makes me more or less neurotic, no?

Ceolaf said...

It looks like you are talking about being neurotic about being nurotic.

Do you tailor what you write for "external approbation"? There are people who do that, who write for hit couts, and write more of what gets more hits. (Klosterman talks about this.) Do you do that?

It is one thing to put out for the public what you think and feel in some kind of accurate or representative reflection of who you are or what is going on in your head. It is other the give the public what they want, or to whore yourself for their pleasure/demands.

Which do you think you do? I know which **I** think you do.

brownrabbit said...

I would be very bad at writing to answer public demand. Obviously. I'm a) not all that great at anticipating what other people are going to respond to and b) am constitutionally just a little more contrary than that, no?

It's maybe not so much the notion of whoring myself for an audience, as that's not really something I'd be good at anyway, that I object to as it is, you know, wanting to be liked for what I do write-- wanting the way I say it and the stuff that I say to... ugh... make me more lovable? To... someone? And the underlying thing there is never feeling lovable or loved enough in the first place?

Yuck.

Here it is, folks:

I'M NEEDY!

You're all shocked, I'm sure.

But this post is, I guess, admitting to as much and I really don't enjoy my own neediness so much. You know?

Anonymous said...

Don't think there is anything wrong with being human. Neediness is part of the package.

brownrabbit said...

Sure. But do I have to LIKE that I am not the paragon of self-sufficiency some deluded part of my brain thinks I should be?

Anonymous said...

Do you have to like how tall you are, what your shoe size is or what color your hair is? No. So you change it.

brownrabbit said...

This comment doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. Changing my hair color, well, ok, $105 every 6 weeks or so and voila! I'm exactly the redhead I want to be. However, changing how tall I am? Can't really do that, unless you count the shoes, which I don't because they're so temporary. And changing my shoe size? Huh? That's possible without surgical intervention?

So, what I was trying to say in what was apparently a misdirected attempt at self-deprecation was that, yeah, I get that my "neediness" is part and parcel of being a person. But also that not being needy, on at least some level, is not exactly a realistic aspiration, though sometimes it's I have goofy "I am an island" fantasies. Truth be told, I gravitate toward self-isolation and I *know* that's not healthy for me. Predictably, isolating myself leads to loneliness which leads to depression which are both maladies with which I contend with some frequency. So the better approach, I would think, would be, instead of attempting to change something I perceive as unchangeable (my "neediness") that I change my attitude toward the neediness and hence become more accepting of myself.

Changing said attitude, however, IS a relatively tall order and I may be working on that for a while.


But I don't interpret your comment to mean that I should change my level of self-acceptance, Anonymous. Rather, you seem to be suggesting I change the thing about myself that I kinda wish wasn't an issue in the first place. And to stop needing people to like me? Um... not likely. But then again, I don't really know HOW to interpret your comment.


In the meantime, I may also have to reevaluate my desire to be thought funny, rather than literal, when I attempt the self-deprecating humor thing. That doesn't seem to be working out for me so well either.

Fuck. I'm doing it again.

Fuck.

Anonymous said...

Your thought here: "So the better approach, I would think, would be, instead of attempting to change something I perceive as unchangeable (my "neediness") that I change my attitude toward the neediness and hence become more accepting of myself" sounds like a positive approach!

brownrabbit said...

Yeah, sometimes I have my shit together a little bit. Of course, when I do, I try not to spell out publicly, particularly when I think sounds obvious, lest people think I'm self-aware and competent. But, I guess, every once in a while, it must be done.