craft
On writing and its derivatives.
On writing the same word over and over again
Notes from a prison workshop on numbness, wakefulness, and the refusal to retreat from reality.
These days, I am interested not so much in writing but in the state of being awake. Not the kind of awake that is merely the opposite of physical sleep—nor “woke” which seems to be mostly about filtering people in and out of a political identity—but the positioning of being alive, receptive, and responsive to the world. Of being willing to see what is actually there, of refusing to drift through life at a distance. Of feeling oneself to be inextricably a part of everything.
This is a state I have been striving for all my life. I suspect it is most of what I write about.
*
It seems to be a lot of what other writers talk about, too.
As in William Stafford’s poem “A Ritual to Read to Each Other”:
It is important that awake people be awake
Or John S. Dunne’s paraphrase of Wordsworth:
What is required for a loving that is knowing, for a knowing that is loving, is the quiet eye.
Or how Joan Didion described the artist Georgia O’Keeffe as someone who was “open to what she sees.”
She meant that Georgia was someone with an awakened eye—an eye that looked honestly, prepared and willing to see what was actually present. From which eye Georgia saw so many things, bloomed so many bruised flowers, painted a sky—startlingly blue—through an old hip bone. The bones and the sky had been there all along; mundane, startling, decomposing in silence—but only Georgia was willing to receive them.
I am talking of a positioning that is utterly necessary for writers and artists—one that can only happen when, as T.S. Eliot says, “the ears of my ears awake,” and “the eyes of my eyes are opened.”
*
This has all come up recently because I spend my Tuesday mornings in prison, with a group of writers who are not allowed to leave the 1,803 acres they inhabit in the watershed of the Lower Big Darby Creek. It’s a strange position for any kind of artist—being entrenched in one place while being profoundly alienated from it. These writers are not allowed to walk down to the waterway, or to sit by the new oaks growing across the street. Once, when I mentioned a nearby small town, one of the writers snorted and said, “There’s a town out there?” Everyone laughed. They’d been brought in via transport, in official vehicles with bars and darkened windows. They’ve never walked through the town they live beside. These writers do not move; instead, they are the moved.
A topic we have been probing is the question of how this situation makes them different than that of other writers. Or, as one writer, Kitab, put it, “What are we missing in here?”
In terms of writing, the answer should be nothing. Great work can happen anywhere—in the midst of war and heartbreak, deprivation and despair, and, yes, in incarcerated spaces. Writers on the outside, in fact, spend a lot of money and professional energy at writing residencies, trying to replicate at least a few of the conditions of prison. In writing residences, writers confine themselves mostly to a small room where, removed from the horrors and impositions of daily life, they will finally be able to birth their great work. The implicit idea being that it is actually everyday life and its limitations that keeps writers from their work, and that you can do better writing when you remove yourself from all of it, strip away outside distractions, sit in an empty-ish room, and flagellate yourself on the page.
That Tuesday, I said as much. “In theory,” I said, “You’re not missing anything.”
But this is, of course, very easy to say.
*
Earlier that same day, another writer, Wes, had given me a few poems to read. He was sheepish about turning them in because when he reread them that morning he’d realized something.
“They’re all the same poem,” he said, “When I get out of here, I can write different things, but whenever I’m in here”—he shrugged—“It’s all the same thing, over and over. Might as well be the same word.”
It is this that has stuck in my head for weeks. Might as well be the same word. The same word. The same word. It has the cadence of a dream; or, if you live in a prison, something more of a nightmare.
*
So here is what I’m thinking now: It is not so much the loss of liberty that is the problem for writers in prison. It is the sandblasting of the senses. The walls in the Programs Room are blue-gray, have been blue-gray, will always be blue-gray—world without end. The pipes rattle above your head, and the lightbulbs buzz, and the fans turn their slow revolutions, and they all say the same thing:
You will always be here; You will always be here.
That tree is the same tree; that door is the same door; this sky is the same sky. Same commissary, same people. Day in. Day out. Faces morphing slowly, slow enough that even different faces begin to feel the same.
Nothing here is special; nothing here is worth noticing. Nothing to see here. Nothing to see. Nothing to see. Save yourself. Retreat. Retreat. Retreat.
The sameness is systematized, weaponized, altogether too much. It is designed to dull your senses; it is designed to put you to sleep. The obvious choice, I think, would be to succumb, to let yourself be turned into an object, moved about; to withdraw your senses from a world that is too utterly boring to bear.
*
But the men in the prison cannot retreat. They are writers, and the job of a writer is to endure reality, to remain open to things. Not things as they might be, but things as they are, in their subtle nuances and differentiations.
The job of the writer is to remain awake. This is also the job of a human.
*
Tony Hoagland, in the poem “Gorgon,” speaks of an onslaught of a different kind of boredom, one that sets in—
“Where the corporations run the government / And move over the land like giant cloud formations.”
One where “the information winds howl.”
In other words, he is speaking of a general numbing, of a managed retreat from human senses into a system which turns everything into a number or a dollar sign. He is speaking of the kind of prison in which everything you see or think or understand is managed for you; where you never read anything a corporation doesn’t want you to read; you never feel anything a corporation doesn’t want you to feel.
He is speaking of the kind of prison where you are not supposed to know you are in prison. He is speaking of Right Now.
At the end of the poem, Hoagland tells us what he thinks we ought to do about this situation.
Your job—he says—is to watch and take notes, / To go on looking.
Your job is to not be turned into stone.
*
How is it possible to live right now and not be turned to stone? This is an open question that I don’t know how to answer.
How often have I myself dwelt in malaise, unwilling to let my senses engage with the world? How often have I dulled myself out to escape the pain of being alive, surrendering to my phone, or to Netflix, or to my own nihilism? How often have I retreated from my responsibilities to my neighbor, saying to myself, I just can’t think about this now. I just can’t look.
How often, as a writer, have I been so encased by my own fear, my own self-doubt, that I retreated from the truth, numbed myself out, wrote sentences so safe that they may as well have been the same word over and over again?
All of these are capitulations to the part of me that does not want to see, or sense, or respond. It is the part of me that is exhausted—utterly exhausted—by the world. It’s the part of me that would rather be turned into an object than to look at what is.
*
How is it possible to live right now?
I have no answers—for you, for the writers in prison, or for myself. Instead, I ask questions, over and over again.
I ask: Are you willing to open your senses again—right now—in this moment? Are you willing to have your heart broken by the world? Are you willing to be broken by what you have made of the world? Are you willing to be brokenhearted by what you have made of yourself?
Are you willing to open your eyes, to see what is present, to feel grief and despair? Are you willing to be alive?
Are you willing to be amazed?
(This essay has been read and approved for publication by the incarcerated writers who are mentioned in it. All names have been used by permission.)
Thank you for reading! I'm so grateful for your attention. If you're the kind of person who likes to help out writers, would you consider forwarding this essay to a thoughtful friend or two? It always makes a difference. 🙃
Want to know when my book comes out?
Sign up here for occasional news and updates. Or get all new essays delivered to your inbox! You choose! Either way, it's completely free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
I accidentally wrote a dead book. What do I do now?
I finally finished my book and all I got was this uncomfortable truth.
I'm going to start by doing something absolutely insufferable, which is to start off a blog by quoting myself. (It's short. There's a point.)
Here you go:
A realization that hit me hard early in my graduate degree was that craft was not vision, and, while even a tiny amount of vision could make up for a multitude of technical sins, no amount of technical prowess could make up for a lack of vision.
If a piece of work was fundamentally lifeless, it could and would not be revived—not by might or willpower or impeccable sentence-wrangling. The work had energy to channel, or it did not, and it was prudent to figure out which statement applied to the situation at hand and cut my losses immediately if the outlook looked bleak.
That paragraph is quoted verbatim from my MFA thesis, where it languished in the middle of a section about creativity and the philosophy of AI. In the section, I wondered where writerly “vision” came from and whether such vision could be replicated by a machine. Interesting stuff! Certainly zeitgeisty enough for any self-respecting thesis.
But now all that high-falutin' talk of craft vs. vision has come back to haunt me, because I've finished my book and large swaths of it are, yes, fundamentally lifeless—they feel patched in, or too heady, or simply aren't breathing in the way every bit of a book needs to breathe. This book has no energy! It's kaput! It is an ex-parrot! (Confused? See [a] below.)
What's worse: The book has taken a long time and many drafts to complete. So much for “cutting my losses immediately.”

You shouldn’t feel sorry for me, though. This realization, while discouraging, has put me firmly on the path to figure out exactly what it is that makes a work lifeless or energetic.
One promising hypothesis has come from Nuar Alsadir’s book, Animal Joy, in which she discusses the mechanics of communication—namely, the unique vitality that only emerges when one speaks authentically, which is to say—from one’s own body. Drawing on her experience as a psychotherapist, Alsadir talks of Wilfred Bion’s theory about elements of thinking:
Alpha elements are the brain-to-brain elements, ego-ridden, thoughts which are digested and can be articulated in concrete forms. Beta elements, meanwhile, are the raw experiences—the sub-language textures that can be communicated body to body without the higher linguistic brain being any the wiser. Alpha elements can be deceitful; beta elements never can be.
It occurs to me that the kind of writing I instinctively recoil from — from others or myself — is the alpha-lead stuff, in which it’s clear that the writing is ultimately an elaborate performance—a theatrical mask. Brightly painted, yes, and very possibly beautiful, but an obfuscation.
My hypothesis here: The lifeless sections of my book are the ones that my body and instinct had nothing to do with. They're the bits of my book that came from my ego, the part of my brain that wants to make itself feel better by being A Really Excellent Writer.
The lifeless sections of my book are the ones that my body and instinct had nothing to do with. They're the bits of my book that came from my ego, the part of my brain that wants to make itself feel better by being A Really Excellent Writer.
There's no easy craft fix here. There's no way to replicate beta-lead work through technical means. Amateur writers try to induce a similar effect via explicit body words (all those elbows and bones!), but this shortcut works only sometimes and only on a surface level. If the work itself is lifeless, such sensory writing isn't so much evocation as affectation. The brain, speaking of and as the body, is wholly unconvincing, rife with ulterior motive.
In short: The long way ‘round is also the only way ‘round and that is: To get work that speaks, body to body, you have to tell the truth from the body. Feel your way forward a little. Be willing to slow down, stop for a while, wait until the body knows what it wants to say.
In my situation, there’s no rectifying the bad bits through revision (that part, at least, I got right in my thesis!). Poking at dead things won't make them any less dead. The only way forward is to throw out any corpses and go back on the hunt for what lives.
Want to read the next thing I write?
Enter your email below to get new work delivered directly to your email inbox.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Postscripts and references.
[a] If you didn't catch that reference, that means you're lucky enough to be seeing this for the first time. (I envy you! Sincerely!)
[b] Mats Eilertsen, who I listened to on repeat while writing the above.
(2/2024)