Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Deep Time


Were you to ask me to name my desert island book, I'd be a pain in the ass and demand two, one fiction and one non-fiction. My fiction choice is One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez. It's not necessarily my favorite book, which of course changes every five minutes (my list of my top ten favorite novels of all time has a couple hundred entries on it). But One Hundred Years of Solitude is, to me, the most lush, the most abundant of my many favorite books. I can read it a hundred times and find something new with each reading, or understand some aspect of the story in a new way. A gorgeous novel, alternately heartbreaking and inspirational, it possesses an abiding sense of time and history, and of our relationship as human beings to both.

But if you insist on just one book, that's it, no categorical weaseling, no one-of-each nonsense, well then I'm going to shift to non-fiction and choose Basin and Range by John McPhee. Basin and Range is the first in a series of four books in which McPhee tells of the development of the theory of plate tectonics.* But it's not just a science book. McPhee tracks his way across the United States roughly along the path of Interstate 80 in the company of a number of geologists, and along the way he tells not only the story of the rock beneath his feet but of the men and women with him who know the terrain—and terranes—like they know their own skins.

And if I got really stuck and you insisted I could only take one chapter out of one book on my desert island sojourn, I'd pick the chapter in Basin and Range in which McPhee describes the evolution of the geological time scale. McPhee doesn't title or number the chapters, so look for the one which starts "The Old Red Sandstone was put down by rivers flowing southward to a sea where marine strata were accumulating in the region that is now called Devon." No matter your interest or disinterest in geology, I urge you to take twenty minutes in the library one day to read that one chapter.

The story McPhee tells is as much poetry as science. Periods during prehistory named for Welsh tribes, geographic regions, philosophical conceits. Scientists bickering over the relationship between this or that fifty or hundred million years. Eons delineated by the appearance and disappearance of a particular type of mollusk or arthropod, by the flow of primordial rivers inferred in exposed sediments. When the science of geology came of age during the 1800s, much of the technology that would enable scientists to determine how far back events occurred didn't exist; vast chunks of time were identified and named decades before radiometric dating and similar tools would assign actual values to eons. There was in fact a certain geological quality to the development of the time scale, as new chunks of time were identified and named and divided in an accretatory and erosional manner. McPhee describes the process beautifully in what amounts to one of the most far-reaching yet intimate essays I've ever read. I can pick it up at any time and it will take my breath away.

In this essay, McPhee coined the phrase "deep time" to describe that vast weight of time before the present, the billions of years it took for the earth to reach its current state. It is a depth of time so great, McPhee notes, "With your arms spread wide to represent all time on earth . . . in a single stroke with a medium-grained nail file you could eradicate human history." And yet so much of it remains beyond knowledge. The nature of geology is that it deals with surfaces and shattered remains beneath which far more is hidden than revealed. Describing the first four billion years of Earth's lifespan, McPhee says, ". . . so little is known of this seven-eighths of all history that in a typical two-pound geology text book there are fourteen pages on Precambrian time." He goes on to note that the "Precambrian has attracted geologists of exceptional imagination."

This to me is the lure of geology in the picture painted by John McPhee. For all the measurements, for all the core samples and lab tests, the calculus and the piled collections of rocks there lives at the heart of the science that spark of imagination, not so different, I believe, from the spark that lives in the heart of writers—or any artist. The art of writing, like the science of geology, is like exploring a dream with a candle, illuminating more and more until at last a history is revealed, often in broken pieces, often incomplete. Yet also sparking a further drive toward exploration and revelation. To me, McPhee—master of analogy—is speaking only partly about geology and history, just as García Márquez in One Hundred Years of Solitude is speaking only partly of the town of Macondo and the Buendiá family. When I read about McPhee's deep time I find myself excavating my own sedimentary layers. He wakes me up and shows me how to look backward and forward in a single glance.

The chapter ends with McPhee sharing a number of comments made to him by geologists over the years as he traversed so many terrains in their company. "In the company of geologists," he says, "the least effect of time is that they think in two languages, think in two different scales." He ends with a quote from one geologist who says, "If you free yourself from the conventional reaction to a quantity like a million years, you free yourself a bit from the boundaries of human time. And then, in a way you do not live at all, but in another way you live forever."

It may be a comment about deep time, about the geological time scale, but for me it's an apt description of how I often feel when I write, and why this essay by McPhee is so important to me. When I write, I feel disconnected from ordinary time, freed from the constraints of day-to-day life. I can be anywhere, anywhen. It's a freedom, both exhiliarating and frightening, that I don't experience under any other circumstances. And so the best answer to the question "why do you write?" I can give is this: when I write, I feel like I am living forever.

* Note: The others in McPhee's geology series are In Suspect Terrain, Rising from the Plains, and Assembling California—and for true desert island book convenience, the series has been collected in a single volume entitled Annals of the Former World.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Happy Holidays with Beef!



Fulfillment of the Beef Promise on Vimeo

I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas!

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

I'm Very Shallow and Empty and I Have No Ideas*


Over at Sandra's yesterday, Mindy said something that strikes me as a fairly common feeling among writers (though please let me know if you feel differently):

"Writers have dozens of stories to tell. The problem is deciding which one, not coming up with another one."

I don't know how common, but it seems like a sentiment often shared by writers. I know I've read and heard some variation on it many times.

But I have a confession to make.

Not me.

I don't have ideas. Okay, that's not strictly true. What I don't have is Ideas. I don't have dozens of stories to tell. I don't even have a handful of stories to tell. Right now I have my Work-in-Progress, plus a kinda rough notion of one or two things that might happen in a future novel, and then a vague image or two which might form the basis of a story set in Victoria, B.C. And, um, that's it. Fresh out at that point.

I couldn't tell you what might happen in, say, the novel after my next novel to save my life, and I probably couldn't tell you much about novel three. There are a couple of things I think I want to try, and see what might happen, but that's it.

I don't have ideas, I have images. I have sense impressions. I never think, I am going to write a story about... because I never know what any story is going to be about when I start writing it.

Lost Dog started with with a scene. In fact, it wasn't even going to be a scene in an actual story. It was an assignment for a class, an exercise. Later, I wrote another scene, completely unrelated to the first, with no clear sense of where it might go. I was interested in a room and how it reflected the person who lived there. I wanted to play with images and character and see what I got.

Later I asked myself what would happen if I had the character from the first scene and the character from the second scene collide. They were different kinds of people with different ways of seeing the world, but what if I created an intersection between the two?

I suppose that's an idea, but I don't think of it as an idea in the same sense as a High Concept Idea. I write through a series of what if questions, but they are always built off of these images of place or person. I grow stories on the level of character and theme. The what if questions drive me in directions that interest me or challenge me.

And then, well, shit happens. Stories develop a shape and an arc through the layering of these sense impressions and the answers to what if questions.

A side effect of this is when I get to the "end" of a story, open questions remain. That's not to say that I avoid resolution, but for me, any story I write is going to be a sliver of a larger story. My intent is always to present a coherent section, but a lot of the time when I get to the end of a story, I'm still asking myself questions about what came next, or what might come before. Maybe I'll write more, and maybe I won't. But the story in my mind is almost always bigger than what makes it onto the page.

Having said all this, I have to admit there are times when I actually write from ideas anyway. "A Tall House" was based on an idea. My current WIP started with an idea, a dream my wife had, though I have to admit I have all but abandoned the original concept she gave me as I've chased imagery and sense impressions. There was a point where I inserted an Idea in lost dog, probably around the second draft, though it kinda fizzled and I ended up minimizing to the point that I'm not sure anyone would recognize it.

Now, one of the questions I often ask myself is what I'm doing writing crime fiction, so often built around the Big Idea, when I never have ideas myself? Part of the answer is the kind of crime fiction that most attracts me. Character-driven, theme-based crime fiction is among my most favorite. John Straley, James Lee Burke, the Scudder novels of Lawrence Block. Yes, those books have ideas, as well as Ideas, but it's the stuff around the ideas that makes them particularly effective for me. Who and Why and not just What.

Some may say this is a semantic quibble. What I call imagery and sense impressions may be ideas by another name. I won't argue the point, though inside me they feel different from what I think people mean when they talk about ideas.

And please don't get me wrong. I read and enjoy -- often adore -- novels built around ideas, as well as Ideas. I just don't think that way. My creativity doesn't grow out of ideas. I don't write because I have stories to tell, but because I am exploring questions that interest me.

- - - - -

*Whoever can tell me where the title of this post is from first gets a free ARC of lost dog as soon as I get them, which may be soon since I have heard rumors on the internets that they have arrived in the mailboxes of at least a few readers and reviewers! :D