March 2012 Reading List

Flash Fiction Forward: 80 Very Short Stories
Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer (sort of)

Flash Fiction Forward is an anthology of, as the subtitle may suggest, 80 very short stories. Very short is right; none were over 500 words. I enjoyed a great many of these short-shorts, though in general I find this genre a bit of a paradox. I love writing short-shorts. I also love reading them. Some of them carry weight that far exceeds their paltry word count. But by and large, they’re…not long enough. I want to tell the author of short-shorts to go on. What next? Such is the nature of this genre, though, so it’s not a complaint. Like I said, I love reading them, I love writing them, and I hope to assemble a collection of my own short-shorts one of these days because I love how the short-short toes the line of prose poetry.

The only other book I picked up in all of March was Into Thin Air, a book that I’d heard a lot about during my MFA schoolery, but one with which I was totally unfamiliar. Sometime last spring or summer, I went to a YMCA book fair with my Baba-in-law (my husband’s grandmother). The books I came away with were her treat. I’m so glad that she only spent around 50 cents on this one. I started one night in mid-March, and dozed off after a page and a half. It languished on my nightstand for the next week or so; I’d pick it up night after night, read a couple pages, get bored, and fall asleep. At the end of March, my husband went out of town and I elected to spend the weekend at my parents’ house. Into Thin Air came along in my messenger bag. In a misguided attempt to force myself to finish it, I packed only Into Thin Air and the book of short-shorts I had to read for class. Finally, after two weeks of trying, I put Into Thin Air down after page 50. I purposely left it at my parents’ house so that I wouldn’t feel guilted into trying again. I guess Baba paid about a penny per page.

I didn’t care for Krakauer’s dry, journalistic style of writing, but I can’t blame my distaste for the book entirely on that. The truth is, I have subzero interest in mountain climbing. This book, as I failed to mention, chronicles an expedition to the summit of Mt. Everest in the mid-1990s wherein something like half of the people died. Yes, it’s incredible that people can accomplish something like scaling Mt. Everest. It’s pretty damn high up there. I couldn’t do it. And yes, it’s tragic that many have died in attempting it. But…here’s one way not to die while trying to scale Mt. Everest.

Don’t try to scale Mt. Everest.

I don’t mean to be callous or to diminish anyone’s accomplishments or dreams of climbing the highest mountain in the world. It’s just not my thing. It’s not even on my waiting list of things. I’ve never been interested in mountain climbing. It always seemed like a silly thing to do. You get all sweaty & scraped up & have a hard time breathing. Well, I can think of ways to do that while keeping myself more or less at sea level.

So I was definitely not a fan of Into Thin Air, but this book had the deck stacked against it from the get-go, and I can’t say that it’s the author’s fault. I’d still like to try reading Krakauer’s Into the Wild. Still involves death and mountains, but the death doesn’t result directly from climbing a mountain, so I’ll try to be open-minded.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

February 2012 Reading List

Cruddy by Lynda Barry
New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from American and Beyond

I’ve reread Cruddy at least four times. My only complaint about it is that every time it reminds me of a friend who I am no longer friends with, as she was the one who turned me on to it.

Cruddy is raw. It’s dark. It’s…well, it’s cruddy. If you think you had a messed up childhood, read about Roberta Rohbeson’s and you’ll change your tune. Granted, this is fiction. Doesn’t make it any less real.

New Sudden Fiction is an anthology of stories that are all less than 1,500 words. I’m taking a short-short fiction class with my sister during her last semester of undergraduate. I let her talk me into taking a fiction class even though fiction is generally not my thing. Turns out I am loving it. Also, I really want to explore the short-short genre more thoroughly. I have a ton of ideas for some shorts, not all of which are fiction. Part of me bristles at how “microfiction” has become is own sub-genre when clearly it toes the line of prose poetry, and can also be easily adapted to CNF. I have read several short essays recently that fall under the word limit parameters of the short-short (“Dog’s Eye View of Man” by James Thurber being the most excellent example I can think of at the moment). Yet, the short-short form has fallen under the purview of fiction. Why is this? Why should the short-short be limited to fiction? I want my short-short subgenre to be more democratic than this. Though I am loving the freedom and variety of fiction, there are other striations of the short-short. I’d prefer a more variegated taste, comparable to, say, Neapolitan ice cream. Don’t make me just have chocolate when it’s my least favorite flavor, you know?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Publication Alert

Hooray, Internets!

I have been informed that one of my poems, “Claudia,” has been selected for publication in the upcoming issue of Blood Lotus! I read this poem in Louisville, Kentucky back in May 2011. I am so happy it has found a home.

More later :)

Posted in publications, writing | Leave a comment

January 2012 Reading List

Amsterdam, by Ian McEwan

The Dirty Life: On Farming, Food and Love, by Kristin Kimball

Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise, by Ruth Reichl

January was a month of Christmas reading. First of all, it was the first month (okay, actually, the second month) in three long years wherein I was not bound by requirements of my MFA bibliography. Funny–I had sworn that I would continue generating a Word doc chronicling all reading material just like I have been for the past three years, but oh, how quickly did that resolution get broken! It might have something to do with both not being required to turn it in for credit and also having joined Goodreads.com (it’s just so easy. Friend me or whatever the lingo: http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6121433-kelly-lynn).

Anyway, both Amsterdam and Garlic & Sapphires were gifts from my brother/sister-in-laws. I love Ruth Reichl–in fact, she was who inspired me to write my 32 page extended critical essay (yes, for my MFA–I have one, have you heard?) on the symbolism of food in survival memoirs, although she was never cited as a source–but I hadn’t yet read G&S. How lucky was she? Total dream job, being restaurant reviewer for the NYT. On top of that, she got to dress up. Be still my heart.

Amsterdam was the first fiction book I’ve read in quite some time (although some might argue that A Million Little Pieces was fictional, but that’s a dead horse I’m not willing to beat. It was a pretty solid hunk of writing. That much is true). I enjoyed it, even more so because the day after I finished reading Amsterdam, I found out that I would be going there in April. Now I’m seeking out books with exotic place names in their titles. If this is going to be a trend, I want to capitalize on it.

The Dirty Life was a book I gave my mother-in-law because she is nutty about composting and growing things in the backyard and would just love to have chickens and bees. Truly, I am with her 100%. I had heard an interview with the author on NPR or somewhere a year or so ago and immediately put it on my to-read list. Turns out it was a great Xmas gift for my m-i-l, who then lent it to me after she finished. It was a fun read that really made me want to get out & push some dirt around, provided I could unearth a juicy, red tomato and sink my teeth right into it. Unfortunately, I read it in January. Even for the mildest Saint Louis winter I’ve experienced in my life, the ground is still too hard and unyielding for that kind of behavior, so I endured a lot of unsatiated salivating. Ah well.

Now we’re well into February, and I predict that my reading list will be extra short this time around. Why? Because, oh Internets, the MFA did not end my pursuit of writerly classes. Far from it. I allowed my sister-in-law to talk me into taking a short-short fiction class with her, and so for the past month I’ve been reading only for that. (And for a class called short-short fiction, the prof sure has a loooooooooong reading list).

Posted in reading | Leave a comment

December 2011 Reading List

The Farmer’s Daughter, by Jim Harrison

Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters, by Annie Dillard

A Million Little Pieces, by James Frey

My Friend Leonard, by James Frey

Posted in reading | Leave a comment

September and October Reading List

Bourdain, Anthony. Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly. 2000. New York: Ecco, 2007.

Goldberg, Myla. The False Friend: A Novel. New York: Doubleday, 2010.

Lahiri, Jhumpa. The Namesake: A Novel. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003.

Peacock, Molly. The Paper Garden: An Artist Begins Her Life’s Work at 72. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010.

Sellers, Heather. You Don’t Look Like Anyone I Know: A True Story of Family, Face Blindness, and Forgiveness. New York: Riverhead B, 2010.

And a ton of essays for workshop, a couple theses for other graduating MFAers, & other stuff to prepare for my final MFA residency.

I am not currently reading anything. That makes me cranky. I have about fifty books lying around that I have wanted to read for a while, but couldn’t because I had to read XY or Z for school (and it’s not like I was ever really hard-core about sticking to my pre-established reading list). Now, I have no reading list to tackle, because I graduated with my MFA over the weekend. More on that some other time. Right now, I have some lecture reports/evals to finish, or I might not get my diploma after all.

Posted in reading | Leave a comment

1,000 Words on 5,000 Other Words

As of tomorrow, I am officially anthologized. An essay that I wrote will soon be on the shelves in bookstores all over the world (or at least North America). This might be a good time to reflect upon the pro- and epilogues to this particular event.

I committed the first words that would eventually become this essay on December 1, 2007. It started as a mopey reflection about how my fifteen-year-old half-sister was making her debut as Esther in Meet Me in Saint Louis; I was not there, even though I said I would be. I was writing about not being there instead. I was mad at myself, mad at circumstance, mad at life. In other words, I was being a big baby. I wrote a couple whiny paragraphs about why I was semi-avoiding my sister’s play (it was a long drive, I had things to do, she probably wouldn’t care if I was there, my presence or lack thereof hardly mattered, and besides, I had only met my sister the previous year, mewl and puke, piss and moan). 972 words later, I realized that I hadn’t even nicked the surface of the backstory. Do over.

This began as an attempt for a submission to the Lives column in the New Yorker. Hey, I aim high. I had to keep it at 1,000 words or fewer, and so I ditched the whiny self-aggrandizing intro and started with the singular most life-changing moment I have ever consciously experienced: receiving the phone call from a woman who claimed to be my biological mother. That was the important stuff, not me being wishy-washy about going to see my sister’s play. At least, that’s what I tell myself.

After weeks of tinkering, I had 999 words and suffered fits of inadequacy. Where could I squeeze in one more word? I had to, had to submit exactly 1,000 words to the New Yorker or they would think I was bush league. Could I stick in a “very” somewhere, I thought, half-seriously until I remembered that one kid in grade school (there was one in every class) who, in order to flesh out a 100 word assignment, used the word “very” 89 times. In the opposite direction I went, charged through my piece like Genghis Kahn, wielding my editorial sword with ferocity, slashing this, cutting that. By March 2008, I had what I thought was a pretty decent 832 word piece. I called it “Sisterless.” I milked every word, combed through the 3 page manuscript a dozen, two dozen times, omitting a word here, fluffing one there, striking anything that wasn’t absolutely essential. I put it down for a few months. When I came back, I realized one very important thing:

It was no good.

Not bad, exactly. Just no good. It’s biggest problem was that I was trying too hard to be all New Yorkery. This material was not appropriate for the Lives column. I was trying to squish (artfully, mind you) too much life into three pages. At last, it dawned on me that I didn’t have to submit this to the Lives column. I could – nay, I should - expand the essay and take it elsewhere.

Second, the essay was called Sisterless, but it was about meeting my biological mother and sister (yes, the one whose play I ditched). That just didn’t make any sense. Do over.

Good thing I went back to school to get my MFA. I done learned some stuff. The 3 page “Sisterless” fattened up nicely to 12 pages and flaunted a shiny new title. Around October 2009, a friend from school (thank you, Kelly Martineau) alerted me of an anthology that was seeking adoption stories. The submission deadline was two months away. My advisor worked with me on the essay, and in December 2009, it had ripened to 14 pages & I sent it out into the world.

Around March 2010, I got the happy news. They bought it. And so, after a protracted process, the book is out at last.

But that’s not all. For the past three years, I’ve been working on my creative thesis for my MFA. By the end of this month, it will be complete – all 230ish pages of it. The tiny, whiny, 1,000-word seed that germinated on December 1, 2007 has burgeoned into a book. This anthologized essay serves as the backbone of my book, only broken into several pieces. Believe me, the book stands so much better with a broken back. I split up this essay into four different chapters, with added material and a more sophisticated editorial eye, all scattered throughout the manuscript. So it’s hard for me to not look at this essay, which is going forth into the world tomorrow, without thinking of it as a seedling. A 5,000 word seedling that sprouted a 70,000 word manuscript.

So much for the Lives column. I have the rest of my life for Lives. In the meantime, I’ll allow myself to be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very  excited about being anthologized.

Posted in meta, publications | 1 Comment

“Oliver” Names Strained Credibility

I write this as an award-winning nameologist. Okay, okay, so I came in second place in a celebrity baby names contest at a friend’s baby shower and my award was an US Weekly. Still. I don’t follow celebrity gossip (I swear), except for when it comes to who’s naming whom what. Names are fascinating markers in an ever-shifting sociological landscape. Which brings me to the point.

All writers listen up. Hear ye, hear ye:

Give thy characters credible names.

I just finished reading a book wherein the author made some naming mistakes. Ironically, names and how they formulate identity was the primary theme.

My big boeuf is about a character named Oliver who would have been born in America circa 1968. It was not totally beyond the realm of possibility to hear of an Oliver born in the late ‘60s. But Olivers were rarities. The name Oliver reached the nadir of its popularity in the ‘60s. It was uncommon. But, in response to a woman with an unusual name who hated being the “only one,” this Oliver says: “’See now, I’d have loved that.’” The implication is that Oliver was one of many Olivers, which is improbable.

I have never in my life personally known an Oliver, especially not in that age range, but what I’ve known is of little relevance. How about some statistics, then? For the decade of the 1960s, Oliver ranked at 436 in overall name popularity. This may not seem that unpopular, but consider this: Herbert was 200th, Reginald was ranked 132nd, and Kelly (for boys) was ranked 123rd-a name virtually shunned for boys these days. Names such as these far outstripped Olivers in occurrence.

Looking at a graph of the name Oliver’s popularity from 1880 until now, you’d see spikes at each end of the graph with a massive depression in the middle, representing Oliver’s plummeting popularity. At its lowest point, there were fewer than 100 Olivers per 1,000,000 babies…in other words, less than 0.01% of boys in America were named Oliver. A hundredth of one percent. In concrete numbers, here’s how this breaks down: the number of live births in the US in 1968 was approximately 3.5 million; of these, roughly 1.75 million were boys, and of those, only 175 were named Oliver. 175 Olivers in the entire country. The US has 3.79 million square miles. In 1968, there was 1 Oliver per 21,657 square miles. The entire state of West Virginia is about that size. Compare that to Michael, of which there were roughly 80,850 born that year (roughly 1 Michael per 47 square miles). Have I made my point yet?

Currently, Oliver’s making a big comeback, having cracked the top 100 for the first time since 1890 in 2009, and it’s still going strong in 2010. But for a person born in the late 60s, Oliver would have been an unlikely choice. It’s a fine name, and I get the appeal of affixing names that one likes upon characters in one’s stories. I wouldn’t have been as bothered had Oliver just been Oliver, but he had to go and flap his jaws about how he wished his name were unique. Total name foul. I’d have believed his statement had he been, say, a Michael (#1 boys name in the 1960s). Even Daniel, Christopher, or Greg (#19, 20, and 100, respectively) could have said that believably. But an Oliver? Come on.

Oliver wasn’t the only infraction, but it was the most grievous. There were other name anachronisms, too, such as Edith (in the top thirty until the 1910s, in freefall ever since), Louise (top twenty in the 1910s, nosedive thereafter), and Astrid (not even on the charts). Donald, however, was right on, and the main characters (of Indian descent) had names that rang true, to my ears at least. I am no expert in Indian naming conventions, though. For the most part, the author lost some credibility by giving less important characters names uncharacteristic of the times. At least these ancillary folks are only around for a short time so their anachronistic names are less of a nuisance.

Bottom line: your characters require believable names. If you’re writing a book about people born in the 1960s, you can’t start throwing around Olivers and Astrids and Isabelles and Owens like they were oh-so-ordinary, quarterback & head cheerleader, prom king & queen monikers. That’s David & Mary or Susan & John  territory. If you’re writing a story set in 2028, however, then it’s perfectly acceptable for Jayden be prom king, for Isabella to tell people that she was named after a bland fictional teen struggling with issues with necrophilia and bestiality rather than a Spanish queen, and for Madison, male or female, to complain about being one of fifteen Madisons/Madasyns/Maddisins in their class*. And don’t you forget it.

*And while we’re on the subject…Madison. Oh, poor Madison. Let’s just ignore all the “kre8ive” spellings and focus on the core name, shall we? In the late 1800s/early 1900s, this name was pure quirky testosterone. Women named Madison were unheard of. Madison dropped off the chart from 1950-1980, when it experienced a resurgence before dropping off again in 2005. For girls, though, it’s another story. In 2010, Madison was the 8th most popular name given to girls. The name Madison began zooming up the charts in the 1980s. I wonder what could have possibly triggered it? I’m going to guess that in days of yore, Madisons were boys named for the 4th president of the United States, while in the past three decades, Madisons are (mostly) girls named for…a mermaid who didn’t understand that she shouldn’t have named herself for Madison Avenue, that no women were ever named Madison. The movie Splash came out in 1984. Madison had not been on the charts ever for a girl, and had been absent for boys for some time. Yet, in 1985, Madison jumped up to #628 and has been on a meteoric rise ever since. That’s right – a Hollywood joke has sparked a name revolution. Oh, America.

Posted in bad idea, cranky, reading, writing | Leave a comment

August reading list

The Woman Warrior, by Maxine Hong Kingston

Mennonite in a Little Black Dress, by Rhoda Janzen

Trading in Memories: Travels Through a Scavenger’s Favorite Places, by Barbara Hodgson

Posted in reading | Leave a comment

July Reading List

The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler

Too Loud a Solitude by Bohumil Hrabal

A Mango-Shaped Space by Wendy Mass

A few words about The Girls Who Went Away:

This book is a collection of oral histories of women who gave up their babies for adoption pre-Roe v. Wade. It is fascinating, although its writing style was clunky at times, mainly because Fessler cobbled together a bunch of interviews, resulting in tone and voice differing significantly from page to page. Fessler, herself an adoptee who searched for and found her birth mother, interviewed lots of other birth moms to hear their stories. These birth mothers speak in this book. Even though I knew of the stigma of single motherhood in the fifties and sixties, I was still shocked to hear how many of these women were coerced in to surrendering their babies after being sent away to live for months away from loved ones. I knew this happened. Nevertheless, it was not a subject upon which I dwelled–itself amazing considering my own background as an adoptee. I had never heard the birth mother’s story. I had heard several versions of adoption stories from adoptive parents, but never the birth mother’s story. The book goes into how adoption was painted as this magical solution to a problem, but how in reality, forcing the women to give up their babies killed something in them, how the qualified term “birth mother” or “natural mother” or any permutation is marginalizing. It’s a little odd, looking at it from my perspective as an adoptee who grew up with a great family; it never crossed my mind that my biomom suffered all that much. Ridiculous, in retrospect, but that kind of suffering is hard to imagine in the abstract, especially when you’re close to a situation. Plus, if my birth mother’s suffering had been abated by being allowed to keep me, what then of the suffering of my parents, who expected to bring me home, who loved me before meeting me? How might I have suffered differently?

Posted in reading | Leave a comment