Thursday, February 15. 2007
William Stafford, Writing The Australian Crawl
William Stafford’s honesty about the writing process is irresistible. Over and over again in Writing The Australian Crawl he admits to some remarkable points: that there is no such thing as skill, that anyone can write, that getting over writer’s block is simply a matter of lowering one’s standards, that editors are friends put on Earth to help us keep back work that should not be in print, that criticism shuts down the creative process fast, and that defending or justifying the significance of one’s work is not the writer’s job.Above all, he seems to confirm — from many different angles — what I have been discovering in my own journey from criticism to craft: that the tools of criticism are simply not well suited to the task of writing well. What you need, from Stafford’s point of view, is willingness to keep writing. He revealed that the vast majority of what he wrote he never sent out, and of the writing he did think publication-worthy, only one-tenth was ever published. While one could argue that this was only his particular approach and style, having such an interesting writer admit to his own process like this debunks a whole lot of nonsense about any determinate meaning-making approach to art. Everywhere in this book Stafford seems to be saying, instead, “Just keep writing.”
Stafford relies on process and revelation above all, not unlike Frost’s idea of moving like an ice cube melting across a hot stove. He often seems to regard a good line as a kind of “handhold in water,” a remark as easily made as retracted, but which furthers the momentum of the poem forward. In fact, he regards this momentum as more significant than word choice. He rarely revised anything more than a few days old.
He was a Quaker and a conscientious objector during World War II. And his poems are fascinating. Without trotting out any of the old workhorses of lyric poetry, or elevating diction above anything more than a whimsical conversation, Stafford’s poems seem to be speaking to my subconscious, to the part of me that feels more convinced by dreams than reality. I feel I understand his work, yet would be hard-put to explain it in concrete terms. It rings with poetic conviction. So, too, do his thoughts on writing well — especially in the transcripts of his interviews, slotted in at the back of this book.
Stafford’s words about the state of “contemporary” poetics in 1978 represent a marvelous time capsule of a period when free verse was just emerging. It seems as though even academics were a bit baffled by the significant perceived lack of structure in contemporary poetry, whereas now only laymen still think poems should chime and rhyme in recognizable verse. I suppose the difference is that, back then, there was a refreshing, exciting newness about contemporary poetry. By now, the newness has worn off, and we’re left facing the more difficult questions of how to forge our own structures in the face of seemingly open-ended opportunity.
Even if Stafford has only got it right for himself about the inner game of writing, I would like to believe his straightforward, pragmatic approach to writing applies to everyone that is serious about sustaining a life in art. One of his most memorable responses in an interview was to the question of when he started writing. His response was basically that everyone used to write and be creative when they were young, so really his counter-question was, “Why did everyone else stop?” Or, more interesting to me, “Why did Stafford persist? And how?” This book lays out gem after pragmatic gem of advice from someone who hung in there with his muse. Rather than debunk the mystique of writing well, Stafford has deepened my appreciation of the dedication it takes to keep going.
< Previous Entry | Next Entry >
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I enjoyed his essay book quite a bit too. One of my all time favorite poems was written by Stafford (and yes i include it alongside of Donne, Blake, Stevens, Bishop)—the poem is titles "Ask Me." I have it memorized and it’s one of my favorites.
He makes a few interesting points, and I’m all for the world having more editors and pushing on with writing.
I thought it was a great refute to the image of editors as trolls with barbed rejection slips mercilessly guarding the bridge to a wider audience — to instead consider them friends and allies in the mutual goal of only publishing good stuff.
Alas, Stafford, who wrote some wonderful poems, was ill-served by editors. He would have been better-off if fewer of his weak poems had been published. In the late 1970s & early 1980s it felt to this reader of literary magazines as if every notebook jotting Stafford produced made its way into print. Ultimately, time will wear away the lesser work, leaving the solid stone of Stafford’s achievement, but I find his comment about editors both rueful & ironic.
On the other hand, as a teacher, I find myself using Stafford’s "lower your standards" remark pretty often with students who are paralyzed by the blank page.
On the other hand, as a teacher, I find myself using Stafford’s "lower your standards" remark pretty often with students who are paralyzed by the blank page.
Thanks for weighing in, Joe. I’ve heard others say, too, that not all of Stafford’s work is compelling.
As one who has only been privy to a small subset of what has bubbled up since the 70s, I am impressed with what must be the gems of Stafford’s work. So, it seems once again history (even a few decades of it) is its own kind of editor as well.
As one who has only been privy to a small subset of what has bubbled up since the 70s, I am impressed with what must be the gems of Stafford’s work. So, it seems once again history (even a few decades of it) is its own kind of editor as well.
I am going to read this book, but after sifting through your bullet points on Stafford, I am wary.
I agree, people should write. Write without concern or fear of criticism. Get it down. However, there comes a point where one has to take note of when to surface, don’t you think? The goal of writing, in my opinion, is to be read, not merely to express oneself.
If Stafford is suggesting that the creative process is nurtured better without criticism, allowed to prosper unfettered by gardeners who would suggest pruning here and there, then, I can see some merit.
Again, I will check out this book and consider my words before commenting further.
I agree, people should write. Write without concern or fear of criticism. Get it down. However, there comes a point where one has to take note of when to surface, don’t you think? The goal of writing, in my opinion, is to be read, not merely to express oneself.
If Stafford is suggesting that the creative process is nurtured better without criticism, allowed to prosper unfettered by gardeners who would suggest pruning here and there, then, I can see some merit.
Again, I will check out this book and consider my words before commenting further.
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for voicing your reservations. I see Stafford as an antidote to the kind of critical voice that stops one from writing in the first place.
Personally, I find his welcoming attitude toward new inspiration refreshing. And that said his history is that perhaps he published too much of whatever occurred to him in this way. But I think the only way to get at the kind of startling direct communication with the subconscious (that’s what reading some of his poems feel like to me) is to practice this incredible openness that Stafford celebrates in his book.
I believe he uses criticism very specifically to mean the kind of tools you use in dissecting a poem in English class. I have found those tools rarely help in craft. But of course there’s a need for discernment and enhancement. It’s funny, I never got the sense that Stafford was about "self-expression," rather that he was about being open to something greater than himself, and welcoming it into his poems through a discipline of remaining open.
Maybe that helps. In any case, worth a read even if you disagree - all grist for the mill.
Cheers,
Robert
Thanks for voicing your reservations. I see Stafford as an antidote to the kind of critical voice that stops one from writing in the first place.
Personally, I find his welcoming attitude toward new inspiration refreshing. And that said his history is that perhaps he published too much of whatever occurred to him in this way. But I think the only way to get at the kind of startling direct communication with the subconscious (that’s what reading some of his poems feel like to me) is to practice this incredible openness that Stafford celebrates in his book.
I believe he uses criticism very specifically to mean the kind of tools you use in dissecting a poem in English class. I have found those tools rarely help in craft. But of course there’s a need for discernment and enhancement. It’s funny, I never got the sense that Stafford was about "self-expression," rather that he was about being open to something greater than himself, and welcoming it into his poems through a discipline of remaining open.
Maybe that helps. In any case, worth a read even if you disagree - all grist for the mill.
Cheers,
Robert
Serendipitously...
Tracked: Feb 15, 14:35