“Writing is not a rational act.” I had just tuned to NPR in the car, and that statement surprised me into yelling at the radio, “What the …?” As I listened, the host referred to the person speaking as a psychologist. Here I must admit my skepticism of relying heavily on psychological thought, despite a long relationship with friends in the profession. This is the result of raising children and dealing, as a teacher, with students and their parents who were psychologists.
It’s only in the last few years that I’ve come to accept the label of writer for myself. Before that, even the thought made me feel like a phony. I’ve had just one accepted submission, and that one being rather pedestrian. I wasn’t a Hemingway, a Conway, a Bronte. I believed these famous people and others would turn over in their graves should I label myself a writer. But a friend gave me Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird, and that book, along with encouragement I’ve received from so many published and non-published writers, has allowed me to feel more comfortable with the description. Was this psychologist calling all these wonderful people irrational? I was offended for myself and them. Surely a rational being cannot be happy pursuing an irrational career.
I thought I knew the definition of the word ‘rational’ but maybe there was something I missed. I consulted with an expert on the matter. Pulling into the driveway, I grabbed my phone. Yep, Webster still defined rational as “having the ability to reason.” I checked the thesaurus for related words and found: intelligent, thinking, analytical, logical, cognitive. It sounded like me, someone with degrees, someone who analyzed everything to death, and knew she’d never live long enough to know all the things that she wanted to know. I also had proof that I was a rational being. One year my kids bought me a blue nightshirt. On the front was a huge picture of that famous orange cat and underneath were the words, Virgo (my astrological sign), an analytical, picky, worrywart. Both Webster and Garfield couldn’t be wrong.
Stepping into the house I turned on the radio to continue listening to the program. By the time I tuned back in, the host was speaking with an artist about how he accessed the creativity apparent in his work. I began to realize the show wasn’t specifically about writing, but about creative thought. It was not the person (the writer, the artist, etc.), but the process that was the topic. By the time I realized my mistake, the host had returned to the writer once again. He mentioned how every writer must allow freedom for ideas to flow, because many stories and characters are amalgams of people and memories storied in our subconscious.
My claws retracted; my metaphorical balustrade tumbled. And embarrassingly, I had to admit. I, a writer and a rational being had jumped the gun, acted hastily and sorry to say, acted irrationally.
No comments:
Post a Comment