TIMED WRITING EXERCISES INSPIRED BY NATALIE GOLDBERG'S WRITING DOWN THE BONES

September 19: Creative Writing Group notes

I couldn't be more different if I tried.

I feel the eyes (of the younger guys mostly) checking out my pink socks peeking out from under my gray camouflage pants. It seemed like a good idea; the socks go well with my pink t-shirt. I should know that would look strange. Maybe I'll work my way into one of their stories.

Who are these people? Why do I have to feel judged? What does it matter? Two hours a week, that's all I'm required to spend with them. I spent an extra hour with them tonight at the California Pizza Kitchen where they gather after the Creative Writing Group every week, dropped $20 on a beer and a pizza. That seems a bit outlandish. Just to get to know these people better? I won't be doing that every week. Maybe a beer. Still, that's $5 + tip.

They're nice enough people. We're all nice; we're all freaks. Writers. Freaks. Same thing.

The moderator of the Group said something about my fashion choice being "Bold." Okay, so I'm bold. Is that code for homosexual? What if I had on a red shirt and red socks, would that be bold? Green? Black? White socks with sandals and a Hawaiian shirt?

He suggested I should wear sandals if I'm gonna wear pink socks. I said, "That wouldn't be very subtle." He said, "There's nothing subtle about pink socks." Okay, so we've established some ground rules. I guess.

We have to go over three submissions a week (though for the past two meetings it's only been two submissions for one reason or another), chapters from a novel, a short story, poetry, whatever we feel inclined to submit. 5,000 words or less. Less is better, they say. I submit next week for the first time. Chapter Two.

I feel a little worried about how they're going to take my work. How judged will I feel this time next week? I feel confident in my work; I think I'm up to the task.

But I don't know. I'm still worried. I wear pink socks and a pink shirt and I still concern myself with the fact that others are looking at me. Out of the corners of their eyes. I guess that's what makes it feel different. I guess I should appreciate the fact that B brought it up. The others wouldn't dare. I don't think. Not in front of me. Maybe to their roommates, maybe to their girlfriends. "There's this guy who wears weird clothes, pink socks, pink shirt and gray camouflage pants!" Yeah, that's weird.

So I'm a weirdo. My novel is pretty weird, too, probably, from their more conventional viewpoints.

One of the pieces we critiqued tonight was of the Women's Fiction genre, written by M, an African-American woman. The other was by DF, one of the younger guys. He calls his Popular Fiction, I guess, or something along the lines of what you would find in multiples across the front of a display case, hard back, paperback, at the checkout counters of grocery stores. I've only been to two meetings, but he has talked numerous times about being famous, making it big, writing his bestseller.

I can understand that drive. I used to want to be rich and famous. When I was his age (29), I was convinced that I would be famous in a few years' time. Star of my own TV show. So I can understand where he's coming from.

But I don't want to get sucked into his belief system. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm creating Art.

I wouldn't really say that with a straight face to anyone, but I heard myself having an imaginary conversation with someone -- perhaps the moderator -- him saying something like, "If you want to sell this book, then it has to appeal to X, Y, & Z." And I heard my imaginary self saying, "Hold it right there! I'm not looking to sell this book!"

What a crazy thing to say. And that's not exactly true. Of course I would like to sell this novel. Of course I would enjoy seeing it stacked up on the New Releases table. But that's not my drive. I don't want that to be my drive.

I feel like I worked hard to do a good job of critiquing these peoples' work. I read through the submissions fully at least three times, wrote notes, marked things, tried to stay away from making suggestions that seemed like they were saying that's the way I think it should be.

That's all it is, though, my opinion. I was nervous about giving my opinions. Not that the person would think I was a freak (that was already obvious by my outfit), but that I might hurt their feelings in some other completely unrelated way, say something that was way out of line.

But on the other hand, I imagined them (or DF, at least) taking my hard work on his submission and simply dismissing it. Maybe because that's what I'll have to do with their comments on my submission next week!

I can't imagine these people will have anything useful to say. I imagine a lot of blank stares or confused statements or perhaps even some outright denials of it having any real merit.

I'm armoring myself. Really. I want to be open and hear what they have to say, but I think I'll be a nervous wreck.

I also think this is very good for me, just the kind of thing I need, though I'm not really sure I'll understand that until I'm farther down the road.

September 19: movie (15 minutes)

I didn't feel like sitting at my computer anymore last night -- my butt was numb, my back was sore -- so what did I do? I went to see a movie, where I would sit on my butt for two more hours. At least I would be able to slouch differently.

I like to go to movies that I don't know anything about; I'm willing to take a chance at seeing something bad because I also might find a treasure (like I did the summer Junebug -- still one of my favorites -- came out, after only seeing a trailer once).

I had heard a very little about Descent (THE YEAR'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL FILM -- oh, please!), and I went at least in part because of the NC-17 rating ("for brutal rape"). I wasn't hoping to see a brutal rape, necessarily. I was thinking more about Rosario Dawson's "descent" into drugs, sex and risky behavior, according to the blurb on the press release in the paper. I'm always interested in other artists' portrayal of these things, and I figured there might be a lot of freedom to explore deeply and honestly, what with the "morals-free" rating.

Overall, I didn't like the movie. If you're one of those people (like me) who doesn't read reviews before you go see a movie, stop reading now, because I find it hard to say much about a movie I don't like without giving some things away.

There were only three other men there to besides me (kind of telling, huh?!) sitting in separate places around the theater. It reminded me of the Times Square porn theater days of my youth, though this theater was much cleaner (but, in contrast, the old horsehair-stuffed seat cushions back then were much more comfortable).

There are two rapes in Descent. The first one wasn't all that brutal, and I was glad that the second one happened (saw it coming, said "It better happen or I'll be pissed!"), but it wasn't very brutal either. The second was man raping man (that, I believe is the real reason for the NC-17 rating). The rapist is doing a favor for someone by raping this man. Although he is belittling the original rapist -- who said some pretty offensive things to the woman as he raped her -- I was still personally offended when this man said (as he fucked and fucked and fucked and fucked the guy) "I ain't no fuckin' faggot!" What?!

The director/co-writer was, I suppose, trying to make some kind of point, but it went over my head; I don't know about the other men in the theater (one left after the first rape, I'm thinking because it wasn't brutal enough for his tastes...) Earlier in the movie this very sexy Black Latino man (whose character is confusing in so many ways) belittles another white man in front of Rosario -- in sort of an "I'm the Master" way, and that piqued my interest. "Oh, maybe he's bisexual," I thought to myself. That was interesting.

There were a lot of interesting ideas -- I applaud the director's vision -- but the writing was obvious and clunky throughout. The scenes of Rosario's supposed "descent" were filmed in such poor lighting that it was hard or impossible to even tell what was going on. At one point, somebody thankfully shone a spotlight on her so that we could see what she was doing, but she was only rubbing up against and fondling (tamely) a variety of men and (even more tamely) women, which was I suppose the sexual descent the press release alluded to. She was told by the bossy hot guy to snort a line of something or else she would hurt the drug dealer's feelings, but we didn't get see her go down on the line, and this only happened one time. As for the "risky behavior," I'm not sure I saw any of that, certainly not of the NC-17 variety!

The acting was okay all around (excluding some really bad brief scenes in which even good actors couldn't have made that schlock sound like anything a real person would utter). In order to show her descent from introverted college co-ed to rape victim on the verge, Rosario Dawson got a haircut. Nothing major. A new style. (Which wasn't even the hair-do that's in the ad for the movie, which for some reason annoyed me!) And she pouted (with those huge lips, who could miss that she was pouting?), but it didn't really feel like any kind of actual descent took place.

A reviewer for the New York Times (Matt Zoller Seitz) wrote: Dawson's intricate, imaginative performance equals those of Robert De Niro in "Taxi Driver" and Hilary Swank in "Boys Don't Cry" ... essential to see!

Matt, you owe me $8.75.