English Major Phobia

college-diploma

When I came to Washington and Lee, I had every intention of being a Biology major andgoing to medical school after I graduated. Itonly took me a month of Genetics class to realize that medicine wasn’t for me, but it took me a year and a half to actually let go of my plan. I call it a plan for a reason. Going to med school was never a dream or an aspiration. It was a plan with a definitive end and what I imagined to be guaranteed success—career and happiness were completely separate identities, not to be mixed or confused.

I have been a writer since I got my first journal on my fifth birthday. It has always been my source of laughter and relief, and it has remained the steadiest part of my life since that day. The journal was pink and had a princess crown on the lock. I mostly drew pictures of my mom and brother, but sometimes I managed to write a sentence or two. One of my favorite entries was about my brother: “Otto peed on the flor today. Mom is made.” But even after keeping a journal for almost fifteen years,  I couldn’t find the courage to drop Biology and pursue an English major—something that wouldn’t give me a definite career path. So I stuck with my plan and pursued science, but I wasn’t doing well and I wasn’t happy.

Although I knew English was the right thing for me, I was afraid of venturing outside of what I viewed as a “successful career path.” Growing up, I always saw men and women in nice suits, going into their office buildings downtown and leaving late at night in their fancy cars. Being anything other than that was the most terrifying thought in the world. However, at a certain point I had to put my happiness first, and I switched my major to English—likely the best decision I have ever made.

Looking back on all the hours that I spent doing work that I didn’t enjoy and failing classes that I couldn’t even appreciate, I feel inclined to wonder why we place so much emphasis on certain types of success. There are hundreds of different factors that contribute to our desire for career success: the limited job market, the influence of the media, and the competition that comes along with today’s materialistic society. Ultimately though, I think it comes down to human nature. We are genetically hardwired to sacrifice anything and everything to ensure the livelihood of our offspring and ourselves—but does this mean we can’t do what we love? I still don’t know what being an English major is going to lead to for me, but I know that it is going to give me more opportunities for happiness than anything else, and right now, that’s all I’m looking for.


Eleanor Haeg is an English major and Creative Writing minor at Washington and Lee but hails from Minneapolis.

The Writer’s Endurance

   writers

By Annie Persons

I recently read an article in the online magazine Brain Pickings titled “Famous Writers’ Sleep Habits vs. Literary Productivity, Visualized,” by Maria Popova (http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/12/16/writers-wakeup-times-literary-productivity-visualization/). The article discusses a data-map visualizing the correlation between wake-up time and estimated literary accolades of thirty-eight renowned writers ranging from Charles Dickens and Simone de Beauvoir to Ray Bradbury and Stephen King. I was not surprised to learn that Sylvia Plath woke up at a red-eyed four a.m. and that Fitzgerald didn’t wake until eleven (one can only speculate as to why, but the word “hangover” comes to mind).

 I immediately compared my own sleep habits to those of these writers, thinking Virginia Woolf woke up at 9am too…does that mean that I am like Virginia Woolf?! Should I start waking up earlier if I want to be more like Sylvia Plath? …Do I want to be more like Sylvia Plath?!  I then reminded myself that no, I will never be exactly like these writers; my best creative writing comes when I try to find my own voice. However, the article still raises the interesting question of what, if any, common habits do all writers have that make them great?  

Pondering this, I thought about the area that I felt I achieved the most in before college: running. In high school, I ran cross-country during the fall and track during the spring. When I first started running, I was terrible. I enjoyed practice but hated the races. They were hard. However, while genetics does play a role, getting a good time in any length of race comes from a unique balance of determination, stamina, and a touch of insanity. Running forces you to strike up a personal and dramatic relationship with your pain threshold. To get faster, you have to want to push yourself, knowing that the process will, undoubtedly, cause pain. But with this pain comes the feeling of flying, just you in your own head; the ineffable feeling of internal strength, and the satisfaction that comes with knowing that you—your own grit—is what propels you down your path. I did get fast, and I would never, ever chalk it up to inherited “skill” or “talent.” No. It was really hard work.

 I think that writing might be the same, or at least similar. After taking creative writing classes at Washington and Lee, I’ve discovered that creative writing gives me even greater joy than running. And not only do I love writing, but I enjoy editing my own work. I want to be better.

 So, back to Brain Pickings. Maria Popova’s habit-based theory made me realize something I should have realized a long time ago, something that most writers probably know. Like running, improving one’s writing comes with practice. It begs the endurance of rejection. It means writing when you don’t want to. It might also mean writing about something hard or painful that you would rather ignore, or it might have to do with the blood, sweat, and tears that comes with editing. It’s that paradox of loving writing but being too lazy to do it enough to make something magical.

 I want to feel that magic more often. I want to create it. And not so that I can see my caricatured face on a bizarre map surrounded by other literary giants. I want to improve my writing because writing—truly digging into my self and producing something that I’m proud of—makes me feel whole. Getting on that map wouldn’t be so bad, though.

runner


Annie Persons is currently the managing editor for Shenandoah. She is a junior English major and Creative Writing minor at Washington and Lee University. Her favorite pastimes are reading and writing, and she hopes to continue engaging with literature for the rest of her life.

Paper or Plastic: The e-Book Debate

kindleI can’t decide how I feel about my Kindle. Do you, valued Snopes blog readers, have a Kindle or other electronic reading device? Or what about an iPad, Nook, or other more advanced technology I don’t know about? All are applicable to the following discussion.

The modern age of e-books allows for the lazy reader (myself included) to access nearly any work online at the click of a button. Looking at my Kindle right this moment, it suggests that I first check out David Sedaris’s Let’s Explore Diabetes with Owls and follow it up with a foray into Dickens’s Great Expectations. That’s quite the spread. A little random and not entirely helpful to my individual tastes. This is I’m sure due to the fact that half of the books I’ve downloaded were for school assignments. Others reflect my choices from Christmas break and rare moments of leisure reading when I wanted nothing to do with schoolwork. These options consist largely of embarrassing ‘chick-lit’ and snarky nonfiction not likely to enter a school syllabus.

I actually do really want to read the Sedaris work, chiefly because contemporary postmodern literature is my favorite mode of writing. I know from experience that my Kindle is not the place for it. E-books make reading non-traditional forms of literature, which are often already hard to decipher, even more difficult to read. Take a look at a contemporary of Sedaris, Dave Eggers. The copyright page of Eggers’s creative nonfiction work, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, playfully tackles the normally mundane information that dominates any book’s opening pages. Having read the work in print, I knew to look through those pages on my Kindle as part of the book’s entertainment. Without that knowledge though let’s be honest: there is no way I would have clicked on the copyright page or dedication before clicking on the “Chapter 1” icon. His sarcastic interlude in the copyright information would have been lost.

The point of this diatribe is to identify my chief concern with the trend towards electronic literature. It contradicts the emphasis on form that occurs in much of contemporary writing, not to mention the potential for formatting errors. While I don’t have any books of poetry on my Kindle, I would imagine that this form of writing would be even more difficult to read on an electronic device.

So, should Kindles be abandoned? Despite my distaste for their obvious downfalls, at the end of the day I would say absolutely not. Where else can you access both David Sedaris and Charles Dickens with a few clicks, not to mention Alice Munro, Tom Wolfe, and Ernest Hemingway? Although there is no adjoining Starbucks or comfy leather armchairs included, the e-book has its own benefits. Literature has never been more accessible, even if the spacing and/or page numbers distort the work’s formatting. So pick up that electronic device one more time and let that backlit screen light up. Hey, at least those detachable, flashlight bookmarks have become obsolete—those things were a pain.


Amanda is a senior English and Global Politics double major from Atlanta, Georgia. Her preferred genre of literature is Creative Non-Fiction, and she enjoys hiking in the American West during the summer.

Do Feelings Speak Louder Than Words?

diaz
Natalie Diaz

The sum of my failed attempts at writing stories is far greater than my number of years on this earth. But I assure you, it’s not for lack of trying. I’ve certainly felt moved to write stories on various occasions—happy, tragic, confusing, exciting—only to find that I eventually lose my focus. I’ve had an extremely difficult time figuring out the science, embarking on writing a short story only to find that my idea is much more extensive than the allotted number of pages, or deciding to write a longer story and losing momentum early on. I seem to be more successful with poems. When I imagine the beginning of a poem, I am usually able to envision the ending as well. For this reason, poems are an easier way for me to express emotions, an easier way to encapsulate a feeling without trying to represent it through the lens of a plot. When I read, I am searching for something raw. More often than not, I am able to find this in poems and better able to recreate it through poetry.

Last fall, I was introduced to Natalie Diaz, a Native American poet of the Mojave and Pima tribes. I fell in love with her poetry. Apart from writing beautifully, Natalie Diaz is honest and reflective, using words as vehicles to express the emotions generated by her traumatic experiences. Her book When My Brother Was an Aztec is a collection of poems centrally focused on her relationship with her brother, a drug addict, as well as her family’s struggle with poverty. Rather than telling the story of her brother’s addiction through one specific narrative voice, Diaz writes poems that simulate photographs, capturing moments that have made an impression on her. When I read her poetry, I feel like I’m reading the pages of her diary.

In “How to Go to Dinner with a Brother on Drugs,” Diaz describes taking her brother out to dinner, an event that is really more of a complicated process than a recreational activity.  The tenth stanza reads: “Not long ago,/your brother lived with you./You called it, One last shot, a three-quarter-court/heave, a buzzer-beater to win something of him back./But who were you kidding? You took him in/with no grand dreams of salvation, but only to ease/the guilt of never having tried.” The last two lines of the stanza are so poignant. I’m struck by Diaz’s honesty, her admission that she “took him in” to relieve her own guilt rather than try to save him. I admire the clarity of her confession more than a stanza full of beautiful metaphors.

Diaz’s reasoning for taking her brother in, while expressed simply, is complexly human. It captures her internal moral struggle as well as an articulate sense of herself. Am I on to something here? Do you agree that the best poetry directly addresses emotions, or does it use metaphor to depict them? Do you prefer poems that maintain elusive representations of emotions and focus on language? No matter your preference, I encourage you all to explore Natalie Diaz’s poetry. She’s sure not to disappoint!


Laura Berry is a senior English major and Poverty Studies minor at Washington and Lee. She is from Madison County, VA, where she spends most of her time with her dog, Russ.

The Unlimited Western: A Character Trope

BenBurtChigurhClintWyatt

I love Westerns. I realize that most people love a good Western, but they typically require a quality example to appreciate the genre’s beauty. I, on the other hand, love all Westerns regardless of their competence. After all, how would we appreciate the mastery of an Oscar winning performance without a field of its spaghetti based peers? In this spirit I have watched many, many Westerns of varying quality in an effort to determine overarching themes, and I believe I’ve finally chased one down, cornered it, and beaten it into submission. Modern Westerns seem to rely in large part on the role of the ultimate badass, a character who relies on brains, strength, skill, and otherworldly luck to forge a path through the world.

Westerns both great and terrible are replete with examples of this phenomenon, typically in the form of an antagonist, but often enough as the lead character or an ambiguous combination of the two. The one defining, unchanging trait of this trope is an enforcement of the character’s personal morality, goals, and beliefs about the world around them through an application of their own power. Cormac McCarthy’s novel No Country for Old Men personifies evil in the form of Anton Chigurh, an assassin hired to kill the protagonist and retrieve the money he stole from the site of a botched drug deal. In the novel Chigurh kills indiscriminately, often choosing to let a coin flip decide the fate of one of his victims, and always surviving and overcoming through his power and skill. Chigurh’s warped sense of chaotic guidance provides a good baseline for the ultimate badass of the Western, a character capable of fighting the order of the world and winning.

>Once I realized the simplicity of the definition other examples began to stack up, some portrayed quite differently than Chigurh. In the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma the outlaw Ben Wade overcomes the men taking him to a train bound for prison, can easily escape, and yet chooses to board the train and honor the dying effort of his captor Dan Evans. The film implies that Wade will escape from prison on a whim in the future, clarifying that he chose to be arrested simply to let the world know what Dan did, because he felt like doing that. Similarly, in any of the iterations of Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name series or the portrayals of Wyatt Earp in both Tombstone and Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, the heroes are all unstoppably powerful fighters.

But why? Why do Westerns have to rely on an unstoppable pinch hitter as a plot device? I believe it is a combination of two beliefs, the first an abiding love of the romanticized freedom of the West, and the second a desire to see the world in black and white. The West has always been a symbol of freedom for the American people, but never has it been viewed as more so than the mid to late nineteenth century, a time when a single determined individual could forge their own fate. The end of that century represented the death of individualism on a particular level; no more could a skilled gunman battle law and order and win, the frontier became civilized. Added to this was an innate desire on the part of audiences for early Westerns to see polarizing themes, black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. People wanted their heroes and villains to be romantic, to stand for morality and overcome all obstacles with their power.

In the modern era this has evolved. Some Westerns still follow the white hat/black hat mold but often the villain is the most compelling character, and a flawed morality is the driving motivation in the film. The Western is a product of history and idealization and its focus and voice will always be changing, but it will likely never shed the role of the ultimate badass.

HandofGod


Nick Smith is a senior English and History Major and Creative Writing minor from Alexandria, Virginia. Nick loves all flavors of literature, but he has always had a fondness for science fiction and fantasy, especially when paired with comedy.

Meriwether Redux

 “I fear O! I fear the waight of his mind has come over him, what will be the Consequence?”
– William Clark

lewisAlthough I’ve never seen any persuasive evidence of it, I keep hearing rumors that Meriwether Lewis attended school at Liberty Hall, the forerunner of Washington and Lee University.  I’d like to know the facts of the matter, but I’m more intrigued by the controversy surrounding the unfortunate explorer’s death than his education, which was probably at the hands of a couple of Virginians who were tutors, independent contractors and not employed by institutions.

As we know from the Journals of Lewis, Clark, Ordway and their traveling companions (and more recently, from Ken Burns’ documentary “Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery”), Lewis was a brave and resourceful man, a master of logistics who could also shoot, draw, heal (after his mother, an herbalist), negotiate and take risks.  And he was a serious depressive whose post-safari life was neither prosperous nor fulfilling.  But he could write up a storm – narrative, description, speculation.  No wonder Jefferson hired Lewis on as his private secretary; no wonder the President selected his protégé to travel to territories as uncharted and mysterious back then as the moon.  The story of the search for a water route to the Pacific is one of our most astonishing, almost the American Arabian Nights, but when the rivers were mapped, the treaties established, the grizzlies and candlefish and mosquitoes discovered, described, catalogued and shipped home, Lewis had to move among and discourse with the earthmen again, and he was not cut out for that.

corpsHe was especially not possessed of the right temperament to be the Governor of Louisiana, and though he’d been a wonder of frugality and accountability on the great expedition, finances or at least financial records down on the bayou went awry.  Amok, really.  Reimbursements and receipts, bids and balances, debts and conflicts of interest – he was out of his element and attracted rivals and enemies like honey draws ants.  He took strong measures of brandy and laudanum.  He began to speak to phantoms and mists.  In the autumn of 1809 he headed east to try to explain himself to his mentor and benefactor, the Wizard of Monticello.

A companion named Neely, some servants and hard roads.  Rain and more rain.  Early in the journey he tried to take his own life.  Maybe twice.  Then on the evening of October 10, traveling the Natchez Trace in Tennessee, he arrived at a dogtrot tavern called Grinder’s Stand, offering bed (or pallet) and meager fare for beleaguered wanderers amid the border ruffians and hard weathers of the frontier.  The owners were Robert Grinder (away on business) and his wife Priscilla (present, and later, suspected, though not officially accused).  There were other guests; reports on their number vary.  He had a purse that disappeared.  He was almost incoherent (as Mrs. Grinder later said, like a man recently returned from the moon).  Anyway, nocturnal events transpired.  In the morning, Captain Lewis was dead, certainly shot, maybe cut, perhaps in his room or just outside, maybe on the bank of the nearby creek.  Though shots had been heard in the night, horsemen passing (not uncommon), no one had mounted a rescue attempt or even a curious inquiry.  Assassination? Quarrel, followed by murder?  Suicide?  Stephen Ambrose and a whole cadre of historians have passed the verdict of self-murder.  It’s the story taught in the schools, and if the election were held today, I’d vote with that party, as did William Clark and Jefferson (who would later write that Lewis suffered from “hypochondriacal affection”) when the grim news reached them.  The more recent Vardis Fisher murder-most-foul contingent has never convinced me.

Still, the common thread amid the conflicting reports is that he was shot at least twice, once in the chest, once in the head.  He may also have been slashed with a razor.

The core of the controversy is a set of documents, which I’ve seen only excerpts from and which relate the multiple and contradictory testimonies of Mrs. Grinder, who could not seem to settle on the number of bullet wounds or the location of the body and who had no persuasive explanation for not investigating the shots in the night.  She was either rattled by the investigation or keeping secrets; we’ll never know.  Why her husband, miles distant on that peculiar night, was actually charged is a matter for forensic historians to dance around for years.  Frontier record keeping has never been an art.  I do not believe for a moment accepted that the premise that the husband came home to catch Priscilla and Meriwether in flagrante.  That was not the Governor’s inclination nor the likely outcome of a frightened and frightening night, which early evening guests described as akin to a mad scene in a play.  Lewis was haunted; he was looking back, and something was gaining on him.  His history of misery is impressive.  His circumstances at the time made him right for despair, and he was like an evangelist spreading the gospel of panic.

Campaigns for exhumation in the name of justice or truth have never been successful, and now it’s a little late for the most astute cold case coroner.  So here’s my spin, which ignores much of Ambrose’s narrative of the end, as he seems to be extrapolating, right down to inventing dialogue).  Convinced that assassins dispatched by an enemy in Louisiana were hovering and that his mission was doomed, deep into self-medication with incompatible substances, fatigued and ashamed, he lay sleepless and fretful on his bison pelt pallet and aimed his pistols at his own head and heart, a strategy reasonable for a man whose earlier attempts had failed, a man who felt his soul was broken and who did not intend to fail again.

He was thirty-five.

flint

Did Lewis attend the precursor of Washington and Lee before its financial boost from the former and the charismatic leadership of the latter?  If so, he left no mark, no signature.  But the dregs of his dust have long blended with earth beneath a monument in what is now called Lewis County, Tennessee.  An inscription on the south face of the stone records “his melancholy death,” but the indelible and inspiring story we still tell revives that part of his life spent suffering the deprivations of the wilderness, smoking in the lodges of Mandans and Shoshones, mapping and naming botanical specimens, hunting game and stars for celestial calculations, and enduring all manner of ailments, eating countless dogs and roots and boiled jerkins, and through it all anxious and haunted by his own unshakable inner shadow, nonetheless forever amazed.


recent-meR. T. Smith has edited Shenandoah since 1995 and serves as Writer-in-Residence at Washington & Lee. His forthcoming books are Doves in Flight: 13 Fictions and Summoning Shades: New Poems, both due in 2017.

 

Clear and Resonant Mysteries: Submit Now

Shadow and shadowy motives, mischief and misbehavior, dark motives and serious riddles.  Our fall issue will feature work influenced by the modes of mystery, noir, crime and suspense.  We want work that explores secrets kept and secrets unlocked.  We’re not looking for procedurals or cozies, but still want stories, poems and essays with focus on character development, actions and their consequences and artful writing.  Shenandoah has always been hospitable to mysteries, but this winter, we’re downright fixated. Submit your work here.


recent-meR. T. Smith has edited Shenandoah since 1995 and serves as Writer-in-Residence at Washington & Lee. His forthcoming books are Doves in Flight: 13 Fictions and Summoning Shades: New Poems, both due in 2017.

 

Winter Submissions beginning January 13.

Our Submittable site will be open for submissions of fiction and non-fiction beginning January 13. We will be particularly interested in work that might be read as crime, mystery, noir and mischief fiction. We are also seeking essays on the crime genre, especially as practiced by writers who get results not overwhelmed by cliche or conviction.  While we’re not uninterested in Sam Spade, we’re more interested in Oates, Lehane, Wm. Gay. In other words, writers who seek to expand, subvert and remake the genre. Cozies and procedurals will not be at the center of our upcoming Noir issue.


recent-meR. T. Smith has edited Shenandoah since 1995 and serves as Writer-in-Residence at Washington & Lee. His forthcoming books are Doves in Flight: 13 Fictions and Summoning Shades: New Poems, both due in 2017.