Recently, I was watching this documentary called Etoiles: Dancers of the Paris Opera Ballet. It’s sort of a day-in-the-life view of the way a ballet company is run and into the lives of its dancers—the politics, the training, the sacrifices. The discipline it takes to be a dancer always amazes me. Most start at a young age and are sent away for training. Most love their vocation passionately. At one point during the film, a dancer is discussing the challenges of working with different choreographers. He talks about switching from, say, a classical ballet one week, to a modern piece the next. He mentions a certain modern dance choreographer who likes to cover the mirrors in the studio, because the ballet dancers are accustomed to “correcting” themselves. That is, they are constantly checking in the mirror that the lines of each arm, each leg, are correct. They check their posture, the turn of their feet, the curve of their backs—basically, everything they’ve been trained to do from an early age. The choreographer of the modern piece wants them to focus more on feeling and emoting, and not worry so much about perfection.
I found this so interesting, and it leads my thinking in two
directions. First, to an ongoing discussion I had with a friend during my
college years. This friend liked to read mostly twenty-first century stuff, had
a thing for ee cummings if I remember correctly, and didn’t hold a reverence for
the literary classics. I, on the other hand, was resolutely working my way
through a list I had found somewhere, something like 500 Classics You Have to Read to Be a Worthwhile Person, and I
was finding many of them quite incredible, of course. So our argument was
framed around the question of whether you should immerse yourself in what has
come before to move forward, if there is a value to studying what the
higher-ups have determined to be the canon. I have no answer for this, even
now, although I’m happy to have read enough to feel part of the literary
conversation. At least the American literary conversation, and enough to dip my
toes, perhaps, into a discussion of worldwide literature. But when it comes to
writing your own stuff, you really have to find your own way, without regard to
what has come before. I would say that each writer’s path is probably different
but as long as you’re reading something,
all the time, you’ll be okay.
The other way my thinking goes, when I contemplate those
covered mirrors in the dance studio, is towards what the choreographer
described as emoting. There seems to be, for writers, a delicate balance
between looking outward and looking inward. If you are too introspective, too
self-aware when it comes to the world, you will probably write the same
character over and over. This works for some writers. And I would say that
tapping into your own experiences and emotions is very important in the process
of writing. Sometimes, however, I think it’s helpful to cover the mirrors and
try to look outward. Be a conduit rather than the source. Observe without
applying it to yourself. Imagine another way of viewing a situation, another
value system, simply perceive without applying your usual patterns of
thought. This takes a certain discipline, I suppose, and eventually you’ll have
to restrain yourself to a pen and paper or a keyboard, doing as so many who have
come before have done. But if you love your vocation passionately, you’ll have
no other choice but to keep bouncing from what you’ve learned to the brave new
world you want to create, no choice but to keep showing up, day after day, to
practice.
Your post reminds me of a story, well, a poem ...
ReplyDeleteWe are the mirror and the face in it.
We are tasting the taste this minute
of eternity. We are pain
and what cures pain. We are
the sweet, cold water and the jar that pours.
Rumi – transl. by John Moyne and Coleman Barks