
My inner critic used to be a lady in a slick pink jacket (think
Grease!) who sat on the edge of my couch smoking Misty Lights. If she couldn’t stop me from writing at all, she mostly carped on about technical skills—how I didn’t know enough about point of view, scene, summary, dialogue, whatever—to ever really be any good. Then she bitched about my fears of breaking the rules, of imagination in my work just sounding weird instead of unique. Apparently inner critics have no problem contradicting themselves, in case the Misty Lights weren’t annoying enough on their own.
She wore the pink jacket because a pink jacket is what symbolizes, for me, being able to make creative choices for what you want, not what you should do. I remember shopping with my mother, who always taught us to evaluate choices based on utilitarian criteria (mind you, I was in the second grade, here), like price, usefulness, return on investment. The very first time I remember making a choice just because it pleased me was the time I bought a slick Pepto-Bismol pink jacket at Penny’s. Now, my inner critic wears it to mock me. The jacket, I loved it. But it was tacky.
See where following a whim gets you? On the worst-dressed list. In writing, she said, following whims gets you some shitty writing.
I’ve learned to shut up the critic through practice, mostly, and mental tricks like reminding myself that when I write, it’s just an SFD (Shitty First Draft), so it’s allow to suck. Sometimes I actually sit down and tell myself before I begin “Write something sucky. Then put it away and mine it for good bits later.” That way when Pink comes in the room and shouts, “Who
pooped?” I can say, “Oh, that’s just my first draft. Right now, it’s allowed to stink.” And keep writing.
Now that I’ve had the experience to get over that amateurish inner critic, I’ve come across a new strain of critic to which I’m not entirely immune: The Professor. The professor isn’t a real professor; my real live professors are awesome. He’s an old Scottish snooty, brainy imaginary bastard who tells me that okay, so I can write some stuff that’s kind of good. I’ve had success in a couple small literary journals. But that doesn’t mean I’ll get anywhere. Slush piles are huge and getting a first book that sells well is unlikely, and it’s harder to write your second book than it is your first. When you get to the point where you’re not the emerging star some publisher can “discover” but you’re not established yet, that’s when most writer’s stall.
The Professor is Scottish and a professor on account of a critical, self-indulgent essay I read on science poetry written by such a character. He quoted his own work as supporting material for his arguments throughout the piece—as in, “I believe that a successful poem about science must be written by one with a PhD in astrophysics. To quote, well,
me, here’s an excerpt of my poem on the escape velocity of carbon molecules in the Kupier belt…” Hellooooo.
Anyway, the Scottish snot says that it’s better to be a scientist who writes poetry (like him) rather than a poet who includes science because scientists are always successful. Even if a theory is tested and proven wrong, its successful in that in eliminates a possibility. However, a poet can fail all the time—if all they ever do is get published in literary journals that have more submitters than subscribers, what Big Fat Losers of Doom. Furthermore, poets are too fluffy to get science.
Where’s Pink when you need her—
Who pooped?, indeed.
To me, there is no “us” and “them” about it. Sciences and arts are both high creativity in different forms. An equation is a language that creates something we may not be able to perceive with our senses just like poems use a language to generate something we can feel but isn’t tangible. That’s what I say to The Professor. That, and that starting out in little LitJo’s isn’t failure, it’s awesome. And for God’s sake, lose the kilt and put on some damn pants.