I finished reading One Continuous Mistake with grim satisfaction, climbed my hard hill, refused to give up, even when Gail Sher failed to comfort me, got my hard insights and not one moment of enthusiasm or joy. How can anybody live like this? I want to wail. I (meanly) picture her shaving her head, chewing slowly, kneeling in front of her mat, day after day, lecturing sternly about silence, worshipping the space between words, waiting in austere stillness for the right moment to begin.

She gives me stark insights, stretches my mind in unexpected ways, takes me places I would not have gone, ever. Today: great ideas are the enemy of true, spontaneous writing. The more you cling to or carry the great idea, bending under its weight, loyal to its promise, the less you have left over for surprise, the true moment, the unexpected.

This morning I start writing quickly. I’m impatient with Sher, her final words building to some austere Zen crescendo of non-meaning, hidding meaning, inverse meaning. She says the ritual of a Zen meal is scrupulously structured, which sounds like ruthlessly structured, and I imagine all these people sitting around a plank table, grimly chewing each bite a hundred times, observing the food as it melts from flavor to pulp and then down the throat, nobody laughing, why laugh. And then I get that itchy feeling and I fold up the book and start writing. Only a few more pages to go and then I’m done with her. Which is not to say that I don’t learn something from this, or that the time is wasted. But I need more distractions, I need more fun. Can’t we learn to pay attention without sucking all the waste from our lives? Do we have to live in the woods on nothing, friendless, like Thoreau, in order to write about a bird?

This morning I read Gail Sher. God it’s hard going. She is austere and clear, disciplined and skillful. She wastes no time consoling or entertaining, tolerates no waffling or hesitation. Whenever she calls somebody Roshi, at the end of the name, like Ben Stein-Roshi, I immediately conjure a person that I wouldn’t enjoy, who is so deliberate about the way they brush their teeth and make their bed that they never have any fun, every single moment of their life a spiritual exercise, an opportunity to pay attention, an admonition to not Waste Time. And yet I keep reading, because she has these beautiful nuggets that appear, every twenty pages or so. I read one passage today where she named all the perfect obscure English words that we never use, and the words were so beautiful I had to circle them, read them aloud: cuirass, haruspication, flocculence. Meretricious. Nullifidian. Farrago.

And then she said, the writing is the person, can only be as deep as the person themself. If you are not fit, if you are not thoughtful, if your life is full of evasions and tricks, then your writing will be too. It struck me that you can really see that in her work—here is a woman who writes kneeling before a square of cloth, upon which she places a square of paper, beside which she puts a sharp pencil and a pen (I imagine a quill, or a fountain pen, something that has to be dipped carefully into a pot of ink to produce its lines), and you can see that practice in the hard polished nuggets of truth she writes, truth that you have to stare at for a long time in order to see into its dark center. Sometimes, once or twice, you can stare until your eyes cross and see nothing, and you want to get up and go find somebody to ask, “do you have any idea what this means?”

I thought about that dark, polished stone of hard wisdom a lot– we write what we are, and if we want to change the writing we need to change the person. That is secondary to the problem of practice—practice is the given, without that you have nothing. But the only control we have over the material itself is the way that we practice, which turns out to be nothing more or less than the way we live.

I read about Flannery O’Conner, who, I didn’t realize, died of Lupus when she was only 39. And in that fleeting time made herself famous, that’s how hard working and talented she was. Speaking of confidence, when asked what motivated her writing, she said, “I’m good at it.” The person who asked the question was so baffled by her confidence that he thought at first she had misunderstood him.

I recall, as I have before, the boy in my playwriting class, who read his play out loud and had to stop because he was laughing so hard, overcome with delight at his own romping imagination. I sat there in my dry, tortured silence, wondering what it would be like to be so pleased by your own words, so taken with your own stories. I asked my teacher, way back then, “how do you get the words to flow like that,” and he said, basically, “I have no idea. If I could tell you, I would be a rich man travelling the world instead of a poor teacher sitting here talking to you.”

What I would say to myself now, sitting here, after all these years, is that it’s much harder if you’re not burbling over with delight at yourself, but you can still sit down every day, for some hours, and find your way to something. That would be Melville, probably, Van Gogh, and Cezanne. Artists who kept after it, doggedly, not always joyfully, finding their skill with bullheadedness.