Best Of - Michael Anthony

Why We Read

An Annotative Essay on: Netherland, by Joseph O’Neill

Different books are read for different reasons. Textbooks are read so that we can be informed in what matters most to us: math, biology, philosophy, etc. Suspense and thriller books so that we can be entertained by what interests us: vampires, the mafia, war, etc. Romance novels so that we can be enthralled in what eludes us: love, passion, desire, etc. And the classics so that we can be left pondering why certain things matter, interest, and elude us.

“Yet something eluded the book itself which kept it from entering such a category.”

What about a book, though, which fits into none of the previously outlined categories? Or what about a book that fits into all of them? Or half of them? This is where Netherland lays. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the book by Joseph O’Neill, when trying to classify it I ran into trouble. Well written and a page-turner, though not as entertaining as a Dean Koontz or Stephen King novel, nor as thought provoking as a classic like Catcher in the Rye; where then, does that leave a book, and all others like Netherland? It is classics which contain ‘All of the above.’ Netherland, I believe, had the makings of a classic. It had suspense, mystery, it informed me in subtle ways about life and philosophy, it enthralled me, though briefly, in passion and desire and things which elude the typical life. All things which make a classic. Yet something eluded the book itself which kept it from entering such a category. Thus, I believe Netherland joins the throws of bastard children. It fits nowhere. And this is where it gave the most instruction.

Even though I believe Netherland to be a good, though, unremarkable book, there was a lot to be learned. Both from the parts I enjoyed and disliked. The first issue, and eventual learning, I dislodged from Netherland was the art or dis-art of description. There were many descriptions which made me stop and appreciate the care and revisions in which the author must have gone through to create such a finely tuned well-crafted sentence; while simultaneously, there were several descriptions that I simply skipped over because they were simply, or un-simply, too much.

“As I repeatedly went forth with him and began to understand the ignorance and contradictions and language difficulties with which he contended, and the doubtful sources of his information and the seemingly bottomless history and darkness out of which the dishes of New York emerge, the deeper grew my suspicion that his work finally consisted of minting or perpetuating and in any event circulating misconceptions about his subject and in this way adding to the endless perplexity of the world.”

The above is merely an example of an eighty word sentence that the author used to get across a simple idea. It is one of many such examples. My issue with such writing is that if there’s a forty-five word sentence about how angry a person is, but by word eight I realize that the author is simply describing a basic state of anger; I say to myself “I get it,” and simply skip ahead. Why would I need to read the other thirty-seven words?

“I can only imagine if O’Neill had managed to write the entire book in such an unassuming yet powerful way.”

I’m reminded, as well, of a one hundred and seventy-nine word sentence that appeared in Netherland. Now, I have to believe that there had to be an easier, more flowing way, to say what O’Neill felt he needed to say than in a one hundred and seventy-nine word sentence. I find myself asking: why? Why did this writer deem it necessary to write in such a garrulous way? Was it simply to show off his aptitude for verbosity? And the thing is, the sentence in question, is unnecessary. Though very well written, it perhaps could be used stand alone or in a shorter piece. But in a novel length work, when working through a story and trying to get to the meat of the matter, and trying to be entertained, and trying to learn, and trying to be enthralled, such long-windedness comes across as literary arrogance and, perhaps even, laziness. I’m reminded of the Einstein quote, “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” If Einstein insists on conveying quantum physics as simple as possible, then why is it that authors insist on convey emotions as complex as possible? Can anger, hatred, love or happiness truly be more complicated than the cosmos?

I’m also reminded of Faulkner who self-admittedly wrote some of his work, in such a way, only for the sake of making it as confusing as possible. I have to, again, ask myself why? What is the point of such an endeavor? I understand the aspect of forcing a reader to figure out something on their own. And I support such a thing when done right, and when necessary. But those moments need to come intermittently and only work best, or seem to have a purpose, when it involves something meaningful and worthwhile. This certainly wasn’t the case for Faulkner and it often wasn’t the case for O’Neill. The additional problem that arose regarding this in Netherland was that O’Neill often got it right when writing his descriptions, which made it so much more frustrating when he got it wrong. A few of his descriptions which I believe were perfectly written and which I pictured perfectly in my mind (both happen to be only fifty-one words):

“He believed in owning the impetus of a situation, in keeping the other guy off balance, in proceeding by way of sidesteps. If he saw an opportunity to act with suddenness or take you by surprise or push you into the dark, he’d take it, almost as a matter of principle.”

“Our lecturer, a destroyed-looking man in his sixties, appeared apologetically before us, and I am certain that a compassionate understanding tacitly arose among the students that we should do everything to assist this individual, an agreeable and no doubt clever man whose life had plainly come to some kind of ruin.”

“If a powerful work can be created using 50,000 words, then I find myself wondering why it sometimes takes people 150,000 or more.”

I can only imagine if O’Neill had managed to write the entire book in such an unassuming yet powerful way. Surely, then it would have made it into my category of classics. But alas, O’Neill had left me skipping sentences and entire paragraphs because even though I enjoyed the style and language they were written in, I found them unnecessary. This led me to my first lesson from the novel and into an inquiry of my own writing.

One of the things I’ve constantly struggled with, and something I believe all writers struggle with, is the appropriate dimensions of a description. How much is too much and how much is too little? The word count for some of my favorite books ranges between 35,000 to 65,000 words—and you can bet that in those books I didn’t skip over a single paragraph, sentence or word. In books such as those, which in the scheme of things have such miniscule word counts, there has to be a severe economy of words—but done in a way without losing anything. If a powerful work can be created using 50,000 words, then I find myself wondering why it sometimes takes people 150,000 or more. This is what I struggle to do in my own writing. Often, when editing my pieces I struggle with the descriptions. I will write a nice basic two sentence long description, erase that, and then write a beautiful three paragraph description, replace that with an abrupt ten word description, delete the description all together, and then in the end, try to find something in the middle. I never feel happy with what I’m left with, and that’s my struggle: trying to find out how to say something as simple, yet eloquently as possible. I can’t say how specifically, or precisely what, Netherland has taught me regarding this; however, since the book provided, in my mind, perfect examples of both extremes, it has made me more aware of it and left me pondering over ways to find the happy medium.

For more annotative essays and other book related stuff click here.

Best Of, Blackout Poetry, Blogishness, Blogishness, Politics / News, Politics / News, Uncategorized

Blackout Poetry: Combat Action Badge

April 14, 2015February 24, 2016 Michael Anthony

This poem/post will probably be a little more controversial than most Blackout poetry posts. That’s because it involves Combat Action Badges, and the current debate regarding them, and when/how/if/under what circumstances they should be awarded. My position on this is somewhat unique, though I know I’m not alone…

This article originally appeared in the Army Times and was over whether or not Combat Action Badge’s (CAB’s) should be retroactively awarded to soldiers.

“We don’t fight wars for awards.”

Here’s my take: Back when I was in the army, and serving in Iraq, I was awarded a CAB while serving in Mosul, Iraq. Now, at the time, CAB’s were a huge thing. Everyone wanted one. Some people wanted CAB’s so bad that they were even willing to lie to get them and “pretend,” as though they had been in a direct combat situation. It was a sad, sickening, spectacle. Several of my commanders lied about being in combat (and then backed up one another’s stories) just so they could get the coveted “Combat Action Badge.” This, ultimately, led myself and several fellow soldiers to come up with the saying “Never trust a soldier with a chest full of metal, unless the metal is shrapnel.” Lying was so prevalent that towards the end, the CAB, and several other awards, meant nothing to us.

People were trying so hard to get CAB’s that they were petitioning the Army, even back then, to change the regulations. Some soldiers wanted CAB’s for being around unexploded ordnance (I kid you not) others wanted unit-wide CAB’s since some of us had been in combat (that is actually too ridiculous for me to be able to explain in a blog post). And the coup de grace of all this is that at the end of my deployment, several fellow soldiers wanted me to lie about the events of an attack so that another soldier could be awarded a CAB. I refused, and the soldiers got upset with me, as though I was the asshole.

Anyway, if you can’t tell by now, I have no respect for soldiers, or anyone else, who feels the need to bitch, complain, and whine that they don’t have enough awards to pin on their chests.

We don’t fight wars for awards. Act like it!

Poem Transcription:

Debate

Over

CABs

The Combat Action Badge

Was made to

Award Veterans

They want to be recognized

For more military/war related blackout poetry click here.

To read more about the military experience and CAB’s check out the following book:

<br />

Self Improvement / Healthy Living, Self Improvement / Healthy Living

5 Rules for Vegan Camping

April 12, 2015February 24, 2016 Michael Anthony

The five things you need to keep in mind while camping as a vegan.

As the days finally grow cooler, and the trees begin to change, there’s no better time to go camping then in late August or September. And there’s no better place to go camping then right here in New England. From the Berkshires of Massachusetts and the campgrounds of Rhode Island to the mountains of New Hampshire, boundless woods of Maine, and tranquil ponds of Vermont. Finding a place to go camping in New England isn’t the hard part, the hard part is being able to have that authentic camping experience, while still keeping it vegan.

Through all my years of camping and going from carnivore to vegan, my hunting knife has now been replace by a tofu press, my fishing pole by a portable blender, and my reserve of hotdogs—for when I didn’t catch any fish, which I usually didn’t—replaced by Seitan beef. When I went camping this year, though, I knew that I wanted to go back to just the basics. I didn’t want to worry about bringing extra batteries for the blender or that special grill and tinfoil for the tofu; I want just man, nature, and food. And luckily, for just a couple of bills, I was able to reserve a campsite for a long weekend. With two fellow vegans, I headed into the wilderness of New Hampshire.

The following tips—learned from experiences, and fellow vegan campers—will not only help you preserve your veganess while having an authentic camping experience, but will also help preserve the campgrounds so that you can return year after year.

1. Bugs: It’s debatable, but most vegans are against killing bugs; especially for no reason, other than they’re annoying. During one camping trip last fall, a friend had brought with him one of those two hundred foot area bug bombs. The thing was crazy. The mushroom cloud it created reminded me of the bombs I’d seen exploding in Iraq. Not only was this thing killing every mosquito within a two hundred foot radius, but it was killing every bug in the area, and it certainly wasn’t helping the birds, or any other animals who breathed it in—namely, me.

Bug bombs, if you don’t already know, are not the best option. Any type of spray, whether it’s a bug bomb, or typical repellant spray, is not good for the environment or the animals in that environment. If you’re going to use a bug repellant, then the best option is a lotion rather than a spray, as fewer toxins are released into the air for birds and animals to breathe in. However, if you’ve got something against even lotion bug repellants, chemicals and all; you could always use the army method and just break the tops off a pack of matches and swallow those to keep the bugs away—it’s not recommended. The best option, though, besides bug repellant lotions, and swallowing matches, is to start a campfire.

2. Building a fire: It’s not camping without a campfire, plain and simple. There needs to be a place to tell ghost stories, sip beer, and listen to your friend play the same song on his guitar—over, and over, and over, again. When building a campfire, though, there’s more to it than meets the eye. A good campfire should have as minimal impact on the environment as possible, and it should leave no trace after you’re gone. To do this, you need to follow three simple rules:

Most campers tend to make their fires too large. A campfire should only be large enough to cook your food on and gather around. A two foot by two foot campfire is more than large enough to cook food for three to four people and the smoke from it covers a large enough area to repel the bugs. When making a campfire, err on the side of too small rather than too large.
Only gather sticks and twigs that have already fallen, they should be no thicker than a baseball bat. Do not break branches off and do not saw through fallen logs—fallen logs are a crucial key to the habitat of a forest.
After you’ve made sure the fire is out, take the ash and scatter it over a large area.

3. Food: It’s not camping unless you’re cooking something over a fire, and vegans have more camp-worthy foods than most would think. My favorites are Field Roast Mexican Chipotle sausages and corn on the cob. The corn on the cob and sausages also allow for those, all too necessary, male induced camping jokes that are not possible when eating a block of tofu or drinking celery smoothies, “Good sausage, man,” “Mine’s a little bit bigger than yours,” “I like to nibble on just the tip…” Anyways, a thin stick found in the woods can easily be whittled down to a point to hold your sausage and corn over the fire.

And then let’s not forget the s’mores! I was vegan for a full YEAR before I discovered there was such a thing as vegan marshmallows. Before camping this year, I bought a big bag of them, along with several dozen dark chocolate candy bars, and a box of cinnamon graham crackers. Along with our fire-cooked sausages, corn on the cob and s’mores, all three of us felt as though it was as close to an authentic experience as possible. We didn’t miss our blenders, Vitamix’s, tofu presses or stoves, at all.

4. Hiking: Keep to the trails that are clearly marked. I know that it seems lame, and like the ‘square thing’ to do. But parks often have suggested routes and closed off areas for a reason. Whether it’s the rare birds that are nesting in the area, the turtles who’ve just laid their eggs and which you’re likely to step on, or simply that the area is damaged, the rocks could be loose and the slightest nudge by an uninformed hiker could send the whole place into a disarray killing hundreds of animals and creating a landslide. And please, if you’re vegan, do not go hiking or camping when its hunting season, it just feels too much like the set up for some crude joke to have a vegan get shot by a hunter.

5. Trash: Do not leave your trash behind! Even if you think it’s organic, “But it’s compostable, man.” Screw what you do at home; the forest isn’t the same as that crappy compost heap you keep behind the shed at your mom’s house. The forest is a self-sustaining environment and our job as good vegan campers is to leave as little impact on the landscape as possible. Take everything home!

Follow these simple rules and your next vegan camping trip will be all the more fun, and better for the environment!

Picture: Flickr/Stelluccia

Best Of, Blackout Poetry, Blogishness, ptsd, Uncategorized

Blackout Poetry: Veteran Suicides

April 10, 2015 Michael Anthony

In case you’re not familiar with Blackout Poetry, Blackout Poetry is the act of creating poems by blacking out words that appear in newspaper articles (or books, but typically newspaper articles). I was inspired to give it a shot after being introduced to it by Austin Kleon. I’ve got a six month subscription to The Army Times and I’ll be experimenting with it throughout the next few months.

—

This was an article that appeared in the April 13th 2015 edition of The Army Times. The article discussed veteran suicides across active duty and reserve/national guard soldiers. In 2014 suicides decreased for active duty soldiers but increased for reserve soldiers. With 22 veterans killing themselves every day in the United States (we’ve lost two to suicide from the unit I served with in Iraq) this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I tried to boil down the article into its major points and through the redaction process I came up with the poem pictures above (and transcribed below).

Suicides Up

Suicides confirmed

it was their own

hand.

Suicides Down

Service members

protect us

support them.

Crisis line, 800-273-8255

For more military/war related blackout poetry click here.

To learn more about the war-time military experience check out the following book:

<br />

Politics / News, Politics / News

Bowe Bergdahl – Is He a Traitor?

June 3, 2014February 24, 2016 Michael Anthony

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the final remaining captured American soldier, has been released.

U.S. Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl has recently been released from capture, after being held captive by Taliban insurgents for five years. The U.S. released five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl. The prisoners are: Abdul Haq Wasiq, Mullah Norullah , Khairullah Khairkhwa, Mohammed Nabi, Mohammad Fazl (all are former high ranking Taliban officials, and are straight up bad dudes).

The White House released the following statement on the matter:

“Today the American people are pleased that we will be able to welcome home Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, held captive for nearly five years. On behalf of the American people, I was honored to call his parents to express our joy that they can expect his safe return, mindful of their courage and sacrifice throughout this ordeal. Today we also remember the many troops held captive and whom remain missing or unaccounted for in America’s past wars. Sergeant Bergdahl’s recovery is a reminder of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield. And as we find relief in Bowe’s recovery, our thoughts and prayers are with those other Americans whose release we continue to pursue. . . .”

It’s a great moment to have a soldier return home after being a POW; however, I’m afraid that Bowe’s welcoming will be short lived. For many people in the country, outside of the ardent military news followers, the most surprising aspect of this story isn’t that Sergeant Bergdhal’s has been release, it’s that there was still even a capture American soldier in the first place. The wars of today are not like the wars of yesterday. In WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc, the entire nation was enthralled in the affairs of the military and wars. But today? Many people wear t-shirts, and have bumper stickers on their cars, but people in this country are not as effected, and affected, by the wars as they used to be. If you’re been following the news, it means that Bergdahl is coming home to a country that is politically torn apart, fighting its way out of a recession, and that after five years in the care of the Taliban, he’ll be coming home to receive VA care from a broken system.

We went to war with Afghanistan because the Taliban were allowing terrorists to freely train under their tutelage, protection, and control. Now we are releasing five high ranking Taliban insurgents. We will be leaving Afghanistan in a matter of years, and Bergdahl, along with his fellow veterans, is coming home to a country that had forgotten about him, forgotten about the war, and to a government that sees its veterans as nothing more than a strain on the bank account. Many are talking about Bergdahl’s release, but we cannot allow it to distract us from the issues facing veterans and how it is, and why, we got ourselves into this mess in the first place.

But that’s not the end of it. There have been rumors for years that Bergdahl wasn’t a POW, but was instead a deserter. There are stories that Bergdahl willing walked off base. That he was anti-American and a traitor. Many people are saying that because of this he didn’t deserve to come home, that he shouldn’t have been rescued and that he certainly shouldn’t have been traded for known terrorists. These are all good, valid points; however, these people are missing one important thing. Bergdahl is an American soldier, and the facts are that we don’t know the facts. The American justice system works on the notion: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Many people are willing to hang Bergdahl before the full truth is known. Those people are misguided. At the moment, Bergdahl is an American soldier who was a POW, who was held against his will (he tried to escape several times), and who withstood harsher conditions than 99.9% of American’s could ever understand, or grasp. If he’s guilty of desertion, sure, absolutely, give him a dishonorable discharge, but he’s still an American, and he’s still warranted the basic American principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Because if we don’t live by our principles, then what were we fighting for over there? I fought, I’ve been there, and it’s these basic principles that men and women have fought and died for. It’s moments like these which test our country most.

–Photo: U.S. Army/Flickr

Best Of, Politics / News, Politics / News

VA Scandal – Veterans Dying on Waiting List. What does it mean?

May 27, 2014February 24, 2016 Michael Anthony

Iraq War veteran Michael Anthony discusses the latest VA crisis and what it means for veterans and the United States.

You may have seen the story in your Facebook newsfeed, or read about it in your newspaper, online or off, or heard about it on the news, but wherever you first heard about it, it’s a big deal. Veterans, U.S. Service members, have been dying while waiting for their appointments at the VA. The inciting incident happened at a Phoenix VA where 40 veterans died while waiting for medical care. Sick people die all the time, even veterans, so what the hell then is the big deal? Well, the big deal is that these veterans suffered this fate because employees at the VA were encourages to falsify waiting list documents. The VA had even sent out a memo with tips and tricks on gaming the system and how to “get off the bad boy’s list.”

These were “Isolated incidences,” according to Eric Shinseki, head of the VA. Shinseki went on to say,

“What I want veterans to know … this is a good, quality healthcare system, not perfect, and when we stumble across our imperfections we’re going to do something about it, we get to the bottom of it, and to the best of our abilities assure it never happens again.”

“If we’re risking our lives over there, then America needs to let us know, and help remind us, who and what it was that we fought for.”

Imagine if tomorrow a commander were leading a mission through the mountains of Afghanistan and he lost forty troops! What do you think it would mean? Well, in modern warfare, the loss of forty American troops in one mission, is huge! Most likely a loss that large, this late in the game, would mean that someone screwed up … big time. The commander would be investigated, it would be front page of the newspaper, congress would get involved, etc. And that’s in WAR where there’s an actual enemy trying to kill you. These veterans died at HOME where they’re supposed to be safe and be helped. Who then is the enemy? Shinseki? No, only through negligence. Then Who? Well, that’s less clear, and less defined, but ultimately, the enemy is us.

The problem with the VA, and which often accompanies mistakes this large, is lack of a clear mission. Congress gives the order “Get the waitlists down,” so Shinseki gets the waitlists numbers down. But he does so in a shady manner. That is lack of a clear mission. The goal isn’t to get waitlists down, it’s to serve veterans. A directive needs to be clearer than that, and that is where I believe the problem lies. In order to fix the VA we need a clear idea on exactly what needs to be fixed, and then we need a clear directive and mission to accomplish. A mission that cannot be accomplished with the mere fudging of numbers, but a mission that takes blood sweat and tears to accomplish. Because that’s what veterans give on the battlefield, and it’s the type of ethos they deserve back home.

“Well shit is broken, and we bought it, and it’s time to fix it!”

It is instances like this, which, in my opinion, lead to such high instances of PTSD in veterans. When a veteran joins the military and goes off and fights a war he’s basically making a transaction: “I’m willing to risk my life for my country. For my brothers and sisters and the ideals we all hold dear.” But here’s the problem. A deal like this is a two-way-street. If we’re risking our lives over there, then America needs to let us know, and help remind us, who and what it was that we fought for. Because instances like this, make it harder to see what the hell it was we were fighting for, and make it harder to deal with the shit we’ve seen.

A close friend of mine had to wait sixteen months before becoming approved for his VA disability. During those sixteen months he had to take out loans and increase his credit card debt in order just to pay off his private medical bills. One incident is too many. I remember a story of a military commander who worked as a safety commander in the army and his job was to decrease on-the-job accidents. At one point, the new base he was assigned got a 98% safety rating. It was the highest safety rating any base had ever gotten in the military. The day after the celebration the commander walked in and saw all the soldiers under his command celebrating. Seeing this he got angry and asked his soldiers: “What the hell are you celebrating?” “We got a 98% safety rating,” they exclaimed, “it’s the highest anyone’s ever gotten in the military.” To which the commander responded: “Wipe the smiles off your face and get back to work. That means 2% of our soldiers are still in danger.” Now that, is what being a commander is about.

Shinseki called the death of 40 veterans “Not perfect.” He called the death of 40 veterans under his watch, “Not perfect.” And they died because he taught his people how to “game the system.” It’s less than “not perfect.” It’s a fucking travesty.

What then is the answer? Well, Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell says that veterans should be given a universal healthcare card “No questions asked.” And what would this mean for universal government run healthcare?

This has nothing to do with the politics of war, Iraq is over, Afghanistan is almost done, and the troops are coming home. The debate is done, the warhawks had their war, and now the peaceniks will, hopefully, get their peace, but that doesn’t change the facts of the situation. As the first President Bush said after withdrawing troops after the Persian Gulf War: “You break it, you bought it.” Well shit is broken, and we bought it, and it’s time to fix it!

–Photo: Chuck Hagel/Flickr

Blogishness, Blogishness

My Daughter Pooped on Me

April 27, 2014 Michael Anthony

twin daughters naping on one another So…my daughter pooped on me yesterday, which I hear is common to parents, which made me realize that every1 in the world, all 7 billion of us, have pooped on at least one person in our lives.

Good for us!

It’s these shared experiences which bring us closer together.

Just something to think about.

Best Of, Blogishness, Blogishness

My Writing Process

April 22, 2014 Michael Anthony

Some friends in my grad school program are doing a “My Writing Process” blog tour and it looks like I’m up (check out their links at the end).

1. What am I working on?

My thesis for grad school. It’s a 50,000 word postwar memoir. Also, a few screenplays with friends. Some poetry here and there and, of course, that great American novel.

2. How does my work differ from others of its genre?

I suppose nonfiction tends to differ simply because it’s based on the writer’s pov and experiences. But I do have a quote hanging up on my wall that says: “The role of a writer is not to say what we all can say, but what we are unable to say.” I think that’s another way how we all differ—or, at least, should. It just depends on our view of the world and what it is we think people are unable to say.

3. Why do I write what I do?

No idea … I don’t tend to lean towards all that “philosophy of writing” stuff so this question is probably the toughest … but I think I just write what I do because I feel like it … maybe it’s inspiration … maybe it’s determination … and then again, maybe it’s Maybelline. But I think for me, it’s as simple as writing what I do just because I feel like it, nothing more, nothing less. A cigar is a cigar, and all that good stuff.

But, again, I suppose, I would harken back to the quote in question 2.

4. How does my writing process work?

Eh. I got a two month baby at home, so my process, to say the least, has changed quite a bit in those two months. But, in general … I don’t write every day, as many writers suggest, and instead I tend to binge write. On days that I work, I’ll come home, play with the baby, kiss the girlfriend, clean up the house, eat, and then go to sleep. On days that I don’t work, I’ll clean the house, play with the girlfriend and baby, and then try to write for the rest of the day. I still manage to write a fair amount every week, just not every day.

So I guess that’s “My Writing Process.” Here’s the promised links of some great writers from my grad school program—who have definitely put things more elegantly than I.

Kyra Renee Clay, Traveling to Me: The Road towards living (a Dream)

Alexis Marie Writes

Sabrina Fedel

and Cynthia Platt, Scribbling in the Garret

Best Of, Blogishness, Blogishness

Is It Worth It To Get An MFA In Creative Writing?

February 4, 2014February 21, 2016 Michael Anthony

As many of you know, I’ve been enrolled in an MFA program for creative writing for the last year and a half. I’ve started my final semester now and will be graduating this summer. And now that things are working their way towards an end, I thought I should address the question that had been banging around in my head a year and a half ago: Is it worth it to get an MFA in creative writing?

The short answer is yes, and the long answer is yes … but…

Is there anything that you can get out of an MFA that you can’t get out of a good writer’s group? No. Absolutely not. (Well besides the degree, if you’re looking to teach, but let’s assume that you’re getting the MFA just to be a better writer and not a teacher.) The problem is that there’s no chance of finding a good writing group outside of an MFA program—let me clarify, there are good writing groups, but most of them are run by people with MFA’s and they usually include people who already have MFA’s. If you go out and look at the average writing group, you’ll see a handful of people who are engineers, dentists, homemakers, lawyers, janitors, people who want to be writers, but most often lack the commitment and passion necessary to truly make a worthwhile effort at becoming a successful writer.

This doesn’t mean that an engineer or dentists can’t be a writer too, or that they can’t become a writer … Charles Bukowski was a postman, Tom Perotta was an English teacher, but what you get in an MFA is training, and access to a group of writers who are more committed and passionate towards writing than the average person.

Think about it. People in MFA programs have a level of commitment. They’re willing to commit two years, forty thousand dollars, and hundreds of hours of work. Where can you find a writing group with that level of commitment?

I’ve been to other writer’s groups. Plenty of them. They’re simply not at the same level, in commitment or quality.

You can put in the hours without an MFA program, but what you’re paying for is feedback, learning experience, and friendships with fellow writers. An MFA program doesn’t just introduce you to a group of writers who will help you critique and edit your work for the two years of the program, it introduces you to a group of writers who will critique and edit your work for years afterwards. Your peers are just as important as the faculty.

I’m reminded of an article by two researchers who wanted to find out why some firefighters were better at their job than other firefighters. After pouring over all their research it turned out that the best firefighters were the ones who went out for beers afterwards with their fellow firefighters. And why did this make them better at their job? Because when they were out drinking they’d tell stories, “One time when I was in a fire … I did this…” “…and another time I did this…” That was the biggest difference. And it wasn’t about getting drunk, it was just that the best ones were constantly learning, even while getting drunk. It’s the same for our fellow writers. We go out and talk and tell stories, “this worked for me for character arc,” “this didn’t” etc.

So, again … is it worth it? Yes, absolutely. But can you still get the same benefits without the time and money? Yes, of course you can. For me though, it’s all about stacking the odds.

Related Article: Five Tips to Writing an MFA Personal Statement.

Photo: itsmeritesh/flickr

Politics / News, Politics / News

Dear Politicians: The 1950’s called. They want their masculinity back.

January 27, 2014February 24, 2016 Michael Anthony

In the hunt for masculinity and being a better man, there is, unfortunately, no escaping the politics associated with “Masculinity.” We often hear politicians bickering back and forth, claiming that one has moor hutzpah than the other (read: bigger balls) and the debates go ad infinitum. This can readily be seen in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie is a man known for his “bullying tactics,” both in rhetoric and actions. But more than just Christie, it shows the divisive, bullying, trying-to-be-masculine-but-not-really, nature that politics has taken.

We hear it all the time—send the troops to war, invade this country, invade that country, but the politician with the strong so-called “Masculine” demeanor is never the one doing the fighting, they’re just the one sending people to do the fighting. Yet, it’s these politicians who talk a big-game who are often referred to as “Masculine.” Case in point, again: Chris Christie. Brit Hume, a political analyst for Fox News, described Christie as an, “old fashioned masculine muscular guy.” Christie is the same politician who once verbally berated decorated Navy SEAL William Brown. Christie called Brown an “idiot,” and had him escorted out of a town hall debate.

Let me repeat that… Chris Christie had a decorated Navy SEAL escorted out of a public town hall debate and referred to the guy as an “idiot.”

Now, obviously, a Navy SEAL cannot actually be bullied by the likes of Chris Christie, but it’s the fact of the matter that such a political culture exists where we have politicians trying to bully SEALs, because they may not agree with their “Masculine,” ideas and politics. After being escorted out of the building William Brown even had this to say about Christie: “I think he’s a bully sometimes.”

A veteran, someone who has put his life on the line for his country, is talked down to by who… a politician. And the politician is the one being described as an “old fashioned masculine muscular guy.” Too often nowadays we mistake loud voices for strong voices. We mistake the politics of “wanting to go to war,” with the strength that it actually takes to “fight in a war.” The ones who want to take away help for the poor are laundered through the media as “tough,” and “fatherly,” while the ones who want to help the poor are described as “weak,” and “babying.”

Now, the whole point of this isn’t merely to berated Christie as a bully, but it just so happens that he is the epitome of the so-called “masculine-politics” that’s being pushed on us by the media. Which brings us to the video.

In this video, Bill Maher tears apart the so-called “masculinity” that politicians are trying to portray these days. The video starts off with a topical discussion about President Obama stating that he wouldn’t want his kid to play in the NFL, and then quickly dives into Christie and the other divisive nature of masculine-politics. Enjoy!

–Photo: Marsmet471/Flickr

Category: Best Of

Annotative Essay on the book: ‘Netherland,’ by Joseph O’Neill