Annie Dillard discussion questions

1) Dillard's process—at least as she describes it on pages 49-52—involves trying to work herself
up into a fury, drinking multiple cups of coffee, putting herself in a vise clamp (metaphorically),
and smoking multiple cigarettes. In short, she engages in the physical manipulation of the self in order to attain a “writerly” state of mind, to find the “lions” so to speak. Do you engage in any
physical rituals as you prepare to write? How much does your physical position affect your
ability to write? Do you have any pre-writing rituals? If so, what do they accomplish?

I don't really have any rituals that I go through when I write. I try to study the subject and problem in as much detail as I can. Then I simply let the words fall into my head, I try not to edit or censor myself while I'm laying down the words on the page its all important. Afterwards I read through it again and some of my awkward sentences usually spark new thoughts and this helps me to clarify what I am truly trying to write. Oh, and I like to have a snack by my side to keep my fuel levels full.

2) In the opening chapter, Dillard describes writing (or perhaps more accurately rewriting), as a
process of knocking out bearing walls. When you write or rewrite, how often do you knock
down those bearing walls? If we can think of bearing walls as the necessary structures that
support, yet also put limitations upon, writing, who creates these foundations/limitations? That
is to say, are the bearing walls to which Dillard refers generated by the writer, or by social
constructions?

I had a drawing professor once tell me that drawing is not the process of putting perfect marks down on the paper. It is creating mark after mark, erasing marks and then putting more mars down. It is a constant revision that creates a work of art. Are the bearing walls created by the writer or social constructions? I think that it depends on the writer, some writers are so afraid of those english rules that they cannot break them and others have no regard for the rules but are so self governed that they cannot step out of their personal bounds. These are obviously the two extremes and most people fall somewhere in the middle.

3) Dillard uses myriad metaphors to describe the process of writing—Inchworms, bees,
construction sites, exploding typewriters, etc. Do you find any of her metaphors particularly
salient for—or applicable to—your own perception of writing? Do you have (or can you come
up with) any metaphors or images that seem to describe your own writing process? Do you
consider metaphors useful in this sense?

I think that metaphors are always a helpful way to describe things that are possibly hard to understand. I really like her metaphor of the band, the writer is rocking out to it but the reader must turn down the volume of life to even hear it. Our writing needs to be as loud as life, it needs to have so much interest packed into every page that the reader cannot put it down. I believe that writing is just another form of voice. We are talking to our good friend and telling them a story that they have been waiting to hear all day. Don't bore your friend. They'll stop liking you.

4) Part of the reason Dillard uses so many metaphors (I think) is that she seems to take a
“mystical” view of writing. Do you share her sense of mysticism when it comes to writing? If
you do, it might be a line of narrative worth continuing. If you don't, then how do you view
writing in more concrete terms?

I love her mystical view of writing. I flat out won't read anything that is dry and boring. I read things because I like to see the imagination of the writer. I like to get lost in the book and feel a sense of excitement when I'm about to pick it up again. Telling a story is easy but making the reader want to read it is what seperates a writer from a great writer. This mystical view of Dillard's is one of many ways to engage your reader in the story. When I write I try and say things in different and sometimes backward ways, taking the easy route is the quickest way to bore the reader. I also try and write the way that I speak, because I feel writing is not just putting letters on a page but having a conversation with the reader. No one wants to have a conversation with a dictionary, they need the heart and soul of a live person.

5) It is possible (and I am truly not sure) that Dillard's thick prose, mystical descriptions, and
constant use of metaphors are meant more to entertain and intrigue us than to say anything
concrete about writing? It may be a mixture of both. Dillard is considered a very talented writer, as this book and other books show. But she seems determined to maintain a certain vagueness when writing about writing. Why?

Just as I said in the last answer writing is a conversation, vagueness helps keep this conversation alive. A 100% positive statement is hard to have anything more to say about. She is not trying to be the expert on writing, she is trying to start a conversation so that we too can develope our own ideas on the subject, it eeps our imagination rnning. Writing is not a science, it is an art. There are guidelines and rules but they are surely not set in stone and they are constantly changing.