Please Stop Thinking

Kathryn Harrison, author of True Crimes: A Family Album, has some simple advice for her writing students: Please stop thinking.

Each day I post a new Online MCAT CARS Passage. This is for anyone who wants to practice for the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Section.

Every article is selected to meet the AAMC MCAT criteria for MCAT CARS.

Subscribe by email to receive a new free practice passage each morning.

July 14, 2017 – Free MCAT CARS Practice

Question: What is your summary of the author’s main ideas. Post your own answer in the comments before reading those made by others.

Kathryn Harrison, author of True Crimes: A Family Album, has some simple advice for her writing students: Please stop thinking. In our conversation for this series, she discussed a favorite Joseph Brodsky poem in which a man has a beautiful, restorative fantasy about a person he once loved—a dream that’s possible only with the lights turned off. For Harrison, the poem is a metaphor for the way writing works; good things, she says, happen in the darkness.

True Crimes is an essay collection, and the subtitle is apt: The book portrays a series of blood ties—examinations of the people to whom Harrison has been daughter, mother, wife, protector, victim. But it’s a work of self-portraiture, too. The short works are consumed with questions about how identity changes over time, how selves die and are replaced, and how the mask we confront in the mirror appears to ourself, and to others.

Harrison is the best-selling author of novels including Envy, Enchantments, The Seal Wife, and Thicker Than Water, as well as the memoirs The Mother Knot and The Road to Santiago. Perhaps her best-known book, 1997’s The Kiss, was a harrowing, courageous, and artful memoir about being coerced by her father into an incestuous affair. At the time, several prominent male critics questioned the book’s candor; in The New Republic, James Wolcott wondered out loud whether some secrets are too unseemly to be told. One hopes it has become more acceptable, if not easier, for victims of sexual abuse to publicly share their stories. If so, it’s in part because of the efforts of writers like Harrison.

Kathryn Harrison spoke to me by phone from her home in Brooklyn.

Kathryn Harrison: I don’t know when I first encountered Joseph Brodsky’s poem “On Love,” but I know what reawakened my interest in it. I was in Boston looking at the collection of Rothkos at Harvard, and a line from the poem popped into my head—as if the Rothkos had summoned it.

It’s a poem about a man who has dreamt about his dead partner. The possibilities that were destroyed by losing her are restored in the dream: the idea of their making love, and having children, and being in each other’s company. It ends by underscoring the commitment that extends beyond mortal life—in a realm that is not conscious, not present here, not material, not cerebral. You might call it the realm of the mystical, or the ineffable. Whatever you want to call it, it’s a realm I believe in.

Throughout the poem, Brodsky sets up a contrast between light and darkness. With the lights out, memories of the dream-woman consume the narrator—so much so that she seems to become real. When he flicks the light on, though, she vanishes:

And with the bulb turned on
I knew that I was leaving you alone
there, in darkness, in the dream, where calmly
you waited till I might return …

Many human transactions take place in this realm of darkness. On unconscious planes, through dreams—even, on some level, in people’s ability to communicate without words. By darkness, I don’t mean black, as in lacking light. I mean dark: the aspect of life that is not accessible through our conscious processes of analysis.

The poem’s essence is in this line:

For darkness restores what the light cannot repair.

I think Brodsky means that light can “repair” things in the material world, but that there are limitations of that kind of fixing. Medicine, for instance, can heal in the light. But if the spirit isn’t well, there is no life. And there is no way to restore what’s lost, sometimes, other than through dreams and imagination.

I don’t think I’m saying something sad when I say that. There’s huge redemption in the fact that there is a world that is dark, or opaque, to conscious life. The realm of darkness that heals and restores, and allows memory to bind up, provides the present with a kind of solace that is almost holy. The line is about the holy and generative properties that exist within us. And so, I think the line is about God. A realm that God inhabits.

We could probably say that about a Rothko, too.

The line also defines writing, at least writing the way I experience it. For me, writing is a process that demands cerebral effort, but it’s also one informed by the unconscious. My work is directed by the needs of my unconscious. And through that dark, opaque process, I can restore what might otherwise be lost. In a novel, I can restore lost voices—usually a woman’s—and give words back to the silenced. Or in memoir—The Kiss restored my voice, broke a silence imposed on me.

I have to write. It’s not an option. When I write, I am literally building myself a place in which to live. Once I’m firmly established within the narrative I pop awake in the morning and it’s the first thing I think about. Not in an analytical way, as in “Oh, I haven’t really reached the crisis point and it’s already page 200—I’d better work on that.” It’s very much just running towards and into the place I most want to be.

When I can’t go to that place, I feel anxious and unhappy. I love writing, and I’m miserable without it—and as time goes by, the people around me are miserable also.

It’s funny, I teach writing, and before I taught I never would guessed the thing I say most often is: “Please stop thinking.” But people really write better without thinking, by which I mean without self-consciousness.

I’m not calculating about what I write, which means I have very little control over it. It’s not that I decide what to write and carry it out. It’s more that I grope my way towards something—not even knowing what it is until I’ve arrived. I’ve gotten better over the years at accepting this.

Of course, the intellect wants to kick in—and, in the later drafts, it should. But in the early stages of a book, I deal with potential self-consciousness by literally hushing the critical voices in my head. The voices that tell you: “Oh, those aren’t the words you want,” or “you shouldn’t be working on this part now,” or “why not use the present tense?”—on and on. Anyone who’s ever written anything is familiar with that chorus.

Writing a first draft, you can become paralyzed by these thoughts. So I literally tell the voices to quiet down. I praise them for their perspicacity, and I tell them how much I need them—that I will want them later. But I cannot listen to them right now, because I am confused by them.

And I don’t sit there waiting for that perfect, beautiful sentence, because I know I’m going to sit there forever. So, as I tell students—start out by tripping, why don’t you? Then get up and fall over again. Just as long as you go.

When I’m writing the way I want, the way I love, which is without thinking about what I’m writing, a strange thing happens: I feel simultaneously the most myself I could possibly be, and at the same time totally relieved of self. I become, I guess, a version of myself that isn’t filtered through the detritus and clutter of experience. We can’t control so much of what happen to us in life. Even our own actions unfold in time in ways we can’t possibly imagine. But there is someone inside who remains untouched by all of that. That person may not really exist in the light, but she is there, waiting, in the dark.

Once a book is out of my hands, I have no illusion that I have much control over its future in the world. It’s like giving a radio to a reader: They turn the knob, it plays, and they think, “Oh great!” Or it doesn’t play, and then they throw it out. Giving a book to critics is different, and worse—more like watching your radio being taken apart, not even hearing it play.

I don’t really like publication. Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful to be making a living doing what I love. But though I love to write, I don’t much like being a writer. I don’t really have much sense of who Kathryn Harrison, the writer, is. She has little to do with me, actually.

Sometimes, I have to run out and pretend to be that person for a while, which requires a lot of energy. I’m very much an introvert. But I am also a willing and cooperative person in terms of serving the thing that I care about, which is writing. So if that means that I show up and give readings and interviews, even if it takes a lot of energy just for me to work myself up to appearing in public, that is something I’m happy to do. I’ll present myself to the world as a writer if it helps me continue writing.

I always think of that beautiful Kafka quote: “A book must be an axe for the frozen sea within us.” I want art to be that axe. I want art to tear through the veil between the dark and the light. Art has to exist that way, because art is material even though what it expresses is ineffable. A book might be inspired by darkness, but it is a material, concrete thing made from words—real things that, put together, mean approximately the same thing to me as they do to you. That’s what I do, what a painter does, what it means to engage in any creative act: balance there, on that line between the dark and the light.

Adapted from theatlantic.

Review

Leave a comment below with what you understood to be the author’s main ideas. Ask about this daily passage in office hours/workshops for help.

Subscribe to my Daily CARS mailing list by entering your email.

The full list of daily articles is available here.

Have a great day.
Jack Westin
MCAT CARS Instructor.
Contact Information

15 Comments


  1. The author compares “darkness and lightness” from a poem to her own abilities as a writer. Her most efficient and naturally stage of writing occurs in the darkness, aka her subconscious/unconscious efforts; while the light repairs or edits later drafts of her works. With this in mind, she instructs us to stop thinking and let our darkness work, and monitor/edit later.

    Reply

  2. Harrison’s poem presents the author’s perspective on how writing should be, in darkness where we are not self-concious, and when we stop thinking about writing!

    Reply

  3. stop thinking (Harrison), write better unconsciously (Harrison), early stages of writing = unconscious (Harrison), balance between dark and light (Harrison)

    Reply

  4. MIP: write w/o self-consciousness + writing = important/ restorative for author

    Reply

  5. Darkness = good, no thinking = better writing (Harrison)

    Reply

  6. Writing is best done with honesty, unedited and in the subconscious. The darkness represents a place where ideas come from that normally wouldn’t be discussed out loud in public.

    The author also discusses her style and purpose of writing to communicate ideas like sexual abuse that is difficult to discuss. Along with this the author talks about her own enjoyment and use of writing as a release from her subconscious and how she feels distinct from her author persona during this process

    Reply

  7. Harrison discusses the importance of writing “in the dark” which means to think as little as possible when writing to let the subconscious do most of the work to fill the writings with inner feeling

    Reply

  8. Writing: light|dark : conscious|unconscious : thinking|imagination, balance the line in between.

    Reply

  9. Discovered in a Rothko poem, Kathryn Harrison endorses the act of creating ‘in the dark’, or without the critical thinking. In this manner, she is able to express herself in ways that she could not if she were critiquing herself along the way. When creating without thinking, she thinks herself as a different person, writing what she is meant to write.

    Reply

  10. Author draws a parallel between darkness and lightness and writing “with thinking” and writing “without thinking”. she finds the importance of writing without letting self-consciousness getting in the way, as a way to truly enjoy and let all of one’s desired thoughts flow free.

    Reply

  11. MI: Harrison, author and writing teacher, talks about the writing process, what it means to her, and says that she tells students that one should write by stopping thinking (stop being self conscious) and try to transverse the “light,” reality, or daytime world and go into the darkness where there are fewer creative limitations. Says that it applies to all forms of art. Describes Brodsky’s poem as Harrison’s influence, explain her idea of contrasting light with dark. Harrison does not like being a writer, but says she enjoys being in the process.

    Reply

  12. Darkness= “unconsciousness”
    Author heals through dark, shouldn’t use conscious in early writing.
    No control of book’s future after completed.

    Reply

  13. The author doesn’t explicitly praise the works of Harrison, but it is evident that he does believe she is partly responsible for sexually abused individuals to share their story publicly, which is positive.

    Harrison believes that we must go to the “dark” which is the sub-conscious because that’s who we truly are. In “light” we are influenced by ourselves (the voices) and other people that it masks the true capabilities we are to have. Like a good painter, we must break the division between dark and light.

    Reply

  14. The writer, Harrison = talking about her writing experience, darkness = good, not to think = better for writing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply