Bird by Bird: Reading response journal

My first reaction to be assigned a book on the craft of writing was interest, with just a bit of skepticism; amazing books have been written without the help of this "guide to writing" so how necessary or helpful could it be? Almost the moment I started reading, however, I was soon cured of this attitude. The stress on the difficulty and misperception about being a published author right off the bat made me realize that I had glorified what it meant to be to write succesfully, or at all, much like Lamott's much exampled overeager and naive students. I pictured myself admist her dissapointed class upon realizing the reality of a career so often placed on a prestegious pedestal. One thing stood out to me however; Lamott urged that despite the aggravation, despite the often insufficent pay, and despite the real world dissapointment of being published, that if you love to write do it anyway. This made me consider the implication; if writing is your calling, you wade above the garbage and the distraction and the poverty for a real, and valid, purpose. Another thing I liked about the book was the philosophy of "bird by bird". I loved the philosophy actually (if you don't believe me check my favorite qoutes on facebook!). The idea of taking things step by step, bird by bird, and working on managable parts instead of intimadating wholes is, in my opinion, not just applicable and succesful in writing, but also in almost any aspect of life. It is not a new idea by any means, but for some reason this book really insprired me to embrace that mentality, and I have already started wondering how I got things done before without being consumed by stress.

The philospophy was impactful, and the spirit of perserverance exceptional (especially the part about the trials and tribulations of getting her second book published... that was crazy!), but there were also thing I did not like about the book. For one, I think that Lamott generalized her expierience of writing to all writers instead of presenting it as her own unique one. I agree that writing is not easy, and takes dedication, but the severity to which she claimed perfectionism and nueroticism affects the writing process seemed to be more of a personal perception than a universal truth. She even mentions in her book that there are people that can just sit down and write exceptionally without the need for tons of drafts or speculation, but then dismisses them by saying we shouldn't like people like that, facetiously of course but still implying that they are a different breed or something, and not valid examples of how to write. I think that a book on writing should adress all aspects of it, not just one specific process. I suppose she was just describing what she knew, and I would by lying if I said it wasn't helpful, but still I was bothered that she kept saying things like "no one I know is like that", or "I don't know any writer that thinks that way", as if the writing expierience is thouroughly represented in just the circle of people that she knows.

I admit, however, the only real way to truly assess this book is to be critiquing from expierience, which Lamott has -generelazation or not- helped convince me to aspire to.