|
|
Debbie Taylor |
|
|
Joann Nesbit |
|
|
Susan Charnley |
|
|
Lenea Howe |
|
|
Rod Hill |
As part of the annual Martin Luther King Symposium, held in March 2005, five local writers, including three from the Mechanical Engineering Department, took part in a panel discussion, “Contemporary Authors: A Complex Community.” These writers, representing fantasy, historical and romance novels, short fiction, poetry and children’s books genres, addressed the writing process and the power of words to communicate ideas.
The participants were ME Secretary Susan Charnley; Graphic Designer Rod Hill and Coordinator of Education and Outreach Lenea Howe, both with the NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems; U-M Public Relations Representative Joann Nesbit; and moderator Debbie Taylor, director of the Women in Engineering office in the College of Engineering. An edited transcript of their comments follows.
ME: The title of the panel discussion was “Contemporary Authors: A Complex Community.” What was your goal in adopting this topic?
DT: We wanted to explore how and why our differences inform our writing. We thought the audience would appreciate it and learn something helpful from our experiences. The panel really related to the spirit of the MLK Symposium in that our discussion brought together a group of writers that was diverse in a number of different ways. We write in various genres, are of different ages, genders, ethnicities, backgrounds, and are from different parts of the country. Another goal was to share publication strategies, to share information about the individual writing process and to affirm the value of writing as a form of self-expression.
SC: My goals were to inform the audience of the breadth and depth of popular fiction in general and romance specifically and how those factors reflect the diversity of the writing community. I hope the audience was provoked to think beyond their stereotypes of the various writing genres.
LH: Writing is a medium that takes all of the experiences of each of our lives and creates a unique piece of art that is made better by the fact that the creator and the critic both add their own diversity into the reading and understanding of the work. We wanted to show a small sampling of the uniquely diverse group of artists here. I know there are many, many more people who should have joined us.
ME: What drives you to write?
SC: The stories
DT: As many writers will tell you, I feel compelled to write at times. I have a passion to inspire and encourage youngsters. I also wish to tell stories about unsung historical figures.
LH: My inspiration to write comes from my writer friends. Probably if they were painters, I would be doing more painting. Writing is another creative outlet that can be fun and colorful and make people laugh. I am also a painter and doll maker.
ME: You’re all accomplished writers, although in different genres. How did the idea for the panel originate?
DT: Lenea, Rod and I knew each other and I had received an email from Susan months ago about another topic. I remembered that she was an author, so, we contacted her. Then Lenea contacted Joann to increase the diversity and range of the panel.
The format called for Taylor to introduce each speaker. Each spoke for about 10 minutes about his or her work and its relation to the topic of diverse communities. The audience was then invited to ask questions.
ME: What points did you want to make to the audience?
SC: Authors, and indeed most artists, are a surprisingly diverse community. No two authors are alike in their backgrounds or their writing methods. We share common bonds of passion for a particular medium and activities within that medium. But often, our approaches to, and the results of, that passion differ widely. Give two authors of the same degree of expertise the same topic, format, etc. and the result will still be two different stories. Look at the individuals who make up any community, whether that community is one of profession, location, belief, avocation or even circumstance, and you will find the same elements in different arrangement.
RH: For my part, the forum allowed me to pursue a discussion of hate speech and how political rhetoric works to enflame partisans. My presentation, “Language as Violence,” used examples from Hitler, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and Newt Gingrich. I was very interested in initiating a dialogue on how words are used to separate people in both obvious and subtle ways.
JN: I wanted audience to feel free to write in any style and form they wanted. I wanted them to erase any fears of writing and just tell stories.
DT: I wanted the audience to come away inspired to pick up their own pens and pencils. I wanted them to know that writing is a craft worth developing. Everyday experiences, personal experiences, are certainly worth writing about, and when they need help, there are a number of different local, regional and national organizations that support writers. We also hoped the program would lay the foundation for an ongoing north campus writers group.
LH: We wanted to talk about our experiences in this art form and possibly get a group of writers organized.
ME: What do you think was accomplished?
DT: I think the panel lit a spark for aspiring writers in the audience, provided an appropriate, meaningful outlet for the panelists, and allowed us to contribute to the campus-wide MLK Symposium. The audience was small, but appreciative. Several individuals in the audience inquired about forming a writing group on north campus. In all, I thought the audience was responsive and asked great questions.
SC: Most audience members indicated that they had enjoyed the presentations and discussions. Many said that they would like more information on the processes and business aspects of professional writing. If nothing else, we formed a community of writers in the process of developing the panel.
JN: I hope I gave courage to those in audience who wanted to write.
RH: For the audience, I’d like to think that some were made aware of how even subtle manipulation can be harmful to peace. I may be naive in that assumption, since hate speech is everywhere now, and people may already get it.
LH: If we can find time and a place, we had several people who were interested in starting a writers group.
ME: What did you, personally, get out of the experience?
SC: The opportunity to convey an important message about how perceptions apply not only to people but written words.
JN: I met some great folks on the panel and from the audience. In fact, I have continuing contacts with a couple of them.
RH: For me, it was good to focus on writing and to collect examples that might provide a nucleus for further exploration.
LH: It is always fun and inspiring to talk about your work and to interest others in artistic expression.
DT: It was enriching to interact with writers of different genres, especially this group.
ME: How does your work at ME affect your writing and your desire to create and take part in the panel discussion?
SC: My work at ME makes my writing possible. I could not support myself on what I currently make from royalties, so, in a sense, my ‘job’ supports my writing ‘habit.’
RH: Working in such a collegial atmosphere certainly helps. The level of discourse here compares favorably with most of my other constituencies.
LH: I had just written the Dr. Seuss-type poem, “Trouble in Shoetown,” for a publication we are doing here. Most of the writing I do in ME is grant reporting, grant seeking, or scholarly papers for presentation at meetings. I am also lucky to be able to write for fun. Although there is no time here at work to actually do the writing, I do that when I am traveling for the Center. It gives me something to do at night when I’m on the road recruiting.