Okay. I’ve scrapped much of what I drafted for this post. Instead, I’m pasting in a few extracts of random jottings, conversations, and responses to writing prompts in the last month or so[1]. Some chaotic thoughts, shredded remnants of what I’d originally intended to write, follow. And this is a long post, so grab a mug of something and settle in.
Ready? These are drafts [she wailed loudly to cover up her delicate vulnerability ha ha]! Fuck it, here goes.
In response to a prompt to write 400 words about the origin of my name (558 words):
My name, my first name, Suzanne, means Lily or Rose, an unintentional connection when naming my own two daughters: the eldest with the name of Lillian, the younger with the middle name of Rose. All of us blossoming.
My own mother chose my name, naming me after her favourite cousin of many. I do not know what made Suzanne my mother’s favourite cousin, but I imagine it might be because Suzanne was kind, that perhaps, unlike the other twiggy branches of the family tree—even the trunk of my mum’s own mother—banished mum when she fell pregnant out of wedlock. She was forced to endure the pregnancy in secret, to endure the betrayal alone, to endure the abandonment of the man she had loved not just with her body but also her soul to create the wee soul swimming in the womb of her body.
Mum was sent to hide her pregnancy on a remote farm where the five kids who lived there threw rocks at her while the farmwife, their own mother, watched and said nothing. Perhaps she encouraged her children in the methods of this stoning. This stonewalling.
To name is to categorize. Bastard. Whore. Slut. And the name stuck. Not on the outside of mum’s skin but worming deep in her mind, free floating the very cells of amniotic fluid the foetus hiccupped down and in, down and into their own cells. This is the way of water. It trickles incremental with the power to erode granite. Walls of stone.
Suzanne, when I met her in New Zealand, visiting when I was twenty-three, was a gentle quiet soul. She kept a canary in a cage in her kitchen who she spoke with each morning, coaxing his song. His name was Bird. He was who he was. Plain and simple and straightforward and beautiful. I marveled the amazing synchronicity of Suzanne’s movements when one day she stepped into the garden with a pair of scissors glinting the dawn. She clipped a stem with a few leaves of milkweed, brought this inside and placed it in an open mason jar. She held the jar up, a jewel in the light, to show me the chrysalis hanging the fork between leaf and stem. The chrysalis was chartreuse with a tiny necklace of gold, specks of dark between the golden granules. A monarch chrysalis, she said. But of course, I knew, for my mother too, continents and oceans and seasons and days and nights across the planet also brought monarch chrysalides inside and kept them in open mason jars to marvel the wondrous metamorphosis, the miracle of worm become butterfly.
As the butterfly formed, cocooned within, the chrysalis darkened to black. Then it cracked, splitting open from gold shoulders down to tip, the walls of the chrysalis transparent as glass, smashed open with the power of wings within. And the butterfly unfolded to hang beneath a milkweed leaf, to dry its wet wings to a powder coated blaze of fire colour. When it started exercising, fanning for flight, my mother and Suzanne stepped into their gardens with their wide-open jars to witness the transformation that is flight. That is freedom. And the flowers blossomed all round. And in this way, I learned how we and everything in this world are all connected. And not just by how we are named[2].
One paragraph’s worth of writing toward the long project (386 words):
The condom broke. This is how I imagine it years later from the benign safety of a different generation. A generation—only a couple of decades—where, when the condom broke, sliding out from my own slippery insides to reveal its terrifying tatters dripping loosened semen on the insides of my thighs, a Sunday morning I recall, I looked up my physician’s name in the phone book and called his house and his daughter, who I knew was in grade three, answered, and he took an inordinately long time to come to the phone, probably summoned from mowing the lawn or some other mundane morning task, while I waited, dripping the vestiges of lovemaking onto the coffee table in my eighteen year-old boyfriend’s living room, the marble chess pieces strewn round my naked ass where they’d been knocked sideways to the floor, knight to queen (!), which was, I realise with hindsight, probably better categorized as fucking instead of lovemaking, fun fucking where, even when the marble bishop stabbed my spine’s base, my voice climbed the heights to climax fast and shuddering, and, when my doctor who had been my doctor since almost before memory, finally answered his telephone, I, ever polite, apologised for disturbing his personal peace and calmly, rationally, explained my situation, omitting, of course, the unnecessary details of the coffee table, the chess board, its marble pieces gone flying, but supplying the dates of my last period, a riveting estimation of my ovulation window and talked through a risk benefit analysis of heading to the hospital emergency to request a morning after pill, a pill I knew from friends’ experiences of bleeding a hemorrhaging volume of blood down the shower drain, the running water drowning the sounds of wailing hearts and cramp pain, I really preferred to avoid, but only slightly less than an unwanted pregnancy at age nineteen (I would be entering university in the fall), my physician and I agreed, I might forego it. This time. He reminded me I ought get back on The Pill. I’d used oral contraceptives since aged sixteen and discontinued them by aged seventeen, deciding they “made me squirrely”, and not in the sexy way. Condoms would have to do. But, alone as a contraceptive with wildly rambunctious sex (gawd that feels good!), they were risky[3].
Random lines from notebooks[4]:
- I don’t want to be a whore; I want to be a whore and so much more. (2025)
- If I were to create an avatar, I’d give myself a unicorn horn. I wouldn’t necessarily strap it to my forehead. (2019)
- Internalized misogyny – IM – good nickname for a dildo. (2024)
In a coffee shop:
“Suzanne, stop flirting with the barista.”
“I’m not flirting with him; he’d know if I was flirting with him.” [Young Irish barista blushes bright pink.]
Speaking with a friend:
Me: “Well, she is a widow…”
Friend: “Yeah, but she isn’t a failure; a death is different than a divorce.[5]”
Sentence practice in paragraph form, playing with narrative distance[6]:
Camilla is holding her sorrow in, squaring her shoulders, dreaming not of the lovemaking that landed her here, discussing “the solution” over tea with her mother and G’s father, his stern eyebrows, not of the electricity that sparked her lips when she first kissed G at the back of the lab, thinking not of the fetus hiccupping the amniotic fluid bubbly within her, the baby who has not yet quickened. It shouldn’t be a conversation between four people. It doesn’t matter if the fifth person, the baby, might also have a voice. She hadn’t really heard G, when he said the condom broke. He turned away. He hadn’t met her eyes. He’d reminded her of a sheep, caught in the barb wire of a fence. The roundness of his naked shoulders, the muscles rolling beneath the heat of her palms, the dry sweet scent of crushed straw beneath, the way his body slipped so easily, becoming part of her own, his moist breath huffing the whorl of her ear, how two bodies become one, she’s not remembering it now. There are rules, love does not govern them, the laws and the systems and society’s expectations and the differences for men, for women—any notion love might prevail or triumph to hold a creation together. The baby will be born, surrendered to another family, and Camilla’s own development arrested there, at age twenty-three, the moment she’ll never forgive herself for, the pain of giving her baby away, the heart beating at the center of her liquid addiction[7].
I’m sure I’ve written this before: it often happens a particular piece of writing lands below my eyeballs at the perfect time. I mean, at the perfect time to teach me something I need to learn, at the perfect time I might finally be able to understand a work of writing or perceive it differently from a previous reading, at the perfect time to crack my eggy thinking open.
This time it was Professions for Women, an abbreviated version of a talk Virginia Woolf gave to a branch of the National Society for Women’s Service on January 21, 1931. To add a little context to this inter-war period date, two million women in the UK had replaced men in traditionally male jobs during WWI and they had only secured the right to vote in 1928, three years before Woolf delivered her speech. These facts feel like distant history, but this is not at all long ago.
A synchronicity: also read The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie with book club this month, set in the inter-war period, though, written in 1961 from a woman’s perspective and of women experiences and I laughed out loud a lot while reading it. Muriel Spark writes funny. An exploration of the fine line between nurturing and grooming; how thought and action might be manipulated. The creeping insidiousness of fascist and/or religious ideologies into malleable minds, how might it be achieved[8]?
Why this little history lesson? I was struck by the optimism and agency of women, the possibilities and independence, Woolf commented on, opening to them at that time, women in their prime (!)…and struck… in a kind of devastating way, [here, I crave a distracting paragraph about waves of feminism, or better, gender and sex politics, or best, something raunchily erotic about how much I enjoy sex[9]] because I feel we’re falling—failing—backwards. [Huh, this subject is also an avoidance, a path too easily followed.]
Okay, [wince], here it is (took paras and pages to get here): because reading Woolf’s speech, I recognized how, in my own marriage, I was (am?)—embarrassingly so[10] —what Woolf named the Angel in the House. I was (am?) that selfless, sacrificial woman whose sole purpose in life is to soothe, flatter, and comfort men, but also …everyone else, other than myself, while raising a family with efficiency. And my experience of being that woman was to become invisible. It is partly what I’m exploring through the writing of the long project. A small part; I’m far more interested in how experiences of shame, betrayal, cruelty shape…not just a life, but relationships. And not just within a lifetime but crossing generations. How legacies of pain endure and continue to shape…behaviours, choices, how and who we love. Also, thought. But wait, what “Jean Brodie” groomed me to be the Angel when I was born into a generation and country where women experience more choice and more access and more autonomy and more agency than any other historically? These ideas are related; I’m exploring them, using my life as the sacrificial lamb (and suddenly I’m thinking of mint sauce).
Most recent writing of the long project, evidenced by the extracted examples of writing practice above, has been attempting to write the story of how, in the 1960s, my mum “surrendered” (this is the wording used at the time) two different babies for adoption. Two different fathers. Two different countries with different sets of laws. I have two brothers in addition to the one I grew up with[11].
Each time I’ve tried to enter and write the scenes circling mum’s experiences, I slide into writing my own instead. I’ve allowed myself to drift, trusting the process of writing, following where it takes me. I’m both bewildered and grateful to report the imagery arising out of these seeming tangents bring to light very strong images to crack open my thinking about mum’s stories (the bishop!). But the writing has been very slow and very hard to sit with and real work to get it to the page. I’ve been trying to understand why[12]. And Woolf’s speech calls out and answers my pained confusion[13].
“Killing the Angel in the House was part of the occupation of a woman writer.”
Woolf ‘s speech talks about how she managed to kill The Angel. And I believed I’d killed her too[14]. But Woolf continues her thinking, naming the Angel differently, accurately, as The Phantom. And I’m going to mash up some of her sentences here, which I’m sure is a very grave sin, to elucidate my own understanding…think of it in the same way as rap sampling:
“It is far harder to kill a phantom than a reality. She was always creeping back when I thought I had despatched her. Though I flatter myself that I killed her in the end, the struggle was severe; it took much time… To speak without figure she [the woman writer] had thought of something, something about the body, about the passions which it was unfitting for her as a woman to say… The consciousness of…the truth about her passions had roused her from her artist’s state of unconsciousness. She could write no more. The trance was over. Her imagination could work no longer… women writers…are impeded by the extreme conventionality… control the extreme severity with which… freedom… [is]condemn[ed] in women… telling the truth about my own experiences as a body… The obstacles against her are still immensely powerful–and yet they are very difficult to define. Outwardly, what is simpler than to write books? Outwardly, what obstacles are there for a woman rather than for a man? Inwardly, I think, the case is very different; she has still many ghosts to fight, many prejudices to overcome. Indeed it will be a long time still, I think, before a woman can sit down to write a book without finding a phantom to be slain…”
So…my Writing Resistance…it’s this haunting…the phantom in my bones, it’s the air I’m breathing, it’s part of me…this belief that what I write, the experience of being a woman, a mother, a daughter, a wife, cannot be said, or is uninteresting, or has no value. As Wool says, “the aims for which we are fighting, for which we are doing battle with these formidable obstacles…must be perpetually questioned and examined.” I’m interested to learn how my beliefs settled into my cells, forming my selves, and influencing all the choices I make in this one precious life[15].
[1] Why? Because I think it’s important to show one another our first draft writings…it’s a nakedness to be sure …my thinking is naked and vulnerable, not to mention my writing skill level (uh, shallow) BUT I find in these first draft writings, they’re authentic, real…something from the collective subconscious has washed through my body of embedded experiences and sprinkled the page with tiny glittering tidings, the shells of ideas, memories, feelings I can pick up and pocket to explore with deeper curiosity. I’ll try to signal these vibrations I feel from my drafty writings using footnotes. The collection selected to post here illuminates how my thinking is circling around similar ideas as I struggle to fold them into being a part of the long project (book length work in progress).
[2] This piece was lightly edited when I transcribed it from my notebook where it was written by hand. I’m still stunned by how it unfolded to these images, these resonances, written in a fast flurry of < 30 minutes. The vibrations, for me, emanate from the words “stone” and “wall” signalled by the repetition…but also the metamorphosis …an encasement (cage), a transformation, a freedom. The metamorphosis is both literal (butterfly) and metaphoric (what is hinted at with the baby in the womb and the cells and the genetic legacies being gulped there…but also…that caged canary…what is he doing there? Random thought: canary in the coal mine…).
[3] The vibration here comes at me as if it the text flashed pink neon: the bishop chess piece, piercing the narrator’s spine. This image appeared in the quick writing, it’s not a specific memory at all…but it’s one of those glittering grains illuminating a pathway, a gift straight from the subconscious, a guide toward something brewing in the larger work. My mum’s experience of giving two babies up for adoption in the 1960s is not the central subject or theme of the long project at all. But it’s helping to form those ideas, and her history is part of it all …this blog post reveals more to me about what it is I’m exploring. Glad you’re here along for the ride. Really. I need hand holding. And encouragement, however tenuous it may be.
[4] I like how these lines hang together. No pun intended.
[5] This was meant as a joke; we laughed hard because many women (and not men) have made me feel like I’ve failed a most important task: marriage. And note, I have/do/trying to squash… felt/feel/feeling like a failure (IM at work).
[6] Practicing with Nina Schuyler using a paragraph and sentences from Rita Bullwinkel’s novel Headshot.
[7] With this last sentence, Nina said to be cautious here with this level of narrative distance…ask myself, have I lifted too far out of the story and summarised too much, given away too much, when this might be better as information meted out with scene and story? And I understood, in a way I hadn’t quite grasped before, how this is also another way of exploring the difference between showing and telling…and how that choice can be deliberate to move the story along, or drop into a moment of character or narrator reflection, or create authorial intrusions, or create a clue as to what might be coming later in the story … many techniques to be employed by this method…and I think I often default doing this, pulling myself out of story to this high level bird’s eye view summary, especially when the scene or the subject matter might require sitting with emotional discomfort, getting it onto the page…and this means I cheapen the experience for a reader, when it’s much more exciting or entertaining to get in close and personal…to experience together. Still, I love this movement, playing with psychic distance, that it can be done across sentences within the same paragraph.
[8] Monstrous recognition this pattern of history is repeating.
[9] And I must clarify something here: when I write about misogyny, sexism, the patriarchy, feminism, etc. I am NOT writing against men, and certainly not an individual or specific man. I LOVE MEN. I am writing about ideas and ideologies and I’m far more interested in how these ideas shape human lives and human relationships. It’s difficult to write and talk about these ideas because the shrill voice of the masses are salivating and ready to burn the witch at the stake or tar and feather the feminist or accuse her of becoming a raving lesbian, as if this were something bad, or a hairy man hater …we need to talk about these ideas outside the confines of categories. They’re interesting. [edited out: a long diatribe repeating the same idea and without any academic level of feminist theory because I’m a neophyte in this respect.]
[10] One of my dearest and oldest friends when I announced I’d left my marriage, said, “we couldn’t understand it, you were like some goddamned Little House on The Prairie woman out there [on the farm].” This hurt of course….the collective “we” …how much had my life been discussed?…but also, the truth of it – I verily (ha ha) believed, stupidly, I could do it all: raise my children well and healthy; grow my own food; develop a professional career; maintain a creative art practice; be a kind and supportive partner; be a dutiful daughter-in-law; be an honourable daughter and sibling. Maybe I was able to do it all, at least for a little while. Like, three to five minutes?
[11] And our family reunited with both brothers …and the most fascinating discovery for me has been that despite being raised in three different countries, in three different families, we share the same ways of moving our arms and hands when we speak, the same way we place our bodies in space. I love that gesture is something inherited. Unfortunately, we also share the same addictive tendencies to alcohol …or perhaps this is simply a symptom of living with pain of similar origin…
[12] Skip this extra-long footnote if you don’t want to read my whining. No? Fine then. I’ve also been tired and sensitive and overwhelmed and vulnerable and weepy this last month worrying about my job. After five years of remote and hybrid working, the Secretary of Cabinet announced all public servants will be required to report to their headquarter office (a new term btw to skirt the possibility staff might satisfy their required in-office days at a ministry building closer to where they live). The decision significantly impacts people who struggle to balance raising children or caring for elderly parents with their workdays, roles more often shouldered by women. The decision unnecessarily costs the tax-payer with the sudden and inane administrative burden to, one, fit workers into offices that can’t accommodate all staff five days a week (much real estate was sold off since the pandemic), and two, adjudicate the thousands of requests for alternative work arrangements flooding managers and directors inboxes, decimating, possibly even arresting regular duties re: policy making. There are close to 70, 000 public servants in Ontario and the announcement has us all whipping a hurricane of negativity and competition (not to mention a turbid froth of distraction). On the heels of several disappointments since spring (three colleagues sparkling with intelligence, kind and dedicated mentors, have left their jobs; weathering the policy oppression tentacles from the south successfully supressing equity focused language and progress in the north (I feel this personally, as an erosion), my “professional” role feels fucking flattened.
AND (worst) my story, Measures, accepted for publication…was later declined. The editor requested confirmation the story was unpublished. I confirmed yes, the version on offer was unpublished, but, I explained, earlier drafts of the story have been posted, and broadcast on my personal blog (this one). So, they chose not to publish it. Cue the loud whining: really what I want to do is read books and sit and think and write all day long…well, with breaks to feast and f…make love.
[13] There is much in Woolf’s speech that resonates for me; this post can’t contain it. Never mind. I’ll revisit her ideas and imagery about the unconscious in the future.
[14] The decision to end a marriage of twenty-five years, a relationship of twenty-seven, is…fucking hard. Ultimately, what gave me the courage to make the leap was a moment, a strike of lightening moment, when I understood with utmost clarity [insert the scent of burning ozone], that if I wanted to continue to grow my creative writing practice, I would have to leave. If I stayed, my writing practice would have been undermined and suppressed. It is hard for me to reconcile but my writing was perceived as threatening and seditious.
Awake, I see, there is no way to unsee.
As Woolf explains, “I turned upon her [the Angel] and caught her by the throat. I did my best to kill her…Had I not killed her she would have killed me. She would have plucked the heart out of my writing.”
My divorce certificate arrived last week. I’m proud we managed this in just under two years following my decision to leave. I made concessions. I’m proud of this too. Money has never been my motivating factor; pleasure is (wink). Oh, and joy. Really, my lodestar is love.
[15] It is hilarious to me how Woolf writes about what she decided to do with the money earned from her first “professional” publication: “I bought a Persian cat with the proceeds.” After much deliberation and speaking with Lillian and Willa about the possibility I might have to live in their garden sheds when I retire, I have decided to buy myself a year off work, a self-funded sabbatical, so that I can experience what it is like to focus on my own creative work. Also, with no expectations of output from the year. Simply the ability to focus without my mind divided across professional policy work and artistic practice. My leave of absence request has yet to be approved, but the wheels are in motion. I plan for my leave to begin spring 2026. It feels absolutely right.
Process Peace 
