Blog

Haliburton’s Guilt Doesn’t Absolve BP

Another Deepwater Horizon aftershock today with Haliburton, the contractor in charge of the cement job that was supposed to keep the Macondo well from blowing out, admitting that it destroyed evidence. As usual with this disaster, it’s very complicated, but the Haliburton admission does NOT mean that BP can now put the blame on its contractor, though that’s what the oil company is hoping to do.

This is from the Times:

“The Justice Department said Halliburton had recommended to BP, the British oil company, before the drilling that the well include 21 metal centralizing collars to stabilize the cementing. BP chose to use six instead. During an internal probe after the accident, Halliburton ordered workers to destroy computer simulations that showed little difference between using six and 21 collars, the government said, after which the company continued to say that BP was neglectful to not follow its advice.”

I’ll attempt to decode.

An oil well is two things: a hole in the ground from the surface to the oil deposit, and a pipe within that hole that acts as a tube through which the oil can flow back up to the surface. You dig a hole, then put a pipe in it, basically. Through the pipe, the oil can be drawn out in a safe, even flow. But if the highly pressurized oil breaks through the walls of the hole itself, it will blast to the surface in an uncontrolled explosion — a blowout. In order to assure this won’t happen, after the pipe is put down the hole, they pump in cement to seal the space between the exterior of the pipe and the well wall.

Centralizers are put in the well to hold the pipe in the middle of the hole. The reason is that if the pipe rubs up against the edge of the hole’s wall, the cement, pumped up from the bottom of the well, won’t be able to flow cleanly around all sides of the pipe, which is what needs to happen to form a good seal.

The Halliburton engineer assigned to the project did tell BP they needed to use 21 centralizers to assure good cement flow in Macondo. BP ignored that, and used only six. This is the  reason some people think the Halliburton simulations indicating that 21 centralizers would have been no better than six — which Halliburton then destroyed — exonerate BP. If the advice BP ignored wasn’t good advice, then they were right to ignore it.

But that’s only a small part of the story. The Halliburton engineer originally told BP that the cement job they planned would fail. He recommended using an entirely different kind of pipe — more expensive and time consuming — to be safe. BP ordered him to go back and make the cheaper kind of pipe work.

That’s when he said, essentially, ok, if you insist, this is what you need to do:

Use 21 centralizers instead of 6.

AND to make sure that worked, perform a special test to determine if the cement flowed evenly around the pipe and didn’t leave any air bubbles or holes.

BP had the testing crew and equipment on board the Deepwater Horizon, but sent them home the  morning of the blowout, without performing the test, to save a few thousand dollars.

 

So to sum up:

BP refused to accept Halliburton’s assessment that the cement job would fail unless they used a more expensive kind of pipe, and ordered the engineer to “make it work” with the cheap pipe.

Then BP ignored both parts of the plan to “make it work.” Even if the 21 centralizers wouldn’t have made a difference, the post-job test would have warned them that the cement had failed, and they could have found a way to fix it.

So though Halliburton acted criminally in destroying evidence, BP is still guilty, guilty, guilty.

 

A Big Ol’ Slushball

A writer named David Cameron did something very clever: He copied a short story published in the New Yorker and sent it out, as a submission with a false name, to assorted and sundry literary journals. They all rejected it. Form letters. Then he submitted it to the New Yorker, which rejected the story they had previously published. Just to be sure, he did it again with another New Yorker story. Same results.

So what do aspiring writers conclude from this little experiment in masochism?

That pursuing publication is a hopeless, thankless, random enterprise in which merit counts for next to nothing?

Gee, now that I say that out loud, it sounds a little too defeatist. Don’t let the bastards get you down. YOUR story will be blessed. It will be so good, that even a system stacked against you will buckle and crumble when exposed to its brilliance.

So Carry On!

But don’t get your hopes up.

 

So You Don’t Think You Need Copy Editors?

Great Quotes About Writing

Recently I’ve been coming across extreme insights into writing in the form of random quotations. I will collect them here.

 

This from the writer Oliver Sacks:

 

” Frequently, our only truth is narrative truth, the stories we tell each other, and ourselves.”

 

Form John Irving:

 

“If you don’t feel you are possibly on the edge of humiliating yourself, of losing control of the whole thing, then what you’re doing probably isn’t very vital. If you don’t feel that you are writing somewhat over your head, why do it? If you don’t have some doubt of your authority to tell this story, then you’re not trying to tell enough.”

 

From poet Muriel Rukeyser

The universe is made of stories, not atoms.

Why You Have to Write 1st Draft Holding Nose

The pain of writing for me is the horrifying sense that I am producing crap. The background chant in my brain as I work is, “yousuckyousuckyousuckyousuckyousuck ….” But somehow I force myself to keep going, because I know from experience that the ONLY way I have any hope of writing something of any quality at all is by puking out an awful first draft, then rewriting it over and over, slowly comprehending where the holes and errors are, and draft by draft filling, correcting, and only then, finally seeing some actual opportunities to do something good. Now, as a client and I are finishing the final drafts of her book project, she sent me the following quote, which has buoyed me amazingly.

 

  • “If there is aught of good in the style, it is the result of ceaseless toil in rewriting. Everything comes out wrong with me at first; but when once objectified I can torture and poke and scrape and pat it till it offends me no more.”
  • William James

How I Became An Editor

Jack Limpert, former long-time Washingtonian editor, asked me to write something about how I became an editor for his excellent blog, well worth exploring. Here’s my response:

 

I only ever wanted to write. First I wanted to write fiction, but I discovered I never actually WROTE fiction unless I had a hard deadline for a class. So I went in search of deadlines and joined the college newspaper, where I discovered that I actually preferred finding stories in real-life sets of facts to making stories up out of my head. I was lucky enough to get paid for that, and ten years later I was writing long-form enterprise stories for the Cincinnati Enquirer, which was a good gig, but I wanted to go to a bigger, more ambitious and accomplished paper.

I applied to the Miami Herald feature section, and was disappointed not to get the job. A few months later I got a call from Gene Weingarten, then the number two editor at the Herald’s magazine, Tropic. Weingarten said that the feature editor there had shown him the clips of all the applicants for the feature job and asked his opinion. He said he told them there was no contest: they should hire me. They had ignored his advice, but now he was going to be promoted to Tropic editor, and he needed a number two, and he wanted me to apply. I told him the only editing I had done had been in college, and he said he didn’t care. He said what he really needed in an editor was someone who could write a magazine story himself, who understood what narrative nonfiction required and could take manuscripts from good reporters who didn’t understand that and make them over into full-fledged magazine stories. He said that if I took the job, he would be satisfied only if every story I edited turned out as fully formed as if I had written it myself.

I had always admired Tropic, and Gene’s goal intrigued me. So with some regret at “giving up” writing, I took the job. Within a month I realized that not only was editing for a magazine in many ways as creatively challenging, and satisfying, as writing, it was going to improve my own writing in the bargain. Instead of writing a handful of major narrative projects a year, I was managing the creation of scores of them, from the conception to the reporting to the mapping out and final execution. I was, in effect, getting hundreds of reps for the key writing muscles, as well as benefiting from the more elevated perspective that is the inherent luxury of being an editor — intimate with the guts of the story, but at one remove, a general surveying the gory battle from a hilltop bunker, above the smoke and clamor and fog of war that engulfs the infantry.

In the end, I believe, that after editing for almost 30 years now, I am a better writer than I would have been if I had only been a writer. Also, I may have learned something about editing.

Trips

It’s been months since my last post, mostly because I’m working on another book, this one about the ever fascinating topic of psychedelic drugs. And speaking of unforgettable trips, a travel piece I wrote a year ago about spending Christmas in Spain just ran in the Post travel section. Since it had a seasonal theme, they had to hold it for 11 months. That set up an interesting scenario. When I read it online today, enough time had passed so I barely remembered writing it, which allowed me to read it as a reader, rather than an author. As I read, I wasn’t sure what was going to come next. I was capable of being surprised by a turn of phrase, to get an overall sense of personality that was myself, but not quite myself — like looking at an old photo in which your hairstyle was slightly different, your features just discernibly younger and the shirt you’re wearing is not one you ever remember having.

It’s the second travel piece I’ve written for the Post. The first — actually the second, but it ran first — was on a kayak trip to the Everglades. Both of them were a pleasure to work on, which is a rare thing for me to say about any piece of writing. I think it is because trips are always natural narratives with two destinations — one the literal, the other psychological. As you work out the writing, you discover the hidden meaning of the voyage, and the sometimes surprising psychic path you traveled to arrive there.

Fantasy League Journalism

Lately my story idea inspirations have been of the “you know what I’d really like to do . . . ” variety. A year or so ago I was in a Wegman’s basement wine superstore with absolutely no idea how to tell one of the three thousand bottles of wine from any other one and I thought, “You know what I’d really like to do? Bring a master sommelier with me and have, like, $300 to spend on her recommendations.”

More recently I was listening to the Nats on the radio thinking, “You know what I’d really like to do? Spend some time hanging with Charlie Slowes and Dave Jageler to see how they manage to do what they do.”

Both those lovely thoughts turned into magazine stories for the Post magazine. And they were very cool and fun to report. The part I forgot though, was that even dream assignments like the above still have to get written, and the writing, as always, was eye-gougingly painful to do, with long hours down in the funky hollows of the worst self doubt when I cursed myself for ever committing to the dang thing.

You know what I’d really like to do? Get to report on something fabulously cool and NOT have to ever write about it. But still get paid.

Hollywood Ate My Screenplay

My grandfather and grandmother in 1950 at Sloppy Joes in Havana.

Wrote a screenplay. Liked it. Hollywood yawned. Rather than cry in my beer, I am hereby self publishing, because I can. A link to the screenplay is below. Here’s the back story:

My grandfather, MacKinlay Kantor, wrote 50 books in his lifetime. For one of them, Andersonville, he won the 1955 Pulitzer Prize for literature. But that wasn’t the novel of his I liked best. My favorite was an earlier novel, his first big success, published inn 1934. Long Remember was a fictional account of civilians caught in the  battle of Gettysburg. Gettysburg, often called the high point of the Confederacy. (the war was all downhill after Maj. General George Pickett’s uphill charge to the town cemetery was repulsed by stalwart Union troops.) The battle was fought over three days, July 1 to July 3, 1863. Next July is it’s 150th anniversary. The action of the novel, which won high praise for its historical realism, actually begins in late spring when the protagonist returns from the Western territories to attend to affairs after his grandfather’s death. He falls in lust with his neighbor’s wife — a big city girl marooned in a small town while her unhappy husband is away at the war (a captain). The lust is reciprocated, they guiltily consummate the affair, then, like the judgment of a terrible God, the war breaks right on top of them.

The novel, in my view, has a few structural and stylistic problems, eminently fixable. So I set out to do that, by turning it into a screenplay, which by its nature requires rethinking a novel in any case. I was hoping that the country would be caught up in 150th anniversary fever, and that Hollywood would be swept along. No go. The screenplay went out and got a consistent response: Nobody wants to make any more Civil War movies. Especially since Redford shoved The Conspirator down everyone’s throat and the result was a communal gag. Even Cold Mountain, which as a novel sold approximately a gazillion copies and had big stars in it, was disappointing box office. So Long Remember, the Screenplay is going nowhere. But I had a great time writing it: Screenwriting is like a cross between literature and puzzle making. Much more fun than, say, writing a nonfiction book. I also thought, and still think, despite Hollywood’s thunderous indifference, that it would make a great movie. Judge for yourself. Read the screenplay here:

Long Remember

Ode to Harry

The Harry Crews I remember

Harry Crews died yesterday. He was 76, dissipated by a lifetime of hard living, too many drugs, too much alcohol and an uncounted number of fists to the face. I couldn’t recognize the man in the obituary picture, the man described as a little-known but larger-than-life cult novelist, a writer of “dark fiction” filled with Southern grotesques and wild violence. The Harry Crews I remember was fixed in a thin slice of spacetime, a stretch of six months or so in Gainesville, Florida 40 years ago. He was in his short-lived “speed freak phase.” He’d given up drinking, at least temporarily, but he was definitely on something that turned up the wattage. He was running a lot, zero body fat, a Mr. Clean gleam, both on his shaved skull and in his eye.

Somehow I managed to get into one of his University of Florida creative writing seminars as a sophomore undergraduate. I don’t remember if I had to show a writing sample, but I imagine I must have. Crews was a writing God in 1972 Gainesville. Little-known he may be in terms of a New York Times Arts section obit in 2012, but then and there he was the most famous man in town, a swashbuckling Hemingway figure who made flesh the cliche of living legend – at least to an 18-year-old with dreams of literary fame and fortune. I do remember a one-on-one interview in which he studied me the way a hawk must study a chipmunk. He accepted maybe a dozen students that semester, a three-hour marathon one night a week which was less of a class than a performance. I have no idea why I was among them, but I have been forever grateful for that fluke of luck.

Crews spoke in great roiling torrents, extolling us like a revivalist doing his unlevel best to save a particularly sorry bunch of sinners. His gospel was the nakedness of truth, the necessity for a writer to peel away all ego, to abandon caution and conceit, and care only for revealing his inner world in all it’s sick and twisted glory. Crews, who made it quite clear he had no use for convention in life or literature, was the embodiment of Bob Dylan’s creed, “to live outside the law, you must be honest.”

There were periods in Crews’s pedagogic career when he was not the most attentive teacher. He’d show up late and half-baked to stumble and mumble around. Or fully baked, not show up at all. But in the brief moment of time when  I sat at the old-fashioned wooden writing desks in an antiquated second floor classroom, a heavy scent of  jasmine drifting in the open windows, he was an exemplar. Sometimes he read something he’d been working on, raw passages only ripped from his typewriter hours earlier. It was thrilling, terrifying, and disconcertingly intimate. It could have been embarrassing, but he read it with such fierce energy and conviction we were all swept up and carried away in the flood of prose, each and every one of us forever embedded with the desire to write as if we were dancing around a ring,  trying to deliver a knockout punch.

That was the downside of his charisma. We weren’t so much students as disciples, and to this day, his manic rhythms throb in some recess of my brain whenever I sit at a keyboard.

Here’s the upside: One night he walked into class with an onionskin manuscript in his hands and announced that he was going to read a student piece. He set to it with the same drama and passion he’d delivered for his own work. His reading was so riveting, it wasn’t until several sentences in that I realized that he was reading my story, the story I’d suffered and strained over, and had grown to hate each and every word of.

I’m sure it wasn’t all that bad. It wasn’t all that good, either. But as Crews read it, standing and pacing before us, flailing his free arm and belting out my words as if they were fists of fury, I could see my classmates leaning forward in their seats, rapt. And for the first time, I truly believed I could become a writer.