I was thinking about the word wild as it might apply to Jack London and to writers in general – bold, unconventional, daring, risk-taking, a little out of the box – all good things, in my opinion. As I continued to think about it, I was reminded of a well-known book that I read several years ago, Women Who Run with the Wolves. It has always seemed to me to be advantageous to be a little wild.
When parents ask their children what they want to be when they grow up, and the children reply with “doctor” or “lawyer” or “accountant,” parents nod their heads with pride and satisfaction. Well, at least the kids will be able to support themselves comfortably when they are adults. If the reply, instead, is “actor” or “musician” or, heaven forbid, “writer,” the response might be more one of worry or horror.
Few children are encouraged to become actors or musicians or writers. But we do it anyway because we must, often doing something else simultaneously to pay the bills. We think of ourselves as a little wild – edgy, different from the others, but in a good way.
These thoughts of mine were bouncing around pleasantly in my mind – and then I looked up the word wild in the dictionary: not cultivated, not civilized, violent, disorderly. Well, that is not exactly the kind of wild I was thinking of.
Frankly, the Redwood Writers and other writers I have met are anything but uncultured, uncivilized, disorderly, and violent!
I think that there is a positive slant to the word wild – and I think Redwood Writers epitomize this slant. And running with the wolves doesn’t seem like such a bad idea at all. I still think that we writers are wild – in a good way. Don’t you?
Speaking of Jack London and the anthology, March 1 is the deadline for submissions, and we are anxiously waiting for yours. Please send in your prose and poetry soon. We are also still seeking editors – the more editors we have, the less each editor will have to do. (Your submissions do not need to be wild.)
Join us wild ones!