Writers Write

Know When to Fold, When to Hold

 Musicians Hugh Martin and Ralph Blaine were hired to write songs for the film Meet Me in St. Louis. For a poignant scene in the movie where actress Judy Garland (playing Esther Smith) was going to sing a song to Tootie Smith (Esther’s little sister, played by Margaret O’Brien), the songwriters were asked to provide a song that was sad, but also hopeful at the same time. Combining melancholia with optimism was a tall order, but eventually the result would be extraordinary.

Martin started by writing a madrigal-like melody. He played the tune for a few days trying to come up with lyrics for the requested song, but when he couldn’t make it work, he took the sheet music he had created and threw it in the trash. Blaine, who had heard and loved the melody, said, “That tune is too good to throw away.” Together, Martin and Blaine then dug through the trash to retrieve the sheet music.

Both men are credited with writing the song, although Martin later claimed that he wrote both the melody and the lyrics. Regardless of who did the actual writing, there was a serious problem with the lyrics.

Upon completion of the first version of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas,” Martin presented the song to director Vincente Minnelli, Judy Garland (who would later become Minnelli’s wife in real life), and Tom Drake (the actor cast to play the boy living next door to the Smith family). When the song ended, Martin was greeted with nothing but an awkward silence, a silence that was only broken when Judy Garland burst into loud sobs. The song had started with the line, “Have yourself a merry, little Christmas. It may be your last.” The song also included the words, “Faithful friends who were dear to us will be near to us no more.”

Through her tears, Judy Garland said, “If I sing that to little Margaret O’Brien, people will think I’m a monster!”  Judy was already insecure about her image, and she refused to sing the song as written, viewing the song as what could be the death knell of her career.

Vincente, essentially agreeing with Judy, stated, “The song is too sad!”

“You said you wanted the song to be sad,” Martin said, defending his work.

“Not that sad!” Vincente retorted.

Martin stood firm in his refusal to change the sad lines, especially defending the line, “It may be your last.” If you’re a Seinfeld aficionado, Martin’s stubbornness about his creation is reminiscent of the sitcom episode where George insisted, “Jerk store’s the line!” Spoiler alert: Jerk store was not the line in the end, and neither was, “It shall be your last.”

Nevertheless, Martin had let his pride get in his way, and now, he wasn’t about to back down. He had worked hard on the song, he was satisfied with the result and even proud of it, and he refused to agree with the criticism.

Finally, Tom Drake pulled Martin aside. He gave Martin a strong dose of reality, throwing in a little flattery along the way. He told Martin that he had the makings of a great song, but he was being foolish about a few lines of the lyrics. He added, “I’m only asking you to listen to what everyone is saying to help you make the song better for everyone.”

Martin realized that his friend was right, then he changed the lyrics. Since its debut in Meet Me in St. Louis, the song has become a yuletide classic. Ironically, the controversy over the original lyrics kept any critiques from pointing out that the use of the word “yourself” in the title was redundant and not grammatically correct. Sometimes, rules deserve to be broken. Thank goodness that creative license is alive and well in songwriting (and let’s hope, in any genre of great writing).

I can relate to Martin’s original reaction, though. Martin, though misguided about his creation, was merely being a human. There is something within each of us that makes us unhappy to be criticized, and even using the word constructive as an adjective doesn’t lessen the blow. Martin was deeply hurt when he was chastised for the lyrics he worked so hard on, and he reacted by stiffening his spine and refusing to really hear what was being said to him.

Sometimes, what I have written is so close to me that I am foolishly not prepared to accept any criticism whatsoever of my work, whether that criticism comes from an editor, a contest judge, a friend, or a relative. Perhaps all of us, as writers, have a little bit of Martin within us.

I have been on the other side, too, when I am certain that my edits have improved another writer’s work, but the writer only resents me. Obviously, we have to love so much about writing to be involved with it in any way. Otherwise, it’s just torture, no matter what side you are on.

This does not even always have to do with not accepting the criticism, but is also related to how we share our work. When I told my friend Charlie that the idea of my December column was to talk about when to accept suggested changes in my work, he said, “You could use your logic puzzle as an example.”

I knew exactly what he was talking about because I had created a logic problem for The Writeline (the monthly newsletter of the Norman Galaxy of Writers) for my column, “That’s Puzzling.”  After creating the puzzle but before publication, I gave the puzzle to both Charlie and my daughter Jamie to double-check that my clues made sense and caused the reader to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Jamie said she had fun solving the puzzle and the logic worked out, but added, “I don’t like the part about Vixen getting a hoof caught in the fence.” Charlie offered a suggestion that improved the puzzle, “Why not have Vixen get tangled up in some tinsel instead?”

Yes! That was the perfect solution, and I was glad to change the puzzle accordingly. When Charlie suggested that I use this situation as an example in this column, however, I balked at first. I explained that the example did not quite fit the tone of the proposed article. I said I would consider his suggestion for a future article. I gave a million excuses.

Then, I realized Charlie was right. As Proverbs 27:17 states, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”  Both Jamie and Charlie were like iron sharpening iron, improving my puzzle. Here is the puzzle for those of you who would like to try it (the solution appears at the bottom of this column):

Three of Santa’s reindeers (Vixen, Prancer, and Blitzen) suffered small misfortunes and were not sure if they would be able to help Santa deliver presents. A little holiday magic, however, cured all three in time to fly on December 24th. From the clues, determine which misfortune each reindeer encountered, the name of the elf who administered the cure, what the cure was, and how long the cure took.

Neither Prancer nor Blitzen had the misfortune of getting tangled in tinsel while helping to decorate the tree. The elf named Alessandro did not cure the tinsel problem. Blitzen did not get a stomach ache from eating too many wild berries. Alessandro spent one hour nursing Prancer back to health with the cure of a special elixir. Blitzen was not cured by an elf named Alice. One reindeer slipped while ice skating and bruised his shoulder. Within thirty minutes, he was cured  after elf Angie used a magic wand on his shoulder. The longest cure, which was to uncoil tinsel,  took three hours.

Here’s to hoping that we all have a Blaine and Drake and Jamie and Charlie of our own to help us produce our best writing. Sometimes, that might mean saving something we have discarded, and sometimes, that might mean discarding something we have created.

May we all learn the wisdom of knowing when to accept suggestions about our work. Happy writing, and have yourself a Merry Little Christmas!

Puzzle Solution: Vixen got tangled in tinsel, and an elf named Alice took 3 hours to uncoil the tinsel. Prancer got the stomach ache, and an elf named Alessandro used an elixir to cure Prancer’s stomach ache in one hour. Blitzen’s bruised shoulder was cured within thirty minutes by an elf named Angie who used a magic wand.