To research my  journey to Provence, France — Van Gogh land — I read The Complete Van Gogh by Jan Hulsker, Director General Emeritus of Cultural Affairs of the Ministry of Culture of The Netherlands.

Read isn’t the precise word. This is a coffee table book with plates of the painter’s entire works along with a fair amount of text, including excerpts from Van Gogh’s letters. Some of the text I read, other parts I skimmed or skipped, such as the author’s discussions on why he dates X sketch for June and not August, or for Van Gogh’s Arles rather than his St. Remy period.

The book’s presentation of the plates in chronological order made it interesting to follow Van Gogh’s evolution as an artist. He began with sketches of hands and people and gradually developed his techniques and style.

The vast number of drawings and paintings shows that Van Gogh worked hard. In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. I have no doubt Van Gogh put in his 10,000 hours before creating his masterpieces.

The Complete Van Gogh also reminded me of the writing rule: Write What You Know. While many writers question this rule, Van Gogh certainly applied it.

He painted and sketched people he knew. His landscapes, for which he became famous, were done of his immediate surroundings. He painted his bedroom in Arles. During his self-imposed confinement to a mental asylum in St. Remy, he painted the view from his barred window. His famous sunflowers abounded in Provence, where he spent many of his most productive years.

It shows that genius can create wonders of anything.

While researching a holiday to Provence, France, I stumbled upon The Van Gogh Blues: the Creative Person’s Path Through Depression by Eric Maisel, Ph.D.  My husband Will and I plan to spend a week in the town of St. Remy, Provence, where the painter lived in an asylum toward the end of his life. During that time, Van Gogh painted a number of his major works, including The Starry Night.

The Van Gogh Blues turned out to be less about the painter than about depression, the disease many believe he suffered from. Others claim schizophrenia or epilpsy might have been the problem that led Van Gogh to cut off his ear and ultimately take his own life.

Maisel’s premise in The Van Gogh Blues is that creative people suffer from depression more than the non-creative. He offers no statistics for this. His view stems from his observations as a family therapist with a Ph.D in counselling psychology, a creativity coach and a creative writer who regularly contributes to Writers Digest magazine. He concludes that depression arises from the creative person’s need for meaning and his or her clash with the facts of existence. Non-creative people don’t seek as much meaning in their lives, either due to their personality makeups or the fact they already have enough meaning. For instance, the unwaveringly religious find enough meaning through their faith.

It follows that the collapse of traditional religion makes depression more common today than in the past, Maisel asserts this is true, but I wonder. I also question his statement that explorers, military personnel and professional atheletes have zero rates of depression. The reason, he says, is that these occupations contain built-in action and meaning.

Depression arises, he claims, when creative people fail to work toward the meaning they need. This can involve procrastinating, taking a job that doesn’t answer their creative needs, drinking, eating too much chocolate, anything to avoid the blank page.

Those who put in the work are bound to bump against the facts of existence. A writer’s book can’t find a publisher or it does and fails to sell. This provokes a meaning crisis that, if not handled well, leads to depression.

Maisel does admit that biological or psychological factors might also contribute to depression. Therefore, people shouldn’t necessarily avoid medication or therapy. But he believes these factors aren’t the primary cause.

It almost makes depression seem a positive trait, since those disinclined toward it are non-creative (lesser?) beings.

What the The Van Gogh Blues did most for me is make me feel pretty good about avoiding serious depression during my twenty plus years of writing. If it weren’t for the facts of existence — rejections, disapointments, criticisms — I would love the writing life. Nice to know feeling some misery about these downers is normal.

I also agree with Maisel that the solution is action — keep writing. Although, now and then a little too much chocolate or wine is nice.

Recently, I was intrigued by a newspaper article titled, U.K.’s New Grammar Rules Say What!?!! Banning exclamation points could make them ‘cool.’

In my writing classes, I have long taught students to avoid this punctuation mark because it is ‘telling’ not ‘showing.’ Exclamation points tell the reader, My last sentence was exciting! Amazing! Incredible! Awesome! The writer should show this with her words as well as engage the reader by letting him decide for himself how amazing the statement was. 

For my serious writing, I never use exclamation points. Well, I’ve relaxed my rules lately, so I might insert one or two per book.

Emails are another matter. When writing them, I don’t take the time to shape my words to be sure the meaning I intend is coming across. Exclamation points are a convenient shorthand. In emails, I feel anything goes punctuation-wise. I don’t tend toward strings of exclamation points or question marks, but if you want to portray yourself as an enthusiastic, casual person, why not?

Likewise, in emails I make liberal use of emoticons for fun and to avoid offending a recipient with any thoughtless words. I often use parentheses and dashes. In books, when I find more than one phrase in brackets per page or two, it makes me feel the writer is too lazy to construct sentences that flow into the next.  Occasional parentheses can be funny; too many are jarring (they jerk the reader out of the narrative).

In the newspaper piece, gripes about the British school system’s new ban on exclamation points were largely against making this a rule, as opposed to teaching students the negatives about exclamation points and to think carefully before using one.

I think the ban will tend to lead to this kind of teaching rather than result in the elimination of the dreaded punctuation mark, or make it cool for rebellious youths.

One educator objected to the ban on the grounds that it will confuse students, when the exclamation point is used so frequently by world leaders. He notes that Donald Trump’s website is littered with them (“I won’t let them take away our guns!!”)

Trump likes them? That’s the best reason I’ve heard to ban the exclamation point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“How inappropriate, scary, or uncomfortable are you willing to get in your writing?” Emcee Elaine Morin asked us five readers during the Question and Answer feature of Writing in the Works. “Is there some place you won’t go? Do people have to die before you’ll write about certain things?”

At the time, I answered briefly. “If I get an idea or an urge to write something, I’ll go for it and later decide if I publish this. So, no one needs to die for me to write it, but to publish? Probably.”

For my novel-in-progress To Catch a Fox, as I was thinking about how to raise the stakes for my protagonist, it hit me: she could attempt to murder her child.

I wrote the scene for a new novel opening. It made me uncomfortable and also wasn’t the easiest style of writing for me, but I felt it would be cowardly not to leave it , at least for now.

As the novel progressed, I could see that this horrible act was essential for my protagonist’s motivation later in the story. To remove it would make the plot less believable — and less dramatic.

Still, I wavered. I asked a couple of senior writers, “Can I make my protagonist a mother like this if I want her to be sympathetic?”

“Sure,” they said.

That’s the challenge of writing.

Looks like I’m stuck with it — for now, anyway.

“Since Writing in the Works is all about sharing works in progress, at which point do you share or discuss your project with someone?” Elaine Morin, the emcee, asked the five readers that night – Rob Bose, Joan Crate, Sarah Johnson, Taylor Lambert and me.

“Around the second draft,” I said. “I believe the first draft is for you, to explore. By the second draft, you’re starting to work on getting your story and characters across to others.”

Sarah Johnson said, ” I don’t discuss my story until I’ve written a draft. I find if I do that I’ve talked it enough that don’t feel like writing it anymore.”

“I discuss it,” said Rob Bose. “If people are interested, I figure the story is worth writing.”

“Well,” Joan Crate said. “I gave you my first draft in my reading tonight.”

Every writer has a different process. While it’s interesting to hear how others handle this job, in the end, it’s about what works for you.

I’m looking forward to the launch of my friend Pamela McDowell’s new children’s book Salamander Rescue, the sequel to Ospreys in Danger. Salamander Rescue will be launched on May 10 at Owl’s Nest Books and everyone is welcome. If you would like to win a copy of Salamander Rescue, enter Pam’s Goodreads Giveaway May 1 – 15. She has ten copies to give away to lucky readers.

To celebrate the release of Salamander Rescue Pam  is getting a salamander tattoo to go with her osprey one. Now that is writing bravery!

This week’s Calgary Through the Eyes of Writers reminds me of the morning in 1998 that I watched the Calgary General Hospital demolition on TV. It really brought the implosion home to me when I heard the boom a few seconds later.