Goals - 2015

February is here (the time for resolutions long past), but I heard this podcast the other day about goals.  I always heard about goals and goal-setting growing up, so to actually sit down and set goals seems anathema to me.

But I have set goals in the past (even sneaky goals) and I have met them.  The cast talks about sharing goal setting and successes with other people as encouragement.  So this is my encouragement to the few cranberry blog readers I have left; along with some of my current goals.

*I stopped drinking a particular diet caffeinated beverage daily.
This was not an easy thing.  One day I woke up and I had been drinking a particular diet beverage daily for years (probably over ten years). I had a routine.

I have no qualms with caffeine, but I had also read the numerous studies that showed this beverage's negative effects.  And my dentist wasn't happy with it either.  So I switched to unsweet tea and lemonade.  My dad (famously) said it wasn't possible but I've kicked the habit.  Frankly, I think the additives were more addicting than anything else.

*I stopped using as many paper plates.
At one point, paper plates were de rigeur at my house.  But with all the changes in my life in the past year, this is one thing that that has changed.  Perhaps it helps that my kids can help load the dishwasher.

But I've moved almost completely away from paper plates.  This gives me a strange satisfaction.  It's not as if my use of paper plates (or non use) will save the environment.  But it is one small thing I can do.  And I'm also washing some dishes by hand!  That would have been unthinkable some years ago.

* I try to read a classic book each year
So this goal I haven't been so good about following.  I did read The Mill on the Floss in 2013, but I haven't been as consistent as I'd like.  Fortunately, this is an easy goal to remedy, and the only person I'm accountable to is me.

This year the goals and resolutions are similar to last year, particularly this one:
*Try new foods
Trying new foods isn't terribly difficult for me, but it is a stretch for my kids.

*Spend an hour without screens each day
This one is also difficult for my kids. We've been reading books together (which counts), and also doing experiments from this book (Totally Irresponsible Science).  In the end, it's a good practice.

*Continue to work out
My apartment complex has a workout room that my kids can use with me.  It's a great benefit (though I think we probably annoy my neighbors).  I work out regularly and am planning on walking a half marathon in May.

*Continue to volunteer
Since I now have a lot more free time, I have time to volunteer.  While I have mixed feelings about my increase in free time, it's nice to be able to volunteer for various causes.  I'm honest about how much time I can spend, and can set my own hours.

*Pass a certification test for my work
I took this test last year, and unfortunately didn't pass (although I use the software daily).  Basically the test is written multiple choice with some trick questions (depending on the version of software).  I missed passing by two or three questions.  So I'm confident that if I study this year, I will be able to pass.

Best of luck to my readers (I haven't been writing as much, of late) in setting and working towards goals.

All Joy and No Fun review

There are two trendy ways to talk about motherhood, much like the virgin/whore dynamic.  Either one loves and cherishes being a mother every moment - or motherhood is the most difficult, soul-crushing experience  ever.  With that said, it's progress that anyone admits that parenthood is exhausting or difficult - for a while it was heresy to admit in many circles.

In All Joy and No Fun, Senior talks about how perceptions of parenthood have changed radically throughout the years.  It's no surprise that children and teenagers were viewed differently in the 19th century and before.  Children were seen as real assets to the family (in the assistance they could provide to the family)- not the current state where parenthood is a relatively conscious decision in later life.  She writes: 

Children are no longer economic assets, so the only way to balance the books is to assume they are future assets, which requires an awful lot of investment, not to mention faith.  

Not only has our perspective about child-rearing changed - we now have the choice about when and if to have children in the first place.  Then, we're told from a young age that we can be whoever we want to be - whether or not it's actually true.  Senior writes: "Even if our dreams were never realizable, even if they were false from the start, we regret not pursuing them".  

And I agree completely that this is one of the most difficult parts of transitioning from an autonomous adult to a new parent.  I had some idea of what I was in for (being the oldest of six), but not for how much I would lose.  What I lost is something I am gaining back (slowly) as my kids grow older - just simply being able to go out on Friday night and not worry about who would watch the kids and where the money would come from.  

I welcome this notion of the paradox of modern life - that many of us hold ourselves and our lives to a standard that was never possible (given current social norms, class mobility, opportunities, etc.)

I appreciated this book because it talks about social issues and attitudes that many middle-class parents face. In the early days, one can feel  alone. Parenting recommendations (and trends) change all the time - what worked for my grandma (give them cereal at three months) is no longer recommended.  Then there is the constant anxiety that one is not doing enough - not pushing one's children enough, not doing enough activities, etc.  This book helped me remember that losing myself, exhausting myself as a mom doesn't help me OR do my children any favors.  

As I've said before, I love being a mom.  Yes, it's hard work.  It is a high cost/ high reward activity.  

I'm glad that as a society we're drifting away from worshiping at the cult of motherhood - that women can now be honest about the impact of motherhood on their lives.  And my hope is that we can start to think about both parents being responsible for their kids (and how they turn out) - not just automatically blame the mother if something happens (this is the typical media bias).  It is our society/community as a whole who is also responsible.  

And to be aware that women (and parents) need to remember themselves and their mental health throughout the process - parents who are exhausted, not setting boundaries with their kids, not being present, not asking for help - are not doing anyone any favors.  

Game of Thrones vs. The Wars of the Roses

I watched the Game of Thrones series last year, on dvd  - season 2 is coming out later this month.  I really enjoyed it.  It's incredibly violent, and sexual - so your mileage may vary.  I had a sinus infection earlier this month - and I spent about a week and a half reading books 2, 3 and 4. 

It's not a secret that the series is loosely based on the wars of the roses in 15th century England.  Even the family names, Stark and Lannister sound more than a little like York and Lancaster.  I know only a bit about the history, but the war of the roses involved incompetent kings who were deposed, teenage kings who mysteriously disappeared, even people drowned in casks of wine. 

I've also been reading Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower.  The similarities are striking. The king (Edward IV) secretly marries a so-called commoner, Elizabeth Woodville. (Her mother is a noblewoman, her father was a knight).  Her large family is then promoted in positions of power.  Not surprisingly, many people are unhappy about this. There are all sorts of houses with associated lands that the kings redistribute.

And there is this tension between north and south -at one point the author points out that British people in the north and south really thought of themselves as separate races or people.  It was also common to believe that physical deformity (if Richard III really did have a hunchback) was a sign of moral depravity or sin.  Families are opposed to one another (and intensely suspicious) for no other reason than politics - if the other person isn't a part of your family, they are inherently untrustworthy.

The Stark children - won't be this way for long!

So there's a large part of me that is incredibly grateful to not live in that time period - dependent on nobility and family wealth.  Most people were wholly dependent on the whims of potentially insane people, no rule of law, fair trials, etc.  While many women have some power in the Game of Thrones series, it's always very clear that women are completely dependent on men, and cannot have power in their own right. It was a brutish time (the Middle Ages). 

I'm not sure why this time period (or the series) are so engrossing for me.  I've always enjoyed medieval British history (who knows why).  I enjoy the history in spite the fact that I know how many problems the British monarchy (and others) caused throughout the world.  The Game of Thrones series also has just enough fantasy as well, with dragons and zombies - some magic that actually appears to be real. There are many strong female characters in the series, as well as fully developed male and female characters.  I recommend it.

The Good Earth

I've become more aware of female characters in fiction - particularly classic fiction.  I re-read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck for book club.  The novel is a classic - Pearl Buck won the Pulitzer for it.  The descriptions are vivid; and the characters, despite differences in culture, are timeless.  Yet I was struck by the novel's misogyny and sexism.  Of course it's historically accurate.  A woman gives birth to a daughter and exclaims " another slave". 

The main character's first wife, O-lan, is the patriarchal female ideal.  I would give this book to someone to explain this ideal that women are fighting - consciously or unconsciously.  Sold into actual slavery by his parents, she is sold from the family she serves to her husband. 

Without being asked, she takes over care of the home, cooking for the main character's (Wang's) father.  She asks for nothing for herself.  When she gives birth, she goes alone into her room.  She doesn't make a sound - after giving birth she goes out into the fields.

In the book club group, we agree that she is the reason for the family's success.  But she remains unrecognized and unacknowledged.  The husband takes her only treasured possession, twp pearls, to bring a second wife into their home.

She is never supposed to complain, show anger towards her husband.  She is the ideal long-suffering, patient, devoted wife and mother. In the end during her terminal illness, she refuses to die until her daughter in law moves into the home to care for everyone.

The mother/martyr archetype is still the ideal, whether or not people want to admit it.  A woman (particularly a mother) should never want something for herself.  She should never admit she is sick, never directly ask for what she wants or needs.  She should never demand recognition of what she does.  This is the stereotype my grandmother and mother have had to fight against - and yet I wonder how they see themselves.  Would they (would I) have the self-esteem to refuse to give their prized possession to their husbands?  And would they withstand the criticism from their husbands (and society) for being selfish or narcissistic?  A good measure is whether or not men would ever be asked to make the same sacrifices. 

There is a great deal of narcissism and selfishness in modern American culture.  But let's be clear.  Women getting an education, waiting for marriage and motherhood, are not being selfish.  Families limiting their family size to those they can financially, physically and emotionally care for - not selfish.  Women having an identity outside of wife and mother - not selfish.

I'm certainly glad that times are changing.  That this explicit misogyny is no longer the status quo for the majority of American women.  I'm grateful for all the people (women and men) who fought to get rid of this second class status for half of the population.

Denial about Aging

I took an age-related medical test recently.  It was one of those tests that the medical community suggests that you take when you reach a certain keystone age. 

Fortunately, money is not a concern about the test (I have insurance; not great insurance but insurance). 

But I realized that I was uncomfortable about scheduling the test because of what it meant.  It means that I have reached the age where I have to schedule some age related tests. 

I wonder if that's part of the reason people shy away from getting such tests done.  Some people have philosophical issues about some medical testing (which I can understand and respect).  But rather I wonder if some of us are uncomfortable because of what that means about aging.  Some of us (myself included) would much rather be in denial that we're getting older, and that something will one day kill us. 

Does anyone want to admit that they're getting older, that they're not 23 any more?

I also finished The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion.  It was an interesting book; her ability with language is amazing.  In it, her husband collapses and dies of a massive heart attack at dinner.

During one part of the book, she thinks back to what she knew, if she could have prevented him from dying. She remembers that he had a test in the 1980s.  One of his veins/arteries was clogged - the doctor said that it was something to watch. He said a nickname among doctors for that artery was "the widowmaker".  Didion's husband, John, wondered if it would one day kill him.  Joan responded that no one knows when their death will be, and in what form.  Yet that was exactly what happened, fifteen, twenty years later.

Sometimes, do we want to assume that we are different and unique? That whatever is hurting or harming someone else, won't harm us.  It's a teenager point of view that never really goes away.  

I Don't Want To Talk About It

Some may wonder why I would be interested in a book about male depression. 

Simply put, depression impacts everyone.  The argument Terence Real makes in this book is that covert depression affects men, and wreaks havoc on their families.  This is different from the traditional model of depression - where a person is not able to sleep, eat, work or function normally.  Real's theory is that anger, workaholism and abuse of substances like alcohol in some men is generally related to depression.  That sometimes depression in men doesn't fit the traditional "bell jar" model, but it can be just as damaging to everyone. 

For some, anger is expressed towards oneself (depression has often been described as internalized anger).  The author gives examples from his own practice and therapy groups (anonymous of course). Traditionally, the only acceptable emotion for men has been anger. 

Real talks about how many parts of American culture are designed to cut men off from their feelings, from appearing weak or feminine.  He mentions the passive trauma that many boys (but in my opinion, many children) face.  That this "passive trauma" can long term be just as damaging and can sew the seeds of adult depression. Real gives examples of his father's explosive anger and physical abuse, teachers watching as a boy is bullied each day for being "fat", kids who ignore a coach who punches a student. 

Boys are often told to "be a man" - but what does that mean, really?
It is weighted and treacherous subject matter.

I have long thought strict gender roles hurt everyone - men and women.  In this book, Real suggest that the socialization of men can be just as damaging as it can be to women.  That men often need to gain access to their feelings, being more relational to develop better relationships - with themselves, their spouses and children. 

He is suggesting that by addressing the covert depression in men - the whole person can be healed. That parts of the cycle of violence can be broken*.  That often, men will not seek therapy or help for themselves, but to not be the same person as their father was.  It's not that

I mentioned "pansy crap" earlier.  This was mentioned in a comment at MSP a few months ago; I can't find it at the moment. 

There is a ton of anger, suspicion and fear towards men talking about their feelings.  It's almost explosive - talk about a problem-with-no-name in American culture.  Comments like "pansy crap" are meant to dismiss men, their perceptions and feelings.  (The ultimate insult for a man is still to be like a woman).  And while men may deny their anger and fear - their families and children can suffer. 

Until the base assumptions are addresses, and men and women are allowed to explore their full potential and authenticity - we will make no progress as a culture.

*One case study in the book talked about his wife's feelings first, her disappointments, fears, etc.  The notion of carried feeling - children trying to make their parent's mistakes right - struck a little close to home for me.  What am I trying to do because it's right for me? What am I trying to do to heal, fix of change my parents....yikes.

The Subversive Nature of Emily Dickinson

I agree wholeheartedly with this Emily Dickinson poem.  If there is a God or Higher Power, I believe he/she/it/they would agree with this sentiment.

*I had a great hike this morning!

Part Two: Nature
LVII

SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;	5
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.
God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;	10
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!

Great Men Theory

There is a theory of history that great men shaped our current society.  Regular, normal people could not do it, could not build empires or win wars, but these men did.  And their mothers, of course, who shaped them (tongue in cheek here).  Think Julius Caesar, George Washington, Christopher Columbus.

While these men are important, I think it's worth noting that only very rarely does some act completely alone.  There are always people who make it happen.  Either they were the grandparents who worked overtime to send a child to college, ancestors who moved to a land of more opportunity or even the silent long-suffering spouse who does everything so the artist can create.

That was my response to Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, and it's my response when I hear the claim that one man or woman changed a generation.  In Outliers, Gladwell outlines just how so many successful men became life-changing and revolutionized the way we view things.  There were a whole host of factors that created an environment where change was possible.  A host of parents, teachers, community members, economic realities nurtured success. 

While leadership is important, it's shortsighted to believe that only a leader is responsible for success, of a country, of a company, of a school.  It's the people who go to work every day, the parent(s) who are there each night, the people who make change possible. Great figures are a strange coincidence of fate and possibility - being in the right place at the right time. Would they be great if they had to spend hours doing their own laundry? I wonder.

That's not to say we shouldn't mourn someone's passing, or recognize a person's good deeds.  And it is true that sometimes a person is not appreciated now, but is appreciated with the passing of time.

I believe we sell ourselves short when we don't recognize that our everyday efforts might lead to bigger and better things - and may lead to change. 

Whether or not it's true, many public figures will recognize this.  They will mention all the people who helped them along the way.  That's not necessarily false humility, I believe they mention it because it's true.       

Future Realities or Rights I'm Grateful for

Recently I've encountered two wonderful dystopian realities, both science fiction.  They both challenged me to think about the U.S., our rights and the things I have to be grateful for.  Certain political parties or movements are not the only people who can express their appreciation for the rights and privileges that Americans enjoy. 

I read "The Year of the Flood" by Margaret Atwood and watched the movie "Idiocracy". 

1 - I'm grateful for the right to a fair trial, adequate counsel and the ethical treatment of prisoners.  While there are notable exceptions to this in the United States, these rights are critical to a moral, free society. For example, there is a scene in "Idiocracy" where the main character is rolled into the courtroom in a cage and someone throws food at him. Then, his court-appointed lawyer testifies against him for "being a dick".

This is an exaggeration, sure.  But it isn't difficult to imagine a world without these rights.  In some parts of the world, these things happen today, or no trial at all.  (As an aside, this is a great essay from "This I believe" about the right for everyone to have counsel - no matter who they are and what they are accused of doing.)


2 - I am not legally responsible for my parents' debts; against unsecured assets (like medical bills or credit card bills).

Hundreds of years ago, whole families would be thrown into debtor's prison.  Children would be responsible for paying their parents' debts, no matter what choices the parents' made, and even if children had no means of repaying those debts.

In The Year of the Flood, the main character, Toby, is responsible for her parents' debts.  Her father goes broke attempting to care for her mother, who (whom?) we find out later was a human test subject for a corporation.  A corporation was poisoning the mother, not paying for her care, and the family went broke trying to pay the medical bills.  Her father takes his life after her mother dies - Toby is forced to go "off the grid" to not be thrown into jail.

Given our current state of affairs, it's not difficult to imagine a world where this was likely.  Where corporations control the police force.  If a person can't pay the corporation, or is wronged by that organization, there is no recourse.

I am not always happy with my country.  I am not happy with the outcomes of certain court decisions or legal battles.  I am not proud of the actions of my country in the past.

But that doesn't mean that I don't cherish our current checks and balances, our current legal system.  I appreciate the sacrifices that so many have made to support those rights and that system.

I also have admiration for some forms of science fiction, which can shine a spotlight on our current culture and ask "What If?"  While some premises are absurd or heavy-handed; others are not far from reality. 

I cannot imagine a world where everyone appears to be a member of the program "Jackass" or the cast of "Beavis and Butthead" (the creator of "Idiocracy", Mike Judge is interviewed on "Fresh Air" here; he talks about why he wrote and created the dystopian reality of "Idiocracy.").  These programs have their place, and may be an entertaining distraction.  But they cannot be allowed to dominate our lives, our society or our conversations.

The Help

This is a link to a great discussion of "The Help" from the program "Tell Me More" on npr.  It gives the perspective of different people on this best selling book. To summarize the discussion, one of the maids in the book bears a striking resemblance to a maid in Ms. Stockett's own family.  There is also a discussion of the accents in the book, the white characters do not have disernable accents, but the characters of color do. 

I think that the npr discussion brings up many good points.  The reaction to the novel tends to be different from people of different races.  And I think the notion of going to a job versus actually caring about where you work and the people you work for is intriguing.  This is a sensitive topic.  An employee may want to give the impression that "they care", but in the end, if the boss is asking, is the question invalid?  Will employees really tell the truth, particularly if their job is on the line.  My take is they will not.  But that's not to say that there aren't amazing people who love their jobs, and love what they do.  I simply don't think that assumption can be made for everyone. 

I agree with the discussion that an author does have a responsibility to change identifying characteristics about their characters.   However, the line between fiction and non fiction is blurred.  I have seen books considered "non fiction" memoirs that seemed like fiction and fiction that made a person question if the stories were real or not.  Chanson wrote a great post about authors and how auto-biographical their fiction can be here.

Overall, as this book has become wildly popular with book clubs, I was prepared not to like Stockett's book.  But it was engaging and the story well written. The women "told truth to power" (in the civil rights South) , and any stories like that (fiction or non-fiction) I support.

Banned book list - almost finished!

I'm close to finishing all the books on my banned book list, with the exception of Ulysses.  The last book on my list is An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser.  I'm not making any promises on that one. 

I wanted to write a few short reviews of three of the books.

A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving

Despite my feelings towards organized religion, I liked this book.  I appreciated the symbolism and heavy foreshadowing.  John Irving often writes dark satire, and this work was no exception.  It was a sad book, parts were very sad.  Irving is an astute observer of human nature. 

I loved the irony of the main character's grandmother, who denounced television at every opportunity; but when she got a tv, she watched it all the time.  She spent her time vociferously commenting and criticizing everything she saw.

Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh

I didn't realize that Evelyn was a male writer. I'm familiar with Evelyn as a female name, so that was my first assumption.  I don't think it changes my experience of the novel whether or not the author was male or female.

I think this was a banned book because it hints at a gay relationship among some of the main characters. I was disappointed that Sebastien ended up an alcoholic and homeless.  If Sebastien was gay, as is aluded to, the novel follows the classic pattern for gay characters. 

Many people have written about this before, but typically gay characters (pre-Stonewall) could not be portrayed as being happy, well-adjusted and successful. LGBT characters could not ultimately find love or find acceptance.  So in that sense, although a product of the time, I found that part of this novel disappointing.

Rabbit Run by John Updike

I have to admit, David Foster Wallace wrote a great review of John Updike's  Toward the End of Time.  It's no secret that I admire Wallace's work. 

I think I fit straight into this category that Wallace observed:

Most of the literary readers I know personally are under 40, and a fair number are female, and none of them are big admirers of the postwar G.M.N.'s.[Great Male Narcissists] But it's Mr. Updike in particular they seem to hate. And not merely his books, for some reason-mention the poor man himself and you have to jump back:
"Just a penis with a thesaurus."
"Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?"
"Makes misogyny seem literary the same way Limbaugh makes fascism seem funny."
These are actual-trust me-quotations, and I've heard even worse ones, and they're all usually accompanied by the sort of facial expression where you can tell there's not going to be any profit in arguing or talking about the esthetic pleasure of Mr. Updike's prose. None of the other famous phallocrats of his generation-not Mailer, not Frederick Exley or Charles Bukowski or even the Samuel Delany of Hogg -excites such violent dislike. There are, of course, some obvious explanations for part of this dislike-jealousy, iconoclasm, P.C. backlash, and the fact that many of our parents revere Mr. Updike and it's easy to revile what your parents revere. But I think the major reason so many of my generation dislike Mr. Updike and the other G.M.N.'s has to do with these writers' radical self-absorption, and with their uncritical celebration of this self-absorption both in themselves and in their characters.

I have to agree.  I'm sure this novel has been critiqued in the past from a feminist perspective. 

But the female characters of Rabbit Run in particular lack any depth.  Each fits neatly into the Madonna/whore dynamic (where women are either mothers or whores, not able to be anything but). In this work, each female character can't be seen as an autonomous character in their own right, they are devices for Rabbit to learn more about himself.  Chanson wrote about the manic pixie dream girl, a similar concept here. Each of the female characters (even Rabbit's mother and mother in law) seem to be stuck and simply react to Rabbit and his choices. 

I had some sympathy for Rabbit at first, but he continuously makes bad decisions - and his bad decisions are more about avoiding responsibility and ownership.  A great example, he refuses to let his girlfriend use birth control, and surprise! she gets pregnant.

I find it hard to believe that Updike is serious about this protagonist (taking a cue from Lolita).  If he was serious about Rabbit, which Wallace seems to think that he was, it's true that the children of the 90s see all this self-centered thinking very differently. 

There is a whole series of Rabbit books, which I have no desire to read. Particularly is they are anything like Rabbit Run.  Of all the banned books I've read, this is one I don't recommend.  I don't agree that it should be banned, but it's difficult to defend the novel as a worthwhile read. 

Senior Year High School English

I read some amazing books my senior year of High school. 

Now that I look back on it, I'm amazed at the curriculum. Some of the books included:

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Grendel by John Gardner (I think we read Beowulf as well)
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
The Awakening by Kate Chopin


We read more books, I just can't remember them at the moment.

Upon further reflection, it is awe inspiring to me that I read so many profound works of art, at the ages of seventeen and eighteen!

I was curious if the curriculum had changed in the ensuing years.  It hasn't, most of those books appear to be on the reading list.

All of these books have influenced me as a person; I know I am better off for having read them. I hope that the English teachers continue to challenge their students to push the boundaries, to read works of art that may be controversial, difficult or unpopular (or all three). 

Ulysses - I tried

I mentioned here that I was attempting to read Ulysses by James Joyce over the holidays.  I've read that it's arguably the most influential novel of the twentieth century. 

One of my goals is to be well read - but also to challenge myself in my reading.  Just because I'm not in school any longer, doesn't mean that I can't continue to learn.  Obviously I won't read the classics all the time, but there was a point after college that I realized I wasn't reading anything that was particularly thoughtful or challenging. While in school, my reading list was usually so significant, I didn't have a chance to look at anything else.

I made it around halfway through Ulysses, this time.  I didn't invest in Cliffs notes for the novel (next time) but I did find a literary analysis that discussed the book, chapter by chapter. Despite the literary explanations, it was still too much for me. 

There's a reason that this is a work primarily for English majors. 

I'll probably start it over at some point.  I do want to read it and finish it.  Much like "Gravity's Rainbow", by Thomas Pynchon, another book I want to finish. 

My observation from the parts that I read - I remember in college, some of my English major/writer friends mentioning the work and how influential it was.  Merely reading the first chapter, I thought of all of the friends that I had who attempted to mimic Joyce's writing style.  None of whom are reading this blog at the moment, as far as I know. 

I mentioned this to my husband, who observed that imitation is an important part of being an artist.  Many artists will try to recreate a painting - to learn how it's done.  Whether or not that process is conscious - the subtle or not so subtle imitation of Ulysses made much more sense with that explanation.

Eat, Pray, Love

Despite my joining of certain social networking sites, I have a love/hate relationship with certain cultural trends.  If it's incredibly popular, I'm generally suspicious. 

They selected this book for my book club before much information was known about the movie.  I was understandably skeptical.

I found I liked this book much more than I thought I would.  I agreed with Julie Ann's comments about personal growth here. 

Two things resonated with me.  The first was what she said about not wanting to be married any longer - about not being happy.  Many people have criticized the book, they said that the author was selfish and whiny. 

Honestly, I think it's pretty remarkable to admit that a person is not happy, and wants to change.  Not everyone is willing to do that.  Not everyone is willing to acknowledge they're in pain, and to take steps to change that, whatever the cost.

I don't think that's whiny, I think that's being realistic.  Not that happiness is the only answer and motivation.  But I believe each person has only one life, and it is much to short to live in misery.  Is it really necessary to get a book advance and travel around the world?  Probably not.  But admitting that a person isn't (you aren't) happy, and taking steps to change is a good thing, to my mind.  If there are things that can change, that you can change - I think it's a good thing to work towards that.

The second thing I admired was that she didn't give all the reasons for her divorce.  I thought that was pretty remarkable as well. Often people will go through all the reasons for a relationship ending, detailed reasons.  Sometimes it's to convince other people that their decisions were justified.  In the end, does it really matter? In the end, we really only need to know that a relationship was not healthy, and not working. 

And in the end, I appreciated what she said about not really thinking about her relationship before she entered into her marriage. While she loved her ex-husband, she wasn't really thinking of goals, ways for each person to support themselves.  What each person brought to the marriage.  It's decidedly unromantic.  But honestly, I think that message needs to be sent more.  Love is great, but life isn't a hollywood romance.  It's just not.  It takes a lot of work to support and understand yourself, not to mention another person.

PS.  So I recommend this book to just about anyone. For my atheist, agnostic and non- religious friends, there is a lot of prayer in the prayer section.  So that's a caution or warning.  But if you're able to look past that, there may be some parts of the book that a person could find useful.  The idea of spending time meditating, in India, was attractive to me.  I'm not sure why, it's just always been attractive.  But that's just me personally, and may not be attractive to other people.Granted, it may also be the traveling aspect - as I have very little desire to spend three months meditating here in the midwest.  So take that as you will.

PPS.  When I was reading this book and looking for reviews, I saw this response by Andrew Gottlieb.  I thought it looked pretty amusing, and I couldn't help chuckling whenever I thought about the concept.

Banned Book week

So the last week of September (I believe) was banned book week. Things can get busy around here, and I'm not able to read everything I would like. I have attempted to read some of the classics over the years. Banned book week was a great incentive for me. Of course I didn't select just one book, but I plan on attempting some in the next few months.

I hope to read them and review them here. Here is a link to why some of the books were banned.  Note that Ulysses doesn't have any explanation for being challenged.  I do find that process fascinating - why some books were seen as immoral or dangerous that seem rather tame now**. (I'm thinking specifically of D.H. Lawrence).

The first novel I've finished is Their Eyes Were Watching God By Zora Neale Hurston. The dialogue was difficult to get through at times, I think this is a book to read out loud (much like Shakespeare). I do think Janie (the main character) was a feminist character. I can't explain why this book was banned - the only thing I can think of is some of the descriptions of rape near the beginning - the descriptions were not graphic. They were matter of fact - not a central point of the book - merely revealing Janie's past (and that of her family). Her grandmother was a slave - I wouldn't think that would cause the book to be banned. Evidently the novel was sexually explicit. 

Books I am attempting:

* The Sun Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway (burned in Nazi Germany according to the above website.  I would not have assumed that given where I'm at in the novel so far. 1933.)
* Ulysses, by James Joyce (wish me luck, I'm attempting this one over the holidays)
* Brideshead Revisited, by Evelyn Waugh
* An American Tragedy, by Theodore Dreiser (Also burned in Nazi Germany and banned due to "low love affairs".)
* Rabbit, Run, by John Updike


**Honestly, it is amazing that some of these books were burned.  I wonder if the German language or English language version  were burned.  And what an interesting thing to look back on, now - almost a badge of honor to have your work burned in Germany.  I suspect the authors weren't thrilled by it at the time (I love Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s description/opinion of censorship...)

Race as a Construct

Recently I finished Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception Across the Color Line by Martha Sandweiss.

It was the story of  Clarence King, a nineteenth century geologist and explorer who met and married a woman of color.  He lived with her, unbeknown to almost everyone, as James Todd, a pullman porter.  They had five children together.  It was a fascinating story, although with few first person sources.  It's unknown just how much King's wife, Ada, knew of his deception during their married life. 

What was compelling to me was the ease at which a person could cross the color line; and how fluid the construct of race was (and is).  King may have been a blond haired, blue eyed man, but at the time,  Plessy vs. Ferguson had declared that although someone was even one-eighth black; they still needed to obey segregation and were considered black (of color).  So a person could be considered black and not have any black or African American features. King lived in hotels in New York, and the theory was that as a porter, he would have traveled a great deal.  He was able to deceive everyone into not knowing where he was at any given time. 

Throughout it all, I was inspired by Ada's courage.  Here is a woman, probably born into slavery, who found the courage to leave her home (in GA) and to work in New York.  After King had passed away (leaving her destitute), she found a way to provide for her family.  King had never changed his will to provide for her and their children.  They did have a common law marriage - offiated by a minister of the A.M.E. with many witnesses - but no marriage license. 

He supposedly gave money to a friend to put in trust, but it appears as though one of the conditions from the trust was that she not go public with the relationship.  She went to nine lawyers to sue for the inheritance that King had left her, had meant for her and their children - and in the end she was not successful.  From that experience and some of the other experiences of her children - it's clear that race was at times in the eye of the beholder.  Two of their daughters were able to marry and "pass" for white (marry white men), while a son was labeled at "black" during his military service.
______________________________________________________________
Because of this narrative, I was thinking about mormonism and race. Brigham Young said some incredibly racist things in his time.  He was pretty clear in his denunciation of inter-racial marriage; saying that both parties should be killed.  And as my non LDS readers may or may not know, the LDS church refused to give the priesthood (any authority) to black men until 1978 (or allow couples to marry in the LDS temple).  Here is another  informational link. 

So I wonder if there were mormon or LDS members before 1978 who attempted to "pass".  Who were not open about their racial heritage, because of the racist limitations the LDS church put on full church membership.  What does "passing" mean anyway? 

Better Understanding Lolita

 I sent this ( Reading Lolita and Derek) post to feminist mormon housewives a few weeks ago and they actually posted it! 

If my post doesn't say it strongly enough, I highly recommend the book Reading Lolita in Tehran.  It was a poignant, well-written memoir.  It inspired me to read Henry James (Washington Square).   There were great observations about women, society and how women relate to men in patriarchal societies. 

And most of all, I now finally (finally!) have a better understanding and appreciation for Nabakov's Lolita. 

I first read Lolita in college.  To say I hated it with a passion would not have been strong enough.  I intensely disliked it.  I read it on my own, not in a course. I think if I had read it as a part of an English lit course, maybe it would have made more sense to me at the time .

As it was, Nafisi's description of  the novel made so much more sense.  It was her English teacher/ professor's perspective that I didn't have on my own.  I'll admit it, I couldn't see past the evil of Humbert Humbert; the horror of the subject matter.  Yet after reading Nafisi's account, I understand that a reader isn't always supposed to appreciate or identify with the main character. This is the comment I wrote about it (after reading Nafisi's work):

And the novel [Lolita] describes a triumph of the human spirit - that despite everything that Lolita goes through (and she goes through a lot) - we never really see her. Humbert (her abuser) tries to pin her down, tries to capture her but he’s not able to. She has her own way of dealing with her life. She escapes and he is left to flounder. And despite Nabokov’s beautiful words and flowery phrases, we can see evil for how it is. Humbert’s actions speak far louder than his words.

I think this is what some friends were trying to tell me back in college, but I was young.  I  wasn't at a point where I could get it.

I'm not suggesting everyone should go out and read Lolita (by any means).  I strongly support people's right to read (or not read) what they choose - and to limit their own personal contact with various subject matter (including rape, abuse, incest, etc.) Although I admit, I will probably re-read it  after finishing Reading Lolita in Tehran.  

As an aside to this post, I have to be amazed at the art of Lolita. It is still an incredibly controversial novel.  Even now, bring it up in polite conversation (if you dare) and almost everyone has a strong opinion about it.  That's saying quite a lot, given the time that has passed and our society in general. 

Ad hominem

I recently read part of "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, for book club.  Written back in the early 1960s, her  book began an environmental awareness movement.  People began to care more about chemicals used to kill bugs, and those used in farming.  I don't want to argue her point, because it is worth reading for yourself. 

Here is a link to a pbs program about the book and her journey. 

What shocked me, personally, were the attacks on her person about the book.  She was called a "tree hugger", which was an insult at the time. 

And finally, someone said that she couldn't understand what it meant to be caring and nurturing because she wasn't a mother. This insult still makes me see red just thinking about it.

And usually, when someone attacks the person instead of the argument (ad hominem) it's because they can't refute the argument.  They are arguing from a position of weakness.  The chemical companies couldn't prove that DDT was actually helping birds and their eggs.  So they criticized Rachel Carson because she wasn't a mother, and therefore not capable of making scientific observations about the world we live in, or questioning the prevailing wisdom.

On this mother's day, I would like to point out that there are many ways for everyone to be conscious of their lives and their impact.  There are many ways to help the next generations, to be caring and responsive. 

The walk of cultural shame

I heard this npr program about The Scarlet Letter the other day. 

I read Hawthorne's novel back in high school, but somehow I never truly comprehended some of the overarching themes.  I suppose that's why it's important to keep an open mind to literature discussions throughout one's life.

I doubt it was due to my English teacher, however.  It's true that there are some additional things my Junior year English teacher could have mentioned, but I digress. 

I do think the concept of shame and sin are difficult concepts for a teenager to understand.  Granted, sometimes teens are underestimated, but there is life experience that can be necessary to gain true perspective (in my opinion).

Needless to say, on this program, the commentators compared the society of the Puritans with our current society.  One of the things my English teacher missed was that Hawthorne was comparing his society with the Puritans as well. 

I wouldn't have thought that we had a great deal in common. 

The Puritans were a sober bunch, not celebrating holidays, not listening to music, strict laws on the Sabbath.  Most Americans have lavish celebrations, and there are few businesses closed on Sundays or holidays any more. 

But with recent alleged celebrity follies and their public apologies, perhaps there is more in common than initially appears.  Is there a reason we (as a society) need to focus on other people's mistakes?  That we need to feel righteous indignation?  That we feel we need these celebrities to both apologize, and to suffer?  I'm not excusing any mistakes, but is the rancor and venegence really necessary?

I simply agree with the npr panelist about the parallels between that world and some parts of our current world. 

Identical Strangers

In some discussions with people this week, I realized I hadn't reviewed this book yet here.  I originally heard about it on npr (not surprisingly), and was fascinated.  At this link, there is a brief story about the book and an excerpt. 

As the mother, I can't imagine separating my twins.  Yes, they currently have separate rooms, but not raising them together, not allowing them to interact.  Not allowing them to know from an early age that they have a sibling born on the same day.

I can't imagine the ethics of separating twins either.  It's true, the first few months of their lives were really, really difficult for me.  Having one newborn is difficult enough - but two is even more difficult.  Because they don't sleep at the same time!

Before reading this book, I didn't think separating twins was a good idea.  Afterwards, I find I disagree with it strongly.  Particularly separating twins for research - no matter how valuable the data gained may be. 

I am also someone who supports psychological research into mental health and illness.  Also I support research into the genetic causes for various diseases and behaviors.  It is important. 

We can draw lines with experimenting on human beings and we should.  If experiementation is done, it needs to have the proper consent and review by ethics panels.  This is definitely something worth talking about as a society (where the lines are) - because it's not always clear.  If the research may harm the participants, the proposal should be denied. Of course, harm is also difficult to define - again, why the panels and review are important.

Finally, I believe that the archives should be opened so these women can see the research findings on them personally.  The researchers studied them until they were a year old, but I think they have a right to that information. 

I believe the archives are currently closed for another thirty to fifty years.  And there were other adoptees who were studied, separately, for longer. Some who may not realize that they have a twin sibling.  It seems like the plot of a gothic novel, but it was real, and the people involved were genuine. 

In the end, again, I know the "nature vs. nurture" question is compelling.  For some things, however, does it matter why?  Some things are the way they are.  There aren't any easy answers, obviously, if there were we would have found them already.