Anger into action

Recently I've found myself getting overwhelmed with anger about a few issues.

For some of the issues, I have every right to be angry. Some involve things that happened in the past, long ago. The things that happened in the past I can't do anything about.

So I've been exploring what it is that I am really angry about. Is my anger justified - what am I scared of (is there any fear there).

I realize that dwelling on my anger (are women supposed to be angry??) doesn't help anyone. Certainly it doesn't help me live and enjoy my life, it doesn't help my marriage or my relationship with my kids. All it does is leave a bad taste in my mouth.

(As an aside, I didn't realize just how angry I was for a long time. Now my struggle is focusing my anger into acknowledgment and then productive anger. And accepting the past as something I can't change).

A friend once told me that being angry about other people's actions or behaviors is like taking the poison yourself and expecting the other person to get sick. I agree.

In one of the cases, with my anger towards a work situation, I figured out there is something I can do. There are actions I can take that I have taken (calmly). I've figured out what my triggers are in the situation (perceiving that I'm being taken advantage of), and the risks of me speaking out (and the risks of not speaking out).

The relief and empowerment that I've felt by speaking up - despite awkwardness - have been palpable. Even if changes don't happen, I have choices - and that is priceless.

I find that many seemingly immovable situations or things in my life change over time. They are like glaciers. It seems like some of these "truths" are unchanging but there is change going on - just slowly. And I realize that I change over time, my perceptions of what's going on change as well.

How this relates to mormonism? There may be things that can be changed - requests that a person can make here in the present in some  family situations. 

Being open to thinking about those changes - being open to the possibility of action can be freeing (to my mind). I can't say what those requests might be - but figuring out if there are little parts of the glacier that I can chip at. There are boundaries I can set. There are people I don't have to talk to or be around. There are people I can be around that I don't discuss certain issues with (like faith or mormonism).

Figuring out the things that I'm angry about that I literally cannot do anything to change has been very helpful (a great example for me has been the mormon.org billboard that I drive past when taking my kids to school). 

It should come as no surprise to anyone here, I disagree with that use of funds by the LDS church.  With all the desperate need in this world, I disagree with advertising the diversity of the LDS church (I disagree that the LDS church is really a diverse organization).  So I can focus on that disagreement every time I pass the billboard, or I can accept that I can't change all of those things and let it go.

There are quite a few things that I am angry about that I can't do anything to change. I've thought about it, extensively, and there's nothing I can do. So when I'm aware of that, I choose to let my immediate anger go - realizing - I can't do anything about this, and so I choose not to dwell on my anger about it.

The Purse

 I lost a purse when I was six, while I attended the ballet with my brownie troop. I remember this incident distinctly. My sister had made me the purse for Christmas.  I recall being very upset, I cried most of the car ride home. My Mom wasn't on the trip, so it would have been a friend's mom who would have tried to calm me down.

I remember being upset about the $5 I lost in the purse, but also because I was terrified that my sister would be upset and disappointed with me.  In the end, I don't think she was all that upset, I had over-reacted (remember, I was six!). 




Some months ago, I found this journal. It's been at the bottom of a box that I've carted from various locations.  My mother had diligently kept a journal for me (and my siblings, I think) from the time we were babies.  Journal writing is a big part of mormon culture, it's important to share your life with your descendants. 

I opened up the journal to an entry when I would have been the same age as my kids are now.  My Mom mentioned that I had received a purse from my sister for Christmas, and also duly noted that I had attended the ballet with my brownie troop.

The lost purse was notably absent.

My Mom would have written every month, or after a significant event.  She wrote in the first person, as if I were writing my thoughts.  But obviously part of my thoughts were censored, the purse incident was simply too upsetting or negative to be included. 

At this point, I sit in awe, that with four kids, she had the time to write.  She would have been in her late twenties, younger than I am now.

As hard as her life was, I can appreciate that she did try to show me what love she was able to. 

It was nice to be vindicated (I must not have ms-remembered the purse), but also to note the very real occurrence of "only the good news" alive and well in my family from that era.

Other people's opinions

Not long ago, I read a blog post that I disagreed with.  I know it's a shocker (On the internet!  Imagine!).  This person was saying that they believed a certain mormon doctrine to mean x.  Or, their mormon faith led them to make a particular personal decision.  They did not say at any point that everyone should believe x.  Or that all mormons believe x.

The question is whether or not that was implied. 

I never learned the tool "take what you like and leave the rest" growing up.  Yes, some mormons get that, and do that.  And they don't have angst over being "cafeteria mormons".  They know that it is healthy to take everything with a grain of salt and make your own decisions based on evidence.  They make decisions on past experience, other people's experience/advice, published research and studies.

I think this is a vital tool.  Being able to disagree with someone's opinion and not think any less of them as a person.  Of course there are opinions that are difficult to respect.  And at times, the personal and political do overlap. What I've found is, for some people, disagreement can be very threatening.  chanson had a post about this type of thing (disagreeing) - where she disagreed with her debate coach and I can't find her post to link to.

I simply think it is very important for each person to be able to make up their own mind about something, weighing evidence.  Just because one person believes something, even someone you respect, love or trust does *not* mean you have to agree with them.  Does not mean that is right for you.  And, just because one member of a certain religious organization believes something is doctrine, doesn't mean it is. Particularly if whatever belief this is is not supported by religious leaders, scriptures (like the bible), documentation, etc.  It's true, mormon doctrine is incredibly hard to determine.

It must sound like I'm talking around an issue, which I am.  But I missed this concept growing up.  It was hard to figure out if doing something like "watching tv on Sundays" was something I needed to do, or not.  And if I did watch tv on Sundays, and there were some faithful mormons who did not, did that make me less devout or faithful?  Was it sinful to watch tv on Sundays? Particularly if the implication was that mormon leaders thought that was important and a sign of faith. 

Not only that, but to me, it was important to learn that I am no better or worse than anyone else, no matter what.  That was also a shocker.  Just because, say, I didn't watch tv on Sundays or drink - doesn't mean I'm a better person.


Again, I've spoken with people and mormons who get this. Who are just trying to get through their own sh*t. 

But it always bothered me that sometimes mormonism, some parts of mormon culture seemed like a competition to see who could be more faithful, and more self-suppressing.  It seemed like a rat race, and I'm so glad I got off the hamster wheel. 

Infinite Jest

I recently re-read Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. It seems fitting to do this review today, after a blinding snowstorm landed in the state a few days ago.  (The last section of the book takes place in the midst of an insane November snowstorm).

I had read it the first time around ten years ago, highly recommended by friends of mine.  The first time, I didn't start out reading the footnotes.  So, if you decide to tackle this novel, that's my first recommendation.  Definitely read the footnotes (there are around 100 pages, and the characters and plot are sometimes further explained in them). 

The book is long and descriptive - instead of minimal language - it's more like maximum, obsessive language.  The Onion satrized it here; where David Foster Wallace's girlfriend stopped reading his 67 page break up note on page 20.

That's my second recommendation about the book.  Wallace explains a lot within the first hundred pages and actually wraps up some threads in the beginning.  I know that might not make sense, but that's what I found. So you might read through the entire book the first time, then re-read to page 100.  Some of the characters make more sense - including one (single) sentence, in which two of the main characters meet (Hal and Gately).  But, the first time through, you aren't looking for either character and just trying to figure out what's going on.

I also recently listened to the Slate book club's analysis of the book.  They read the novel in March of 2008, around six months after the author's death.  *  I also agree with the claim about Consider the Lobster, a collection of essays. 

I have to admit, there are some parts that do seem excessive.  I know that Wallace claimed that everything in there was supposed to be there (the original draft was 1500 pages) but some things do seem over-extended.  But his descriptions of everything involved with addiction were intensely powerful.  Particularly this second time, addiction and obsession popped out at me.  It's true, every character has at least one thing (or multiple things) they are obsessed with - which prevent any real human relationships or interaction. In that sense, it's really not a dark comedy - but a dark vision of humanity. The chapter where a minor character is preparing to smoke pot on a bender (for example) - this is the eightieth or so time that he has sworn he will never smoke pot again - that he's told everyone in his life he's never smoking again...but here he is, preparing to not  speak to anyone for three days while he smokes. I can't describe the chapter well here - I highly recommend reading it yourself.

Or the part about how a person realizes that the substance they thought was their "one true friend", there throughout it all, is really not  friend at all. That the substance has taken away everything a person has ever cared about, including their sanity.  Instead of being described as "hitting bottom", that a point that some addicts reach is more like a cliff - where they realize that if they are going to stay alive, they have to do something different - to change.  Because there is no way they can keep going the way they are and survive.

I agree with the book club analysis.  Personally, I will go on a limb and suggest that there is no way that he could have written everything he did without being some sort of addict himself.  (Maybe one of his assertions is that everyone is some form of addict?)  I don't actually know if he did struggle with addiction with illegal substances, in looking back through the obituaries, I can't say for sure that he did.

If anything, my hope is the novel might help encourage understanding of addiction and obsession.

On the other hand, that is what makes some novels great, isn't it? When the author might not have anything in common with the main characters or their experiences; but it seems like there is no way they could write about it without having experienced it.

It's a long book, I can respect that some people like it, some people don't - that it's controversial.  I feel the second time around, I understood more of what was going on.

* So people didn't really finish the book? Really?  Granted, it is 900 pages long.  I can see that with some other novels, but the pacing seems to keep up with Infinite Jest.  And you keep wanting something to happen, for things to resolve, for things to make sense (perhaps futile).