Required Reading For Your ‘Destination Vacation’
9 November 2009
Jamaica Kincaid’s book A Small Place, reminded me at first of a travel journal, and then of a personal journal. The function of the beginning ‘chapter’ which mimics a travel journal, is to put the reader in the position of tourist. In doing so, the reader is implicated with the ignorance of all the non-native people who visit Antigua. This got me thinking. I thought that I needed a vacation. And then I instantly felt terrible for that, and realized that this book has quite possibly changed the way that I am able to view destination vacations forever. I have never actually taken a ‘destination’ vacation: those are only things that I daydream about, but now that blissful ignorance has been taken away and Kincaid’s book has held up a mirror to the entitlement and suppression that permeates the western idea of ‘holiday.’ It is similar, in effect, to a picture by Banksy:
It seems that there is nothing that this society takes for granted that can be simply separated from its role in the world. Everything has its equal and opposite balance, so a ‘simple’ vacation carries with it the suppression and exploitation of a region and its people, in order to create a false paradise. At every All-You-Can-Eat Buffet, there are people starving in the alley behind the restaurant.
The end of Kincaid’s book changes from an anti-travel guide to a personal journal of frustration, and I feel that as the reader, I have followed that model. The more information that is given, the more complicated and upsetting a situation can seem. The question of what to do next, and how to fix past mistakes, seems so important once the curtain has been lifted, but the answers remain elusive. Kincaid writes about the assassinations of leaders in Antigua with a confusion that translates to the reader. The events and actions are all interconnected, but we cannot see the threads to cut: there is no clear path to rectification. Other readers might say, at this point, that Kincaid is unjustly passing blame to her readers (and alienates the very readers that buy her books) for something that happened before their time. Although Antigua’s history with colonization is not something that the average reader can control, Kincaid’s direct confrontation of the reader asks them to look at what they CAN control.
Kincaid’s book ends with a description of the ‘European Disease’ – the use and exploitation of other people in order to feel better about one’s own lonely and empty existence, and I am left to ponder the cure for this disease. If I never take that ‘destination’ vacation, am I sufficiently doing my part to counter – act the effects of suppression and exploitation? Probably not, but as J. Kincaid writes, we are all just human beings: we do what we can and hope that it will make a difference.
Random Beings: Modernism, Categorization, and Virginia Woolf
2 November 2009
I see the concept of “random” coinciding with the quote by D.H. Lawrence that “Individualism makes the mistake of considering the individual a fixed entity.” I see these two concepts as being related in such a way that an individual is an ever changing being that experiences things differently during each moment or event. In other words, they have random experiences and thoughts; they do not have a fixed perspective that is impervious to change. I do not see random thought as a negative description; it is, in my opinion, a mode of expression and experience from moment to moment; One moment being cheese sandwiches or the color of a pencil, the next moment having the possibility of an epiphany or the contemplation of a leaf.
Generalizing the random experiences of females and relegating that experience to only times of stress is, to me, an assumption that one person’s experience is the fixed experience of all who “fit” into that category, which in this case would be females. I would like to take it one step further and argue that not only are we random beings with the ability to create a whole new world of thought within any given second, but that this random existence applies to all of us, men and women. Now I am the one making a generalization, but I assert that the generalized randomness would allow for each experience to be unique; one person would think random thoughts when stressed precisely because they are a random being.
This assumption of fluidity and possibility extends to the writers as well; we would be correct in saying, for example, that Virginia Woolf is a Modernist writer, and we would also be correct in saying that she is a feminist writer. She exists simultaneously in both worlds, and possesses a random existence. She would exist as both or neither, a feminist or a modernist depending upon who is looking at her and through what lens.
It is my opinion that the assumption of a fixed entity reinforces the binary system that determines an either/or definition for every aspect of our existence. Random beings, as defined for this post, have the capability of defying the binary system in such a way that it is hard to define them as either this or that. Because a woman is a feminist, it does not follow that she is unhappy in her marriage, (as evident in Virginia’s suicide note to her husband in which she writes “I don’t think two people could have been happier than we have been.”). Because a woman is married, it does not necessarily follow then, that she is a heterosexual, as evident with Virginia’s life-long friendship and love affair with Vita Sackville-West. The possibility of existing as a both/and is also evident with the correspondences between Woolf and Arnold Bennett; Even though they vehemently criticized each other regarding the do’s and don’ts of literature, upon meeting each other, neither could honestly say that they disliked the other. In fact, they had a sort of mutual respect for one another; they existed as both adversaries and equals.
The description of one as a random being allows for the next moment in our lives to contain possibilities limited only by our imagination. It allows for writers to create new modes of expression, and it allows for everyone, as an existing individual, to experience the world as it really is; ever-changing and confusing. We are not either a critic or a creator, a this or a that; we are capable of being both, and we are confusing, complex beings.
That’s Shorthand For…What?
28 October 2009
I logged in this morning with a few ideas for a post topic, but I was not entirely sure what I wanted to write about. So there I am, in my pajamas, clutching a cup of coffee (made with milk….but that’s a different story, trust me) and I start rereading and reviewing yesterday’s administrative stuff. That’s when I notice that the post yesterday was really hard to read.
I took another sip of my coffee and looked again. Yup. It wasn’t me, it was the post. Dropped letters, truncated words, extra spaces. It was like reading a drunk person talking. (well, maybe not that bad, but you get the idea.)
Oh, and hopefully I fixed all of the errors so there is nothing to see there… move along. We can pretend it didn’t happen.
So I started thinking about how I write…you know, penmanship. I have my special occasion writing that comes out when I write sentiments in cards, or when I am making food or place cards for a cocktail party. Generally, it makes an appearance when the people who have to read my writing are either holding a gift that goes with it, or if they had to change out of their pajamas to come over to my place and socialize. In both of those scenarios (especially the latter), they deserve some good penmanship.
For myself…well. Forget it. I take notes and write my lists and the end result looks like a hybrid between Old English and TXT Speak. There are words that I can blend: with the becomes withe and connect to becomes connecto, and then there are words that I can turn into symbols, like behavior, psychology, and because. Behavior and psychology turn into b and Ψology. Because becomes b/c and the @ symbol stands in for at, about, all and area. (Hmm, I wonder what other people’s shorthand is like…if it is like a signature…)
I can read my own shorthand. Usually. And if I can’t, then I can sleuth it out by its context. It is when I can’t read what I typed 12 hours before on a keyboard that I start to worry. And I am not talking about ‘Ohai, im txting so itsin cntxt, KWIM?’ I am talking about when I am typing an equivalent to my special occasion writing, and it comes out looking like my shorthand. You see, I don’t have a set shorthand for keyboards yet, not like I do for scrawling out a note. This means that when I go back to read and proof what I typed out, I don’t catch a lot of what I blended together, as I don’t have a conscious recognition of my shorthand. One would think that means I can recognize the typos and mistakes easier because they would stand out more – they are not yet assimilated into the way I process. But nope.
Apparently that is not the way it works for me. Apparently, my brain has its own online shorthand, with its blended words, dropped letters and extra spaces…it just hasn’t informed me yet.
……
Or, I just need to have more caffeine before I edit.
Cheaper than Therapy
24 July 2009
Why do we do it? Why do we sit in our chairs, on our sofas, on the trains, in our tubs, reading? What do we get from it? Escape? Yes. Knowledge? Yes. A journey, laughter, trivia, insight, bragging rights, skills, information, communication …yes. All of these things. And more. Reflections of ourselves mixed with glimpses of a changing reality. A vision of the world that was, the world that is, and flashes of the world that will be.
Reading Varieties of Disturbance by Lydia Davis has brought this out in me. Her structure and simple poignancy has the effect of a whisper, confided to me amidst the secret rooms of the Changing World Society. I feel as if I have been privileged with a glimpse of an abstract shift that our reality will take in the future. The change is intangible and elusive, yet it weighs heavy on me as a reader. Only Davis knows exactly what the end result will be, as she is the one creating it when she writes. There are other writers that also have this effect on me- Borges, Calvino, Perec, Amis, Noon (the list is organic. Ask me this evening and it will be different)- these writers make me feel as if I am witnessing the creation of a new way of thinking, a new way of existing with the world. They create works that break all of my expectations and change the way I understand literature, the way I understand reading, the way I understand authorship, and the way I conceive of what could be.
Another reason I read is frankly, it is FAR cheaper than therapy.
In all seriousness, through no other medium have I been challenged to examine myself and my place in the world than through literature. During the past few years, as I have really decided on what I want to do- how literature fits into my life and how I fit into the world of literature- the amount of reflection needed to enhance my approach to literature has been astounding. As a writer (and mind you, I don’t consider myself a writer, there just isn’t a better term to describe what I do since, technically, I write papers), tackling the challenges before me in my writing style means tackling my personal hang-ups. (Passive voice, anyone? Try analyzing your own self-confidence.) It is an ongoing process, but being assertive in my writing means being assertive with myself. And that could have cost me thousands of dollars if I tried to work on that through the mental health care system.
And yes, there was a point to that which relates back to Lydia Davis. Her stories expose my own inner workings as if I am trying on swimsuits in an abandoned airplane hangar: vulnerable, exposed, uncomfortable, and yet somehow, NOT ALONE:
The Caterpillar, a one page story about an attempt to save a caterpillar that starts out valiant and ends half-assed, embodies all the responsibility involved in “being the change you wish to see in the world.” When what you are trying to help or change or influence is out of sight, how does one keep it from becoming out of mind? And at what point does something become insignificant enough for me to simply. not. care.
Passing Wind. Read that story and just try to tell me that you have no idea what she is talking about. Go ahead. I DARE you.
And finally, because I have to wrap this up sometime, Head, Heart. A 73 word story that is so simplistic, heartbreakingly honest with the depth of the emotion it deals with. This is a story that would have had zero effect on me 10 years ago. Since then, I have come to know two forms of love that are so deeply affecting that they are accompanied by an irrational fear of losing what I have just discovered. This fear has manifested itself in some crazy ways- I now have nagging worries in the back of my head regarding choking hazards, bridges, faulty electrical wiring, bad weather driving, feline forms of S.I.D.S., and an aversion to my husband using a chain saw. My head knows that these are irrational. My head knows that somehow, if the worst were to happen, life would find a way continue, even if, at those moments, I wouldn’t want it to. My head knows that I should STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY THE MOMENT ALREADY!
My heart doesn’t have ears, so it isn’t listening.
The Anxious Comedy
8 July 2009
In Patrician Authority and Instability in ‘The Way of the World,’ Kevin Gardner asserts that the suppression of emotion, the mastering of presentation, and the embracing of a more legal approach to problem solving are the characteristics of the way of the new world. Gardner explores how these traits are related to the transitioning modes of authority in Stuart Britain, and exposes the social anxieties present in Congreve’s characters, that resulted from such changes to the structure of social power.
The shift from feudalism to capitalism brought with it a different standard for determining social decency and decorum. The traditional controlling powers- the patricians- are of an era that determined conflicts with swords, and relied heavily on emotional release in matters of social communication. Gardner points out that the changing economic landscape was uprooting the outdated modes of social propriety, and an emotional reserve was becoming more and more favored as the proper way to conduct oneself in society. Additionally, the vestigous practice of settling disagreements with force, athleticism and swords was changing, it was coming to be seen as a brutish practice that was fitting only for the lower class.
A reaction against these new social orders was the obsession over natural demeanor. In order to maintain social authority, those in the upper class focused on being able to decipher, through one’s physical actions, whether or not an individual was born of grace. The feeling was that the more natural seeming the rehearsed and choreographed movements of the body were, the more deserving of the aristocracy was the person. The fascination and importance put on this practice had two results, the first of which was that any member of the upper class who could not master their own movements- those who seemed as if they were adopting affectations- were ostracized and rejected from the very network they were attempting to save. The second result of this practice, was that anyone could adopt the mannerisms of the upper class, provided they were skilled at the “natural” presentation.
Gardner uses these social shifts of power to examine the characters in The Way of the World, and in doing so he exposes the anxieties behind their actions and the comedic elements of the play itself. Lady Wishfort becomes a sad product of a society whose rules have far surpassed her, and Mirabell stands as one who has mastered both the new way of propriety and the outdated way, utilizing both modes to assert his own authority. Mirabell is the model of the new cultural codes.
I found Gardner’s article to be very enlightening and approachable. Logistically, I found the presentation of his material to be done in a way so the reader could easily follow the structure of his argument, allowing more opportunities for the reader to associate with, and process the material and assertions made. I find the double ironies of the character’s usage of social rules to be fascinating. Mirabell must maintain the new codes of suppression and self-regulation in order to successfully pull off a subversive plan. These elements are all newer modes of conducting oneself, but their goal is to attain inheritance and a title: both very traditional modes of power.
Another irony that I observed relates to both the patrician mode of power, and the newer, patriarchal mode of power. Gardner writes that the patrician modes of power became based on a heavy reliance on the mechanization of one’s body and movements, as a presentation of “natural” civilization. Whether this development happened as a reaction to, or in tandem with, the threat to the patrician modes of power is unclear to me. However, it is highly interesting to me that the newer, more patriarchal mode of power, based on suppression of emotions and self-restraint, is also inherently dependent upon a mechanistic approach to one’s self- in this case, their inner self- in order to assert power and expose imposters. Both modes of authority are born from similar instincts: to use control and mechanization as a form of self preservation and survival.
Gardner’s approach to Congreve’s The Way of the World has enhanced my perspective of the comedy of manners, save for one element. Gardner points to Lady Wishfort’s anxieties over her loss of sexual and social authority as the driving force of the comedic factor in the play. I would say that Witwoud is also a heavy comedic force, but his force is also born out of misfortune for he, like the Lady, has been unable to decode the social language that solidifies one’s acceptance. In this light, the humor of the play has been taken out of it, and the sadness of the characters shadows over the ‘fun’ element of the play. As a reader, I have a harder time reading the piece as a satire of social mannerisms, it becomes more of a serious reflection on the “way of the world.”
