{a peek at my old neighborhood}

When we lived on Lyndoch Crescent, on any given day we were treated o Rolls Royces and fancy town cars and pink and white taxis classing up the joint every once in awhile. Brides, running uphill in the rain, trailing veils; queues of taxis and gents in spectacular dress, women in saris, Muslims in hijabs, folks lugging backpacks, in jeans – all walking up to 22 Park Circus for a civil service wedding.

Alas, all good things must come to an end. The venue is being handed off to developers and moneyfolk and the council, and the windows in my neighborhood won’t be filled with wee girls with their noses pressed against the glass, eying the wedding gowns and wondering how much they’ve cost. The end of an era; the new civil office looks like an impersonal hotel lobby, as opposed to the glorious Victorian opulence of these gorgeous old buildings.

Take a peek at what glory lived just down the street from me. Sometimes Glasgow – and cities like Dundee and Edinburgh would just shock me – having a Starbucks or a dentist’s office in the midst of all of this gorgeous architecture. I don’t know how people get used to living a life amidst the spoils of such a grand and opulent era, how it didn’t just gut them and turn them inside out with gaping jaws and gasps, being fully undone at the poetry of worn glass tiles embedded in cement, outside of the apothecary on Cresswell Lane. Just going to the post office in downtown – Charing Cross – or going to pay a bill in the City Chambers on John Street, or going to the library, or popping down a flight of stairs to find the loo – and you find sometimes the most beautiful things.

Dundee 258

Thing is, in Scotland, I looked. I made a point of paying attention for those little slivers of specialness in the architecture, the bit of stained glass in the cloakroom of the pub; the gryphons in the floor tiles. I LOOKED for the fairytale. After all, if you don’t believe in the magic, you never find it.

“And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don’t believe in magic will never find it.” – Roald Dahl

Goodbye, 22 Park Circus. Onward, with open eyes.

And, as for the fairytale, as for the magic, keep looking.

{to SPEAK, not speaking, and points in between}

“It’s been a horrible news cycle in the past several days, and the internet zeitgeist is loud and hostile, and while I generally am good at ignoring it, I wonder, sometimes, what we, as writers, owe the reality we observe. I want to write about the world as it is. I want to engage readers who are serious-minded enough to have come up with this work of sociological intensity, to think clearly and well, and to do the work of the future… but, sometimes it instead feels like I am wasting time writing little stories about little things like family and falling in love and other minor things.

ALL STORY IS LIFE. I totally believe that. All of life, is encapsulated in story. But, I want to write things that matter… and sometimes I wonder how we do that without writing totally heavy-minded stuff.”

(I ask you to forgive this self-indulgent post, as I am thrashing out some things in my head.)

I shared the above thoughts with a group of friends and writing associates this past week. Lest it sound as if I am feeling sorry for myself with my comment about “small stories,” let me explain that I am thinking not of my own stories specifically, but of the size of the Big Stories that are in the media right now. Race. Sexual orientation. Privacy. Class. Religion. Sex. Gender. Politics. And again, Race. These are the things that crop up in the headlines over and over. These are the things which are on the collective American mind. These are the things which… aren’t really showing up much in young adult and children’s lit. Except, when they do. And then, sometimes people panic.

It’s always funny to me to find out who else is on the same page as my brain. Kelly Jensen, librarian and one of the bloggers at Stacked recently wrote a piece for Book Riot called, “What Grown-ups Are Afraid of In YA. Basically, the upshot of what a lot of us are afraid of, she explains, is “reality.” When books get real and bring up those topics like class, religion, gender, and sex, not to mention religious discrimination, gender politics and sexual orientation, some people, who believe that opinions are things which should be told to young people and not allowed to develop organically – those folk get nervous.

Kelly gives a culturally relevant example of the idea of a YA novel being given a judgmental and erroneous response with Laurie Halse Anderson’s SPEAK. (Please note, I said “the idea” of the novel, not the book itself. It remains a murky point as to whether or not the objector has read the book. Because he will not answer a direct question to this point, most of us conclude, “no.”) The irony of this gentleman objecting to the material is that it is real – so real – and is the kind of writing I wonder if we’re not all called, in whatever genre, to do.

Censoring Reality, red

SPEAK, if you were not aware, is Laurie Halse Anderson’s first novel, published in 1999, and it’s both sarcastic and funny, deeply, deeply painful, and deeply moving. It’s about survival, it’s about a crime, and it’s about a girl surviving this crime against her person which has stolen her innocence, her agency, and her voice — and getting all of it back again, and beating the heck out of the odds. It’s a book that galvanized an entire generation of young women to stand up and speak the truths that silence on the topic of rape is not only dangerous, it is unacceptable. It was published a few years too late to be a high school book for me, but it nonetheless is, like so many other YA novels, is a very important book for helping navigate part of growing up.

As I mentioned before, this very real book, in a very real way, disturbs and confronts. The continued push back against this, and especially the most recent backlash continues to both astound and bewilder.

And yet: I understand the sincere desire for censorship.

You look worried! I know! It sounds crazy, but, I get it.

I know people – and grew up with people, lived with people, and worshiped with people for years – who believe that God made the world, gave it to adults, and then, gave the adults the charge to pass on a safety-netted version of that world to young adults, with all the edges padded and all the rough spots smoothed, so that they will not hurt themselves. These are parents who love the heck out of their children, and who want to control what information gets through to them, so that they can kind of control their children’s interface with the larger secular world, and control the type of person they become. While this view is rooted in love, it is in some ways a selfish love. It gives no credence to the opinions or the intelligence of the young people they’ve raised. Worse, it essentially shows an ultimate distrust in their God, because those parents who seek to control every aspect of their child’s life are in essence saying that maybe God cannot protect their children as well as their continued censorship might be able to do.

Big Stories

(Yeah. That’s not something about which I’d like to get into a discussion with, say, my father. It’s one thing to write that thought down. It’s another to let that thought past the thicket of belief in one’s own superior moral sense as a parent, in one’s responsibility to keep a child from perceived evil, and to raise them up to be Good, People With Moral Values – with a single, preset definition of “good,” “moral,” and “values,” of course. I know well that he and I – and maybe you and I – could argue all day about definitions, about actions, about what it is to keep a kid “safe,” etc., and we might never agree. But, I’m okay with that if you are.)

…which brings me back to my desire to write books with Big Stories. Stories which matter. Stories which change things. Stories which cause readers to think, and to care, and to …speak.

I know what I am risking, in this desire. I am risking having my work really criticized and spoken against by well-meaning people. I am risking being constantly misunderstood. I risk my version of what’s real or important being overlooked, in favor of pursuing the morality of discussing such a topic with young people at all. I am risking people utterly missing the point.

But, what am I risking, as both an author, and as a human being, if I don’t try to touch on the Big Stories at all?

“What I sense is this: You are telling stories that haven’t been largely told in the mainstream.

A black WWII woman veteran? A black cross-dressing Dad in an otherwise loving family? These are not small stories. You are making a dent in the majority culture’s collective sense of What Black People Are Like.

You are lighting candles instead of cursing the darkness (not to be clichéd about it).”

– A.

And, then, there are times when I throw a pebble out from my inner mind, and it ripples the waters of the world in a way which brings me back to my center.

What I consider to be little stories – or, tiny sparks against the dark – might not be. I might be working my way toward those Big Stories where I want to be, after all. The difficulty is to recognize that it’s all a work in progress, a balancing of my personality and my style of writing against the larger demands of what stories cause me to think, to react, to speak. I can only cause what matters to me to matter to others, just as someone who bears witness can only tell what they’ve seen.

I look forward to thinking and writing more on this question, and finding out where the little stories at the heart of the Big Stories might take me.

{give|take}

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Act i, Scene iii

When I was finally old enough to realize that the bit of Shakespeare that I had memorized dutifully was farcical, I was a bit confused. I’ve seen people with Polonius’ final lines tattoed on themselves, and my copy editor, when I echoed that tattoo in HAPPY FAMILIES asked, “You know that’s meant to be ironic, right?” Well, yes, and no. Laertes and Ophelia are chitchatting whilst Laertes is supposed to be leaving for university in Paris – the ship is waiting for him. His father arrives, and he knows a scolding is coming, however, in hurrying him off, Polonius delays him that much longer with a lot of overly fatherly, windbag advice.

But two lines about being a borrower or a lender? They’re golden.

I didn’t always think so – I was pretty sure that it was actually a good position to be in, to be the one to be able to loan people money and things. I liked having — really, everyone likes having — because “to have” is in the position of power that “have not” fails to produce. Having been a student – broke – a very poor young newlywed – for years, broke – and recently, a student abroad – really broke — I’ve enjoyed being in a position in the last little while to not have to look at bills with a sense of dread. It’s a relief to be living simply enough to make ends meet. Being a have not is a lot of work, and brings with it a load of worry and stress that’s unbelievable. I always thought that finally being a “have” meant that my life would be easier. However, early this year, I was given cause to rethink.

I have learned that being the one who has can become addicting. It’s gratifying to help, but I know someone who loves to ride in on a white charger and save people a moment before the hangman’s trap has opened… but I’ve also watched this person gallop past people who are down, but not bleeding out — and ignore them. I guess it’s no fun if it’s not an eleventh hour save. To me, that kind of self-gratifying savior-itis is an illness, if people are only visible to you when they’ve hit bottom. If you can’t love the people who do not need you, as much as you revel in the presence of those who do, your help has become a problem.

Conversely, it’s also a problem to find yourself giving – compulsively – in order to retain a sense of social regard or affection of those in need. It all so easily becomes a slippery slope.

While I am thinking in terms of specific things, I can say very generally that it boils down to this: at any point, I can be only one thing to people at a time. I can either be a friend or a mentor, a family member or a stranger, a borrower or a lender. Do you really need me to monetarily support your foundation, or your work? Then money is all you will get from me. Do you really need my time and attention, my ear and my heart? Then you must realize that I’ll need to think twice – and three times – before I expand that which I give to you to include money. Otherwise, I have erased my boundaries, thrown open my doors, and am giving you everything. And, in many cases, when you have given nothing for what you want from me? That’s unacceptable.

Obligation creates its own definitions of who we are. Obligation prevents some of the nuances of intimacy. Obligation produces resentments – usually on both sides. I’m not sure I want to be in a position any more where those relationships are a part of my life. I want to give without feeling that I should, that I’m obliged to because of a previous relationship, position of faith, level of education, or membership in any group. I want to make the decisions about how my philanthropy – or lack of it – is handled.

Families – relatives – get put into these positions of obligation sometimes more than me, I think. Parents feel they’re obligated to help out their kids; families to bond together and take care of a straggling member. While these acts are healthy and create community in their time and place, both can be so easily abused. I see it over and over again.

People talk a great deal about entitlement, and how “today’s youth” allegedly abuse the privileges that they have, blah, blah, blah. I don’t just think it’s teens. I certainly wanted someone to swoop in and pay my bills – especially when I was barely twenty and realizing I might have bitten off more than I could chew, with student loans and an apartment and a new car. It’s not just the very young who expect somehow, some magic wand will sweep through the air and fix things. I think it’s everybody. We have been raised to these high expectations, in this world of digital marvels and technological advances. We have been given to expect that we should expect more. We want it all. We’re told we can have it all.

But, the truth still stands: we cannot. Not without some sacrifices. Not without some compromises. For, still, within this brave new world, for every gift, there is a price. What are you willing to irrevocably give up, to get what you want? What debt-load are you willing to take on?

For all of Polonius’ windbagging, he’s trying to help his son.”Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” It’s a way to avoid heartache, obligation, stress, and relationship fractures. No more debt – either emotional, psychological, or financial. No more lending. No more borrowing.

It’s advice worth taking, when all is said and done.

{north american discworld con, ’13: girls doing science}

A geologist and a physicist walk into a panel…

Baltimore 131
Baltimore 132

Kathryn Hoppe, geologist, and Catherine Asaro, physicist, explain how The Fifth Elephant might have slipped. Discworld Convention 2013

One of my favorite things about the Discworld Con – besides all the people-watching, and some truly inventive Maskerade costuming – was that the panels were balanced well between men and women. The Mad Science of Discworld was all done by men (Anatoly Belilovsky, Pat Harkin, Bill Mayhew, Jon Singer), and there was a lot of silliness and bwahahahaha sort of mad-sciencey stuff, but The Science of the Discworld was dominated by women (and Jon Singer, who sat and contemplated his good fortune in being next to such brilliance). Real science, real women.

Equal opportunity brilliance. Cool.