{treat each guest honorably}

Dolomites T 196

The Guest House

This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice.
meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.

Be grateful for whatever comes.
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

— Jelaluddin Rumi,
translation by Coleman Barks

Edna's, Aldie VA

Tech Boy’s grandmother’s farm in Aldie, VA, 1940’s.

THIS IS HOW I FIND HER, by Sara Polsky, reminded me of the awesome of this poem, and the truth that we must greet each emotion that comes into this being human – we have no control over it, and it may have something to leave us, when it is gone. THIS IS HOW I FIND HER is another candidate for Erika’s List, well worth picking up, and I’ll be posting my review on Wonderland next Tuesday. Happy Poetry Friday!

{and, still looking inward}

“How can another see into me, into my most secret self, without my being able to see in there myself? And without my being able to see him in me. And if my secret self, that which can be revealed only to the other, to the wholly other, to God if you wish, is a secret that I will never reflect on, that I will never know or experience or possess as my own, then what sense is there in saying that it is my secret, or in saying more generally that a secret belongs, that it is proper to or belongs to some one, or to some other who remains someone. It’s perhaps there that we find the secret of secrecy. Namely, that it is not a matter of knowing and that it is there for no one. A secret doesn’t belong, it can never be said to be at home or in its place. The question of the self: who am I not in the sense of who am I but rather who is this I that can say who? What is the- I and what becomes of responsibility once the identity of the I trembles in secret?”
― Jacques Derrida

The identity of the “I.” Yeesh. Derrida is sometimes frighteningly deep.

{this&THAT}

When you’ve twice tried to use your library card instead of the bank card in your purse, it’s probably a sign. Of what, I’m not yet sure. Perhaps, advancing senility?

We are writing about race whether or not we consciously choose to address it. We can’t help ourselves—as we write, we disseminate our own views, our own attitudes, our own ideas of what it means to be a person in the world. We choose who populates that world: who is present, who is absent, who’s forgotten.

And so we have to, as we grow, reconcile our initial geography of social structure with the larger context of the world we’re entering into. Sometimes, as we enter this larger world, we have no kind of reliable map. We have to create our own.

Sometimes, the things I read hit me in the middle of the forehead. Today’s Rumpus original by Delaney Nolan makes my head reverberate.

We talk a lot, in my writing group, about privilege and ignorance, about classism, ethnicity, diversity, whose stories we can write, and why, or how. Nolan writes, “The purpose of good literature, as far as I can tell, is to find a common human ground that we can all relate to.” That sounds remarkably like my own discussion on the “commonality of the human experience.” In writing this good literature, we try not to pretend we can possess a thing or a culture or a people we cannot, but instead, make accessible what little we know, by bearing witness. In this way we can authentically hold open a door for someone else to catch a glimpse of something they may be interested enough to discover, outside the pages of a book, for themselves.

And doesn’t that just give whole new meaning to the word, “doorkeepers.”

“Nobody sees anybody truly but all through the flaws of their own egos. That is the way we all see …each other in life. Vanity, fear, desire, competition— all such distortions within our own egos— condition our vision of those in relation to us. Add to those distortions to our own egos the corresponding distortions in the egos of others, and you see how cloudy the glass must become through which we look at each other. That’s how it is in all living relationships except when there is that rare case of two people who love intensely enough to burn through all those layers of opacity and see each other’s naked hearts.”
― Tennessee Williams

Lately I’ve really thought about this quote, and about who and what we see each other to be, and how much we see through projections. Someone told me the other day, in essence, that I judged them through the lenses of being a writer; that my desire to know how people tick made me pull them apart, and stuff them in little boxes, in essence like some horrifying little bully who pulls the wings off of flies, or who nets butterflies only to drive a pin through them on a display board.

No, that didn’t make me happy to hear, but neither did it frustrate me, not really. Not when I had already begun to understand that, although we have shared a close acquaintanceship, that perhaps we neither one of us yet truly understood what it took to ascend the step to truly be “friend.” Befriend. Friending, a verb, and yet it still eludes us… Though this idea of me viewing the world through the medium of words shook me, it also let me see how blind we are, as a species, and how quick we are to hold up the alleged cruelty or inattentiveness of another because we are blinded by ourselves.

Don’t we all see each other through a series of mirrors or windows? Depending on the angle of the light – or which way we hold ourselves – we either see what we want to – which, all too often is only ourselves – or we look enough beyond what we see reflected back at us that we catch a glimpse of the unknown. I don’t believe that just because I’m a writer, the sum total of my ability is used to define people. I don’t know what it does mean, but so far, my answer to that accusation is simply rejection; a “No,” and not “No, but.” I’m still waiting for my head to catch up with my heart on this one, and tell me what it all means…

That’s a big, true hope for any piece of work.

{make a wish, blow the candles…}

“[The students] asked me dozens of questions, as young folks do, and as usual they were astonished to hear how different things were in those days before integration…. I couldn’t help thinking that there are now whole generations who have grown up since those days and know very little about how things really were. That’s when I made up my mind that it was time to begin writing, and this book is the result.” (29)

~ quoting Idella Parker, in “Neither Friends nor Peers,” by Rebecca Sharpless, printed in the May, 2012 The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 78, No. 2

According to today’s THE WRITER’S ALMANAC: “It’s the birthday of Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings born in Washington, D.C., on this day in 1896. She’s best known for her book The Yearling (1938), which was the best-selling novel in America in 1938 and won the Pulitzer Prize the following year.

The Yearling is about an adolescent boy in rural Florida who adopts an orphaned baby deer named Flag, becomes really close to the deer, and then, in the end, has to shoot Flag because it’s eating all the family’s crops.

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings also loved to cook. She once said, “I get as much satisfaction from preparing a perfect dinner for a few good friends as from turning out a perfect paragraph in my writing.” She even published her own cookbook, called Cross Creek Cookery (1942), a few years after she won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

What Billy Collins – filling in for Garrison Keillor – fails to mention in today’s write up is that Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings did not, in fact, prepare perfect dinners for her guests, she had her maid, Idella, do it. And she took her maid, Idella’s recipes and printed them in Cross Creek Cookery in 1942, and because of the tenor of the times, she did not give credit where credit was due.

I have been thinking about that, today of all days. I have been thinking about the relationship of African American, Southern women with their Caucasian, Southern sisters, and feeling ambivalent. I have wasted little ink and less time on the whole Paula Deen thing – wasted little outrage, and very little shock. I think more shock has been spent on the people who were surprised by her language. Much like I often point out that Martha Stewart had a tribe of workers making her immaculate grounds look so good for Martha Stewart, Living, and that Oprah has leagues of foot-soldiers polishing the armor in her little kingdom, much less stylists and chefs and who-knows-what-all-else to ensure that she remains the unsullied Queen of Everything, I knew very well that someone as expansive and entertaining and sassy as Paula Deen certainly wasn’t working her butter-loving fingers to the bone alone. It was her staff – and, being a Southern woman creating Southern food, they were very probably people of color.

Actually, what was a little worrying to me, personally, was my knee-jerk “of course” about the whole thing. Of course Paula Deen has racist leanings. Of course she used the n-word. Of course she didn’t see anything wrong with it, which is why she apologized so ineptly. She’s a sixty-six year old Southerner. Aren’t all Southerners of that era racists?

Unequivocally, NO. It’s actually very, very wrong of me to believe so.

But, like racism in all its forms, my knee-jerk response is kind of a …reflexive, what-you’ve-been-steeped-in, how-you-grew-up kind of thought. This offers no excuse, but an explanation, of sorts. To wit, my parents were in middle school around the time of school desegregation. One of my father’s childhood stories is of pulling up to a stop light each morning in his South Florida town next to a school bus from the other side of town (Yes! Their town was big enough for a light! And two lanes going the same direction at that light! I know!), and lobbing spitballs, food, and other small missiles at each other, until the light changed. This went on, unchallenged by any adult, apparently, and the skirmishes continued when they were bussed to their schools, and their racial populations were mixed. It was war, from the moment they hit the front porch to the moment they opened the classroom door.

An Army man, my father entered the military young, as so many young men of color did in the sixties. He served under sadistic sergeants of whatever race, and they were, as always, universally hated. As an Army chef, and later as a hospital cook, he saw people “gob” (by which he means “spit,” my fellow Yankees. Yes. \ˈgȯb, ˈgäb\. It is a verb.) in the food of those they hated – usually across distinct racial lines, though I daresay anyone who raised their ire even slightly would get spit in their grits. He refused to let us go out to eat, when I was a child, because he was certain it happened still, and would happen to us. Because we were African Americans.

A lot of times, it’s what you grow up with.

And, when I was a child, I spake as a child, I thought as a child, I understood, as a child – and then I grew up, and put away childish things, including things I had been taught to accept without thinking. Including inherited beliefs about other groups. Including an assumption that “all” people of any stripe are anything.

Avenue Q is a musical I have never seen – I actually usually hate musicals (Shh! I know!) – but I have had the song quoted to me, line for line: “Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist.” It’s kind of a funny song – an ironic song, of course, full of the edgy humor Avenue Q is known for — and I hate it. I hate the idea of it. I hate the thought that everyone really is a “little bit” racist, and that we are, in this country today, in many cases, more than “a little bit.” I hate the idea as a “Yankee” who is deeply uneasy in the South, I have bought into the so-many-years-past post Civil War self-righteousness of the North, to hold up the South as The Big Meanies Who Wanted Slavery, when as an entire country we practice institutionalized racism, including and not limited to how districts fund and teachers teach in various schools, how policemen decide to patrol and pull people over, and who they let pass by, how shopkeepers and restauranteurs react and respond to people in turbans, dashikis, kurtas, hijabs and burqas. We substitute a subtle classism for our racism, and call ourselves acceptable.

To be self-actualized, I must do better. I must remind myself that the Mason-Dixon line is an imaginary, permeable barrier. It did not keep racists on one side, and the rest of us on the other.

Christopher Meyers’ piece in the Horn Book this past week solidified some things for me. Often, as a writer, I feel like I am just here, lost in the dark. I have written before about what I felt was my “entertainment” value in a world which contains constant situations like the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and how flippin’ useless I felt as a human being, that my entire job was to make up lies about times in worlds that didn’t exist, when what exists in this world, worlds containing people like me, is sometimes violent and ugly. And yet, my friend Anne saved me from myself, reminded me of what I am doing – what I try to do, anyway. Why I keep trying to open my veins and write. Meyers seconded that. As he said,

“Images matter. They linger in our hearts, vast “image libraries” that color our actions and ideas, even if we don’t recognize them on a conscious level. The plethora of threatening images of young black people has real-life effects. But if people can see us as young dreamers, boys with hopes and doubts and playfulness, instead of potential threats or icons of societal ills, perhaps they will feel less inclined to kill us.”

“…making a dent in the majority culture’s collective sense of What Black People Are Like.” That is what Anne said we writers have the power to do. If we change who people see – who they believe can exist, maybe I, maybe Mr. Meyers – maybe any of us – can save a life.

It’s worth thinking about. It’s worth trying for. It’s worth everything, that striving. It’s worth being truly grateful for, as we sit around our metaphorical table, various races and ethnic backgrounds, orientations and classes. It’s worth holding hands and bowing heads – or lifting them up – and counting the blessings that we still have time to try – to keep trying – to get this right.

Set the table, light the candles – and wish a Happy Birthday to Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, who dreamed of a kid who bucked the trend of hardnosed farmers and took a chance on an innocent life. It didn’t work out as he expected, but like Jody, we can dream bigger than we are – and perhaps change the future.

{mr. scalzi, matthew 6, and anti-intellectualism}

It’s always funny to me, as a Christian person, to find agnostics doing a better job of explaining Christianity than those of us who claim the name.

(And, no, I am not writing this post to maintain that John Scalzi is a some kind of doesn’t-know-it-yet-but-once-he-figures-it-all-out-he’ll-know Christian. He’s agnostic. He says it, I believe it, that settles it, hah-hah.)

I simply appreciate that he thinks about things. He knows the Bible well enough to find verses and think about them, and really apply what he knows to things. He thinks about systems of thought, about ethics, and you can see the evidence of his background in philosophy in this post. John Scalzi actually applies reason and logic to a system of belief – something that is vastly missing from the majority of belief systems and denominations.

And, when was the last time the average Christian person put as much thought into an agnostic or philosophical system of belief, with the end result not to debunk it, but to examine its strong points?

Thinking about it, my favorite columnist, Jon Carroll – also agnostic. One of my favorite authors, Sir Terry Pratchett – also agnostic. Which, as a Christian, you might think might make me nervous. (It probably makes my parents nervous. Sorry, guys.) Except, it makes me thoughtful, more than anything.

I am so against anti-intellectualism. It is like a deadly gas stealing all of the breathable oxygen from intelligent discourse in this country. It permeates American culture – and I know I sound like my professor, Micheline – yet another agnostic – but I will also just say flat out that anti-intellectualism encourages lazy thinkers, and lazier readers. (Oh, how Micheline railed at us for being lazy readers! She might roll her eyes at me, even now, except I am reading A Hard Book, so feel personally vindicated this week. This week only, but anyway. One book at a time.) Anti-intellectualism prefers to deal with people on an emotional level, where facts are easily warped, and people give up thinking things through for the heady rush of sentiment… and since I’m a closet sentimentalist, lead always with my heart, with my brain chiming in a distant second, I deeply admire people who can put aside the first hot blooded leap to whatever conclusion, stand their ground, settle into themselves, and give things a thorough dissection with their minds. It is a valuable, valuable thing, this lack of rush to sentiment.

(Case in point: this post. I had strong feelings about John’s post, and rushed to write this in response, and, in the time it’s taken me to work out what I want to say from an incoherent emotive rush words, I’ve kind of lost my plot. Emotional reasoning! Kind of unreasonable, yeah.)

Balloch 13

A lot of people fear logic – respond to it with hostility, and it seems that they distrust those who rely on it. Which I’ve honestly never understood. Later in Matthew – the twenty-second chapter, the thirty-seventh verse – we’re reminded to love the Lord our God with all of our hearts – and with all of our minds. There is never going to be a call for all one or all the other sort of thinking. The best system of belief is both heartfelt and thoroughly intellectually mindful.

“But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

~ Galileo Galilei, in a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615

Oh, Signor Galilei. Do you mean to say that we’re not going to get a sudden bolt from the blue to tell us what to do? Do you mean we’ll have to think for ourselves… by ourselves?? Are you stating that we must develop a sense of critical inquiry? Why… yes. Yes, indeed. And that sense of critical inquiry is what it took, to ground a man who saw things counter to what he had been taught was The Truth Of The World. He believed strongly that his God required him to think – and he did.

And, it cost him.

But, it was a price he was willing – at least for as much as he could be – to pay.

I grew up loving reading somehow despite the fact that in our home words were rationed, and reading was something strictly overseen. Things deemed “appropriate” or “inappropriate” were not discussed so much as were heavy, unspoken Expectations of “You Know What Is Right” put out there. But, I didn’t…know what was right, I mean. I still don’t. “Right” isn’t always this one, clear thing. Like Mr. Scalzi does here, we have to think about Right. Moral righteousness is not inherent within our makeup, even if we are born and raised with church. And yet, how little time was spent teaching me personally to adjudge right from wrong. How little of the spirit of critical inquiry necessary to living an “examined” life is actually encouraged and taught – how few of us know the value of critical thinking. How few of us know how to think.

Matthew 6 isn’t the only place in the Bible which encourages its readers to examine situational ethics and good judgment. But, it’s as good a place as any to start.