My husband has background noise going all the time. He has a cable hookup and PVR in his computer, so he's either watching taped TV or listening to music as he works. When he gets a phone call, he pauses the song or the show, and restarts it when he's done.
He can't understand how I can work in silence. "Turn on the radio!" he orders, whenever he comes up and finds me in my quiet kitchen.
"I can't read and concentrate with music going," I tell him, and he shakes his head and goes back to his basement office.
Sometimes a little background sound is necessary. If I try to cook or clean, I get bored very quickly, and I either pick up the phone to chat with a friend while the mindless tasks get done, or, if my number on call display scares them off, I turn on the radio. Doing needed but hated chores requires a distraction, and music works. It's a psychological trick; I'm tidying up while listening to the radio, not listening to the radio while I tidy. After all, you get fidgety if you just sit and listen. This way you get something done while listening to tunes. (TV is a little harder; if I try to watch TV while cleaning my room, I either rewind over and over, or nothing gets very clean.)
I think, if I was a single woman on my own, I would have more artificial noise around me. In a home with three lively children and a large dog who was born to guard us against any imaginary incursion, I have grown to value silence. When the children leave for school, and the dog goes to lie down until the doorbell rings again, I sit in the kitchen and listen to nothing. And it's very very soothing.
Besides, what I told my husband is true; I need silence to read, to write, to think. And I think that anyone who tries to complete an intellectual task with music playing (or worse, the TV on) secretly wants to be doing something other than reading, writing, or thinking. I can't even write a blog post with music going. Interruptions derail me. I resent the phone for ringing. I need to work until I reach a natural stop.
Between our computers, our phones, our children, our pets, tweeting, IM'ing, texting, and that little sound the computer makes when an e-mail lands in the inbox, I think we could all use a little sensory deprivation in our lives. I suggest everyone have "silent time" for a set period every day: at least fifteen minutes when you sit in a quiet spot and listen to the silence. Make it a bathroom break if you must. But focus on the silence, on the quiet, on the peace. You might find yourself addicted.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Lady Lawyers
A few weeks ago we had a young couple to dinner. He is articling at a law firm specializing in real estate law. While discussing his profession, both he and his wife opined that law is really not for women, as being a lawyer goes against a woman's "essential nature." I nearly fell over laughing, and said, "I'll tell Lawyer X (a very well-regarded female attorney) you said that!"
Now, I have studied a lot of psychology, and apart from a few die-hard feminists who still play the victim/blame game, it's pretty well acknowledged that stereotypical gender differences do, in fact, exist. On the whole, women are less aggressive and more nurturing. They often tend this way from childhood, and yes, they are praised for complying with stereotypical gender roles. However, these are tendencies, not rules. If you take 100 women and 100 men, there will be a woman or even three in that group who could slaughter all the men present. Yet unlike the men, their take-no-prisoners approach will not be lauded; rather, they will be tarred with the rather unpleasant epithet "ball-buster." Fortunately, these women don't much care what you call them, as long as you pay your bills and don't double-cross them.
But just for argument's sake, let's say our guests were right: women's essential natures are unsuited to the rough-and-tumble adversarial world of law. Who’s to say that they shouldn't enter it nonetheless? Perhaps less adversarial conduct is exactly what the world of law needs. Maybe if more women were lawyers, "I'll see you in court!" would be replaced by, "I'll see you at negotiations!"
Besides, the legal profession isn't 100% adversarial to begin with. I happened to spend part of yesterday with a lady attorney of my acquaintance. And I use the term "lady" deliberately, because she is one. She became a lawyer in her forties, and describes her profession as "helping people." She closes real estate transactions, drafts wills, and helps people sort out day-to-day legal issues that perhaps a bulldog longing for courtroom antics would find boring. But these things need to be done, and they need to be done by a lawyer. Wills and real estate may not be inherently dramatic, but contested wills and bad property transactions can ruin lives and relationships. These matters call for a calm, sensitive, objective, and diplomatic touch.
Perhaps we should find a new term, similar to "prosecutor" or "defense attorney" to define this non-litigious species of lawyer. Divorce attorneys have already co-opted the term "family law," but I'm sure we can come up with something. In Quebec they are called "notaries," but that term is used elsewhere to denote anyone who can witness passport applications and other such documents. So we need something universal. What we don't need is specious limitations put on who has the right "nature" to practice law. All one needs is a strong mind, and a desire to see order maintained, wrongs righted, and justice upheld. These are not qualities limited by gender.
Now, I have studied a lot of psychology, and apart from a few die-hard feminists who still play the victim/blame game, it's pretty well acknowledged that stereotypical gender differences do, in fact, exist. On the whole, women are less aggressive and more nurturing. They often tend this way from childhood, and yes, they are praised for complying with stereotypical gender roles. However, these are tendencies, not rules. If you take 100 women and 100 men, there will be a woman or even three in that group who could slaughter all the men present. Yet unlike the men, their take-no-prisoners approach will not be lauded; rather, they will be tarred with the rather unpleasant epithet "ball-buster." Fortunately, these women don't much care what you call them, as long as you pay your bills and don't double-cross them.
But just for argument's sake, let's say our guests were right: women's essential natures are unsuited to the rough-and-tumble adversarial world of law. Who’s to say that they shouldn't enter it nonetheless? Perhaps less adversarial conduct is exactly what the world of law needs. Maybe if more women were lawyers, "I'll see you in court!" would be replaced by, "I'll see you at negotiations!"
Besides, the legal profession isn't 100% adversarial to begin with. I happened to spend part of yesterday with a lady attorney of my acquaintance. And I use the term "lady" deliberately, because she is one. She became a lawyer in her forties, and describes her profession as "helping people." She closes real estate transactions, drafts wills, and helps people sort out day-to-day legal issues that perhaps a bulldog longing for courtroom antics would find boring. But these things need to be done, and they need to be done by a lawyer. Wills and real estate may not be inherently dramatic, but contested wills and bad property transactions can ruin lives and relationships. These matters call for a calm, sensitive, objective, and diplomatic touch.
Perhaps we should find a new term, similar to "prosecutor" or "defense attorney" to define this non-litigious species of lawyer. Divorce attorneys have already co-opted the term "family law," but I'm sure we can come up with something. In Quebec they are called "notaries," but that term is used elsewhere to denote anyone who can witness passport applications and other such documents. So we need something universal. What we don't need is specious limitations put on who has the right "nature" to practice law. All one needs is a strong mind, and a desire to see order maintained, wrongs righted, and justice upheld. These are not qualities limited by gender.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Discovering Richard Russo
One hot July day last summer, I was browsing through books at a street sale when I found a book called She's Not There: A Life in Two Genders, by Jennifer Finney Boylan. As I have a transgendered (FTM) cousin, I was interested to read about this woman's struggle with gender issues, so for two bucks I bought it.
She's Not There was well-written, human, and touching. Boylan told her story in mostly matter-of-fact tones, and I empathized with her struggle to come to terms with her gender identity. The most intriguing part of the narrative, for me, was how her loved ones coped with her transformation, specifically her wife, Grace, and her best friend, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Russo. Both stood by her; both came with her to Wisconsin for her reassignment surgery, and legally, as far as I can tell from Boylan's website, she and Grace are even still married. Talk about quasi-happy endings (happy for Jennifer; I still can't help wondering how Grace really feels).
She's Not There was well-written, human, and touching. Boylan told her story in mostly matter-of-fact tones, and I empathized with her struggle to come to terms with her gender identity. The most intriguing part of the narrative, for me, was how her loved ones coped with her transformation, specifically her wife, Grace, and her best friend, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Russo. Both stood by her; both came with her to Wisconsin for her reassignment surgery, and legally, as far as I can tell from Boylan's website, she and Grace are even still married. Talk about quasi-happy endings (happy for Jennifer; I still can't help wondering how Grace really feels).Sunday, August 1, 2010
Happy Birthday, To Kill A Mockingbird
Okay, I'm a few weeks late, but I want to wish my favourite novel of all time a happy 50th birthday.
To Kill A Mockingbird is a literary achievement far beyond scope of more prolific authors. The solitary output of reclusive (Nelle) Harper Lee of Monroeville, Alabama, the book is one of the most banned books in America. It shares this distinction with novels such as The Catcher in the Rye, The Grapes of Wrath, and 1984. You have to bear true meaning, touch a lot of minds and hearts, to engender that much fear in small-minded people.
Several years ago I wrote a little piece called "Five Books for Fiction Writers." Of course Mockingbird was one of the five. I can't do better than to reprint what I wrote then:
To Kill A Mockingbird is a literary achievement far beyond scope of more prolific authors. The solitary output of reclusive (Nelle) Harper Lee of Monroeville, Alabama, the book is one of the most banned books in America. It shares this distinction with novels such as The Catcher in the Rye, The Grapes of Wrath, and 1984. You have to bear true meaning, touch a lot of minds and hearts, to engender that much fear in small-minded people.
Several years ago I wrote a little piece called "Five Books for Fiction Writers." Of course Mockingbird was one of the five. I can't do better than to reprint what I wrote then:
This is the finest novel ever written in the English language. It executes every element of the novel– plot, theme, setting, characterization, voice, and point-of-view. The plot is easy to follow, yet far from simplistic. The themes, racism and the destruction of innocence (and innocents), are and (sadly) will be relevant forever. The setting perfectly evokes a small Southern town of the 1930s. True social change will not come for three more decades, yet we see the how the seeds of the coming revolution are sown.
Each character is fully-drawn, and none is a stereotype (except perhaps Miss Stephanie Crawford). Aunt Alexandra epitomizes this; just as we come to believe she represents the social standards of the day, we see her humanity in her love for Atticus. But the voice is the crown jewel of Lee’s achievement. The voice of the narrator, Jean Louise “Scout” Finch, changes seamlessly from a child’s to adult’s perspective throughout the book, and the reader always knows who is speaking– the adult or child. It blends perfectly with the point of view of the author, whose biographical details closely match Scout’s. This book is everything a book should be– absorbing, meaningful, witty, readable, intelligent, and technically close to perfection.For many years I longed to hear that another book was coming from Lee, but alas, it will not be. At 86, Lee now lives in an assisted living facility after a stroke. I would write her a fan letter, but she prefers anonymity to adulation, and what could I say to her that hasn't been said a thousand times before? I'm not the only one who sees this book as the novel of the 20th century (and possibly the 21st). I'm not the only one who puts it at the top of top-ten lists. Still, gratitude dictates that I say "thank you" for the enjoyment and enlightenment that this work of art has given me. I will insist that my children read it when they are old enough to appreciate it; I will insist they see the movie too. Great art inspires thought, and thought inspires change. As long as this book remains read and in print, people will give consideration to the great themes of good and evil, prejudice and ignorance, innocence and understanding, that are at the heart of this book, and at the heart of the human condition.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bumper Stickers
There is something incongruous between the bumper sticker that proclaims, "I AM A POSHITER YID" (a simple Jew), and the $35,000 Toyota Sienna on which it is placed.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Twilight Reflections
I just read the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer. I enjoyed it, perhaps a little too much for someone with a degree in English Lit. However, it also left me unsettled and nervous.
I read it for two reasons. One, a friend of mine was reading it, and I love discussing books with this particular friend. Two, I was pissed off at Stephen King. Normally, I have tremendous respect for King. I have read little of his fiction; I don't do horror. But I did read On Writing and loved it; I actually listed it as the number-one book writers must read. However, back in February, King trashed Meyer, saying, she "couldn't write worth a darn." I thought this was crass and unnecessary. I didn't even care if it was true or not. I just thought there was no need for King to air such a nasty opinion. "If you can't say anything nice..." Well, you know the rest.
So I read Twilight. It sort of fell into my lap; my niece was visiting from out of town, and her sister lent her the book to read while she was here, so I read it too. I liked it. I didn't think it was great literature-- I don't think Meyer thinks it's great literature either-- but it was a good story, with some nice turns of phrase and a very wry, self-aware first-person narrator. As my friend (the one whose literary footsteps I dog) said, she loved the interior monologue nature of the book. She admitted that the she liked the second book, New Moon, less, as it there was greater action and less of the inside of Bella's head. As for Eclipse.... well, I'll admit that I barely remember any part of the book other than the final chapters (which I won't describe-- spoilers, you know). I think I like the final book, Breaking Dawn, the least (apparently I'm not alone; according to Wikipedia, "Breaking Dawn has received generally negative reviews.") It was too sugary-sweet "happily ever after" (uh oh... there goes the no spoilers promise). I wanted more blood from those vampires. (Sorry.)
But it wasn't the literary merits, or lack thereof, that disturbed me. Much as been written-- critically-- about Stephenie Meyer's Bella Swan, that she's too weak, the stereotypcial princess-who-must-be-saved. For Bella, life isn't worth living without Edward; there are four "chapters" in book two that are mere page headings, filled with blankness after Edward's departure (can't sue me for that spoiler-- it's practically how the book starts). Hardly true to Gloria Steinem's famous quip about woman and men and fish and bicycles. These criticisms have some merit. But it's not just Bella-- it's Edward too. Throughout the series, Meyers projects an image of romantic love that's slightly less than realistic. Edward (and Bella's best-friend-but-not-quite-boyfriend Jacob) both live to make Bella happy. They both spend the entire series 1) protecting her and 2) meeting her every need. In fact, Edward prefers death (a hard feat for an immortal vampire to achieve) to life if Bella dies.
Find me one husband/boyfriend/significant other as selfless as Edward (or Jacob). I'd love to be wrong.
The fact is, people tend to do selfish things. No one is perfect, no relationship is perfect, but Edward and Bella's is. He never hurts her (through callousness or insensitivity; in Book 2 he thinks he is saving her), is never insensitive, and if he annoys her it's by being too considerate, caring, and solicitous. He buys her expensive cars. He never leaves her side, He saves her life time and again. He's just perfect (well, except for the vampire-thirsting-for-her-blood part).
I think this sets young women up for disappointment. I well remember a weekend I spent with some highly religious Catholic couples. One girl told me she had chosen her man by using Jesus as her guide. I blurted out, "Mike's a nice guy and all, but he's not G-d." Like Jesus, Edward is too good to be real, but real girls sigh after him. Okay, they won't expect their mortal male boyfriends to have super strength, super hearing, and super speed, but they may expect the perfect consideration and anticipation and satisfaction of their every need. If they do, they are bound to disappointment.
Why am I less concerned about Bella's supposed passivity? Because while I found her undying love sadly misplaced (to tell the truth, I'm a Jacob fan), at least it's not unrequited. She's not throwing it away on a guy who treats her like dirt. Edward deserves Bella's love and loyalty. He earns it-- in a highly unrealistic way. I enjoyed the series, found it engrossing, and wouldn't tell anyone not to read it... but I hope the young women who make up the bulk of Meyer's readers find the romance as true to life as the vampires and werewolves involved in it.
I read it for two reasons. One, a friend of mine was reading it, and I love discussing books with this particular friend. Two, I was pissed off at Stephen King. Normally, I have tremendous respect for King. I have read little of his fiction; I don't do horror. But I did read On Writing and loved it; I actually listed it as the number-one book writers must read. However, back in February, King trashed Meyer, saying, she "couldn't write worth a darn." I thought this was crass and unnecessary. I didn't even care if it was true or not. I just thought there was no need for King to air such a nasty opinion. "If you can't say anything nice..." Well, you know the rest.
So I read Twilight. It sort of fell into my lap; my niece was visiting from out of town, and her sister lent her the book to read while she was here, so I read it too. I liked it. I didn't think it was great literature-- I don't think Meyer thinks it's great literature either-- but it was a good story, with some nice turns of phrase and a very wry, self-aware first-person narrator. As my friend (the one whose literary footsteps I dog) said, she loved the interior monologue nature of the book. She admitted that the she liked the second book, New Moon, less, as it there was greater action and less of the inside of Bella's head. As for Eclipse.... well, I'll admit that I barely remember any part of the book other than the final chapters (which I won't describe-- spoilers, you know). I think I like the final book, Breaking Dawn, the least (apparently I'm not alone; according to Wikipedia, "Breaking Dawn has received generally negative reviews.") It was too sugary-sweet "happily ever after" (uh oh... there goes the no spoilers promise). I wanted more blood from those vampires. (Sorry.)
But it wasn't the literary merits, or lack thereof, that disturbed me. Much as been written-- critically-- about Stephenie Meyer's Bella Swan, that she's too weak, the stereotypcial princess-who-must-be-saved. For Bella, life isn't worth living without Edward; there are four "chapters" in book two that are mere page headings, filled with blankness after Edward's departure (can't sue me for that spoiler-- it's practically how the book starts). Hardly true to Gloria Steinem's famous quip about woman and men and fish and bicycles. These criticisms have some merit. But it's not just Bella-- it's Edward too. Throughout the series, Meyers projects an image of romantic love that's slightly less than realistic. Edward (and Bella's best-friend-but-not-quite-boyfriend Jacob) both live to make Bella happy. They both spend the entire series 1) protecting her and 2) meeting her every need. In fact, Edward prefers death (a hard feat for an immortal vampire to achieve) to life if Bella dies.
Find me one husband/boyfriend/significant other as selfless as Edward (or Jacob). I'd love to be wrong.
The fact is, people tend to do selfish things. No one is perfect, no relationship is perfect, but Edward and Bella's is. He never hurts her (through callousness or insensitivity; in Book 2 he thinks he is saving her), is never insensitive, and if he annoys her it's by being too considerate, caring, and solicitous. He buys her expensive cars. He never leaves her side, He saves her life time and again. He's just perfect (well, except for the vampire-thirsting-for-her-blood part).
I think this sets young women up for disappointment. I well remember a weekend I spent with some highly religious Catholic couples. One girl told me she had chosen her man by using Jesus as her guide. I blurted out, "Mike's a nice guy and all, but he's not G-d." Like Jesus, Edward is too good to be real, but real girls sigh after him. Okay, they won't expect their mortal male boyfriends to have super strength, super hearing, and super speed, but they may expect the perfect consideration and anticipation and satisfaction of their every need. If they do, they are bound to disappointment.
Why am I less concerned about Bella's supposed passivity? Because while I found her undying love sadly misplaced (to tell the truth, I'm a Jacob fan), at least it's not unrequited. She's not throwing it away on a guy who treats her like dirt. Edward deserves Bella's love and loyalty. He earns it-- in a highly unrealistic way. I enjoyed the series, found it engrossing, and wouldn't tell anyone not to read it... but I hope the young women who make up the bulk of Meyer's readers find the romance as true to life as the vampires and werewolves involved in it.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Send a Soldier a Smile
Yesterday I received an e-mail from Honest Reporting, asking me to "Send a Soldier a Smile!" You post a message of 100 words, and the soldiers get the message plus some treats from "Gilli's Goodies."
I clicked on the link and stared at the space to write the message. What do you say to a soldier who is risking his life to protect the State of Israel, while I sit on my butt in "chutz la'aretz" (outside Israel), comfortable and safe? It seemed like such an empty and meaningless gesture to me. "Hey guys, take care in Gaza, we're all behind you here in Canada!" My ass we're "all behind them" here in Canada. If we want to be "behind them," we should be THERE, in Israel, voting, paying taxes, not hiding behind their Uzis so they can protect a State we find convenient to visit from time to time.
I don't have any business sending them words of comfort. In addition to that e-mail, I got a chain e-mail telling me that the soldiers "desperately need toothpaste, toothbrushes deodorant, socks and underwear." How could the best military in the world lack such basic necessities? I believe it, but I also have an inherent mistrust of chain e-mails, and I can't quite believe that if I mail off a box of deodorant to Israel it's going to find its way to a platoon in Gaza. And of course, there are the e-mails asking us to pray: Psalms 121 and 142, a special prayer for operations in the south, etc. Prayers. Not that I don't believe in prayer... but I also believe in guns, and responsibility, and not passing the buck.
So if I have a message for the soldiers of Israel, it's this: I am grateful beyond measure that you shoulder this burden. I am ashamed that I shoulder none of it. I think my appreciation of what you do is of little use to you. But for what it's worth, there are Jews elsewhere in the world that are thinking of you and praying for you and know that your job is a heroic and noble one. From all of us, thank you.
I clicked on the link and stared at the space to write the message. What do you say to a soldier who is risking his life to protect the State of Israel, while I sit on my butt in "chutz la'aretz" (outside Israel), comfortable and safe? It seemed like such an empty and meaningless gesture to me. "Hey guys, take care in Gaza, we're all behind you here in Canada!" My ass we're "all behind them" here in Canada. If we want to be "behind them," we should be THERE, in Israel, voting, paying taxes, not hiding behind their Uzis so they can protect a State we find convenient to visit from time to time.
I don't have any business sending them words of comfort. In addition to that e-mail, I got a chain e-mail telling me that the soldiers "desperately need toothpaste, toothbrushes deodorant, socks and underwear." How could the best military in the world lack such basic necessities? I believe it, but I also have an inherent mistrust of chain e-mails, and I can't quite believe that if I mail off a box of deodorant to Israel it's going to find its way to a platoon in Gaza. And of course, there are the e-mails asking us to pray: Psalms 121 and 142, a special prayer for operations in the south, etc. Prayers. Not that I don't believe in prayer... but I also believe in guns, and responsibility, and not passing the buck.
So if I have a message for the soldiers of Israel, it's this: I am grateful beyond measure that you shoulder this burden. I am ashamed that I shoulder none of it. I think my appreciation of what you do is of little use to you. But for what it's worth, there are Jews elsewhere in the world that are thinking of you and praying for you and know that your job is a heroic and noble one. From all of us, thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)