Finding a book at the right time…

A feminist book which addresses mothering, among other things. I just read and loved Notes From a Feminist Killjoy by Erin Wunker. She`s a feminist academic, blogger, activist and mother. She also, like me, loves Sara Ahmed.

She has a section of friendship that I love:

I hate most of the words used to describe friendship among women.

What is it about female friendship that inspires such insipid descriptors? I struggle to find a collective noun that fits my friends without itching in it’s not-quite-right fit. My girls (too infantilizing). My crew (I don’t row, so…). My gal pals (sounds like a condition. My tribe (too new age-appropriative). My bitches (just no). ….

I’ve been looking for the language to describe friendship among women to myself, but I haven’t found it yet.

Why is that?

What do we resist when we resist finding or forging this language? What do we lose when we don’t have the language to name the communities of care that hold our heads above water and bring us back to ourselves?

I’m thinking so much about communities of care lately, partly because of my new job. Now I’m re-reading Truth and Beauty by Ann Patchett, which describes a female friendship in the best way, in the most unique and beautiful way. Ann Patchett found the language that so few have. I still have to digest this book, and will have more to say later…

The truism that is my life right now…

How can time go by so fast? Time didn’t move so quickly before I had a child. In fact, it was often excruciatingly slow. I was underemployed, or unemployed, and time just stretched out in front of me – I wasted so much of it, just waiting for things to happen to me.

Also, my pregnancy was such a slog and seemed interminable. Forty weeks and two days stretched out like a nine-year limbo, full of seasickness, insomnia and boredom.

But now. These 11 months have gone by in a heartbeat. I’ll miss every second of it, even the tedium.

How fast we went from this:

12705205_10102396917295457_4116961980963586711_n

To this:

img_20170106_090822_019

 

Reading so much…

about motherhood, and how to write. Claire Vaye Watkins helps me sort it out.

But I do see a lot of newly mothered women who are writing in a much more fragmented, impressionistic, lyrical, language-driven way. For me, when I’m breastfeeding, I can’t think of a 300-page narrative arc and, also, I don’t see the world like that anymore. When I’m waking up every 90 minutes, the world becomes a really fragmented, dream-like, lyrical place, so that aesthetic doesn’t really apply. If I were going to try to write a book like that now, it would be a lie.

and

It’s also this all or nothing thing. It’s an extreme binary—I did it bit earlier myself—between men’s writing or women’s writing; between narrative-driven epic novels and smaller, more fragmented, domestic pieces. Or when I evaluate my own work, I still ask, “Is this art or is this a mom blog?” It would be wonderful if our kids came up in a world where mom blogs were art if they were fucking good enough—if that was the only criteria they had.

Watch me wrestle with this question, and why it even has to be this way: “Is this art or is this a mom blog?”

Book reviewsy

Image

Just finished The Perfect Scent: A year in the perfume industry in the Paris and New York by Chandler Burr, and it was completely fascinating. I somehow, inexplicably got into perfumes this year (smelling them, learning about them, certainly not buying them because I’m broke). The perfume industry is a wacky, wacky business. For example: 

Millions are fascinated by the process by which designers like Todd Oldham cut, sew, design, and agonize their fall collections into existence, but the great creative minds at Yves Saint Laurent and Jean Paul Gaultier and Dior, with the collective brilliance of a single mollusk at low tide, have intuited that with perfume – No. Here is an industry suffocating itself on the most immense pile of public relations shit human civilization has ever produced, a literal mountain of verbiage about “the noble materials, symbol of eternal feminine beauty, addictive notes of Cocoa Puffs, she can’t wait to taste him like a Hershey’s kiss, Cleopatra wore this, it has notes of distilled wild all-natural Martian fungus harvested by French virgins on the third moon of Pluto”.  The lies pile up on other lies, they generate a poisoned river of vapid crap the marketers try to pass off as ‘information’ and the brands have no clear that their public relations approach is about fifty years out of date. Reading anything they put out on their perfumes is like reading a combination of Kafka, only less creative, and Pravda circa 1985. Zero interest. There is almost no recognition that the enforced lack of knowledge – this gaping void of nothingness about what their products actually are, who makes them, and what’s in the things – is creating boredom and disinterest. The perfume industry is choking itself to death on its vacuum.

Anyway, a fascinating read on an absolutely bizarre word. 

 

A biography of 2014.

Joining a challenge. Two weeks late, but there you go. 

Little blips and blurbs about my year.

Alix reads too much as a crutch, as an excuse to stay as far as possible away from life. And the funny thing is, I got a book for Christmas called The Novel Cure: An A-Z of Literary Remedies. A book to fix my problems! Either the precisely wrong thing, or the exact thing I need. 

Time will tell. 

 

 

The Misadventures of Post-Recession Rory Part 2: Rory Gets Rejected

alexis_bledel_rory_gilmore

While mopping the floors at Luke’s diner night after night, Rory has a lot of time to think about the next phase of her life. She considers asking Logan’s dad for a job, but can’t ignore the fact that his newspapers are closing one by one. Lorelei perkily suggests a master’s in journalism, and Rory pooh-poohs it; would it really put her any further ahead of the now fierce competition? The epic return-to-grad-school/flee real life/panic applications of 2008/2009 has made her ask herself some serious questions about her chosen field of journalism. Maybe Logan’s slimy dad is right. (I’ve personally always thought he nailed it when he assessed Rory). Rory isn’t a shark. Rory doesn’t really like to compete.

Here’s where Rory and I are once again alike. She’s high-achieving, yes, but not Paris. I’ve always had a (slightly less insane) Paris in my life, a best friend who was the top of the class, and needed to be so. The Parises of the world will always be fine, career-wise, but the Rorys? (And maybe the Alixes?) Not so sure. She and I tire of competition quickly and spend time asking, constantly obsessing, what is it all for? Why can’t we just sit in a corner, puff on a cigar and read books all day and occasionally be brilliant and collect a paycheck? Like old, male, college professors of the 1950s?

Rory dreamily mops while reading some Joan Didion, and it occurs to her: she should get an MFA in creative nonfiction instead. Rory is used to pie-in-the-sky schemes and dreams, being the daughter of a woman whose antics fueled seven seasons of an adorable show.

Cue the darling indie song that plays while Rory sits at the counter of the diner late into the night working on a manuscript to send to the most prestigious of writing schools: The Iowa Writer’s Workshop. Rory, being a Gilmore, frets constantly, after slipping her huge envelope into the mailbox, and yet also sort of, kind of, just a little bit, expects to get an acceptance letter. This is the girl who got into both Yale and Harvard. Whose grandparents blow smoke up her ass on a weekly basis, grandparents whose wealth has opened countless doors for her. Why wouldn’t she get in?

Over the next few months, during the picturesque winter in Stars Hollow, Rory serves burgers and banters with Lorelei with gusto, confident that her future (at least for the next few years) has been decided. While Lorelei stands outside on a chilly February morning in an absolutely darling slippers and robe combo, dreamily monologuing about the loveliness of snow, Rory paces the halls in the house, waiting for the mail. It arrives, and the girls pile on the couch with steaming mugs of coffee to open it. Rory’s face falls when she reads:

“We regret to inform you that we will not be admitting you into the Iowa Writer’s Workshop. We received over 900,000 applicants for 25 spots, including some from Nelson Mandela, Jesus, and Condoleezza Rice, and admission was highly competitive.”

And so of course, Rory goes into a funk – Rory was always in adorable funks on the show, with that big porcelain brow of hers all furrowed. Lorelei, that unrelenting optimist, tells her to try again next year. Richard and Emily are disgusted that their child of privilege was not admitted, even after they tried to schmooze the board of the university. Emily goes on a drunken tirade about low-class state schools, and who needs them anyway, and why would anyone want to live in Iowa, that dreadful place, while Richard smiles tightly over his glasses, looking at bills that they cannot pay due to losing at least two thirds of their money in the stock market. He still hasn’t told Emily.

Meanwhile Rory calls Lane to complain about the unfairness of it all, and Lane is simultaneously being puked on by two toddlers with the flu.

The Misadventures of Post-recession Rory Part 1

Image

At a pub last weekend, tipsily, I had a conversation with my friend Sarah about my love of Gilmore Girls and the frustration I had at the fact that the show ended on the cusp of Rory’s post-graduate life. We ended up in a choose-your-own adventure type of situation, deciding what shitty fate would be befall Rory after the economy went down the toilet 6 months after she graduated.

Sarah and I, both now 28, both high school graduates the same year as Rory Gilmore, are stuck in a web of despondency, ranty-ness, and underemployment (me) and boring employment that has nothing to do with her education (Sarah). I came to Gilmore Girls the summer I was working on my master’s thesis, and binged all seven seasons in two months while contemplating feminism and my life and how I’m overeducated and underemployed and yadda yadda. Miranda, Sarah’s roommate and lover of salt and vinegar chips, said at the pub, wisely, “You come to a show, or a show comes into your life when you really need to see it.”

Enter Gilmore Girls. The story of an overachieving girl raised by a plucky and eccentric single mother starting tenth grade at a swanky private school in the year 2000. Rory goes off to college in 2003 (Yale) and graduates into a journalism job in 2007. Paid. Hah. I’m not entirely sure why I hadn’t watched Gilmore Girls when it originally aired – had I known how banter-y and witty it was I surely would have been a fan. But anyway, here I am, summer of 2012, finishing my master’s degree after four years out of undergrad without a full time job. While I was excelling at my master’s program, I was remembering how it felt to once be that over-achieving young girl, and the promise I was supposed to have fulfilled and the ambition I was supposed to have followed through on, and I was constantly wondering when I stopped being Rory. Probably somewhere in 2009 when yet another short term contract ended and I saw no future work ahead of me and I no longer had a trajectory and everything in my life was a jumble. And that’s without the economy factored in.

So now I think, well, what would have happened to Rory in 2009? Would Rory still have that unshakeable Roryness? Because I sure as shit didn’t.

When we last saw her, she was heading off to go on the campaign trail to report on Obama. That would take us to November of 2008, and then what?

A lay-off, I’m guessing. Check back for Part 2 when Rory moves back in with Lorelei in Stars Hollow and starts working at Luke’s diner, while the Dragonfly Inn is threatened with foreclosure. I have the feeling greasy breakfast joints are recession-proof, swanky and adorable inns in Connecticut are not.

I have paid my fifty bucks…

And I am doing this crazy thing. The 3-Day Novel contest. Yep, I’m going to attempt to write a novel this labour day weekend. Oh, and they have a handy survival guide, the first recommendation of which says:

“You should, as presumably you would for any marathon, be healthy physically. This includes being free from common colds, active allergies or even healing bones that are painful.”

Since I have both a common cold, and a healing bone, I should be just shit out of luck. Regardless, I’m giving it a go.

I am gathering my supplies today, probably some cheetos, granola bars, lots of coffee. I’m making some lists, gathering some research material (on what, who the hells knows?) and re-reading Bird by Bird. I re-read On Writing the other day.

Wish me luck.

All worked up…

Glenn Greenwald, who I do like, has his panties in a twist over Canada’s hate speech laws:

I’ve written many times before about the evils of “hate speech” laws that are prevalent in Canada and Europe — people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized.  I won’t rehash those arguments here, but I do want to note a particularly creepy illustration of how these laws manifest.  The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints:

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .

Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the political views they might express is quite “hateful.”  So, too, is anointing oneself the arbiter of what is and is not sufficiently “civilized discussion” to the point of using the force of criminal law to enforce it.  If I were administering Canada’s intrinsically subjective “hate speech” laws (and I never would), I’d consider prosecuting Provost Houle for this letter.  The hubris required to believe that you can declare certain views so objectively hateful that they should be criminalized is astronomical; in so many eras, views that were most scorned by majorities ended up emerging as truth.

For as long as I’ll live, I’ll never understand how people want to vest in the Government the power to criminalize particular viewpoints it dislikes, will never understand the view that it’s better to try to suppress adverse beliefs than to air them, and will especially never understand people’s failure to realize that endorsing this power will, one day, very likely result in their own views being criminalized when their political enemies (rather than allies) are empowered. Who would ever want to empower officious technocrats to issue warnings along the lines of:  be forewarned:  if you express certain political views, you may be committing a crime; guide and restrict yourself accordingly?  I obviously devote a substantial amount of my time and energy to critiquing the actions of the U.S. Government, but the robust free speech protection guaranteed by the First Amendment and largely protected by American courts continues to be one of the best features of American political culture.

I have NO problem with Canada’s hate speech laws. I think the letter the Provost sent to Ann Coulter is perfectly reasonable. I don’t see why Greenwald’s so worked up.  This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Our government has largely done a better job protecting civil rights and human rights than the US government (though we ain’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination). Our public discourse might be boring, but it’s pretty civil. I would say that it’s certainly a result of the laws that we have in place to protect civility.  Sure, you have MORE freedom of speech in the U.S. but you also have idiots like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter dominating the public discourse, promoting ignorance and hatred, (and whipping up a whole lot of racist nutbags in the process). A lot of Canadians, maybe a majority, are sickened and shocked by the crap that comes out of their mouths. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

I don’t see anything wrong with warning Ann Coulter that you aren’t allowed to promote hatred against an identifiable group in this country. That’s one of the few things in this country I’m proud of. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh could not exist here, and they certainly wouldn’t be paid hundreds of millions of dollars to hate people on the air. Plus, Canada isn’t the country that’s looking more and more Orwellian by the day. I believe that’s our neighbour to the south. “We’re tough on terrorism thus we’re scared to try them in our courts?” “We’re defending our constitution by saying we should destroy its institutions in the name of fighting terror?” “We want to scare the people so badly that they’re willing to let us create an all powerful police state that can detain and torture people without just cause?” And yet Canada is the country with less freedom? I don’t fucking think so.

So Ann Coulter? Liz and Dick Cheney? John Yoo? Bill O’Reilly etc etc? Fox News? You guys can have ’em.