This to me is real: When people look at him, they will see Asian. This is part of who he is. So rather than ignoring or denying this, help him to embrace it. Don’t put him in the schizophrenic position of feeling like a white person trapped in an Asian body.
So: Nurture his Korean-ness. Learn about Korea. Make connections with the local K-A community. Make connections with other K-adoptive families. For mutual support, shared experience. Having adopted him, we must also to some extent adopt his birth country, which in fact I am eager to do.
Yet this is also true: that he is and will be culturally American. What about his desire and need to fit in here? Is it better to emphasize difference or similarity? Can you do both? How? For starters, you actively acknowledge difference as a positive thing to prevent its being considered a negative or shameful thing. At the same time you continue to nourish a sense of essential similarity that is more than skin deep. He is not either/or; he is both/and.
My own father, as a boy, was ashamed of his Italian-ness to the point that he denied it, a fact that later made him doubly ashamed. The pressure to conform was too great, and he had no resources against it—not in his community and not in his family, who could not understand how he felt. He was alone. Would it not have been healthier for him to have grown up proud of his Italian-ness?
What of this: when D feels uncomfortable being singled out? He didn’t fit in the Korean school with Korean kids who spoke no English: this was his sense, not ours. He is not Korean, he is Korean-American. He is an American of Korean descent. Sometimes (often, especially while growing up) he may just want to be an American.
I don’t want him to grow up feeling alone, isolated, confused. There are steps we can take to prevent that. Difference can be a source of strength as well as weakness.
Last night I read the report from The Gathering, a first conference of adoptees, held in DC in 1999. I was encouraged by the tone, which was mostly positive. These adoptees certainly had issues, had pain. But the overall tone was not one of anger. This was a contrast to some of what I’ve seen on the Internet, and in reviews of books like Outside Looking In. (I haven’t read this book yet; I need to work up to it.)
Is it possible that some of these more strident voices have embraced victimhood as their identity? And that they have been encouraged to do so by well-meaning activists? Yes. Is it also possible that I want to deny or minimize their pain because it hurts me too much to think of that pain being D’s, of that pain becoming the central fact of his life?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Yes, the eyes.
The other day, L reported, she was with D in a store aisle when he asked her a question.
“Why are my eyes squinty?”
Stunned, she turned to face him.
“I don’t want my eyes to be like that,” he said.
She knelt and hugged him, kissed each of his eyes, and told him how beautiful they were. That seemed to placate him.
I was shocked when she recounted the incident, and have been grieving about it since. The loss of innocence. The first clear sign we’ve had from him of discomfort with being different. Here it begins.
His outbust came at a time when I was feeling somewhat defensive, questioning the claims of adoptive mothers and others about how much adoptees struggle with racial identity. It seemed to confirm these claims. It woke me up (again).
The temptation, of course, is to (again) go back to sleep. To brush off this incident, forget it until it comes back to the surface and we are forced to face it.
The right thing is to acknowledge D’s discomfort, and to help him face it and surmount it. But how?
First, maybe, by facing my own uncertainty and fear. Not letting this become a bogeyman that gets pushed back into the closet.
“Why are my eyes squinty?”
Stunned, she turned to face him.
“I don’t want my eyes to be like that,” he said.
She knelt and hugged him, kissed each of his eyes, and told him how beautiful they were. That seemed to placate him.
I was shocked when she recounted the incident, and have been grieving about it since. The loss of innocence. The first clear sign we’ve had from him of discomfort with being different. Here it begins.
His outbust came at a time when I was feeling somewhat defensive, questioning the claims of adoptive mothers and others about how much adoptees struggle with racial identity. It seemed to confirm these claims. It woke me up (again).
The temptation, of course, is to (again) go back to sleep. To brush off this incident, forget it until it comes back to the surface and we are forced to face it.
The right thing is to acknowledge D’s discomfort, and to help him face it and surmount it. But how?
First, maybe, by facing my own uncertainty and fear. Not letting this become a bogeyman that gets pushed back into the closet.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Just waking up
Since we got home from camp I’ve been worried about D. It’s nothing he’s done; it’s what I’ve been reading, hearing, of the pain that is visited on adoptees, and particularly transracial adoptees, or TRAs, as they call themselves. From what they say, it seems inevitable that this sunny, bright, wonderful kid of ours will have “issues” that may trouble him all through adulthood, issues related to abandonment and identity. It grieves me awfully to think this.
It is also hard to grasp in his case. We have not had any sign whatsoever of problems. We have not been tested at all by him to this point; on the contrary, he has been an extraordinarily loving, sensitive, good-natured child, a kid whose positive, outgoing personality is remarked on by everyone he meets. Will he be the exception? the one who gets through unscathed?
There’s a lot of rawness in the TRA writing, a lot of woundedness and anger. It can be overwhelming. L is not ready to face it, breaking in on our idyll. I have trouble facing it myself, and can do so only in small doses. I feel drawn to learn all I can, to do all I can, but also frightened by the anger. And a part of me wonders, too, whether some of them are embracing victimhood. Is this just defensiveness? Do I even have the right to think this?
I have also begun to read the writings of adoptive moms who have become activists. I have felt defensive toward some of what they say, too. I have wondered whether they are necessarily “right” about everything—given that their experience does not match my own. Their experience is longer, broader, true. But what they say is hard to accept. Is it possible to push Koreanness too much?
I am myself confused about his identity right now. I have thought: I want for him to know that he is as American as anybody else, an American of Korean descent. But these moms and these adoptees seem to stress Koreanness above all. Certainly part of him is still in Korea.
I need to learn. I need to hear from more adult adoptees, and from adoptive parents farther along the road. And not just, I think, from the most pained, radicalized voices, although from those too.
I can’t yet face the birth mothers. I can’t yet feel them, really. But I will need to do that too. For his sake, but maybe for my own sake first? For their sakes?
There is a wall in me that I need to break down.
It is also hard to grasp in his case. We have not had any sign whatsoever of problems. We have not been tested at all by him to this point; on the contrary, he has been an extraordinarily loving, sensitive, good-natured child, a kid whose positive, outgoing personality is remarked on by everyone he meets. Will he be the exception? the one who gets through unscathed?
There’s a lot of rawness in the TRA writing, a lot of woundedness and anger. It can be overwhelming. L is not ready to face it, breaking in on our idyll. I have trouble facing it myself, and can do so only in small doses. I feel drawn to learn all I can, to do all I can, but also frightened by the anger. And a part of me wonders, too, whether some of them are embracing victimhood. Is this just defensiveness? Do I even have the right to think this?
I have also begun to read the writings of adoptive moms who have become activists. I have felt defensive toward some of what they say, too. I have wondered whether they are necessarily “right” about everything—given that their experience does not match my own. Their experience is longer, broader, true. But what they say is hard to accept. Is it possible to push Koreanness too much?
I am myself confused about his identity right now. I have thought: I want for him to know that he is as American as anybody else, an American of Korean descent. But these moms and these adoptees seem to stress Koreanness above all. Certainly part of him is still in Korea.
I need to learn. I need to hear from more adult adoptees, and from adoptive parents farther along the road. And not just, I think, from the most pained, radicalized voices, although from those too.
I can’t yet face the birth mothers. I can’t yet feel them, really. But I will need to do that too. For his sake, but maybe for my own sake first? For their sakes?
There is a wall in me that I need to break down.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Narnia, Schmarnia
June 26, 2007
I never read The Chronicles of Narnia as a child. Undoubtedly that’s the time to read it. I find now that I can muster no affection for fantasy—not for Tolkien’s intricately worked out world of Middle Earth (which I loved as a teenager), and certainly not for Lewis’s jumbled kingdom. The talking beavers, the lamppost in the middle of nowhere, the weird eunuch Mister Tumnus—all of it leaves me, well, cold. So does the staunch medievalism, the skewed allegory, and the unexplained appearance of Father Christmas. And the stuffy traditionalism. I’m straining to grasp some nuanced Christian message, and it’s slipping through my fingers.
But of course I’m reflecting on the movies, not the books. The movies remove the nuance, the saving grace of language. It was the language, mainly, in Tolkien, that caught me up. The story? Well, there was a dangerous quest and a loyal and heroic band—that much I could buy into. What is there here, though? A quartet of bickering siblings, parent-less, are called upon to save the world. It scans a little bit like The Incredibles.
The kids are tested. Edmund gives in to his selfish appetites and his jealousy and so causes trouble for everyone. Peter has to grow into a warrior. Lucy, the youngest, believes—with purity. Aslan the Christ-type gives himself over to the Evil One, and by his willing death redeems. There’s a climactic battle. The cause is won.
Why am I not moved by any of this? Because it is not the Gospel? Because I don’t like the glorification of war? Because the Christ-type is a talking lion?
It was written for kids, I should remember that, and evidently it reaches them. Inspires them to be courageous and self-denying and true. Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. Except for the whiff of William Bennett, and triumphalism, and Christian home-schooling.
I never read The Chronicles of Narnia as a child. Undoubtedly that’s the time to read it. I find now that I can muster no affection for fantasy—not for Tolkien’s intricately worked out world of Middle Earth (which I loved as a teenager), and certainly not for Lewis’s jumbled kingdom. The talking beavers, the lamppost in the middle of nowhere, the weird eunuch Mister Tumnus—all of it leaves me, well, cold. So does the staunch medievalism, the skewed allegory, and the unexplained appearance of Father Christmas. And the stuffy traditionalism. I’m straining to grasp some nuanced Christian message, and it’s slipping through my fingers.
But of course I’m reflecting on the movies, not the books. The movies remove the nuance, the saving grace of language. It was the language, mainly, in Tolkien, that caught me up. The story? Well, there was a dangerous quest and a loyal and heroic band—that much I could buy into. What is there here, though? A quartet of bickering siblings, parent-less, are called upon to save the world. It scans a little bit like The Incredibles.
The kids are tested. Edmund gives in to his selfish appetites and his jealousy and so causes trouble for everyone. Peter has to grow into a warrior. Lucy, the youngest, believes—with purity. Aslan the Christ-type gives himself over to the Evil One, and by his willing death redeems. There’s a climactic battle. The cause is won.
Why am I not moved by any of this? Because it is not the Gospel? Because I don’t like the glorification of war? Because the Christ-type is a talking lion?
It was written for kids, I should remember that, and evidently it reaches them. Inspires them to be courageous and self-denying and true. Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. Except for the whiff of William Bennett, and triumphalism, and Christian home-schooling.
A good priest
June 16
There was mention of Joe H. at mass on Sunday. Father Joe. A good man and a good priest, of compassion and courage. He ran afoul of diocesan authorities for his attempts to minister to homosexuals.
What actually happened was he caught the attention of a handful of truly rabid homophobes, who then, as guardians of orthodoxy, took as their blood mission to run him out of the priesthood. The bishop was not strong enough to stand up to them, was in fact enraged at having been put in the position of having to do so. Joe was to him a problem priest, and was soon disappeared. He has now surfaced in New Jersey, where one presumes that there are other voices in addition to the homophobic. He is still, thank God for the rest of us, a priest.
I wish I had been close enough with him that we could’ve remained friends. That would’ve been some kind of break for me, a break from reticence. Those are my second and third responses to hearing his name; pangs of regret. (My first response was to remember him fondly.)
I tend to blame myself, but in truth, I tried to start a relationship with Joe. Invited him over for dinner, more than once. Engaged him in email correspondence. Approached him on the running trail. We became friendly, but not friends. He had too many sheep to tend, and was in some ways more guarded than I was.
During those dinners here, he opened up. Literally took off his collar and lounged on the sofa, his thick gray hunting socks and huge pale calves protruding from his too-short black pant legs: the image of a New Jersey farm boy. Plied with a bit of Scotch, he dished the dirt, compared being called before the bishop to “getting into a pissing match with a skunk,” and also spoke sanely and sensitively and with conviction about important things. He especially liked Lola, in part, I think, because she is not Catholic. She liked him too, always favored him with a warm hug after mass. But when those dinners were over, the veil went back up.
We knew nothing, really, of his troubles—except what appeared in the newspaper: scathing letters to the editor written by his enemies and the tepid responses from the chancery. Knew that he was unhappy as a diocesan priest, heard that he had tried to join the Maryknolls and was rejected. In preparation for that application, he had gone to South America to study Spanish, and picked up an intestinal bug, and lost a lot of weight. (He was pleased afterward, said he’d been trying to lose.)
And then he disappeared. Eventually I discovered by googling him a couple of snippets indicating that he had gone back to New Jersey, but there was nothing definitive until this past Sunday, when our deacon mentioned that he had come for a visit. I was sorry that I had missed him.
There was mention of Joe H. at mass on Sunday. Father Joe. A good man and a good priest, of compassion and courage. He ran afoul of diocesan authorities for his attempts to minister to homosexuals.
What actually happened was he caught the attention of a handful of truly rabid homophobes, who then, as guardians of orthodoxy, took as their blood mission to run him out of the priesthood. The bishop was not strong enough to stand up to them, was in fact enraged at having been put in the position of having to do so. Joe was to him a problem priest, and was soon disappeared. He has now surfaced in New Jersey, where one presumes that there are other voices in addition to the homophobic. He is still, thank God for the rest of us, a priest.
I wish I had been close enough with him that we could’ve remained friends. That would’ve been some kind of break for me, a break from reticence. Those are my second and third responses to hearing his name; pangs of regret. (My first response was to remember him fondly.)
I tend to blame myself, but in truth, I tried to start a relationship with Joe. Invited him over for dinner, more than once. Engaged him in email correspondence. Approached him on the running trail. We became friendly, but not friends. He had too many sheep to tend, and was in some ways more guarded than I was.
During those dinners here, he opened up. Literally took off his collar and lounged on the sofa, his thick gray hunting socks and huge pale calves protruding from his too-short black pant legs: the image of a New Jersey farm boy. Plied with a bit of Scotch, he dished the dirt, compared being called before the bishop to “getting into a pissing match with a skunk,” and also spoke sanely and sensitively and with conviction about important things. He especially liked Lola, in part, I think, because she is not Catholic. She liked him too, always favored him with a warm hug after mass. But when those dinners were over, the veil went back up.
We knew nothing, really, of his troubles—except what appeared in the newspaper: scathing letters to the editor written by his enemies and the tepid responses from the chancery. Knew that he was unhappy as a diocesan priest, heard that he had tried to join the Maryknolls and was rejected. In preparation for that application, he had gone to South America to study Spanish, and picked up an intestinal bug, and lost a lot of weight. (He was pleased afterward, said he’d been trying to lose.)
And then he disappeared. Eventually I discovered by googling him a couple of snippets indicating that he had gone back to New Jersey, but there was nothing definitive until this past Sunday, when our deacon mentioned that he had come for a visit. I was sorry that I had missed him.
Scene from the Gospels
May 30
“If you’re gonna be a Christian, you better look good on wood.”
--Daniel Berrigan
They are walking toward Jerusalem, a dusty road through open country. The twelve seem dazed; they’re tired and overloaded. The people behind are apprehensive. Where are we going?, they are wondering They keep a safe distance.
Jesus looks from his left to his right, at Peter, at Andrew. He shakes his head, a rueful smile breaking across his lips. Again he stops, pulls them aside.
“Do you understand what we’re doing?” he asks them patiently. They stare at him blankly. “We are going to Jerusalem,” he says again. “There, the Son of Man will be arrested. He will be accused. He will be beaten and spit on and scorned. He will be hung on a tree and left to die.” He pauses. “And he will rise again in glory.”
The Sons of Thunder perk up at that last part. Glory? “When you get to heaven, can we sit next to you?” one of them blurts.
He sighs. “You don’t know what you’re asking.”
Like children, they persist. “C’mon. We asked you first. Why not?”
He turns to look at them, eyes piercing, face now grave. “Can you drink the cup that I must drink?”
They glance at each other before answering. “Y-yes. We can drink it.”
His eyes and voice grow tender. “Indeed you will drink it, brothers,” he says quietly. “Indeed you will. But a place in the kingdom is not mine to give.”
The others approach. “A place in the kingdom? What’s all this?” Peter’s voice is indignant. There’s jostling.
He grabs Peter by the shoulders, firmly, but not roughly. The jostling stops. “Know this, brothers,” he says, back to smiling. “When men gain power, they seek out the high place for themselves, the seat of authority. It cannot be so with you.” Again, his voice grows tender, and he looks from one to the next. “With you, it must be like this: The one who is first is the one who serves all the rest.”
“If you would be first,” he repeats, “you must be servant to all the rest.”
They look at him. Some of their faces remain hopelessly blank. In others, though, in Peter’s and Andrew’s, a dim light of recognition finally dawns.
“If you’re gonna be a Christian, you better look good on wood.”
--Daniel Berrigan
They are walking toward Jerusalem, a dusty road through open country. The twelve seem dazed; they’re tired and overloaded. The people behind are apprehensive. Where are we going?, they are wondering They keep a safe distance.
Jesus looks from his left to his right, at Peter, at Andrew. He shakes his head, a rueful smile breaking across his lips. Again he stops, pulls them aside.
“Do you understand what we’re doing?” he asks them patiently. They stare at him blankly. “We are going to Jerusalem,” he says again. “There, the Son of Man will be arrested. He will be accused. He will be beaten and spit on and scorned. He will be hung on a tree and left to die.” He pauses. “And he will rise again in glory.”
The Sons of Thunder perk up at that last part. Glory? “When you get to heaven, can we sit next to you?” one of them blurts.
He sighs. “You don’t know what you’re asking.”
Like children, they persist. “C’mon. We asked you first. Why not?”
He turns to look at them, eyes piercing, face now grave. “Can you drink the cup that I must drink?”
They glance at each other before answering. “Y-yes. We can drink it.”
His eyes and voice grow tender. “Indeed you will drink it, brothers,” he says quietly. “Indeed you will. But a place in the kingdom is not mine to give.”
The others approach. “A place in the kingdom? What’s all this?” Peter’s voice is indignant. There’s jostling.
He grabs Peter by the shoulders, firmly, but not roughly. The jostling stops. “Know this, brothers,” he says, back to smiling. “When men gain power, they seek out the high place for themselves, the seat of authority. It cannot be so with you.” Again, his voice grows tender, and he looks from one to the next. “With you, it must be like this: The one who is first is the one who serves all the rest.”
“If you would be first,” he repeats, “you must be servant to all the rest.”
They look at him. Some of their faces remain hopelessly blank. In others, though, in Peter’s and Andrew’s, a dim light of recognition finally dawns.
Why I hate golf
May 29
My good friend I-man keeps trying to get me interested in playing golf. Now he’s trying to get my son, his godson, to play. I don’t have the heart to tell him how much I hate the sport.
Let me count the ways:
Because it is a Republican sport, a rich man’s sport, a wasteful sport, the sport of someone who would heedlessly impose himself on the environment. I hate it for moral reasons, as some people hate eating meat. I grew up across from a golf course, so I knew it sort of innocently. A nice course but not exclusive—not at that time. By now it has no doubt become so, a gated community. But then it was open for the neighborhood kids to crawl. Nobody chased us, or cared that we were there. Try cutting across a golf course today, to get here or there. Or sneaking there at night to have sex. They’ll sic the dogs on you.
It takes so much water, so many chemicals, so much money, to tame a place for golf. It’s an obscenity. Yet I met a man who designs courses, a nice and down-to-earth guy, a Bizup.
I hate it for the same reason I hate ice-skating. You’ve got to pay every time you do it, for God’s sake!
I can appreciate the skill required, the thrill of hitting well, the addictive nature of it. The whole being outdoors bit. But the expense!
My good friend I-man keeps trying to get me interested in playing golf. Now he’s trying to get my son, his godson, to play. I don’t have the heart to tell him how much I hate the sport.
Let me count the ways:
Because it is a Republican sport, a rich man’s sport, a wasteful sport, the sport of someone who would heedlessly impose himself on the environment. I hate it for moral reasons, as some people hate eating meat. I grew up across from a golf course, so I knew it sort of innocently. A nice course but not exclusive—not at that time. By now it has no doubt become so, a gated community. But then it was open for the neighborhood kids to crawl. Nobody chased us, or cared that we were there. Try cutting across a golf course today, to get here or there. Or sneaking there at night to have sex. They’ll sic the dogs on you.
It takes so much water, so many chemicals, so much money, to tame a place for golf. It’s an obscenity. Yet I met a man who designs courses, a nice and down-to-earth guy, a Bizup.
I hate it for the same reason I hate ice-skating. You’ve got to pay every time you do it, for God’s sake!
I can appreciate the skill required, the thrill of hitting well, the addictive nature of it. The whole being outdoors bit. But the expense!
Herman Wells of Indiana
May 23
In Bloomington for a conference last week, I saw plentiful evidence of one man’s legacy, how much good a single man with vision and energy can leave behind. The man was IU’s longtime president, Herman B. Wells.
I do not know where Wells came from, or how he got to the top. I don’t even know his academic specialty. But I walked through the magnificent concert hall that he had built, and I toured the Kinsey Institute, whose controversial mission he stoutly defended, and I walked (and ran) the beautiful campus he planned and developed, with its distinctive limestone buildings and its copious, richly imagined greenspace, and I didn’t wonder that people spoke of him always with reverence and awe.
His portraits are numerous around campus, a stout, round-faced, pleasant-looking man in a tan, 50s-era suit. So are the stories: of how he used to attend weeknight student recitals well into his 80s, of how he .
Perhaps the most impressive story was this: that through the worst of the McCarthy era, this lifelong bachelor, who lived with his mother until she died in her 90s, whose sexuality was a well-guarded secret, had the courage to resolutely defend Alfred Kinsey’s right to conduct and publish his research.
Surely MyU has never had such a leader.
In Bloomington for a conference last week, I saw plentiful evidence of one man’s legacy, how much good a single man with vision and energy can leave behind. The man was IU’s longtime president, Herman B. Wells.
I do not know where Wells came from, or how he got to the top. I don’t even know his academic specialty. But I walked through the magnificent concert hall that he had built, and I toured the Kinsey Institute, whose controversial mission he stoutly defended, and I walked (and ran) the beautiful campus he planned and developed, with its distinctive limestone buildings and its copious, richly imagined greenspace, and I didn’t wonder that people spoke of him always with reverence and awe.
His portraits are numerous around campus, a stout, round-faced, pleasant-looking man in a tan, 50s-era suit. So are the stories: of how he used to attend weeknight student recitals well into his 80s, of how he .
Perhaps the most impressive story was this: that through the worst of the McCarthy era, this lifelong bachelor, who lived with his mother until she died in her 90s, whose sexuality was a well-guarded secret, had the courage to resolutely defend Alfred Kinsey’s right to conduct and publish his research.
Surely MyU has never had such a leader.
Memories of graduate school
May 22
I was a shit in graduate school. On the first day, I taped a sheet of paper over the 8x10 glossy of Steve Martin with an arrow through his head that my office-mate had fixed to the painted cinder-block wall behind our shared cubicle. “I can’t stand him looking at me!” I scribbled on the paper in blue ink. My office-mate was rightly incensed; I have a memory of her tossing her hair and harrumphing indignantly at the edge of my vision. But she said nothing to me, and neither did any of the dozen other first-year grad students who shared the remaining cubicles. I was left to slowly recognize on my own what an ass I’d been. It took about a week, and I was much too shy to apologize.
This had been, and to some extent remains, the pattern of my interactions with people. Long bouts of vacuum-packed silence punctuated by eruptions of inappropriate boldness or ferocity. A kind of Jekyll and Hyde thing. My parents used to call me Vesuvio.
The result was that after that first day no one talked to me—no one except Howard, a shaggy, gangly 6-foot-6 inch Thoreauvian from south of Pittsburgh who happened to be a born-again Christian. Howard was drawn to me by his intuition that, unlike the others, I did not reflexively condemn his religion. He took a big brotherly interest in me, often talked to me about his church, but was never pushy. “Don’t you like people?” he once asked me after I expressed a distaste for crowded suburbs. It made me think. Howard would die of melanoma within a month of getting his Ph.D., leaving a wife and infant daughter.
Silent as I was, I spent a lot of time listening to conversations from behind my smoked-glass cubicle walls, quietly admiring the self-conscious repartee. Are there any souls more pretentious than graduate students in English literature?
I was a shit in graduate school. On the first day, I taped a sheet of paper over the 8x10 glossy of Steve Martin with an arrow through his head that my office-mate had fixed to the painted cinder-block wall behind our shared cubicle. “I can’t stand him looking at me!” I scribbled on the paper in blue ink. My office-mate was rightly incensed; I have a memory of her tossing her hair and harrumphing indignantly at the edge of my vision. But she said nothing to me, and neither did any of the dozen other first-year grad students who shared the remaining cubicles. I was left to slowly recognize on my own what an ass I’d been. It took about a week, and I was much too shy to apologize.
This had been, and to some extent remains, the pattern of my interactions with people. Long bouts of vacuum-packed silence punctuated by eruptions of inappropriate boldness or ferocity. A kind of Jekyll and Hyde thing. My parents used to call me Vesuvio.
The result was that after that first day no one talked to me—no one except Howard, a shaggy, gangly 6-foot-6 inch Thoreauvian from south of Pittsburgh who happened to be a born-again Christian. Howard was drawn to me by his intuition that, unlike the others, I did not reflexively condemn his religion. He took a big brotherly interest in me, often talked to me about his church, but was never pushy. “Don’t you like people?” he once asked me after I expressed a distaste for crowded suburbs. It made me think. Howard would die of melanoma within a month of getting his Ph.D., leaving a wife and infant daughter.
Silent as I was, I spent a lot of time listening to conversations from behind my smoked-glass cubicle walls, quietly admiring the self-conscious repartee. Are there any souls more pretentious than graduate students in English literature?
Too elite to eat meat?
May 8
This locavore business that I’m reading about in the New York Times: Is it just the latest fad? The latest someone wanting to make me feel guilty? That’s a Neanderthal response, I know, but why is this stuff always being pushed by people who have it all? The latest thing to be into. Cause of the week. Forget vegan. Or maybe on top of vegan.
In truth I have long had an affinity for eating local, within reason, as my father would say. I detest the idea of eating apples imported from Washington or New Zealand. But to get so religious and strict about it? Devotees of the “100-mile diet” eat nothing grown further than 100 miles from their homes. That means they deny themselves coffee, tea, flour, wine, in addition to most fruits and a good number of vegetables and God knows what all. Olives, for God’s sake. Olive oil. Anchovies. Gin. Chocolate!!
It’s enough to make you want to turn a firehose on these people. How about a less absolutist response? How about resolving to eat more locally instead of all locally? To eat more consciously? More reverently, even. To use less. Live more lightly.
It seems overwhelming, like it could become a full-time job. I’d rather remain in the dark. How can we live at all except by remaining in the dark? And yet Jesus tells us to do otherwise, to recognize our connectedness.
Here’s another excuse: I could never get Lori and Danny to convert. And: how could we give up the convenience? As it is we can hardly get meals on the table. And how could we afford it? This is what I mean by elitist. Slow food.
Doing something is better than doing nothing, right? What could be done? Buying more produce and meat from local farmers. Patronizing Stone Soup, the farmers’ markets. Participating in the vegetable co-op. Using re-usable grocery bags. Eating less meat. Eating less processed food. Being less wasteful. It would take more time, money, and effort. It would mean a commitment, and giving up convenience.
And why? Because it’s healthier? Yes. To eat better? Yes. But more because it uses fewer resources, and is more humane. To feel better about ourselves? Salve conscience?
Poor people “don’t have the luxury” of feeling guilty over how the chicken they’re eating was treated. This is true. But it also may be true that the reason they don’t have the luxury is that we do, and we exercise it ever-increasingly.
If I’m just doing this to feel better standing next to my eco-friendly, evolved, mature friends, it’s not going to work. (This is also a bad reason to try to write poetry.)
This locavore business that I’m reading about in the New York Times: Is it just the latest fad? The latest someone wanting to make me feel guilty? That’s a Neanderthal response, I know, but why is this stuff always being pushed by people who have it all? The latest thing to be into. Cause of the week. Forget vegan. Or maybe on top of vegan.
In truth I have long had an affinity for eating local, within reason, as my father would say. I detest the idea of eating apples imported from Washington or New Zealand. But to get so religious and strict about it? Devotees of the “100-mile diet” eat nothing grown further than 100 miles from their homes. That means they deny themselves coffee, tea, flour, wine, in addition to most fruits and a good number of vegetables and God knows what all. Olives, for God’s sake. Olive oil. Anchovies. Gin. Chocolate!!
It’s enough to make you want to turn a firehose on these people. How about a less absolutist response? How about resolving to eat more locally instead of all locally? To eat more consciously? More reverently, even. To use less. Live more lightly.
It seems overwhelming, like it could become a full-time job. I’d rather remain in the dark. How can we live at all except by remaining in the dark? And yet Jesus tells us to do otherwise, to recognize our connectedness.
Here’s another excuse: I could never get Lori and Danny to convert. And: how could we give up the convenience? As it is we can hardly get meals on the table. And how could we afford it? This is what I mean by elitist. Slow food.
Doing something is better than doing nothing, right? What could be done? Buying more produce and meat from local farmers. Patronizing Stone Soup, the farmers’ markets. Participating in the vegetable co-op. Using re-usable grocery bags. Eating less meat. Eating less processed food. Being less wasteful. It would take more time, money, and effort. It would mean a commitment, and giving up convenience.
And why? Because it’s healthier? Yes. To eat better? Yes. But more because it uses fewer resources, and is more humane. To feel better about ourselves? Salve conscience?
Poor people “don’t have the luxury” of feeling guilty over how the chicken they’re eating was treated. This is true. But it also may be true that the reason they don’t have the luxury is that we do, and we exercise it ever-increasingly.
If I’m just doing this to feel better standing next to my eco-friendly, evolved, mature friends, it’s not going to work. (This is also a bad reason to try to write poetry.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)