Shades and Types of Bullying

Ever since I blogged about reading Dave Cullen’s Columbine, I’ve been following him on Facebook, so yesterday I got a heads-up about his review of a book called The Bully Society by Jessie Klein.  I haven’t read the book, so I can’t agree or disagree with Dave’s assessment of it.  (I hate it when people who haven’t read my books review them—and it happens more often than you might expect.)  The review just got me to thinking about the whole bullying thing and how I hear adults talk about it or how individual kids talk about it, versus the big picture I see as a teacher.

When people talk about bullies, we mainly hear about one kid who is relentlessly picked on by another or a group of kids—ruthlessly harassed physically and/or emotionally.  As Dave points out in his review, we generally hear all about the kid being picked on.  We get his point of view.  We almost never hear about the bullies.  We seldom get their side.  This is important, because we can never hope to solve a problem unless we understand it, and you can’t just look at one side and gain any real understanding.  Also, we have to remember that both stories will be biased, that neither the bully nor the victim sees himself or the situation with 100 percent objective accuracy.

The other problem is that we assume that all incidents of bullying are inherently alike.  My experience has been that many adults who were bullied as kids (for that matter, many kids who are being bullied now) assume that Eric and Dylan’s experience at Columbine was exactly the same as their own experience as they perceived it.  I saw this on the last anniversary of the shootings when I was asked to speak at a “Break the Silence” rally for LGBT youth in Colorado Springs.  Several young people stood at the mic and told absolutely heartbreaking stories of cruelty at schools unable to adequately handle the situations.  The thing is, I think I was invited to speak because they thought Eric and Dylan were them—fragile, gentle, confused.  The idea that perhaps Eric was a psychopath, incapable of their tender, bruised emotions, was not anything they had ever considered.

Anyway, the combination of the book review and the rally got me thinking.  I’m no expert.  These are just my opinions as an educator.  By the way, I’m using the masculine pronoun as universal; these individuals can be male or female.

The classic bully: This kid is the one most of us think of when we hear the term “bully.”  He’s just plain mean, a predator who seeks out the weakest kid and picks, picks, picks.  He usually gets a few cohorts to go along.  Other kids don’t cross him out of fear.  Conflict mediation is wasted on this kid.  He smirks at his victim through the whole process and his apology is insincere—either openly sarcastic or saccharine-sweet.  At end of mediation, everyone but the bully is dissatisfied—the victim, the victim’s parents, the school.  Ironically, the bully’s parents are also dissatisfied because they see their child as the victim, forced to humble himself to a student who is beneath him.  They complain that schools have picked on their child his whole life, and their strident defense destroys any possibility that the kid will learn anything.

There are varying intensities of this kind of bully.  With some, a firm and absolutely genuine talking-to about future consequences for repeat-performances of the intimidating behavior will take care of it.  Some, the worst ones, require a lot more.  I do believe the best way to handle the worst kind of bully is repeated suspension and possibly expulsion.  Whenever possible, law-enforcement should be called.  The victim need not (and probably shouldn’t) be involved in the conflict resolution, because it’s not about the victim.  If it’s not this kid, it’ll be another, and the victim’s involvement just offers the bully another chance to victimize them.  School and law-enforcement officials have to be unwavering and straightforward with the kid and the parents.  “This behavior will not be tolerated.  If you want your child to attend school, it must stop.”  Threats from the bully’s parents to bring in lawyers (and they usually do threaten this) must be met by the school and the school board without flinching.

All that said, I would have to guess this is a small percent of the bullying that goes on at school.  Take care of this kind of bully, and you’ll help a small number of kids who are afraid to come to school.  At some point, if you really want to solve the problem, you have to look at the victim.

The classic victim: Again, this is the kid in the stereotype.  He’s physically small (or in a girl’s case, often plain or overweight).  He may not fit the generally expected parameters of gender-role expectation.  He’s more intensely emotional than other kids, less confident.  I’d say this actually fits a lot of victims, because there are a lot of adolescents who are dealing with one or more of these issues.  This kind of victim is actually relatively plentiful in any school.  Welcome to the process of coming-of-age.

In cases other than the classic bully, conflict mediation can be great for these kids.  It can empower them.  The key is to prep them for the mediation ahead of time.  Do some role-playing, actively and thoroughly teaching them to stand up for themselves, and in the process, helping them become a little stronger and more confident, making them a less likely victim.  I have often compared bullying to rape, because in the end, they’re both about power.  Just as rape is never justified, neither is bullying, but we don’t deal with rape only by punishing rapists.  We teach women to be bad victims—to walk with confidence and awareness, to set firm boundaries, to feel entitled to take measures to keep themselves safe.  We can teach kids this, too.  Predators (sexual and social) look for weakness.  They pass up the people who look like too much trouble.

There are other victims, though, ones we don’t like to talk about honestly because we’re afraid it will look like we’re blaming them.  We have to get over that idea; honest assessment and blame are not the same things.  If we can’t address the whole bullying problem upfront, we’ll never solve it.

The overtly annoying victim: This is the socially awkward kid who compensates by condescending to kids with higher status.  He constantly asserts his intellectual superiority over classmates and teachers.  He (and yes, this characteristic shows up almost exclusively in boys) may make openly vulgar and sexist comments to the pretty girls most would consider “out of his league.”  In many ways, he is as much a bully as a victim, which makes this kind of victim especially hard to work with.  On the one hand, bullying this kid is not OK; on the other, it’s hard not to sympathize with the kids who get fed-up and feel the need to deliver a smack-down.  Teachers may have to consciously dig for compassion to help this kid, but dig they must, because this kid is a human being with feelings, even if those feelings are not immediately apparent or relatable.

How you deal with this kid depends upon who’s bullying him, so you’ll have to be patient.  This is why any solution to bullying can’t be overly simplistic.  To solve this issue, adults must be honest with this kid about the effect of his behavior on his peers.  It’s not justifying the bullying.  Put back in rape terms, it’s like explaining to a woman that changing her clothes in front of an open window, getting drunk with a strange man in a bar, and walking down a deserted alley at night are bad ideas.  They don’t justify rape, but they increase the risk.  A clash between this kid and the classic bully can be catastrophic.  You really want to help this kid?  Keep him safe?  Tell him that while his bully’s behavior is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated, he has to steer completely clear of his tormentor and reconsider how he speaks to his peers.  If harassment continues to be a problem, he needs to come to an adult, and that adult needs to take quick, active measures with both kids.  If this victim tries to deal with the problem himself, I can virtually guarantee that he will escalate the situation.  Again, this isn’t a justification of violence, but sometimes we have to choose between ideology and reality, and the reality is, if this kid doesn’t get a grip on his own behavior, he’s going to get his clock cleaned.  Punishing the other kid after the fact is appropriate, but it won’t help heal a broken nose (or worse).  Also, you must understand that this kid’s bullying, though lacking physical elements, may be just as remorseless as the classic bully’s, and that’s a whole other kettle of fish. Good luck.

The deeply fragile victim: This kid is profoundly but inoffensively odd.  He looks very different—tiny or obese.  His gestures and gait are often obviously awkward.  He has a hard time making eye-contact or may have no concept of socially acceptable space boundaries.  These qualities may be caused by a history of abuse, mental illness, neurological issues, developmental disabilities, all kinds of things. Like the classic bully, there are varying degrees of this victim.  They are often the hardest ones for schools to protect, and yet the ones who most require protection.  They are few and far between, but every school needs tools at the ready, because these kids will likely go through school unable to develop adequate tools on their own.  Every adult in their lives should be on high alert if this kid ends up on a classic bully’s radar.

Now, back to bullies, the more complicated ones.

The socially dominant kid: He can look like a bully and may often engage in bullying behavior.  Because of this, he may be the “bully” many adults remember from their childhood, but he’s not truly ruthless.  He’s competitive and must come out on top.  He gains this status by succeeding by traditional standards, but also by asserting his superiority over weaker kids.  He isn’t relentless to the classic victim, but neither is he kind.  He doesn’t have to be relentless with the deeply fragile victim to inflict the same damage a classic bully can inflict, but he doesn’t know this.  If he beats up the annoying victim, he will be hailed as a hero by his classmates.  Conflict mediation, with thorough preparation by an adult beforehand, can be highly effective for this kid and all of his peers because he is generally seen as a role model.  Once he understands what’s going on with the victim, he can be taught appropriate ways to handle it, and adult acknowledgment of the fact that he is a leader will help provide motivation.  While his first impulse is to compete, he is capable of compassion and can be guided into tapping into that with a classic victim.  He can often be convinced to become a champion for the deeply fragile victim, a role that does wonders for them both.  He has to be allowed to be appropriately honest with the annoying victim.  Conflict mediation can be the best thing for both of them, but the adult has to be a strong, unbiased mediator.

The problem with “zero-tolerance policies” is that they treat this kid like a classic bully, and he finds this frustrating, which may escalate the behavior.  He doesn’t see himself as a bully.  He sees himself as a leader and a basically good person.  (A classic bully doesn’t give a rat’s ass about being a good person.)  Helping him see that adult intervention is geared toward making him an even stronger leader is much more effective than treating him like a thug.

Boys like this (and the classic bully) may sexually harass girls.  The dominant kid truly may not get that sexual harassment is bullying.  Society tells him girls are attracted to dominance and flattered by his attention.  He may respond to a male teacher or coach whom he admires or who was much like him in high school.  That adult male needs to model compassion and respect for women.  Adult males who can’t do this have no business teaching.  Mediation between him and a girl of equal social status who will assertively set him straight may also help. She must be equal—he won’t necessarily listen to one lower on the ladder.  Does that suck?  Yes.  Ideology or reality—get mired in society’s flaws or solve the problem—take your pick.

If none of these solutions work, he’s probably a classic bully with high social status.  Deal with him like the classic bully he is.

“Normal” kids (in quotation marks because it’s an admittedly inadequate term): These are the kids just trying to navigate high school and growing up.  They can be the “bullies” or the “victims.”  The classic bully may or may not take an occasional potshot at a “normal” kid who is conveniently around when a more likely victim is not.  “Normal” kids get stung and get over it.  They often don’t stand up for others around the classic bully because he’s scary.  They get justifiably irritated by the annoying victim and may unleash a few barbs of their own in self-defense.  They don’t understand and are therefore intimidated by the deeply fragile victim in ways they can’t comprehend because they’re kids.  Bullying may actually be a response to this intimidation.  They may engage in isolated acts of bullying as a result of peer pressure and immaturity.  Conflict resolution is excellent with these kids.  It’s a skill, like any other, and one they are often happy to learn.  If a class has a deeply fragile victim, explaining to groups of “normal” kids that his oddness is not his fault and that they will be better people for helping this kid out can also be effective.  Because these are “normal” kids, they can never be made perfect.  They will generally be kind and occasionally cruel.  The wounds they suffer will make them stronger.  Sometimes, the cruelty they inflict and the shame that follows will teach them compassion, especially if adults encourage this.

Finally, the only way to really get a grip on bullying related to sexual-orientation and gender identification is to become a more accepting society.  It’s something we just have to keep working on.  Homophobia should be dealt with as we deal with racism.  (We’re far from perfect there, too, but it’s getting there.)  In the end, even all this is an oversimplification, I’m sure.  Feel free to add your own experiences and perspectives as comments.

Posted in Columbine, Education, Life, the Universe, and Everything, Writing and Being a Writer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Didn’t My Mom’s Generation Already Win This Fight?

I have former student who posts regularly on Facebook, and we’ve gotten into more than one political discussion.  What bothers me is his insistence that liberals are best represented by the extremists among us, while the religious zealots of the Right are the exceptions, rather than the rule.  He insists that there are no real religious overtones in the conservative movement.

Yet somehow, over the last several weeks, I find myself listening to frontrunner conservative presidential candidates actually engaging in disparaging discussions about contraception.  Not abortion; contraception.  In a world where we know that countries with widespread contraception use have longer life expectancies, higher literacy rates, greater economic prosperity, and greater support for human rights.  Why is this an issue?  Because the Catholic Church forbids the use of contraception (though the majority of its members use it).

I have mixed feelings about the whole Catholic Church insurance hullabaloo.  On the one hand, I believe in religious freedom, and mandating that a church provide money, or at least insurance premiums, to provide a service it believes to be against its central tenets seems to infringe upon that vital freedom.  On the other hand, is allowing them not to cover contraception, something I would consider of vital interest to everyone’s health and welfare, the same as saying a Christian Science organization (like the Monitor) doesn’t have to provide health insurance at all?  I guess many conservatives would argue that companies shouldn’t be required to provide health coverage.  I can’t help but think a universal payer plan would solve all these thorny problems.

I guess what it all comes down to is that I just don’t get what seems to me like an almost fetishistic obsession the Catholic Church has with contraception.  Another Facebook friend, a staunch Catholic, has been trying to explain to me how much more reverential sex is when a man “respects his wife’s fertility.”  How sex without artificial birth control is “respectful of life” and therefore makes sex into a sacred act.  How this brings him closer to his wife.  I dunno.  I’ve had some pretty spiritual sex using contraception.  And sometimes DH and I just want to have a little fun.  Why must it always be deep and meaningful?  And must it really be fraught with the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy to reach that level?  For me, that would be a real barrier to any sort of deep intimacy.

All of that aside, I just can’t believe this country is having this discussion.  Simply believing that insurance should cover contraception does not equate with “being paid to have sex” any more than covering Viagra does.  In fact, it equates even less.  I guess we’re still caught in the paradigm of our language.  A man who wants Viagra is a stud, a player, a “dawg” (said with a nudge and a wink).  A woman who wants to be responsible about bringing children into the world is a slut.

But religion doesn’t play much of a part in the conservative movement.

Posted in Family, Life, the Universe, and Everything, Politics | 4 Comments

Laughter is the Best Professional Development

This summer I was asked to write two columns for my local teachers’ association’s newsletter–one for the fall and one for spring.  This will appear in this month’s Jefferson County Education Association’s Insight:

“Laughter is the Best Professional Development”

Teaching has never been a career for sissies, and if ever there were those apocryphal educators who only went into teaching for the summers off, I doubt they lasted long.  Even when I was a student, I was fully aware that my best teachers were educators, counselors, mentors, and life coaches (even though “life coach” wasn’t an official job when I was in school) all at the same time.  They inspired me, opened the world to me, pushed me beyond the limits of my own small experience.

I knew what I was getting into when I chose my career.  I wanted to be all of those things to young people. I wanted to give back all I’d gotten from the most beloved of my own teachers, so even as “education reform” has pressed to render teachers merely “proficient,” I—like so many of my fellow educators—still strive to inspire and truly challenge my students.

It’s been a job at once rewarding and exhausting.  Any of us can affirm that those “summers off” are really only times when the workload slows down.  During those fleeting weeks, we reflect, plan, study, take some time to replenish the well, and return ready to take on a new year.

But this year, it’s the first week in October, and it seems like my colleagues and I have already tapped those recently replenished wells dry.  We are implementing vast changes in curricula that were not completed in time for us to take advantage of summer months for planning.  We have been told to implement all these new lessons without the requisite materials.  We fly by the seat of our pants every day, spinning straw into…well, if not gold, copper at least, and with nary a Rumpelstiltskin in sight.

One of the other things that has struck me recently is the impact our economy is having, even in our more affluent schools.  This year at Columbine, I have more students than ever before who cannot afford such basic school supplies as binders and dividers.  I have one student who has moved three times since the start of school.  He works from 4:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. every day to help three families crowded into one house make ends meet, but he cares deeply about school, so we work together to figure out how he can go to his job and then come home to a house where there is no computer or quiet study space and accomplish his homework.

Often the morning conversation in the English office entails such topics as the upcoming school board election, the implications of being held accountable for results of curricula in which we had no voice, shocking discipline issues (like the student who threw her cell phone at a colleague), and the general sense of despair to which we teachers can easily fall victim these days.

Then lunchtime rolls around.  Somehow, there just isn’t any more room for the burdens and worries.  In my department we gather around a giant table—one that can seat all 14 of us—and laugh.  We laugh at students’ antics and colleagues’ inadvertently naughty gaffs in the classroom.  We howl at Anguished English style mistakes students make in their papers.  And the laughter doesn’t stop at lunchtime.  We find newspaper articles that are of genuine professional interest—the latest studies done in education or various literature-related articles—and post them on a giant white board in the English office.  By the end of the day, it is surrounded by our colleagues’ responses: jokes, puns, double-entendres, obscure references to bad pop music and cult movies.  Teachers from other departments have been known to stop by just to read our white board and chuckle.

My mother always told me that crying never solved anything, and I guess laughter doesn’t either, but it sure does lighten the load.

No, teaching has never been easy, and it seems just to be getting harder, but we have one indomitable advantage that cannot be legislated away nor mangled in the machinery of policy and education “reform”—we have each other.  Whether we are collaborating together, joining voices to speak truth to power, or just gathering over an eclectic bounty of sack lunches, we can meet today’s challenges and do right by our students if we know that we can lean on the person next to us and laugh.

Posted in Education | 1 Comment

DLEA Ate My Blogging Time (and so much more…)

My son’s blog has shamed me into writing my own darned blog entry.  I wasn’t kidding when I said I have been working twice as hard to be half the teacher, thanks to Jefferson County Public Schools DLEA (Department of Learning and Educational Achievement, or Department for Lowering Educational Achievement, depending upon whom you ask).

Any other year, my sophomores would begin with reading early American literature and work from the basic essay format they were taught in ninth grade to present more complex ideas with deeper analysis within that format.  Because of DLEA’s new curriculum, they read and wrote short stories.  After all, students write so very many short stories in college and in life.  Next they are supposed to read poems, non-fiction, and short fiction to “look for patterns” that they would then use to help them write a “pattern essay” (compare/contrast, cause/effect, classification/division, etc.).  I’m not supposed to assign a pattern or teach them a pattern—or any sort of essay format, for that matter.  They’re just supposed to pick a pattern and write an essay on their own based upon all the good stuff they learned about patterns from poetry, short fiction, and non-fiction.  Now, the essay isn’t supposed to be about any of the stuff they read.  This isn’t literary analysis.  They write about something else.  If you’re wondering how anyone figures out how to write a random cause/effect essay by studying patterns in poetry, you’re not alone.  I got nothin’.  I’m being all “mavericky,” and instead of that, we’re reading Catcher in the Rye (we’re not supposed to read a novel as a class; all books are supposed to be student choice) and using a basic essay structure to show them how to morph it into a variety of formats, such as classification/division or problem/solution, and they’re writing a literary analysis.  If someone wants to fire me for that, fine.  We’ll do poetry as another unit.  Next semester, they are supposed to write an investigative report in which they find out about and expose something someone is trying to cover up (that’s not a potentially disastrous assignment in the hands of 15-year-olds, is it?) and a debate case.

We’d sort of perfected the opening of the school year in ACE, my class for at-risk juniors.  We used to dive right into The Power of One to start immediately pulling up their reading skills.  You have to remember that many of the kids in that class brag about the fact that they haven’t read a book cover to cover since elementary school (although some most definitely do read on their own), so there’s a lot of work to do to get their skills caught up.  The kids usually love this book because it combines a coming-of-age story with boxing and rebelling and all the stuff they love. We also did a career research project that culminated in a PowerPoint presentation.  It took a group of kids where the majority hadn’t written an essay in years—after all, I have them because they’ve been failing English for at least the first two years of high school—and got them doing research and organizing ideas in a streamlined fashion.  We have always built slowly to the essay, first just getting the basics of writing down, then adding layers.

Well, the new curriculum created by DLEA mandated a different start.  As much as we talk about differentiation—different approaches for different kids with different abilities—DLEA mandates the same thing for everyone.  This year we began by reading “multimodal essays,” which is a term that basically describes any essay, since most essays combine such types of writing as descriptive, expository, etc., and that is what DLEA considers multimodal.  Boy, nothing entices non-readers with very low reading skills to read like a bunch of essays written by other people!  (Please read that last line with heavy sarcasm.)  Then they have to write an essay like the ones they read.  Let me tell you, jumping right into an essay without carefully building their ability to process and organize information (as our PowerPoint did) was a disaster.  The kids were immediately frustrated, thrown in way over their heads.  We’re not supposed to be reading a book together, but I’m doing it anyway.  Next, they’re supposed to write a civic position paper.  Why?  Because it’s next on the list.  Need there be any other reason?  Logical flow of ideas and skills?  Relationship to anything else we’ve done?  I’m figuring out how to tie it to The Power of One. (Renegade lit teacher, that’s me!)  At least the second semester papers are a lot more conducive to my students’ abilities, so I really don’t mind the changes, but the junior teachers in the college-prep track are flabbergasted.  We all do a critical review (play, movie, etc.) and a memoir as the next “important” assignments, whether the kids’ are in ACE or regular junior English.  (By the way, DLEA has kids writing memoirs in 6th grade and 9th grade, as well.)

My seniors are generally the same kids I taught in ACE or ones much like them.  Many of their credits in all kinds of classes come from summer school, night school, and online courses that are hugely watered down.  First, we wrote college application essays.  That’s fine.  These guys aren’t going to colleges that require them, but it’s not a bad idea to do a little self-reflection in one’s senior year (even if one has written memoirs three times before this).  Next, they do a critical lens essay.  That’s right, kids with no real background in anything are supposed to pick a book, read it on their own, and analyze it using a Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytical, or another very sophisticated critical literary lens.  ‘Cause, you know, they study Marxism in summer school.  Not.  Screw that.  We’re all reading the same book (World War Z) and studying it through the same critical lens: historical/cultural.  They choose their own aspect of that lens, but without a ton of guidance, they’d all fail it, so I’m not doing what DLEA wants.  Next semester, they write a qualitative research paper where they do their own original research and a “reflective presentation.”  Wish me luck on the qualitative research paper.  I’m gonna need it.

Bear in mind, that list of assignments is for all seniors, not just mine.  (Remember, we’re not differentiating anymore.) Does that look like half of DLEA’s writing curriculum for seniors is self-reflection?  That’s because it is.  Over the course of four years, do we seem to be missing a basic research paper of the kind most commonly done in college?  That’s because we are.  It’s not like they write one in 9th grade.  Freshmen write a “This I Believe” paper, an editorial, a memoir, and a definition essay.  There is not supposed to be any class study of any single book—all short works or student choice.  I haven’t talked about what I’m doing with that, but there will be some student choice reading.

And when I talked to my union about this?  Well…DLEA is made up of teachers who bailed on the classroom to write this stuff.  They haven’t been in real classrooms with real kids in five years or more, but they are still considered teachers, and some are in the union, so…you know…we can’t really back one group of teachers against another…it wouldn’t politic (or politically palatable?).

Once upon a time, the teachers in my department built upon the five-paragraph essay format (paragraphs using a point, evidence, analysis structure), and we eventually worked into longer, more in-depth essays analyzing challenging novels or employing extensive research.  It takes a lot to rework what we have traditionally done into a series of “This I Believe” statements, memoirs, self-reflections, and other reinforcements of our already narcissistic culture.  It is a royal pain to figure out how to squeeze whole novels in between the “student choice” reading requirements, but at Columbine we’re doing it because we have this antiquated notion that classroom discourse around literature with a teacher’s expert guidance is still valuable, not least because it gets kids out of their narcissism and into someone else’s head, someone else’s culture for a little while.

In the meantime, I’ve talked to a lot of college kids: my son’s friends, student teachers, college observers in education programs.  What do they say they’re writing in school?  Essays—longer and more in-depth than the basic five-paragraph but structurally mostly the same—and research papers.  What aren’t they writing?  Self-reflection, memoirs, editorials, etc.  Critical lens is taught in upper division English classes and nowhere else.  I know a number of graduate students and sociology majors who’ve done qualitative research papers, but no one else.

Working twice as hard to be half the teacher.

Posted in Life, the Universe, and Everything | Leave a comment

My Son’s Blogging…

I, as you can see, have been a total slacker in the blogging department.  One of these days I’ll update, I promise.  It’s just crazy busy.  I’m working twice as hard to be half the teacher, thanks to good old “education reform,” but that is a topic for another day.

In the meantime, I’m going to let my son pick up the slack.  He’s in his second year as a resident advisor at University of Colorado Boulder and blogging about the experience.  He’s a history major and a former Lincoln-Douglas debater, hence the passion for John Locke.  Enjoy!

Posted in Education, Family, Life, the Universe, and Everything | Leave a comment

Be Careful What You Wish For

Did I say something about my illiterate summer?  I met with my agent yesterday who handed me five romance novels by four authors.  She swears that I am, at heart, a “smart romance writer” and that these books prove there’s a market for such a thing.  My assignment: read them and share my reactions to each, what I like, what I don’t like, so we can talk about our vision for my career.

We both agreed that Hester was a bit of a fluke, that I’m more of a genre fiction writer than a literary one.  While I know I have family and friends who were glad to see me “graduate” from romance to literary, I never saw it that way.  I just want to like what I write.

At any rate, I am three chapters into Scandal by Carolyn Jewel.  So far, there’s a ton of emphasis on the sexual tension between a man and a woman I neither know nor care anything about.  I really have to care about the characters before I care whether or not they sleep together.  Still, chapter four begins with some discussion of Napoleon, so there’s potential here for the “smart” part.  I’ll keep reading…

Addendum:  In all fairness, I don’t like Regency romance. Scandal is well written, and for folks who love that genre, I’d really recommend it.  Trust me, though, I won’t be writing anything like it.  Sigh.

Posted in Writing and Being a Writer | 5 Comments

Summer Slump

I think this has been the least literate summer of my life.  I sent my agent my revamped proposal for the last historical novel I worked on, having pledged to myself that I would not work on it any more unless it sold.  In all honesty, I think the revamp has made the novel worse, so I’m not anticipating a good reaction.  That’s a shame since I started out really liking it.  The fact that it’s been nearly two months and I haven’t heard back from my agent doesn’t bode well.

I haven’t even felt much motivation to read.  I was working my way through Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, but lord, that book takes work!  And I haven’t felt up to it.  I’ve been wading through Grimm’s fairy tales, looking for inspiration, but haven’t found any.  I just bought a book whose title I don’t even remember simply because it was a staff recommendation from The Tattered Cover book store and it looked like something I might like to “write something like,” since I am told that whatever I write must be “like” some other book in order for it to sell.  So far, it’s not really grabbing me.

So basically, I feel like I’m wasting a summer.  It’s been about 11 years since I’ve let a summer go by without working on a novel.  As you can see, I’ve hardly blogged.  I honestly don’t think a summer has passed since I learned to read that I haven’t powdered off a stack of books.

I’ve done other things, for sure.  I’ve gone on the first out-of-town vacation in three years (San Francisco).  I’ve been teaching my daughter to drive.  She and I have made lots of day-trips in that pursuit, so we have enjoyed one of the last summers before she heads off for college.  These are fine uses of time off.  I’ve been watching too much TV—reruns of House, Law and Order SVU, stuff like that.  This may well be the cause of the dried-up creative juices.  Just as I defend “trashy” literature, I fully defend pure entertainment on TV—in moderation.  I just haven’t been terribly judicious about the quantity.

I know this sounds like I’m complaining.  Actually, it’s not so much that as it is a description of a slump.  I know I’ll come out of it.  Either inspiration will strike and I’ll write something I love (whether it sells or not) or I’ll realize I want to do something else.  I have invested a sizable amount of time trying to reinstate book reading and essay writing in our county’s English curriculum.  I have a meeting with my union rep, our chief academic officer, and few others in August.  As I said, not an entirely unproductive summer, just not the most literate one.

Posted in Education, Family, Life, the Universe, and Everything, Writing and Being a Writer | 3 Comments

The Sacred and the Humane

Another article from The Times that I thought was interesting, again about the nature of religion, God, etc.  It’s called “The Sacred and the Humane.” As is often the case, I find myself frustrated by a very narrow definition of religion, and I think this divides us when it needn’t.  In this, the central question is whether the concept of human rights belongs to the religious or the secular, siding with the secular and asserting that this is an important distinction.  Biletzki’s arguments are interesting, logical and well-reasoned, but I don’t buy his assertion that it matters.  I would argue that the wellspring really is the same, and articles like this (as well as any that might claim that the idea of human rights springs from some personified, sentient deity) divide us over the very things that, at their hearts, unite us.

Posted in Life, the Universe, and Everything | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

A Bit More on the Last Post

I thought this article, “Married with Infidelities,” covered the topic of my last post from every angle pretty well.  I don’t really have anything to add; I just thought it was interesting and thorough.

Posted in Family | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Separate AND Equal

Once again, the inspiration for my blog came from The New York Times: “Marriage Is a Mixed Blessing.” This is really a rehash of things I’ve said before, but I find myself saying them with greater conviction as time passes.

The more I think about it, the more really I believe the answer to relationship equality is civil unions for legal purposes and marriage that has nothing to do with civil law for those who choose it, regardless of the sexes of the people involved.

I know that “traditional marriage” means a lot to many people, but whether everyone likes it or not, marriage is in a state of flux.  In fact, it always has been.  “Traditional marriage” as most people mean it has never existed.  That is to say, marriage of the 1950s (which seems to be some golden-era of marriage for proponents of “traditional marriage”) would be unrecognizable to a couple married in the time of Jesus (another apparent golden age of marriage).  I’d be willing to bet that, while couples of the 1950s knew what the ideal marriage was supposed to look like, few people actually had it.

The fact is that people have always had different ideas of “traditional marriage,” so why insist on regulating it?  Why insist on it at all?

To me, marriage is an equal partnership—not tit-for-tat or day-to-day, but on balance.  It’s not the whole of my life, but it’s the bedrock.  It’s not my husband’s responsibility to fill all my needs, but when the chips are down, or my back is to the wall, or (pick some other cliché), I know he’ll be there, and vice versa.  Others believe that marriage is a sort of hierarchical arrangement, where power is unequally but clearly designated.  Some follow the ideal of monogamy; others treat exclusivity in marriage as more a guideline in discretion—there can be additional sexual partners, but a decent person hides them.  Still others prefer an open relationship that they do not hide from each other, but feel they can’t reveal to anyone else, because there’s this supposed universal concept of marriage.

In all honesty, I can admit that part of the reason I got married almost 27 years ago was because that was my paradigm for a committed relationship, so much so that I never considered anything else.  But it also felt very, very right.  I knew I wanted this relationship to be the bedrock for the rest of my life.  I wanted to grow old with this man.  (So far, it’s going very well!)  I felt such a deep connection to him that a religious/spiritual sanctification of our relationship felt appropriate.  Our marriage very much fits the current idea of traditional marriage, but really, that’s just because it works for us.  If it didn’t, I very much doubt that mere social pressure would make it what it is.

Not everyone wants an exclusive covenant that lasts for life.  They may believe that such a covenant is silly and contrived, and forcing them to enter one doesn’t mean you can force them into changing their belief.  Not everyone’s relationship is like my husband’s and mine, and that does not make those relationships any less legitimate.  The way it currently works, if you don’t want a forever relationship, but you have children together or want to provide for each other, you get married, and then when the time comes, you get divorced, and other people lay all their own paradigms on those actions; it all becomes much more complicated that it needs to be.  Those who choose an exclusive, lifelong covenant, which is what most people who say they value “traditional marriage” mean, understand that it would be difficult and complicated to dissolve it; that’s part of the choice they make.  The key is it’s a covenant they make between themselves and God (or some other term for a greater power or bigger picture), not themselves and the state.  It seems to me the state is too worldly an authority for that kind of commitment.

I know people will say that children need both parents, and “traditional marriage” helps ensure that they have both there, but I wonder if that’s true.  Parents divorce all the time, and sometimes they stay together “for the sake of the children,” all the while modeling some really unhealthy relationships for those children.

The best marriages are those of choice, where people stay together because they believe in the relationship, not because they feel trapped or obligated.  A relationship is truly sanctified only as long as the people in it recognize its sanctity.  The church alone cannot uphold a union’s sacredness, and certainly not the state.

Addendum:  One more option I hadn’t thought of that my mom mentioned:  She used to live in Florida, where there are a lot of retirees for whom a civil marriage has financial implications for their heirs.  They sometimes opt for the church-sanctified marriage and skip the civil part.  It seems to me that works fine, too, and should be as socially legitimate as any other relationship.

Posted in Family, Life, the Universe, and Everything | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments