Outliers & Sages

I’m having fun discussing Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Success with my SAGES class at CWRU. Gladwell has suffered some backlash from people criticizing his numbers and methods and his popularizing approach to complex topics, but some of those critics probably just envy his great success. I enjoy reading him.

Today in class we talked about the “outliers” concept, that is, people whose great success puts them outside statistical norms. Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, professional hockey players…(Hold on for a minute, while I restrain myself from lamenting, once again, the lack of women in the analyses.) Gladwell maintains that in trying to explain remarkable successes we overemphasize talent and ambition and lose sight of family/community support and the sheer luck such people enjoy.

Hockey players, for example. A huge proportion of successful ones have birthdays in the first few months of the year. Why? Because hockey programs tend to have a January cutoff date, so that the bigger, more mature kids have an advantage that never really goes away.

Our discussion ranged over questions of genetics, innate talent, body type, upbringing, interest, pressure, and passion. We debated whether Lebron James, Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, and Mozart were outliers, and the students shared stories of people in their own lives they would consider outliers.

Who are your favorite outliers? Who’s amazing, outstanding, outside the norms? How many outliers do you know?

[This Jimmy Kimmel interview provides an entertaining introduction to Gladwell’s thesis.]

Posted in Books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Valentine

Mrs. Morgan’s tenth-grade English class changed my life in a number of ways. “Maybe once in a very great while,” she would tell us, “you write something perfectly the first time.” Then, smiling empathetically, she would add, “That doesn’t happen very often,” and hand us The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White. “Revise and rewrite,” page 58, were Mrs. Morgan’s watchwords.

In my classes today, I echo Dr. Strunk and Mrs. Morgan: “Omit needless words! Omit needless words! Omit needless words!” In my own writing, I continue to wage a losing war against the insidious needless word.

John Ewing sat on the other side of the room from me in that class. I don’t remember when I first noticed him, but I remember his response to one of Mrs. Morgan’s assignments. She had asked us to create new endings for tired old similes. (So, instead of “cool as a cucumber,” we might write, this being 1967, “cool as Ringo Starr.”)

When Mrs. Morgan called on John, he changed “smooth as silk” to “smooth as a ride in a Chevrolet.” He laughed at his own joke, along with other students who knew him from junior high. I suddenly realized, “Oh, he’s one of those Ewings!” Ewing Chevrolet was an institution in Canton, Ohio.

It’s a very dangerous thing, as I’ve learned over many years, to let John know you think he’s funny. “Don’t encourage him,” the kids and I caution anyone who laughs at John’s jokes, the innocent fool who doesn’t realize that once he gets started, there’s no stopping him.

But I’ll admit it here, since he doesn’t read my blog: I thought John was funny in high school, and I still sometimes do. In fact, I always thought, deep down, that I probably appreciate him and his humor more than most people. If you had asked me, even in high school, I’d even have said that we were a pretty good match.

I had crushes on innumerable boys in high school, and more in college, and then dated a few of them. John Ewing was always someone I kept track of. He was in the back of my mind.

So there’s a lot more to this story that I won’t go into here. We went our separate ways, never dating, and John started working with my sister Marge at the library and I was seeing a lot of our mutual friend Bob, and finally, Reader, I married him. In the years since, there have been times when I’ve had dark and angry thoughts about that boy.

But often, I think back to Mrs. Morgan’s English class and remember there was something there, even then. I felt a connection. And here we are, decades later, holding hands at movies, editing each other’s needless words, worrying over our elderly dog, and wondering where the years went. Much of the time, at least one of us is laughing at John Ewing’s jokes.

Posted in Books, Teaching, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

“Annoying” by Definition

Everyone’s noting Sarah Palin’s hypocrisy in screaming for Rahm Emanuel’s firing over the word “retarded” while giving Rush Limbaugh a pass for repeating the term over and over on a broadcast.

Indeed, she couldn’t bring herself to criticize somebody on her own team, while she makes hay over a mistake on the Administration side. Double standard, for sure. Self-serving, besides. (Now, to reduce the political damage, she’s apparently backtracking, asserting that no one should use “crude and demeaning” language.)

Funnily enough, what I find especially annoying is Palin’s use of the word “satire” to excuse Limbaugh. He is trying to be funny, and one could characterize his rant as “comedy.” (Emphasis on the quotation marks.)

But she didn’t use those words for a reason. David Letterman, for example, could defend his recent jokes about the Palin family with words like “funny” and “comedy.”  But Palin doesn’t want to let comics off the hook. Making an ordinary joke is, in her view, no excuse. Particularly when it’s about her.

But satire, now, is another thing entirely. Satire serves a purpose. Satire is serious business. So, let’s use the word “satire” to describe Limbaugh’s crude buffoonery. That’s right, Sarah: we have Horace, Juvenal, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, and Rush Limbaugh.

“Political language,” wrote George Orwell, “…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”  Palin’s gnarled syntax and idiosyncratic diction, including this torturous use of “satire,” are pure wind, designed to deceive.

Posted in Books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Annoyed Once Again

I enjoyed Adam Gopnik, the New Yorker writer, last night on Charlie Rose to eulogize J. D. Salinger, even though Gopnik is sometimes so articulate as to be glib; he churns out those complete-sentence responses like an eager-to-please student. I like him okay, but I’m not a huge fan.

I enjoy his talking about writers, however, because he expresses his admiration without envy or back-handed compliments.  He really loves Salinger’s work and reminded me how good the stories are. I’d forgotten how much I liked the Glass family.

Then today, I saw online that Gopnik had made a similar appearance when John Updike died, and I watched it. Again, he was articulate, generous, and smart in his assessment of Updike’s brilliance.

Here’s my complaint, though. In both appearances, two hours of high-falutin’ talk about “American literature” or even just “literature,” Gopnik and Mr. Rose made mention of only one woman: Virginia Woolf. Also, in passing, Jane Austen, but only because Woolf herself referred to Austen in A Room of One’s Own.

I wasn’t even noticing all this white-maleness at first. (See “Ten Bests” post, below, in a similar vein.) But when Gopnik praised Salinger’s pitch-perfect ear for the American idiom (more acute, he said, than any other writer), I thought, “What about Eudora Welty?” and realized that she’s always left out of these conversations.

Not so Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Pound, Fitzgerald, William Dean Howells, Twain, James Joyce, Phillip Roth…Dozens of writers’ names tripped off Gopnik’s tongue, lots of references to tradition and style and language and the rest, but nary a reference to Toni Morrison, Edith Wharton, Joyce Carol Oates, Willa Cather, Alice Munro (okay, she’s Canadian, but still), or my beloved Welty. And no mention, while we’re at it, of James Baldwin or Ralph Ellison or Richard Wright.

Like so many “bests” lists, like so many such discussions, this conversation proceeded as though only white men write books. Gopnik and Rose are, I’m sure, well-intentioned men who realize the significance of the women’s movement and the civil-rights movement. They just forget, sometimes, that women and black people exist.

Posted in Books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Same or Different?

Okay. People have commented on reading books over again and listening to pieces of music over and over again. (See the Comments, below, on Rereading + J.D.) I’m curious to know more about what movies people have seen multiple times. Is there something you’ll watch every time it comes on TV? It’s a Wonderful Life, anyone?

I imagine I’ve seen The Wizard of Oz more than any other movie. I don’t know how many times, but it must be more than 10. My husband, Film Buff Extraordinaire, can’t think of a film he’s seen 10 times. He’s seen his favorite, Shane, a lot, and he’ll see his second favorite, Late Spring by the Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu, again this weekend. (Cleveland Institute of Art Cinematheque, 2/4 @ 8:20; 2/5 @ 7:30) He guesses he’s seen it, maybe, 7 or 8 times. (He likes Kurosawa, too, but maybe not as much as Joel.)

Late Spring definitely deserves many viewings. It’s beautiful and moving.  It’s one of those works (John puts Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons in this category, too) where your perspective changes as you get older; the regrets and grief of passing time affect you more deeply. As Jane said in her comment about The Mixed-Up Files, you find yourself, as you age, identifying with the parents instead of the kids. This is certainly true of Late Spring, a story about an elderly father and his adult daughter.

So when you see a movie again, or reread a book, you’re not having the same experience. It’s changed, because you’re a different person. But maybe with a sentimental favorite, like Casablanca or The Wizard of Oz, you’re hoping for the exact same experience you’ve had before?

Posted in Books, Movies | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Another Loss

Howard Zinn

One more book to read and reread — A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, who died last week. Watch this inspiring interview on Bill Moyers. Zinn is an inspiration himself, of course, but he often celebrates ordinary people, in this case, a woman named Genora Dollinger, who helped organize workers in the 1930s.

How touching it is when a man (in that much maligned category White Male, at that) appreciates the contribution women have made to so many important movements. Seeing Zinn get choked up while talking about Dollinger and his own daughter’s reaction to her is very affecting. (Thanks to Marianne for the link.)

I’ll always remember the beginning of A People’s History — a quote from Columbus’s journal describing the hospitable and gentle Arawaks coming out to meet his ships. The journal entry ends, “With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” The chill I felt reading these words has never left me; this passage changed my view of American history.

In a much different way, I’ll always remember my first reading of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I was a KSU grad student and had never seen the Charles Laughton movie or read a synopsis of the novel. As the young Esmeralda is about to be hanged and Quasimodo leaps over the rooftops to her rescue, I tapped both feet frantically on the floor as I huddled in the library carrel. When I finished, I set the book down for a minute, grinning and catching my breath.

In light of all the memorable and generous responses to my “rereading” question, it would be interesting to hear if anyone else remembers passages like that, scenes or language that knocked your socks off, changed your life, or made you feel physically as if the top of your head was taken off, to quote (sort of) Emily Dickinson’s definition of poetry.

Posted in Books, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rereading + J.D.

“…those four extraordinary books that bear rereading again and again and again.” — Robert Thompson, Syracuse University, tonight on The Newshour

When I heard about the death of J.D. Salinger today on the radio, I wondered if I had anything interesting to say about him. I love The Catcher in the Rye. In that, I am hardly unique. What else could I possibly say?

I began to think about rereading that book, and the concept of rereading in general. I have probably read The Catcher in the Rye more times than any other book. At one point, decades ago,  I realized that I had read it at least twenty times. For one period of my life, I read it every year. The only book I may have read as many times is Charlotte’s Web. Those books can play like movies in my head. The characters, the scenes, and the language are a part of my mental furniture.

A friend recently remarked to me that she rarely rereads books. I understand the logic. There’s only so much time, and there are so many books. Why re-experience something, when there are all those valuable new experiences to be had? For some people, I imagine the same principle holds true for movies. From a rational, utilitarian point of view, a second viewing is a waste of time.

Clearly, though, this is not my frame of mind. When we discuss a book in my book group that I have already read, I usually reread it. Just for fun, I have reread The Chronicles of Narnia, Tolkien’s trilogy, Moby-Dick, Little Women, Lynne Sharon Schwartz’s Disturbances in the Field, and dozens of other books, including those that I’m teaching (like The Aeneid, which I’m lucky enough to be teaching yet again this semester).

Am I wasting my time?

Well, I think most people would concede that you get something more out of a great book the second (and third and fourth) time through. I was bewildered by The Great Gatsby when I read it as a teenager. I’m glad I gave it a few more chances as an adult.  I took The Catcher in the Rye dead seriously the first time through in high school. Only later did I realize how funny it was.

Movies, too, bear re-watching. I just saw two of my favorite movies at the Cinematheque again. I’ve seen Days of Heaven several times now, and I made it through the wrenching The Thin Red Line one more time. Did I appreciate them even more? Did I get more out of them? Am I more admiring of Terrence Malick than before? Yes on all counts.

But why do I do this, really? Is it because I’m mining them for more meaning? Do I want to learn more from them? Not really. I do it because it’s fun. It’s like eating chocolate. When the Days of Heaven music began, I teared up and couldn’t wait for what was to come. I know if I pull one of Salinger’s books off the shelf, or Pilgrim at Tinker Creek or Anne Lamott’s essays or Ron Hansen’s Atticus, I’m going to have a good time.

Not rereading books is, to my mind, a way to deny yourself pleasure. It seems puritanical.  I love the spinach salad at Jimmy O’Neill’s. Should I never go back, because there are so many other restaurants to try? Sex was fun, but — been there, done that — why waste my time trying it again? Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony? The Cleveland Museum of Art? Death of a Salesman, Romeo and Juliet, or Our Town? Why repeat yourself?

Some may respond that revisiting Jimmy O’Neill’s or Shakespeare takes up only a couple of hours, whereas a book consumes many more.  I’m lucky, in that I’m a fast reader, but, okay…rereading The Brothers Karamazov takes more time than eating a salad.

But it’s worth it, to me. What about you? What have you reread? What movies do you watch over and over? Or is one time through all you need?

Posted in Books, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Having a Moment

The other afternoon I had a moment — the good kind. I was chopping vegetables in the kitchen when a wave of contentment washed over me. I had an awareness that I have pretty much everything I need: the vegetables before me, the sharp knife, all the accoutrements of my American kitchen. Only a few steps behind me was a faucet that would endlessly pour forth clean water. My modest middle-class American life provides me more than most of the world’s people now or in all of human history could ask for.

Then I recalled all the doubts and questions that would sometimes plague me in my youth. Would I graduate from high school? From college? Would I get a job? Would I ever get a job I liked? Would I marry and have kids? Would I own a house? All these questions have been answered in the affirmative.

There I was, standing in my own kitchen, chopping vegetables for a soon-to-be delicious soup. I couldn’t believe my luck.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Things

I’ve never written about art and don’t know how to, but when a piece of art stops you up short and sends your mind off somewhere away from the gallery, it’s worth noting. That happened to me the other night at the opening of Terry Durst’s “The Carter Excavations” at Arts Collinwood Gallery.

Amy Sparks does know how to describe art, so I’ll quote what she once said about Terry’s work in The Free Times. “Durst uses rough and scarred found objects, recombining them in new, mostly formalistic relationships. Sculptural wall hangings, they hold power by the sum of their parts. There is a lovingness about these objects – castoffs that find new homes via Durst’s shepherding.”           

As I looked at Terry’s wall hangings, I was admiring and enjoying, but I was also thinking, verbalizing to myself about how so many of the pieces were in twos, for instance — two boxes together. I wasn’t feeling so much, though I was enjoying the objects’ beauty and puzzling over their meaning. Then I came to the large piece in the center of the room that looked (to me) sort of like a fence, called Exterior Wall.

When I saw that fence thing, I felt. I stopped and, and my mind went careening off somewhere else. Nostalgia is a cheap word for it: what I was feeling had to do with our attachment to objects in our lives. In the present [all these words for the feeling have come later, of course], we live with objects and get to know them intimately – their texture, their nicks and flaws and colors.

I’m aiming for this feeling when I write about my parents’ house in Missing. Here’s a passage where I’m describing how a hall closet in our house never seemed to change. It was a place that was never cleaned out, where nothing was ever thrown away.

The linen closet upstairs contained a dozen pairs of high-heeled shoes from the thirties and forties. In my lifetime, my mother suffered from corns and other foot ailments and wore big orthopedic shoes, of which she complained bitterly. I loved dressing up in her old fancy shoes, but I would have preferred to see her wear them herself. Shelves of the closet were filled with bottles and jars of old ointments and soaps and lotions, in addition to the sheets and towels stuffed onto shelves. I thought of this closet as a drugstore that could be raided for shoe polish, shoelaces, Vick’s Vaporub, conditioners, shampoos, permanents, hair rollers and clips. Stuff sat in that closet for years and years – if you reached in far enough, you could find whatever you wanted.

The nicks and chipped paint on Terry’s “Exterior Wall” made me think of all this. The things, the items surrounding you, the flaws and chips that you live with, that you notice but then stop noticing because they’re so much a part of your everyday life.

Donald Hall’s poem (The New Yorker, 1/4/10) called The Things, whose title I stole, gets at this also, I think. It’s not the artworks around his house, not the de Kooning painting he’s gazed at over the years, not the objets d’art, but just the objects. Little models of baseball players, a dead dog’s toy. The “trivial” things lying around are what his eyes return to.

When my dad died when I was 19, my first death, I was bewildered by how all his stuff remained behind. It seemed strange to me that his wheelchair sat empty in his room and that his pipes were still in the rack when he was no longer there to smoke them. I hated throwing away the old envelopes he jotted notes on, because they contained his handwriting.

I’ve often wished I had written down the titles of my parents’ books. The mantle held a few, and we had two other bookcases. The books on those shelves remained untouched for decades. I saw them every day. Richard Armour’s humor books. The Egg and I. The Thurber Carnival. Mark Schorer’s biography of Sinclair Lewis. Books of an era. I wish I had photographed them. They seemed unchanging, but, of course, now I know they weren’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Stigmas, Statistics, and Borderline

“This is where the misconceptions stop. This is where bias comes to an end. This is where we change lives.”

These lines express the mission of BringChange2Mind, founded by Fountain House, a program in New York City that assists people who have mental illness, and the actress Glenn Close, whose sister Jessie suffers from bipolar disorder. The website provides information and guidance to patients with mental illness and their families.  Here’s a moving conversation with the Close sisters from Good Morning America: Glenn Close Speaks Out on Mental Illness.

The only connection I ever previously made between Glenn Close and mental illness was Fatal Attraction, her 1978 film. In my research about borderline personality disorder, I encountered many references to her character Alex Forrest. Alex often serves as the poster child for BPD, a kind of shorthand. You know, somebody who’s terrified of abandonment and will do anything to prevent it? Just like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction!

Murderous and profoundly unsympathetic — she kills a bunny! — Alex Forrest is the very definition of “stigma.” Close owns up to this, at least regarding the movie’s ending, in this Huffington Post article. The actress is not responsible, of course, for the script or Adrian Lyne’s direction, nor for the decision to kill Alex off at the end. She’s guilty only of giving a memorably scary performance. And now she’s doing something meaningful to counteract the stereotypes we have of people with illnesses like Alex’s.

It interests me, though, that the website does not mention borderline personality but focuses instead on depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder.  (On Facebook, the organization does have a discussion page, titled Forgiveness and BPD, on which I’ve posted.)

As I point out in my memoir Missing: Coming to Terms with a Borderline Mother, current statistics show that far more people suffer from BPD than more familiar mental illnesses. Estimates suggest that about 2%-6% of the U.S. population and about 20% of those hospitalized for mental illness have BPD. This is, conservatively, twice the number of diagnosed schizophrenics and about the same number of people with Alzheimer’s. At the same time, far fewer people know about BPD, and for those that do, the disorder carries a profound stigma.

I had no intention of de-stigmatizing BPD when I began writing about my mom. If anything, I was at first venting anger. But in the process of writing about the disorder and the suffering it entails, empathy and compassion began to make a dent in that anger. More education and information about BPD can counter the popular stereotypes and de-stigmatize this widespread and destructive illness.

Posted in BPD-Related | 4 Comments