A Funeral

Today I attended a funeral mass celebrated by a priest who has lived and worked in the same neighborhood for over thirty years. Four generations of the family were present, and the priest knew them all. He knew the great-grandmother who was being buried at the age of 92, her daughter disabled by a stroke, her granddaughter, and her great-granddaughter, a lovely girl of college age.

He had spent the preceding days visiting the hospital and sitting with the family as they decided to remove the ventilator that was keeping the woman alive. He was there and prayed with them when the ventilator was removed. He met with the family to plan the funeral. And he had met with the elderly woman more than once, discussing illness and end-of-life matters, but mostly joking and cheering up and telling stories.

In his homily, the priest referred directly to the great-granddaughter’s birth, saying that he knew the family before she was around. Everyone had been so excited, he said, anticipating her birth and wondering what she would be like. Her great-grandmother’s death was a little like that, he said. It was a great labor, like the labor of giving birth. It was a labor that all of us, even the men, would have to undergo. And it was also similar, the priest said, that in that final labor we give birth to our true selves.

At the end of the homily, he hesitated for a moment and then commented on the travails of several generations living in the same house, as this family had done for many years. He himself had grown up in his grandparents’ house. Sometimes he would hear other kids talking about the fun they had visiting their grandparents for holidays, and he would smile ruefully. Not quite the same thing, when your grandfather had yelled at you that very morning for stepping on his well-manicured lawn. Such a living arrangement creates inevitable tensions, and the priest knew that this family had endured some of these tensions. So, he advised, let all those grievances go, if any are still nagging at you. The person who has passed has let them go, so we should do the same.

All these gentle remarks the priest was able to make because he knew the family and had known them for decades.

Caleb Morris & Fr. Dan Begin

Now, as the Cleveland Diocese “reorganizes,” this priest may be removed from this neighborhood, where he knows literally hundreds of families, their family stories, the relations, the histories, the tragedies, and all the rest.  He may be moved so far away that he’ll be unable even to attend the weddings and funerals and baptisms in this neighborhood.

Instead, the families will probably have to rely on strangers — unfamiliar priests, no doubt kind and well-intentioned, who will administer the sacraments and perform the rituals as well as they are able. But they won’t be able to say they baptized your mother, or that they married your parents and your aunts and uncles, or that they sat by your great-grandmother’s deathbed and remembered the day you were born.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Sarah Jessica Sings Mozart

I just became aware of a weird habit that may be unique to me but probably isn’t.

First, I should explain that when we attend plays and concerts, we usually buy cheap balcony tickets. Touring company actors and concert soloists are generally unfamiliar to me and also several miles away, so I have no idea what they really look like.

Too far away to see clearly,  my vision muddled by foggy contacts, I involuntarily metamorphose each performer into someone familiar. I envision them as someone famous whom (I fancy) they resemble. I do this subconsciously.

For example, at Cosi Fan Tutte this week, we sat in the tippy-top seats of Severance Hall. Though we had brought both my grandmother’s little opera glasses and our whopping binoculars, I didn’t use them much. (Veering from the stage to the supertitles induces vertigo, I discovered).

Not Married to Matthew Broderick

So the little soprano playing Despina, the maid, became Sarah Jessica Parker in my eyes. She didn’t take on any other SJP qualities (except maybe a little spunkiness), so if you don’t like SJP, this transference had nothing to do with her really.  The singer just seemed, at an immense distance, a similar body and facial type. In fact, as I discovered later looking at her photo, Martina Jankova looks nothing like Sarah Jessica Parker, but I had someone to visualize during the show. Invariably, when I look the headshots in the program, I see how far off I have been.

Tonight at a Cleveland State Orchestra concert, the tall handsome student-clarinet-soloist became a Ben Affleck sort of person.

I didn’t even know I was doing this until, after seeing the musical Young Frankenstein, I said to my husband that the actress playing Inga, the blonde bombshell, reminded me of Victoria Jackson, formerly of Saturday Night Live. I didn’t mention that I was actually picturing Victoria Jackson whenever Inga appeared on stage.

He looked at me blankly. “She didn’t look anything like Victoria Jackson,” he said. When I checked out the actress Anne Horak’s picture, I saw he was right. The two merely share blondeness, but the faulty image served me just fine in the performance.

Does anyone else do this?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Snow Dog

Say what you will, the snow (it’s still coming down!) is really beautiful.

It wakes up our old dog Shucks. He drags himself around the house on his arthritic legs, but outdoors in this weather he trots and even runs! You can see him here.

He digs his face deep into the snow to sniff, just like when he was a puppy, and raises his head with a neat ridge of snow balanced on his snout.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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