Almost Too Much to Do

I once worked for a company where the unpublished motto was “let’s just move forward.” In theory, the goal may have seemed admirable, but practically speaking it was a disaster. Moving forward without addressing past issues only leads to the snowball effect. Sooner or later, the problems and failures of yesterday that weren’t fixed will catch up with the present day, looming all the larger for having been ignored or repeated.

While most of America is ready to move forward from the Bush administration, there seems to be a division over what “moving forward” should entail. A substantial number of people would like to see Bush and company held accountable for the sins of their administration. The call for impeachment, even at this late date, is still very much alive, at least on the left. Barring that, and crossing ideological lines, many want this administration held accountable for what they believe were purposeful lies foisted on the American public, abuses of power and privilege, and an unlawful usurping of Congressional authority.

Beyond that, they want the doors flung open to what they believe was Cheney-sanctioned war profiteering by companies like Halliburton, which has yet to account for millions of missing tax dollars, despite the damning evidence discovered during DNC hearings held several years ago.

Yet we also want out of the middle East. We want to distance ourselves from the sanctioned torture of Cheney and Bush, and repair the global rift caused by our seven year lapse into democratic imperialism. We want to make sure that our future leaders cannot perpetrate a run-end around the Geneva Convention or our Constitution again.

We’re desperate to lower the nine-trillion dollar debt that the Bush administration has left us with. We need to stave off the worst of the recession we’re now in — we need to save our jobs, and save our homes from foreclosure. Many of us are lacking health insurance, and support a universal health coverage plan. There are immigration issues that need better solutions. Our infrastructure is in need of repair. Our educational system continues to be toppled by other countries.

America is in a crisis, globally and domestically, and all the issues have become urgent. The question facing us in 2009 will be one of priorities. There’s no doubt that the next administration will be responsible for an almost total rehaul of government. This is not, unfortunately, a time when the main function of a President will be to maintain the status quo or keep us on an even keel — this is a time calling for major repairs, steady rebuilds, complete tear-downs, and making anew.

And if the worst should happen — if America is attacked while in the vulnerable position of new leadership — what then? What issues would we move to the back burner while addressing our defense, and at what price?

The next President is going to face some of the most daunting challenges in the history of government. There is virtually nothing in our present day sphere that does not need to be urgently addressed by Congress and the next administration.

However, can we really move forward without holding the past administration accountable? Even if we could, should we?

I don’t believe that any move towards rebuilding our tattered government will be complete or effective without holding the present administration accountable for the damages they have caused. I believe Congress and the next administration should move swiftly and precisely in launching investigations, and not only hold the appropriate feet to the fire, but create policies to ensure that no future administration can run roughshod over the checks and balances of democracy under the guise of privilege and Presidential authority.

Without addressing the excesses, abuses, and misuses of power of the Bush administration, America places itself in danger of a repeat. Next time, it could cost us more than 4000 lives and nine trillion dollars. That possibility, even if slim, is not acceptable to me, or to the thousands of other Americans who believe that no elected officials should be immune from accountability, including the President.

The next administration has almost too much to do. Whoever our next President is will likely be one of the hardest working Presidents in history, and the pressures they will bear will be weighted not only with the hubris of the past, but with the fervent hopes of a better future.

I support Hillary Rodham Clinton because I believe she has the fortitude, experience and knowledge to not only move this country forward, but to protect it from further assault, both from inside and outside our own borders. I believe that Barack Obama lacks both the national and domestic experience this country needs in a time of crisis, and that John McCain will only prolong the agony of the Bush administration.

I see the three candidates as a choice between substance, mystique, or more of the same. Substance, for me, is the only rational choice. In my opinion, Hillary Rodham Clinton should be the 44th President of the United States.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

I Breathe. I Write. I Deliver Mail.

“Jane,what do you do for a living?” This question comes up often in letters received from readers of this blog, and while my favorite answer is “breathe”, most people don’t find that satisfactory. They want to know what company I work for, what college I teach at, or how I became so independently wealthy that I don’t have to work at all.

Sometimes, they’re surprised, even disappointed, to find out that I’m just a member of the working class. “Real writers” aren’t supposed to haul garbage or bag groceries. It’s okay if we live romanticized lives of poverty, struggling for our art, but having an actual job is perceived not only as unromantic, but as a sign of failure. Surely, real writers don’t serve up hash or work in post offices, right?

William Faulkner’s most notorious stint as a working man was his role of postmaster at the University of Mississippi post office, which incredibly he held for nearly three years. By all accounts, he was a terrible postmaster — he would ignore patrons calling at the window, he delayed taking outgoing mail to the train station, and on occasion he even threw away mail. He spent much of his time in the post office writing, and other times he would play bridge and mah-jongg with friends whom he’d appointed as part-time clerks. When a postal inspector came to investigate, Faulkner agreed to resign. Later, Faulkner said about his experience: “I reckon I’ll be at the beck and call of folks with money all my life, but thank God I won’t ever again have to be at the beck and call of every son of a bitch who’s got two cents to buy a stamp.”

My own job at the post office doesn’t allow time for card-playing, and I’m usually polite to customers when I see them, but it’s not a romantic job. Mail is dirty. My hands are weathered and chapped. Sometimes the bureaucracy is frustrating. Still, I’m basically alone several hours a day, which is why I chose, after years of pink collar/white collar suffering, to descend the ladder of corporate success. Climbing the ladder was important to me when I was raising my kids — once they left home, it wasn’t important anymore. I wanted to write again, and not just on those rare quiet evenings.

In the eyes of many people, this makes me a failure. At 45, if I had any talent or showed any promise, I would not be living in a tiny, rented apartment, delivering mail part-time. I would be knighted by the publishing industry, teaching literature at some prestigious university, ensconced in some beautiful cottage, and a Google search of my name would yield more than a blog and a couple of old newspaper articles.

The romantics may like a tragic beginning and a neat, happy end, but they tend to leave out the middle, which conflicts with their convenient theory — that all talent is instantly recognized and rewarded, and all good works are sanctioned by a knowing society. They don’t link those posthumously famous authors and artists, who died in obscurity and poverty, to any present day possibility. They see no Van Gogh’s or Zora Neale Hurtson’s in their midst, and no possibility that one of them may be sweeping up hair at their favorite salon, or steaming the milk for their Starbucks lattes.

The half-true but much heralded story of a penniless and welfare-dependent J.K. Rowling writing her first Harry Potter book in a coffee shop may appeal to the romantics, and even be considered a tad heroic — but only after the fact of millions in book sales and global popularity. Prior to that, I’d wager that some saw her as the crazy woman scribbling for hours on end in the cafe, a person of negligible worth, a dreamer, a “wannabe”, someone whom — if they had any talent at all — would have “made it” prior to the age of 32, when her first book was published. If Harry Potter had never been published at all, would Rowland be a worse writer? Of course not.

Then there’s Michael Blake, who had just been fired from his job washing dishes at a Chinese restaurant when his book “Dances with Wolves” was optioned for a screenplay. Blake, who spent twenty years writing scripts that never got produced, and whose now-famous book was never even reviewed prior to becoming a film, was not less of a writer when he was elbow-deep in greasy dish water and making minimum wage — but I’m sure many people he knew in his pre-glory days questioned his talent.

These are not my pre-glory days, just my days, period. I’m quite sure nothing I write will ever reach Harry Potter fame or the silver screen, not only because I rarely submit my work, but because I’m content with obscurity. I’m content to write stories that mean something to me, even if the subjects are unpopular and the endings are messy or tragic.

I breathe. I deliver mail. I write the stories of lives lived on the periphery. And I am content.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Stalkerazzi Laws May Get Some Teeth

After the taxpayers of Los Angeles shelled out $25,000 in expenses to protect the public and a young celebrity during her recent trip to a hospital, L.A. Councilman Dennis Zine proposed a new “buffer zone” law that will effect the most rabid of paparazzi — namely those who gather in large swarms, blazing flashbulbs within inches of their target — going so far as to stand in front of vehicles, or engaging in dangerous road chases, all for the sake of a celebrity snapshot.

While California does have some paparazzi laws in place, photographers are rarely cited and when they are the charges are usually misdemeanor, rather than criminal, offenses. Zine’s proposal, at this juncture, looks like it would criminalize the ambush tactics used by paparazzi who fail to keep a reasonable distance from their target, or who engage in dangerous chases.

I believe that stronger laws are necessary and overdue. After Princess Diana’s death, the public was treated to a few moments of a tabloid-driven media that seemed to be examining its conscience. Unfortunately, those moments quickly faded. Since then, celebrities such as James Brolin and Barbra Streisand, Pierce Brosnan, and Lindsay Lohan have all had close calls with aggressive entertainment photographers, who have either run them off the road or struck their cars during a chase. It should not take another death, celebrity or passerby, for lawmakers, news outlets, and the public to recognize the danger.

It’s also a matter of respect. While the worst aggressors will lean on the 1st amendment to claim encroachment rights on another’s personal space, there is no constitutional or other legal right whatsoever to harass another person, or restrict their movements, or impede their activities — all of which the paparazzi has done, and continues to do, almost without restriction.

As I wrote last year, being a public figure of any sort should not negate someone’s right to privacy or freedom of movement. Several posters disagreed with me, basically using the argument that celebrities are different: that being ambushed is part of the career they’ve chosen.

I don’t know how that logic works. As far as I know, celebrities are not locked into a 24- hour contract with the public to entertain or be accessible. A successful career in any field, including entertainment, should not make someone a virtual hostage to the whims of the public or negate their rights as a private individual.

As for the media’s defense that excessive intrusiveness exists because the public demands it — that we “create the need” for aggressive, car-chasing, garbage stealing paparazzi — I can only say it’s an elaborate lie.

First, the public cannot want something it doesn’t even know exists. Most of us don’t know, until the media tells us, what a celebrity’s personal life is like, where they’re dining, who they’re dating, or what tattoos they have on their backside. We don’t know – and most likely would never wonder – what is in a public figure’s garbage can or how many Jack & Cokes they had at the Viper Room.

The type of microscopic scrutiny and bold intrusions into celebrity lives offered up by gossip outlets and their photographers are less a consequence of public demand than public manipulation. Sensationalism sells, but only because it is produced and promoted. If tomorrow, there were no more photographs of panty-less starlets falling on the red carpet or close-ups of celebrity cellulite, the public would be none the wiser, and no less interested in whatever other, less invasive, celebrity news came their way.

It is not the public that demands crotch shots and minute-by-minute coverage of celebrity breakdowns. It’s the media that sets that bar, seeking the most sensational story in the hopes of inflaming or piquing the worst of the public’s curiosity. And unfortunately, it’s that bottom line which informs many tabloid decisions.

Lastly, even if the public had an expressed curiosity in sensationalism — even if they were writing letters by the tens of thousands demanding upskirt shots and ambulance chases — it does not mean that the media should abandon common sense and ethics to cater to the basest tastes. That they do so daily, with or without “public demand,” necessitates the need for stronger, more enforceable laws.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

The Sky is Falling. Therefore it Must Be.

The other day, not for the first time, someone totally surprised me. It’s not unusual for me to be caught off guard or taken aback – I am almost perpetually naive in some ways, especially when it comes to matters of friendship. I always think that friends are forever, even if you don’t see them often, or years pass without a word, which is often the case with me because I’m really lousy at doing the things necessary to maintain long-distance relationships, including sending cards and making phone calls. And I tend to lose track of time. Six years can feel like six months to me.

Still, I view all the friends I’ve made, past and present, with affection. They’re all important to me, even if we’ve disconnected somewhere along the line. I would never think of summarily discarding a friend because she said something I didn’t like or held different views than me.

So I was surprised when someone called me the other night to pronounce their harsh judgment on a mutual friend of ours – someone they’ve known only for a few months, but whom I’ve known intimately for over eight years. Nothing I said would dissuade this person from their wrong-minded opinion, and they were more interested in nurturing their poor opinion than in speaking directly to the source of their angst.

It’s sad to me that we live in a throwaway society where people, like everything else, are viewed as a thoroughly disposable commodity — that some find it easier to toss a person aside than to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It’s just not a logical world, and fewer and fewer people seem adept at the art of asking the right questions. If they asked the right questions, the ones that would give them the information they really seek – if they weren’t too skeptical, stubborn, or afraid to ask – they wouldn’t have to lean so heavily on their internal script-writing skills. Instead of connecting the dots with scraps of their own guesswork, they might know the actual facts. They might then have a more informed opinion of another, and know them in a genuine sense, rather than by way of some flawed proxy.

Judgments are ready-made and quicker than asking questions, but much like that often-heralded thing called intuition, they’re often wrong. The highest trait of either judgment or intuition is expedience. “I’ve judged you, therefore you are what I’ve judged you to be.” “My intuition tells me to despise you, therefore there must be a reason.” More often than not, there is no good reason, but under this handy umbrella, people absolve themselves of any responsibility for learning the facts, and quickly cut other people down or out on what amounts to a whim.

I know we’re always learning but really, I’m tired of lessons like this.

After almost thirty years of writing about the human condition, I often feel like a walking textbook on human debris and dysfunctions. There’s probably not one subject in the dystopia of human nature that I haven’t experienced, studied, or at least touched upon – which isn’t to say I have good answers, because I don’t. There really are no satisfactory answers for some things – like child abuse and murder – and the answers for other, lesser, things are often crouched in some human mystique made up of habits, fears, superstitions, guesses, and perceptions that elude sensibility.

In a culture dominated by cynicism and snap judgments, it’s hard to hang onto the innocence that allows new friendships to happen. When the questions asked are wrong, there can never be any good, right, or informative answers.

“What’s in it for me?” she asked.
“I don’t know. A friendship?”
“I feel the way I feel. Nothing’s going to change that.”
“That’s too bad, because your feelings really don’t match the reality.”
“But they’re my feelings, and I’m entitled to them.”
“Did you even ask her —-.”
“I don’t have to ask. I just know. . .”

Knowing without knowing, causing feelings that have no basis in reason. . .the sky is falling, therefore it must be.


Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

A Radical Notion: Children Come First, Period.

latasha_morris.jpgShe had a felony arrest for child neglect last July, but the Department of Childrens Services was not monitoring Latasha Morris, or checking up on her children. In between December 2007 and January 2008, Morris was arrested four times. On February 6th, Morris, a chronic alcoholic and drug user, passed out on top of her 2 year old son, Sheldon Bartley. The toddler died.

It does not appear that Morris was without people who tried to help. Sheldon’s paternal grandparents often cared for the children, and were making plans to get Latasha into rehab, where she might receive treatment for her decade-long battle with alcoholism.

In the meanwhile, six year old Estajah and two year old Sheldon were left unchecked and in their mother’s care, with disastrous consequences.

boyprotect.jpeMy January 29th article on adoption garnered a lot of response, including some disturbing mail from an anti-adoption group which seems to be made up of a handful of birth mothers who resent their decisions. They rail at a society which, they say, does not do enough to financially support them. They rail at adoptive parents, claiming they are thieves. They rail at adoption agencies, claiming that they are a corrupt, money-making industry. They take a few stories from unhappy adoptees, and twist them into propaganda to buoy their anti-adoption creed.

It’s difficult to read their tales, because no matter how matter how vague their actual stories are, or how many gaps of logic are apparent in those stories, the facts of these women’s lives — and their regrets — are drenched in pain.

One wrote to me and said that my plea to young mothers to consider adoption would not be heard by those who would do harm to their own children, but only by those whose love was so encompassing that they would give their children up before subjecting them to any harm at all.

flowers.jpgShe’s very likely right. The majority of birth mothers that I have spoken to are women who love deeply, and whose thoughts were centered on what was best for their child. They chose adoption not because it was easier for them, but because it was gut-wrenching to consider raising the child they loved in anything less than good circumstances. To me, the love and care they expressed through adoption is heroic. Often, they placed themselves in the line of fire from others who questioned their decision – they struggled with their internal emotions and the perceptions of the outside world for nine months – and in the end, chose to put their children first.

There really should be another Mother’s Day just for them. One in which the whole of society acknowledges the unconditional, selfless, agape love of women who placed their faith and hopes in adoption in order to give their child the best possible parents, circumstances, and opportunities.

child-abuse1.jpgNot heroic was the note I received from a mother who is outraged that her children were “stolen” by the foster care system due to abuse perpetrated by the mother’s boyfriend. “Not my fault” was the tone of the letter, and “they had no right” was the message. Her children, her choices. She didn’t believe society should have any say in how her children were raised, but she did believe that none of this would have happened if society had supported her. If school was free, maybe she’d have gone, and gotten a better job so she wouldn’t have to live with others. If there was free daycare, maybe she wouldn’t have had the boyfriend babysit.

I don’t know what she expected from me, but she was writing to the wrong person.

childabuse5.jpgI know a few things about pain. I know what it is like to be a child born at the wrong time, to parents who had their own personal problems. My body still carries the memories of their problems – their narcissism, impatience, and rage. At 45 years old, I still flinch when someone moves their hand too quickly or too closely to me. I startle easily, and always have to have my back to a wall in a crowd so that people cannot surprise me from behind. In personal relationships, I have a reflexive tendency to just slip away whenever a confrontation is impending. I go away easily. Arguments frighten me – I always fear they’ll end in disaster.

I know, too, the feeling of standing outside of life’s gate, with no clear way in, and no invitation. To be the girl who feels no sense of place in the innocent, carefree world of others. To be the one with the dark house, the bad teeth, and the worn hand-me-downs, who can only pretend a sense of normal, while dreaming, always dreaming, of being somebody-somewhere else.

childabuse6.jpgAnd I know passion. I know that at some point memories became a protective instinct, dreams became missions, and that my perspective from outside the gate had a value, if only for those who had not yet seen beyond the iron slats of their own similar experiences.

No one wants to think they’ll be a bad parent. My parents, I know, like so many others, leaned on the bromide of “we did our best” as both excuse and salve. The truth is they did not. The truth is that they both had affairs, and decided to bring a child into the world that was the result of their lack of control, and their lack of love or respect for each other. Instead of being born with a blank slate, I was born into turmoil, shame, and bitter feelings. My coloring was a sign of guilt, and my character was questioned even as an infant. I was too quiet, not like her other daughters, but when I cried it was all wrong, it grated on her nerves. I read too early. I was too athletic. I was too dreamy, too willful, too different, and too much.

As an adult, I once asked my mother why she did not give me up. In a rare moment of honesty, she told me she tried to abort me several times, but it didn’t work. She thought about giving me up then, but it was too complicated. She was married, and people would ask questions.

Embarrassing questions, it seems, were harder for my mother than raising an unwanted child for sixteen years. Instead of temporary feelings of guilt, my mother chose – not just for her, but for me as well – years of despair and hurt.

childabuse3.jpgI survived. Too many children do not even have that opportunity. Many others will go through life feeling disconnected, lost, or alienated. Some will wrongly mistake rage for strength, and seek to become stronger than those who hurt them. Some will even end up with emotional and mental damages that are beyond repair.

The point I made in Dangerous Choices is, I think, clear to those who would hear its message. Children must come first, period. Children are not chattel, and they should not be considered the property of unfortunate birth parents who cannot, will not, or should not care for them. Childhood is a short-lived experience, a limited window of opportunity, and children should not have to suspend their needs, waiting on parents whose histories have already shown a propensity for neglect, abuse, and danger.

The foster care system needs a radical overhaul, and a new mission statement: Children Come First. Period.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

When Nature Brings Up Everything Unlike Itself

In 2000, I was awarded a month-long fellowship to Norcroft, a women’s writing retreat on the North Shore of Minnesota. A few years later, when the retreat closed its doors, I was asked to contribute to an anthology about the Norcroft experience.

I set out to do it, but realized that whatever I wrote would be considered profane by most Norcroft adherents, who not only fit in with the nature-centered dynamic of the retreat, but who were also at a place where they truly felt righteous about any and all good that came their way – if, that is, they noticed the good at all.

Yet no one can accuse these poets and writers of not being gentle. Gentleness abounded at Norcroft, as did all those lush words that lull in the throats of the romantics – silky, majestic, sensual, mysterious, alluring, tempest. The guest books were filled with loving prose for water, sky, and forest. The fallen bark from birch trees became a palette for framed poetry, cooing with appreciation for wind, leaves, and wildflowers.

My focus – and my distraction – is all things human. Nature is exquisite, but simple. I believe poets write of nature because it is the easiest and most mutable subject of all. Simplicity leaves gaps in the pages, waiting to be colored in by human metaphor. Gentle waves kiss the sand, and lovers are newly born. The slope of a mountainside transmogrifies into the curve of a woman’s hip. A tall tree becomes an ancient mother, continuously giving life and watching it fall away.

I would have wanted to immerse myself in the Norcroft experience as so many others have. To stare full-on at the poetic paradise and be filled with the compatible, communal spirit of poetry-prose-mother nature, but instead, I became entranced with symbols of a different sort.

One of the first things I noticed at Norcroft was that the cupboards were fully stocked. Really, the cupboards just bewitched me. I opened each and every one and found not an inch wasted. I then opened the pantry, the refrigerator, and the freezer. Weirdly, the site of all those jars, bottles, cans and bags – all those fresh juices, fruits, and vegetables – made my throat turn raw and my eyes well with tears.

Many would look at me, a woman whose curves have turned to bulges, and not guess that much of my life was spent hungry, but I spent desperate years at the unforgettable bottom, making do with whatever I could find; soda crackers and ketchup soup, 10-cent packs of noodles, cheap white bread covered with margarine. In that state of hunger, my stories were driven by my very human fears and hopes.

Even after escaping poverty, I never gave much thought to poetic things like eternal skies or majestic seas, at least not as a main plot. I wanted, instead, to talk about children, justice, prevention, politics, human potential, the way it actually is, and the way it could be.

It was beyond my comprehension that the state of abundance at Norcroft could bring about a request for even more, but there was a blackboard on the kitchen wall where the writers were invited to request anything the caretaker failed to provide. Fresh mangoes. Black beans. Sweet corn. Cadbury chocolate bars.

The blackboard grated on me. Amy’s Enchiladas. (Peeled and deveined) shrimp. One-half pound of salted pecans. Granola without raisins. Nearly every day, one of my three housemates found something deficient in the copious riches, and felt called upon to fill the blackboard with more, more, more,which seemed to me both insulting and excessive.

After the first thirty minutes at Norcroft, I retreated to my room, and sat on the edge of the perfectly made bed. I viewed the hand-made quilt, the polished desk, and the profusion of perfectly-tended flowers outside the window. My first five silent words at Norcroft were: I do not belong here.

To assuage the feeling of not belonging, (which often passes after I settle into new situations), I busied myself with setting up my assigned writing shed. It took only a few minutes before the familiar triad of fingers, mind, and blank page intersected, but my thoughts were disorganized, running over with stupid questions that had nothing to do with why I was there. Who was the owner, and why did she do this? How much did all that food cost, and how long would it last? How did the caretaker feel about that blackboard? Wasn’t she glad when all the never-enough writers just went home and she had the place to herself again? Who were the other women I was sharing a home with? Who else has been in this shed, and what did they write?

I pulled out a postcard and wrote to my daughter. “It is beautiful here,” I said, and it was not a lie. “I am glad I came,” which was half-true. “I think I’ll get a lot done,” which I knew was bordering on a lie.

Days passed. In the silence of the sunlight hours, more postcards were written, several books were read, and I fumbled horribly, distracted by everything from clusters of black flies to a stack of personal notes left behind by another writer, a self-described woman of stone who was into the howls of lone wolves and ancient scarification rites.

In the evening, I gathered around the fireplace with other women for readings, and tried my best to curb my facial expressions, which are always spontaneous, and almost always totally transparent.

Of the writers there, one told a story that really resonated with me. Her words were strong and truthful, and outside of a few minor dips into sappy territory, her story powerful. Later, she would inform me that the story I liked had been rejected by over 40 literary publications. Two other women, whose words struck me as overripe and overly styled, were the most widely published. They were, of course, academics. Academia provides a prolific and unabashedly incestuous network, where editors frequently publish the works of their students, friends and colleagues, without much regard for talent or story.

Years ago, a friend shared the line of a poem with me, (from Marianne Williamson I think), that says “love brings up everything unlike itself.” I recalled that line in 2000, as I sat on a plush couch, in front of a crackling fireplace, watching women – real women, who lived real lives – roll their eyes at anything approaching realism, while exuberantly and passionately scribbling the poetry of pale gold moons and sensual riptides.

In the mystical space of Norcroft, in the midst of abundance and excessive generosity, among women who were more moved by birch trees than by even their own human experience, I felt more disconnected, more alone, and spiritually poorer than I had ever felt.

When approached about the anthology, I knew that writing about my Norcroft experience would be like punching an iron fist through a precious bedtime story. My hard-wired attachment to all the human things would run roughshod over the fawning adjectives others reserved for nature. I suspected that if my submission were included, it would be a black stain in an otherwise sunlit book.

Not wanting to cast a pall over other people’s euphoria, I set the request aside.

The other night, while at a restaurant, a fellow Norcroft alumni found me and literally bounded over to my table, her Burberry scarf flying, her bangles jingling. She spoke with a hyperbolic kind of happiness, like there should be multiple exclamation points after each long, vividly detailed sentence.

In contrast, by way of comparison, I felt like a real bitch. I had no words heady enough to match her enthusiasm for our common experience so many years ago.

If love brings up everything unlike itself, then certainly nature does, too.

I still find it odd, though, that under the bluest of skies, among the loftiest of pines – in the center of God’s most perfectly drawn universe – some will run from their own natural or realistic place in the schematic. Instead of studying human nature in raw form, they will metamorphose the ancient and unchangeable nature of everything else. They will choose, instead of self-examination, to reinvent the nature of trees.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter