I’m Torn

People generally don’t believe me when I say I have A.D.D. They think I’m using a trendy shortcut to explain a mood or a circumstance. Maybe I am, because I’ve never taken the time out to go get an official opinion. I’m functional, I’m smart, and when it’s absolutely necessary I can kick my ass into fifth gear even though I only feel truly whole and like myself when stopped, or even stranded, by the side of some road.

Many people probably feel that way, but I wonder if they feel as debilitated as I do when their brain has to split between the internal and the external. My brain has a 24-hour theater built right into its gray matter. I don’t see a lot of movies or watch television because, really, the shows in my head are much more custom-tailored, and they don’t stop — not when I’m sleeping, not when I’m writing, not when I’m sitting face-to-face with someone over a cup of coffee. They. Never. Stop.

And I’ve grown so comfortable, maybe even in love, with this theater of mind that I resent being pulled away from it for any length of time. I get fidgety and anxious when I’m forced to focus on things that aren’t naturally included in my loop. My children are in that loop — my friends, my writing, my blog, and other people and things I care about are in there — but so many things are not, and they are often considered necessary. Like drudgery or to-do lists. Like ambition, or concentrating on the future.

I wonder if my mother and teachers weren’t right — maybe I am just lazy. Except that I’m not, at least not in ways that matter to me. I can spend hours researching and writing a story I think is important, and even during the most frustrating part of that process I feel intact and happy. But I’m more than unhappy when I have to focus on something outside my loop, I’m miserable. Like screeching chalk — high-pitched scream — intrusively getting touched in a way I don’t like to be touched — miserable. Many of my work experiences have been like that, and I have spent most of my career years trying to, 1) look for work that would intrigue me for longer than five minutes, or 2) look for work that required as little brainpower and interaction as possible. Can you guess which was easier to find?

Yes, I’m getting to the point which is that I’m torn. I’m torn in lots of ways, between lots of things, but since I’m sharing this with my readers, you might guess that it’s this blog I’m talking about. This March will mark my 3rd anniversary of blogging. In that time, the site has recycled readers at least three times, moving from coverage of a celebrity’s death, to an unsolved murder, to its current incarnation as . . . what? Stories, Essays, Opinions. A hodgepodge of writing which more popular people have told me is way too serious or too analytical to ever gain a substantial audience.

For what it’s worth, they are right! My friend Neil can rewrite a Billy Joel song and get 33 comments in the blink of an eye. Jenny, otherwise known as TheBloggess, can write one paragraph about the evil queen from Snow White and have 127 readers feel compelled to respond. And while I don’t understand the whole “mommy blogger” phenomenon, I would guess that Miss-Britt is one, since she’s looking for corporate sponsors — a topic on which 44 of her readers commented.

It’s not all about comments, but about regular readers, of which I have relatively few. And since I hate networking and self-promotion, and that whole “look at me! look at me!” Twitter mode of marketing, I’m not likely to gain many more. Blogging, too, I think is becoming somewhat passe. There are literally millions of blogs out there. Attention spans are short, readers dissipate on a whim — because they didn’t like one story, or because their feelings got hurt in some way, or because they felt awkward after writing you an email that said they had a crush on you, or you forgot to respond to an email, or you found out they were unstable, weird personalities — or whatever. It doesn’t take much to lose a reader, but it does take a lot to keep one, especially if the shit you write generally isn’t funny, and doesn’t make people laugh. Humor is way more popular than politics and child abuse. Just ask Neil’s penis, which is so popular that it sometimes writes its own blog posts.

So torn, yes. I feel kind of stupid for keeping this blog, and ugh – when I’ve actually asked people to comment. Do I have no dignity at all? I feel dumb. And unpopular. I’ve even caught myself trying to be funny lately, which is kind of like the fat kid wearing baggy clothes to look thinner. It doesn’t work. Maybe my vagina should have written this post. That might be funny, except that my vagina is very very serious. If it could dress itself, it would wear button-down shirts, sensible shoes, and glasses. It would speak some obscure language like Faroese, and play the clarinet. It would lay on a black leather couch three times a week for psychoanalysis, and attend Scrabble tournaments on Friday nights. It would lust after wilder, more carefree, less uptight vaginas, but in a respectful, unrequited way.

My vagina would think that this blog looks somewhat gaudy, and I can’t help but agree. So when I’m not like the fat kid with baggy clothes, I’m like the owner of an ugly house that keeps slapping paint on the shingles. I’ve never been good with color or design, which is something I blame on a childhood spent surrounded by gloss orange and silver-veined mirror tiles, but I can recognize good design when I see it, and this isn’t it. Plus, my eyes get bored easily — I have to change things up once in awhile. So I look at really flexible themes that promise to solve most of my technical problems, like Thesis, and I think, Yes! That’s it! This thing will totally make my blog better! Then I think – $87. On a blog that earns nada. For someone who’s presently without a real job. And again, I feel just a twinge of stupid.

I hate when stupid gets in my loop. I like the reel that shows me being a decent writer — passionate about causes, productive, sensible, and engaging. That reel is motivating. This other one, where I feel like I’m adding layers of paint to a shabby house while wondering if my vagina wouldn’t be a better speaker, forces me to focus on raw, disconcerting truths I’d rather ignore. Like how many people have left and never come back. Like how many hours I spend on an unpopular blog. Like why I’m doing this instead of putting all my efforts towards something more productive.

I’m torn between fifth gear and stranded. Between the theater of the mind, and the bright lights of necessity — between dignity and humility. And the truly funny thing is — it’s not that big of a deal. It’s not like I’m the fastest runner pulling out of a relay race, or the only cake-jumping stripper scheduled for a party. The only life that would change if I quit blogging is my own, so why the angst? (Rhetorical question). Pride, a sense of defeat, constant hope, the leaving of a habit, the loss of an outlet, and of friends who were loyal and did stay.

Fuck. I hate decisions like this almost as much as I hate boring meetings. I’m going to work it out as I do almost everything else, by writing until the answer comes to me. So there will be lots of blog posts until I decide. Probably at least one a day until something clicks. I can’t promise that any of them will be good, but then I think — I’ve done too much thinking today. I’ll save those thoughts for some other post.

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

Delusional Parents or Cops in the Wrong?

A seven year-old boy throws a temper tantrum in his second grade classroom, stomping on a teacher’s foot, battering a school administrator, and tearing the room apart.  The class had to be evacuated by school officials to ensure the safety of the other children, and police and the boy’s mother were called.

So why are the parents of the boy now shopping around for an attorney?  According to them, their child is “sensitive and shy”.  He has, according to his father Richard Smith,  “no mental health problems.  He’s never hurt himself. He’s never hurt anyone else.”  While mother Barbara Smith admits that her son has thrown such tantrums before, and was once suspended for knocking over a desk, she believes she should have been allowed to “defuse” the situation without police intervention.

However, police in Largo, Florida did intervene and after speaking with the boy and other parties involved, decided to implement the Baker Act and send the boy to a mental health hospital for evaluation.  The boy stayed overnight, against the will of his parents, and now the parents are outraged and looking to sue.

The police find themselves in the position of having to defend their decision to use the Baker Act — which gives them the authority to hospitalize people against their will if they believe there’s a likelihood of them injuring themselves or others — against a seven year-old.

Anyone familiar with my work knows how I feel about automatic hero status being conferred upon those in fields like education and law enforcement.  I don’t believe that a certificate or a badge makes a hero, any more than I believe that every parent does what’s best for their child.  So when I read stories like this, I’m not automatically given to one side or the other.

In this case, it’s particularly difficult because there’s a third party involved that has been rendered near-powerless by policies meant to ensure equal access to education.  School districts have little long-term authority over troubled and disruptive students, and what authority they do have is often granted by the parents in the form of an IEP (Individual Education Plan) or other cooperative program.  Parents will often resist their child being placed in “special education” due to the stigma attached, which places an extra burden on non-Special Ed teachers and their students.

So while this child’s behavior issues might have been earlier and better addressed between the parents and the school, it’s understandable to me why the police were called and why they decided to use the Baker Act.  Ideal?  No.   Absolutely necessary?  Probably not.  Logical, needs-based, and an attempt to be preventative?  Yes.

I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon of  “they must be terrible parents” because children with behavior problems can happen to the best-intentioned and most loving parents.  However, a failure to recognize recurring tantrums — especially those that involve things like upturning desks and throwing books — as problematic and unacceptable is dangerous.  It’s dangerous for the child in question, for his future, and for others in his vicinity.

What we call a temper tantrum in a young child is a fit of rage as they grow older.  The lack of impulse and emotional control shown by a screaming, desk spilling, seven year-old is not something he’s likely to grow out of on his own.

I know how easy it is for parents to disbelieve, though.  Children come to them after their bath, sweetly snuggle next to them on the couch, smile and giggle as they tell their stories, and they think there’s just no way. . . no way there’s something wrong with this child.  They hear reports, as the Smiths did from the hospital psychologist, that their child was “polite and friendly” during an evaluation and they think “See?  It was just a moment, just a bad day, something that this or that person provoked”.  They begin to believe that the incident was blown out of proportion — they find fault with others — they begin shopping for an attorney.

What they don’t do is comprehend that their child — the one whose eyes are wide with excitement on Christmas morning, the one who sits on their laps, and loves to ride his bike — is in need of help.  That while he may be sensitive and shy, he may also be unable to control his impulses or his emotions.  That while it’s unlikely any psychologist would categorize a seven year-old  as “mentally ill”,  most would believe that the child could benefit from therapy and behavior modification, and there should be no stigma, for either parents or child,  attached to that.

The worst action that could be taken is action that doesn’t address the needs of the child — such as downplaying his behavior, or attempting to sue the police for trying to get him professionally evaluated — when it was obvious that his own parents believed no such evaluation was necessary.  At what point in a troubled child’s life should a more objective authority than his parents be able to intervene?  At what point is it not enough that the mother can “defuse” the situation — when the situation shouldn’t be occurring in the first place?  Don’t teachers, (particularly those who don’t specialize in special education),  and their  students have a right to teach and learn in a safe, non-threatening environment?

This child needs help.  The police, instead of turning their backs and saying “not our problem”  did what they could to get him some.  Instead of the parents looking to cash in on what they believe was  “a total abuse of police power”, they might better serve themselves, their child, and society by getting their son the help he needs.  Before his childhood tantrums become teen or adult rage.

Sources:
TampaBay.com
10Connects.com

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

Love Should Be Like The 4th of July

It’s not the rampant commercialism of a weird holiday with its roots in pagan rituals and Catholicism, or the glittery sap of Hallmark cards, or even the waxy chocolate candies in heart-shaped boxes that makes me dislike Valentine’s Day.  It’s not because mid-February is like December-minor for single people, or because I feel sorry for kids who are crushed on holidays like this, which end up being grade-school popularity contests.  It’s not even because my favorite blogs become filled with sappy stories examining the meaning, the culture, the history, and the power of love.

That’s all true, and enough of a reason to feel a little queasy on February 14th, but my complaint about Valentine’s Day is that it’s not more like the 4th of July.

There are no great expectations on July 4th.  You can have a picnic, fire up the BBQ, or stay at home.  You can eat off paper plates,  have desert or skip it, and no one thinks you’re doing it all wrong or missing the point.

You can take some wine up to the roof, or go lay out on a blanket under the stars to watch the fireworks — you can even go to bed early, hoping to fall asleep before the thunderous claps hit the sky–  and no one wonders what your choice really means.   No one feels compelled to have a deep, meaningful talk about where this relationship is heading, or asks whether you’d be open to adopting babies from a third-world country sometime in the near future like, say, this time next year.   The green-eyed monster of insecurity is less likely to bite on the 4th of July than on a day that’s  all wrapped up in lace, lingerie, and love.

And if you start dating someone on July 1st, it’s unlikely that you’ll hurt their  feelings if you say you already have plans for the 4th.  You can even say you’re just not into the 4th of July without provoking a silent warning flag, which will come out waving on the next date, when you’re hit with all sorts of questions meant to determine your romantic proclivities.  Do you like long walks on the beach?  In the rain?  How do you feel about cats?   Tiffany’s?  Cuddling?  Would you get a tattoo of my name if we were together a year?   Bring me breakfast in bed?

Valentine’s Day is romantic hell for daters.  It’s sitting by candlelight and being waylaid by questions like, “What’s the longest you’ve ever dated someone, and why did you break up?”   It’s hearing stories about boundaries and broken hearts, or (and this really did happen to me once) getting a mini-lecture on why tiger lilies were a bad choice, because they were  living things with feelings and didn’t deserve to be killed.  It’s having someone try to decipher what you meant by signing your card “fondly”, when what you really meant was “fondly”.

A day about love — in fact any beautiful day –  should be more like the 4th of July.  No heady expectations, no heart shaped boxes, no long-winded declarations, but a picnic basket under a warm summer sky.  A chain of wildflowers placed around a naked neck.  A barefoot slow dance in the grass.  A long kiss, bare legs entwined, under the the moon and fireworks.   Or a casual night at home, with a roaring fireplace, or with all the windows open and a slight breeze blowing, soft blues tunes filling the house as a favorite meal is made or a warm bath is run.

Lovers shouldn’t need a special holiday to be loving, romantic, or particularly good to one other, especially a day that isn’t spontaneous, but  dictated by tradition.  Personally,  I don’t find Valentine’s Day to be all that romantic, but a barefoot, casual, starlit 4th of July?  That’s just beautiful any day of the year.

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

Empty Outrage: Suleman, Child Abuse & A Controversial Bill of Rights

A great deal of media attention has been paid to Nadya Suleman, the recent mother of octuplets by IVF.  The general consensus is that there’s something wrong with an unemployed mother of six choosing to have eight more children.  News pundits, psychologists, and the public have speculated about Suleman’s mental health, her motives, and her mothering abilities. Some have even questioned whether Suleman has had plastic surgery in an attempt to look like Angelina Jolie.

There’s no doubt that Suleman’s story is interesting, not only for its shock value, but because it opens up public debate on issues like parenting choices, child rearing, IVF, ethics, individual responsibility, and more.

I can’t help but wonder which horrific case of child abuse will open up the same kind of national debate.  How many tortured children, infant rapes, dead bodies, and light sentences will it take before the public demands substantial changes to child welfare, adoption, and foster care policies?

ngatiThe U.S. Department of Health & Human Services estimated that in 2006, out of 48 reporting states, 1376 children were killed by abusive parents, relatives, and caregivers. (They estimate 1530 nationwide). In Florida, which ranks among the worst states for child abuse and welfare, 52 of the 140 children killed in 2006 had prior contact with “family preservation” (DCF) services.

Those are the children that died. 885,245 more were known to be victims of abuse in 2006 — a highly conservative estimate since many cases go unreported.

I’ve expressed my belief that child welfare agencies need a drastic overhaul before.   It is unconscionable to me that an advanced society still views children as chattel, and confers what amounts to child ownership on the basis of DNA.

“Preservation of the family” methods, such as anger management or parenting classes for abusive parents, largely fail.  The mentality of violent parents is not born of short-term frustrations.  Even though perpetrators may place the blame on any number of stressors, from job loss to drug use, the essential fact is that the ability to choke, beat, stab, burn, rape or poison another person, particularly a child, doesn’t come from stress, or even from mere ignorance, but from an ingrained mental or character defect.  Stress or lack of education does not cause people to throw helpless infants against the wall or immerse them in scalding water.  If this were the case, humankind would not have gotten as far as it is now.

There have always been violent people in society, and unfortunately they have never seemed to lack for partners.  One of the most appalling trends in child abuse has been pedicide caused by the live-in boyfriends of mothers. In many cases, women are choosing to live with men they’ve known only a brief time, and entrusting these men to care for their children.

haley-marieHaleigh Marie Cain is only one of the many children brutalized by their mother’s boyfriend.   Haleigh died from massive injuries at the hands of Dennis Creamer, who was angered by Haleigh’s request for juice and cookies before bedtime.

A course in anger management or proper parenting is unlikely to change men like Creamer, or people like Kimberly Ann Trenor and Royce Zeigler, whose all day torture session of two year-old Riley Sawyers resulted in her death.

While America holds fast to the notion of parenting as a right rather than a privilege, it has yet to provide a national Bill of Rights for its most vulnerable citizens.  Individual states such as New Jersey, which recently introduced such a bill, come under fire primarily from conservative religious groups such as The Eagle Forum, which believes that giving rights to children “undermine(s) the sacred role of parental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children“. The tone of dissent borders on hysteria that the State will interfere with the “rights” of parents to rear, educate, and control their children as they please, particularly when it comes to home-schooling.

One of the fundamental rights of children should be a well-rounded, quality education.  While thousands of homeschooling parents immerse themselves in providing this, and ensure that their children have varied academic as well as social opportunities, others are sorely unqualified, largely unmonitored, and use homeschooling as a way to control and isolate their children, rather than to enrich their experiences.

While many would disagree with the State of California, which recently upheld a law stating that homeschooling teachers must be credentialed, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect that parents who wish to teach at home show some qualification outside of a DNA relationship to do so.  Even the children-as-chattel mindset cannot do away with the fact that eventually children become adults.  There is no recourse for poorly educated, overly-sheltered children when they enter the world of adult work and responsibilities — if they enter the world at large at all.

Homeschooled children from religious cults, like those from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas, are taught to fear the world outside of their sect. Most never attend school at all, and what little education they receive is from under-educated parents whose main concern is the indoctrination of their children into a set of cult beliefs and behaviors.

The call of neo-conservative religious groups to hold the rights of parents as “sacred” while denying children their own set of rights is transparent.  They want exclusive dominion over their offspring regardless of what society may deem harmful or contrary to the best interests of children.

Unfortunately, the rights of parents are largely put above the almost non-existent rights of children. Thousands of children spend years in the limbo of foster care, unable to be adopted into loving families, while abusive, neglectful, and otherwise unfit birth parents hold onto their legal parental rights.  Thousands more live unmonitored with people who have previously been convicted of violent crime such as rape, murder, assault, molestation, or child abuse.  Under present laws, custodial parents may live with whom they please, and non-custodial parents don’t even have the right to demand a background check on those who will be involved in the day-to-day parenting of their children.

Social services for children is a nightmare of red tape, inefficiency, and outdated, provincial policies.  Who was watching Donald Medsker, who was 26 years old in 1989 when he was granted custody of his 10 year-old half-sister?  He started sexually abusing her right away, making her quit school when she became pregnant at age 14.  Over the next 20 years Medsker’s sister, indoctrinated by him to believe that their relationship was normal, gave birth to six more children, two of whom were put up for adoption. Where were the social service follow-ups and the truant officers? How did a 10 year old child fall so completely through the cracks?  Was Medsker examined and found to be the best parenting choice or was this, again, a case where a DNA relationship outweighed consideration of the child’s best interests?

America could do so much more to prevent child abuse.  We could launch more comprehensive education and support programs for parents.  Schools could demand yearly physical exams as well as immunization records.  We could make it against the law for known violent offenders to live with children, at least without monitoring, and we could do much more for children living in isolation, such as those born into religious cults.  We could certainly rewrite the “preservation of family” standard that returns children to abusive homes.

However, as long as children are viewed as chattel, and a parent’s rights lawfully outweigh those of a child’s, we won’t.  We’ll just continue to be outraged — in the most empty way — because we’re not really willing or ready to give children a set of rights that would help ensure their dignity, education, or safety.

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

In Defense of Facebook’s Hated “25 Random Things” Writers

In the last couple of days, I’ve read more negative rants about Facebook’s 25 Random Things About Me meme than I’ve read actual lists of 25 things. Writers from the New York Times and Time Magazine jumped on the anti-list bandwagon, as did writers like Tod Goldberg, who spared no vitriol in his version of the meme, 25 Random Things I Hate About Fucktards On Facebook I Don’t Know In The Least But Who, Nonetheless, Are My Friends.   Judging by the comments on Goldberg’s site, and the number of anti-25 Things diatribes that are now being posted on Facebook, it would seem that many people agree:  List writers are fucktards.  Or, as the New York Times more dramatically stated, “A chain-letter-cum-literary exercise called ’25 Random Things About Me’  is threatening to consume what little remaining free time and privacy we have.”

Apparently, some people take their social media a little too seriously, likening it to an unpleasant necessity, like watching American Idol or taking out the trash.  They seem to forget that things like Facebook are voluntary and filled with choices — like who you choose to include as friends, and whose notes you choose to read.   It’s not as if 25 Things lists pop up out of cyber-space and grab you in a choke hold until you’re forced to know who likes whitey-tighties and who likes to dress in drag as Madeline Albright on Friday nights.   No, in order to read those personal tidbits, readers have to click on a link.

I’m not fond of memes, but I don’t fear that they’re going to “consume” my private life or enslave my being. I think it’s ridiculous that the subject of social media irritants even makes the news in major publications.  Then again, I also think it’s weird that photographers fall all over each other to snap Donatella Versace’s bikini-clad body or Britney’s every gas station outing. I think it’s so freaky that I don’t buy those rags — but I totally admit to being a supermarket aisle voyeur.  And people who take issue with Facebook’s 25 Things should admit that the only reason they’re irritated with the lists is not because they exist, but because they couldn’t resist the urge to read them.

Maybe they felt ripped off when they learned that some of their internet friends were boring, un-gifted, pathetic, or perverse.  Maybe, like Tod Goldberg, they were surprised to learn that the people who liked them, and sent them friendship requests, weren’t necessarily the smartest or brightest people on the internet.

“I hate that sometimes I read your updates and think, Man, if this person is a fan of mine, I need to stop writing books. Because apparently only complete fucktards read my books.” – Tod Goldberg

It seems like the quest for internet popularity often works against common sense. The ability to have thousands of “friends” on Facebook (or followers on Twitter) gives the illusion of interest, often without any interest at all, or at least not the kind that is mutual.  Public figures like Goldberg may use Facebook or Twitter as a way to keep fans in the loop, but more commonly, social sites are just that — social.  People generally join to communicate, share their thoughts and work, and learn about others with similar interests.   Others, of course, join hoping to cross-sell their business or blogs by gathering as many internet friends or followers as they can, wanting nothing more than their links to be spread by Facebook sharing, or Twitter “re-tweets”.  These are the people that tend to complain the most.  They have no interest in the lives or projects of others, but will send out and accept droves of friendship requests in order to bolster that bottom line number that indicates popularity.

It’s amusing to me that the list writers have been called narcissistic or self-obsessed for sharing some odd facts of their lives in a voluntary forum.  It would seem to me that the most narcissistic people aren’t those who wrote the lists, but those who damned them.  It reminds me of the Marlon Brando quote — “An actor’s a guy who, if you ain’t talking about him, ain’t listening.”   So in defense of the list writers who wrote their 25 Things in the spirit of sharing or friendship, I offer my list of Five Reminders for Snarky, Pompous, and Overzealous Facebook Users:

1.  Facebook is voluntary. I think that bears repeating.
2.  You don’t have to friend everyone who asks.
3.  You can de-friend anyone who bores, annoys, or doesn’t interest you.
4.  If you only want a fan page, get one.
5.  If you don’t want to read something, don’t click the link.

And if you ever really feel that Facebook is “threatening to consume what little remaining free time and privacy” you have, it might be time to shut off the computer and write a list of 25 reasons you’ve gotten totally ridiculous.

This article also appears on the Huffington Post.
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

Waving, Not Drowning

In the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo mountains, we abandoned Eloise’s Suburban and walked the wet, rutted road that led to her house. It was lightly raining, and there was an orange tint to the sky that made even the sagebrush look beautiful. There was a rainbow forming to the North, and a pair of desert cottontails bouncing in and out of a lone patch of grass.

The laughter in my throat was stilled by the heavy clomp of her boots in the mud. She was angry at her truck for running out of gas, angry at the rain, and angry at the whole world it seemed. She muttered and cussed, and insisted that I thought she must be a real fuck-up. What I was really wondering was how an empty gas tank could trigger what amounted to a self-flagellating tantrum.

“What a great start to your trip, huh? You must think I’m a real idiot.
“That fucking gauge was above E. You saw that right? That it wasn’t below E?
“I bet you’re regretting being here.
“I’m tired of shit like this always happening to me.”

After the third or fourth reassurance, I realized it didn’t matter what I said. Eloise was determined to be miserable. Her hostility was easily tapped, and there was a black hole to her being that she catered to as if it contained the only precious truth left in the world.

A mile-long walk left us standing on her porch, rain soaked and muddy, and I couldn’t help but think that with someone else, this might be a fun occasion. Leah would run for the wine glasses, Sheila would challenge me to wrestle in the mud, Jen would tell jokes, and then laugh so hard she’d have to stop walking. None of them would have done what Eloise did next –- which was to take off her boots and throw them against the garage wall.

“Never mind that those were my favorite boots,” she seethed to the mud-streaked plaster.

Later, I sat on a couch in her living room, listening to a litany of trivial, wine-soaked complaints. Her parents loved her, but not well enough. She had a stellar education, but not Ivy League. She had many friends, but no one who really understood her deep complexity. She had a trust fund, but it wasn’t enough to quit working. There were lovers that used, and lovers that left, and a sense of never being appreciated.

“It would be nice if even just once I got back 10% of what I gave to others, but I guess I’m screwed on that. Everybody I ever meet is so selfish.”

For four nights, I sat like a cypher in Eloise’s smoky living room, willing myself into stillness as I watched the stars through the skylights. She was an unlikely Scheherazade, a steely, bitter-eyed woman who seemed to have spent her life creating conflict so she would have an outlet for her combativeness. With every story, she seemed to grow fresh scars, counting and recounting the wrongs committed against her until there was no good will, and no right thing left in the world.

Instead of bolting, I found my curiosity turning morbid. There was a sour aftertaste to our one-sided conversations that was all at once revolting and intriguing. My incredulousness was stretched but not yet sated, not even when she told me the story about driving drunk, and the massive damages done to her lover’s face when she drove into a ditch going 80 mph. Even in that story, Eloise reigned as the ultimate victim. The lover sued, Eloise received a suspended jail sentence, and when the story hit the local newspaper it was humiliating.

“So her face – did they manage to fix it?”

“What? Oh. She lost most of her lower jaw and lower lip, but had lots of reconstructive surgery. Between the insurance company and me, she made out pretty well. I ended up having to go to treatment, though, which was stupid because I wasn’t an alcoholic — but who cares, right? I paid through the nose for that night. There are still people in this town who hate me…”.

On the morning I left, I woke up early and walked through the house, and for the first time noticed how beautiful it really was. Stained glass French doors led to a wrap-around patio. The floors were a dark walnut wood, and there was an exquisitely patterned red Persian rug in the living room. Abstract art hung neatly from clean white walls, lit from below with key lights. In four nights, I hadn’t noticed the antique chairs, covered in cobalt blue velvet, that framed the fireplace, or the soft white chenille of the couches. Either Eloise’s misery had sucked all the color and light out of the room, or I was so enchanted by it that I turned blind to everything else. In the pale yellow light of morning, I was reminded of a song by Sara McLachlan – “you live in a church where you sleep with voodoo dolls, and you won’t give up the search for the ghosts in the halls”. Eloise’s home was like a tainted church, a sanctuary lost to the cause of both old and ongoing wars.

In front of the airport terminal, Eloise handed me a folded up piece of paper and told me to read it on the plane. It’s just a poem I wrote, she said, something I wanted you to have.

Nobody heard her, the dead woman,
but still she lay in the abyss moaning.
I was much further out than you thought, she said,
and not waving, but drowning.

As if there were not enough reams of torment in her own life, Eloise resorted to stealing the tragic words of others. The poem was written by British poet Stevie Smith, and only slightly changed by Eloise’s interpretation.

I might have never known, but I discovered Not Waving, But Drowning in the county library when I was nine years old, and ran home to read it to my mother –- a woman who was drowning in an unhappiness I was powerless to change. I was always looking for words she would recognize –- that would move her in some way, or that let her know that while I didn’t understand everything, I did understand that she felt I was to blame in some way, and that I was sorry, sorry, sorry. For three decades, I waited for the day my mother’s secrets would spill, and we could forgive each other for the darkness. The right combination of words were never found. There was no grand rescue, no heroic act of forgiveness, no chance of saving either one of us from wanting what we could never have.

Yet, years after her death, I found myself drawn to sitting silently in the darkest shadows of other women, waiting for a hint, a revelation, or some epiphany. When I wasn’t actively seeking out the most brooding people I could find, they seemed to find me.

And the only thing I ever really learned from all those years of shadow sitting is that misery can travel beyond time and circumstance, and become a black hole that voids all light and swallows any possibility of good. There really is no mystery to the the forever-lost, the fucked-up, the hateful, or the chronically bitter. We move in this universe on differing parallels –- some paths are rife with danger and difficulty, and some are so easy that they seem supernaturally preordained, but most are a mix of challenges, habits, and celebrations. Sometimes there are choices, and sometimes there are unmitigable circumstances. We fall as often as we get pushed. We embrace each other, or we stand apart. We scar, berate, and rail against each other, or extend our compassion and love. We kick each other, or help each other up.

We are the secret, the key, the magical, elusive meaning of things that we search for in the clouds, ancient books, and new-age gurus. There is really no major mystery to who we are. We are what helps creates the other. In the largest picture, we are the source of each other’s love, misery, happiness, anger, regret, support, hope, longing, and despair.

Eloise and my mother were partially created by others on their path, as surely as Beethoven, Curie, and Van Gogh were.  But instead of gathering love, they nurtured grudges. Instead of striving for happiness, they chose to lash out in anger and bitterness.

The worst monsters and tyrants in the world only exist by collective permission, as do the greatest thinkers, pianists, artists, and inventors. We don’t always agree with the collective, and often lack the power to enforce our differing will, but many of us accede our personal ethics as if our singular thoughts, ideals, or dollars had little value at all. We sit in the shadows of corruption, perverse politics, bad will, unjust laws, and miserable people until we are numb and feel them as inevitable.

And perhaps they are, at least until the collective masses experience a new call to enlightenment, but we don’t have to sit in the shadows and wait. We don’t have to sleep with voodoo dolls, or taint our sanctuaries with totems of death and misery. We can, instead, consciously choose to live in a way that honors our highest ideals.

We can stand and speak clearly instead of moaning. We can wave, and refuse to let ourselves be drowned.

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