Because Reading is Fundamental

I miss read­ing. I really do. In a big, big way. And it has, espe­cially over the past cou­ple of days, been mak­ing me very, very sad. It started after I read Joshua Bodwell’s arti­cle in the most recent issue of Poets & Writ­ers, “You Are What You Read.” “Not long ago,” he begins

I had an unset­tling epiphany that prob­a­bly shouldn’t have come as a sur­prise but nev­er­the­less left me dis­heart­ened for the bet­ter part of an afternoon.

I won’t get to all the books I want to read in my lifetime.

For the aver­age reader, this is one of life’s rel­a­tively benign epipha­nies; as a writer it’s a seri­ous lim­i­ta­tion. After all, writ­ers are read­ers first. Most of us were con­sum­ing books long before we ever picked up a pen or pen­cil, and con­fronting the fact that there is a limit to the num­ber of them we will read feels a bit like real­iz­ing there’s a finite amount of oxy­gen in the room.

I don’t really buy the oxy­gen metaphor, but I endorse wholly the idea Bod­well is try­ing to get at. Indeed, a jolt of regret ran through me more strongly than I have felt in a long time when I read the words “writ­ers are read­ers first,” because I can’t remem­ber the last time that state­ment would have been say­ing some­thing true about me. Sure, I read. I read for school, both mate­r­ial that I am teach­ing and that my stu­dents write; I read the news­pa­per and arti­cles in mag­a­zines; I read blog posts and occa­sion­ally the dis­cus­sion threads they spawn; I read emails and memos and occa­sion­ally schol­arly arti­cles and other sim­i­lar mate­r­ial that feeds my aca­d­e­mic work; but it has been years since I have been able to cre­ate at the cen­ter of my life a space for the kind of read­ing that nour­ishes me as a writer, read­ing that puts me back in touch with myself just for the sake of that expe­ri­ence, that con­nects me to lan­guage in ways that are chal­leng­ing and revi­tal­iz­ing, that affirms my right to claim a place in this world sim­ply because I am, that shapes who I am and shows me pos­si­bil­i­ties of being I would not oth­er­wise have imagined.

It’s easy to lay the blame for this state of affairs at the feet of my adult respon­si­bil­i­ties – hav­ing a job, need­ing to work extra hours because we need money, being a part­ner to the woman I mar­ried nearly twenty years ago and a par­ent to a thir­teen year old boy – and, to some degree, putting the blame there is not inac­cu­rate. Those respon­si­bil­i­ties do take up time I could oth­er­wise spend read­ing. It is also true, how­ever, that I sim­ply have not pri­or­i­tized read­ing the way I used to, not so much in terms of how much time I can give to it, but in the sense that I’ve made choices about how to use my time that have pushed the kind of read­ing I am talk­ing about here to the mar­gins of my life. I did not start this post think­ing about New Year’s Res­o­lu­tions – since I don’t really believe in them any­way – but it is appro­pri­ate that I should be start­ing it on New Year’s Day, the day after I fin­ished the first book in a very long time that I read just because I wanted to read it – though I didn’t start read­ing for that rea­son (about which more below) – Stanley Fish’s How to Write a Sen­tence and How to Read One.

Fish divides his book into the two sec­tions named in the title, treat­ing the first, roughly, as a dis­cus­sion of form and the sec­ond, more or less, as a dis­cus­sion of con­tent. Of course, since the two are not really sep­a­ra­ble, his analy­sis of one often bleeds over into an analy­sis of the other. Nonethe­less, the dis­tinc­tion is use­ful, since it allows Fish to ground a lot of what he has to say in the notion that a sen­tence is a mate­r­ial thing, like paint, an object with a struc­ture and char­ac­ter­is­tics inde­pen­dent of the par­tic­u­lar con­tent the sen­tence has been fash­ioned to con­vey. Too many peo­ple who want to write – at least this is true of too many of the stu­dents I meet who say they “lo-ove” to write (and they almost always turn “love” into a two syl­la­ble word) – just don’t get this. Here is the first para­graph of Fish’s book:

In her book The Writ­ing Life (1989), Annie Dil­lard tells the story of a fel­low writer who was asked by a stu­dent, “Do you think I could be a writer?” “‘Well,’ the writer said, ‘do you like sen­tences?’” The stu­dent is sur­prised by the ques­tion, but Dil­lard knows exactly what was meant. He was being told, she explains, that “if he liked sen­tences he could begin,” and she remem­bers a sim­i­lar con­ver­sa­tion with a painter friend. “I asked him how he came to be a painter. He said, ‘I like the smell of paint.’” The point, made implic­itly (Dil­lard does not bela­bor it), is that you don’t begin with a grand con­cep­tion, either of the great Amer­i­can novel or a mas­ter­piece that will have in the Lou­vre. You begin with a feel for the nitty-gritty mate­r­ial of the medium, paint in one case, sen­tences in the other. (1)

There are few plea­sures that I enjoy more than get­ting my hands dirty in the tan­gled mess that the sen­tences of my first drafts usu­ally are; and if we’re talk­ing about poems, in which case you need to add to that mess the lines over which the sen­tences break, and per­haps a meter and/or a rhyme scheme, then the plea­sure is even greater. Right now, there are two piece I am work­ing on, an essay and a poem, each one need­ing revi­sion. I have set them aside until I fin­ish prep­ping my tech­ni­cal writ­ing class for next semes­ter – I am writ­ing this post to take a break from that prepa­ra­tion – and I can’t wait to be able to pick each one up again and give to revis­ing it the solid chunk of time that it will need (and deserve).

Con­tinue read­ing

From “The Hero with a Thousand Faces,” by Joseph Campbell

So I have been read­ing The Hero with a Thou­sand Faces to prep for my myth and folk­lore class, and I really like this quote, not so much because I agree with every­thing it says or implies – that is some­thing I would need to think more about – but because the com­plex­ity of what it says appeals to me:

And like­wise, mythol­ogy does not hold as its great­est hero the merely vir­tu­ous man. Virtue is but the ped­a­gog­i­cal pre­lude to the cul­mi­nat­ing insight, which goes beyond all pairs of oppo­sites. Virtue quells the self-centered ego and makes the transper­sonal cen­tered­ness pos­si­ble; but when that has been achieved, what then of the pain or plea­sure, vice or virtue, either of our own ego or of any other?

I also found myself think­ing when I read this pas­sage, and I con­tinue to think this as I make my way through the book, that Robert Bly and most of those who relied on Camp­bell in fash­ion­ing the ide­ol­ogy of the mythopo­etic men’s move­ment back in the 1980s and 90s really nar­rowed and impov­er­ished Campbell’s vision when they hung it on the polit­i­cal agenda of recov­er­ing and repair­ing (or what­ever) tra­di­tional mas­culin­ity and man­hood. They clearly did not take to heart what Camp­bell says is the “prime func­tion of mythol­ogy and rite:”

to sup­ply the sym­bols that carry the human spirit for­ward, in coun­ter­ac­tion to those other con­stant human fan­tasies that tend to tie it back.

I mean this not as a defense of Camp­bell, or even, really, an endorse­ment of what he has to say; but as some­one who spent an awful lot of time read­ing and cri­tiquing Bly and oth­ers, I am struck by how wrongly they seem to have read him – at least as far as I can tell from my lim­ited expo­sure to what Camp­bell is say­ing in this book.

I Have Decided I Will Be Changing Blog Themes

For a vari­ety of rea­sons that I will prob­a­bly write about over the next cou­ple of months, I have decided I want to change the nature of my online pres­ence, begin­ning with the look and focus of this blog. I need to start putting writ­ing and my iden­tity as a writer, a pub­lished writer, back at the cen­ter of my life, where it has not been for far too long, and while the pri­mary way I will be doing that is by mak­ing more time in my life for my writ­ing and the read­ing that feeds it – not to men­tion try­ing more sys­tem­at­i­cally to get my work pub­lished – I have also been think­ing that I need a more dynamic web­site and that means chang­ing Word­Press themes. I liked Eru­dite, the theme I’ve been using for a while now; but I want a site that will make it eas­ier for peo­ple to see where I am read­ing, what I have pub­lished, how to buy my books, to con­nect with me if they want to – and Eru­dite is not really set up for that. So that means that the look of this blog will be very fluid while I decide which theme I am going to use, so please be patient with me.

Happy Chanukah!

Not much time for post­ing these days. Too much teach­ing and grad­ing and deal­ing with the sit­u­a­tion at school which only seems to be get­ting worse. Right now, it appears as if the admin­is­tra­tion has used the pre­text of a crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tion into the alleged abuse of our col­lege email sys­tem, specif­i­cally involv­ing the college-wide list­serv that we use to com­mu­ni­cate with the entire cam­pus, to impose a pre-screening of any email that any­one wants to send to the entire cam­pus; and it is very clear that the result of this pre-screening, even if it is not the intent, has been to cen­sor cer­tain com­mu­ni­ca­tions that are crit­i­cal of the admin­is­tra­tion. It’s not a free speech vio­la­tion, appar­ently, since they have not closed off all avenues of com­mu­ni­ca­tion – though this sit­u­a­tion does make it more dif­fi­cult to get infor­ma­tion out to the entire cam­pus in an effi­cient man­ner – but it does raise seri­ous ques­tions about the administration’s com­mit­ment to aca­d­e­mic free­dom. And it is depressing.

But it is also Chanukah, and I want to share with you this video that my wife shared with me on Face­book. It’s just plain fun and it lifted my spir­its. I hope it does some­thing sim­i­lar for you:


An edition of the Christian Bible edited entirely by Jews

I con­fess that I am among those Jews about whom Pro­fes­sors Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Bret­tler write in the intro­duc­tion to their recently pub­lished The Jew­ish Anno­tated New Tes­ta­ment who tend to “believe that any anno­tated New Tes­ta­ment is aimed at per­sua­sion, if not con­ver­sion.” My expe­ri­ence with Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies and pros­e­ly­tiz­ers of all sorts has made it very dif­fi­cult for me to see the Chris­t­ian Bible as any­thing other than a tool for per­suad­ing me to give up my own reli­gious tra­di­tion as obso­lete at best. I real­ize this is not ratio­nal. The book is a book, noth­ing more; it’s the Chris­tians who have tried to put the book in my hand or who have brought quotes from it to prove to me the error of my ways who deserve the sus­pi­cion and dis­trust that I feel. Nonethe­less, like any irra­tional belief, this one has been hard to shake, and I have tried, even assign­ing por­tions of the New Tes­ta­ment in one of my lit­er­a­ture classes as a way of forc­ing myself to read it. I read it; I taught it; but it left a bad taste in my mouth and I have not picked the text up again.

I am think­ing about this because The Jew­ish Anno­tated New Tes­ta­ment got a write-up in The New York Times this week­end, and it seems that even Jew­ish Bib­li­cal schol­ars have devel­oped the habit of not deal­ing with the Chris­t­ian holy book in their work. As Mark Oppen­heimer, the article’s author writes:

As any vis­i­tor to the book expo at the [Amer­i­can Acad­emy of Reli­gion] con­fer­ence dis­cov­ered, there is a glut of Bibles and Bible com­men­taries. One of the exhibitors, Zon­der­van, pub­lishes hun­dreds of dif­fer­ent Bibles, cus­tomized for your sub­cul­ture, niche or need. Exam­ples include a Bible for those recov­er­ing from addic­tion; the Pink Bible, for women “who have been impacted by breast can­cer”; and the Faith­girlz! Bible, about which the pub­lisher writes: “Every girl wants to know she’s totally unique and spe­cial. This Bible says that with Faith­girlz! sparkle!”

Nearly all these Bibles are edited by and for Chris­tians. The Chris­t­ian Bible com­prises the Old and New Tes­ta­ments, so edi­tors offer a Chris­t­ian per­spec­tive on both books. For exam­ple, edi­tors might add a foot­note to the story of King David, in the Old Tes­ta­ment books I and II Samuel, remind­ing read­ers that in the New Tes­ta­ment, David is an ances­tor of Jesus.

Jew­ish schol­ars have typ­i­cally been involved only with edi­tions of the Old Tes­ta­ment, which Jews call the Hebrew Bible or, using a Hebrew acronym, the Tanakh. Of course, many curi­ous Jews and Chris­tians con­sult all sorts of edi­tions, with­out regard to edi­tor. But among schol­ars, Chris­tians pro­duce edi­tions of both sacred books, while Jew­ish edi­tors gen­er­ally con­sult only the book that is sacred to them. What’s been left out is a Jew­ish per­spec­tive on the New Tes­ta­ment — a book Jews do not con­sider holy but which, given its influ­ence and lit­er­ary excel­lence, no Jew should ignore.

He is, of course, cor­rect. No Jew should ignore the New Tes­ta­ment, espe­cially for the irra­tional rea­sons that have led me to do so for most of my life, and so it is nice to know that an edi­tion of that text now exists which uses as an edi­to­r­ial and crit­i­cal frame­work a per­spec­tive that counts me as an insider.

Compulsory Heterosexuality in Action

It’s been a long time since I’ve read Adri­enne Rich’s essay, Com­pul­sory Het­ero­sex­u­al­ity and Les­bian Exis­tence, but I’ve been think­ing about it a lot lately, mostly because I’ve been talk­ing to the stu­dent in my class from South Asia whose par­ents are try­ing des­per­ately to marry her off. She came to my office yes­ter­day and I ended up talk­ing to her for more than an hour, miss­ing the class I was sup­posed to be teach­ing, because she started using expres­sions like maybe I should just end it all when talk­ing about her anger and frus­tra­tion and rage at feel­ing so utterly help­less in her sit­u­a­tion. When I asked her what she meant, she said she was think­ing of just sur­ren­der­ing to her par­ents and doing what they want her to do, that maybe mar­riage – any mar­riage, to any man – was really the only way she would ever get out from under her par­ents’, but mostly her father’s, rule. Still, I thought it bet­ter to keep her talk­ing than to leave her to go teach my class.

I don’t want to reveal too many details of her life, for obvi­ous rea­sons, but I learned a lot more about her in this con­ver­sa­tion than I had in the brief dis­cus­sions we’d had before. She is the youngest child in her fam­ily and so find­ing a suit­able hus­band is an impor­tant goal for her par­ents. Once they do so, they will have ful­filled one of their pri­mary oblig­a­tions as par­ents to their daugh­ters and, in fact, my stu­dent is not entirely opposed to the idea of mar­ry­ing a man her par­ents find for her. She just wants him to be some­one she feels com­pat­i­ble with, some­one in whom she can find some­thing that attracts her; but the men they bring for her to meet, while they are well estab­lished and could take good care of her, in the way that “good care” is defined in her cul­ture, they have all been, she says, not only bor­ing, but really, really (to her taste) ugly. What she wants is the free­dom to choose her own hus­band. She’s pretty clear that her first choice would be a man from the same cul­ture and reli­gion – though she’s not opposed to mar­ry­ing out­side the first group – but she wants him to have at least a lit­tle bit of the Amer­i­can­ized iden­tity that she has. (Even there, though, her expe­ri­ence has not been good. She met a guy whom she thought fit the bill, but as soon as the started going out, he started want­ing to check her Black­berry to see whom she was call­ing and who was call­ing her.)

Adding to the agony of her sit­u­a­tion is how iso­lated she feels. I am the only per­son, accord­ing to her, to whom she has told her entire story – includ­ing the mar­ried boss she used to respect and who has recently started mak­ing passes at her – and she is sur­prised at her­self that she has done so. She doesn’t have a whole lot of trust in Amer­i­cans’ abil­ity to com­pre­hend much less empathize with her sit­u­a­tion, hav­ing been burned a cou­ple of times when she tried to talk to her friends, none of whom were able to wrap their heads around the cul­tural con­text in which she lives, even though she is liv­ing here in the States, and some of whom actu­ally blamed her for not leav­ing, as if leav­ing one’s fam­ily, espe­cially a fam­ily that might dis­own you for doing so, would ever be a sim­ple thing. On top of that is the fact that telling any­one about her family’s pri­vate life vio­lates a very strong cul­tural taboo that inter­prets such rev­e­la­tion as one of the worst kinds of dis­loy­alty both because it sul­lies the family’s honor and rep­u­ta­tion in the com­mu­nity and exposes the fam­ily to what­ever use its ene­mies (in a social, not a mil­i­tary sense) might make of the information.

One of the rea­sons she trusts me is that I know some­thing about Islam and about the kind of cul­ture she comes from. (My wife’s cul­ture is sim­i­lar.) And so she is not wor­ried that I will think she is weird or weak or “bring­ing it all on herself” – each of which is a reac­tion she has got­ten from other “out­siders” she has tried to tell – and she rec­og­nizes that I respect her desire to find a solu­tion that some­how har­mo­nizes with her par­ents’ (and community’s) reli­gious and cul­tural expec­ta­tions, while allow­ing her the free­dom she wants. (Whether or not that is pos­si­ble, of course, is a whole other ques­tion.) And yet, of course, what she needs to do is talk to other peo­ple, to know that I not unique in this respect; and espe­cially what she needs is to find a com­mu­nity of women from whom she can draw strength, who will help her to feel less alone in a way that I sim­ply can­not do, because of both my gen­der and my age. (I am, after all, old enough to be her father.) So I have encour­aged her, and I will encour­age her again, to reg­is­ter for a women’s stud­ies course; I have given her con­tact infor­ma­tion for South Asian women’s orga­ni­za­tions (and I know she has called at least one of them); I have told her about the stu­dent women’s group on cam­pus; and I have, of course, told her she is wel­come to keep com­ing to talk to me, but there really isn’t much else that I can (or should) do.

One of the themes she kept weav­ing through our con­ver­sa­tion was that she was think­ing of run­ning away, but of doing so in a man­ner that would leave her par­ents think­ing she was dead. This way, they would be able to mourn her and move on and not have to live with the con­stant worry for they would feel and the shame of hav­ing had a daugh­ter they could not con­trol. It didn’t mat­ter how many times I gen­tly sug­gested that there might be other ways of leav­ing that would at least leave open an avenue of return or a chan­nel of com­mu­ni­ca­tion – that other women in her sit­u­a­tion have done it – she kept com­ing back to the idea that it was bet­ter for her par­ents to think she was dead than to have live with the knowl­edge and the shame that she was off some­where, not prop­erly mar­ried, liv­ing who knew what kind of deca­dent and depraved Amer­i­can life and so com­pletely lost to them even if she were to show up right then on their doorstep.

It could not, I would not, argue with her any­more. I don’t know her par­ents and it’s not my place – and, any­way, I am not qual­i­fied – to give her advice. All I could think when she left, though, was that I had just wit­nessed a prime exam­ple of com­pul­sory het­ero­sex­u­al­ity at work, and it really, really, really sucked.

Because antisemitism means never having to say you’re sorry

From Jewcy:

Now, to be fair, this ad seems to be part of a theme. Go to Wodka Vodka’s web­site, scroll through the gallery just under the nav­i­ga­tion bar and you’ll find – or at least I did just now when I looked – another image with sim­i­larly scin­til­lat­ing copy: Escort Qual­ity, Hooker Pric­ing.

The “Hanukkah pric­ing” ad does not appear on the web­site as far as I can tell. Maybe they took it down? If they did, they had more sense than Miami MG, the mar­ket­ing com­pany who came up with the idea, which issued the fol­low­ing state­ment, quoted in the Jewcy piece:

The inspi­ra­tion for Hanukkah’s inclu­sion was any­thing but anti-Semitic – in fact, we’re liken­ing our­selves to the Jew­ish holiday.

Sim­ply put Hanukkah rep­re­sents a bet­ter value because you get 8 nights for the price of 1 – much like Wodka, more for less.

“The Duality of Life in Iran” — from Tehran Bureau

In The Dual­ity of Life in Iran, Tehran Bureau’s Cor­re­spon­dent at Large writes the following:

Life in Iran is split in halves: the half lived in the open and the half lived behind closed doors. And this dual­ity goes deep: every man and woman in Iran leads two lives, an exter­nal life that con­forms to the pres­sures and norms of the soci­ety and an inter­nal life gov­erned by the wants and needs of the person.

This is a con­tin­u­a­tion of the ways of tra­di­tional Iran­ian soci­ety, which has evolved into a mod­ern, com­plex form of dual­ity present at every level of social activ­ity. At the core of the old Iran­ian way of liv­ing were houses that were split into andarouni (lit­er­ally, “inter­nal,” and com­monly con­fused with harem, a sec­tion of an aristocrat’s cas­tle), in which peo­ple relaxed far from pub­lic scrutiny — women were not obliged to wear hejab, and singing and danc­ing was allowed. Out­side this safe haven, life changed — women were expected to be chador-clad and demure; men, for­mal and rigid.

The rit­ual of a domes­tic visit was a lay­ered one; you would start at the door, which was the far­thest that street ven­dors, gyp­sies, and for­tune tellers could come. The next step was the hashti, an octag­o­nal room filled with seats, where most vis­i­tors were greeted and enter­tained. If a per­son was to be allowed in fur­ther, a call was made inside the house, usu­ally some­thing like “Ya Allah,” still com­mon today when a stranger enters a res­i­dence. The call meant that the home’s inner sanc­tum was about to be breached and every­one assumed the roles assigned to them by social norms; again women were clad in hejab and men became for­mal. The lucky guests who were allowed fur­ther than the hashti were guided to the pan­j­dari or talar, a large room specif­i­cally designed for enter­tain­ing guests. But that was the fur­thest any out­sider could pen­e­trate the lay­ers of the house; still fur­ther, behind closed doors, was the liv­ing room, cen­ter­piece of the andarouni.

The whole piece is worth read­ing for one person’s insight into a cen­tral fact of Iran­ian cul­ture, the neces­sity of lead­ing a dual life under the cur­rent régime. The com­ments sec­tion is also worth reading./p

If it’s rape, call it rape

An inter­est­ing arti­cle by the pub­lic edi­tor of the New York Times, Arthur S. Bris­bane, in response to com­plaints he received about how the Times’ han­dled descrip­tions of the alle­ga­tions against Jerry Sandusky.

Some read­ers, respond­ing to The New York Times’s first reports on the case, strongly objected to word­ing in the arti­cles that, in their view, either under­played the details or wrongly applied the lan­guage of con­sen­sual sex to the narrative.

One reader, for exam­ple, objected to the phrase “sex­ual assault,” sug­gest­ing it served to make Sandusky’s alleged rape of a 10-year-old boy invis­i­ble. Another pointed out that the phrase “hav­ing anal sex with” to describe what San­dusky was doing to that boy implied con­sent on the boy’s part and so also served to make the alleged rape vanish.

Brisbane’s take on all this is worth read­ing, and I like his con­clu­sion, “When the facts war­rant it, jour­nal­ists should be as spe­cific as pos­si­ble, they should avoid using the lan­guage of con­sen­sual sex and, when appro­pri­ate, they should call a rape a rape.” What I found most inter­est­ing about the arti­cle, though, was this:

[Wendy Mur­phy, an adjunct pro­fes­sor at the New Eng­land School of Law] said that in sur­vey­ing the 50 states, she found “some­thing like 40 dif­fer­ent terms to describe the act of rape of a child.”

It’s hard for me to imag­ine that, but then, as Bris­bane points out:

“Rape” is a word in flux. The Times style­book says to use it to mean “forced inter­course, or inter­course with a child below the age of con­sent.” In many cases, though, the jus­tice sys­tem doesn’t use the word. In the San­dusky case, the charges do not include the word “rape” because he was charged under the statute cov­er­ing “Invol­un­tary Devi­ate Sex­ual Intercourse.”