Since our book club completed Marilynne Robinson's Gilead in the spring, I have been anxious to read her first novel, written some twenty-seven years ago now, entitled Housekeeping. It focuses on the story of two sisters who must, of necessity, navigate through the flotsam of life in order to survive.
Their grandfather, a railroad man, dies in a spectacular train accident in which the train sinks entirely into a glacial lake. Their mother deposits her small girls, Ruth and Lucille, on the front porch of the surviving grandmother's house and drives her car off a cliff. For a while the grandmother is able to care for the girls; then she dies leaving the care of the girls first to her own maiden sisters who cannot cope with two growing girls and later to the care of her youngest daughter, who is a transient. As the girls move into adolescence, Aunt Silvie's actions and neglect become increasingly bizarre. She collects magazines, cans, and bottles in the house as well as thirteen or fourteen cats. How can these girls survive in this maze of neglect?
It seems the younger girl, Lucille, is awakened to the fact that redemption comes in the form of education. She sets upon a plan for herself to sew her clothes, comb her hair, and leave home to live with her Home Economics teacher. Ruth, on the other hand, succumbs to the waywardness of her Aunt Silvie. Together they burn the old house down, catch a train, and resume a life of wandering.
Once more this story reminds me of the hundreds of children in our society who also live their lives as if they were "minimally existent." They are neglected by their caregivers, live solitary lives, and either become hopeless like Ruth or at best develop a plan to escape like Lucille. Again I am reminded of the importance of adults who care for and mentor these neglected children. Let us seek ways to assist these children through our volunteer efforts but, most importantly, our love and concern.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Divorce or Murder?
Many of us have been following the case of the preacher's wife, Mary Winkler, who shot her husband in the back, leaving him to bleed to death, and then took her three children on a vacation to the beach. What could have been the motivation for such a violent act we asked?
Another lesser known case of murder took place in Olathe, Kansas, back in 1982. Here the husband and wife slept together until an intruder cruelly bludgeoned the husband to death and left the wife unconscious. The case remained unsolved until recently when investigators reopened the file. The investigators put on trial a former student of Mid America Nazarene College. It appears that the student and the wife, an employee of the college, were emotionally involved with one another. They plotted to kill the husband, claiming it was the work of two African American intruders.
Although the two cases have more differences than similarities, i. e. Mary Winkler was a victim of sexual and physical abuse of her husband, Matthew, and the wife in the second case simply fell in love with someone else, they share one important similarity. Both families were members of very conservative evangelical churches where divorce has been considered anathema. In other words, in the perpetrators' minds, they would rather murder than divorce. In fact, Mary Winkler repeatedly told her father, with her head in her hands, "No, Daddy, I can work it out."
What legalistic rules are there in these churches that give wives (and their lovers) such a notion? Yes, the Bible speaks of wives' submitting to their husbands, but taken in context of the whole New Testament passage, it means to love their wives and to submit to them as well. Yes, families are important in the Scripture, and God has given many examples of His mending of families that have been torn asunder such as Adam and Eve, David and Bathsheba, Job, and Lazarus. The Bible also states in the book of Psalms that "God placeth the solitary in families."
Does that mean then that there is never a reason to leave one's spouse? Of course not, since the divorce rate in America already attests to the fact that many Americans take marital commitment too lightly and sometimes divorce on a whim. We need, however, to review our teaching in conservative churches and amend any impression that would convince spouses to stay together after adultery or physical and sexual abuse. It is o.k. to leave; it is certainly healthier.
Another lesser known case of murder took place in Olathe, Kansas, back in 1982. Here the husband and wife slept together until an intruder cruelly bludgeoned the husband to death and left the wife unconscious. The case remained unsolved until recently when investigators reopened the file. The investigators put on trial a former student of Mid America Nazarene College. It appears that the student and the wife, an employee of the college, were emotionally involved with one another. They plotted to kill the husband, claiming it was the work of two African American intruders.
Although the two cases have more differences than similarities, i. e. Mary Winkler was a victim of sexual and physical abuse of her husband, Matthew, and the wife in the second case simply fell in love with someone else, they share one important similarity. Both families were members of very conservative evangelical churches where divorce has been considered anathema. In other words, in the perpetrators' minds, they would rather murder than divorce. In fact, Mary Winkler repeatedly told her father, with her head in her hands, "No, Daddy, I can work it out."
What legalistic rules are there in these churches that give wives (and their lovers) such a notion? Yes, the Bible speaks of wives' submitting to their husbands, but taken in context of the whole New Testament passage, it means to love their wives and to submit to them as well. Yes, families are important in the Scripture, and God has given many examples of His mending of families that have been torn asunder such as Adam and Eve, David and Bathsheba, Job, and Lazarus. The Bible also states in the book of Psalms that "God placeth the solitary in families."
Does that mean then that there is never a reason to leave one's spouse? Of course not, since the divorce rate in America already attests to the fact that many Americans take marital commitment too lightly and sometimes divorce on a whim. We need, however, to review our teaching in conservative churches and amend any impression that would convince spouses to stay together after adultery or physical and sexual abuse. It is o.k. to leave; it is certainly healthier.
Monday, July 9, 2007
The Best of Us and the Least of Us
I suppose it was inevitable that I write about the issue presented in Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko. While I was determined to go into the film with an open mind regarding the status of health care in the United States, I (and many of the audience as evidenced by the applause at the end of the film and comments such as, "Republicans, go right as you exit the theater") quickly joined in and acquiesced to Moore's viewpoint.
As typical in a Moore film (and I have been a fan of his since Roger and Me), he presents a number of people who share their stories with anecdotal evidence of their health care plight. Among the most poignant of these were two: a woman who pays over $100 for her medicine in the U.S. but pays only $.05 for it in Cuba and a couple who, after working years in separate careers, must sell their house and move in with a daughter. They now live in a room in the basement with the daughter, three children, and a husband soon to be deployed to Iraq living upstairs.
In regard to my husband's and my own budget for health care, we also fall into the group of people in the U.S. who are fully covered by health insurance but, nevertheless, are drowning in our retirement in health care costs per month. We pay out of pocket a minimum of $800 for Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance to cover deductibles, coverage for prescription medicine, my health care portion from my previous employer, dental insurance, cancer insurance, co-pays for doctors and medicine, and long term health care insurance. This figure amounts to around 30% of our monthly income.
The stats for America today says that an average man lives to be around 75 and a woman to 79.
I am not sure we can afford to live that long.
As typical in a Moore film (and I have been a fan of his since Roger and Me), he presents a number of people who share their stories with anecdotal evidence of their health care plight. Among the most poignant of these were two: a woman who pays over $100 for her medicine in the U.S. but pays only $.05 for it in Cuba and a couple who, after working years in separate careers, must sell their house and move in with a daughter. They now live in a room in the basement with the daughter, three children, and a husband soon to be deployed to Iraq living upstairs.
In regard to my husband's and my own budget for health care, we also fall into the group of people in the U.S. who are fully covered by health insurance but, nevertheless, are drowning in our retirement in health care costs per month. We pay out of pocket a minimum of $800 for Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance to cover deductibles, coverage for prescription medicine, my health care portion from my previous employer, dental insurance, cancer insurance, co-pays for doctors and medicine, and long term health care insurance. This figure amounts to around 30% of our monthly income.
The stats for America today says that an average man lives to be around 75 and a woman to 79.
I am not sure we can afford to live that long.
Monday, July 2, 2007
"We did what we needed to do."
I have been thinking about marriage today for two reasons: first, it is my husband's and my 42nd anniversary; and second, we saw the movie Evening on Friday afternoon of last week. I believe the reasons for marriage have changed significantly from the 1950's and 1960's until now.
The movie we saw featured an all-star cast including Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, and Glenn Close. We watched as the dying protagonist goes back in her thoughts to the time of her youth. Her best friend marries a man she does not love, yet she goes on to have three children and a good life with him. She herself also does not marry the man she has a brief affair with due to her desire to have a career and also the guilt she feels when her best friend's brother is killed. She, likewise, lives her life out with two husbands and two daughters and a mediocre singing career. When the best friend returns to say goodbye to her dying friend, she comforts her by saying, "We did what we needed to do." In other words, women during this time period (and mine) often did what society expected: get married, have children, and take care of husband and home.
I have to admit that when I married at age 20 I was also one of these women. My grandmother, whom I lived with for five years while I was in high school, gave me this advice upon my wedding, "Keep a clean house for your husband." At that time, I had no thought of having a career in teaching; I did want a degree but only "to fall back on" in case some catastrophic event happened to my husband. In the mid-sixties, however, our society was about to burst upon cultural changes that no one could have predicted: the influence of opponents of the Viet Nam War, the changing role of women into a new role as feminists, the advent of the hippie movement, and the marches for civil rights in the South. Indeed, just three years after our marriage, my husband and I were caught up and influenced by these cultural movements. No longer would we as women announce, "We did what we needed to do," but instead, "We did what we wanted to do."
I guess as we age we do think more about the choices we made while young. Sociologists frequently ask couples a favorite question, "If you had to do it again, would you marry your spouse again?" For me, it has been a good decision and a good life.
The movie we saw featured an all-star cast including Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, and Glenn Close. We watched as the dying protagonist goes back in her thoughts to the time of her youth. Her best friend marries a man she does not love, yet she goes on to have three children and a good life with him. She herself also does not marry the man she has a brief affair with due to her desire to have a career and also the guilt she feels when her best friend's brother is killed. She, likewise, lives her life out with two husbands and two daughters and a mediocre singing career. When the best friend returns to say goodbye to her dying friend, she comforts her by saying, "We did what we needed to do." In other words, women during this time period (and mine) often did what society expected: get married, have children, and take care of husband and home.
I have to admit that when I married at age 20 I was also one of these women. My grandmother, whom I lived with for five years while I was in high school, gave me this advice upon my wedding, "Keep a clean house for your husband." At that time, I had no thought of having a career in teaching; I did want a degree but only "to fall back on" in case some catastrophic event happened to my husband. In the mid-sixties, however, our society was about to burst upon cultural changes that no one could have predicted: the influence of opponents of the Viet Nam War, the changing role of women into a new role as feminists, the advent of the hippie movement, and the marches for civil rights in the South. Indeed, just three years after our marriage, my husband and I were caught up and influenced by these cultural movements. No longer would we as women announce, "We did what we needed to do," but instead, "We did what we wanted to do."
I guess as we age we do think more about the choices we made while young. Sociologists frequently ask couples a favorite question, "If you had to do it again, would you marry your spouse again?" For me, it has been a good decision and a good life.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Bollywood in Little Rock
My new friend Meera invited me to attend my first Bollywood movie this week. The film arrived Monday night from India and was screened to an audience of around one hundred I am guessing. I have heard of these movies and seen clips of them in the past, but this was my first experience at viewing an entire film. Since it blended the genres of comedy, martial arts, musicals, and drama (especially focusing in on social issues in India), I wanted to analyze its appeal to the audience. It is not hard to understand why it is popular.
The film Sivaji featured a somewhat aging lead actor paired with a comedic partner and a young, beautiful actress as a love interest. A "formula" film, it showed Sivaji in elaborate musical production numbers with many dancers and singers. In addition, the martial arts sequences were just as elaborate and choreographed, especially the one that took place in a music shop when drums were bonging and cymbals were clanging. The comedy was physical, showing Sivaji dancing wildly around the bathroom after eating a plate of hot peppers and later scratching himself unmercifully after applying various remedies to supposedly lighten his skin. The drama was also affecting as Sivaji rolled down his luxury car window to hand money over to a young woman and her child begging on the streets of India.
Even though the film was not sub-titled in English, I could follow the plot without difficulty. Why does such a film appeal to the wildly cheering audience? I believe it is because Sivaji represents the dreams of all of us. Who has not longed to leave the life of a bus conductor, for example, to become a movie star and producer like Sivaji? Who has not yearned to be rich and to marry the most desirable spouse in the world? Who has not wanted to be seen as the life of the party with a fantastic sense of humor? Who has not wanted to look out into the world and help those who struggle to obtain basic services such as health care? Who has not longed to be a hero, who with his strength and vigor, is able to defeat a bevy of opponents?
Like our American films of Rambo or Rocky, we long to escape for a couple of hours from our own world of reality to imagine we are far more than we ever will become. It is for this reason I believe that these films will continue to attract large audiences in both India and America.
The film Sivaji featured a somewhat aging lead actor paired with a comedic partner and a young, beautiful actress as a love interest. A "formula" film, it showed Sivaji in elaborate musical production numbers with many dancers and singers. In addition, the martial arts sequences were just as elaborate and choreographed, especially the one that took place in a music shop when drums were bonging and cymbals were clanging. The comedy was physical, showing Sivaji dancing wildly around the bathroom after eating a plate of hot peppers and later scratching himself unmercifully after applying various remedies to supposedly lighten his skin. The drama was also affecting as Sivaji rolled down his luxury car window to hand money over to a young woman and her child begging on the streets of India.
Even though the film was not sub-titled in English, I could follow the plot without difficulty. Why does such a film appeal to the wildly cheering audience? I believe it is because Sivaji represents the dreams of all of us. Who has not longed to leave the life of a bus conductor, for example, to become a movie star and producer like Sivaji? Who has not yearned to be rich and to marry the most desirable spouse in the world? Who has not wanted to be seen as the life of the party with a fantastic sense of humor? Who has not wanted to look out into the world and help those who struggle to obtain basic services such as health care? Who has not longed to be a hero, who with his strength and vigor, is able to defeat a bevy of opponents?
Like our American films of Rambo or Rocky, we long to escape for a couple of hours from our own world of reality to imagine we are far more than we ever will become. It is for this reason I believe that these films will continue to attract large audiences in both India and America.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Sopranos' Swan Song
I have only been a fan of "The Sopranos" since its January inception on the A & E television network. Not one to be an avid viewer of any series, I have surprised myself with my addiction to the show. I figure that, in June, we are about one-half way through the series since Meadow was 15 at the beginning of the show and is now 19. I could not resist, however, listening to the ending of the series with the immediate analyses on June 11.
Many theories are floating around about the meaning of the blackout scene as Tony and his family sit in the diner. These include the idea that for Tony and crew life simply goes on. Others, however, insist upon moderating the conclusion to have Tony wake up after a long nightmare to express to his wife, Sarah Jessica Parker, his astonishment at dreaming he was a mobster. My favorite, and the one I agree with, is that Tony was killed in the final scene by an unknown assassin; "After all, the best of us never see it coming," one critic said. This conclusion is the most logical, rather than a scenario where he and his family live happily ever after in a witness protection program. After all, Tony is a killer, and sometimes justice can take place on earth. Critics have often commented on the Shakespearean allusions in the series, and I would like to add another comparison to that of King Lear. I believe Tony represents the same type of royalty, albeit Mobster royalty, that Lear does.
Shakespeare begins his famous tragedy with a scene that shows Lear at one of his most prideful moments. He is demanding loyalty and expressions of love from his three daughters. They give him their fealty generally, but one does not utter the words Lear expects. As a result, two daughters are given his kingdom early, and one daughter is disowned. The climax of the play follows the traditional five act structure, and in the middle of the play we see Lear, along with his clown, raving to the heavens about his daughters' mistreatment of him. It is at this point when the audience realizes with horror that Lear has lost his sanity. By the time the play ends, he has ironically realized that the only daughter who loved him was the one he disowned. She and he both die at the play's conclusion.
Likewise, Tony when the series begins is building up his power in the state of New Jersey. The previous mobster Jackie is dying of cancer, and his own uncle, Junior, is becoming weak and irrelevant. Tony demands absolute fealty from his captains and frequently tests their loyalty by having them "wack" the enemies or traitors. One by one as the series goes on, the knights around Tony die. By the series' end, he has an uncle who is so senile that he doesn't remember his days as king of New Jersey; Junior simply replies, "That's nice" when Tony reminds him of his previous power.
For the final scene in the diner, the door opens, and Tony looks up only to have the television screen go blank. Many questions remain, and many have argued writer David Chase has simply left the series open in order to screen a big film later. I tend, however, to agree with Carmela earlier in the series when she says, "Everything's going to end, Tony." I believe it has for this character though we hope for Tony that his daughter Meadow lives (after all she is parking the car and has not entered the diner yet) to become the professional she dreams of being and can somehow make up for all the evil Tony has committed.
Many theories are floating around about the meaning of the blackout scene as Tony and his family sit in the diner. These include the idea that for Tony and crew life simply goes on. Others, however, insist upon moderating the conclusion to have Tony wake up after a long nightmare to express to his wife, Sarah Jessica Parker, his astonishment at dreaming he was a mobster. My favorite, and the one I agree with, is that Tony was killed in the final scene by an unknown assassin; "After all, the best of us never see it coming," one critic said. This conclusion is the most logical, rather than a scenario where he and his family live happily ever after in a witness protection program. After all, Tony is a killer, and sometimes justice can take place on earth. Critics have often commented on the Shakespearean allusions in the series, and I would like to add another comparison to that of King Lear. I believe Tony represents the same type of royalty, albeit Mobster royalty, that Lear does.
Shakespeare begins his famous tragedy with a scene that shows Lear at one of his most prideful moments. He is demanding loyalty and expressions of love from his three daughters. They give him their fealty generally, but one does not utter the words Lear expects. As a result, two daughters are given his kingdom early, and one daughter is disowned. The climax of the play follows the traditional five act structure, and in the middle of the play we see Lear, along with his clown, raving to the heavens about his daughters' mistreatment of him. It is at this point when the audience realizes with horror that Lear has lost his sanity. By the time the play ends, he has ironically realized that the only daughter who loved him was the one he disowned. She and he both die at the play's conclusion.
Likewise, Tony when the series begins is building up his power in the state of New Jersey. The previous mobster Jackie is dying of cancer, and his own uncle, Junior, is becoming weak and irrelevant. Tony demands absolute fealty from his captains and frequently tests their loyalty by having them "wack" the enemies or traitors. One by one as the series goes on, the knights around Tony die. By the series' end, he has an uncle who is so senile that he doesn't remember his days as king of New Jersey; Junior simply replies, "That's nice" when Tony reminds him of his previous power.
For the final scene in the diner, the door opens, and Tony looks up only to have the television screen go blank. Many questions remain, and many have argued writer David Chase has simply left the series open in order to screen a big film later. I tend, however, to agree with Carmela earlier in the series when she says, "Everything's going to end, Tony." I believe it has for this character though we hope for Tony that his daughter Meadow lives (after all she is parking the car and has not entered the diner yet) to become the professional she dreams of being and can somehow make up for all the evil Tony has committed.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Wouldn't It Be Nice . . .
National Public Radio last week featured a story on the need for recognition that young generation X'ers must have in the workplace. Sociologists tell us that this need has resulted from their parents' constant reinforcement of their children--telling them how special they are, suggesting that all team players receive a trophy regardless of skill, and making sure they know they are the best and brightest children of all times. Psychologically, I think part of this focus is a result of our own generation of war babies or baby boomers not getting this recognition themselves. I know I did not.
My son recently told me in a phone conversation that he was given a plaque at work for recognition of his contribution to the company. Our daughter, who recently left her job at Microsoft after several years, also received frequent recognition and bonus money for her work ethic and projects completed. For myself, however, after working for over forty years in the fields of clerical work and teaching, I do not have a visible reminder of any contribution I made. After finally cleaning out our garage since our move to our retirement home a year ago, I found no evidences of plaques or trophies for me. Our generation, it seems, was just expected to come to work, be loyal to the company (or school in my case), and do our jobs competently. Otherwise, we were let go. The idea of a monthly or even yearly recognition was non-existent.
As I reflect upon the two positions, I believe I would have benefited by the old proverbial pat on the back. I think it says to an employee, "We value the work you are doing for us year after year." Would it have been nice for my generation? I have to reply "yes."
My son recently told me in a phone conversation that he was given a plaque at work for recognition of his contribution to the company. Our daughter, who recently left her job at Microsoft after several years, also received frequent recognition and bonus money for her work ethic and projects completed. For myself, however, after working for over forty years in the fields of clerical work and teaching, I do not have a visible reminder of any contribution I made. After finally cleaning out our garage since our move to our retirement home a year ago, I found no evidences of plaques or trophies for me. Our generation, it seems, was just expected to come to work, be loyal to the company (or school in my case), and do our jobs competently. Otherwise, we were let go. The idea of a monthly or even yearly recognition was non-existent.
As I reflect upon the two positions, I believe I would have benefited by the old proverbial pat on the back. I think it says to an employee, "We value the work you are doing for us year after year." Would it have been nice for my generation? I have to reply "yes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
