Thursday, November 28, 2019

Uninvited parenting

NOTE: I wrote this as an email to Marie on November 28 -- Thanksgiving -- the date marked on the post. But in fact I am only adding it to the blog a couple of months later, January 19, 2020. I emailed this story to Marie because, unlike the year before, she was not able to get enough time off work to join me at my family's big Thanksgiving get-together. (She used up all her vacation time going to New Zealand with me this summer.)

Hey love!

We spent the day setting up for the meal, and making a potato-carrot dish, and some other things. [There follow three paragraphs about cooking, that I will skip.]
 
Also I have a problem with Stan, the son of Paul and Vicky. During the course of the evening he smashed one of Carole’s cute, decorative little plates for hors d’oeuvres; climbed up on top of the outdoor fireplace and pounded on the metal chimney; grabbed a glass of ice water off the table and shoved his hand inside to grab the ice cubes; and generally behaved himself like a Visigoth. I had hopes that he would at least sit at the kids’ table. But he told Paul that he wanted to sit at the other table and Paul should sit at the kid's table. And Paul accepted that. ( WTF?? Stan is ... maybe five? I forget, but around that.) So Stan sat at the adult table while Paul sat at the kids’ table. Vicky, thank God, took a seat at the adult table next to Stan. 

And then he was up and down at random during the meal, never asking to be excused but sliding off his chair when he felt bored and coming back when he felt like grabbing another bite. At one point he came back to the table with a huge basket on his head, one he had been wearing off and on all evening. (He said he was a knight with a helmet.) That was too much; there was too much risk that the basket was going to knock something else off the table. So I barked at him automatically, “No, Stan! You can’t wear the basket to the table. You can wear the basket or sit at the table, but not both.” Honestly I never thought about it. It was a spontaneous reflex. 

Brief silence. Vicky looks at Carole questioningly, as if to ask, “It’s your house — do you agree?” Carole said something ... I don’t even remember what. It didn’t amount to much. Then Vicky engaged in a long whispered discussion with Stan, presumably explaining something to him. And eventually he went away. 

What I would have hoped for was solidarity among adults: “Well if Hosea says so then do it, regardless of the merits.” (God knows I gave Wife that solidarity too often, when she demanded something crazy of the boys and I told them that if Mommy said so then they had to do it.) I didn’t get it. And of course without that backup, what it meant was that I was ordering around someone else’s kid with no authority to do so. 

I finished my food and sat quietly for a while. Stan got down. After a while Vicky got down. At that point I bussed my dishes. Then I walked over to Vicky and told her, “The last thing I ever want to do is to undermine your authority with Stan, so I was really out of line and I apologize for saying anything.” She said not to worry about it. She said she agreed that the basket didn’t belong on his head at the table, and not to worry because it was fine. I suppose it is just a sign of what a corrupt and horrible person I am that this didn’t reassure me much. It’s exactly what I would have expected from someone whose main concern was to avoid unpleasantness. (After all, if she had truly agreed why didn’t she say something?)  Unfortunately I also think that if you prioritize the avoidance of unpleasantness that more or less disqualifies you as a parent. 

I cannot help but reflect that the strongest criticism Wife ever had of my family was that (so she said) they too often tried to avoid unpleasantness. Another way to say this is that they are kind people, forever loyal to each other, generous in their assumptions about others, rational and liberal in all the best ways. And God knows that these are stellar virtues in dealing with adults. But they are vices in raising small children. 

I hate — truly this is not rhetoric — to think that I am agreeing with Wife ( of all people!) against my family ( of all people!). And in no other context besides this could that ever be possible or even imaginable. But. 

After I apologized to Vicky I stepped quietly  outside for a while. After quite a few minutes Vicky came out to ask if I was OK. I could not give a coherent explanation of what space my head was in, so I mumbled something incoherent. She repeated at greater length that it was all fine and I shouldn’t worry about it. I said I would come in again after I cleared my head. And after some minutes more I finally came back in. 

I never meant to write a complete account of the whole evening. So I haven’t and I won’t. I came back in, got some more wine, then after a while got some pie, and sat somewhere away from Stan. After a longer while, Paul and Vicky left, taking with them Stan and their two-year-old daughter. The rest of us sat around chatting aimlessly. The two other kids (sons of my other cousins) wrestled vigorously and interminably on the floor. Jenny [mother of one] cautioned them a couple of times; so did Fred [father of the other]. And for all the energy they were exerting, neither one ever behaved like anything less than a(n age-appropriate) gentleman. So it’s not that I’ve just become a Grumpy Old Man who has forgotten what it is like to be a kid. Those two were delightful. It’s just Stan who was a savage. 

Jenny and I traded stories about raising sons. She talked about someone she had met who had two daughters (both perfectly behaved) and said she had wondered, “Honestly if you’ve only had girls can you even call yourself a mother?” ðŸ˜Š I told her that while naturally my data sample has been very small, I have always considered her son to have exquisite manners for his age. She rolled her eyes and said there were a few exceptions; but then she stopped being sarcastic and said she understood what I meant, and thanked me for it. 

At this point I’ve had yet more to drink, and it’s quite late. Everyone has gone home except those (like me) who are staying here in this house for the night. And I still wonder: Am I overreacting? Or is it better if I skip venues where Stan is going to be present? Unfortunately that means big family gatherings like this one, and I don’t see my extended family on any other occasions.

I don’t expect you to answer this question, so don’t bother trying. But I am disturbed.

I hope you had a lovely Thanksgiving.

Never forget that I love you ever.

Your Hosea

Monday, November 25, 2019

Further thoughts about "Joker"

A couple weeks ago I posted this piece about having recently gone to see the movie "Joker". And what I wrote to you, I also wrote to Marie.

But then we discussed it some more and I so I expanded on what I'd said, as follows:
__________

You understood that when I talked about living with mental illness, I was talking about my 30 years with Wife, right? Interestingly, I’ve been looking up reviews (or just articles) that specifically address the question of mental illness in the movie, and I’ve found two types.

(1) There are some that condemn the movie bitterly (or just sadly) for linking mental illness with violence: these writers all quote the statistic that people who suffer from mental illness are more likely than the average person to suffer violence (not commit it), and so they blame the director (who also wrote a lot of the script) for adding to the popular stigma around the disease. All of these writers appear intent on burnishing their credentials as Concerned Liberals, and they all sound like they have learned about mental illness from books.

(2) Then there are articles by writers who say up front “I have suffered from mental illness for decades” or else “I work with the mentally ill every day of my life.” These articles breeze past the link that the movie allegedly makes between mental illness and violence, because — geez! — it’s a supervillain origin story. Of course he’s going to end up being violent. He’s the Bad Guy. What they focus on with laser precision is how hard his life is, and how little anyone else in the world cares about him — how little anyone else in the world wants to deal with him at all or even to be around him, and how this invisibility and isolation make his already-difficult life twenty times harder — and they all say the movie NAILS IT! Yes, exactly that. That’s what it’s like. 

There’s actually a point right near the end where he’s talking to another character about all the bad things that have happened to him, and about the crimes he has already started committing ... in response? ... as a result? ... post hoc ergo propter hoc? ... well, whatever. And the other guy gets kind of huffy and says, “I’m hearing a lot of self-pity from you. Do you really think your bad luck justifies the things you just now confessed to doing?” And maybe I didn’t hear the Joker’s answer correctly, because I’ve seen nobody else pick up on this part of that conversation. But I really believe that at that point Joker says, “No.” No, he doesn’t believe that his bad luck justifies his crimes. But he does see a connection that the bad luck nonetheless caused his crimes. His bad luck doesn’t make his crimes acceptable, but does make them happen. As I say, maybe I heard him wrong. (I’m getting old, you know.) And even if I heard him right he took a lot less time with the point than I have taken right now. Even if I heard him right, 75% of the explication I’ve just given is mine, unpacking what I think he said. But I think in that moment he showed that he may be mentally ill, but he’s not crazy. In other words, he understands the difference between right and wrong and knows that A does not justify B; but he’s also trying to make the point that — regardless what moral theory might say — you can’t expect anyone to suffer the things he has suffered without snapping and reacting the way he has reacted. 

One clarification. In all this, I have to add that when I talk about “his bad luck” that’s a little like describing an elephant as “his house pet”. Really. This man has the most phenomenal bad luck you have ever seen. But then so did Wife, which means I believed it instantly rather than treating it as a weak plot device. But I have to warn you that at a certain point your ability to sympathize over bad luck shuts down from overload — or mine did in real life — and you start assuming that, statistically, nobody can have random luck that bad so she must have done something to cause it somehow, by pissing people off or whatever, so that they then treated her badly. Likewise him, the Joker. See, I really do hear an echo between them, even though Wife never became a supervillain.

Thanks be to God. 

But could I have ever imagined her turning violent the way the Joker does in this movie? Based on the many bad things she suffered; and also on her (perhaps) diminished capacity (because of illness, physical or mental) to absorb suffering, roll with the punches, and bounce back? Sure, why not? That’s part of what I found totally plausible in the movie. And I chalk it up to good luck (for a change) that it didn’t happen in real life. 
__________
 
Here are some of the reviews I found that agreed the movie portrayed mental illness well.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Happy viewing.
    

Sunday, November 10, 2019

What if Wife had become a supervillain?

I saw "Joker" this afternoon. (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7286456/) It's very intense. Afterwards I texted Son 1, who asked me if I liked it. I wrote him,

I don't know yet. There's a lot there and I'm a little stunned. Reviews criticized it for pushing a narrative about the mentally ill and social services that isn't a well thought through platform, but for Pete's sake it's not a frapping political platform in the first place. It's a super-villain origin story, and a very dark and heavy one. But then ... he's the Joker. It would have to be.

But part of what I thought was that it was a little bit like Wife's story. The protagonist, Arthur Fleck, suffers from mental illness; so does Wife. He has chronically bad luck; so does Wife. He reacts to things with emotions that are out of phase with the emotions of the people around him; so does Wife. He has a very difficult and slightly creepy relationship with his mother, to whom he is nonetheless deeply attached; so did Wife. His mother has emotional problems of her own, and is either delusional or very badly used by others; so was Wife's mother. In fact, I almost thought I could summarize the movie for Son 1 by saying, "Take your mom's story; make it even worse; give her a slightly different set of diseases; and have her end up as a supervillain." (I chickened out in the end, and didn't say it.)

At one point, though, we look over his shoulder as he is writing in his journal, and we see a sentence that I'm sure she could agree to:

"The worst part of having a mental illness is people expect you to behave as if you don't."

Yup. I've watched that be Wife's experience, and I've also been the one expecting her to behave as if she didn't. It's tough.

I guess it's good she never became a supervillain, huh?


Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, November 9, 2019

Not actually wrong

I've visited Debbie twice this year, both times on the occasion of a trip to Sticksville for work: once was at the beginning of June, and the other was in mid-October -- just recently. And both times I mused on choices she made during the visit that triggered me to wonder if she still had some kind of romantic feelings underneath the clear outward show of Good Behavior. Back in May she had us read Walt Whitman poems back and forth to each other; in October, she selected "Our Souls at Night" as a movie to watch.

Of course it would be no surprise if she did: how do you get rid of memories like that without replacing them by some other emotion? My feelings for D now are overlaid with frustration and anxiety; my feelings for Wife, with anger and fear and disdain and disgust. But I don't feel any of those things for Debbie, and so (as I have shared freely with you) I still feel a wistfulness towards her. Why shouldn't she feel something similar?

And then about a week ago I got an email that was a little clearer. I had written her about the rest of my trip: after visiting with her for a weekend I had gone on to work in Sticksville for a week, then flew the long way home so I could spend a few vacation days with Schmidt. The visit was very low-key for a lot of reasons, but Marie visited me there (we were all three friends back in college) and we had fun sitting round the table at dinner drinking too much wine and telling funny stories. Anyway, several days later I wrote a short email to Debbie that included the following:
I always enjoy visiting you, and this time was no exception. Always you give me a chance to shift into a different gear, I’m glad to spend time with your daughter and her husband, and our time together (yours and mine) is simply good. And thank you for the movie! I’d never heard of it before we watched it, but the reviews I looked up later said all the same things we did: that it was a remarkable piece of work done in a very understated way.
Her reply, a few days later, ended as follows:
I agree that our time together while you were here was simply good.  I will be honest and say that during your last two visits, I have found my heart opening to you.  I don't mean to complicate things.  Given all the context, including my personal commitment to respecting other people's relationships, it is not something to be acted upon but simply acknowledged and enjoyed for what it is.  I just think it might diminish the little bit of awkwardness that is present in our interactions to name it.
Bingo. I'm glad to know that my sense about this hasn't been actually wrong, all this time.

It took me a couple of days to think what to say back. I didn't want to wait too long -- when someone declares her love for you, a faster reply is always better.  But I also didn't want to say the wrong thing, and I thought that was altogether too likely. In the end maybe I said too much, though I hope not. What I wrote her went like this:
Your last paragraph made me feel very happy and ... what’s the right word? As if I were snugly wrapped in a soft, warm blanket. I know what you mean. There will always be a part of my heart that is open to you, too. At the same time, you are completely right that it doesn’t have to mean anything beyond or outside of itself. We can enjoy it for what it is, exactly as we have been doing. And we don’t have to carry it anywhere that makes a mess of the “context”. I know I felt the same thing on my side, but was concerned that saying something might be unwelcome; so thank you for naming it. 

With love and metta always,
Hosea