Jun 7 2010

a non-debate about israel

The Helen Thomas debacle and the Gaza flotilla debacle are two shining reasons why I don’t engage in political debate with anyone, no matter how drunk I am. The truth is this: I just don’t know enough. Whenever I try to know enough, I end up crying. I’m serious. I can’t read something and say, ‘Yes, that’s right.’ I can’t read something and even say, ‘Yes, that’s what I believe.’ (I read a lot and say, ‘No, that’s not what I believe,’ but that’s not helpful.)

This is not what I elected to make myself expert in. For a while I relied on people who did choose to hone their expertise in current events, but then I stopped. Give me Thomas More. Give me the Reformation. Give me the historical role of gender. Give me wars. Give me coups. I will throw down with you: on these matters I have a living, evolving, deeply informed opinion. But this other stuff? I can’t hack it. It makes me cry.

I know what I feel about Israel. It’s extremely, extremely complicated. I won’t step on the mat with it; I shut down when the conversation starts. This isn’t only emotional. I’m emotional about a lot of things, not all of them historical or political. They don’t make me cry in a way that stops me articulating myself. My feelings about Israel are an amorphous blob in my chest. For arguably the first time I can’t bend words to my feelings; I can’t make words work.

What’s up with that? Everyone has an opinion about this; everyone talks about it. I feel strongly about it but can’t - won’t? - talk about it. In happier moments I believe I won’t have the conversation because I don’t want to open my mouth about something it’s almost impossible to know enough about. When I talk about the historical role of gender, for example - something I feel very strongly about - I am ready with defences, with fourteen layers of argument and rebuttal. I don’t have to prepare. I’m ready with the rhetoric. I’m ready to go to.

But there’s also this: I’m ready to have my mind changed. I’m ready to respect my opponent.

With something like Israel, there’s no one I can trust. Try to find objectivity on this subject. Try to wade through the politicking and the self-serving bullshit on both sides. Wade through that for truth. You won’t find it. There is no opponent or proponent to respect here. And I won’t have my mind changed. So I don’t talk.

How my mind is made up doesn’t matter. Even if it did, I couldn’t articulate it. I’m horrified by those I disagree with, and by those I agree with. I’m horrified at all of it.

Is it safer to confine my expertise to the world before the 1832 Reform Act? You might think so; I don’t. But I think it’s what I’ve got; it’s what I’m talking about; it’s what I’m willing to talk about. This I don’t talk about. Read this entry again. I didn’t talk about it.

Till next time &c &c.


May 26 2010

law, order, and my lifetime

‘Michael Moriarty is an amazing actor. You have to watch this show.’

That was my dad, back in 1990. I was in the sixth grade. We didn’t have much beyond Peasant Vision on TV in those days, but inasmuch as we gathered round that window to the outside world, it was to watch two shows: CBC’s The Fifth Estate (which I largely ignored) and Law & Order (which I was infatuated with).

My dad doesn’t often make pronouncements about things. I’ve gotten three (beyond this one) that I can remember vividly: that Mahler’s Fifth Symphony must be listened to whilst lying down; that I should feel free to judge people based on whether or not they liked The Lion in Winter starring Katharine Hepburn and Peter O’Toole, and that I was going to play the clarinet, whether I liked it or not. So when he piped up about Michael Moriarty, I listened.

Last week I found out that Law & Order had gotten the axe from NBC after a twenty-year run, and last night I watched the series finale. What an innocuous finale it was. I didn’t feel like the 27th Precinct or the Manhattan District Attorney’s office was shutting down so much as I felt that my window on it was closing. There was nothing to cry about in the episode, not really. But when my media player shut down and all I had left was my computer, I sort of felt like someone had taken my house away.

Twenty years. That beats a lot of things. It outruns my relationship with my husband by eight years. It outruns the longest stretch of time I’ve lived in a single dwelling by fifteen years. It might have been the last thing my parents had in common. That show is older than three of my cousins, one of my sisters, and two of my nephews. In a very backwards, twisty, oblique way, it represented a stability that I’ve been consistently unable to manufacture for myself. Every week, a new episode of Law & Order. And now: Law & Order: Los Angeles? LOLA? QTF, man?

The cast of this show was managed sort of like a hockey team: infamous Oilers ex-head coach Craig MacTavish said that any good team needed a ‘churn’ if it was going to remain supple and strong. It’s interesting that 1990 is when Law & Order began, and is also the last year that the Oilers won the Stanley Cup. The churn worked beautifully for the former, and more or less disastrously for the latter.

I felt betrayed when Claire Kincaid left (I was fifteen; I believed in love and justice). I felt betrayed when Ben Stone left, for that matter, though my love for Sam Waterston is unconditional. I cried when Adam’s wife died. Of course, casting mistakes were made (I shall not name names, but there were dark years). But this was a solid show with a solid formula that consistently attracted serious talent. And watching it disappear into the ether of cancelled shows is much sadder than, say, The Simpsons being cancelled (seriously: ninety per cent of their best episodes were in the first nine seasons; there I said it). There were only moments on this show when one thought: have they done all they can do? Because then they did something else, and did it better.

I thought the twentieth season had a stronger cast than the show had seen in years. (Lupo is the most compelling detective that show has seen since Mike Logan, and you heard it here first. Maybe.) It never occurred to me that this might be the last. As someone recently said, sure, Sam Waterston has his Ameritrade ads, his TD ads, but how are his eyebrows going to find work now?

I’m sure NBC had its reasons. But this show followed me from BC to Alberta and back and back again; it followed me to London and Cambridge and back again; when I tell you I was more or less flat-chested when the show started, maybe you’ll get an idea of how important this show has been in my life. So I’m here to apologise if I took it for granted. And for the love of Christ, television, please don’t cancel anything else without consulting me first. I’m not sure if my psyche can handle it.

Till next time, &c &c.


May 20 2010

summer bucket list

I sincerely never thought I’d use that as a post title. Like, ever. I’m sitting here looking at it and it just ain’t me.

All the same!

The beautiful and talented Andy Grabia, who can summarise Tolkien in evening dress or in a bathing costume (if you’d prefer), has tagged me to create a list of things I want to do this summer. Things, mind, that don’t have anything to do with what I’d do anyway, like killing zombies or reading about communities of credit, but things that involve much shouting of carpe diem and the like, things that make you appreciate what’s around you in a way that (hopefully) isn’t overbearing or smug. And I couldn’t ever be accused of being smug - except when my brother’s around - so. This I will try. These are not resolutions in the sense of ‘I shall brush my teeth for two full minutes,’ so I’m going to slap myself if that’s what it starts to devolve into.

The summer of 2010 C.E. shall involve the following:

  • spending at least the greater portion of every single sunny English day outside, even if it’s just out on the pub patio with my work;
  • at least one punting expotition through Cambridge, and preferably two or many more, as I’d like to do one upriver around the colleges and one downriver to Grantchester;
  • writing something every single day, and hopefully finishing my novel (sigh);
  • taking a chance on at least two plays (and as such saving my pennies to do so);
  • celebrating fair summer evenings in good company with a tipple or two of something;
  • getting off the rail of London-Cambridge-London-Cambridge at least once so I can get out into the country and see the sky;
  • getting out to New York again at least once;
  • running out of breath as often as possible for all the right reasons;
  • eating a lot of cold, fresh food;
  • swimming;
  • reading at least five novels or collections of short stories;
  • doing whatever it is I need to do to feel sanguine and confident about the upcoming academic year.

That’s it from me - for now. What about you? What would make a perfect summer for you this year?


Apr 21 2010

hairline fractures

Annie Dillard has this to say about getting stuck in the middle of a manuscript:

What you had planned will not do. If you pursue your present course, the book will explode or collapse, and you do not know about it yet, quite. … You notice only this: your worker - your one and only, your prized, coddled, and driven workers - is not going out on that job. Will not budge, not even for you, boss. Has been at it long enough to know when the air smells wrong; can sense a tremor through boot soles. … What do you do? Acknowledge, first, that you cannot do nothing. Lay out the structure you already have, x-ray it for a hairline fracture, find it, and think about it for a week or a year; solve the insoluble problem. Or subject the next part, the part at which the worker balks, to harsh tests. It harbors an unexamined and wrong premise. Something completely necessary is false or fatal. Once you find it, and if you can accept the finding, of course it will mean starting again. This is why many experienced writers urge young men and women to learn a useful trade.

I was heartened by the bit about ‘a week or a year’. I’m a slow writer. There are as many schools of thought on writing speed and process as there are writers; I was reading Stephen King’s memoir yesterday and he thinks that a modest beginner’s goal is 1,000 words a day. I know many people who agree with him. I think: you do what you do. You figure out what works. And what seems to work for me is proceeding very slowly.

In any case, I’ve now completed Annie Dillard’s exercise, and she’s not wrong. There’s the hairline fracture, right there, threatening to spread clear across the windshield. It was a question of something has to go. There was too much in the manuscript, and too little as well. I’m reminded of my mother’s adage: if you have a thousand dollars, do you give a thousand dollars to one charity or a dollar to a thousand charities? I have a hundred thousand words, and a dollar ain’t much. Writing should be like writing, not like juggling. (Although part of it is, of course, juggling.)

I’ve decided on the load-bearing pillar that has to go, and it hurts. A lot. Not only for the flexing of fingers and lifting of storylines and killing of scenes and starting again that will have to happen, but because that pillar was one of my darlings. I’m going to be brave. I’m going to kill it.

Till next time, &c &c.


Apr 14 2010

lashon hara

I’m not a literary agent. You know why? Because I wouldn’t know where to begin; because I stand in ceaseless awe of what they accomplish and what they endure; because in any number of situations, I wouldn’t know what an agent should do. Nevertheless, I’m posting today not as a writer, but as a fairly decent human being, about what agents should not do.

Two days ago an agent received a bad query. A bad, arrogant, douchey query. You know how I know? Because this agent broadcasted it all over the web - not just the content of the query, but the bad, arrogant, douchey, unprofessional response said agent received when the author was confronted with her form rejection. And not only that, but the author’s name.

It is an occupational hazard of following agents on Twitter to see a lot of bad query snippets posted as object lessons in what not to do when you’re querying. And I have a lot of respect for setting strict submission guidelines and refusing to consider queries that don’t abide by them. I appreciate that agents try to teach writers lessons by telling them what not to do - and, more importantly, what to do to query well. But this particular case was not a lesson: it taught nothing. It was bullying and schoolyard antics at their viral worst.

Lashon hara is the Jewish prohibition against ‘talebearing’ or gossip. It is specifically targeted against the use of ‘true speech for wrongful purpose’. It’s right up there with murder and incest as an unforgivable sin against another human being. Lashon hara is aptly demonstrated by a 19th-century homily which gained worldwide fame in the 2008 film Doubt. The story goes like this: a man feels badly for having spread gossip, and consults his rabbi regarding how to make amends. The rabbi says, ‘Go to the roof of that building with a pillow and tear it apart, and let the feathers fly away.’ The man does this, and returns to the rabbi: ‘What do I do now?’ The rabbi says, ‘Now, go gather up all those feathers.’ It is as possible to rein back malicious gossip as it is to find every feather that was once in that pillow. It is, in a word, irreversible.

There is a specific exemption to the prohibition against lashon hara: the promulgation of true speech for a necessary purpose. As a warning, as a lesson. Airing out this query may have come within the outer boundaries of this exemption if it hadn’t devolved into a poetry contest mocking the author’s website, writing, and putative choice of underpants. People who query arrogantly are not, as a rule, arrogant people: they are usually desperately insecure people who shouldn’t be put in the stocks and subjected to public ridicule for an arrogant query. It is not only mean and bullying to no purpose whatsoever: it is dangerous. And at the very least, it is colossally unprofessional.

Who has gained from this? No one. To what purpose was it put? Yes, the query was bad, but what followed was like going after a squirrel with an AK-47. No one has gained, and this author has irretrievably lost, and for what? For one unsound move. You might say he was asking for it. The worst he was asking for was a sobering smackdown over email if the agent felt so strongly about his rudeness, not a kangaroo court.

Form rejections have one purpose: to save the agent’s very valuable time. When you get a form rejection, that’s it: no further correspondence required. This author thought he knew better, and responded. Bad move. But if there’s anything I’ve learned from my own dealings with agents - and with human beings, for that matter - it’s that usually, the best way to make a bad thing go away is to ignore it. This agent didn’t do that; this agent started a public circus. She certainly didn’t save herself any time.

Writers are constantly opining about that one writer who gives all writers a bad name. I saw a lot of that yesterday on Twitter and in the comments on the agent’s website: ‘Don’t judge all writers by that guy!’ ‘Don’t judge all Canadians by that guy!’ What about agents who give agents a bad name? To what standard are they meant to be held? How can an agent justify spending an entire business day hosting a poetry contest about this guy’s skivvies?

Readers, there are people who have resorted to self-harm and suicide because of a lot less than this guy’s been put through. Stable people; balanced people. And are writers, as a population, stable and balanced? Well, I’ll let you answer that.

That’s it for today. Back to high good humour soon.

Till next time, if God wills it, &c &c.


Apr 13 2010

teaser tuesday: marriage summit

Today’s teaser takes us back in time, when Alice - the daughter of a wealthy, ambitious merchant - has first been told that she’s to be married. What do you do with news like this? You talk to your best friend, of course.

&&&&&

‘Well, you knew it would happen.’

Edmund is wearing the same wrinkled clothes he wore the day before, and Alice is lying across his chest, smelling them. He wraps and unwraps his finger in a strand of her hair. This is, she thinks, almost what it might feel like to be in love. Almost. ‘Not now,’ she says. ‘Not so soon.’

He laughs a laugh that makes his chest rise and fall beneath Alice’s cheek only once; there is no smile in it, no mirth. ‘They will make a lady of you. You’ll have thirteen babies, all of a row, just like your mother.’

She shudders. ‘Don’t.’

‘Who will it be?’

Well, the discussion hadn’t gotten that far. When she had finished shouting and her mother and father had finished shouting back, Alice knew only that she had lost.

He pulls more of her hair across his chest, his fingers clawed into a comb. ‘Choose the richest one,’ he says, ‘that’s most often at the head of an army. There are enough armies nowadays. Better a widow than a wife,’ he says. ‘You’ll have done your duty, and they’ll leave you alone.’

The clouds are heavy and fat enough to sit like a foam across the horizon, far from the meadow. Grey clouds like wet stone sit in among those of deeper and lighter blue, the sky itself blue and bluer at its height. A Titian oilwork. It looks unnatural, contrived. The rain may well stay away today. Alice watches until her eyes begin to cross, the greys and blues running over one another.

‘I say, can you choose? From amongst your suitors?’

‘I don’t know.’

‘You would do well to choose one who’s away all the time. That shouldn’t be difficult, you know. The Scots Queen is over the border now and will start a war as soon as she’s got two shoes to put on her feet.’ He pauses. ‘Or you could find someone who wants to fight for the Dutch Protestants.’

‘Don’t be morbid.’

‘Or a diplomat. An ambassador. A translator.’

She finds a spare bit of his belly to pinch.

‘I mean it,’ he says, squirming. ‘They’ll find you a rich man, will they, your parents?’ And then a pause: ‘No. Titled – that’s what they want. They’ll find you a titled man, and you can have thirteen titled babies.’

‘Edmund, hush.’ She closes one eye, and the clouds come back into focus. ‘Did you really want to marry me?’

She waits for him to stiffen beneath her, but he goes on pulling his fingers through her hair. ‘Honest now?’

‘Yes, of course. Tell me.’

‘Not really.’

‘I didn’t think so.’

‘It’s nothing against you,’ he says. ‘I’m waiting for a Rosalind.’

‘Rosalind? It’s my name you object to?’

‘No, simple creature.’ He pinches her back. ‘Rosalind. That’s what I’ve called her. I’ll know her when I see her. I’m waiting for her.’

‘Oh.’ The sky is an inverted cup, and the clouds are bubbling up. ‘Henry the Second had a mistress called Rosamund. He loved her best, so my tutor tells me. He built Woodstock for her. Fair Rosamund.’

‘I know that,’ Edmund says, peevishly.

‘I wonder if men always love mistresses best.’ She sits up. Edmund laughs at her hair; putting both hands to it, she feels how lopsided he’s made it. ‘Maybe you need to marry, Edmund,’ she says. ‘Maybe it’s only after you have a wife that you’ll find your Rosalind.’

‘I’d have married you for your money,’ he says, taking her hand.

‘And I’d have left you free to find your love.’

‘And I’d have left you free to write your plays,’ he says. ‘A perfect arrangement! But listen. Do you know what wives do? Wives of rich, titled men in great households?’

Alice looks back at the house. What does Mother do?

Edmund leans closer to hiss in her ear. ‘They manage accounts. Marry any titled twat you please, and his accounts will be yours.’ She turns and looks at him. ‘And while he thinks you’re bent over his chequers, you can write.’

‘And siphon you money, I suppose.’ She falls against the trunk of the oak, exhaling loudly. He does the same, takes her hand again. ‘You could have a pension,’ she says, ‘and write your English. A great commission.’

‘You have a great commission yourself. I’m a genius, and you’re a woman. It’s funny. Genius and fertility are in God’s hands, not ours. Thirteen babies. We’ll see if you can do it.’

She yanks her hand out of his and elbows him in the ribs. The clouds are halfway up the sky now; time to go in. ‘Alice Spencer, patroness,’ she says.

‘Not Alice Spencer,’ Edmund says. ‘Alice New-Name. Lady New-Name. Not Spencer. Now come here: let me look at you properly before I’m taken away.’


Apr 7 2010

writers these days

Today the amazingly organized and talented Amy Bai examined the mystery of struggling to complete her third novel when writing the first two was so easy (well, I say ‘easy’). It turns out that social networking tips the scales. Maintaining a website and an active presence on writers’ forums and Twitter - well, it’s a time suck. And a good, necessary one, because we need to be out there, months and possibly years (decades?) before our novels are published.

Where I grew up, the books were dusty, leatherette-bound, the pages wavy with damp. We read by lamplight. (One night when I was eight the power went out and my dad lit a candelabra and yes, readers, that’s when I heard ‘The Tell-Tale Heart’ for the first time. My dad’s a pretty amazing reader, and I didn’t sleep for about a week.) It was a different world; it was the world that made me want to be a writer.

For me it isn’t just about making time to write; it’s about struggling with being a writer at all when the writing universe I see now is giving me whiplash. I see authors killing themselves to promote their books, and yes, if it were me I’d do it - I’ll do it when the time comes, and with a big fat smile on my face 24/7 - but what I see makes me feel a little old-school. I’m a misanthrope. I like sitting in corners.

I see blog entries with images in them - that terrifies me. Embedded video? Wouldn’t know where to start. This morning I tried to sync my Twitter and Facebook accounts and got stymied at the password stage.

Again, I’m not Cnut trying to hold back the waves. This is the world we live in, and a world I’ve elected to embrace. And it could be that the old-school world I yearn for isn’t one that ever really existed - Anthony Trollope wasn’t just a writer, after all; he was a postal surveyor, too. We’ve all got to make ends meet. But Jesus Christ: Annie Dillard actually writes about writing in a cabin. Drinking tin mug after tin mug of stale coffee. And it makes me want to yell where did all this noise come from? It’s OK to yell sometimes, right?

I remember going to a conference in Oxford last year. The organisers set me up with a room in New College for two nights, and I remember thinking, ‘A dorm room; oh yay.’ But what they gave me was this: a room with a bed, an amazing duvet and pillow, a desk with a kettle and coffee and tea, a bathroom of my own, and - get this - a table with two chairs for playing chess. I could see the beautiful quad from my bay window - the building was centuries old - and I thought aaaaahhhhh and collapsed back on the bed with my laptop.

Wait. Wireless. Forgot to ask the porter about wireless.

Reader, there was no wireless.

For a minute my ribcage closed - a whole weekend without the web? - but then something else happened. I relaxed. No TV; no web. I looked around the gorgeous room. There was nothing for it; nothing to be done. I felt my shoulders descend from my ears. I heard a voice in my head: Jeremy Irons reading Brideshead Revisited, softly saying, It was as if someone had turned off the wireless. Of course he wasn’t talking about wireless-wireless; he was talking about the radio. But the song remains the same: someone had turned off the noise in my head. I sat back for five entire minutes and did absolutely nothing. I went and looked out the window. Then I went back to my laptop.

I wrote. And wrote. And wrote.

The only downside to that weekend is that I had to go to the bloody conference. At least once a week now I lie back a moment and daydream about New College, as though the magic is there and not anywhere I choose to pull a few plugs. But there was something about that place: it wasn’t mine. It wasn’t full of my stuff. It wasn’t adjacent to a hallway adjacent to a kitchen where my dishes needed washing, my laundry doing. It was an empty room.

How many empty rooms are left in a writer’s world?

Stephen King was right: forget about your dream study; forget about your dream view. They’ll only distract you. Think about an empty room. And when I think about the chaos now involved in making a name for myself and eventually marketing a book, I have to remember that I choose to leave my empty room to go to that place: I sign in to Twitter; I write in this space. I can retreat to my empty room at any time. Because what’s the business of being a writer without actually writing?

A pain in the ass, that’s what it is. Fun, yes. Mutually supportive, yes. But a distraction, a sideshow.

Till next time, &c &c.


Apr 1 2010

teaser thursday: isabel tells a story

This is my first teaser in a full gestation period, which is fitting, because our unhappy heroine in A Temperate Woman (the sprawling tale of Alice, a patroness of Edmund Spenser, chock full of sex, death, and jailtime - I won’t give away the bit about the sizzling gypsies) is about sixteen months pregnant and not enjoying it. Isabel, her midwife, is doing her best to keep her comfortable, but nothing works until Isabel - the Queen’s favourite with an intriguing and obscured past - tells us something of herself.

NB: I know this teaser is a mite too long. But teasers - like tweets - teach you something about culling: how long will you hold your reader’s attention? How long before the music starts and the hook comes out to drag you off the stage? I went over this piece four times with a hatchet to make it a mite too long instead of a volume of Remembrance of Things Past, which is what it was half an hour ago. This is what I tell people who say that Twitter is a waste of time: not to writers. Get that message out, stat! Tension in every tweet. But again, sorry: this is a mite long. And so, as an exercise for me: if you don’t read to the end (although it’s worth it), tell me when you stopped. This might be the most important writing lesson of all.

&&&&&

I pass my days writing, or else in chapel, smelling the incense more deeply, feeling the liturgies enter me. I am open to prayer in a way that I was not before.

‘It is because you need prayer, now,’ Isabel says one day late in spring. She feels my massive belly. ‘You’re carrying high,’ she tells me. ‘A boy?’

‘I’m carrying high, I’m carrying low, I’m carrying everywhere,’ I say.

It is a beautiful day, the sun filling my bedchamber, bright but not too bright. The deep green curtains are half open, the orchard beyond the window bursting into the beginnings of apples and pears and the flowers that will fill the palace during the summer. I heave myself from position to position. I thought that lying back would be comfortable, but there is no comfort in this enormous body. I am close to tears, I can feel it, for something so small as the lack of a pillow behind my back. For knowing that a pillow would do no good. ‘It is everywhere,’ I say again. ‘It might be ten boys.’ I pause. ‘What do you know?’

She tries a pillow behind my back, shifting my girth with very little cooperation from me. ‘I know,’ she grunts, ‘what it is to need prayer.’

I was right. The pillow doesn’t help. ‘Burgundy,’ I say. The sideboard, from my bed, looks a pilgrimage away. I make a token effort to move, and fall back again. ‘I want some wine.’

I didn’t mean for it to come out like that. But remember that I am biting back tears. I am a great ball; I am the size of the sun, as graceful as a drunken man. A fat, drunken man. ‘When would you ever need prayer, anyway,’ I say.

‘I have needed prayer, madam,’ Isabel says.

The wine tastes all wrong. ‘You speak in such riddles,’ I say.

‘Riddles?’ Isabel asks, and her mildness makes me more angry, more desperate.

‘Riddles, yes! “I have needed prayer”,’ I sneer. ‘What does that mean? You are the Queen’s very favorite, you’ve known her since she was a child. When have you “needed prayer”? Why have you needed prayer?’

Isabel looks at me, and there is something wide open and dead in her grey eyes. ‘Don’t excite yourself,’ she says, tonelessly, and takes the wine glass from my hand.

Here I try to summon the hauteur of a great lady: ‘It is not for you to tell me what to do,’ I say. ‘I ask a question, and you will answer it.’

‘It is for me to tell you what to do,’ she says, and the dead look in her eyes persists. ‘My very commission is to tell you what to do. For your own safety, madam.’

‘You are hiding something,’ I say, with some satisfaction, falling against my inadequate pillows.

Isabel stands, using both arms of her chair to do so. I have never seen her look old before. ’I have learned discretion,’ she says, still toneless. ‘You might do the same, madam.’

And this is the greatest injustice of all, being accused of indiscretion when I carry such a horrid, corrosive secret. ‘You don’t know,’ I say, my voice very suddenly as barren of inflection as her own. ‘You don’t know.’

She ignores this. ‘I have asked you before not to ask me of myself,’ she says. And now she does something I have never seen her do before. She turns on her heel and almost loses her balance in doing it, and makes for the sideboard to pour wine for herself. There is a voice in the back of my head thinking My wine – how dare she – but it is a distant one. ‘Isabel?’

She downs the wine in two draughts and turns to stare at me - no, not me: my belly. ‘When will it be born?’ she asks. ‘It could be any day.’ She looks up. ‘Please God it be any day, any day now.’

‘Isabel, what can you mean?’

‘This court is a place for secrets,’ Isabel says, ‘no matter who sits at its head.’ And now she looks out the window, towards the orchard. ‘Greenwich,’ she whispers.

‘Greenwich?’

‘You want to know, madam? You want to know about me?’

I try to sit up and cannot. ‘Isabel –’

‘Yes, I have a secret!’ Isabel shouts. ‘Yes, I have a secret! Everyone has a secret! It is a part of the court garment, isn’t it? The ruff; the pomander; the garter; the secret. Yes, I have a secret.’

She moves closer to the window. ‘I used to sit in that orchard, after rainfall,’ she says. ‘I used to sit – right - there.’ And then she turns around. ‘You have a secret, madam,’ she says, her round grey eyes upon me. ‘I know nothing of what it is, only that you have one, or more than one, because you cannot be here without secrets. They make everyone behave, you see. They make everything work. I used to sit in that orchard,’ she says. I expect a pause, but then: ‘You might say that gossip annihilates secrets, but you’d be wrong about that.’ She stops a moment. ‘Of course you know that, because you’ve got something of your own, sweeting, something you’re hiding?’

A short laugh.

‘I remember,’ she says, softer now, ‘one day, when the Queen’s mother, Queen Anne, gave me a new gown. This was when I was in her service, years and years and years ago, and I had nothing, you understand, nothing but gowns that were too short and gowns that were too tight, and one gown – a blue satin one, with seed pearls – that my father spent his very last farthing on. And instead of dismissing me, instead of making fun, Queen Anne made me a gift of this gown.’

Her hands are gathered together in front of her.

‘She knew all my measurements,’ she whispers. ‘She got them all – from somewhere. She hired a tailor to make me this gown, and it was green brocade and cloth of silver and it made me feel like someone, do you understand? Someone who may well serve a great queen. She was a great queen. No one will tell you that, but she was.’ She gathers her breath. ‘When she’d made sure that it fit properly – and it did, it felt like my own skin – when she’d made sure, she wanted one thing from me. One thing, and that was to tell no one that she’d done it. It would cause an uproar, yes, among the other ladies?’ She says it just like this, like a question. ‘You’re no maid of honor, you’re not jostling for position or looking for a husband. You don’t know. But to be among them, for them to know that the Queen had made this gift to Isabel Ascham from nowhere - well. It would cause trouble, the Queen said. So she asked me, would I please be quiet about it. And of course I was.’

‘Of course you were,’ I murmur.

‘But here’s what I did do,’ she says, over my own feeble words. ‘Did I save the gown for a special day? No. Did I even wait, madam, did I even wait for the end of Lent? Because there was Lent, then, forty days of fish and penitence. But no, I did not. I couldn’t wait to wear the gown. I wore it to clean out the Queen’s wardrobe. And there it was: that gave me away. But did it give me away? No, no, it led to something far worse, because the other maids – they thought the King had given me the gown. That the King wanted me for his mistress! When I denied that, they believed it, but they were sure that some man had given it me. They knew I couldn’t afford it. And so I had to tell them, to stop them thinking this other thing. And still I’m not sure they believed me. And this,’ she says, her voice slowing now, ‘is why gossip keeps secrets. Because gossip gets it wrong.’

‘Is that your secret, Isabel?’

‘Madam, that is not what a secret is,’ Isabel says. ‘A secret is something you carry inside you like a canker. It is heavy and horrid and all your own, and you want desperately to be lightened of it, but there is only one thing worse than carrying a secret, madam, and that is being lightened of it.’

A silence. She looks around her, patting her sides. ’See here,’ she says, and she is different now; she is something of the Isabel I remember from only moments before. She busies herself with my coverlet, her ordinarily deft fingers fumbling. Watching her, I understand: there is natural grace and there is learned grace, and she must have spent a lifetime practicing grace. One upset – one memory – and it is unlearned. ‘You wanted the stories of King Henry’s court, did you not? You wanted to hear stories. Well, I have told you a story. I knew kindness from Queen Anne, and I have known kindness from – from her glorious, glorious daughter. Nothing but kindness.’

If I were reading the words Isabel speaks to me now, on paper, I am sure that I would see phrases, entire blocks of words scratched out, illegible. ‘I’m sorry, Isabel,’ I say. ‘I was bloody before, just bloody, and there’s no reason for it. I just feel so fat.’

She feels my forehead. Her hands are hot. ‘Don’t think on it, madam. I have known my share of changeable women.’ She smiles. ‘And you have every excuse! Not like me!’ We look, together, at my belly. ‘Please God it be soon,’ she murmurs. ‘Please God it be soon and I can be home again.’


Mar 9 2010

digital cleanse

Yes, I’m aware that I’ve been tagged by the beautiful and talented Amy Bai to come up with a bunch of horrid horrid lies about myself, and that’s coming soon.

But today: introspection. I’ve got my Leo Kottke on; I’ve got my coffee on; I’ve got these awesome slippers. It’s go time.

I return often to this weird binary that I’ve found myself in since October 2008: that I’m doing two things, for no money, that mean a lot to me, viz. my research and my writing. If you’ll recall, I once suggested knitting as an antidote to all that good fortune. But I haven’t done any knitting since Christmas, and I broke the one rule I had for it: I did it for something other than fun. This is what happens when it’s Christmas and you don’t have stock options: you start knitting furiously, anything you can knit, and give what comes of it to the people you love. For me, it was coasters and potholders (with STRIPES), because I can only do squares and rectangles. Around 20 December my knitting became a bit like my typing speed: I could do three or four coasters in a night. My mother-in-law and I raced each other. And yeah, that was fun. But I remember a moment when I thought this: ‘Tonight I have to get that knitting done.’ That’s when I knew I’d broken the knitting law, and that’s when I dropped knitting.

I really hope I pick it up again. After all, knitting is awesome.

This is when I realised that I’m starting to treat these things I love - my research and my writing - like items on a to-do list. When I realised they were so overwhelming that I had to break them down into bite-sized chunks to make them feasible and achievable. And listen, that’s not cool. I’ve spent enough of my life in offices saying ‘This Isn’t What I Do’. Now I’m living in England - something I’ve wanted more or less my whole life - and I’m doing doctoral studies and writing a novel (two things I’ve wanted arguably longer than that). This is my entire remit. Not only is it what I want to do; it’s what other people want me to do, too. My family helps me; my friends take flattering interest. I am pretty much the luckiest girl in the world.

So whither novel?

When things get too overwhelming, I go under. Not in a bad way - I made it sound dire just there - but I put myself in my own form of sensory deprivation (that sounds dire too). I put my headphones on; I watch TV. I listen to audiobooks. I buzz around the flat like this - balancing my laptop in the crook of my elbow and watching Jack McCoy put the System On Trial, or listening to Alex Jennings reading Nicholas Nickleby - and do the laundry, scrub the kitchen, rearrange the medicine cabinet. I forget I have a phone; I forget I have friends; I forget I have remits, and most especially, I especially forget I have remits that I love. Because that’s the worst of all: if you love it and you’re avoiding it, what in fuck does that mean? I don’t want to know, that’s what.

I’ve got this arsenal of sensory deprivation. I have TV and audiobooks and video games. Mike tells me I keep the flat a little too clean; he comes home and doesn’t know where any of his clothes are. And when the flat is too clean, I know I’m not getting enough work done. I used to think that it was Twitter and Facebook that were eating up my whole life; now I check Facebook about once a month. It’s the TV and the audiobooks and the video games. It’s not procrastination; I’m not really falling behind. But it frightens me that I’m doing what’s expected of me and nothing near like what I know I’m capable of. That I’m sloughing this off - this stuff that I always opined I would give my lifeblood to if I just had the time.

I almost didn’t post this because I thought: hey, it’s lunchtime; time for leftover bolognese and the Season 18 premiere of Law & Order. What a lunch! And then - aha - I see that that’s the problem. I shouldn’t be watching bloody TV with my downtime. I should be reading books. I don’t read enough books. I should be going for walks; I don’t see enough of the world. I should be looking out the window; I should be lying on the floor; I should be sensing things. I should be going back to those places - mental and physical - that made me love reading and writing in the first place. I should be eavesdropping on people down the pub. I should be visiting cemeteries and connecting with the amazing eighteenth-century midwives I admire so much.

Even listening to Dickens is no excuse. It’s all well and good - I recommend it to anyone - but Dickens isn’t what’s selling right now. Dickens tells me about two hundred years ago; I need to either be learning about three hundred years ago, four hundred years ago, or now.

So now I’m surrounded by a mess, a real mess - I can make those really quickly. There’s a sinkful of dishes in the kitchen, a load of linens sitting in the hall, a myriad of Diet Coke cans and books and papers and ointments sitting on my desk. I have to keep the mess. I’m going to spend my lunch hour with my headphones off. I’m going to hear the jackhammer out the window and let the wind in and write. For an hour I’m going to give the world my full attention, just to see what it feels like.

Till next time, &c &c.


Feb 18 2010

on education and elitism

In between bouts of banging my head against the wall, I do a lot of thinking about education, what it means, and how it defines people. Something of myself, she says pretentiously: I’m in the creamy middle of a PhD at Cambridge. I do history. This will be my third degree (heh).

One way and another, I recently came across this article, entitled ‘The Disadvantages of an Elite Education’. For these purposes, we need only this snippet:

It didn’t dawn on me that there might be a few holes in my education until I was about 35. I’d just bought a house, the pipes needed fixing, and the plumber was standing in my kitchen. There he was, a short, beefy guy with a goatee and a Red Sox cap and a thick Boston accent, and I suddenly learned that I didn’t have the slightest idea what to say to someone like him. So alien was his experience to me, so unguessable his values, so mysterious his very language, that I couldn’t succeed in engaging him in a few minutes of small talk before he got down to work.

So says Mr (pardon me: Doctor) Ivy League.

If all goes well, I’m going to graduate with a doctorate from the best history faculty in the world in eighteen-odd months. I’m going to be Dr Sarah (Cantab). And my question is this: where in fuck does this guy get off? Or, put another way, I really don’t think the problem is with his education. Not his Ivy League education, anyway.

This sort of thinking seems to be endemic among people with postgraduate educations. They think they’re different. OK, maybe they are: they’re nerds. But hold on; someone’s about to start flailing hands and hollering that I’m missing the point. He’s talking about an elite education. Rich schools for rich kids. But again, here I am at a rich school for rich kids (I personally don’t know any rich kids, and I’m certainly not rich myself, but there you are), and all I can think is what the hell?

For reasons passing understanding, there is a perceived value difference between the hyper-educated and good, sensible people. But this guy makes it sound like apartheid: that there is such a gulf between those within the ivory tower and those without that we can’t possibly understand each other. He makes himself out to be the Earl of Bedford trying to milk a cow.

Again, I’m about to be told that I’m misinterpreting: maybe this is a specifically American thing, as so many things are?

The real question is: does education change you, or does it just fail to correct what was wrong with you in the first place? It’s no joke that most of the professors I know are profoundly socially maladjusted people, and it has fuck-all to do with the gap between their educations and anyone they might condescend to talk to. They go into what is largely a profoundly solitary profession because that’s what they do best.

Don’t get me wrong: I believe in education. Look at me! I’m doing it! I’m being educated! I don’t know how to stop! But yesterday, for example, when two guys came to see if my roof needed replacing, it never occurred to me that because of My Higher Education, I might not be able to shoot the shit about the weather. And it troubles me that there is any notion - from within higher education or outside it - that this should be difficult because of what I’ve learned and the culture in which I’ve learned it. All I can imagine is that PhDs from posh unis who feel uncomfortable chatting with the many-headed probably felt that way before they got to the posh uni.

I have a friend who gave up what would surely have been a remarkable academic career in English Lit - she was almost finished her PhD - to be a housewife and a mom. Does this mean she threw her education away, do you think? I have another friend who holds an MA in Political Science. She spent three years eyeballs-deep in HIV/AIDS research, and now she’s managing a gift shop. My uncle was shortlisted for a Rhodes Scholarship; he tossed that in to be a carpenter. Did they throw away education? Set fire to all that money?

Now, the author of this article is telling you precisely this: that there is no moral difference between a Yale-educated politician or professor and a carpenter. Or a housewife. If you read the whole article, you’ll see it’s an indictment of the system: the kids just get spoiled. They have a sense of entitlement forced upon them, a sense that they’re better than everyone else. And it seems they just can’t help absorbing that message.

(Because, you know, they got into the Ivy League, which naturally means they’re idiots.)

Good for him for acknowledging what a false premise that is (although of course, as he points out, it isn’t: the Ivy Leaguers do get better treatment than the rest of the world). But he paints the system of elite education as an abusive parent, blaming the institutions and not the individuals.

Maybe it’s because I’m Canadian. Maybe it’s because I’m Albertan. Maybe it’s because most of my closest friends - and the people I respect the most - are people who opted against higher (or at least postgraduate) education. But I just don’t get it. I’m at the University of Cambridge. At the end of this degree - should that ever come - I will arguably be a leading authority on Anglo-Jewish midwifery. So when does my sense of entitlement kick in? When do I get to start ordering off-menu? When do I get the fucking affidavit telling me I’m better than everyone else?

Don’t think the rhetoric at Cambridge isn’t piled just as sky-high as at a place like Yale or Columbia. We’re centuries older, after all. We lift our noses at you. I just don’t happen to imbibe it, because I’m not a total tool. I’m older, and I’m a foreigner, but that matters less than you think.

What baffles me is how many postgrad-educated people I know - and know of - who spend hours and days of their lives that they’ll never get back navel-gazing about this shit, about how they should treat the goddamn plebs. How they should fashion their conversation. Here is a truth that I’ve hit on any number of times over the course of my research: if the way I’m learning is how experts become expert, I’m never going to believe anything I read ever again. Not because I doubt the integrity of my scholarship, but because I haven’t found that low door in the wall yet: I’m still faking it, because I haven’t made it yet.

My MA supervisor promised me that during my thesis defence, there would come a moment when I knew it was over, knew that I’d passed. He was wrong. That moment never came. Not only do I not believe I’m morally superior to the average bear, I don’t necessarily think I’m smarter, either. I think this much: that I know a lot about one relatively small thing because that is where my fascination and my imagination took me. It doesn’t make me better than you. Am I the exception? Or have I joined a league of antisocial, entitled assholes who blindly believe everything they’re told?

(Oh my, this has turned into a rant.)

I want to make it clear that I don’t hold anything against the author of this article; it hit a nerve, but there’s wisdom to it. I’m just sick of the gilded-cage arguments; I’m sick of educated people publicly congratulating themselves because they managed to carry on a three-minute conversation with a locksmith or helped to hoist a two-by-four. The assumption is that there is somehow a skill in descending to the locksmith’s level; this is what I can’t stand. Any academic who’s seen eyes glaze over when telling people what they ‘do’ should be flattered that the locksmith let the conversation carry on even that long.

I suppose this is a class thing. Where I come from, the world is run by oil barons with ninth-grade educations. Maybe that’s the one gift that Fort McMurray, Alberta, the last place God made, has bestowed on me. The people who are better than us aren’t the ones with the elite educations; they’re the ones who saw a well, tapped it, and went for a beer.

Till next time, &c &c.