Sunday, February 9, 2014

The Junk Drawer of My Mind


Love Among the Ruins

Il y a dans le coeur humain une génération perpétuelle de passions, en sorte que la ruine de l'une est presque toujours l'établissement d'une autre.
•                In the human heart there is a perpetual generation of passions, such that the ruin of one is almost always the foundation of another.
Maxim 10.
~François de La Rochefoucauld
Source: Wikiquote

We humans work for, obtain, use, repurpose, and, ultimately, junk things. When we don’t know whether or not to junk it, many of us create a junk drawer. Or junk closet. Or junk…garage. But for today, I’m thinking of the handy drawer for the odds and ends, the bits and bobs, we find useful but not often used. Like twine. A garlic press. AAA batteries. Felt dots to place under hard objects you set on the table. You know what I mean? If you have a junk drawer—and Miss O’s guess is that you do—I’ll bet you can find some of those dots. (I know. I don't know where mine came from either.)

I have a junk drawer in my kitchen. The drawer was already a junk drawer when I moved into this apartment as a tenant, over ten years ago, before I bought the place. Some drawers are like that, being what they are before you even know yourself that it’s so. Curiously, my oft-used sandwich baggies and bartender’s corkscrew reside there, which just goes to show that junk drawers are not full of not-useful thingies, just thingies for which you don't really have a thingy place.



I have two junk drawers in my bedroom. One is filled primarily with packets of the last photos shot on my Pentax K1000 SE (I also have two undeveloped rolls from years back), old cell phones, a couple of framed photos I put out sometimes, and later exchange with others. What are those moth balls doing there? The second drawer has mostly linens that belonged to my maternal grandmother—vintage table cloths, a couple of scarves, some tatting—as well as compilation videotapes a former student's dad was kind enough to make for me showing my work as a high school theater director over the years (part of grad school applications that led nowhere, thank god, because I live in New York now).




Under these linens, there’s also a jewelry box from my childhood. I don’t know exactly why I keep it, except for nostalgia, and the fact that that particular Christmas, several friends received just such a trinket—faux glamour in a lead lattice box, “gold” painted and lined in red “velvet,” and what girl wouldn’t go nuts for it? The left front leg (see photo) broke off when I dropped it once; never telling anyone, I’d just make sure it rested right, and it was fine as long as I didn’t shut a drawer or bang the dresser on which it sat. It wasn’t until I moved out on my own and rediscovered it in a box, that I bothered to glue it and mask the scar with a little gold-colored paint. So easy. Why hadn’t I mentioned it to anyone? Why hadn’t I tried to mend it? Because it drove me mad to be ever fixing it, day after day.

 

This winter has found me reading the blog Brain Pickings (including a really cool letter of advice by Hunter S.Thompson, of all people, in one of the posts) and in an exchange of emails with my friend Anna Citrino about writing and why we write. I’m in a very strange emotional/creative place, in that I’m not particularly driven to finish a play, or even write this blog, or, what is most startling, to save the world. Because I don’t really have a driving passion right now—in that losing the desire to write has not been replaced with something else, as per Maxim 10, at this blog's opening—I’ve been thinking about infrastructure, doing things to repair broken things in my life. And for some reason I got to thinking about junk drawers, what they are for, why we have them. Why not “a place for everything and everything in its place”? Is a junk drawer a “place” for anything?

In addition, I’m sorting through the junk in my head, the junk drawer of my life, as it were; I guess maybe I just want to see what’s in there. I suspect I’ll just leave it the way I find it, as we do with that junk drawer of ours in the kitchen.

“I love how I'm looking for something I know is in a junk drawer... like superglue or somesuch thing. I KNOW I put it there a year ago, thinking this will be the first place I look when I need it. But it's not there.”
~George Lightcap, friend and fellow user of junk drawers

Junk Item 1: On being ill—the fluctuations in weather—congestion—sadness. Trying to explain depression to my sweet boyfriend, who said, “But you are so lucky! Think about all the great things in your life!” To this I said, as kindly as I could: “When you have an awful cold, just the worst—like the one you just got over, you know? Does it help you feel better when someone remarks, ‘But you have four beautiful children’?” Mental illness needs to be called “illness,” and there an end. Meanwhile, where to put it? And where is that bit of sanity I KNOW I stashed in my mind’s junk drawer this time last year just for this occasion? Fuck.

Junk Item 2: The need for altered states—a junk drawer of the psyche, where we can throw all the random items: A memory, say, in exchange for the toothpicks; or trading extra packets of matches for the scraps of paper and post-its with ideas written on them that didn’t have time to get lodged in the mind. Some people snort coke for this.

Junk Item 3: It’s tedious to clean out all our junk. I have met actual, functioning humans with a sense of humor and everything who have managed to live all their lives without a junk drawer, in body, home, or, it seems, mind. I’m even friends with one such person. (She also folds all of her underwear and organizes her socks by size and color; her linen cupboards are works of art; AND she can write, breed and ride horses, do scientific experiments, raise dogs and kids, and draw. And fuck her, by the way. I say that with love.) I’m also friends with more than one person for whom the equal and opposite is true: Every single drawer, surface, and even room is a junk collection point. Yet don’t people have to toss out excess sometime? Sort the junk? At least open the drawer once in a while and see what the fuck you’ve been tossing in there all this time? And what is it that triggers that crisis moment?

Junk Item 4: My Great Uncle Phil and Great Auntie Clare would take off the oxygen straps just long enough to smoke one more Lucky Strike. I keep remembering it lately—I don’t know why. Maybe because my boyfriend smokes. It’s more junk in my mind drawer, because I never know when I’ll need it.

“The last one.”
~stage director Maureen’s announcement at the first rehearsal of almost any show, back when you could smoke in public buildings, stubbing out what I remember as a Carlton; friend Richard always carried a pack of her brand, which he would proffer at the second rehearsal when she inevitably started to lose her temper.

Junk Item 5: I’ve had a wretched cold all week, to say nothing of the 12-day menstrual period, still in progress, until the next wave of hot flushes kicks in. All of it’s junking me up.

Junk Item 6: Snow, snow, snow…global warming, global warming, global warming. Walking back this morning from my boyfriend’s place, I see the piles of dirty snow and detritus from spilled garbage collections, uncovered in some of the melting (so much more melting to go). What are we ever going to do with all this garbage?

Junk Item 7: Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death from an overdose of heroin was a total shocker last weekend. Junked by junk. If any actor seemed to have a real life devoid of drama, his would be a first guess. A father of three children with a loving partner; life in Greenwich Village; artistic director of the Public’s LAByrinth Theater Company; a major motion picture star in character parts that showed a breadth of range without peer—who could have guessed that his inner demons led him into a life of drug addiction? I was astounded by how ugly it became on Facebook, commenters blowing him off as “just another rich artist with a habit,” because it is so easy to judge another that way. What is less easy to understand is the crippling drug problem in this country, not only among artists like Hoffman. Thanks so much to David Denby for exploring the loss of Hoffman so sensitively in The New Yorker online, because if I read one more snark-post (“Who cares? Just another druggie actor…”) I was going to throw up.

Si nous n'avions point de défauts, nous ne prendrions pas tant de plaisir à en remarquer dans les autres.
•                If we had no faults, we should not take so much pleasure in noting those of others.
Maxim 31.
~François de La Rochefoucauld
Source: Wikiquote

The Master

La philosophie triomphe aisément des maux passés et des maux à venir. Mais les maux présents triomphent d'elle.
·      Philosophy triumphs easily over past and future evils; but present evils triumph over it.
Maxim 22.
~François de La Rochefoucauld
Source: Wikiquote

To think more deeply about the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman—because it has seriously been eating at my heart—I’m being helped along today, you may have noticed, by the French philosopher François de La Rochefoucauld, whom I studied in high school French classes, and probably in some college history course, too; de La Rochefoucauld’s Maxims came up yesterday as I was watching a YouTube video from The Rubin Museum here in New York, a series called “Happy Talk,” this one featuring a conversation between that late, truly great American actor and the English philosopher Simon Critchley, about whom I really didn’t know and now want to read more of.

This installment of the aforementioned Rubin Museum Lecture Series, “Happy Talk,” is wonderful to engage with in a way that, say, Inside the Actor’s Studio is painful, because every film title, say, mentioned by the host is not punctuated by fatuous applause. I say “fatuous” because there is something meaningless in the constant applause of interview programs now; it becomes self-serving to applaud at every mention of someone’s work, or when the guest says something “meaningful” or provocative—in the first case, it’s as if to remind the guest star, “I’m out here! Your fan!” is useful to the discussion: The films are done, the reviews are in, the awards won or lost—get over yourself, audience; in the second case, the applause would seem to signal an aberrant moment of lucidity and heft in a talk show conversation, as opposed to the usual notes of vapidity. How sad. Can’t we TALK anymore? (At one point in this interview, for example, Hoffman talks about a moment in a film he did that he can’t remember the name of, and an audience member calls out, “Almost Famous,” and Hoffman nods, repeats, “Almost Famous…” and goes on. Because he’s talking about something, and not the fact of being in a movie. And everyone listened.)
  
Here are some questions Miss O’ had that came out of this talk:

·      What is happiness? “You might be through with the past, but the past isn’t through with you,” from the movie Magnolia—PSH is the nurse to Jason Robards—and if you haven’t seen that movie, why don’t you? Because it’s stunning.
·      Do you have to make a choice between happiness and truth?
·      “Life is short,” vs. the film Magnolia’s line, “No, life is long,” and that’s what the past can make us feel like, says Hoffman. Why is that?
·      Greek playwright Sophocles: “No man happy until he is dead”: Happiness is not something in your life—it’s something attributed to your life. How does this work? Could do a whole blog on that alone.
·      Is it necessary to think of the past, to work on it?

In other words: Is it necessary to clean out a junk drawer, and more specifically, a junk drawer of the mind? Because it would seem to Miss O’ that while it can be good to reduce clutter that is moldering and sending out noxious fumes, for example, sometimes the refuse of the past needs to stay in the past. Out of the discussion of the Greeks, for instance, Hoffman says that most people probably live their life not concerned with their happiness but with the story they are creating. Hoffman admits that he just “can’t do that.” And it would seem to me that if you just can’t do that—if you really must keep moving deeper and deeper into the idea of “happiness” and where yours might be hiding, you might see why someone would turn to drugs.

Le soleil ni la mort ne se peuvent regarder fixement.
•                Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily.
Maxim 26.
~François de La Rochefoucauld
Source: Wikiquote

The talk about the film The Master is interesting—such an odd movie. My friend Quinn and I went to see it and found ourselves really provoked, lost, fascinated, unmoored. Great performances aside, we were so nauseated by the subject and the characters, we left, um, unsatisfied. But seriously, Hoffman and Phoenix are stunning. Simon Critchley hits on something when he says that people’s need for religion kicks in when we say to ourselves, “The world is hard, and we are twisted, and we need to be made perfect.” Hoffman points out, following on this, that the founders of religions are desperate to leave eternity on Earth, their own indelible mark, their name and their creation. Any religion will do when you are at that place.

And that gave me pause. Any religion will do when we are in a desperate place. And I ask myself, “What would happen if instead of religion we looked to art?”

The Moralist’s Eye: Hoffman and Critchley discuss the role of philosophy in all this: Montaigne, de La Rochefoucauld, Nietzsche. We moralize, we judge, we provoke, we wonder. It’s a mess, isn’t it, sorting through all this thought, in the search for clarity (to paraphrase the Indigo Girls, “Closer to Fine”)? So does the junk drawer—the one of the home or of the mind or of the spirit—need to be straightened out, tidied, de-cluttered? Are there places in us where it’s really okay just to toss it in and slam the drawer shut? Why do we like to explore attics? Dig for artifacts? Why do we watch the news or go to the movies, for that matter? Why add to our own clutter of experience?

“Why do we sit in the dark, watching actors as brilliant as you, playing such miserable creatures?” ~ Simon Critchley

Hoffman talks about the fact that his job as an actor, like Critchley’s job as a philosopher, is to “sit with this stuff, to not let yourself off the hook,” to think about these painful subjects and try to understand them. We read books, go to the movies, watch the news, talk to others, travel, dream, in order to LIVE FULLY, to know all we can know while alive on Earth, goddammit anyway, and the result is stuff we can use now, stuff we might want to use later, and stuff we have to throw the fuck out. For an actor, for a philosopher, for a writer—it’s a lot of JUNK we must hang onto in order to do our jobs. And when the maintaining of the junk becomes too much to take…what is the outlet? Because the “more” of life—partner, children, responsibilities—is hardly a respite.

Nous avons tous assez de force pour supporter les maux d'autrui.
•                We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others.
Maxim 19.
~François de La Rochefoucauld
Source: Wikiquote

I guess this is the price of having the impulse to create anything, to take a photograph or make a painting or write this blog. It’s possible to make things and not think about anything—will they be good? And who decides? And is making something good, making a good thing, important? In the film Synedoche New York, which I haven’t seen, Hoffman plays a director who wants to make something exactly like life, and keeps rehearsing something that can never be complete. His character can never say, “That’s okay, that’s good enough.” How many of us feel that way—that if we can do this one thing perfectly, we will have achieved perfection, and thus have justified our own existence in this life? I suspect a good many. And when perfection in act and deed is not looking likely, one might turn to religion, which forgives your imperfections and gives you leave to give up the quest: All is forgiven because this guy died for you. And when you can’t buy into religion, there’s always the dealer on the corner.

Toward the end of the talk, Hoffman talks about reading Critchley’s book, The Book of Dead Philosophers (2009) (I think it must be this one, after looking up the subject on Amazon), about learning how to die so that we might live a richer life. “Philosophy begins with the drama of Socrates’s death,” Critchley says. I had never thought of that. Socrates, who attempted “to improve the Athenians’ sense of justice,” was deemed a traitor; he is given the choice of death by hemlock poisoning, or banishment into obscurity. He chooses, as we may remember from school, death by hemlock, and thus becomes immortal.

This is where the “Happy Talk” becomes almost unbearably painful, given the recent event of Hoffman’s untimely death. “We live in a culture that flees death,” begins Critchley, and I found myself looking at the time remaining—about two and a half minutes, and so I stayed with it—and the talk turned to the idea of looking at the skull beneath the skin, having a skeleton in every Manhattan restaurant to remind the diners, “You’ll be here someday”; then to Newtown, and Hoffman’s hearing a sermon about it, and the minister reminding them that Christians look on the cross throughout a service, looking upon an instrument of death, and are told to rejoice. “How do we do that?” Hoffman had asked. Right after Newtown happened, he said, he went home to his kids, made them dinner. And Hoffman said that the minister he heard kept repeating, “ ‘we can’t protect our children, we can’t protect our children,’ and you could see it was bothering him, but that was the truth.” Hoffman concluded, “I thought that was very helpful.” Here the tape fades out.

Il ne faut pas s'offenser que les autres nous cachent la vérité, puisque nous nous la cachons si souvent à nous-mêmes.
•                We should not be upset that others hide the truth from us, when we hide it so often from ourselves.
Maxim 11.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was an actor who was willing to go rooting around the most densely packed of junk drawers—the human soul, the psyche, whatever you want to call it—to bring forth an astonishing array of human characters on film and on stage. I have nothing but empathy for him. He alludes in the talk with Critchley to his own childhood, that when he is most happy is in seeing the enjoyment his children have in interacting with each other; this called up his own childhood, which (he said almost in passing and not too emphatically) “was probably quite different.” The junk drawer of the past. What to do with it?

I have a lot of junk to clean out. This post is the tip of the proverbial iceberg—or rather, ice pick, if I’m keeping with images from the items in my junk drawer—of what is on my mind this week. But look, I have a pile of junk on my desk, and another pile on the floor behind the couch. I should probably tend to it. If you have a chance, Netflix the delightful indie comedy Next Stop Wonderland, where Philip Seymour Hoffman's small role is so perfectly wrought I was convinced he was, you know, just a real guy off the street. And then watch Capote and be staggered. It's our work that lives after us, after all. Our work, and our love.

Il n'y a qu'une sorte d'amour, mais il y en a mille différentes copies.
•                There is only one kind of love, but there are a thousand different versions.
Maxim 74.
~François de La Rochefoucauld
Source: Wikiquote

Live your life. Use the past. Don’t junk the love.
In joy, somehow,

Miss O’

Sunday, January 26, 2014

An Open Letter of Questionable Charity and Consumer Disappointment

To My Readers

To be a good person and a caring human being in the capitalist economy of the United States today, it seems only reasonable, even for one being of only lower middle income in New York City, to attempt to give 10% of one's gross income to charity. Sadly, Miss O' usually only manages about half that, or 5%. Some of that 5% isn’t even charity, but political donations, which I wouldn’t have to do if we could just get legislation to overturn Citizen’s United. But I digress. Not really. But onward to the task at hand.

Selecting charities over the years was a challenge, but I give reliably to Planned Parenthood, Gay Men's Health Crisis, NPR (various local affiliates over the many moves), WBAI independent radio in NYC, and Doctors Without Borders. I also fund cancer walks for my friends, and AIDS walks, and toss in ten bucks here and there as the need arises. I'm happy to do it, but all giving must be done with a full heart, or (at least in the view of Miss O') the giving will be tainted with bad blood. Yes, I really believe that. 

Another reasonable feeling for a human being is desire for products, that is, goods and services, of the highest quality we can afford. Cheap stuff is cheap stuff: It's terrible for us and terrible for the environment, even as it might amass big bucks for one or two guys working the racket from an island off the coast of Florida. When we find the perfect good or service of the highest quality, it is not unnatural to form a deep attachment; this is not a foolish attachment. That kind of attachment is reserved for lovers who are assholes.

Herewith two letters: Miss O' complains.

PART 1

Tryin’ to Get Off the Smile Train

Dear Smile Train:

For the record: Yours was a charity I really believed in, and the importance of whose stated mission no one can question. Until I received that first mailing over a decade ago, I had no idea about the rampant problem of children born with, and dying from, cleft palates. Here in the U.S., this problem is taken care of to the extent that one hardly even notices the scars. I researched the charity, deemed it a good thing, and climbed aboard (to hold with your metaphor). My donations funded probably 5 or 6 cleft palate surgeries in full over the years. Only three times (when I was financially more stable) did I write checks for the full amount of one surgery, $250.  I’d like to have done more, of course. Who wouldn't? 

But in 2008 and more particularly in 2011, something happened in regards to Smile Train that really disturbed me. This article appeared in the New York Times:

OPPOSITION ARISES TO CHARITIES' MERGER

For the last decade, Smile Train and Operation Smile have been the Hatfields and McCoys of the charity world.

Leaders of the two organizations, which work to repair cleft lips and palates of children in poor countries, have long been estranged. Even though Smile Train’s founders at one time served on the board of Operation Smile, they and its founders, Dr. William P. Magee and his wife, Kathleen S. Magee, ran separate charities with similar goals while remaining divided by their differences year after year.

….In the nonprofit equivalent of a putsch, Mr. Wang and four Smile Train board members who are also employees of his businesseses engineered the merger and presented it as a fait accompli at a regularly scheduled board meeting on Feb. 8, board members who opposed it said….

The controversial deal gives Mr. Wang oversight of the bulk of Smile Train’s roughly $160 million in assets, and it guarantees lifetime tenure at the new organization to the Magees.
Additionally, it commits the merged organization to put half of all the money it raises over the next three years into a fund under Mr. Wang’s control.

Based on this article, and the fact that since about 2009 I was INUNDATED WITH REQUESTS FOR MORE, MORE, MORE, I began to wonder where my money really went. I was not alone in noticing the changes.

And then this in 2014:


Solicitation Train
"Make one gift now and we'll never ask for another donation again!"
If you receive a solicitation in the mail from any charity that makes the above promise, you would be wise to be skeptical. No donor should ever feel obligated to make a contribution in order to not be solicited.
A fed-up donor contacted AIP to let us know that she had asked Smile Train, a charity well known for its ads of children with cleft lips and palates, in September and November of 2009 to remove her name from its mailing list. In early December of the same year she received a letter with Smile Train's promise that in exchange for a contribution they would cease further solicitations to her. So to get the charity off her back she sent them a contribution--yet she continued to receive Smile Train solicitations (one more in December and two more in April 2010) despite notifying Smile Train of her wish to be removed from their list each time she received a solicitation. Rubbing salt into her wounds, this May she received another solicitation with the same offer to not be solicited.

A Wink and a Smile Train
- published in the December 2008 issue of the Charity Rating Guide & Watchdog Report
100% of your donation goes toward programs -- 0% goes toward overhead.
Many AIP members have seen the above language in solicitations from Smile Train, a charity that treats children born with cleft lip and palate. One may wonder how a group that spends about $15.5 million or 34% of its cash budget on overhead, and receives a B- from AIP, can make such a claim.

Lately, the desperation of your charity has begun to show in more egregious ways. In November, this little item arrived:




On Friday, January 24, it was this:



I note the locations where these “gifts” were manufactured, because all I could picture were the tiny, suicidal fingers (can't you picture them jumping off those hands?) of Chinese factory workers laboring under horrific conditions to churn out these stupid, plastic products in order to help you entice a donor (for a children's charity) who WROTE YOU SEVERAL TIMES that SHE WOULD NO LONGER BE GIVING TO YOUR CHARITY because your money and egos seemed to be clashing with the mission.

Is there anything to which you will not stoop? PLATINUM PARTNER?
I never gave out of EGO. 
Jesu Maria.

I'm writing this HERE, on my blog, because you have ignored all my letters, complaints, and messages. Not that you will see this blog. But my friends will. And I'll just continue to recycle all the paper you are WASTING on this effort to lure me into your money pool. I have no idea what to do with calculator and bag. DAMN YOU.

I repeat (for what good it does): Miss O’ has respectfully told you, Smile Train, that, since the merger and the uncertainty of the way funds were being handled in 2011, she would no longer be donating to your charity, the aforementioned Smile Train. “Godspeed,” said I, “and I hope the children still get the important surgical care you are promising. However, I have decided to spend my $250/surgery, and double it, by partnering with Doctors Without Borders.” Is this ON?

Yours &c.,

Miss O’

PART 2

If the Shoe (Gives You) Fits

Dear Naot:

Oh, Naot, how I will ever live without you I do not know. But until I have reassurances for the complaints below, live sans you I must. To my readers and to you, I must explain.

A woman searches her whole life for the perfect shoe brand. My mom, Lynne, told me from a very early age, “There is no such thing as ‘breaking in’ a shoe. The shoe either feels exactly right the moment you put it on, and comfortable as you walk around the store, or it doesn’t. Don’t kid yourself when it comes to shoes. And buy the best. Worry about how to pay for it later, if you have to; remember that one great pair is worth ten cheap ones.” And is she wrong?

Enter Naot, shoes made on a kibbutz in Israel; crafted with the best materials, for comfort and for durability, they just cannot be beat, as the old used car guys used to promise. The price was high, but so what? Once my feet fell into that footbed, it was love!

Around 1993, I found my first perfect shoe, in the form of your clogs pictured below, a style which you no longer manufacture. Sadly, the photo you see shows these 20-year-old clogs as they currently live in my kitchen, for porch duty (after 12 years of teaching duty); in New York I turned them into paint and project shoes. They've been great. Only in the last year have chunks of the sole begun to sort of fall off, and yet still I can walk in them, and comfortably. Naot Clog in a discontinued style, I cain’t quit you.



20 Years of Great Sole Soul


Over the years, at Mad, Mad World in Qccoquan, VA, and more recently, online, I have amassed Naot brand shoes in a variety of colors and styles for all occasions and seasons. In these shoes, I take long walks in the country, I walk the New York Streets from Times Square to the Battery, and they have the added fillip of looking good on the job and out at the theater. My personal style credo is that I want to be able to go to the compost heap, to work, and to dinner and a show in the same outfit, and still look fabulous. It’s been a real trick, and (mostly) I pull it off. Naot was the linchpin. Accessories do the rest.



And then a few years ago, something terrible happened. I wrote to Naot about it. Naot, I tried not to let it come to THIS blog: I explained. I described. I shared in private the pain I am about to share with my readers. I was met with, to put it plainly, indifference and unconcern. I was rebuffed. Here is what began to happen, in the space of about six months after adding to the boot and clog wardrobe.




ASTER CLOG (center right)

[Photos also show the brave attempt by Drago, a great family of cobblers in Penn Station, to save the split shoes.
Their good work did give me another year and a half…but that's it.]



The brown pair…


AND THE BLACK PAIR!



And no, Naot, this is not an “aberration” with “flaws” in the materials. This would seem to be a story of bad design, cheaper materials, and poor craft. See the Lynx boots below, the red ones? They are about 13 years old. I wear them in the city ALL THE TIME. Despite discoloration of the toes (all my own fault for wearing them in all weather), the soles are superb. See?



So you’ve left me high and dry, Naot. I will try to make the shoes I have left last as long as I reasonably can, because you know as well as I do that every “comfort” shoe brand out there is manufactured cheaply in China, that the “leather uppers” now are really “all manmade materials,” and that I will never walk as well again.

Have you at last no sense of decency, sirs? Where is your PRIDE?

Yours to command in body and sole no more,

Miss O'


IN SUM

The Play’s the Thing (It Usually Is)

Here's the event that really kind of sparked this post, which I've been promising myself I'd tackle for the past year. So last night I went to see a show in the Village, a revival of a long-lost black farce by a 1960s playwright. The show, it seemed to Miss O', had no idea what it wanted to be. When that happens, which is to say when a play is a farce, a black comedy, AND a political commentary, as this play was, the director of the play has to make choices. These choices have to do with 1) why he's directing it to begin with; 2) what the play IS first and foremost; 3) the acting style he wants to see; 4) guiding designers to his production concept; and 5) work in rehearsals, accepting input from all the artists and then making it all seem of a piece. The director of this show did not seem to make choices; or rather, he made LOADS of them. For example: The opening moment gave us a darkened stage, an old man staring into the middle distance as he sat in a plastic-covered wingback beside the casket of what must be his dead wife. It's a tragedy. Or is it? Apparently this naturalistic drama was supposed to turn to farce, BING!, when a fakey-acting blonde walked in and switched on the lights and delivered the lines, meant for him, to us. Huh? The entire audience, and not just Miss O' in the audience, shared that quiet, and the occasional uncomfortable chuckle, of the mystified; and finally, after several other entrances and oddly executed lines and fuzzily depicted plot points, the bored. 

At intermission, a very talented theater friend with whom I attended this play blamed the obvious failure on "bad writing" (it wasn't a good play, certainly), but he mainly blamed it on the audience: "How can the actors play to this?" he asked, gesturing to the people around us rising to head to the head. "There is no good will in the whole house!" I have never heard a quiet house accused in quite that way. After a pause, Miss O' cried "bullshit." In her day as a high school drama director, from musicals to dramas to comedies, one-acts and full-lengths, and hundreds of scenes from dozens of other plays in between, Miss O' learned that the only shoulders upon which the success or failure of a play rests are those of the DIRECTOR. (This director, as it turned out, was a friend of my companion's, but that is no excuse.) The director has to make it work. That is a director's JOB.

Audience “good will” has nothing to do with it. An audience’s good will should be the assumption, in that they’ve paid to be in that theater and don’t want to see their entertainment dollar wasted on crap. But if the director fails to pull off a great show—actors acting in at least three different plays; a cold lighting scheme even for a black comedy; a miscast female lead with a really bad British accent and a look more suggestive of a Real Housewife in L.A. rather than the competent nurse she was supposed to playing (the character was meant to be played by a young, female Bill Nighy—that’s what the role wanted: competent and sly with crack comic timing)—well, what can you do?

And this morning it hit me how all these disappointments are connected, and hence tonight's blog so fast on the heels of yesterday's blog. Just as a production cannot rise or fall by counting on an audience's "good will"….

Just so with a charity: Smile Train Charity, you cannot command my good will by plying me with flashy and unsolicited goods, repeated requests (at least two per month) for donations, or by showing pictures of the suffering, which is to say GUILT. You have to demonstrate your responsible, and need I add charitable, use of the hard-earned money donated to you with the full hearts of people like me, and make me WANT to give out of the real need you are supposed to be fulfilling. Right?

And just so with a quality brand company: Naot, my years of ecstatic shoe purchases—shoes of extraordinary comfort, variation of style, and marvelous durability—cannot sustain this buyer's loyalty when the shoes begin to go up in price and drop dramatically in quality. The company especially cannot continue to thrive when the complaints of a loyal customer of 20+ years are dismissed with, “Sometimes there are flaws…” and “if the purchase was made recently, you can return it to the merchant from whom it was purchased,” however your email phrased it. When the customer points out that three pairs of expensive shoes in one go were in fact flawing in precisely the same way, the flaws only to be discovered about four to six months after the purchase, one would think the big brand name company would at the very least promise to look into it. A GREAT company would send you a prepaid UPS label and ask to have the products returned for a full refund or replacement. And maybe offer that customer a coupon toward another purchase in the future as a sign of good faith.

To Smile Train and to Naot and to that stupid show last night, Miss O’ says: “Where is YOUR good will? Where is YOUR good faith?” To America and the Readers of the Miss O’ Show I say: When it comes to spending your money: Quality. Always quality.

A final point, from gapingvoid.com:



Whew. NOW I can finally STOP THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES. Godspeed. Do better work. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

It's time to talk about CONGRESS, but fuck it. Typos? Sure. Fuck them, too. It's bedtime.

Yours &c. with kisses,


Miss O’

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Are You Not Entertained? Well Fu@k You.

(With Apologies to My Mom)

My mom, Lynne, gave up swearing sometime in 1971, the year I started. I was in second grade. My dad, Bernie, was forced to follow her example in short order, all because of the morning I was looking for my shoes and couldn’t find them, and cried out with all the anger I could muster, “GODDAMMIT WHERE ARE MY SHOES?” My dad, who had been asleep because he’d been on second shift, came flying out of my parents’ bedroom. “You didn’t know I was here, did ya?” he said. And he grabbed my arm and spanked the shit out of me. (We called it “spanking” then.) I’m hazarding a guess that I knew “goddammit” was not a nice thing to say, but more to the point, I must have known that it had power. When my mom asked me why I’d said what I did, I told her the truth, through my snot and tears: “Because whenever Daddy says ‘goddammit’ he finds what he’s looking for!” Couldn’t argue with that. And so, together, the O’Parents stopped swearing (mostly) to the point that any swearing out of the mouths of their sons and daughters to this day is a cause for alarm. “Honey,” the O’Ps advised in an email a few years back, “we know you don’t want to hear this, but a foul-mouthed woman is a real turn-off.” Fortunately, I found a man who begs to differ.

My mom will be 80 on Monday, January 27, this year of 2014.  At Christmas she told us kids, “Now, listen, you guys, don’t do anything for my birthday. Those flowers you sent to your dad [October 5, 2013] will do for both of us. Okay?” And the O’Kids in attendance, Mike, Jeff, and I, sort of looked down. After checking with my five siblings, I ordered the flowers on Friday—don’t worry if you think I’m spilling some beans; Lynne doesn’t read this. She hasn’t read my book, either. In fact, after the second letter I wrote home from college my freshman year, she explained on a Sunday when I called home, “Honey, why do you send me letters? I’m busy. I don’t want to read those.” What Lynne wants to know is if her kids are all right: “Are you all right?” And after you manage to keep her on the horn long enough to force feed her the salient news of your life during the every-other-Saturday morning phone call, she says, “You can keep talking to your father; I’ve just got to get off the phone,” and Bernie stays on the extension and the two of you leisurely chat politics and media until Lynne gives him a signal, and he hurriedly says, “Okay, hon, we’ll talk to you soon…” and off they go, doing the mysterious things they cover up with their casual, "Nothing new here."

Our Common Core

Last week I published my 100th blog entry. (It's a little exhausting to think about the word count of the past three years, let me tell you.) I started out to write exclusively about education—the state of the national school scene, my own experiences in teaching, and what I saw as ways to shape the future of it for the better. For the kids. Somewhere in there, because apparently I can’t help myself, I started writing other stuff, and less and less about school; teaching as a practice stayed on in my voice and in my approach, for good or ill, if not as an actual subject. Glancing back over the posts, I see there sure is a lot of shit on The Miss O’ Show; and based on the very occasional comment on Facebook and some longer messages from dedicated readers, I know that while most of this thing is just me thinking out loud, some of it resonates and even inspires others to think about and express ideas, too. That’s the best. That’s why I became a teacher. But I do wonder about my style. I have come to realize that the harshness of the Miss O’ voice does not really inspire collaboration or conversation, for which I wonder if I should apologize. I’m more bullhorn than bullshit, surely, but that doesn’t make my voice any less unattractive to those who would, you know, participate.

The most popular* blog posts, as far as readership statistics show, are the ones that are autobiographical and unabashedly personal. Emotion—obvious anger or, by contrast, real sentiment—as a Miss O’-motivator is, understandably, the best hook. (*Note: Because of trolling sites such as “vampirestat” and “adsense” and anything with “.ru,” as well as image entries via “google.imgres,” it’s hard to know how many of the hits you get are actual readers; it’s of course impossible to know how many people actually READ the blog after clicking on it, or how much they read.) The least popular blog posts are the ones that, as indicated from the title on, wrestle with ideas, mostly political; and unless those are generously laced with personal details from Miss O’s actual life, from an early paragraph, I suspect they go unread in full. Let’s face it: Who doesn’t love a juicy memoir? Still, I receive almost no comments on the blog itself—one or two people do occasionally message me on Facebook; apparently Blogger makes it way too hard to comment unless you too are a blogger, but no one confirms this. In addition, the number of people who joined my blog back in March of 2011 has not increased at all from the original 31. I don’t know what to think about that. To the 31 who have stuck with it, I thank you. I’m not complaining; in truth, I’m amazed I am read at all.


(Miss O' has no idea where she found this image. -ed.)

Speaking and Listening

So the other (post-snowstorm) morning I get a text message from my friend (whom I’ll call) Hutch. So Hutch shows up in 5° weather and 30 mph winds via Brooklyn and F Train to his Manhattan corporate job for a big managers meeting at 8:00 AM, for which he was right on time. No one was there. He texted various people in charge, and finally heard at around 8:30: “Oh, we postponed it until 10. I guess the communication never went out.” Well, it didn’t: gradually people started coming in, panicked because they were not on time, only to learn they needn’t have rushed through the freezing temps to even bother to try. “I guess the communication never went out”? Communications do not go out on their own; someone IN CHARGE has to do what is called “send them.” Whoever was in charge declined to comment or to accept responsibility. Ironically, the two biggest things on their agenda? 1) Employee Satisfaction Survey results; and 2) “How to Make Work More Fun” for the employees. Pardon Miss O’ as she throws up. This "fun" crap is a national, indeed, a global corporate trend, it seems. It is mad-making. Does anyone else just picture David Brent, the office manager character played by Ricky Gervais in the original The Office, playing air guitar trying to get a laugh out of the team? It’s pathetic, this idea of corporate “leaders” trying to make work “fun.”

You know what work should be? Satisfying. You know what makes work satisfying? Tangible results, fair compensation, and a safe environment. You know what fun is? Fun is deeply satisfying. Fun is the result of a spontaneous burst of enthusiasm and engagement with the task at hand. You know what “not fun” is? Managers making employees eat cake, wear silly hats, clap, and do a primal scream before heading out into their cubicles or onto the factory floor.

So this morning as I wait for my kitchen faucet to unfreeze for the dozenth day, I am wondering at the lack of work ethic in this country, from the top down. Apparently. And why don't we hear about the stuff that workplaces actually create? Why don't we experience responses to all those surveys? So much Gallup polling, so little substantive change for the workers. Why this that?

Mainstream media is corporate-owned, corporate-run.  Duh, as the kids used to say, before they stopped saying things and began using only their thumbs. The views expressed on the air and in the pages (print or digital), are more and more the views of the owners. Facts, nuance, real grappling, all seem to go by the wayside, along with courtesy. In addition, the people who really need to have their voices heard don’t OWN the sources of sound-making, are not paid to…and I could go on and on and ON. In fact, I have. This from the Al Jazeera op-ed to which I've linked at the beginning of this paragraph:

In the American media, white people debate whether race matters, rich people debate whether poverty matters, and men debate whether gender matters. People for whom these problems have no alternative but to matter - for they structure the limitations of their lives - are locked out of the discussion.

And this just has to change. We the moneyless, the voiceless, have to take back our agency. And not just in the bars during Happy Hour. And not just on our blogs. Voicelessness and inaction cannot be the new normal. Where does it end?


("Where does it end?": A friend took a similar photo about a week ago,  a fallen rubber band in its usual dropped shape, which is the symbol for infinity. I posted my (blurred) find on Facebook and playfully "credited" him, but he was deeply hurt that I'd "stolen" his picture. Even after I explained that it was my own photo meant as a creative homage, he asked me to take it down. So I did. And I'm putting it here. Does anyone really "own" what never ends? Especially when it's been discarded on the sidewalk? And if your own calling out of such a ubiquitous cast-off object got another to notice it for what it might also be, shouldn't one be pleased about that? Miss O' says, definitively, yes. Yes, you should.)

Reading and Writing

So I'm doing a lot of thinking about the next phase of my writing life. To my readers, I don’t want to lock you out of a discussion, even if Miss O’ is more monologue than obvious team player. (As my mom, Lynne, said to me, “I can’t imagine anything worse than being called a team player”: Clearly, however much I rattle on, I am her daughter.) That said, your Miss O’ is asking for your comments on your blog-reading experience. I’m not looking for criticism, constructive or otherwise; neither am I looking for praise or even encouragement. I’m really interested in your experience as a reader. And write me about that. This is about you, when you read the stuff I write. I’d like to see the comments here on the blog rather than on Facebook, though that is just fine, too. I guess what I’m saying is I wish we could talk more.

Possibly it’s the weather getting to me. It’s snowing again, here in the coldest winter of my 10 years in New York. This sort of relentless cold used to be fairly normal, but by the late 1980s New York was becoming like Virginia; Virginia like Georgia; etc. Global warming and its new extremes have revealed us to be a species of pussies. And kids, we’d better take a good, hard look inside our innermost gun-totin’ souls, because we can’t shoot our way out this one.

Thanks in advance for any time you take to read and write back; I’ll listen. We’ll talk. And frostbite ain’t no joke: Keep warm.

Love and kisses &c.

Miss O’