Sunday, March 5, 2017

Dear Jane III: Quilts and converstions; Art and conversation

When I posted Veronica's nearly-finished Country Crossroads quilt on Facebook just before Christmas, gifted ceramicist Jeannie Mah kindly wrote "Lovely! Your border is especially wonderful and flowing, a wonderfully exuberant touch to frame the detailed geometrics in a subtle range of red! and then some stitching on the white (which I always love!!) Well done, Kathleen.  Beauty!"  

The quilt is in conversation with itself:  the simple but heavily quilted white blocks balance the geometric, busier blocks, and as Jeannie noted (though I'm not entirely  happy with it), the border's flowing vines and rounded shapes, like the pomegranate at the centre of each border, contrast the geometry of the piecing.  As well, for each block to work, the contrast between colours, but even more between dark and light, has to be dramatic.

One of the reasons why I have long admired the "Dear Jane" quilt but never made any blocks was that each block seems a little lonely.  All of the blocks use a single fabric and muslin.  There's no conversation going on within the block as there is with my Country Crossroads.  But as I make more blocks, I can see that they are in conversation with one another.  Some of them largely involve calm squares, while others are made of triangles bursting off every which way. Some are made of dozens of tiny pieces, while others are made only of a few (I'm thinking of the blue and gold X here).  Muslin dominates in some, where others give a fanciful nineteenth-century reproduction fabric pride of place.  Some are busy; others are calm. 

I'm not sure I'm going to make all the blocks; it can take an entire afternoon to cut and piece a single block, like the brown one in the top right corner.  Each of those 8 little "flying geese" sections that radiate from the central square are a mere 3/4 inch by 1 1/2 inches.  You need to make them a little large and painstakingly cut them down to get them accurate.  I may simply make a handful and put them together in a small quilt.  But I'm getting the drift of Jane's aesthetic, though it's not entirely balanced in my photograph.  When you put the blocks together, it's like the perfect party.  You've got your clown, who keeps everyone cheerful and entertained.  You've got your introspective soul who breaks in with the most extraordinary observations about life, the universe, and everything, so that she always leaves you shaking your head.  There are the good souls (read a bit square) who are the foundation of any community or party, and the slightly manic people who go off in all directions but are so creative, so innovative, so out there that they inspire all of us.

I don't know whether you have noticed, but the words "conversation" and "dialogue" have become part of our political discourse.  This may in part be a product of the Trudeau government, which has from the beginning said they wanted to know what Canadians were thinking about as they go about the business of governing.  I can be appropriately cynical; Trudeau's latest cross country tour was clearly designed as a kind of distraction, and I'm not sure that the 'conversation' around how we would elect our leaders--hard as that committee worked--was given the hearing it deserved.  But still, I think conversation is good.  

Only this week, in the Globe and Mail, the organizers of "Growing Room,|" A Room of One's Own's fortieth birthday party note that some of the people they had invited to come some time ago have shown up on the "wrong" side of the Stephen Galloway firing at UBC.  (I use 'wrong' ironically; we haven't given enough information by either UBC or its Accountability person to come to a conclusion.)  In this case, two sets of rights seem to conflict:  those of the women who--and here as I am about to use verbs, I myself am in trouble--told of being sexually harassed by Galloway, and those of an academic/writer who deserves a clear explanation of the reasons for firing him.  And since this case involves the rest of his career, he has the right to have those reasons made public if he so chooses.  Yet the organizers of the Room birthday party thought that bringing all these disparate perspectives together and creating a dialogue would be helpful.  A Room of One's Own's publisher, Meghan Bell says that "I think conversation is the best antidote to conflict....I hope the festival will get people talking in person."  Festival director Arielle Spence says "It's somethiing we expect people are going to want to talk about....We hope that that event will create space for discussion, for potential ideas of ways that we can move forward."

Similarly, in this month's Literary Review of Canada, reviewer Naheed Mustafa reviews two quite different books about feminism, Jessa Crispin's Why I Am Not a Feminist:  A Feminist Manifesto, and Erin Winkler's Notes from a Feminist Killjoy:  Essays on Everyday Life.  In her review, which is very much worth reading, and which I cannot possibly do justice to, Mustafa identifies five kinds of feminism which occasionally, though too rarely, intersect:  the feminism of white women, the feminism of women of colour, the feminism coloured by women's religious loyalties, the feminism of class, and the feminism of age.  I admit to experiencing a lot of inner conflict even typing that list. My first response is to say "Yeah!  Wow!  All those perspectives!  We should be able to come up with something really good if we see ourselves are learners rather than experts and just listen and remain curious."  That's my inner idealist.  The realist in me realizes that the distinction between--and I'm being provocative with my use of language here--brown feminism and white feminism is as old as feminism itself and is deeply disturbing.  Mostly disturbing, frankly, is "white" feminism with its rather naive and narcissistic concern for glass ceilings and power structures.  Yes, we have to change things at the top.  We know that until the very nature of power is challenged--I myself would rather have autonomy than power:  wouldn't life be rich?--women are going to have to continue to fight.  But let's give some support to the women in the trenches.  I would really love to just listen to a Muslim woman help me understand the meaning of her headscarf and the meaning of her feminism.  Thankfully, Mustafa too foregrounds the conversation, ending her essay with this wonderful image of Brownian motion exemplified by "a piece of pollen moving around in a glass of water that is "erratic and kinetic":  "I find myself recalling that speck of pollen in water as I observe--again, I am the observer--bobbing along, bombarded by a multitude of opinions and arguments.  The motion of these conversations is constant and unstopping.  Like the pollen, they will never settle.  Perhaps that is the point."

But conversation isn't simply an important part of our political discourse, it's crucial to our aesthetic and ethical lives.  I have just finished reading Michael Helm's novel, After James, which is really three slightly linked novellas, each told in a different genre--the gothic tale, detective fiction, the apocalyptic narrative.  The novellas share some images, the name 'James,' and an overwhelming sense that our twenty-first century world, with its technology and its science, is  slipping off its moorings.  Few authorities are to be trusted.  The only solution is, in a sense, is to go off the grid.  The reader's task at the end of the novel is to consider how these three narratives inform one another, how they work together as a novel, how they establish a conversation with one another and with the reader.  Helm's view of the present moment is very dark, but the structure left me with enough space--enough of a part of the conversation--that I can decide how I relate to or believe in the malevolent forces abroad in the twenty-first century.  He respects me enough to let me do that.

I have also just finished re-reading Julian Barnes's biographical novel about Dmitri Shostakovitch.  The very label "biographical novel" raises eyebrows.  Clearly Barnes has done his research and can exploit the wonderful details of Shostakovitch's life when Stalin led the Soviet Union and Shostakovitch didn't write the "realist" (what does realism mean when it's applied to music?) work that would exemplify Lenin's notion that "art belongs to everyone."  Sure that the KGB were going to come for him, he spent every night for quite a while standing in the hallway of his apartment building next to the lift so that when the police came they wouldn't disturb his wife and daughter.  The 'novel' has very little in the way of plot; rather it's a meditation on how an artist keeps his integrity in the face of threats and blandishments offered by his government.  Barnes explores this question, but never answers it.  We need to provide that answer for ourselves.

Virginia Woolf famously loved conversations.  After all, that was what Bloomsbury was built on.  At the same time, she begins A Room of One's Own with that famous opening--"But, you may say, we asked you to write about women and fiction.  What does that have to do with a room of one's own?"  ('Autonomy,' I slyly answer.)  Those first two words, though, establish her sense that her words are simply part of a conversation, as does her instruction to her audience at the end.  Observing that while she has been speaking "you no doubt have been observing her failings and foibles and deciding what effect they have had on your opinions.  You have been contradicting her and making whatever additions and deductions seem good to you.  That is all as it should be, for in a question like this truth is only to be had by laying together many varieties of error."  Noting that the reading of books makes one see "more intensely afterwards," she of course suggests that they write books.  But there is a caveat: "Do not dream of influencing other people, I would say, if I knew how to make it sound exalted.  Think of things in themselves."  She and Mustafa would have a lot to say to one another as they compare what they see to what the other sees in a friendly and curious way that Woolf has.

But how am I going to get back to Jane's quilt, having come by way of novels written by men and articles on feminism--with a detour through public discourse and the policies of the Liberal government?  I suggested that my "Dear Jane" blogs, given that Jane was born two hundred years ago, would be a kind of anti-Trump meditation, because she made beautiful, useful things while he only has made money.  But I am tired of Trump.  I am going to reduce him to Tweets and innuendo and government by executive order, and merely point out that he is not interested in conversation.

Elaine Scarry, in her wonderful, brief book,  On Beauty and Being Just, argues that qualities of beauty, like the unity of the work of art or the overarching beauty of a sky that stands over all of us, keep ideas of justice alive when justice has withdrawn.  I am going to suggest that works of art, whether they are quilts or novels, have something of the same function.  They show respect for us, giving us the freedom to come to our own conclusions.  They keep conversation and dialogue alive. They keep our curiosity alive.  In the face of government by Tweet, innuendo, and executive orders, we are going to need reminders of such respect, such curiosity, such dialogue.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Juxtapositions and questions

Like many of you, I have spent last night and this morning in front of the TV, like a person watching, in slow motion, a railroad train approach a school bus stalled on the tracks.  I have been waiting for someone to tell me why.  What wounds or vicious extremist lies or precarious mental health prompted a young man to kill six Muslims who were praying.  These were people engaged in one of humankind's most profound acts:  thinking and speaking across the distance between our flawed humanness to some meaningful force larger and more capacious than our daily lives.  That force could be anything:  a belief in kindness, a commitment to the well-being of our communities, a dedication to the exploration of ideas, or any of the many gods we have conceived of to represent the best of ourselves.  

An explanation is not forthcoming.  So I think I will offer instead some juxtapositions.  

First, about sixteen and a half years ago, the west's ill-advised meddling in Middle Eastern religion and governance came home.  We have a long history of intervening in Islamic countries; the attack on New York City and Washington D.C. on September 2001 was a response to those ill-conceived interventions that has been followed by terrorist attacks at home and abroad.  Then George Bush invaded Iraq and executed Saddam Hussein, giving birth to Islamic State.  The Department of Homeland Security now has a workforce of 240,000 people and in 2011 was given funding of $198.8 billion. 

On the same day when 6 people died in the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre, Donald Trump was signing yet one more executive order beginning his ban on Muslims in the United States. Once again, he was not paying attention to details, but simply indulging in whim, probably violating international law and the American Constitution in the process.  He has created chaos for families who are living apart and has given the Muslim world one more piece of evidence that the west has declared war on Islam.  Why he has done this escapes me.  First, as I will tell anyone who will listen, more people die of weather than from terrorist attacks, yet we invest much more in Homeland Security than we do in building a green economy.  So this act isn't about the safety of Americans.  Perhaps it is about appealing to the darkest desires of the people who elected him so they won't notice when he and his billionaire cronies make poor Americans even poorer.   Perhaps it's part of his disturbing narcissism:  anyone who is not like me deserves what they get.  I think in some ways it is the response of a deeply unsatisfied man who drank the high-test capitalist kool-aid, and didn't find it satisfying.  Both psychologists and economists will tell you that if your goals are extrinsic--money, power, status--there is never enough of these things to allow you to feel nourished.  He has done exactly what he wanted--placing a ban on Muslims coming to the United States--but do you see him smiling?  If so, does that smile look like the grin of an alpha-male chimpanzee?

I want to name those six men, whose biographies provide a kind of United Nations of Islam--men who were fathers, husbands, uncles, sons; men who worked for universities and the Quebec government, men whose raison d'etre was to welcome and to help other, men who created the foundations of their communities:  Azzeddine Soufiane, Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Mamadou Tanou, Ibrahima Barry, Abdelkrim Hassane.

And then I want to juxtapose September 11, 2001 and our reaction to it with our outpouring of sympathy for these men, their families, and their communities across Canada.  Did you think, in your rage and fear after 9/11 that you would be pouring out your grief for 6 innocent Muslims?

Something has happened, and I do not think it has merely happened in Canada:  there have been similar demonstrations of sympathy for these men and their families in London and Paris.  

Us versus them.  Since the days of our simian ancestors, this worldview probably accounts for much of the evil we have done to others.  We saw, with horror, that Donald Trump aroused that outlook in people who feel they have been left behind and who sought someone to blame that fact on.  They can't blame a changing world--one that has shifted from the creation of steel to the creation of technology--because it is impossible to turn back time.  Time is a moving target, much too huge to be brought down by puny human effort.  Much easier to blame the Mexicans, the Muslims, African-Americans.

But at the same time, countless people participate in the human effort to make the human rights umbrella protect more and more groups.  In the time since 9/11, Gay Pride parades have grown to mainstream events and gay marriage legalized.  The Truth and Reconciliation Report has been accepted by the government.  And there are Canada-wide and world-wide vigils for these six men.  It seems to me that despite the efforts of Donald Trump and Alexandre Bissonnette, humanity is determined to continue working ethically and imaginatively until all people of good will are under that protective umbrella with fellow members of the human family.  And like most families, we are laughing and hugging and telling our stories and singing our songs.

We mustn't congratulate ourselves prematurely.  Until this attitude is extended to Indigenous Peoples, until they have clean water, sound and meaningful educations, decent housing and economic opportunities on and off reserve, until the suicides stop, until missing and murdered aboriginal women are a distant memory, we are not finished.  

But we can keep on the way we began.  Be curious rather than judgmental about others.  Keep asking why.  And when you meet resistance, ask why not.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Dear Jane 2: details matter

The block on the left is the second block I've made for the Jane A. Stickle quilt.  It's a block I've never seen before:  she has managed to create a kind of sunburst out of triangles.  There are forty pieces in the 4 1/2-inchh block.  I've tried to imagine her creating a pattern, and I am frankly baffled.  In order to produce my blocks, I have an extraordinary set of twenty-first century tools, including clear rulers that help me create any angle and are thick enough that I can use a rotary cutter (think of a pizza cutter--only dangerously sharp) to cut my pieces exactly.  I also have a foot on my sewing machine that gives me an exact 1/4-inch seam.

Jane, in all likelihood, would have had a pencil, a school-girl's ruler, an old newspaper, needle, thread, and thimble.  Remember that blank paper was so precious that letters were written from top to bottom, and then that the paper was rotated 90 degrees to write in the spaces between the lines. In that context, I'm not sure where she would have found enough blank space in old newspapers to lay out her marvelous designs (which could have been drawn much smaller), but when it came to making the pattern pieces to show her the size of triangle, rectangle, or square she needed, she would likely have drawn her design to scale on an old newspaper and cut the pieces out to mark around them on her fabric.  That would be the finished size of the piece.  She would then have to add a quarter of an inch, which she probably did by eye, sewing along the pencil lines--and matching them up exactly.  It is a painstaking process, much more difficult than it would be today.  Were she making a one-patch, like the Ocean Waves below (alternatively entitled the "Tents of Armageddon"), a single template, perhaps made from something more sturdy like cardboard or butcher's paper, would have allowed you to make the whole quilt.   Jane, in contrast, must have made hundreds of templates.  But she did it--and did it accurately--because it mattered.

You will have noticed that my photograph of Jane's blocks seems to be taken at an angle, but it's not.  Rather, the first block I made is about 1/2 inch too small.  Now I'm a "measure twice (at least) and cut once" kind of girl, so you can be sure that my pieces were originally the right size.  So I read Brenda Papadakis's instructions again, only to note that she tells you to make your seam 3/16ths of an inch rather than the usual 1/4 inch.  A seam takes up space--not only where the seam threads join the pieces, but where you lose fabric when you open out the pieces and fold back the seam.  That's true of all quilt blocks, but if you have only 3 seams over a space of 6 or 9 inches, as you do in the nine-patch blocks in the Amish quilt below, that small difference doesn't really register. But when you have multiple seams over 4 1/2 inches, you can lose quite a lot. 
"Details matter" must have been one of Jane's mantras as she worked on her quilt and figured out how to translate her vision--each of those complicated and original blocks--onto fabric.  Or perhaps "details matter" might have simply been part of her temperament or her work ethic--a way of being she brought to everything she did.

Details matter, no matter whether you are building or creating or organizing.  If you are going to suspend all the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, it helps to know that the EPA doesn't simply do research on climate change, but it helps to get lead-free water to Flint Michigan and helps to build water treatment plants.  If you are going to call coal "clean and beautiful," it would help to know that the World Health Organization estimates that burning coal claims 1 million lives annually.  If you are going to come out in favour of torture, it would help to know that experts believe they very seldom gain reliable intelligence from someone who is tortured--and that in the process of the torture, both the torturer and the tortured lose their humanity.  And in the meantime, you have lost your moral credibility and perhaps made the world even more dangerous.  If you are going to dismantle public education in the country, it would helps to know--as economist Tomas Piketty has taught me--that the best way to ensure economic equality is to give people the educations they need.  If you are going to unfund any agency who raises the issue of women's reproductive health, it would help to know that by so doing you condemning that community to poverty for a longer period of time than necessary--in short that allowing women to control their lives and giving them educations is the best way to lift the whole community's standard of living.

It is easy, outside the provenance of detail and truth, to claim and plan anything you want.  Jane could have said, every morning of her life, "I am going to make one of the most imaginative and inventive quilts ever," but until she gets down to planning the blocks and ensuring their accuracy--that they will all fit together--such plans are simply a convenient fiction.  If you want to create the quilt or the country you need to get your hands dirty with newsprint and ink, with truth and detail and fact (not alternative facts), with evidence, knowledge, information.  Not simply wishful thinking.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Dear Jane 1: The Jane A. Stickle Quilt in the Time of Trump

Jane A. Stickle (nee Blakeley) was born two hundred years ago this coming April 8.  We know little about her that cannot be inferred from her father's will or various nineteenth-century censuses, except for the remarkable quilt she designed and made during the Civil War.  She signed her quilt "In War Time 1863.  Pieces 5602, Jane A. Stickle."  When Donna Bister and Richard Cleveland were working on their book of historical quilts, Plain and Fancy, they visited the Bennington Museum after hearing that it had a collection of quilts.  The Stickle quilt was subsequenly chosen for the cover of their book, and travelled to the Vermont Quilt Festival, the Quilt Market in Houston, and was subsequently hung in the Vermont State House exhibition celebrating the state's quilters.  Brenda Manges Papadakis, who fell in love with the quilt on the cover of Plain and Fancy, who was a math teacher, and who began drafting quilt blocks from the photograph, finally went to Vermont to see what she could learn about its maker.  Very little, aside from where she is buried, where she lived for a time, that her father's will made note of a quilt that constituted part of his inheritance, and that several census records raise more mysteries than they solve.  Why did her husband move away for ten years, leaving her in charge of the farm?  What happened after his subsequent return in 1870 to force them to declare bankruptcy in 1877?  What did she do after his death, during the long time when she lived as a boarder until her own death in 1896?  

It could be worse:  at least she signed her work, something many quilters (I'm one of them) did not do, thinking it was merely "craft."  The fact that there are no children, no letters, no diary makes her a little unusual:  these resources are the staples of quilt historians' research.  It has occurred to me that she might have been illiterate.  But math and geometry presented no difficulties to this inventive woman.  We see this first in the most disarming place:  her choice to make her blocks 4 1/2 inches square.  Many quilt blocks are built on a grid of 3 or 4, meaning that the block is composed of squares three across and three down or four across and four down.  Sometimes that grid is supplemented with triangles or rectangles, but the grid itself forms a framework for your math. 

I don't have any simple examples around, but if you stare at this photograph for a few minutes, you can see that it's a 3-grid.  The size of the square in the middle of this churn dash block is the same size as the square made by the two triangles and the square made by the two rectangles.

The Puss in the Corner block is a four grid.  You can see that the rectangles are twice the size of the squares in each corner.  Taking the squares as your basic unit, you can then see that the block is easily divided into four.

 Jane Stickle's decision to make her blocks 4 1/2 inches square means that she can divide it into either a grid of 3 or a grid of 4.  If she's using three, the squares will be 1 1/2 inches; if she's using a four grid, they will be 1 1/8--a very unusual size.  This first decision gives her enormous flexibility. 

The signature on her quilt tells us something about its composition:  that she is purposefully highlighting her quilt's relation to the Civil War.  As I have said in an earlier blog, I can easily imagine her using the challenges of this extraordinary quilt to distract her from historical cataclysm.  Her practice informs mine.  I have decided to make this quilt during Trumptime as a way of meditating on something besides Trump's presidency and keeping alive a set of values antithetical to his.  Whereas he is all carelessness and bluster, Jane's blocks are ordered and inventive.  Where he stands for extrinsic values--money and fame and power, she represents the intrinsic values of delight in invention and craftsmanship.  He makes money and hate; she makes quilts.  How different can they be?

We can have no idea which block Jane made first, but the first block in Brenda Papadakis's book is a variation on the pinwheel.  I have put my block next to a conventional pinwheel block from another quilt I'm working on.  The first thing you notice is that she's got some very tiny pieces if you consider that each square in the grid is a mere 1 1/8 inrches.  You also see that hers suggests a pinwheel almost exploding, pieces flying off from centrifugal force.  If you are a poet or scholar or reader, like me, the block prompts you to intone the opening lines of Yeats's "Second Coming":

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Now I don't think it's always a problem when the "falcon cannot hear the falconer" and when the centre does not hold.  There are times in history when revolutionary change is desperately needed.  When apartheid finally crumbled.  When the Berlin Wall was taken down.  When the Soviet Union once again became merely Russia and stopped imposing its ideology on its satellites.  Maybe even the French Revolution, bloody as it was.  In fact, I have a character in a story who finds she needs time to rebel against the centripetal force of motherhood that threatens to reduce her to a single point:  her identity as mother.  So she tells her husband "Maybe the falcon would like lunch for a change.  To eat slowly, not rush back to the falconer."  This desire for centrifugal force in her life also leads her to rebel against the rituals and timetables of her domestic  existence:  "Instead of filling up on Saturday, I want to run out of gas and meet my spiritual teacher on the road, who just happens to have a full jerry can in the trunk."

But making Jane's complicated and exploding pinwheel block gave me a chance to meditate on circumstances when change is not going to be helpful to the majority of people in a country.  The first occurs when language has gone wonky, when we know that a leader's words reflect only his desired version of reality, his self-interested, egotistical version of reality.  The second occurs when that leader is the centre, rather than his ideas about improving the lives of the community he leads.  

Barack Obama's wonderful farewell speech on Tuesday night was an example of how important words are to the act of leadership.  I suspect most of you were enthralled by the clarity and inclusiveness of his ideas and words:  the beauty of the speech caught our attention.  We could also see how effective it is when the words of a leader that mean what we all think they mean and when the intention of those words is to touch us, not simply provide the cloud of fiction for the president-elect to hide in.  We could also see in those words the fact that leadership is meant to  unite, not divide.  Obama's meditation on citizenship did not focus on the individual but on what we can bring to the collective.  

Language is at the centre of the social contract.  We can't even have a social contract without words.  But when words lose their meaning and are employed to elevate the leader, not to rally the citizens behind a nobler vision we can all pursue, we know we are on the edge of a dictatorship, loosely defined.  We are at the edge of the same kind of crisis that prompted Jane A. Stickle to create a quilt block that reflects centrifugal force:  what happens when the centre is empty of meaningful words.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

I want to think about light

This has not been a good year.  For fifteen years now, Europe and North America have been at odds with Islamic extremists, and thousands of people, many of them 'soft targets,' have died at concerts, at work, in editorial offices, in busy markets, on their way innocently or curiously traveling from one place to another, going about their daily lives.  The terrorists' anger does not seem to be abating, and nothing seems to assuage it--which I suppose is the definition of 'terrorist':  I won't stop until I get my way.  And of course, we can't let them have their way.  The Syrian civil war goes on, with hundreds of thousands of people leaving the once busy, complex city of Aleppo and joining the parade of refugees.  In turn, the tide of refugees from chaotic places in North Africa into Europe has made a profound change in Europe's political landscape--leading to the success of the Brexit vote and to increasing support for right wing and xenophobic parties and politicians.  This trend crescendoed in North America with the election of Donald Trump, though oddly enough I am comforted by the fact that more Americans--2 million by the last count I heard--voted for a moderate, feminist voice of inclusion.  That comfort doesn't do me or the Americans who most needed Clinton to win any good--those who are poor, those who aren't white.  In turn, we are seeing a disturbing logic emerge in Trump's choice of a cabinet that does not in any way reflect the hopes and needs of the people who voted him into office.  How long will it take them to discover they have been duped--another pawn of the Donald?

This makes me want to think, rebelliously, about light.  I could begin by noting that in my childhood and adolescence little was made of the winter solstice--though of course we took note of the date when winter officially began.  But we didn't obsess about the light.  I think the credit for that goes to my generation, or those slightly older, whose New Age mythology (and I don't use that word derisively, to describe something that is fantastical and nonexistent) tied them more firmly to nature, the earth, the seasons.  I remember my fabulous Chaucer professor at the University of Michigan, Leo McNamara, saying in a moment of extraordinary intimacy between an M.A. student and a professor in his late thirties "This time of year, I notice the days getting shorter and shorter, and blackness comes upon me.  I wonder if daylight is going to disappear altogether."  Professor McNamara had a large dose of Irish poetry running in his veins.  But he explained something I had experienced for about eight years, but had no name for.  Call it what you will:  the black dog, depression, seasonal affective disorder, lack of emotional or intellectual energy, a tendency to lash out to people who were normally helpful and to want them to do the thing that would make this vaguely powerful feeling, this insistent anomie go away.

So it didn't surprise me that so many of my Facebook friends noted, with relief, the passing of the year's longest night, made apparently even darker by an eclipse, and wished their friends well.  Made wiser by middle- and old-age, supported by a set of rules I apply rigorously to my life in December (e.g. don't drink; don't make judgements of others), appeased by a SAD light I commune with almost every morning between mid-October and mid-February, I find the dark days of the year bearable and only occasionally a challenge.  But it doesn't surprise me that, this year particularly, there seemed to much collective anxiety floating about.

I found light in three perhaps surprising places.  One was a Regina coffee shop called "Naked Bean," which I visited a couple of days before the solstice. The cafe was busy, partly because people were having their pre-Christmas social coffees, so I had to sit in one of the  high chairs near the door.  I was immersed in my re-reading of Anthony Doerr's remarkable novel about World War Two, All the Light We Cannot See--which is an odd thing to be reading at Christmas time, except perhaps for its obsession with light--when my attention was drawn by a wriggling dog who had arrived at the coffee shop's door and was scratching at it anxiously, as if his owner was inside and had forgotten him.  When a woman left, the only thing she could do was open the door and let the dog in, who roved down the long room, smelling everyone and looking for just that smell that would be comforting and reassuring.  A young barista followed his progress and, when it was clear the dog's owner was not there, took him to the front of the coffee shop where he examined his collar, asked his fellow worker to bring him a phone, and promptly called the owner to let them know their pet was safe but needed to be fetched.  A sheepish young boy with a leash showed up not five minutes later.

What a simple act.  And how much light it shed.  It took the young man perhaps 5 minutes out of his day to unite a child and his dog.  He had done it, he told me, because that's what he would want someone to do if his dog got loose.  But the event didn't simply cast light into the days of the dog, his boy, and an elderly lady sitting close to the door.  It cast light on the very act of casting light:  how simple it can be, how close to home, how without drama or fanfare, how it only requires--at this time close to Christmas--us to think about how we would want others to treat us and act in the same way towards them.

My second burst of light came in the dark on the road from Saskatoon to Regina.  Every year, the Saskatchewan Information and Library Services Consortium, for which my daughter Veronica works, has its December Board Meeting in Saskatoon.  Veronica and I have for several years made the trek a morning before (necessary because the meeting begins at nine in the morning)  so that in the afternoon we could do some Christmas shopping.  This two-day trip has become its own ritual with tourtiere at Calories, a room at the Park Town Hotel with a view of the river, and several hours at McNally Robinson.  But in between the holiday restlessness, we talk.  In his  Massey Lectures on winter, Adam Gopnik calls the car the "ultimate small-scale combined confessional booth and savannah box"--this latter in relation to his discussion of the wonders of central heating.  So in our moveable confessional box, on the way home we got around to Trump's election, and I had confessed to my daughter that for an entire week afterward I had trouble focusing, and certainly couldn't write.  She said "You said something when I was young about knowing which things you could do something about and which things you couldn't, and that it was important to know which was which.  I can't do much about climate change, but I can keep my footprint as small as possible and walk wherever I can.  I can't do anything about the election of a mean, mouthy man.  But Della (the SPL person who takes care of them while they are in Saskatoon) arranged really nice lunches for us, so I emailed her and told her everyone was talking about the great food.  And I work for an agency that has figured out how to give library cards to homeless people so they can take out books and sign up for computer time."

Yikes!  I had no idea I regularly invoked the serenity prayer.  I certainly had no idea that Veronica remembered it and used it to direct her life, much less that she had found what I sometimes cannot:  the wisdom to know the difference between what you can change and what you cannot.  My daughter has leap-frogged over me into wisdom.  We had talked the day before about the beauty of humility, of simple, humble goals in life and how much happier people are when their goals aren't out of proportion with their lives or their gifts, and I had her in mind when I talked about the research on humility--a way of validating her life and her choices without saying that was what I was doing.  Here her humility does her great good, allowing her to choose to do what she can and not waste her time worrying about what she can't.  

The light here is enormous, and has a lot in common with the light I'd glimpsed at Naked Bean.  Light lives close to home and bursts into being in simple gestures like emailing a colleague about nice lunches.  This light has clarity in an age of terrorism, xenophobia, and general selfish meanness:  if we all do simple kind things we can out-light the bastards.

The third light was in Saturday's Globe and Mail.  Elizabeth Renzetti began her regular Saturday column by talking about a father and son who had read Daniel Rotsztain's book, All the Libraries in Toronto, and were inspired to visit every one of them over six months.  On the TVO website, father Lanrick Bennett Jr. talked about going with his son Jack on public transit to each of the libraries, where they had their copy of the book stamped.  Mr. Bennett talked about how remarkable this time with his son had been, how they'd talked and had become closer.  Renzetti goes on to describe how libraries are underfunded, yet nevertheless remain essential places where "Challenged with the question of how they shape their future--digital or analog--libraries have made themselves indispensable in the present, providing free movies and lectures, ESL lessons, open WiFi for bad teenagers, meeting places for refugees and exhausted new mothers alike."  She cites Michael Sandel's book, What Money Can't Buy:  The Moral Limits of Markets, which argues that we need public spaces, like libraries, where we can gather and where everyone is treated the same.

Obviously there's a connection between Renzetti's story and Veronica's life:  libraries.  But in both of them, libraries stand for cultural institutions, for literacy, for communal life, for beauty, for information, for attempts to find the truth in a "truthy" world. So, even if we have made it past the solstice yet still find ourselves surrounded by darkness, kindness and culture can ameliorate a lot.  Writers, painters, musicians, film makers all want to ground us in an intense experience we are having here, now, an experience like and yet unlike our own, human yet not exactly ours.  They want to share their own perspective, and varying perspectives are going to be golden over the next little while.  

So my New Year's wish for you is for light.  I am grateful for your ability to kindle it in surprising places.  I want you to know how powerful you are, even in the face of terrorists and Trumps:  you can give kindness to the person in front of you in line for coffee who discovers he does not have enough change, into the person you make eye contact with and smile to as you walk down the street, in the words of praise you speak to a co-worker.  Even if you do not think of yourself as an artist or as part of some cultural institution, keep writing, thinking, creating in whatever ways seem good in your life:  a letter to a friend or favourite aunt, a photograph of a sunrise sent to cheer a friend.  And throw in a little kindness for good measure.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Finding a voice for a worldview

I've reached a comfortably uncomfortable place in my work on Soul Weather.  I have revised (and drastically cut) the chapters written on my sabbatical in 2011 according to the way I now see the novel.  I have thought harder--though I am not finished thinking--about its structure, and added some scenes that reflect my new thoughts on how it might be built.  I have read my notebooks over a couple of times; only these have allowed me to create the bridge from six relatively brief chapters to over 70 single-spaced pages.  I know my characters better.  During my original work five years ago, I did reams of research on ceramics, including taking lessons throwing and glazing pots.  I'm a terrible potter, but I know how it feels to work on a wheel and can say how delicious it is to have mud growing up through your hands--even it if turns wonky at the last moment.  But two characters who have developed more fully are demanding that I learn a great deal about things I know nothing about.

Briefly put, I follow Lee, a potter with and MFA, and three university students, Samantha, Dana, and Chrystal (who will be replaced in January by an as yet unnamed Ph.D. student doing work on animal languages) through about a year living in the same house in Regina's Cathedral neighbourhood.  I would like to be able to call this a "condition of Canada" novel as I ask what might make these young people "at home" in their world:  What ideas?  What futures?  What weather?  What relationships?  What world views?  What societies?  What technology or lack of technology?  It's set in 2011 because that was the year of the Occupy Movement and because we were only three years out from the stubborn "Great Recession," which seemed to have intractable effects on everything from jobs to the self-discipline of university students to our action on the environmental challenges we face.  

So my comfortably uncomfortable moment right now finds me doing two things:  reading and revising.  Samantha is a history student working on the proposal for her Honours Paper on Simone Weil.  So right now, I'm reading Oppression and Liberty and trying to figure out how she could write about such a compelling but unsystematic thinker as an historian.  I am in essence going to have to come up with a viable research question for her.  At the same time, Dana, whom everyone thought was a girl--but who is a short, hirsute, well-tattoed young man with a gift for barbequeing anything--has shifted from Business in Saskatoon to economics at U of R and has discovered that "neoliberalism is the bully in the room," as he tells Samantha.  I haven't started doing the research that will flesh out his ideas:  I'm trying to do one thing at a time--a luxury that is one of the lovely benefits of retirement.  (That's not entirely true:  I'm working on some poems about nineteenth-century naturalists and am also deep into Thoreau's miraculous journals.)

Because not all of the scenes have the girding of these ideas, I'm writing that material now, very slowly, and then revising both it and the pages preceding it with coarse-grained sandpaper vigorously applied.  This intense revision makes me very aware that every choice I make, from plot to word, is bound up with my worldview and the worldviews of my characters.  

This fact was powerfully and uncomfortably brought home by a novel I read last week--though which book doesn't matter.  Everything went wrong:  mothers died, fathers-in-law were brutal, husbands indifferent, the weather wasn't working in the farmer's favour, pregnancies ended in stillbirth or were unplanned, beloved sons were discovered to have epilepsy. 

I am looking onto the windy back yard, where the birds have come for their afternoon tea.  There is a house finch, ruddy against the wind and snow, at the feeder;  a nuthatch is walking down the tree trunk in front of me:  surely everything in the world isn't entirely fucked?

Between the ages of 16 and 40, I was gifted with regular, deep, despairing depressions.  I was also gifted with a wonderful psychiatrist who taught me to understand myself and those difficult, dark times.  The result is that I have wrestled very self-consciously to acquire the habits of mind that feel "sane" to me:  curiosity, gratitude, generosity, kindness.  I suppose that were I forced to sum up my worldview, I would say "So much goes wrong in the world over which we have no control:  history, weather, physics, chemistry, time.  We can't control the outcome of the war in Syria, nor we can change the result of the election in the U.S.  We can't control storms or earthquakes.  When it's slippery, we might fall and break an ankle, or a car out of control might hit ours.  We may be subject to cancer or bipolar disorder.  And certainly we age inexorably--though there's coffee to spur the energy I don't always have, and aspirin for stiff knees.  If we are subject to all this, we can at least be kind to one another, be curious about one another's challenges, be grateful for kindness or wonder or love, give generosity back to the world and benefit ourselves while helping others."

So I will never write a bestseller, a book that confirms our sense that disaster is waiting for us everywhere.  Which leads me to take yet another leap in this blog.  (Yes, I noticed I was making the earlier ones.)  When Veronica and I were visiting Quebec City, we spent our final day at the Musee National des beaux-arts du Quebec.  We are very slow museum goers, so we chose our exhibits carefully, going first to see the Bonnards, then to study their fabulous collection of Inuit sculpture, and finally to stroll through the gallery to study the "stark, haunting images" of Jean-Paul Lemieux.  At the Musee, they organize his work chronologically, showing his early struggles, his folk-art attempts, his nearly giving up altogether until, in a single painting, he found his voice--the way he saw and spoke to the world.  

The chronological presentation of Lemieux's work shows a skilled painter in pursuit of his voice--almost losing hope, and then, miraculously, finding it.  Seeing the changes in his work, in combination with revising old drafts, made me think more usefully about voice and style.  Perhaps there are enough all-out-disaster novelists out there, and my sense that human beings can strive to be kind, grateful, curious, and generous has a place.  Besides, there's another chemistry of worldview in a novel:  all the characters should definitely not share the author's worldview.  If character X has his or her own particular history, his or her own temperament, his or her own particular set of external influences, what conclusions about the world might character X draw?  That is the question that lies behind all my crazy reading.  I'm not only reading Simone Weil, I'm trying to read it from Samantha's perspective, and so understand that perspective more fully.  Thus the novel becomes a conversation between me and my characters.  Only then does it become a conversation between me and my readers.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Happy are the makers

When Veronica and I were in Montreal and Quebec City last month, we inevitably spent some time in "Old Montreal" and Quebec City's Old Town.  I never quite know how I feel about places where we have restored original historic buildings only to turn them into pubs and souvenir shops selling stuffed snowy owls and wooden boxes decorated with maple leafs.  Yet the buildings retain their charm if you can look past every effort to create a twee streetscape.  In Montreal, for example, we really got off the beaten path by going down a little alley that ended in a courtyard of pop-up artisans' stalls.  And both Veronica and I found gifts for ourselves in a kind of "handcraft house" that carried the work of dozens of gifted artisans--potters, glassblowers, jewellery makers, wood carvers, spinners, weavers, knitters, quilters.  In Quebec City, we found many shops that tastefully combined tchotchkes with examples of craftsmanship.  A shop in Old Town comes to mind where you could buy the aforementioned wooden box with a maple leaf.  Or you could drop $14,000 for the most remarkable rocking (or reading) chair and ottoman made of silken-finished sculptural wood.  In one of Old Town's picturesque squares, modern, woven canoe shapes floated above the old streets and between  buildings.

Our travel habits took us to many places where craftsmanship was in the foreground.  In the Jean Talon Market, we found artisanal honey and cheese, home made pickles and jams.  In the quilt and  yarn shops we visited, we found groups of women sitting comfortably around a large old oak table now painted white, drinking tea and knitting lace.  We found hand-made buttons and quilts.  In the Marche Bonsecours we found hand made clothes, probably designed by the makers.   In Old Town we watched a woman blowing a glass snowflake and I found a glass paperweight for Bill.

Haida carver Bill Reid has observed "One basic quality unites all the works of mankind that speak to us in human recognizable voices across the barriers of time, culture, and space:  the simple quality of being well-made."  Why else do we collect old quilts and Victorian hair jewellery, or flock to Wintergreen?  I suppose some of us have political motives, particularly at this time of year:  we are trying to avoid mass-produced gifts for the people in our lives who are all so wonderfully individual.  In a mug or a quilt lovingly made, something of the craftsman remains, so that the owner is almost touching the maker's hand or spending a moment inside the maker's intentions each time it is used.  Thus, perhaps, comes Bill Reid's sense that well-made things speak to us.

But I have also wanted to think about makers--people involved in the act of making something.  When I am quilting, piecing, or appliquing, I feel simple happiness that is only equaled by gardening on a glorious day.  (Writing is a much more complex happiness:  there's the frustrated pleasure of getting the idea down in some gawky way, and then the more sublime pleasure of bringing the words into their own--or at least approaching that point.)  Making something is its own pleasure--the tactile pleasure of watching it grow under your hands.  If we're talking about craft rather than art, we don't need to belittle the everyday things that people do to give themselves pleasure--whether it's crocheting doilies or throwing an elegant teapot, maybe because the point is not to embody a profound idea but to do something well.

Let me intrude with an awkward political point.  I love knitting socks.  I love knitting complicated socks and simple socks.  For years, Bill resisted the very notion of handmade socks until, when we were visiting Seattle, he saw some Kaffe Fassett wool in Churchmouse Yarns and Teas on Bainbridge island.  I am now working on his fourth pair of handmade socks, made of Montana wool.  (His new socks are above, photographed against one of my favourite quilts.)  I have often said, whimsically and ironically "When the end times come, my people's feet will be warm."  Since Trump's election, this statement does not seem so far-fetched.  Yet the pleasure I get making socks is described in a psychological model of human needs and motivations called "self-determination theory," postulated by Deci and Ryan.  (Link to their website below.)  They suggest that human needs or motives can be described by three qualities they contribute to our lives and our sense of well-being.  We need to feel we belong.  We need a sense of autonomy.  We need a sense of competence.  Self-determination theory explains, for example, why I practice the piano after a hard day's writing:  my written work only approaches my ideal, but I can measure how much better my performance of a Mozart piano sonata was today than it was yesterday.  I have (some) competence.  (I will never be a truly good pianist:  I make different mistakes every time.  How do you practice to eliminate that?  It isn't a matter of having the discipline to practice the same six bars many times every day--which I have in spades.)

Self-determination theory also explains why I like to knit socks, insofar as making them illustrates not only my competence, but my autonomy--hence my fanciful remark about "my people's feet being warm."  And of course, if I have a group I can call "my people," then I have a sense of belonging. Trump and his voters fail the self-determination theory test.  Competence?  He hasn't a single idea about governing a complicated country.  Unless you call getting mobs to believe your lies competence, he has none.  Autonomy?  Hardly.  His entire life consists of someone else declaring he's the biggest...You fill in the blank.  Belonging?  In TrumpWorld, it's every man (literally) for himself. 

Making things--socks or quilts, mugs or wooden boxes--has another quality I can't quite explain.  But I can tell you a story--two stories, actually.  In 1863, Jane A. Stickle finished a remarkable quilt that consisted of 225 different blocks--many of which are seen nowhere else.  She signed it quite simply:  "War Time 1863.  Pieces 5602.  Jane A. Stickle."  Brenda Manges Papadakis saw the quilt nearly thirty years ago, and wrote a book for quilters that allows us to at least approximate this work of inventive patience, but despite Papadakis's research, little is known about her.  So what might one imagine?  That she identified her quilt as a work made in "War Time 1863" suggests that focusing on the quilt was one of enduring through a very difficult time.  "Pieces 5602" might suggest that she purposefully set herself a very difficult task as a way of distracting herself from the war.  When you are making something, history doesn't go away.  But you feel as if your creation is a kind of counterbalance, a way of keeping alive creativity, joy, inventiveness, and beauty.  At the end of the difficult time, you will not only have something to "show for it," but you will have kept those important human qualities in the world while other people have lost their heads and pursued chimeras.

When Veronica and I were in Paris, I went--of course--to the only quilt shop I could find in the city, which happened to be very close to where we were staying on the Left Bank.  I walked in and was immediately struck by seeing Jane's quilt on the back wall.  The owner, a lovely British woman, explained that she and her mother-in-law had made it (by hand!) while her mother was dying, and that doing so was a source of profound comfort.  Jane A. Stickle would, of course, have smiled.  I don't know how many quilters have a similar story to tell:  how making a quilt at a difficult time created an oasis of sanity and meaning in the puzzling world surrounding them.  After all, death is puzzling, war is puzzling, politics is certainly puzzling.

Jane A. Stickle was born in 1817--two hundred years after Trump's inauguration.  I have decided to make her quilt during his presidency--at least one block every couple of weeks.  And I'll blog about it here, letting the blocks lead me wherever they might--into worlds, I hope, of pleasure and meaning.  And of determination to keep everyday life focused, productive and sane.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Trumping Trump

Like you, I am grieving.  I am horrified that the American people--white people, that is--elected a president who is racist, sexist, bigoted, and lies; a man whose "platform" is built on hate, a man with too little intelligence to accept climate change as scientific  truth and who may, indeed, think that scientific proof is for sissies.  The point is that what he says--whatever it is--is true.  This is a model of masculinity that reaches back beyond the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, which gave birth to science and human rights, and that is deeply outdated and indeed dangerous in the twenty-first century world.

Like you, I know there will be suffering--that indeed there has already been suffering.  Trump's election is a clarion call for anyone who thinks that women are objects for men's pleasure or who believes they have a right to sexually harass or take possession of women.  Women will have fewer rights, if he has his way:  Roe v. Wade will be overturned--and women and children will suffer for that.  Young girls and women are suffering:  their country couldn't imagine a woman president and so voted for a man whom many describe--rightly--as the least fit candidate ever.  "I don't know what it is about Hillary, but I just don't trust her" is a statement made by people with gender biases and the FBI.  People of colour will suffer--and indeed racial violence on the streets has already broken out because Trump's election says being a bully is all right.  The planet will suffer if he gets his way and stops funding to green energy projects while mining coal aggressively.  Peace around the world will be challenged:  peace is hardly a lodestar for this representative of hypermasculinity.  Do people really not understand that the person they elect is a statement of their values?

There have been many excellent analyses of Trump's victory, but let me turn to ideas I've been exploring over the last couple of years with Katherine Arbuthnott.  In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman identifies two kinds of thinking which he unpoetically describes as System 1 and System2.  I can only give you a quick summary of Kahneman's complex thinking, but I think even that will shed some light on this election.  System 1, which thinks "fast,"gathers "impressions, intuitions, feelings."  "System 1 is generally very good at what it does:  its models of familiar situations are accurate, its short-term predictions are usually accurate as well, and its initial reactions to challenges are swift and generally appropriate.  System 1 has biases, however, systematic errors that it is prone to make in specified circumstances" (24-25).  That is, System 1 is lazy; it goes for the obvious and the immediate and doesn't think through long-term consequences or implications.  It wants to call on its biased impressions to understand the world rather than taking time to consider evidence.  Donald Trump was elected by a kind of mass hysteria, a System 1 impression that America is not great because their salaries are not as high as they feel they should be, their jobs not as secure as they have been in a union-dominated past. The people to blame for this are the Other.  There was no historical analysis on the part of this electorate, no sense that lives and work have changed profoundly since the nineties, largely because of technology.  They want change now; they are not thinking about the long-term--hence their willingness to elect a man who doesn't believe government should address the challenges of climate change.  "What I want now?" trumped "What is best for the nation?"  And in turn, individualism trumped the collective.

And there I need to evoke Jonathan Haidt's concept of ape brain.  Haidt argues that about 10% of the time, our brains think like bees:  we understand the importance of the collective, of consensus, even of evidence.  (Read Mark L. Winston's remarkable Bee Time to understand how remarkably rational bees are.)   We should certainly be thinking like bees when we cast our vote.  But about 90% of the time our minds are controlled by our inner ape.  The automatic response of the ape brain is "Me!"  And when not me, "Mine.  My Group."  That 53% of white woman voted for Trump, despite his misogyny, tells me we had ape brain going on here, and that these women's in-group was white.  They make me deeply ashamed.

What the election of  Donald Trump has done is to release America's inner id.  This, in part, was why the polls were so skewed:  I suspected some people simply didn't want to admit they were voting for Trump.  This also explains the violence:  Courtney Bates-Hardy posted a heartbreaking link (which, like the other links I refer to will be included below) to Tweets about women and people of colour being threatened, harassed, or attacked.    

But we need to mobilize the better angels of our nature, as many people have been suggesting.  Gloria Steinam argues that rather than grieving we need to organize. Alison Powell, a lecturer at the London School of Economics suggested in a FB post that we need to find ways of creating communities.  I share her list with you with her permission: 

The world of individualized, filtered media's made us forget about all the places that we can come together to talk, work, think and feel together. As we respond to a politics of division, let's remember the role of:
-soup kitchens and welcome centres
-neighbourhood associations
-community gardens
-trade unions
-book clubs
-playgrounds/parks/school gates

Find your people. Talk to them. Be together. Make connections about things you can agree to do for each other. This is how we start to make solidarity.

Since the election, Bill Ursel has been saying that we need to be "human shields" for those blamed, vilified, mocked, or disparaged by Trump's campaign. We need to support groups like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More, groups that teach us that diversity is a strength, not something to be feared.

Jenna Butler wrote on FB of spending election night in the hospital room of her dying mother-in-law and spoke movingly of the various ways we create relations with one another.  She urged us "At this point, this space in time, be more than ever your best selves. Find the energy that lit you yesterday and stay fired by it, no matter what comes. We need your dreaming and your groundedness, your ability to be firm in where you stand, while all the time looking levelly to what arrives."  We need to witness births, deaths, struggles and triumphs of one another.  We need to be witnesses to keep alive something that is beautifully human in us.

Shawna Lemay was working on her blog, :Transactions with Beauty," about Leonard Cohen's "You Want it Darker," when she was surprised by two things:  one was that Cohen's dark vision is startlingly appropriate (particularly after his death yesterday, which Shawna obviously didn't know about on Wednesday) and that her motto, "You are required to make something beautiful" was singularly apposite.  Yale philosopher Elaine Scarry explains why in her remarkable and small book, On Beauty and Being Just.  Here, I can hardly do justice to her argument, so I will only urge you, in the days to come, to read her book.  Because what we are losing with a Trump election is justice, and because Scarry can guide us to the ways we keep justice alive.  Being in the presence of something beautiful urges us to look carefully, at particulars, and it is this careful looking and perceiving that is the first step to justice.  Trump can make the wild generalization that Mexicans are rapists, but what could we do to that argument by telling him the stories of particular people whose beauty, widely-defined, asks us to do justice to their particular stories?  Then, one's attention to the beautiful thing is de-centering.  We are so startled by beauty that we are no longer the centre of the universe--the id yelling "I want!"  We want to become stewards of the beautiful, as we can see in our attempts to protect the planet.  We are prompted to create something, to protect something--a grasslands pasture or a rainforest, a species or a fragile ecosystem.  And here, I can only quote Scarry:  "Because beauty repeatedly brings us face-to-face with our own powers to create, we know where and how to locate those powers when a situation of injustice calls on us to create" (115). 

So Americans and their Canadian cousins need to go to art galleries, listen to music, make rebellious graffiti, sing songs, join flash mobs, read books.  It is that last that I understand most completely:  deep reading leads to empathy, to understanding both the other, who is merely different, and the Other, whose difference challenges our assumptions.  When I experience beauty, I am infused with energy and hope:  we are going to need both of those things in the next four years.

We need to create the beauty of painting and dance and stories and song.  Because here is where we are rebellious, here is where we accomplish three important things.  We partake of creation rather than destruction.  We create, as best as flawed human beings can, celebrations of what we value, what is best in us.  We speak to one another rather than shouting into an angry crowd.
Day 1 in Trump's America
Don't mourn: organize  
Transactions with Beauty 

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Daily beauty and joie de vivre

When Veronica and I exited the Jean Talon Metro Station, we knew almost instantly that we were close to the Jean Talon Market.  Young people strolled towards us with granny baskets full of produce, a shock of leeks or the fringed tops of carrots suggesting what was underneath.  Middle-aged women carried African baskets woven of colourful grass and filled with produce.  One lovely woman strode toward us carrying two enormous mounds of chrysanthemums, each pot circled by an arm.  

In his book on beauty, Roger Scruton deals with a topic most philosophers don't consider:  everyday beauty.  He begins his discussion of everyday beauty, not surprisingly, with gardens--with our attempts to bring the world's fundamental beauty, that of nature, into our own lives and into our daily experience.  He argues that "This attempt to match our surroundings to ourselves and ourselves to our surroundings is arguably a human universal.  And it suggests that the judgement of beauty is not just an optional addition to the repertoire of human judgments, but the unavoidable consequence of taking life seriously, and becoming truly conscious of our affairs" (82). That second sentence is a bit of a leap away from the first, but it does reflect the observations of many thinkers about beauty.  Let me offer this example as an illustration.  You're getting a quick dinner ready so that the kids can get to their soccer practice and their music lessons.  Do you set the table just so, or are you simply satisfied with getting everything on the table--the chips still in their bag, the mini carrots hastily poured into a cereal bowl, knives and forks within everyone's reach?  But when you arrange a table for a dinner party--and Clarissa Dalloway can tell you how important parties are for making connections between people and creating conversations that will doubtless delve at some point into what is important to us--the upcoming election, the latest film, the city's plan to bulldoze some houses to create another park--beauty is at the forefront of your concerns.  You understand, without thinking about it, that a beautiful setting is required for an evening when we not only enjoy wonderful food--another everyday beauty--but revel in the chance to have meaningful conversations, to take the culture's temperature, to 'take life seriously.'

The Jean Talon market was full of people who took life seriously.  Veronica and I wanted a couple of apples to go with our baguette and cheese, and approached a table where the orchardist had an enormous variety of fresh, local apples.  I went straight for a Honeycrisp, but Veronica was hemming and hawing about an Empire, a Lady Apple, or a just-picked Mackintosh.  Instantly he had a knife in his hands and was quickly but carefully cutting slices of apples for us to try while also handing out samples to other people who had approached his stand.  We weren't going to be a big sale, shlepping back a bushel to our hotel, but he saw that choosing a single apple was important.  We met the same response later in a cheese shop where we found a dozen varieties of goat's cheese.  The very young woman, not much over sixteen, was happy to describe the special qualities of each creamy round.  Sadly, I don't remember the name of the one we bought, but it was very, very good with the baguette and apple, just as she said it would be.

An enthusiastic sense of joie de vivre permeates Montreal.  On Saturday night, Veronica and I went to hear Les Violons du Roy perform some experimental music--a concerto for strings and electric guitar--as well as Beethoven's Fifth, which I've probably heard hundreds of times.  Yet conductor Anthony Marwood found something entirely new in the score, and the audience leapt to its feet at the end.   Montrealers wear their scarves with insouciance, gather among China Town's gaudy lights on Rue de la Gauchetiere to study the windows of the cheap but excellent patisseries and the tiny shops with their teapots and graphic blue and white bowls.  As we walked that afternoon, we found a lovely wool shop where women collected on Saturday afternoons to knit.  There were lovely tea cups on the table, along with myriad knitting projects.  The shop itself was full of wonderful colours, as well as these shelves of jam jars full of tiny iridescent beads for working into complicated lace.  Montrealers' sense of joie de vivre is infectious.

You can manufacture joie de vivre.  After two or three rainy days, we will eat dinner in front of the fireplace, trying to absorb from the fire the light that our days seem to be withholding.  I make quilts for several reasons.  One reason speaks to the human need to feel competent, so my ability to cut and sew carefully and to skillfully to produce blocks where all the edges meet fills a definite need.  But choosing fabric for a block and seeing the pieces come together gives me a small hit of joie de vivre.  

I have a feeling our pets give us is joie de vivre.  I am listening to my friend Katherine tell the stories of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel puppy who has joined her household--who makes her laugh several times a day, even during difficult times.  I have realized how much I appreciate Twig's undramatic joie de vivre:  as he moves from twining around my legs to his food bowl, I can hear him thinking "Yes, I'm an old cat who sleeps a lot, but life is good."

Joie de vivre, I suspect, is tied to beauty, to the world's willingness to hand us, gratis, a beautiful sunny day or a glorious puddle of golden light that dances around the roots of an aspen.  We can manufacture it with a lovely dinner or a vibrant quilt block, but when nature is withholding, it's harder.  Then, it's culture's turn to kick in and remind us that part of "the good life" is being enveloped in the present moment, in the people and spaces that have conspired to hold our attention with their beauty and vitality and give us an energizing hit of joy.  Montrealers are practiced at this.  Maybe those of us who live on the prairies could learn from them.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The ambiguities of nature's texts

"Red sky at night, sailors' delight.  Red sky in morning, sailors' warning."  As long ago as Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, we've referenced this adage.  We now have an explanation of why it's true.  The colour of the sunset indicates that the sun's light is passing through quite a lot of dust and moisture, which indicates high pressure, or stable weather coming from the west.  When the sunrise is red, the high pressure system has already passed, given that weather generally moves, in the mid-latitudes, from west to east.  We have probably observed this since time out of mind, thus creating the little rhyming mnemonic.

In a similar vein, D.H. Lawrence has written "Birds are the life of the skies, and when they fly, they reveal the thoughts of the skies," in a prose poem he put at the beginning of the bird section of his book of poetry, Birds, Beasts and Flowers, a passage which Jonathan Rosen has used as the epigraph to his fascinating The Life of the Skies:  Birding at the End of Nature.  But we were reading the birds in the skies long before Lawrence.  One of the ancient methods of divination called augury was first recorded among the Egyptians in the 14th century B.C.  Cicero was one of the early augurs.  The augur marked out a templum and then watched to see which birds flew through which part of his space. 

Weather reports are an attempt to read nature.  We all know about how well that goes.  Apparently if weather forecasters say "Tomorrow will be just like today," they  would be more accurate than they are when they try to predict how fast a storm will move and along which path. 

I was reminded of how we read nature when I spent four days with my oldest friend, Liz Read, on Cape Cod.  Liz, who walks on the beach and swims every day, has the tide charts on speed dial.  Two hours either side of low tide is good for walking; two hours either side of high tide is good for swimming--or at least you don't have to walk a mile before you find enough water to swim in.  The picture below was taken from roughly the same place as that above.  You can see two tiny walkers toward the right side of the picture and can imagine how far you might need to go beyond them to find a place to swim.

When the tide was coming in, the sand looked like this:

I am guessing that these poetic runnels are the advance fingers of the surging tide, but I really don't know what causes them.  Perhaps the tide doesn't only come in at the level above the sand; perhaps those waves are preceded by water below the surface. 
On the other hand, when the tide is out, the sand looks like this.  Liz and Istared at these hiero-glyphics for quite a while until we figured out they were the tracks of sand crabs who were looking for a good place to hide out when the low tide made them vulnerable.

The fact that these marks looked like writing in the sand made me think more carefully about how we should read nature as a text.  But unless we're doing scientific research--on bees for example--and study the way their complex dances give other bees clear information about the location of flowers or a good place to swarm--I don't think we see nature as something we need to read.  Recently, though, scientists have concluded that dolphins have a language that leads to conversations.  Listening carefully, scientists could hear groups of clicks that seemed to be words because they occurred in larger, sentence-like structures that came to an end.  After a small silence, the other dolphin answered with her own spaced clusters of clicks.  Uncovering language in animals, in chickadees or among elephants, encourages us to read nature differently.  If we think we're the big guys with the brains that have led to culture, we need to think again when faced, for example, with an elephant attempting to console and feed a sick comrade or to comfort a baby.  (The American election is seriously making me reconsider whether we're the ones on the planets with the complicated, clever brains.  I'd vote for a dolphin before I'd vote for Donald Trump.)

In fact, we don't fully understand the way our own brains work.  My wonderful psychiatrist, Dr. Stanley Yaren, used to distinguish between brain and mind.  Brain was the hunk of meat with all its synapses and hormones like seratonin, dopamine, or cortisol.  Mind contains experience, memory, and thought. We are just beginning to understand the way these two systems talk to one another, resulting in depression, suicidal ideation, ecstasy, and love.  Can someone who has been safe and loved his whole life be depressed?  Do all people who come from chaotic beginnings become depressed or violent?  Well, no.  We're just beginning to study resilient children so we can understand what allows them to remain hopeful even in the face of adversity.  There's a lot of talking going on in your skull between brain and mind that we don't understand.

Much of nature's mystery comes from the fact that we can't read her processes.  We recognize the beauty of fall foliage, but we don't entirely know what causes it.  The planets in our solar system and beyond are all but unknown and lead to a much larger question:  are we alone?  If so, why?   Much of nature's danger also comes from the fact that we are only beginning to learn to read her.  Imagine how much safer we would be if we could read the coming of earthquakes.  Or simply had reliable weather reports that gave us enough time to protect our homes against torrential rains or flooding rivers.

Reading nature is like learning a second language.  Do you remember the first time you tried to read something in another language that was too hard?  You'd read a sentence and grasp onto the words you knew and the syntaxes that made sense.  Then you'd stop before reading another.  Getting half a dozen under your belt, you might go back to the very beginning with a hint about the passage's context or topic, knowing just enough so that you could guess a few more words.  Second languages widen our world view, give us access to whole other ways of thinking and to other experiences.  So too with reading nature.