Parents, Teacher, Students, Values, and Censorship

I'm pretty sure I need to bid farewell to children's literature. Teaching it to undergrads becomes a problem for me when what the text is doing is second to how the text is used in the classroom, and when the text's purpose--that is, how it wants the reader to respond to it--conflicts with my values as a parent. Especially since all they ever want to talk about is the text's usefulness for talking about something other than the text.

Over and over again, I see and hear discussions of who has a right--and it is always discussed in terms of rights--to decide what is taught in the classroom. On the one hand, I teach books, so I uphold my own right to decide this. But I have a degree in my subject field--not an education degree--and I teach literature, not "opening children's minds to the reality of life" and "encouraging children to actively question the values of their parents," which is apparently the goal of reading and literature classes on the elementary, middle, and high school levels. I wonder to myself when "intellectually challenging" became conflated with "controversial" or "socially and politically relevant"--there does not seem to be much distinction. This must mean that Shakespeare, Dante, and Homer are no longer intellectually challenging, and no teenager is going to get as much of a thrill from Grendel's mother, Ophelia's death, or the Cyclops's eye as from some hot, steamy sex scene in a third-rate historical novel. That's not dumbing down the curriculum, apparently, that's making it "relevant." Did you know that a rape scene automatically makes a text "relevant"? It's true. So romance-novel readers rejoice.

Yes, this is a rant, in part. Because "censorship" is a term that is bantered about irresponsibly. Am I in favor of censorship? No. Am I afraid to expose my child to challenging topics? No. Do I think I know better than the average teacher of elementary, middle, or high school what is appropriate and challenging for my child's grade level? Um. . . Yes. But that's beside the point, really.

I have a few major concerns about the selection of books for gradeschool curricula:

1. First, the idea that to get students "interested" you have to have something that's forbidden in some way, or something that ties DIRECTLY into some contemporary "issue" that we're all supposed to care about.
2. Second, the idea that because kids "will be exposed to this anyway," teachers are obligated or justified in making it the subject of class discussion, analysis, and inquiry.
3. The idea that kids "can handle it." Kids can handle a lot. They are resilient. Does that mean we need to thrust it upon them?
4. The notion that parents want to limit children to their own (parents' own) values and thereby prevent children from figuring things out for themselves.

The last is by far the most significant. I actually saw it stated in exactly that way in a children's lit textbook geared for education majors as an answer to why books are challenged or censored. It represents the extreme arrogance of teachers and education majors in dealing with parents and children. It shows a disregard for the parent as well as the child. The child, this suggests, should intentionally be sent mixed messages so that s/he can, from a relative "blank slate" position, build up his/her own worldview from the pieces. How can that be a good thing? As parents, if we do not monitor our children, know what they are reading, how they are getting along in school, then we are bad and uninvolved, and have no room to complain. But if we foster in them a certain way of viewing the world around them, and wish for them to understand the world from the position of our own values first, while they are young and open to our instruction, before they evaluate these values from the vantage point of greater personal experience, we are also bad.

I don't want to keep them sheltered from the world, but I do want to give them a solid foundation without someone presenting a worldview that is contrary and asserting it over the one I struggle to instill. Exposure to ideas is one thing; asserting certain ideas over others is something else. So much has to do with the context in which something is introduced. And since I can't control the context in which a teacher presents something, and since at-home "damage control" pits me against the teacher and invites my child to take sides, I would like to have some consideration shown to me and my RIGHT to instill my values in my child when the teacher is selecting the books to be taught in a class. There is plenty of room for challenging, stimulating material without pissing off the parents. I see nothing wrong with parents suggesting that a book be substituted for another, depending on the book and the context. If I were teaching a book that fictionalized and dramatized aspects of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body at a public high school, would I be subject to censorship? How about if I taught a novel about a boy who struggled with his impulses toward homosexuality, only to decide on chastity, convert to Catholicism, and become a priest? Surely, this would not be tolerated in a public school. I would venture to say that such a book would be called dangerous and hate-filled. Such things will never *be* presented as alternate views. But why should the assumption of casual sex be touted as exposure to multiple viewpoints? I see no multiple voices. Only the reinforcement of the messages from society, media, advertising. Somehow, these are not questioned. Secular does not equal sexual. The sex lives of young people are fetishized by the media, the publishing industry, and teachers.

But I'm not sure this is really about sex for me. It's just the easiest way to talk about it. It's about teachers' disrespect for parents. Why should a parent's theoretical/anticipated position on curricula be demeaned in a textbook? And why should a teacher's worldview or talentless, lame attempt to stimulate discussion through shock be labeled as progressive and enlightened? And what is it about children that makes teachers want to "expose them to life"? Experience is lived for a reason. Context often dictates what we must do in response to a situation, and how we must cope. Books can help with this. Until the books are used to dictate a correct, "valid" response for everyone. Or to directly contradict certain ways of living life. Or to promote certain lifestyle choices as preferable to others. Then, we might have issues. And I might ask that you reconsider your syllabus. Because then it's about your agenda, not my child's mental development. When they turn 18 or enter college (whichever comes first), then challenge them to think about what they believe. I should have done my job by then. But make sure you respect them even then, if the answers they give are intelligent and well-reasoned.

And in the meantime, tell me. . . Why are rape and (pre-)teen sex more "relevant" than cultural concepts of hospitality? Death and dying? The individual in society? Human pursuit of the divine?

Catholic Colleges and Orthodoxy

Because the job search wasn't complex enough. . .

I'm starting to think that I have no business applying to Catholic colleges, since one of my concerns is orthodoxy--actual adherence to the Church's teaching, broadly conceived. What kind of battles will I be in for if I go to a school that violates or disregards Church teaching on life issues, ordination of women, and even questions whether it is just to exclude non-Catholics from the Eucharist? Matters of conscience even get tricky at a secular, state school; how much more so if the administration of a Catholic college where I worked were to promote an agenda opposed to Church teaching? And yet, I interview by phone tomorrow with a college that was founded by an order that ABSOLUTELY supports women's ordination. Campus ministry reluctantly acts according to the will of the local bishop in refusing Communion to non-Catholics (not the Vatican, you will notice). I even emailed for clarification on this point, and the tone was one of remorse and sad disagreement. I have no idea how this would influence the tenor of the English department, except that the faculty members list the subjects about which they will willingly be interviewed by the press on their web pages--yes, that's ENGLISH faculty, people. Yet they're hiring for a position that would, essentially, oversee the school's orthodoxy, including screening new hires for willingness to adhere to the school's mission, uphold Catholic identity, etc. This person does not have to be a practicing Catholic.

What to do??

Christian Parents and Pre-Teen Guides to Sex

I've been in hibernation lately, I know. I do spend more time than I should online, but as I've mentioned before, I'm trying to limit myself to the sort of fleeting thoughts that lend themselves to Facebook status updates, and channel the complex meditative asides into something that might pass as academically productive. We'll see how that works out.

[For fear of Google, I have comment moderation on]

Recently, however, we encountered some issues with my son (now 12) that necessitated the opening of a pretty weighty subject--how to address topics related to sexuality in an informative, sex-positive, yet Catholic Christian context. And, well, I want him to have a book or books to turn to when curiosity arises and he doesn't necessarily feel like getting a parental lecture--because too often, I think, we give too much information and bore the heck out of him, truthfully. . . So while we are open to questions, and correct misperceptions or misbehavior, explain when necessary, I think a good book is a good thing to have. But where to go? He's younger than the target age for the Theology of the Body for Teens resources, and most of the Catholic resources that I've seen for younger ages address the spiritual aspects of where babies come from, and feelings of love, etc. Basically, I wasn't finding much actual information about anatomy, biological functions, adolescence--you know, the basics! Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places, but I'm pretty good at looking, and I wasn't finding. So I looked at the mainstream/secular resources, which of course, went in the opposite direction.

I believe that even if I *wanted* to affirm, promote, and emphasize use of birth control, as I would have at one point but do not now, I would still think that 12 is too young. He knows that birth control exists. Last year, he asked me whether there was a kind of medicine that a woman could take to prevent her from having a baby. I said yes, there was, and explained the Church's position on contraception in basic terms. At this stage, I don't want a book that details the various methods of contraception, though I am not--by any means--opposed to his learning about them. I will, of course, let him know our beliefs and the reason for those beliefs when the subject arises. He will make his decisions based on the information and moral guidance that we give to him, without the information being omitted.

The non-religious reference books on sexuality for youth that I found biologically informative and generally well-written also introduced and affirmed every type of sexual practice and lifestyle choice without any reference to the fact that not all lifestyle choices are condoned by all religions or *gasp!* parents. The books made it clear that these are exclusively personal matters and constructed implied child reader as independent from the beliefs and wishes of his/her parents. Basically, they provided an initiation into the happy utopia of adult sexuality. Ugh! You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself, so use protection and follow your impulses. Ugh! There was some stuff for girls about not being taken advantage of, some advice to empower girls to say no, but the overall message was that yes was good, too. Hence, the religious objection to sex ed: it not only provides information, it presents a certain world view and attitude toward sexuality that is largely self-serving and does not acknowledge that there may be other contexts for understanding human sexuality. This was not my experience of sex education, and I believe that this is because the average teacher of biology is not necessarily comfortable with promoting sexual practices to pre-teens or teens. There are, of course, exceptions, as the famous "condom-on-a-banana" anecdotes demonstrate. "Health" teachers might be a little more suspect. . .

So I admit that I do want to avoid the "You Might Be Gay--and It's Okay!" chapters. First, because however early homosexual feelings do appear, to confront and affirm them too early may lead to reckless lifestyle choices that are not informed by the wisdom and maturity of age. I would have scoffed to hear myself say such things when I was 17 (and a sophomore in college), but I can look back and see how my attitudes toward sexuality, which I developed largely on my own, matured over many years. Second, I want the Catholic version, that says, "You might be gay, and it's okay, because that's how God made you; but understand that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are inherently sinful, and you are called as a Catholic Christian to live according to this teaching. It may be that this is your cross to bear, and that you are called to a celibate life, and a life of service to others. This may be your special calling." I know it's unpopular. I have friends who are openly gay and live homosexual lifestyles, and they are dear friends, and I love them, but I have to acknowledge the teaching of my faith--which they do not share--in the instruction of my children, and my faith says that ALL lustful inclinations, ALL intercourse outside of the sanctity of marriage, and even some intercourse within the sanctity of marriage, is sinful. Men who aren't married, women who aren't married, homosexual and heterosexual--all are called to celibacy. Meanwhile, ALL people are called to chastity. It's a hard thing, so please don't blame me for it. I understand it and accept it, and will teach it to my children, as I am called to do.

Point is, of course, you're not going to find a book that says any of this. And with the Christian books, it's difficult to find a book that presents Christian teaching on alternative lifestyles sympathetically. Because taking something as a matter of faith, accepting and promoting an unpopular, politically incorrect teaching about sexuality, does not mean that you have to bulldoze through it and dismiss the feelings of those most intimately affected by the teaching. It does not mean that at all. So the book that had a table of contents arranged by "Thou Shall Nots"?--Uh uh. Not for me.

But, I did find some good books--two, to be exact. I apologize for making you read to the end of this to discover what they were. First, there was the "icebreaker"--the funny book, and to date, the only one of the two that my son has read (that he's admitted, anyway). It is called Lintball Leo's Not-so-Stupid Questions about Your Body. Published by ZonderKids, it is specifically geared towards boys, but there is one for girls, which I found first, and thought, "I wish there was one like this for boys!" and then looked on the next shelf. It provides information, does not insult the intelligence, does not preach, but does couch the physical, biological, and social questions that accompany puberty in a context that acknowledges nondenominational belief in God. Any divergences from Catholic teaching are very, very small--for example, it doesn't necessarily say that masturbation is a sin, but it does say that masturbation could become a part of sinful behavior or behavior patterns. The parent's objection to this statement could vary one way or another.

The second book I found had more information about sex--it read more like the mainstream sex ed books for teens/pre-teens in terms of what topics it covered, albeit from a Christian perspective. Again, I did not find the Christianity too prohibitive (that is, prohibitive in terms of "thou shall nots"), but do consider that I was looking for a minimally didactic book explaining sexuality within a Christian context. The book is titled, Sex and the New You, and is part of the Learning About Sex series published by Concordia Publishing House that is intended for children in various stages of curiosity about their bodies. The particular title I purchased is "For Young Men ages 13-15"--again, gender specific. There is a girls' version, and the difference is in the anatomical and social emphases. Each gender's version has a chapter relating to the anatomical features of and changes being experienced by the other, so the chapter "About Girls and Women" discussed female anatomy including menstruation--and has a drawing of a naked lady, to boot! And the glossary includes "clitoris"! ;) Emphasis is on respecting the bodies of others as well as yourself. I picked the age 13-15 volume because the younger volume was mostly centered on reproduction, and that was not the issue at hand. We were ready for a more mature set of subjects. But there is even a volume for ages 4-6, in picture book format, though I only noted it with passing interest. They are marketed as part of a home school or Christian school curriculum, or for individual use. The use of Bible verses was more extensive, but very tastefully done. I was less impressed with the title that was one "stage" down (all about reproduction), but each book has a different author, and it may well have been because it was not what I was looking for at the time. Still, I debated before choosing one over the other. Very occasionally, I disagree with generalizations about gender roles, but in general this is handled very well. The chapter on differences between men and women emphasizes that physical differences do not dictate differences in ability.

So that was a learning experience for me a couple of weeks ago, and hopefully yielded some information that will be helpful to others--and maybe I also provided some insight into what concerns Christian parents have about teaching sex ed to their kids. ;)

An Ambiguous Tribute to Orwell??

From the New Yorker, A Critic at Large: "Honest, Decent, Wrong: The Invention of George Orwell" by Louis Menand.

I was surprised at this article, posted by a colleague on Facebook. Apparently, it is necessary to debunk Orwell. The article meanders, mostly stressing the "constructedness" of Orwell's nonfiction and his use of a persona, and moving to the inaccuracy of his fiction. The assumption is that the person who would see Orwell's vision in 1984 as relevant in some way has been deluded into thinking that it is not fiction but prophecy. In doing so, the writer is speaking first of all to an audience of intellectual equals and like-minds, who look down on all of the uninitiated who get dangerous ideas from reading without guidance. At the same time, a group of outsiders is constructed, who are misinformed about the author and his works, and the connection between life and fiction in general. Though not the primary audience of the article, these individuals can benefit from the wisdom imparted, while the intended audience is invited to dismiss Orwell intellectually, or to take comfort in the fact that those who use him incorrectly are ignorant of Orwell's true character and purpose in writing. What risk does he pose? What is the motivation behind this article? What occasioned the discussion of his life and works? Any ideas I might have about it derive from the following passages:

Some people in 1949 received "1984" as an attack on the Labour Party (in the book, the regime of Big Brother is said to have derived from the principles of "Ingsoc"; that is, English Socialism), and Orwell was compelled to issue, through his publisher, a statement clarifying his intentions. He was a supporter of the Labour Party, he said. "I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive," he continued, "but I believe (allowing of course for the fact that the book is satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences."

The attitude behind this last sentence seems to me the regrettable part of Orwell's legacy. If ideas were to stand or fall on the basis of their logically possible consequences, we would have no ideas, because the ultimate conceivable consequence of every idea is an absurdity—is, in some way, "against life." We don't live just by ideas. Ideas are part of the mixture of customs and practices, intuitions and instincts that make human life a conscious activity susceptible to improvement or debasement. A radical idea may be healthy as a provocation; a temperate idea may be stultifying. It depends on the circumstances. One of the most tiresome arguments against ideas is that their "tendency" is to some dire condition—to totalitarianism, or to moral relativism, or to a war of all against all. Orwell did not invent this kind of argument, but he provided, in "1984," a vocabulary for its deployment.

"Big Brother" and "doublethink" and "thought police" are frequently cited as contributions to the language. They are, but they belong to the same category as "liar" and "pervert" and "madman." They are conversation-stoppers. [And "fascist." Don't forget "fascist." There are a lot of labels given to opponents that stop the conversation.] When a court allows videotape from a hidden camera to be used in a trial, people shout "Big Brother." When a politician refers to his proposal to permit logging on national land as "environmentally friendly," he is charged with "doublethink." When a critic finds sexism in a poem, she is accused of being a member of the "thought police." The terms can be used to discredit virtually any position, which is one of the reasons that Orwell became everyone's favorite political thinker. [True, but Orwell's lifetime saw, by the admission of the article, saw the actualization of extreme versions of ideas. One of the article's points is that Orwell considered Hitler attractive; that he had the same attraction to Hitler's brand of socialists as the "few" fascist sympathizers in England and France. And yet, he witnessed the extremist tendency of the ideas' implementation. Can we be secure in the assumption that ideas will NOT tend toward extremes?] People learned to make any deviation from their own platform seem the first step on the slippery slope to "1984."

There are Big Brothers and thought police in the world, just as there are liars and madmen. "1984" may have been intended to expose the true character of Soviet Communism, but, because it describes a world in which there are no moral distinctions among the three fictional regimes that dominate the globe, it ended up encouraging people to see totalitarian "tendencies" everywhere. There was visible totalitarianism, in Russia and in Eastern Europe; but there was also the invisible totalitarianism of the so-called "free world." [I wonder what is in the author's head here. Hasn't discussion of U.S. "imperialism" become common place? How is that different from the "invisible totalitarianism of the so-called "free world"? The author's intentions are well-concealed, here. The U.S. is mentioned in the article as a variable that was outside of Orwell's consideration. So is the "free world" evoked ironically here because Orwell viewed it skeptically? Or is the "free world" being evoked skeptically by the author, who does not believe in a distinction between the "free world" and "totalitarianism"? I tend toward the former interpretation: that the author is referring to Orwell's supposed fallacy. But it seems to me that this is contrary to how we see the U.S. represented--oh wait! It seems contrary to how the U.S. was described under Bush. But this is a Brave New World! And we should not see it in Orwellian terms--so this author seems to say. Or Huxleyan terms either.] When people talk about Big Brother, they generally mean a system of covert surveillance and manipulation, oppression in democratic disguise (unlike the system in Orwell's book, which is so overt that it is advertised). "1984" taught people to imagine government as a conspiracy against liberty.

And the conclusion:

Orwell's prose was so effective that it seduced many readers into imagining, mistakenly, that he was saying what they wanted him to say, and what they themselves thought. Orwell was not clairvoyant; he was not infallible; he was not even consistent. [How many theorists are?] He changed his mind about things, as most writers do. [BINGO!] He dramatized out of a desire to make the world more the way he wished it to be, as most writers do. He also said what he thought without hedging or trimming, as few writers do all the time. It is strange how selectively he was heard. [Don't we typically take the works that are most useful or relevant and apply those works? It is strange how selectively Kristeva was heard, and she wasn't writing imaginative prose. . .] It is no tribute to him to turn his books into anthems to a status quo he hated. [Nor is it a tribute to him to ignore that which he critiqued--even if he hated everything!!] Orwell is admired for being a paragon when he was, self-consciously, a naysayer and a misfit. If he is going to be welcomed into the pantheon of right-thinking liberals, he should at least be allowed to bring along his goat. [Really, he was an intellectual freak. Don't use his works to refute US.]

All Kinds of Frustrating. . .

What I am not referring to here is the fact that I managed to ride around in the car for an hour in the hopes that the girls would fall asleep, gave up & went home with only Chiclette asleep to find that Doodle (oh joy!) fell asleep after all, only to have Doodle wake up AFTER I had carried her in the house (not in time to walk in by herself), cry that she wasn't sleepy, wake up Chiclette, who never went back to sleep. . . yadda yadda yadda.

No, I am referring to the thoughts that are going through my head in reference to my one--count 'em, y'all, ONE--job prospect. Now I know I could be reminded that it was only with the deepest sense of futility that I contemplated or embarked upon the job search many months ago. Yes, that is true. It may perhaps be part of the problem. Because part of me sings, "Oh glee! Someone wants me!!" while another part wonders if the job in the hand really is worth two in the bush and wonders if I had better try to flush out those other two. . . All the time, of course, the third voice is telling me that the one job is by no means in the hand after only a phone interview. *sigh*

Friday I had a phone interview. It is a regional branch of a large state school--so far so good. The department seems attractive. Rather small--in the lower 20s for full-time faculty, which is the largest at that university. School is having budget issues--go figure; hasn't affected this search in any tangible way that I can tell yet. The committee chair has maintained an enthusiastic attitude in dealing with me. All good. The school extremely rural--not so good. They do have a Wal-Mart, which I am counting as good, though the converse could be argued. There is only one of each grade-level public school. The only private school is very, very evangelical. The child care options seem very limited. I would probably feel best in the Baptist church child care environment, which raises its own questions. There are 200 Catholics in the COUNTY--but there is a Catholic church in town--VERY good. The schools do not seem to offer orchestra, just band. Not so good. The cost of living is significantly lower than here, and we are already pretty low. Good. Can you tell I'm obsessing a little? I have come down off of the obsession a little since the weekend, but I'm still weighing things constantly as I wait the two weeks (maybe a little over a week now) until I learn whether they want to see more of me or not. At which point, I would be able to see the place--which by all counts is beautiful, though very rural.

There are many considerations, not the least of which is whether, with their budget issues, they would be able to offer spousal placement. Because I will not see my husband placed lower than he deserves so that I can take some more or less permanent position. That, for me, is a non-negotiable. I will not sacrifice my children's care or education. And yet. . .

Surely there are other professors at the university who have families--who have raised families--in the surrounding area. Surely!! And there are worse things than a very rural area--a very urban, unsafe area, for example.

My problem is that I am continually questioning my frame of mind. When the position seemed unattractive to me, I wondered if I was being hasty. If it seems at present the best thing since sliced bread and my only chance for lasting happiness (hyperbole), I also wonder if I'm being hasty.

It seems, for one thing, foolish not to take a well-paying position (based on their own salary data--the web is wonderful) in a place with a low cost-of-living.

I would be teaching what I want to teach--plain & simple. Never thought that would happen, actually. It gives me some hope. Class size is smaller than I'm used to and there are possibilities for real schedule flexibility--online and one-day/week classes. Even travel opportunities (not with young children, but they don't know that). All of which balances the high teaching load--theoretically. Except that when I teach TWO classes I can't find time to tie my shoelaces--there is THAT.

But--I think to myself--are my reasons more material? Why yes, yes they are. (It's been apparent from the start, no?) In a couple of days I start counting a little further into my thirties. And here I am, still cramming myself and my family into undersized rentals. I so desperately want to move, but why move for a year or however long it takes to find a permanent spot when I might have the opportunity to move and find a more permanent spot this very year?

I'm dreaming of a house with non-neutral, high quality carpeting. I want windows--insulated glass windows--that let in nature so that nature can't get me. I want a fireplace, and a large living room. I want so many bedrooms that children can play and leave their toys out and I never have to know. I want CLOSETS--one for each member of the household, not 2 split between 5 people. And a garage (attached) that doesn't double as a roach motel. A kitchen that is functional. Appliances that are not apartment grade and actually dry the clothes within 1-2 cycles. I can picture it, this cookie-cutter house in a shiny new sub-division. (Not what I've typically thought of as my preferred aesthetic, by the way.) It has my name on it. There are woods and hills in the distance. And a little dinky town with a university and one Wal-Mart. *sigh*

There are drawbacks to this vision. Mainly, that I might start feeling the urge to have matching furniture or bath towels. But I'm prepared to take that risk. But what else might I have to risk?

And let's think clearly about this. You know that guy who sings on the "Free Credit Report" commercials? (I have been known to sing the one about working in a tourist-y seafood restaurant.) Yeah. Well, let's just say I'm in no position to buy a house. Maybe in 4-5 years, with a lot of saving--unless the Department of Education claims every extra cent, as is their right. And rentals in that area, while cheap, don't exactly sing to me. So the vision that currently sustains me turns out to be empty, and I go around and around again--will they have organic yogurt? Whole wheat pasta? Montessori education. . . The list goes on.

Finding "Family" on Facebook

So as life becomes busier, I find myself with less time to spend blogging, or at any rate, less willing to indulge in blog-able thoughts. From time to time, I have a thought or idea and I think, "Hmmm. . . I could blog that. . ." but I find it difficult, I'm sorry to say, to commit to organizing my thoughts and expressing them in some way that makes them digestible to others. The same happens with meals, actually, which is when I pull out something boxed or frozen. So I've been on Facebook lately. Facebook allows me to quip something short and imperfect--something that hasn't been thought out, or is not expressed clearly. It's a type of self-indulgence for the writer, really. We invite others to finish our thoughts, or expand them into dialogues or conversations. Sometimes real information is conveyed. Other times, it is just play. We set "bait" and wait for others to bite. It doesn't always work--especially for me, I might add. But sometimes it's just nice to see that moment of the day, that joy, frustration, anxiety, boredom--articulated, made external, published. And it requires very little effort to do so--far less than a blog.

On Facebook, I have two groups of friends--those whom I know from high school and have only recently rediscovered (my reason for going on Facebook, actually) and friends that I know from grad school. It is very interesting to see some of the daily observations of people I haven't seen for 10+ years. (Okay, maybe closer to 15+ years, but who's counting?) Many of these seem cryptic to me--references to the lives that they have developed over the past decade and some. These snapshots of others' worlds--sometimes literal snapshots!--have a kind of homey appeal. I don't feel like a voyeur, although I barely know these people any more, and some I never really did know very well. Of course, like blogs, these are imperfect snapshots--they are chosen words and images that present a picture carefully selected by the author, whether the author does this consciously or not.

What strikes me most is the emphasis on family. Most--if not all--of the people I know on Facebook have jobs, careers, businesses, whatever one chooses to call them. . . They have external sources of income that require more or less time away from home and/or dedication of time, attention, and effort to work. I believe one of these people has a home business, but her "work" space--whether real or virtual--is separate from her family space. Sometimes the work/job/career and the family life are mentioned together, usually a comparison of the two, or an attempt to reconcile the two: So-and-so is frustrated by the kids who keep interrupting. . . So-and-so is home from work AGAIN with a sick child and bored because she can't go to work. . . (There's been a lot of childhood illness going around Facebook.) So-and-so is able to see her child on 22 webcams at the Big Brother nursery. . . There is quire a bit of complaining about children, in more or less harsh terms as determined by Christmas-break cabin-fever. Sometimes, I find it shocking that the children are being spoken of so publicly in such harsh terms, though I recognize the reality of the frustration. It's the choice to publish such sentiments openly that shocks me. In these snapshots of people I used to know and their families whom I probably will never know, there is nevertheless an underlying warmth directed toward the smaller members of the species. They love their families. They live for their families. They work for their families. They find fulfillment in their families.

I am not in the position to contrast anyone's actual family-centeredness. However, the way this is communicated--seemingly so effortlessly--is something I have missed for many, many years. For the first time--oh, perhaps ever--I actually wish I had stayed closer to these people so that I could have known people my own age who were starting and growing families--starting and growing families for the sake of doing so, and seeing that in itself as a--perhaps as THE means to personal fulfillment, whatever importance work/job/career might have. I actually wish I had remained friends with other mommies because they are mommies, not because we have that--and some other philosophical, intellectual, or experiential commonalities. But that's not really the whole story. I want the whole picture. I wish that I had stayed in touch so that our children could attend one another's birthday parties or exchange presents at Christmas. So that we could have Christmas parties and Easter egg hunts. Not so that we could share mommy-experiences while the kids were occupied for a while.

It's funny how I will always think of these women as "girls." One of these "girls" has two girls--one about the age of my son, who turns 12 very soon. She is a year or two older than me--as everyone was back then--and she was married a bit before me. And she was into the mommy thing waaaay more than me back then--I saw her once when she was pregnant and she was practically knitting booties everywhere she went--like Darling in Lady and the Tramp. But the fact remained that she was living a family life all of these years, and, well, that does something.

What I'm trying to articulate is a way of looking at life that is somehow distinct from how I've looked at life until now, but which represents in some ways how I've lived life (without thinking of it in these terms) for the past 12 years. Perhaps it's more of a way of looking at marriage. What is a marriage, really? Is it a partnership? Is it an economic or social contract? Is it an intimate friendship? I look at these former friends and acquaintances, and it doesn't appear that marriage functioned exclusively--or primarily--in any of these ways for them. Nor was marriage simply something that they checked off the list of "things to do" before a certain age; nor was it a means to status, or a life goal in itself. No, in these people I recognize ambitions beyond marriage and family. But neither do I see marriage as an end in itself.

In fact, I do not see marriage as an end in itself. Marriage, in the culture in which I grew up, was a means to a family. Even in the case of a childless marriage, there could be the sense of a family rather than the eternal honeymoon of couple-ness. It is, perhaps, a state of mind. The collective is larger than the sum of the parts. We are not two, or three, or five people in the same house, although we are literally two, or three, or five people in the same house(hold). We are a family, which is larger. It has larger problems, perhaps, and frustrations, but also more capacity for love and survival. So these friends of mine did more than get married, have children, and careers. They allowed their lives to be shaped into families. And their families grew from the natural progression of their lives.

Family Blog Post

I have posted some Christmas pics on the family blog!

A Job Search Chronicle

I've been remiss in my updates, I know. Because I have been remiss in my updates, I have spared everyone my angst, my pondering, my self-doubt, and all of the other mood variations that have accompanied this process!

I have been worried about the job search for years now. Entering the M.A./Ph.D. with the idea that finishing the terminal degree was the difficult part, I gradually became aware of the "gloom and doom" discourse surrounding the job search process. The rhetoric was rhetoric of "settling"--settling for a lesser university than the one we attend, settling for a non-tenure-track position, although that is not what we envisioned when we started, settling for a position teaching something we do not particularly want to be teaching (either permanently or with an eye to "moving on"). There is also some discussion of what it takes to get the job, and I have not been incredibly proactive. I have a lot of teaching experience, and some administrative experience. Both could theoretically help me, but I don't really want a job in administration, I have come to realize, so I won't be using that experience as fully as I might. I have one publication, and a reprint of that publication that I discovered recently, and a smattering of very minor, kind of quirky conferences. I have a couple of research awards to my credit and a couple of teaching awards from long, long ago--awards that I'm not sure I live up to, but no one has to know that!

Early in the process, I was advised that my best chances to get a job were in the field of composition rather than literature. Because my impression of the job market was so bleak, I reluctantly accepted this advice, and resolved myself to apply for mostly comp positions. I lost this resolve, however, at the beginning of the semester, both while perusing the job ads and while considering some of the things I dislike about teaching comp--namely, the emphasis on current political events. After having worked for several years to earn a doctorate in English, I did not want to engage students in the classroom with current events. So although I did apply for some comp jobs, most of the jobs I applied for were lit jobs. Truthfully, I don't really consider myself qualified to teach "rhetoric," and that's where serious rhet/comp jobs tend.

I only applied for 16 jobs, of which one has been cancelled and one postponed until the budget is reevaluated in April. This is a small number, comparatively speaking. I admit to being selective. I did not apply to any positions with an eye to "moving on"--I can't do that. I have too many family obligations. I did not apply to places where I did not reasonably think we might like to live, or to places that would have excessive cost of living. I had other criteria, too. Basically, I am looking for someplace conducive to family life where we can settle at least until my son graduates from high school. I'm not sure I had that actual event as a conscious goal, but it sounds about right. I have come to realize that I had less well-articulated expectations, too, but those were not part of my motivation as I was choosing places where I would apply.

I have written before about the large national convention. The way I see it, it has its benefits. The school and the applicant only have to pay for one trip to interview (at least the preliminary interview). Because everyone comes to a single location, applicants come from across the country rather than looking in a single geographical area for ease of travel to interviews. More applicants at the convention means more to choose from, perhaps being surprised by an unlikely candidate that is a "risk." Basically, there is a bit more cross-pollination of the discipline. This, for me, does not make up for some of its more grievous drawbacks. First, there is the cost. The convention is always held in very, very expensive cities, in the most expensive hotels. Candidates are not reimbursed by their expenses the way they would be if they were presenting papers at the convention. An applicant must make plans to attend the convention far in advance, but the hiring departments can wait literally until the week--or a few days--before the convention because they are assured that the serious job seeker will certainly plan to be in attendance. It dehumanizes the process a bit, to my mind. I object to feeling that my attendance or non-attendance is a reflection of how badly I want a job--life is more complicated than that, you know? Also, the schools may choose to interview more candidates than they are considering seriously, meaning on the one hand that an ostensibly "less attractive" candidate may be given a fair shot, but also meaning that the hiring departments have the option of stringing along many more candidates than they might otherwise, causing expense, inconvenience and nervous anxiety to a greater number of individuals. I'm a real half-empty sort. My cynicism comes out at times like this.

Now, I hate traveling alone. I resent the expense and inconvenience of career-related travel, at least at this stage, because it is very difficult and I never have enough money to make it an enjoyable experience. If I could take the family and have enough money that the expense would not be a huge source of stress, it wouldn't be so bad. But I REALLY hate traveling alone. I have significant anxiety when traveling alone. So this preference certainly comes into play.

Both the rational objections and irrational reactions play into my decision not to attend the convention. My other fear is that I would pay for the ticket, registration, hotel, etc., and not have any interviews at all. As it turns out, I would have had two!!

So I was in the uncomfortable position of having to turn down two interviews. Both, however, expressed continued interest. One I have not heard back from. One will interview me by phone in January, after the convention. It has been impressed upon me how fortunate I am, how grateful and gracious I should be, and (before I got the phone interview) how rare this is and how I shouldn't really expect it. Much of this, I believe, was said in the name of trying to get me to change my mind--which I resent on several levels, and won't go into right now.

Both schools are the south, small regional branches of a state schools--a nice change from where I am now, but one that would entail much more teaching. The one that will interview me seems to have a smallish, eclectic department--the personalities come through on the web page (especially that of the head of the search committee), and they seem like people I would like to work with. The department seems literature-centered, which is just wonderful. I can teach theory if required--I even like to teach some theory, but when the theory becomes the motivation for teaching the literature, I become frustrated. It seems as though this may be a department of like-minded people. On the other hand, they seem to have hired a good number of assistant professors lately, recent Ph.D.s, suggesting that they are looking to "grow" the department, which is also good. The research requirement seems fairly lax, which would give me the opportunity to get my footing (this is a difference from the other department that contacted me--they seem to expect higher publication rates). And it is a literature position! There is a composition teaching requirement, but it is a lit position. All in all, exactly what I could wish for. But of course, there has to be a drawback. And really, it's a doozy. . .

The town is very, very small. Painfully small. Small population; only a single Catholic church in the county (!). No shopping to speak of as far as I can tell. The town itself only has one of each "level" of school--elementary, middle, high--and they don't have orchestra. :( I'm not sure if there would be a montessori preschool. Their is a neighboring town that is a bit bigger, but still very, very small. About an hour away, there's a town with TWO Wal-Marts! *sigh* I always imagined myself moving on to a larger town, not smaller. I worry about choice in medical care, schools, any number of things. Besides housing. Now housing is very, very cheap, which means a smaller cost of living. If it comes down to it, then, it will be a difficult decision, but I will have to consider my family first. I do not want my son's education or my daughters' care to suffer so that I can take a position my first year out. Of course, it may not come to this at all, as phone interviews do put one at a disadvantage, so no use counting chickens. . . On the other hand, it is good to know what the factors are in the decision.

The other town is closer geographically to where I am now, and is certainly larger. There is also a larger Catholic population, which means Catholic schools are a possibility! There is even a zoo and museum in the town, which would be nice. The state is poorer as a whole, and is suffering cuts to the university system as we speak (as are many states). Actually, I think this goes for both states, but one seems better off than the other. And I don't think I'm likely to hear back from school #2. I am happy to have heard from them in the first place, though. I'm not sure these two interviews would have justified the expense and inconvenience and neuroses of attending the convention, however. Had I heard from another one or two, I might regret my decision--or maybe not.

What I have gained from this years' job search so far (and it's not over by any means!) is a significant confidence boost. It no longer feels as though I lack the professional activities necessary to get the job. I also do not feel that it is far-fetched for me to get the kind of position--namely, in Brit Lit--that I really want to get--the kind that I envisioned when I started grad school. That is a relief, and an incredible realization. I have been feeling so negative for so long--almost to the point of feeling that I had wasted my time getting the Ph.D., though I'm not sure what I would have done otherwise. Now, I at least know that there are universities out there who are looking for someone like me, who will be interested in my application. I also know that I can get a position doing what I want to do--teaching what I want to teach. I do wish that the teaching loads were a bit lower, though.

Now I need to apply for some more positions--whenever they happen to show up!

Holiday Images

Montessori Holiday Party/Encounters with "Social Interaction"

This morning, I actually had the leisure (and the courage!!) to take Doodle to her holiday party. I strapped Chiclette to me and led Doodle into the school and to the various tables of activities. They decorated graham cracker houses, made snow pictures, laced Christmas cards, rolled & cut an ornament out of dough made from cinnamon, applesauce, and glue (???), and strung cranberries and popcorn on wire. She could also have made a bird feeder, but they substituted the peanut butter that they usually spread on the pine cones with Crisco. I was too grossed out. I remembered that there is one child with a severe nut allergy, so that explains the substitution. The morning was fun, but tiring. Doodle really enjoys having activities that are suited to her skill level--no need to constrain her. It's so nice for her. The much touted "social interaction" of preschool perplexes her a bit, and rather frustrates me.

Little girls are taught and expected to interact in such different ways from little boys. It really sets up the cliquishness of the pre-teen and teen years. I can't stand seeing its beginnings. Doodle was stringing cranberries and popcorn on a wire. A little girl came up, but there was no chair. So she squeezed onto Doodle's chair, which Doodle was fine with--she was happy to share! Then little girl #2 comes walking up. There was no chair. So little girl #1 starts pushing Doodle off of the chair because "Claire needs a chair"! Claire's mom chimes in, "That's O.K., Claire can stand," but that really didn't solve the problem. Doodle knew that she was being thrown over. Luckily, it didn't upset her too badly. More than anything, she was perplexed by her friend's behavior (everyone is a friend to her--she even calls me "her friend Momma" sometimes!). The "so-and-so likes her better than me" is a new concept. She knows no hierarchies in friendship. :( So I went and got another chair and plopped it down for Doodle! She moved on to a different activity not long after that. Little boys wouldn't bother with this. Why do people teach their daughters to behave like this? No one needs to cultivate a "best friend" relationship in a preschooler. After a while, it has more to do with status, and making sure that your child's friends' clothes cost the same as your child's clothes, and that they live in a house that appraises favorably. It's not as bad sending your son to a snob school as your daughter.

Why I don't get things done. . .

I finally have the girls asleep at the same time.

Of course, this happened with less than an hour before I needed to leave the house to pick up my son from school.

So I was thinking about posting my snow pictures to the family blog.

Snow pictures reminded me that it's snowing in New Orleans. So I thought maybe I should call my mom and see how she and my brother are enjoying the snow.

Which reminded me that I need to pay the phone bill.

So I did nothing.

Okay, then I posted this.

First Christmas Card!

In the middle of a bleak week, with end-of-semester grading blues, feeling overwhelmed, getting over bronchitis (but not fast enough) and taking care of my even sicker Chiclette, pondering bad job search news that should be good job search news (more on that later--possibly), having Charlie-Brownish thoughts about my mailbox, I received a Christmas card!! From our own bloggy-friend Sarah from just another day of Catholic pondering. And I've been such a bad blogger and blog-friend lately (and a number of other nouns I could add). Thanks for the smile, wish, greeting, blessing and precious pictures, Sarah! :)

A Further Thought on Anne Rice. . .

I wonder (without investigating it) how much of a repudiation of her earlier literary production is implied in her conversion? I mean, what about that Sleeping Beauty series? As an author, she is of course already distanced from her early works, but really. . . I suppose I'm not supposed to think about this, but well. . . "Forgive me Father. . . Just go read chapters 3, 8, 9. . ." Because I had not previously been Baptized, I was spared the pain and mortification of digging up all of my past since--for better or worse. I probably should have had to do so, though I was thankful that I did not. But when one's sins--intellectually speaking--are part of one's professional ouvre? Most creative writers regard their earlier works with some embarrassment and a little contempt (a former professor of mine referred to his "baby book.") I can imagine the discomfort of having spiritual baggage attached also. After all, I've written poetry myself--and published a poem or two. But I wonder about the practical side--what does it mean to have this side of one's faith--or doubt--on display? Perhaps that in itself is a penance.

Books I Want (to Read)

In my spare time. . . ;)

Cross-posted at Booknotes from Literacy-Chic.

In Barnes and Noble the other day, I was looking in the nonfiction section to try to find a compelling book to replace the one we are currently using in our freshman composition course. I found one that I will be using in my own comp class next semester: Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. It is a compelling topic that has impact on the life of universities--internet and copyright. Students have been trying to write about NAPSTER since I started teaching, and we are getting to the point where there is abundant scholarly material on the topic. In addition, the book stresses issues of writing and rhetoric and writing. The introduction refers to Lakoff and Johnson, gurus of metaphor and its implications. Another chapter begins with a discussion of use of sources in English papers--perfect! At any rate, I hope so. Of course, the best thing is that these are intellectual topics--subject to some emotional response, but not one that college freshmen (or non-freshmen) will be unable to control--and topics that I wouldn't mind discussing. This should prove to be an interesting book, but not one that I would necessarily read if not for teaching. . .

On the other hand, I found another book in B & N that I would really like to read: Anne Rice's memoir of her return to Catholicism, Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession. I love conversion narrative--though not the early 17th century kind that you find in American Lit textbooks! I love the book Prodigal Daughters: Catholic Women Come Home to the Church, for example. Interesting thing--like the Anne Rice book, it is not really a conversion narrative, but a reversion--except that a conversion is a "turning toward," so indeed, it is a conversion, just not as "conversion" is usually meant. I have seen critiques of Rice's "brand" of Catholicism--that is, her failure to accept Church teaching on prominent social issues. This is hardly surprising, especially given her connection to New Orleans. On the other hand, it is perhaps important to recognize "conversion" as a process for anyone, including those who already see themselves as faithful Catholics. All of us have moments when we drift, even just a little, and come back, the important part is that we remind ourselves of the True Goal. So I am not looking to Anne Rice as a model of Catholicism, which I hope others do not do. I am well acquainted with Rice's novels, having read the first 4 vampire chronicles--repeatedly--in high school and early in my college career. Interestingly, it was Rice that first led me to investigate the meaning of the words "tabernacle" and "Transubstantiation." That alone is reason for me to read of her spiritual journey. I expect to find more than a touch of arrogance, even in her semblance of humility--but again, I'm not reading her as a spiritual guide, and it takes a bit of egotism to write such a book, though humility is a necessary part of the ethos of such an undertaking (a little rhetorical analysis). I am not particularly interested in her Road to Cana, etc. I picked it up once--in SAM'S club, I think--and was a little put off by the whole project. I'm not crazy about the idea of fictionalizing the life of Jesus. It just seems like treading on dangerous territory--theologically speaking. Remember that arrogance I mentioned? Yeah, that too. What I am primarily looking for in Called Out of Darkness is a feeling. And Rice is particularly good at evoking feeling. And seeing how rooted her feelings are in a particular place, and how we share that place as a common background, and share a common (or uncommon) religious experience, well, I think I could really enjoy reading the book. I told my son the other day that when I was a little girl, all little old ladies were Catholic, and their houses were all adorned with statues of saints and holy pictures. And that created a feeling--something that has become meaningful for me in recent years. I want to read about the influences of the beauty of Catholic culture on Rice, and how it influenced her conversion, since I know--on a level--what she is talking about. Perhaps one of these days I will have the opportunity to read it.

There are two others that catch my attention for cerebral reasons. From the New York Times "Notable Books of 2008":

The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How it Changed America by David Hajdu

and

A Great Idea at the Time: The Rise, Fall and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books Project by Alex Beam

Because I am sitting down for the 4th or 5th time to try to finish this post, and because interruption seems imminent, I will not give too many of my impressions. After all, I have not actually held these books, I have just seen them online. You can, after all, tell a great deal about a book just from perusing it for 15 minutes--enough to write a decent review! I will say that these are rather predictable choices--being about literacy. Books about books--my specialty!

My Baby Has a Complex

My Chiclette, who is now 1 year (as of November 4), seems to be getting the idea that she plays second fiddle to her sister, who is now 3 (as of October 6), mainly because, up to this point, Doodle has been the "high maintenance" one. As Doodle becomes more cooperative and willing to follow directions--but not much less demanding of my time, since she has been known to respond to Chiclette's cries, whines and wails by promptly claiming her place on my lap!--Chiclette fills in the gap. Although Chiclette has begun diving from the arms of whoever is holding her, lunging toward me in desperation, and snuggling into my shoulder, she is almost entirely unwilling to let me rock her to sleep! Her daddy rocks her to sleep; my sister rocks her to sleep. Even my younger brother--who is 13--was able to put her to sleep one night! But she fights me and fights me, whether nap or bedtime, but clearly WANTS me. And I completely lack patience. It is a symptom of juggling too many thoughts, concerns and efforts all at once. I have rarely nursed her without a computer in front of me. She nurses still--though infrequently (often not infrequently enough for my short attention span)--and has taken to clicking the button on my trackpad while nursing! Unlike Doodle, who didn't care what else I was doing, so long as I had her on my lap--or so long as she could get into it--Chiclette seems genuinely annoyed that her birth order and (previously) easy disposition means, frequently, that she waits a bit for my attention and the fulfillment of her needs. I didn't come to this conclusion all at once. I have been noticing that she seems conflicted about whether she is ready to wean, though she is drinking milk and yogurt, and eating as many meals a day as she can get from us--and though I am very ready. I am aware, also, of my increasing agitation with her clinginess, something I remember from the final days (months) of nursing Doodle, though it extends to times when she is not nursing, but is nervously rubbing her hands on my neck, etc.--a sweet gesture, if it wasn't so insistent!! Nursing my son was never like this, somehow. The girls seem to be using nursing as a way to commandeer my attention in a way that he--well, never needed to do, both because he was the first and because life was simpler back then! So it has been a concern to me that Chiclette won't go to sleep for me--at least without a fight, though she sleeps for others, as I have mentioned. Last night was bad, but today was worse. She was almost asleep once and woke when I received a phone call, then ABSOLUTELY would not go back to sleep. I was even moved to leave her in her bed crying for a bit--something I never do. So I brought her out to play for a while and eat before I had to try again, this time with Doodle along also, which is the norm at night (though that is seeming less advisable lately). This time, I had the task of figuring out what to do with both of them, as Doodle is still rocked to sleep. Doodle was very ready to settle down, but Chiclette was less so. She struggled and fidgeted and struggled, even when I had her more settled and Doodle asleep on my lap. The only way I could get her to settle down was to sing a song with her name as the main lyric. I sang her name and she looked me in the eye and relaxed immediately. No more fidgeting. And finally, she let herself sleep, content that Momma was finally, finally, focusing attention on her alone.

Prayer Request--UPDATE

Please say a prayer for my friend who will be having a C-section today at 4 P.M.--about a week earlier than planned. The baby is at 37-38 weeks, which is very good. Recurrent low levels of amniotic fluid prompted the doctor to move the date up. Everyone is hoping for a healthy baby and momma at the end of a blessedly uneventful high-risk pregnancy.

Pray for the intercession of St. Gerard and Our Lady of La Leche.

UPDATE: The baby was born at 4:40, at a healthy weight and a good length! Thank you for your prayers!

Survey of Academic Blogger Moms

For all of you who have not yet seen or received this, I wanted to post a link to a study that is being conducted by a graduate student in Social Psychology at the University of Connecticut who is conducting a study examining the role of blogging in the lives of Academic mothers. From the email:

Your participation would involve the completion of an anonymous online survey. The survey contains a mixture of multiple-choice and open-response questions, and should take less than an hour to complete. The survey does not have to be completed in one session. You may stop at any time and return later to complete it.

If you know other women who might be interested in participating, please feel free to forward this message to them. Also, feel free to post the link to the survey in your blog.

There are several of you who immediately come to mind as valuable participants in this survey, and I was thinking about forwarding the email, but I thought this might be more efficient. I might still send an email to those who visit less often, so if you see this and plan to participate, could you leave a comment so I won't bug you again? Thanks. Now back to my crying child. . .

Caution: This thing requires a HUGE time commitment! (Though you can save & go back.)

I AM still alive. . .

Just in case you were all wondering. Just very, very busy. I posted some new pics on the family blog, for those of you who are family and friends. There are two new posts. I'm writing a paper today that I was supposed to lead up to on the book blog, but didn't. I need to present the paper Tuesday afternoon.

I have reached a pause and a waiting stage with the job search, having applied to a disgraceful 15 positions. Trouble is, there are not many that I would take if they were offered to me. I am well seated for a job in rhet/comp, but I would rather shoot myself in the foot than try to get excited about making students talk/write about politics. I like teaching writing; I've never been interested in politics. I would much rather have the students think about aspects of their lives that affect them that they may NEVER have to vote on. There are so very many things in life that are arguable. So most of the positions I have applied to combine composition and literature teaching duties. That, I could live with. Most of them have abysmal teaching loads--akin to community colleges, with research requirements. That's not what I've been working for for the past 10 years--at least, unless the classes are small. That would be okay.

I have applied for one position that I would really like to have. It's a very conservative Catholic college. So conservative, in fact, that their health insurance plan doesn't cover birth control! (NOT Steubenville or Ave Maria) (Don't Google it) The subject field is marginally related to mine, but I think I made a good argument for it. I hope. We'll see. It's different. It's challenging. It's interesting. And I don't think I would have to pretend to be something I'm not--at least, not much!

You know, though, I'm not--and I never have been--comfortable being labeled by my politics, which really come down to a choice of the lesser of evils. . . I would really rather be known as a Catholic academic (though really the Catholic part doesn't come up that often, so it's like saying "a Catholic person") who believes in personal integrity and the potential of every human individual. Someone who believes that education can make a difference in the person--I'm not particularly worried about the larger scope. I have my opinions, but that's not really what I'm setting out to change. In a conversation today, I was told, "well, you're more conservative than me, so. . ." (and no reflection at all on the person saying it--that she said it, I mean!--because I don't doubt that it's true, though I think that most of us can find some common ground!!) and while I like that it was acknowledged without insult or judgement, and that there was no assumption that all academics think the same, still there was something a little unsettling about it. . . For one thing, in day to day life, it's not how I present myself to the world.

Still don't want to go to the big convention to be interviewed (potentially)--can't afford it, really. Not having student loans just plain sucks. Besides that I can't leave Chiclette and Doodle. I'm afraid that I would be neurotic with anxiety over leaving them. Chiclette is not weaned, and Doodle--well, it really takes two of us to keep things running smoothly.

I've got a lot on my plate with teaching and thinking about my administrative tasks next semester. Not what I want to blog about. The teaching seems good sometimes, discouraging or overwhelming other times. I do get some kind of satisfaction out of it, but never so much as when it's all over!

Commitments

Taking a few short minutes to post. October promises to be a brutal month. I have deadlines to meet, papers due, papers returned, a test to write and give, and I've really settled in to the drudgery of the semester. I need to finish preparing my application materials and actually print them to mail them. I need to set up a dossier with the career center. I need to revise a dissertation chapter before the "revise and resubmit" becomes a "who were you again?" I don't even have the time to do the things that I need to do, much less the things I want to do. I'm sure I've forgotten something.

I have mixed feelings about going to the national convention where all interviews are held. I have resented from the beginning the "meat market" approach to job hunting, though that's not the whole story. There is a "meat market" quality, but my understanding is that the people who want to play the self-promotion game with no scheduled interviews are the ones who flit from booth to booth handing out their vitas. That is soooo not me! Although I don't see myself participating in that procedure, I also resent the intimidation and pressure of the centralized interviews, the depersonalization, the prospect of interviewing as one of many, many candidates. I also resent the expense of it all. This conference is generally held one of several cities that rank among the most expensive in the country. The scale of the conference is intimidating; the travel is intimidating; the expense is intimidating. I tend to perform well under pressure, but that doesn't mean I can't resent it beforehand!! The conference also takes place at a time that is inconvenient for me--midsemester break, between a prominent Christian holiday and a prominent secular holiday. A time traditionally associated with family, if one goes for that kind of thing. I don't like to leave my family at the most mundane of times. I feel rather like an essential part of my family dynamic right now, and the thought of leaving makes me apprehensive. And I just plain don't like traveling by myself--I've never done it much, really.

So I go back and forth in my mind about the convention--do I go? Do I not go? Theoretically, attendance at the convention should not determine one's consideration for the position--theoretically. Do I go alone? Do I take the family (and drive)? But that's only part of it, really. . .

Graduating has been good for me, in a way. I have more of a feeling of wanting to be involved in the academic community than I have in a while. I have had more interest in developing my own work recently. What I lack is TIME. I'm heading towards becoming burned out all over again, and I'm not even teaching what would be considered a "full load"--I'm only teaching 2 courses this semester and one course (of who knows what, but I've been almost guaranteed that it won't be the one thing I want to teach--a Brit Lit survey) next semester because of my "administrative duties" which have expanded in new and time-consuming directions. Now, the unexpected part is actually the most fun and rewarding, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an incredible demand on my time. The funny thing is, it's probably classified more under "service" (and I don't have a "service" requirement) than with my normal job duties. *sigh* I am trying to wrap up a funded project that is a whole lot of fun, and really excites me, but has been slow going because of constraints on my time and the hours of the archives. My 5-day a week schedule, while good for child care, has made me feel like I'm meeting myself "coming and going," as the expression goes--every time I wrap up one class, it's time to prepare for the next. At times, I feel very competent, with a real sense of accomplishment. Other times I feel swamped, frustrated, or simply--tired. And I'm only teaching 2 classes. Standard load for a job search is 3+ courses each semester. And I tend to get sick of the course I'm teaching halfway through. I sometimes think I would do better in a trimester system, but I can't imagine that that would make me feel less swamped. So while I'm enjoying having--rather than pursuing--the Ph.D., the newfound ambition is overwhelmed by an increase in job duties. I feel like to get the job materials out will mean putting my classes on hold in a significant way. Funny thing is, the materials are already ready! It's a matter of tweaking things for specific jobs and printing!

I don't really feel ready to be on the market. That's where this post has been tending. I think I need this year to do other things. . . Publish, for example. Catch up on some bills. Spend time with my girls while they're still little and need me. Make cupcakes for Doodle's first birthday at school (which was Monday, and which I did!). Make the girls some fall-to-winter outfits. Oh! and get used to a higher teaching load--gradually, if at all possible. There's time for tenure-track when Chiclette is old enough for pre-preschool (a 2-year-old or 3-year-old class). And yet, I don't really want to be stuck doing what I'm doing for too much longer. Non-academic alternatives strike me as 1) boring, 2) more time-consuming. So I'm stuck for now. Anything else would require my husband to change jobs. And really, that's not practical. So I'll go edit a teaching philosophy now (not the thing to do after a crummy morning class. . .)

God's House

Over the summer, Doodle attended the child development center at our parish 3 days/week from 9-2:30. She was in a class with 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5's, in a Montessori-like environment. After a while, I started noticing something. . . Doodle would occasionally tell me about Jesus. "That's Jesus!" with a nod and wide, knowing eyes, pointing, usually I think, to a crucifix. Sometimes she would say, "A Jesus. A God." ("A" or "ah" approximating "it's" or "that's" until recently.) A day or two ago, she found a reproduction of an antique print of the Last Supper. Jesus is holding up bread, in the shape of the Host, representing the institution of the Eucharist. "Who's this?" Doodle asks. "Jesus," I reply. "Yes, Jesus," she says with certainty, nodding. She then proceeds to ask about the apostles, who occupy the edges of the image, though with less interest.

This evening, we got pizza from Papa John's. The franchise we ordered from, for pick-up, was a scant block away from the priests' residence, not two blocks from the church that is the student parish for the university and community college in the area. As we were waiting 5 min. before going in to check on the pizza order, the church bells rang. Doodle perked up, eyes wide, and said, "Listen!" Then she said something through her pacifier that sounded kind of like "God." I wasn't sure, but I started telling my husband about the influence of the church preschool. Then she said again, with excitement, "God! God!" So I asked, "God?" "Yes!" As my husband turned the car around to pull alongside the pizza place, she caught sight of the church (where she and Chiclette were baptized--and me, too!--and my son in the chapel, which is also where we were married. . . so many Sacraments, so many memories!). "There it is!" she said, pointing. "God!" Why yes, yes it is! :)

Remembering What I Like. . .

I love poetry. I love talking about poetry and teaching poetry. I only enjoy rhetorical analysis insofar as it resembles close readings of the language of poetry and discussion of how the poem "works." I like that poetry comes in small packages (usually, that is), and can be read quickly, even on the spot, and yet packs in so much meaning that you can spend hours pondering words and ideas, and always have something to come back to. I love the rhythm of poetry, the way sounds work together. I have not spent so much time working with poetry that I no longer enjoy it--and I don't think that will happen. I fact, I'm not entirely sure I could write a long, conference-style paper on poetry. It's not something I've had the opportunity to try, actually. So the irony is, I'm not technically "qualified" to teach poetry. But I do love it, all the same. . .

Families in the Abstract

Human relationships are difficult. Painfully difficult. The only thing that makes them more difficult than the intangibles already present are material things. I think that there are a number of different ways we can attempt to understand these difficulties--one of which is simply "offering them up". . . Except that that's not really simple. I have walked away from a number of friendships in my life, as I've mentioned before. Indeed, my tendency to cut ties or have people drift away was so pervasive, I feared on more than one occasion that the same would happen to my husband and I when we were dating. At any rate, circumstances did not permit me to screw that one up! I can ask of other relationships what I don't ask of my marriage (because I think the answers are both profoundly simple and simply profound)--what causes relationships to continue? Frequently, the answer is need. Perhaps it is a feature of post-lapsarian relationships that we must need each other in order to overcome difference. But material needs, while binding people together, do so in unpleasant ways. People neither like relying on others, not being relied upon, at least when the understanding is incomplete. Bad feelings fester. Breakdowns ensue. And the temptation is to run away. I am tempted to run away. To never have the bad feelings come up again because I am so far removed from the people and situation that I can happily block it from my mind and get on with my life. And never to be confronted with the judgment, scorn, and misunderstanding of those whom I have helped. In short, the temptation is to end the relationship. For those relationships that I have not been able to simply walk away from, I am grateful. For those I have been able to reconcile, if not mend and rebuild, I am also grateful. I hope to be grateful one day for not being able to flee from the relationships I would like to sever. I'm not there yet.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love,
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith,
Where there is despair, hope,
Where there is darkness, light,
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much
seek to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
it is in dying that we awake to eternal life.

~St. Francis of Assisi

Sometimes I Get the Feeling. . .

That by choosing to study and pursue what I love, I have lost the opportunity to enjoy what I love(d). To have a mundane job, and to read for pleasure. . . It seems a bit of a luxury.

Working is like Exercise for Me

I came to this conclusion yesterday, at the end of the long weekend, after an unexpected holiday on Friday for the hurricane that went away east. Because for 3 weeks I've been pretty well into the swing of things, managing to get the course prep done, grading a reasonable number of things, and enjoying the classroom dynamic. Admittedly, I'm getting worn down a bit from always being on the go. I have classes to teach 5 days a week, just like in the summer, except that in the summer I gave them Fridays off, and it was only 1 class, not 2. Having 2 classes makes it easy in a way--I don't have to come up with material for one class to fill 5 days' worth of discussion/lectures/activities. On the other hand, when I'm finished with teaching one course, it's time to turn around and work on the next one for the next day. This would be more of a pain if I was less familiar with the material. Although I am teaching from a new syllabus for composition, I have taught composition a hundred times. So I have activities ready-made that I can slip in as necessary. Also, there is a set of ready-made lesson plans to go along with the standard syllabus, though I have problems with some of the examples used, which introduce bias into the discussion in a way that has potential to be used well or poorly. Teaching children's lit similarly requires less prep than it did over the summer, though the classroom dynamic--35 students instead of 10--is vastly different and does not lend itself to the same kinds of activities. Many of my students come from education, and have a very different way of thinking about children's literature, so I have to steer them almost constantly away from the, "This is a good book because it can work well in a classroom in this way. . ." and try to induce them to think about it as literature, not as a prop for teaching. Also, spending the same number of class periods on a topic, but having those class periods spread over 2-3 weeks instead of concentrated in a single week gives everyone the feeling of going nowhere fast. And it's getting depressing. So I'm looking forward to moving on to poetry. But I'm feeling a little discouraged all the same.

So how is working like exercise? Well, when I'm in the middle of it, in the "swing of things," so to speak, I feel pretty excited & good about what I'm doing. It energizes me. After a good class, I'm on a kind of "high." I talk about the class for hours. My husband gets sick of hearing about it! ;) But when I'm away from it, even for a long weekend, especially if I have unexpectedly "gotten out of" teaching for one day, it feels impossible to get back into it. The same thing happens to me with exercise. The same thing happens to me with research and writing. It's why the dissertation seemed to drag--I spent more time dreading the work than actually working on it. Even blogging is like this for me--if I've missed checking on blogs for a number of days, it feels like a huge task to get back into them, even though I know I enjoy it!!

I know this is not the case with exercise, though it can be time consuming, but one of the things that research, teaching, and blogging share is a huge commitment of mental energy. Answering emails is the same. I know, quite often, that if I let myself get started with a blog or an email, I will keep going until it's done, expending a great deal of mental energy and becoming engrossed for hours at a time sometimes. So sometimes, I prefer not to start. Research and writing are similar--the mental effort is considerable, the time commitment is significant, and there doesn't ever seem to be an ideal time to start. Truthfully, sewing is the same for me. When I start a project, I want to know that I can finish the project in a reasonable amount of time--a few days, usually. And that means from cutting out the fabric to pressing the finished item. If I leave something just slightly unfinished, I hate to go back to it. Doodle has a jumper without loops to hold the loose ends of the shoulder straps, and a dress that needs a hook-and-eye above the zipper to look "finished"--minor details, and not very time consuming, but if I haven't gotten the details finished with the rest of the garment, I don't want to go back. I would rather start something new. And if I put a project aside earlier--watch out!! I have to force myself, trick myself, reward myself with the prospect of starting the thing I really want to work on--or it never gets done.

Looking over this, it seems like I have a strange combination of procrastination, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, and perfectionism--the kind of crippling perfectionism that leads one to avoid starting the project for fear of being engrossed in details. I never completed an incomplete because I couldn't find the "perfect" topic to write about. I had set pretty high standards with another paper for the same professor, and didn't want to fall short. So I couldn't do it. The mental block was huge. I think I stopped writing poetry because I stopped thinking that my ideas were poem-worthy--I rather got out of that way of seeing the world.

I got over this to a degree with the dissertation. Remember Dori from Finding Nemo? She sang, "Just keep swimming, just keep swimming, just keep swimming, swimming, swimming. . ." Eventually, I just had to force myself to keep writing, reminding myself that my mediocre writing was usually sufficient for the job I was trying to get done. Teaching has its built-in motivation, thank goodness. The students will keep coming, the semester continues to progress. I can't just stop and dread what needs to be done. Then there will be good days, and I will think, "How is it that I dreaded this so much?" I will go the library to do my archival research and return home excited by all of the ideas that I have had while reading and try to hold on to that enthusiasm until the next week. It's about rhythm, really. It's about routine. Like exercise. But I never can stick with it, somehow. . .

Some Words about Not Allowing Comments

I like comments. Waaaay too much sometimes. I will sit on the edge of my seat sometimes and wait for comments to come in. Well, not really, but it feels that way. Especially when the comments don't come. I watch and wait for a day or two, then I gradually forget that I've written anything at all. With more controversial posts, it is a bit different. It's not the excitement of having someone contribute to a discussion, it's a morbid fascination--the proverbial train wreck. With anxiety, anticipation, and dread, I wait for the lashes. I do the same when I follow heated comments on others' blogs. I can't help myself. This leads to my not posting on certain topics sometimes, until the bottled-up thoughts come bursting forth. And then, the waiting, and the contradicting, and the endless explaining. And that takes up a lot of time that I should be using for other things. Like class prep. Or the job search. Or sewing. Or cooking. Cleaning. Taking care of my kiddos. (Not necessarily in that order. Sewing is first.) This might look like an attempt to avoid a fight. Well it is, but not the way you think. Had I an endless amount of time, and if I really enjoyed that semi-agitated state, I would engage cheerfully in the debate (well, maybe not cheerfully--that's part of the problem). But I don't. And so I was mulling this over, and I thought about something:

All of this commenting really underscores the differences between print and electronic practices of literacy. Some of the age-old accepted properties of written language have been its relative permanence, its separation from the human life-world, its separation from its creator and consequent inability to answer questions that are posed to the text with anything other than the words that were originally set down (with the possible exception of updated editions, but once updated, they are still silent and static). With online communication, much of this changes. Online communication is certainly not permanent. Content is ever-changing, sometimes according to the will of its author(s), sometimes not. I would suggest that in some ways it is still detached from the human life-world, which is one of the problems or dangers of online communication as well as one of its liberating qualities. When discourse is not taking place in real time with real people, one can disregard all of the usual constraints on the content of our discourses, but we also have the freedom to disregard all of the conventions of civility. People are not people online; we have the ability to treat them--individually or collectively--with contempt, disregard, and intolerance. But the most significant difference is that the author is not necessarily separate from the product of his/her literacy. When we imagine someone reading a book, we hardly expect the writer to be standing next to us, answering our questions and objections, tit-for-tat. And that's as it should be. Because if the author knows that anyone who has questions about his/her work will have only the work itself to consult for the answers, s/he has to be more careful about what s/he writes in the beginning. Unlike speech--when we speak, we usually don't have everything perfectly prepared, logically considered. There's a lot of "off the cuff" discourse in face-to-face interaction. Not so in written discourse. But that is changing. . .

When we visit blogs, we generally know that nothing but a computer screen and a semblance of anonymity separates us from the author--or the reader. The semblance of anonymity protects or exposes us, depending--protects us from being exposed personally for our thoughts or beliefs, protects us from being linked with our words; exposes us to the thoughts of others, for better or worse. The proximity allows access. As an author, I know I can be questioned. That I may be called on to explain myself, argue my position, hash out my beliefs. This can be a good thing. As a reader, I know that I can challenge a position, ask questions for clarity, make my alternate theory heard and demand recognition for my alternate theory. I am also free to support, reinforce, or acknowledge others' ideas. Or not. This can make me (or my counterparts) hesitant, aggressive, timid, bold, or. . . lazy. Discourse that can be questioned, after all, and from which we can expect a new answer, does not have to take itself quite as seriously, to be as complete, as refined, as polished. On the other hand, it can be more natural, more accessible (in multiple ways), more tentative, and more mutable--both in terms of its appearance and in terms of the ideas that are expressed, which might stand to change from contact with others.

So, you might ask, did I turn off comments in order to produce more refined, more complete, more polished discourse? Nope. But it made me think a lot about literacy in an online environment, and I decided to share.

Why is "Religious" a Dirty Word?

You see it paired with nasty words like "ideologue" and "conservative," it is not a far reach from there to "extremism" and "theocracy." All who are religious oppose sex ed, endorse book burning (at least metaphorically), probably endorse heterosexual monogamy, or at least pay lip service to it, support the NRA and the death penalty, and want to impose their backward morality on other people's bodies. I think I forgot to mention stupid or ignorant, generally opposed to science and rational thought more generally.

This pretty much sums me up--don'tcha know--so I'm not really qualified to judge the alternative. I just know that they're much, much better than me. Every now & then, you'll hear about someone who claims to be religious and yet still opposes war--another thing religious people don't do--or agrees that permitting abortion is okay. That puts them in the "decidedly not wacky" category.

I'll admit to looking down on Evangelical Christians in my own elitist way, particularly in the past, but lately I feel like I can understand and accept them more in theory, although theoretically I am not an understanding and accepting person. I still shudder at the more touchy-feely types. And I'm still put off by those who declare their love for Jesus above all things in classroom introductions. But they're simultaneously witnessing and being counter-cultural, and who can argue with that?

Anyway, I don't like cultish behavior any more than the next guy, but it really bothers me when just acknowledging that religion plays a significant role in one's behavior, philosophy, politics is enough to invoke scorn, derision, disgust, mockery and, finally, fear. What are they all afraid of? That at the end of the day, those moronic religious (Christian) types might be. . . *gasp, shudder* . . . right about something?

I've been there, my friend.

Equal Opportunity Campaign Humor

This is hilarious. Go see. You will laugh.