absentee

Standard

I had never given much thought to the experience of not knowing one of my parents. Nor had I really given a great deal of thought to the myriad ways and expressions of not being a part of one’s child’s life.

I spent the holidays with individuals (half-siblings) who share the same mother but different fathers – and neither of them had much contact with or knowledge of their fathers. They met them only when they were older, and for whatever reason have never expressed much curiosity about who these fathers were. During childhood and adolescence, the not knowing appeared to be more tantalizing than knowing for sure. They could imagine that their fathers were anything they wanted them to be – important, busy, wealthy, foreign – any kind of character and lifestyle. Any kind of fantasy life that kept them away.

In reality, meeting these absent fathers made whatever illusions they may have had disappear. But it was not as though they had held onto or truly believed in the many other possibilities they had concocted. It was better to live the lives they had and ignore the reality, even after being confronted by it.

Pop culture is full of these parentless (many fatherless, in fact) stories, in which the father figure’s absence is treated as important but not central. In stories like Douglas Stuart’s Young Mungo, the main characters are depicted as living with a ne’er-do-well alcoholic mother and no mention is made of the father. The working class Glaswegian experience is peppered with these kinds of stories – struggling, often strong, single mothers and absent (and barely mentioned) fathers. It’s not clear from the stoic ways characters front whether they miss their fathers or the experience of having known a father.

“They say you can’t miss something you never had,” a little girl, Mad, states, in the story Lessons in Chemistry (which is, incidentally a subtle advertisement for the power of the public library and librarians), referring to her deceased father. She goes on to say that this cannot be true. She never knew her father at all – he was killed before her mother even knew she was pregnant. It is an entirely different kind of absence… but does the way of absence matter? What prompts the longing, the curiosity in some… while others live as though the presence of a father has never mattered?

In the now-ended Reservation Dogs, most of the main characters have absent fathers, and some are without parents at all. Throughout the series, the character Bear pins his hopes on his shiftless, absent father and eventually comes to terms with the nature of the relationship (or lack thereof). As the series ends, a poignant episode follows the character Elora as she seeks out her father for the first time. She had never given his existence much thought until she decides to go to college and needs to complete financial aid forms using the information of her parents. The meeting between father and daughter is perfunctory at first, yet filled with a tense awkwardness. Elora plays tough and indifferent, and her biological father (Ethan Hawke) grasps for the right words to say. Eventually Elora softens and agrees to meet her half-siblings. The shift in their dynamic is small and incremental and depicted delicately through light-touch dialogue, silences, and subtle facial expressions.

For those of us who never experienced such an absence, it would be hard to understand what someone who never had a father at all might feel. One imagines emptiness, a longing or even an idle curiosity, but frequently it seems as though whatever is felt, it’s buried – or out of sight, out of mind – until something triggers the questions. Even if you don’t miss someone or something you never had, surely you would be curious about it?

Into the groovy: Things are not what they seem

Standard

Things are not always what they seem. You know, Phil Groovy Collins is not – and never will be – Lenny Kravitz. How it could seem so is… unknown. But referencing Phil Groovy the other day reminded me that as much as I dislike most of this dude’s music, he continues to pop up in different areas of life.

One of my most highly annoying traits is my tendency to tune in to the music playing in public places, and then I grill my companions, “Name that tune!” So many of my friends are not particularly musical in the sense that identifying musicians and songs isn’t important to them – fair enough – and this activity is a little bit like torture. Somehow, though, I can’t help myself.

Years ago, in Iceland, I quizzed a friend over coffee at a long-defunct shopping mall café. It was Phil Groovy (what song, I no longer remember). Flustered, she blurted out, “Lenny Kravitz”. I’ve never forgotten this. No one wants to be put on the spot this way, and yet, I can’t stop myself from repeating this scene.

In fact last year in Iceland, with this same woman and her now-teenaged daughter (to give you an indication of the time lapse, the woman was pregnant with said daughter during the original name-that-tune incident), I subjected them both to this nonsensical game. We were eating dinner in a loud restaurant, and the music playing was so faint as to be unrecognizable. I was sure, though, that it was George Michael’s “Father Figure”. My friend’s daughter quietly used Shazam to try and pick up the sound and found that I was correct. “How are you even hearing it over all this noise?”

Who knows? This is just where my attention goes. And no matter what, Phil Groovy is never Lenny Kravitz.

But this theme – things not always being what they seem – is important. How many split-second judgments do we make just by looking at someone? How often do we just trust what is presented to us? Lately, having taken up reading and watching series and films more actively than I had in some time, I am struck by how often the theme arises.

In the tv series Silo, those living in the silo are shown the “outside” on a screen and they accept what they are shown. But is it real? Questioning the reality creates nothing but trouble.

In the series Dark Winds, a Native American woman cautions a tribal police officer, “There are those among us who are not what they seem”, seemingly referring to the new tribal deputy (who turns out to be an FBI plant on the reservation). The lieutenant character (the always lovely Zahn McClarnon) already seems aware of this truth but hasn’t yet let on. Sometimes there are reasons for failing to acknowledge reality — for better or worse.

In the tv series Fellow Travelers, young gay men working for the US government during the McCarthy era are forced to hide their identities (in the face of insane hypocrisy – nothing new there). While the whole story is compelling, the idea of surface-level appearance remains acute. Matt Bomer’s character plays the dutiful heterosexual man, marrying and having a family, but leading a double life. Many characters did by necessity. But as time wore on, and the characters make their way into the 1970s and 80s, and a time of new openness, his friends’ lives opened as well. They stopped hiding. But it was not until his character was confronted by the death of the love of his life that he could stop living a lie. To all outward appearances, his character had seemed to have it all, but in hiding his reality, he suffered and lost an unimaginable amount.

We never know what is going on just under the surface. And even when we do, it’s often easier to let it be, not to acknowledge the truth. What someone has suffered or been damaged by, what has hurt and wounded them. Whether it’s searing loss that hasn’t been adequately dealt with, or repeated exposure to the torture of Phil Groovyesque name-that-tune sessions, nothing, and no one, is ever quite what it seems.

phil groovy

Standard

This New Year’s Day, it’s fitting somehow that as I depart Scotland once more, I hear Phil “Groovy” Collins‘s lame remake of “Groovy Kind of Love“. It was always something my once-upon-a-time best friend and I made fun of. She spent a lot of time in Scotland when we were young, and on one of my more memorable New Year’s Eve nights, she phoned my house when we rang in the new year (from Aberdeen, where she had spent that new year). This was back when it was a big deal and expensive to phone people internationally.

No matter how many years pass, when things happen that would have struck us as funny as kids, or when I hear songs we loved or laughed at, I think of and really miss her, as we were then. I don’t know who (or how) she is any more but as always hope it’s somewhere that she can enjoy a groovy kind of love.

outer space

Standard

For a specific window of time growing up in America, the idea that a person had a shot at becoming an astronaut was a real thing. We were not told that we should excel in math and science so that we could be doctors or scientists but because we might become astronauts. We were entertained by futuristic television and film, where living among the stars was the norm. Space travel seemed inevitable, and with this cosmos of influence, who wouldn’t aspire to the stars?

Even if astronaut was an unlikely career outcome, it was touted as a possibility. I don’t know when this ”astronaut as realistic career opportunity” window opened, but it closed abruptly when the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986. Since that time, the astronomical (no pun, of course) costs, the risk, the winding down of the Cold War and its bravado-powered spectacles, and the ho-hum feel of space travel immediately preceding the ill-fated Challenger mission (even if it was anything but routine) contributed to a dampening of enthusiasm for the entire ”spaceman” enterprise.

But for a brief period, the feverish feel of exploring space captured the imaginations of virtually every American kid I knew. Even if we didn’t care that much, it was still something we probably heard about at least once every few days without seeking it out.

Rewatching the 1983 classic The Right Stuff over Christmas this year with someone who was reared and educated in Scotland, I learned (and this should not be much surprise, I suppose) that the idea of space travel, a space program, the prospect of becoming an astronaut – all thought of such things – was not even on the radar for most kids in the UK. Never mentioned. Perhaps this is not universally true since it’s just one person’s experience. But on the whole it does seem that the interest in astronomy and space wasn’t really ignited for a whole lot of people who weren’t already actively interested in such things. Watching the film, this friend exclaimed that he had no interest whatsoever in astronauts or space travel, which seems unthinkable to me somehow. Even if I was never eager to join the space program myself, thinking about outer space and unraveling its mysteries was always a part of the educational landscape and daily life.

you know what would complete this picture?

Standard

All through the week preceding (and during) the Christmas holiday, I have been watching trivia shows (The Chase), reality shows on Animal Planet (My Cat from Hell), films, documentaries and tv series with my friend. And every time it is appropriate – and even when it isn’t – I helpfully say, “You know what would make this show better?”

Him: “No.”

Me: “CHARO!”

 

chess rant

Standard

I am a bit obsessed with watching trivia shows, and I’ve noticed that in the less “high brow” games, any knowledge contestants display about chess and chess players is treated as esoteric, even obscure. Not that most contestants can actually answer the questions. But on the rare occasions they do, the hosts seem in awe. Somehow one guy knew the name Magnus Carlsen, which floored the host. But other questions about Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov were treated as … way out there knowledge. And that seems sort of weird, although I should not be remotely surprised.

Chess diplomacy” and its role throughout the Cold War made chess players household names through much of the now-distant 20th century. And of course Bobby Fischer’s sad end was big news in Iceland, where I lived at the time.

I lament the lack of broad general knowledge that people carry around. It’s not that any of this is important stuff to know or remember, but somehow it feels sad that people don’t.

sniping

Standard

I discussed with someone today that I have wasted far too much time in life taking in the films of Wesley Snipes. Not purposely. They were just things I passively watched (for the most part)… and there he was.

I can’t get that time back. But it may yet help me in a trivia game show or something.

One never knows the kinds of questions that may be posed.

On a University Challenge episode (some kind of celeb/holiday edition), one team was asked to identify the US presidents by looking at photos, and Ruth Davidson (yeah, her) guessed that Calvin Coolidge was Gerald Ford. Seriously. Gerald Fucking Ford. There is no way to mistake these two. I would not expect people in the UK (or anywhere, for that matter) to be able to identify Coolidge. The other team, in fact, guessed Herbert Hoover (which was a much better guess). But to somehow mistake Coolidge for Ford? No.

Incidentally the winning team also didn’t correctly answer the name of the male tennis player in the infamous Battle of the Sexes between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I probably only remembered because the match has been discussed at length in so many other popular culture outlets – and I had just watched the season 2 episode of the lovely series Minx in which the match played a central role. But still. It wasn’t Jimmy Connors, folks.

I was also horrified watching The Chase because the Chaser was meant to guess in which Dostoevsky novel Razumikhin appears. The Chaser responded, “War and Peace”, which of course is not Dostoevsky. And when the team got the chance to answer after the Chaser missed, they said… and this really hurt… “Anna Karenina”.

ALSO NOT DOSTOEVSKY.

patent-protected meltdown

Standard

Mental health status is private and unique to the individual. Being a witness to an individual’s mental health fluctuations and deterioration, though, makes it a shared experience where one person can only be the observer and cannot understand what motivates the shifts in response and behavior. The observer can intellectually understand a diagnosis but being exposed to it in daily life is entirely a different story.

A particular condition, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, can be generalized to the extent that it can be diagnosed and differentiated from other conditions. But the manifestations of a condition, while roughly hewing to the diagnostic criteria, can be painfully individual. Like everything with a pattern at generalizable scale, the real-life implementation is singular and layered.

what’s enough

christmas misery
Standard

It’s hard to ever be completely satisfied with anything. But at the same time it’s possible to recognize that progress has been made and continue going without turning it into a self-made catastrophe.

At least I like to believe this. But it’s not true for everyone. Other ways of thinking, feeling, and conceptualizing the world and one’s place in it seem to create narratives of failure and spiraling depression. It does not matter if these are imaginary failures. They are real enough to the person feeling them. And how can anyone argue with such narratives and the pain that accompanies them?

Meanwhile witnesses to this real pain, resulting from what are imaginary circumstances, can only look on helplessly.

walls

Standard

Always building walls creates a shield but never really stops you from being exposed to pain. It takes a long time of living and going through it to realize that you are not fully living if you are hiding behind walls. How many times must we go through the inclination to change, actually change, and then realize change is imminent or required yet again?

Life is fundamentally about change and how we respond to, react to, and live in it. Change, perhaps by nature/necessity, makes most of our responses/answers fluid. What we experience, see, do today leads to changes in how we move through the world.