Whiskey Women

August 23, 2021 by

Whiskey enjoys a long and storied history. With Irish beginnings sometime around the 12th century, the “water of life” has traveled continents, agriculture, and time periods. Part of that history is heavily intertwined in the history of the United States. The ability to purchase things such as beer and rum where looked at to be a sign of wealth. However, beer was hard to transport with a limited shelf life. The importation requirements and the resulting taxes made rum complicated as well. The ability to produce whiskey from domestically grown ingredients made it a ready choice in early America. Widespread availability created a time in which everyone – men, women, and children – consumed the liquor. When European sophisticates deemed the act of “drunken, uncivilized, and unmannered frontiersmen,” the Americans answered back by hoisting the liquor as a show of American independence and pride (Bellino). Unfortunately, this response did not prevent the attitude towards whiskey from shifting. The popularity decreased while the idea that whiskey was “an old drink for old men” took a strong hold (Rarick and Mich). 

Historically speaking, spirits have always been a man’s game – at least if you believe the stereotype. Unfortunately, the subjugation of women changed their role and their recognition. While women have always been instrumental in all disciplines, their influence did not keep the stereotype of a weaker sex from moving through and gaining popularity in much of the world. The marginalization of women affected the telling of the history and the recording accomplishments in the whiskey world as well. Prohibition, religious organizations, and male dominated legislation focused on keeping women boxed inside the cultural preferences of the time further exacerbated the exclusion. However, women have always been at the forefront of fermented beverages. There is quite a bit of evidence that shows women are responsible for beer, still design, and a host of other advances bring us to what we know today as “adult beverages” (Gilpin).  Now, women are beginning to reenter the industry, both as producers and consumers. No longer is the distillery process or enjoyment confined to the masculine elite. Whiskey has caught the noses and palettes of women. This reemergence of female involvement is creating exciting changes in the process, the product, and the possibilities.   

All whiskeys, regardless of type, follow the same process, thus placing them in the “whiskey” category of spirit. The process begins with the recipe, more commonly referred to as a mash bill. It is distilled, barrel aged, and bottled. The nuances in the different whiskeys occur from variations in addressing each step. These nuances can involve altering characteristics such as adjustments in grain ratios, blending techniques, barrel type, and aging lengths (Rarick and Mich). Most whiskey drinkers are passionate about their preferences. Some, of which I count myself, enjoy a wide variety of offerings. I am far less concerned about the label than I am the taste. And while I love a great whiskey origination story, it is not necessary it enjoy a well-crafted spirit. It is in this variety that female distillers are finding success.  

“I am far less concerned about the label than I am the taste. And while I love a great whiskey origination story, it is not necessary it enjoy a well-crafted spirit. It is in the variety that female distillers are finding success.”

April trepagnier

Even though the process for whiskey making is standard, the route used to go through the process is not. Women are bringing new perspectives into the conversation. Some of these conversations have little to do with the whiskey itself and are concerned with environmental impact. Cheri Reese and her husband, Mike Swanson, have committed to these ideas at their Far North distillery. Reese looks at the process to find ways in which they can produce a whiskey that encourages environmental awareness. They farm their own rye organically and use environmentally friendly techniques throughout the distilling and barreling portions of their process (Polonski). Reese’s commitment to these changes not only adds another flavor profile to the mix (as a process change will do), but it elevates the whiskey game to new consumers. People that may have been interested in whiskey before but put off by the capitalist male stereotype now have options to consider. 

Process innovations are not limited to those of environmental considerations. Whiskey makers of the past were a resourceful bunch. Because people can only work with what they know, trial and error created most whiskeys. Distillers passed on those failures and successes w to the next generation. Today, the whiskey industry has a little more help from science. Many distillers have advanced degrees and training in the different sciences. This training has given the whiskey industry a broader outlook. The understanding of how the chemical make up and reactions of different ingredients, influences, and conditions has allowed whiskey makers to reach into previously unchartered waters.  

Marianne Eaves is one such distiller. The first female master distiller in Kentucky since Prohibition, Eaves earned a Chemical Engineering degree from the University of Louisville. As a woman in the industry, she is using these concepts to bring fresh, innovative ideas to the whiskey making process. But she is finding this to be a challenge. Change is not always easy, and Eaves finds it difficult to convince those around her that variety can be a good thing. However, Eaves is determined to find ways to explore new ways of creating an old drink. Eaves has made the difficult decision to change distilleries, disheartened by the limits put on her. While she was excited to make great whiskey, she was not excited about her inability to innovate once one success was found. Eaves does not want to simply make one great whiskey. She wants to find out how many great whiskeys there can be. Like the drink itself, Eaves knew she could find deeper notes. Setting out to find those new flavors, Eaves is collaborating with individuals outside of the whiskey industry. Most of these collaborators are from the wine industry and, as one might suspect, women (Kimberl).  

Changes of these types do not come without resistance. Another such change happens between the distilling and bottling stages and is creating serious debates among whiskey enthusiasts – the legitimacy of blended whiskies. Understand that blends are not new. In fact, the blending of whiskey is a long-held practice. However, in the new age of whiskey growth, the idea has become hotly contested. The controversy arises from a rising group of blenders who do not (because they cannot) distill their own whiskey. Blenders of this kind purchase barrels from different distilleries, create a mix based on the flavor profiles, and bottle them under their own label. Many whiskey purists believe this type of whiskey making is akin to taking someone else’s hard work and putting your own name on it (Manley and Myrah). However, a compelling argument can be made that the ability to identify those mixes able to render a flavorful and pleasing bottle is an art in itself and worthy of the recognition. Women such as Nancy Fraley are on the forefront of making this claim. Using skills that require a complete knowledge of whiskey and its attributes, women like Fraley are elevating the abilities of the distilleries that choose to acknowledge this technique as one way to create a great bottle (Polinski). 

The whiskey making approach employed by Heather Manley also adds credence to the blending idea. Actually, if addressing the entirety of Manley’s whiskey arena contribution, blending would be a product and not the whole of the contribution. When one looks at the influence Manley has had on the industry, it is important to note who she is as much as it is who she is not. While some may find fault in the fact that she is not a distiller, Manley’s business and technological acumen is bringing a fresh perspective to the industry. Owner of several small businesses, many in male dominated fields, Manley brings both a feminine and an entrepreneurial point of view to making whiskey. These attributes are important points of fact for two reasons. First, an entrepreneur is often finding new ways to bring success to previously untapped, overlooked, or stagnant markets. Second, females in traditionally male dominated industries understand the importance of excellence to ensure acceptance. Because she understands the need to manage overhead while bringing a quality product to the market, Manley embraces the idea of partnership. These partnerships, much like the ones nurtured by Eaves and Franley, have enabled Manley to reduce her costs by forgoing the building of a distillery and time to market by purchasing whiskey that has already aged (Manley and Myrah). While some whiskey drinkers are loyalist to certain distilleries (if Jack Daniels did not make it, my mother is not drinking it), a new rise of whiskey enthusiasts are more concerned with the quality over the label. While blenders such as Franley and Manley may not Eaves’ distiller credentials, they do have market share as the products they produce through skilled knowledge and creative artistry are as enjoyable, if not more so, than some of their grain to glass counterparts.  

Diversity in both process and product is creating a greater diversity in possibility, mostly notably in interested demographic. Reese has accomplished this with environmentally friendly production. Eaves and Manley reach out and encourage women who have not previously felt included. Fawn Weaver is attempting to broaden numbers whiskey drinkers by addressing inclusion marketing. Where women may have found themselves overlooked in the marketing strategies of whiskey makers, Weaver suggests that Black people have as well. As an African American female, Weaver belongs to both underserved demographics. Weaver is the CEO and cofounder of Nearest Green Distillery. The distillery is named for Nathan “Nearest” Green, the first African American distiller. Weaver’s brand has brought attention to the diverse voices that, while not acknowledged, have always influenced the whiskey industry. Moreover, Weaver strives for further inclusiveness by going against the idea that focusing on singular race or demographic is effective marketing. Instead, Weaver chooses to simply make great whiskey and market with an inclusion for all message (Risen). This approach utilized by Weaver and other makers, many of whom are women, is creating a comfort and interest among possible consumers who would not have otherwise considered whiskey as a drink of choice. This increased interest allows for a broadening of capital and resources that continues to whiskey the ability to innovate and explore. 

There can be no question that women have entered the whiskey arena with a fresh perspective that has changed the landscape. This completely unique perspective has had inevitable effect of broad stroke changes. Not only are they literate in the foundational process, but they have innovation and education on their side. Moreover, the need to prove themselves in a male dominated industry has created a focus on excellence in order to be taken seriously by their more established male counterparts. More than just recipes, barrels, and finish, women have brought a whole swath of ideas into an industry improving the process, product, and possibilities. While whiskey is awesome and amazing all by itself, these influences have made it more than that. The reemergence of women in the field has taken a social drink and raised both quality and social consciousness.

Works Cited 

Bellino, Grace. “Whiskey in Early America.” International Social Science Review, no. 1, 2018, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=edsgea&AN=edsgcl.540541921. 

Gilpin, Lyndsey. “The Secret, 800-Year History of Women Making Whiskey.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 May 2015, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/women-making-whiskey-an-800-year-history/393260/. 

Kimberl, Maggie, and Tony. “Marianne Eaves, On The Move.” American Whiskey Magazine, 21 Feb. 2020, americanwhiskeymag.com/2020/01/10/marianne-eaves-on-the-move/. 

Polonski, Adam. “6 Visionaries Who Are Changing Craft Whiskey.” Whisky Advocate, 24 July 2019, www.whiskyadvocate.com/craft-whiskey-visionaries/. 

Rarick, Charles A., and Claudia C. Mich. “The American whiskey renaissance: The rebirth of an American spirit.” Journal of the international academy for case studies 21.3 (2015): 149. 

Risen, Clay. “Yes, African-Americans Drink Bourbon. You’d Never Know It From the Marketing.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/dining/drinks/bourbon-african-americans.html. 

  

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , , ,

Alone not Lonely (it’s me, except when it isn’t)

August 12, 2021 by

Somewhere in this blog I have discussed calling the monsters out of the shadows because they shrink in the light. I’ve probably discussed it in some capacity in quite a few places. The gist of the idea is articulated, in my opinion, most eloquently by Brené Brown. For us Gen-Xers, it is applying the “punch the bully in the mouth one time and they’ll shut up” strategy to the bitch in your brain, your other voice (voices for some us). In a different way, it is much like the final rap battle in 8 Mile when Rabbit decides while he may be a bum, he will no longer be Papa Doc’s bitch. And we all are “still standing here screaming fuck the free world.”  

I think, in a small way this is what happened last week. A tired sense of excited frustration and intention in the face of a life that is so grand and still gets so sad, a talent that is nothing short of a gift and is still so highly neglected, possibilities that are more endless now than they have ever been that are still judged as limited and impossible, left a feeling of pressure to bursting.

And I am not in the place where I am ready to split myself open.

But, I am in a place where I am ready to let it bleed forth. Not the unhinged manifesto of Jerry Maguire levels – I have burnt my whole life down before. And while I still hold it was necessary, I am not interested in doing it again. But a slower, although substantial, move into getting out of my own damn way is necessary. The alternative is causing gangrene on the inside. Sound dramatic? Then you’ve never been there and I don’t expect you to understand. And that’s okay, we can still be friends.

So, I just said all the things – rational or not, embarrassing or not, vulnerable or not. And guess what? The monster shrinks in the light still stands true. I was able to move through the next few days a bit lighter because I refused to continue to carry that load. I was able to enter into new moments, new ideas, with more headspace, more insight, more clarity. And, as is wont to happen, the path to where I really wanted to be cleared just a little.

The machete came in the form of a book recommended to me by Jordan (told you she was super smart). Process: The Writing Lives of Great Authors by Sarah Stodola takes famous authors – Toni Morrison, Edith Wharton, Joan Didion, Ernest Hemingway, and Margret Atwood are a few my favorites included – and “combines author biography with lively details about writing habits…a sort of group biography through the lens of professional technique.” You can probably see why I am enthralled. I can’t tell you much more about the the format because, as I said, I couldn’t get past the forward and introduction before I had to come here and talk with myself (and you).

First, did you know that Virginia Woolf preferred purple pens? Do you have any idea who else prefers purple pens? I think it’s a sign.

Ok, maybe it isn’t a sign per se, but when coupled with the next quotes, it certainly seems that the right book has found itself into the right hands at precisely the right time.

Noah Charney, PhD is an art historian and a writer. In his forward for the book, Dr. Charney says, “Inventing interesting things to write about, and new ways to convey them, is exhausting…Readers tend to overlook the intricacies involved in bringing a work to completion, and they see writers as a cult of pseudo-magicians, capable of conjuring worlds out of thought, spinning characters from thin air, and surely having a great time while doing so. In truth, a career as a writer is enjoyable, but also lonely.”

Exhausting. It is. It truly is. But it has always felt guilty to say that. It is simply writing after all. – no physical exertion, no physical discomfort, just sitting around with a pen or a keyboard, maybe some chips and a whiskey and you just type. How exhausting is that allowed to be? In true? Very. The validation washed over me. I have found nouns and verbs to be the hardest easiest thing I’ve ever done. More importantly, I am not the best version of myself when I am not doing it.

And my dear readers of which I have maybe five. I get so wrapped up in the production of it all. Will it be good enough, is it worth it, is it too much, have I overstepped, held back, gone too far, been too soft, will this be the piece that creates opportunity, will all of it just be a waste…and on and on. This can be incredibly debilitating. Concern over reception has stopped my hands more than once because honestly, who wants to be rejected, abandoned, criticized. Who wants to be lonely?

“Alone is just where you are. Lonely is a fear that you don’t have an option to be somewhere else.”

April Trepagnier

I had this thought alone on a porch in a different state away from everything familiar. It was then that I realized that, while I was alone, I was not lonely. The difference is important. While I was not in the immediate vicinity of my people, they were still my people. The work that was doing had only separated us physically – not relationally. In fact, this aloneness was supported, encouraged, and recognized as a pretty great idea. In fact, it is so unlike me that some were even proud that I decided to do it at all. I will not be coy, there is always a feeling for me at separation of “what if they don’t come back” or “what if there aren’t there when I come back.” The answer is, of course “while that is highly unlikely, you’ll deal with it when it happens.”

My self-worth is not on the table.

I can be alone when the work requires it. My family will still love me. My husband will still adore me. They don’t expect me to be a martyr to the cause. I can be alone without being lonely.

It is not lost on me that I feel no moral dilemma in skipping book forwards. I am not real sure why I decided to read this one, only that I am glad that I did. It was a pretty good one.

Stodola then takes over at the Introduction, another section of publishing I often breeze right past. And, again, I am thrilled that I didn’t.

While slightly oversimplified, I think one of the defining differences between alone and lonely is fear. Alone is just where you are. Lonely is a fear that you don’t have an option to be somewhere else. I am not worried about being alone when I write. I do, however, worry a great deal about writing making me lonely.

Writing is an intensely personal and intimate activity. I am literally taking the innermost parts of myself and my imagination and placing them in a black and white space for you to do whatever you want to with it. Add to that my preferred style of creative nonfiction, and it is naturally assumed that the writer is always me instead of a created persona that I have created to tell the story. Even in my fiction I have been wary of my words because, well, Stodola did a great job when she said, “You’re never quite sure if you’re writing about someone else, or if in writing about someone else you’re unmasking something about yourself. But maybe that’s the whole point.”

For me, that is the whole point. Whether the creative be fiction or no, I am a lover of those stories that seek to grow understanding between people who want it. In order to achieve that, it is hard (for me at least) to separate myself wholly from the narrative. And even if I could, readers will assume what they want about what’s true and what isn’t. Further, readers will assume what they want about what is about them and what isn’t. For a writer who desires low conflict, this can be a precarious place to be.

The safe idea is to just not write or to just not publish. I really don’t like any of those ideas. I do not know how to achieve connection without vulnerability and I do not know how to achieve vulnerability without just putting myself out there. And while it can be a scary place to be, myself worth is not on the table.

I haven’t even gotten to an author profile yet. If this keeps up, Stodola’s work will find a solid spot on my recommended list.

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With:

A Journey to Self

August 9, 2021 by

Many of my own philosophical questions revolve around the idea of self. Who am I? Why am I here? How can I know myself? Is my self real? We find examples of philosophers discussing these questions throughout history. Attempting to identify the self as something one can know while encountering all the ancillary ideas that each position leads to has been a subject of much discussion. Rene Descartes found himself in an uncomfortable situation trying to satisfy the inclinations of both his religious and scientific mind. He found his answer in an ontological dualism that put res cogitans, the thinking, unextended substance under the authority of God (and thus, the Church), and res extensa, the unthinking, extended substance under the authority of science. In this way, Descartes reasoned, both empirical and rational truths can coexist. However, this idea quickly came under scrutiny as it seemed to make a causal connection between the mind or soul, and the body or physical nature impossible (Mitchell on Descartes’ Epistemology, 236). 

While Descartes tried to produce solutions, as he was certain the mind and the body were linked, he was unable to do so convincingly; his best effort was the pineal gland (Mitchell on Descartes’ Epistemology, 237). Both Physicalists, who identify self as the body only, and Idealists, who argue the self is only an idea, use the mind body problem to refute the dualism defended by Descartes. In fact, David Hume uses the argument as part of his discussion to conclude that there is no actual “self” at all. While I think it is safe to say that the pineal gland is not the linchpin of the mind and body, I also think that, barring a reality I cannot conceive of, denying any idea of self is also inadequate. I am in good company in that idea as Immanuel Kant also disagreed with Hume’s evaluation of self. Instead Kant imagined that there are two separate realities – the noumena that we cannot know, and the phenomena that we can. Kant uses the concept of transcendental ideas to explain how the information passes or shifts from the noumena to the phenomena (Soccio on Kant, 318). It is in these shifts that we develop constructs for our reality. As these transcendental ideas are ignited by experience, forming structures for the experiencer through which the noumena become organized into the phenomena, it is a likely candidate for the mind body connection and satisfactory criteria for personal identity. This idea of construct of self through a perception of experience gained momentum through my encounter with William James’ discussion on consciousness (although I do not pretend to understand the fullness of that piece of work), and solidified with V.F. Cordova’s assertion that self is a constant creation. 

René Descartes

If I may be permitted a caveat: I have been somewhat hesitant to tackle this subject, partly because it covers multiple philosophers. Mostly because, as I have intimated, I am honest about my lack of full understanding of the philosophic positions offered. However, I have decided to take the journey approach to explain my position. As such, I will begin with my first encounter with the idea of self and move through to the most comfortable idea I believe I have ever heard concerning the subject. The errors in understanding are all mine. However, the knowledge gained is valuable to me even in its imperfection. 

My idea of self moved from a casual and obvious fact to a philosophical quest with Descartes’ Cogito. While familiar with “I think therefore I am,” this condensed version had not inspired a contemplation of self. However, the expanded idea, in particular “…he can never make me be nothing as long as I think that I am something,” resonated in such a way that, while I could not be sure exactly how I would get there, I was certain that I agreed philosophically with the existence of a self (Mitchell on Descartes’ Epistemology, 232).   

Because I am unfamiliar with all the rules of philosophy, I am only partly sure that my certainty of destination breaks one of them. That concern only lasted for a moment as Descartes’ offering of the pineal glad and Cartesian circle offering to solve the mind body problem was immediately met by an eyeroll at the absurdity. Hence, I was certain I had my intellectual honesty intact even if I had violated a predestination in research rule (again if there is such a rule). This intellectual honesty had me at a serious disadvantage when I engaged with David Hume who argued against the existence of a self at all. Because of our current inability to scientifically show where the self is, or to define the material of which it is made, there is no way to prove its physicality or permanence. Therefore, it does not exist; there is no self (Pojman on Personal Identity in Locke and Hume, 384). While his argument was compelling, it was not insurmountable. First, Hume’s asserted that every real thing must correspond to one real idea (Pojman on Personal Identity in Locke and Hume, 384). The self does not have any singular impression and is therefore not real. I refute this point with one simple question, “Why must it?” While I am sure Hume has a compelling answer for that, I will continue to go back to “…he can never make me be nothing as long as I think that I am something.” In this particular instance, Hume, not Descartes’ evil deity, is the “he.” 

Immanuel Kant

While I would have resigned myself to this idea to preserve my belief of a self, Immanuel Kant did not let me fight this good fight alone for very long. His Copernican revolution changed the way in which experiential knowledge and personal ideas of such knowledge could be deemed as true. Kant suggested that the mind did not conform to experience, but that experience conformed to the mind. Kant suggested that there were two types of reality – noumenal reality and phenomenal reality. Our experience is facilitated by transcendental ideas. These ideas, Kant suggests, are the way in which experience, the noumena that we cannot know is conformed into the phenomena that we can know (Soccio on Kant, 318). In this singular reversal, Kant provided me with a counterpoint to Hume’s suggestion that self was nothing more than a bundle of perceptions. My self, my cogito, is the is the creator of the perceptions. Without my self, there are no perceptions. As Hume has acknowledged the existence of perceptions, in fact bundles of them, I would insist that he therefore acknowledge my self as the facilitator of those perceptions. is Coperiam Hois 

William James furthers my journey, although in a cursory way. While I understand many of his thoughts, I am having a much tougher time determining his point. His tone suggests that he is directly contradicting Kant’s thoughts on transcendental ideas and sides with Hume on the denial of the existence of self, positioning the self as a “function” versus something real (James – Does Consciousness Exist, 3 – 4). However, I will share how his ideas of experience and his metaphor of both the paint and the room set me up for the apex encounter with Cordova and my final argument that my self does exist and it is real in so far as I identify and understand real. James’ proposal that “things,” e.g., the paint and the room, are real both of themselves and within the context of the being experiencing them situates itself, in my mind, in line with Kant’s description of noumena and phenomena. The paint, the room (noumena) cannot be known by my self outside of the transcendental ideas that shape it into the phenomena. Once I have experienced the paint, the room, there is both the paint, the room as they are and my perception of them in my self. The differences between the actuality of the paint, the room and my perceptions of them may be nonexistent or innumerable; they still exist both in themselves and in my self. James describes this ability to exist in multiplicity as the way a point can exist on two separate lines provided that the lines intersect. To this point, I would suggest that one line being the paint’s, the room’s existence, and the other being my self. Without my self, there is no intersection. Regardless of whether one positions the experience within or without, or considers it by addition or subtraction, and regardless of how many instances of the paint, the room exist based on encounters, if they are able exist outside of themselves at all relies on the existence of my self to interact with it.  

This journey explains why my mind was ready with full preparation to encounter V. F. Cordova. Allow me to venture into the illustrative for a moment and I will conclude with reasoned logic, thus covering, I hope, both the relative and absolute belief I have in my self, and the self of others. I found Cordova’s writing to be beautiful and profound. Her respect of nature and our place in it was complete, whether we as individuals respected it or not. Her ability to confront the human condition as a whole, in parts, relative, and separate had the ability to convey both empathy and straight forward judgements. In her explanation of our relationship to nature, our egg in the womb reliance to that which is around us, I found the final piece, for now, that I needed to put my belief that my existence is real, my self is my existence, therefore my self is real.  

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , , ,

Gold Star

July 30, 2021 by

In two weeks, I will start my junior year. At Georgia Southern. With the exception of one more lab science and my Spanish requirements, I am at the point where all my classes are ones I want to take. I want to get into how painful it is to have to take all the other “required core” classes, but I try and remind myself that there is a greater good purpose to those and it’s not the point I want to get into today anyway.  

One of the classes this fall is “Writing for Publication.” As luck would have it, the professor has already opened (somewhat) the course and I spent a little time peeking around to see what I was in for. To say that I was comforted (I like to know as much as possible as early as possible), scared (it is a lot of real deal, big girl writing), and embarrassed (ask Jordan how many times she’s looked at me and said “I need content”) all in one big whirlwind of gross yummy feels is an understatement. I still am not sure how to quantify what exactly all of it was.  

I can say it got me here to this keyboard, so that’s something.  

The first assignment is, as you might expect, an introduction. For this introduction, the professor offered ideas for tidbits we may want to share about ourselves: 

  • Identify writing and publication goals (short term and long term) 
  • Describe a current writing project that you plan to work on in this class 
  • Reflect on what you think are some of your strengths and weaknesses as a writer 
  • Describe aspects of the publication process you want to know more about 

It is damn near laughable the amount of panic I immediately felt in my chest. Laugh. Able. Seriously. If we are friends on Facebook, you can probably pinpoint the exact moment this happened (approximately 14:16 minutes before 4:38pm on Tuesday). I have gotten better at selfcare in my moments of paralysis caused by feeling overwhelmed or afraid. This video is a good one. And, the winning line is alllllll the way at the end so I am never tempted to turn the video off early.   

“Chasing meaning is better for your health than trying to avoid discomfort.”

Kelly McGonigal

Feeling a bit more centered, I pulled out my iPad to beginning importing some material that needs to be read for the class. Another notebook was already opened. I use this excellent program called GoodNotes. If you are a notebook junkie like me, I cannot recommend it enough. However, if you are a notebook junkie like me, I feel compelled to warn you of one significant drawback; you can go overboard with it. When constricted by the physical nature of individual notebooks, some judgement and moderation is required. With GoodNotes, not so much. You can literally have as many notebooks as you want. Consequently, you can have as many notebooks as you want. If that doesn’t make sense to you, consider yourself lucky and move along. If you get it, just remember, I warned you.  

Anyway, I opened up GoodNotes and found the notebook I use for my catch-all daily notebook was already opened. Sweet relief washed over me. I could procrastinate the task I was doing to focus on this other task (organizing the piecemeal notes) AND not have to call it procrastination because it was still productive and somewhere on my to do list. Again, confused – move along, nodding your head – not alone.  

The notebook had been pretty neglected as of late meaning there we quite a few pages of scribbles that needed to be handled. As it was, either my luck was short lived, or the universe was having none of my little hide and seek justification today. One of the first notes I came across was a quote from Brene Brown’s Daring Greatly. “When our self-worth isn’t on the line, we are far more willing to be courageous and risk sharing our raw talents and gifts.” Right beside it was the note I made. “But how do you get your self worth off the table?’ 

I tried to keep scrolling but the ideas collided before I had time to make the intersection clean or slam on the brakes.  

I allow my self worth to be among all the other offerings available on the charcuterie board that is my life. My relationships, weight, writing, health, looks, wrinkles, business, past, hobbies, sleep schedule, champagne glass, tears, thoughts, missteps, achievements, issues, and insight – all of it. Next to the olives and above that bombass blue cheese from Thomasville. Just put that shit on a gourmet cracker.  

And I get angry. And that pisses me off. I am not surprised at the anger. I am dealing with quite a bit of anger issues lately. Evidently it is a byproduct of working through my fear issues. My therapist assures me that it is quite normal, and, in fact, she sees it as progress and is proud of me. Gold Star for me.  

So, I need to work through the anger by going back to the thing that started this whole mess to begin with. Well, I suppose not so much working through as it is just being honest and answering the questions.  

First, I get my self worth off the table by just taking it off the damn table. Period. If I forget and slide it back up there, I just take it off, as many times as it takes. I remind myself that I am worthy because I am worthy. Full Stop.  

Now that I have taken care of that question, I can move on to the other four.  

I do not currently have any writing or publication goals. I am currently afraid of my words and have not been able to adequately work through that fear without getting unproductively angry. I also have an irrational fear that I am not good enough and do not have the time or skill to get good enough. I am irrationally convinced that I have wasted too much time and opportunity to deserve any of it. As such, I do not have a current writing project and am desperately hoping I can voodoo one up so that I do not limp through this class. I cannot even get to a place where I can discuss my strengths and weaknesses as I am not consistent enough in my practice to accurately identify them. Therefore, I do not even think about the publishing process in any tangible way although I would love to have a clever work burst forth from my keyboard without actually having to split myself open to get to it.  

Think that’ll earn me passing marks? Gold star again.  

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: ,

The Intercessions of Athena

July 26, 2021 by

It can be difficult to appreciate the many nuances of Homer’s epic Odyssey during an initial reading. I have found much of the material to be overwhelming both in scope and analysis. The sheer length and detail present a plethora of ideas to understand and consider. Additionally, interpretation is challenging as I find myself placing 21st century bias onto a classic work. However, because classic mythology often highlights successes and shortcomings of the human character by projecting them onto god figures, it is logical to assume the complex nature of decision making and ego affects the occupants of Olympus as well. One example of this duality is the assessment of blame. Both gods and mortals attribute the causes of strife to the other. Most notably is the lament of Penelope. While the involvement of the gods (or non-involvement, as the case may be) is undoubtedly a factor, their assistance, particularly that of Athena, is paramount in the return of her husband, Odysseus. Without Athena’s eventual intercessions in petitioning Zeus, preparing Telemachus, and inspiring Penelope, Odysseus would have never made it home to his wife.  

Homer begins the argument of blame in book 1 by giving the perspectives of both Zeus and Penelope. First, Zeus address the council of the gods, saying:   

Ah how shameless —the way these mortals blame the gods. 

From us alone, they say, come all their miseries, yes,       

but they themselves, with their own reckless ways, 

compound their pains beyond their proper share. (1.37-40) 

To Zeus’ credit, he does not claim that the actions of the gods hold no instance of blame in the ill happenings of mortals. But he is clear that it is a shared blame. Penelope, in contrast, lays all the fault at the feet of the gods telling her son, Telemachus that “Bards are not to blame — / Zeus is to blame. He deals to each and every / laborer on this earth whatever doom he pleases” (1.400-403). Interestingly, this declaration occurs after, unbeknownst to Penelope, Zeus has allowed divine intervention on her husband’s behalf. In fact, it is now Athena who will step in and allow for Odysseus to return home.  

It is important to note that Athena is not obliged to intercede on Odysseus’ behalf at all. First, this requires her to take a position directly opposite of Poseidon who is currently staunchly opposed to any good thing happening for the hero, a feud which Odysseus brought upon himself. In book 9 Odysseus recounts the story of the Cyclops to the Phaeacians. The story concludes with Odysseus blinding the son of Poseidon, Polyphemus. Odysseus, unable to control his hero nature, calls out to the wounded Polyphemus, “‘Cyclops — / if any man on the face of the earth should ask you / who blinded you, shamed you so —say Odysseus” (9.558-560). This gives Polyphemus all the information he needs to petition his father in retaliation. Of course, for Athena, Poseidon is an adversary that she has confronted before in the quest for the city of Athens – where she was also victorious. Secondly, and maybe most telling, Athena has some issues with Odysseus herself. Leaning on Jenny Strauss Clay’s 1983 study The Wrath of Athena Gods and Men, there is support for the idea that Athena has not helped the hero up to this point because she simply did not want to. She was angry with the Odysseus. She felt that she had always been instrumental in Odysseus’ success. However, it could not be denied that the hero was capable in his own right. Odysseus’ wit and strength was substantial enough to appear to Athena as a challenge to her own (Clay, 209). Coupled with the Poseidon problem, Athena chose to do nothing to ease his strife. For the duration of Athena’s disassociation, Odysseus is at Calypso’s mercy.  

“She was angry with the Odysseus. She felt that she had always been instrumental in Odysseus’ success. “

However, Athena has an affection for Odysseus because they are so much alike. In this mortal, she respects his cunning mind and his skill in warfare. It is this affection that prompts Athena to intercede on his behalf. Until Athena’s intervention, Odysseus has been held on Calypso’s island for seven years. In order to release him from this entanglement and start his journey home, Athena petitions Zeus to allow for Odysseus’ release from Calypso. This intervention, as is customary with Athena’s wit and cunning, is well timed. Poseidon is away in Ethiopia during the meeting of the gods (1.25). This not only allows Athena to intercede on Odysseus’ behalf, but gives Zeus the ability to agree without having to mediate a disagreement between his daughter and his brother. It is clear that Zeus needs little encouragement to grant Athena’s request as he agrees with her assessment of the “Great Odysseus / who excels all men in wisdom, excels in offerings too / he gives the immortal gods who rule the vaulting skies?” (1.78-80). With her request granted, Athena continues with the rest of her plan to get Odysseus safely home.  

Interestingly, Athena does not simply go to the island where Odysseus is being held and escort him home under her protection. It seems that with her abilities and the support of the other gods, this should be an easy enough feat. However, that would not be in line with the relationship that Athena and Odysseus have created. First, Athena enjoys watching the hero be the hero. She finds brilliance in his ability to be successful. Second, as discussed, Athena and Odysseus have been at odds before for numerous reasons, not the least of which is Athena’s opinion that Odysseus is “too clever; his intelligence calls into the question of the superiority of the gods themselves” (Clay, 209). Instead, Athena chooses to assist rather than enable. Unfortunately, due to the length of time that has elapsed, the journey home has acquired some additional challenges, namely the suitors of Penelope and their desire to occupy the seat left vacant by Odysseus. Consequently, even if Odysseus could make it back to his homeland, he still has one fight left. In his current situation, would have to go it alone. Success with those odds is not favorable. Odysseus’ son, Telemachus, would be a great asset, if he were an able ally. As it stands, he has grown up without a father resulting in the challenges in maturation typically expected in a young man who has not had the influence of his father. Telemachus is, to be blunt, a bit whiny, timid, and morose. He is not prepared to go into battle alnogside his father. Penelope has endured a long time of missing her husband and fending off suitors; her appearance and her spirit is waning. While one would think this would not matter after such a long absence, it is clear from Telemachus’ conversation with the disguised Athena in book one that his admiration of his mother has dwindled; that the disheartening of Odysseus could suffer the same is plausible. Gaining support from Zeus is clearly only the first step; Athena has more work to do.  

Athena’s next intercession is the preparation of Telemachus. She disguises herself and presents herself to him as a guest, a warrior friend of his father’s. What she finds is an incapable “Prince… / heart obsessed with grief” who can do little more than lament his current situation and hope against hope that his father will return and restore his home (1.133-137). Homer makes it plain that Telemachus is not going to be capable of remedying the current situation himself without some type of outside catalyst. The absence of Odysseus combined with the intrusion of Penelope’s suitors have created a situation in which young Telemachus has lost the drive to move into adulthood as Odysseus’ son. When questioned by Athena, Telemachus practically removes himself from his entire family, doubting the fidelity of his mother and his paternity by responding:  

Mother has always told me I’m his son, it’s true,  

but I am not so certain. Who, on his own,       

has ever really known who gave him life?       

Would to god I’d been the son of a happy man       

whom old age overtook in the midst of his possessions!       

Now, think of the most unlucky mortal ever born —      

since you ask me, yes, they say I am his son. (1.249-255) 

Immediately, “the clear-eyed goddess reassured him,” and continues throughout the exchange to encourage Telemachus’ morale. It is this mentorship into adulthood that Telemachus was missing. Athena proceeds to set a path for Telemachus to follow that will afford him the opportunity to regain confidence in both himself and his family. It is this confidence that will shape him into a reliable ally for his father’s return.  

Penelope also needs some divine intercession from Athena. She has long awaited the return of her husband and her hopes of his return have all but vanished. Athena works to rejuvenate the life and vitality into Odysseus’ wife. She begins with assuring her in book 4 that her son is protected by the goddess. Penelope is distraught when Medon informs her that Telemachus has gone off to Pylos. She petitions Athena to watch over her son. Of course, as this was Athena’s mission, the petition is granted. Athena uses this opportunity to begin the encouragement of Penelope. She appears as a phantom and tells her “Sleeping, Penelope, your heart so wrung with sorrow? / No need, I tell you, no, the gods who live at ease / can’t bear to let you weep and rack your spirit” in an attempt to pull Penelope out of the despair she has fallen into (4.904-906). Penelope askes about her husband as well, but, as the time to reveal Odysseus has not yet come, Athena does not answer her question.  She does return to Penelope in book 18. It is here she begins to prepare Penelope for Odysseus’ return and the battle with the suitors. Athena knows that Odysseus’ return will have to be revealed in a strategic way so that he will have the advantage when the fight begins. Much the same way as Athena enhanced Telemachus before his journey and would Odysseus when his identity becomes known, she comes to Penelope at night lavishing her with gifts to restore her beauty. This begins the chain of events that will lead up to Athena encouraging Penelope to craft a contest. The winner will be her suitor of choice. Again, Athena has cleverly put together the perfect situation for Odysseus to reclaim his rightful place in his life.  

There is validity to Penelope’s grievance that the gods are responsible for the strife that occurs in the lives of the mortals. If the full of the story is taken into account, the gods are responsible for Odysseus being away from his homeland to begin with as the Trojan War began with Paris choosing Aphrodite as the most beautiful goddess in a contest inspired by Eris. However, there is merit to Zeus’ claim that men create their own difficulties. Odysseus’ return home after the war may have been possible had he not offend Poseidon. Athena may have not remained absent if not offended by Odysseus’ confidence. Regardless of the catalyst or influences, another idea is true in Homer’s Odyssey. Without Athena’s eventual intercessions in petitioning Zeus, preparing Telemachus, and inspiring Penelope, the story ends much differently. Telemachus is overcome by the suitors, Penelope is forced into choosing a man she does not love, and Calypso realizes her desire to keep Odysseus, and our hero never makes it home. While Athena created a more difficult situation for herself and Odysseus, it is her intervention that makes the reunion possible. Although, the great challenge may have been the appeal for goddess of wisdom and war.  

Works Cited 

Clay, Jenny Strauss. The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.  

Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles, Penguin Books, Kindle Edition,1996.   

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: ,

Hera and Aphrodite: Mishaps in Matrimony

July 12, 2021 by

Beginning the journey to learn about the various, and often contradictory, myths has exposed just how little I know about the different gods and goddesses. In particular, I thought Zeus had a different moral compass with a behavior that modeled a more traditional idea of honor. I thought of Hera as composed, and a respected Queen as the wife of Zeus. I did not realize Aphrodite was married. I always assumed (incorrectly), that she was the beautiful free spirit who inspired but did not participate in matrimony. To add to the intrigue, I have become aware of the lack of cannon in the mythological stories themselves. This is where the contradictions, inconsistencies, and various perspectives come from. Because there is no cannon, there is no way to declare with any certainty which telling is the original one. However, one can deduce from the more prevalent myths that the occupation of the role of wife by both Hera and Aphrodite has many similarities. They have similar origins at the hand of Zeus. While their methodology is different, the chaos created by their wifely circumstances is palpable. Although these similarities exist, the favorability enjoyed by Aphrodite is notably different from that offered to Hera.  

Statue of Hera
The Campana Hera, a Roman copy of a Hellenistic original, from the Louvre

The myths (and subsequent consequences) revolve around the desires of Zeus. Far from the benevolent and chivalrous gentleman, Zeus is nothing if not a take what he wants by any mean necessary deity. Procuring Hera as his seventh wife (although I confess to being a bit confused about how that works in the cosmic timeline) is no exception. I assume that Hera found benefit in being Zeus’ sister since it was he that brought her and the rest of their siblings back from the stomach of their father, Kronos. However, as a wife, it would appear that Hera was reluctant. Not one to take no for an answer, Zeus transformed himself into a cuckoo bird in order to entice Hera to bring him close to herself. The seduction worked and they married. This would seem to be the perfect role for the goddess of marriage (Roman and Roman 12). Unfortunately, the rampant promiscuity of her husband led to many difficulties. Hera is often portrayed enraged and jealous, going to treacherous and murderous ends in attempts to punish both her husband and his consorts. 

One such attempt occurred after the birth of Athena. Because of a prophesy, Zeus swallowed Athena’s mother, Metis, while she was pregnant with the goddess. Athena was later born in epic goddess fashion, full formed and fully ready for battle straight from the head of her father. While not technically a result of adultery (Metis and Zeus were married at the time), the birth of a child that was not hers infuriated Hera. I would suppose that after many slights, transgressions, and disloyalties, Hera would find it impossible to endure any encroachments on her position as the current bearer of Zeus’ children. In retaliation, Hera brought forth a child on her own. In keeping with Hera’s commitment to fidelity, she brought forth her son Hephaistos without participation from Zeus or any other entity. Unfortunately for Hera, Hephaistos was not the specimen Athena was. Where Athena was formidable and grand, Hephaistos was anything but. In her frustration, Hera cast her son from Mount Olympus. As one might imagine, this caused a great resentment in Hephaistos. In retaliation, he fashioned a throne designed to trap his mother in unbreakable bonds (Hansen and Hansen 50).  

Now, whatever Zeus was, willing to allow his wife to remain bound to a chair was not one of them. As Hephaistos was the only one who could free Hera, Zeus offered Aphrodite in marriage to whomever succeeded in convincing the disgruntled son to set his mother free. Ares, Aphrodite’s lover, attempted the mission and failed. Dionysus did not. Disliked by Hera himself, the god of wine convinced the craftsman god that the hand of Aphrodite was worth freeing the queen goddess. Hephaistos agreed and Dionysus found Hera’s favor and Hephaistos Aphrodite’s bed (Theoi Greek Mythology). 

Now, like Hera, Aphrodite found herself in a marriage not of her choosing. Also, like Hera, this arrangement left Aphrodite with a disposition for rebellion. Unlike Hera, however, Aphrodite did not feel compelled to maintain her fidelity to her husband. Instead, as the goddess of love, evidently regardless of martial disposition, Aphrodite and Ares continued their passionate love affair. It did not take long for Hephaistos to become aware of the duplicity. In retaliation, he devised a plan to catch the two lovers in the act and exposed their deceit to all the gods and goddess (Hansen and Hansen 113-114).  

The consequences of an unhappy home life for both goddesses were not limited to only the aforementioned examples. Both goddesses developed reputations for disruption that can logically tie back to their dissatisfaction with their husbands. It is important to note that the jealousy, trickery, and vengeance employed by Hera and Aphrodite are not particular to them. On the contrary, gods and goddess have displayed common characteristics of heightened emotions, sensitivity to slights, jealousy, and a desire for swift retribution when they feel as if they disrespected (Hansen and Hansen 35). However, as Hera is the goddess of marriage and Aphrodite the goddess of love, their behavior in the role of wife coincided directly with their respective honors. Therefore, Zeus’ infidelity is intolerable to Hera while remaining faithful in a loveless marriage was impossible for Aphrodite.  

It is easy to dismiss these love affairs as benign. Really, how much harm can come from people, deity or mortal, falling in love?

April Trepagnier

Perhaps because love is viewed as an invigorating emotion evoking thoughts of blooming flowers and young lovers while marriage is an institution for the adult and settled, the interferences of Aphrodite are viewed with less condemnation that those of Hera. Aphrodite was notorious for creating love affairs between gods and mortals to satisfy her amusement. It is easy to dismiss these love affairs as benign. Really, how much harm can come from people, deity or mortal, falling in love? Well, turns out it is a lot actually. Most notable was the Trojan War.  

While the epic of the Trojan War is often told and relatively well known, the genesis of the event is lesser explored and sometimes debated. One version suggests that Aphrodite’s meddling in the amorous affections of mortals and gods had created unforeseen consequences in the area of the resulting children. Real emotion found its way into some of these god-parent/demigod-offspring relationships. Because the demigods were mortal, this caused great strife for their immortal parents. Zeus was ready to see this era come to an end. He then employed Eris and a golden apple and counted on the vanity of the goddess to do its work. And it did. Tasking Paris with the responsibility of awarding the apple to the most beautiful goddess, Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite all made offers to be chosen. Aphrodite once again used the powers of desire, promising Paris the hand of Helen of Troy. This was the selected offer, and she won the golden apple from Paris thus infuriating Hera and Athena (Hansen and Hansen 82).  

Statue of Aphrodite
“Amfiteatri Afërdita“

Because there are a few events that occur in between the golden apple and the actual battles, it is easy to forget that Aphrodite had a hand in the mayhem. Aphrodite probably benefits from equal parts of romantic ideations and distance in proximity from initial cause to final result as she does not typically reveal her dissatisfaction with her marriage in direct relation to her husband. Hera routinely chooses a different method. Her interventions are, as one would expect of the goddess of marriage, directly aimed at the infidelity of her husband. She was nearly successful with her creation of Typhon. A child Hera brought forth on her own, Typhon was arguably the most formidable monster in mythology. Hera’s intention was for her son to overthrow her husband, thus freeing her from his power and punishing him for his infidelity. It nearly worked until Zeus overtook the monster to end the battle (Hansen and Hansen 233-234).  

More often, however, Hera is not quite so direct, choosing to take aim at the those around Zeus instead of the god himself. As such, there are typically relatively innocent women (even Hera fell victim to Zeus’ trickery), and children involved. Hera attempted to kill the infant Herakles, son of Zeus and Alkmene. She tricks Semele, mother of Dionysos, into destroying herself with Zeus’ radiance (Hansen and Hansen 187-188). This victimology rarely lends itself to sympathetic ideals. The result is a harsher view of Hera than Aphrodite experiences.  

Although Hera is considered strong, beautiful, and desirable, she is also characterized as a bitter housewife fueled by jealousy and overcome by pettiness. It occurred to me that this could be the very reason Hephaistos was born slighter in stature, weak, and unattractive. I think that there could be an argument made that Hera’s son is the embodiment of her inner angst. If, in mythological genealogy, like begets like, and Hephaistos comes from Hera alone at a particular time and for the express purpose of retaliating against Zeus for the birth of Athena, then it stands to reason that this would be the child Hera brings forth. Whether this is the actual cause of Hephaistos infirmary, of course I cannot know. However, it is symbolic of the typical way in which Hera and Aphrodite are regarded differently in their wifely roles considering the similarities in their situations.  

When one is considering the idea of “wife” and what that looks like in the context of mythological deities, it is often difficult to reconcile the manipulation, force, and aggression utilized when dealing with matters typically viewed as more romantic. However, it would appear that the deities are no less immune to drama created by emotional and physical desire than mortals. Hera, the Queen of the gods and Aphrodite, arguably the most well-known goddess are not so powerful as to be immune to the consequences of gods, more specifically, Zeus, behaving badly. Both goddesses were manipulated in their role as wife. True to their natures, these manipulations were answered with matronly punishment and seductive cuckolding. While both women may have desired to illuminate the more positive qualities of their honors, the lack of fidelity and passion prevented this for each of them respectively. While both women acted out against perceived wrongs, Hera’s outbursts, whether warranted or not, will always appear to be less flattering than Aphrodite’s indiscretions.  

Work Cited

Hansen, William F., and William F. Hansen. Classical Mythology: a Guide to the Mythical World of the Greeks and Romans. Oxford University Press, 2005.  

Roman, Luke, and Monica Roman. Aphrodite to Zeus: an Encyclopedia of Greek and Roman Mythology. Checkmark Books, 2011.  

“Theoi Greek Mythology.” THEOI GREEK MYTHOLOGY – Exploring Mythology in Classical Literature & Art, www.theoi.com/.  

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , ,

Sit Down and Let Go

June 30, 2021 by

When you ask an author when they started to write, they’ll say the usual, “I’ve always been a storyteller,” or some other vague, profound answer. That’s not the case for me. I had always been a reader, but writing didn’t seem worthwhile until I began to read stories made by my peers. 

These stories sucked me in, telling me fantastically unrealistic twists of our reality while depicting flat, boring characters. Poorly written, filled with tropes and clichés, and horribly formatted on an app that had me under its spell, reminding me that anyone could write on their platform. Anyone. 

While I truly believe anyone has the talent to write and everyone has a story to tell, they just lack the craft or motivation to do it, that couldn’t be said for teenage me. I had to prove that I could write a better story. I spent hours writing stories, just as poorly written and horribly crafted as my peers. I posted them, proud of what I had accomplished, thinking the few hundred words I spent hours crafting was the next JK Rowling. (In hindsight, I am so glad I no longer strive to be like JK or any other author. I’d rather pave my own literary career than try to mimic the success of one.) How far from the truth that had been… 

It doesn’t really matter how a writer starts, though. What makes a writer different from someone who likes writing, is the will to sit down and let go. There are thousands of users on that app that spent years writing stories just to write, but they stopped. They haven’t picked up a pen or opened a word doc with the idea of creating a story to post since.

It’s also the most difficult aspect of writing. Some would say coming up with a new, original idea, but breaking through the fog of writer’s block or lack of motivation is a writer’s true downfall. 

There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.

Ernest hemingway

The past few months, I’ve spent most of my free time writing. Mostly fun, little prompts to get the juices flowing and to work the writing muscle. It hasn’t been easy, balancing other projects and work with a social life. I have goals that I try to meet, deadlines that I strive to, and of course, the end dream of one day publishing my manuscript. 

Camp Nanowrimo starts tomorrow. I’ve always found the Nanowrimo project to be motivational, if only to get me to put words on a page. With Camp, I can set my own goal, choose the pages, the hours, the words that I want to create in the month of July. I can even join a cabin, to meet other writers in the same genre, age range, or region as me to cheer each other on as we all write together. 

It’s as cheesy as it sounds. It works for the first week, somewhat of the second, and then… Poof! I won’t think about it again. 

This year, I’d like to really give it a go. I’ve won them before, just barely making the deadlines, but this go around I’m striving for higher. Instead of the usual 50,000 words, I’d like to aim a little higher. Or… right at 100,000.

It’s an outrageous goal. It’s happened before, where I’ve written that much in the span of two months for one project, but never in a month. 

I’d like to take you on this journey with me, to see if you can hold me accountable without all the gushy rainbows and vain commentary that comes with generic writing groups. I hope you’ll join me and maybe decide to sit down, pick up your pen or open a word doc, and let your mind go to another world only you can see. 

Let it all go and write.

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: ,

Jordan, Everybody. Everybody, Jordan

June 25, 2021 by

Jordan Sparks is an aspiring author on the pathway to becoming a teacher, with an education built from a partial BFA in Writing at Savannah College of Art and Design and a Bachelor’s in Secondary Education at Georgia State University.  Until she can achieve her plans of being a published author, with her first manuscript nearly finished, she participates in Nanowrimo and several online writing groups. With a focus on contemporary queer works geared toward young adults, she’s used her experience as a college student and in the classroom as a Deep Writing Fellow to strengthen her understanding of her audience as a writer and a person.

I have a tough time with follow through. That’s not entirely accurate. My problem is patience. It took me longer than I care to admit figuring this out. The challenge is that it manifests itself in so many different ways that the root issue of patience was camouflaged. 

You see, when I get an idea, I am like a dog with a bone – completely consumed, singularly focused, highly passionate. If the bone is a biscuit, a treat, this works for me. It’s consumed easily, quickly, efficiently, all in one sitting. If the bone is a squeaky toy, I can make this work too. I may not see progress in finishing the bone, but it makes a fun noise; I know I am doing something even if I am not completely sure what that something is. 

If it is a real bone, a solid bone, a big bone, this is where I find my challenge. There’s no sign of progress, no way to tell how long the endeavor will take, no certainty that I can finish it or be successful with it. Sticking with this bone in a consistent way is not my strong suit. For a long time, I was tough on myself because I thought this meant things about me that I viewed as shameful. I thought that it meant that I was lazy, fearful, soft, fickle, a quitter. 

This was a tough figure out for me. I was torn between trying to be brutally honest with myself and a nagging feeling that these things were not true about me – even if the evidence suggested that they were. 

One of the first steps to figuring this out was getting some help. I needed someone who could think for me, think like me, but function differently enough to organize my chaos, put me on task, and track what I considered to be untrackable. 

Y’all, I don’t always realize how great my ideas are as soon as I have them, but I realized bringing Jordan on as my assistant was a game changer almost as soon as she agreed to the position.

For nearly three months, Jordan has been my other brain, my scorekeeper, my nudge, my handler, my finagler. When I tell you she is brilliant, trust that it is an understatement. 

It was during the first two of these three months that I attempted and failed to be the task completer she hoped I would be. I was stumped. I imagine she was frustrated (although she never showed it). Here is this perfectly curated plan, brilliantly laid out in exactly the way my brain works. This should be my EXACT type of bone. Yet I am still unable to bite into, to stick with. WTAF?

Patience. I am impatient with myself, I am impatient with the process, I am impatient with the results. The path that Jordan has laid out for me is not a 5-minute quick draw. It is a journey into the productive, creative, academic, successful endeavors I want to participate in. It has always been that. But it took Jordan’s involvement to help me see it. I couldn’t be more appreciative of the discovery and her patience while I find my own. 

Now, I share her with you. I have no idea what she is going to write about, what type of conversations she is going to start, how often, or anything. I just know she asked for space here and I was honored to give it. If she is half as brilliant for you as she has been for me, we are all in for a treat.

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , , ,

The Overdue Romance of One Miss Jane Eyre

June 7, 2021 by

Scholars, educators, and (often bored) high school students continue to discuss the internal motivations and the external ramifications of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel Jane Eyre ad nauseum. As a work overall and as a character in particular, critiques offer Jane Eyre as one of the forerunners into the feminist movement, resisting the suppression of the colonizers and patriarchy via asserting her own autonomy for at least herself, if not the entire female gender. While many have put forth pages of supporting ideas – the rebellion against the Reeds, the mistreatment by Brocklehurst, the refusal of Edward Rochester – a closer comparison of the novel to the argument, in particular the argument put forth by Rachel Willis in her 2018 essay “A Man is Nothing without the Spice of Devil in Him: Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester Navigate an Imperially-Inscribed Masculinity,” defeats said ideas in its contradiction. Considering the often-used and intersectional post-colonial and feminist approaches, the contradiction created leaves Jane Eyre, while still beautifully written, little more than a genre romance. By allowing the generic labeling of any male of authority as “the colonizer” or any female protagonist as a “feminist,” the actual harbingers and instigators of change lose their effectiveness amid the noise of the distracting inconsistencies.  

For any dear readers out there, please stick with me. I will in no way mar the dignity of our beloved Miss Eyre. To be sure, Brontë’s work, in my opinion, deserves its place in the literary cannon. Brontë was certainly pioneering in the 19th century with her characterization of an orphaned governess who has designs for her life that do not include the pursuit of happiness through the custom of her society of the day, specifically the goal to marry well. It is true that Eyre is a different type of female protagonist. Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the common notion that romance is less than in relation to other types of genre fiction. Romance, as a literary contribution, holds as much validity in the realm of “great” reading as any other genre. That it has an expected arc –development of two main characters that revolve around the culmination of a romantic relationship – in no way excludes it from the capability of being intelligently and substantially written. To put a stronger point on it, I agree with the idea presented by Neal Wyatt and Joyce G. Saricks in their 2019 The Readers’ Advisory Guide to Genre Fiction when they began their discussion of the genre by emphasizing: 

That Romance remains a literary punching bag does not reflect well on our cultural moment, and it is perhaps beyond the scope of this chapter to illuminate all the ways a genre largely written and read by women is still undervalued, even as it accounts for over a third of fiction sales. (215) 

In fact, this one statement launches an entirely different discussion about why it is more important that Jane Eyre own the classification as romance fiction. Eyre has been pigeonholed into the role of the protofeminist. The unintended consequence of this mischaracterization is a furthering of the incorrect notion that, because it appeals to primarily women, romance fiction is not bona fide in its own right. There is quite the argument to be made that the subjugating of romance fiction is a more supportable example of abuse by the patriarchy than that attributed to Rochester. While not the scope of this particular paper, I think the ideas will show themselves. At the very least, I hope these clarifications and accolades of both Brontë and the romance genre will assure those who hold the book as beloved that my intention is to elevate both rightfully and not to tear down either unnecessarily simply for arguments sake.  

To be sure, Eyre is not a woman any other self-respecting woman would attempt to tear down. Brontë has created in her an admirable character. It may be tempting to regard the novel as historical fiction when a present-day reader enters its pages. This would be a mistake. Brontë penned the work in a setting that was contemporary to her own. The age difference between the author and her character is not a marked one. Therefore, Brontë is not creating a character that exists in a time period different from her own. This being true, unless a reader is disregarding the author on the whole, Eyre must be evaluated in the scope of her day since that is the period in which Brontë placed her. To this end, it is useful to consider the intersectionality of influences using the protocol as explained by Margret Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins; specifically, the social structure of Brontë, and thus Eyre, is important to consider so that Eyre’s gender, race, and class identity can be approached in its proper framework (4-5). When cogitated in this manner, it is Eyre’s social environment that must be considered before her femaleness is evaluated.  

Inside this social environment, Eyre cannot develop into anything other than what the patriarchy has formed for her before her birth primarily and after the death of her parents certainly. Brontë gives us a child who sees herself as unharmonious, unloved, unwanted, and frankly stated, “a noxious thing” (226). While some feminists may have gotten their start this way, Eyre does not live in a time with that ideal. What may be more universal, and thus more plausible, is that of childhood trauma, which, if nothing else, this certainly is. What Brontë gives us is an origin story that is very close to being idyllic. Eyre is born to parents that, by all accounts, love each other and, so one could assume, would have loved her had they lived. When they die, Eyre is again offered the opportunity of childhood affection from her uncle, Mr. Reed, the brother of Eyre’s mother. Brontë makes it clear that Mr. Reed loved his niece and would, had he also lived, made every opportunity available to her as if she were his own daughter. Unfortunately, he dies as well, leaving Eyre’s care to an aunt, the widowed Mrs. Reed, coerced into a deathbed promise to take care of the young girl. This is where Eyre’s luck runs out and the patriarchy takes over. The new “man of the house” is the easily unlikable John Reed, Mrs. Reed’s only son. John Reed’s enjoyment of  tormenting the young Eyre and using his position to both exert his dominance and reducing Eyre to subordinate is easily seen in his assertion to her that, “you are a dependent, mama says; you have no money; your father left you none; you ought to beg, and not to live here with gentlemen’s children like us, and eat the same meals we do, and wear clothes at our mama’s expense” (Brontë 141). Compounding this oppression, Mrs. Reed supported her son’s abuse as she herself was jealous of the affection her husband afforded both Eyre and her mother. This jealousy created and immediate hatred of the child, a hatred that resulted in a dampened childhood development and, as such a girl who gave no delight, not because she did not want to, but because there was no one to delight in her. Brontë ensures this conclusion is not speculation in the relationship with Helen Burns and Maria Temple. It is in these relationships that Eyre is given the opportunity to step into her own potential and find connection in acceptance. Once free to explore her own capabilities, she proves to be a person who can learn, love, and survive.  

While the background may seem extensive, its establishment is required to understand the points of disagreements to the arguments presented that Brontë intended to illuminate the feminist nature of Eyre and the colonization attempts by Rochester as argued by Willis. In her essay, Willis supports the opinion that Eyre is a feminist figure and Rochester the colonizing patriarchy. While well written and agreeable on some points (with a ridiculously catchy title), on the whole the comparisons do more to dilute the discussion than advance it.  

In order to establish a colonization argument, there must be both a colonized and a colonizer. Willis attempts to do this by placing Eyre as the colonized with the entire patriarchy as the colonizer – specifically, Christianity, Brocklehurst, and Rochester (248). Willis employs previous documented arguments that Brontë introduces Eyre as a body to be colonized by “feminist orientalism allow[ing] Brontë to critique patriarchal oppression in the West by displacing it onto Eastern or colonial locations” (246). This idea would be interesting except that it completely overlooks the whole of Eyre’s background and dismisses large swaths of Brontë’s story as discussed. Eyre’s original oppressors (abusers) were her family. Eyre’s original condemner was her aunt who was supported by Mr. Brocklehurst. Her nemesis was British society, not the “other” Mrs. Rochester. The oppression of Eyre was in no way meant to make her useful or exploitable; no one that Eyre had come into contact with during her childhood (who was still alive) had any use for her. The goal was to make her disappear. John Reed assaulted her whenever she was in his sight. Mrs. Reed sent her away to boarding school and lied about her death. Brocklehurst attempted to shame her into nonexistence. There was no attempt at colonization – the goal was extermination. Further, Willis’ contradicts her own position on Christianity by making it both the colonizer and the means by which she resists the alleged colonization by Rochester (248, 255). Conveniently, the supportive embodiments of Christianity – Burns and Temple – are disregarded in this conversation. Christianity, as presented by Brontë, is morally fluid; it is the behavior of those who claim it that produce effect. It is in the Christianity of Brocklehurst that Brontë offers oppression, Burns and Temple, redemption, Diana and Mary Rivers, compassion, St. John Rivers, self-promoting servitude. Each uses the platform in their own way and means. The righteousness or lack thereof is outside of the scope of this particular discussion, except to determine that as the more appropriate discussion of Christianity’s placement in Brontë’s work – not its function as colonizer.  

The strongest case for colonization is made against Rochester. He alone of the Willis accused actually desires for Eyre to bend to his wants for his pleasure. But that is not the sole requirement for colonization. If ability and intention is not addressed, the purpose of colonization cannot be established. In the person of Rochester, Willis approaches him as a shallowly created character, nothing more than a white, second born son with a “tenuous,” “marginalized,” and “compromised masculinity” (249, 253, 252). To be sure, there are many a men who have fit that description who have attempted (and succeeded) colonization. In fact, a case could be made (although again, not in this paper), that is exactly the type of masculinity colonization requires. However, in the same way that Eyre’s history was disregarded in order to build a predetermined case, so too has Rochester’s. While not abused in the same sense as Eyre, Brontë ensured that Rochester’s less than supportive childhood was obvious. In the same way Willis expects the reader to look past the individual abuse laid on Eyre in favor of colonized, we are expected to ignore the individual challenges experienced by Rochester in support of his demonization as the colonizer. He was the second son to a father who had no desire to split his wealth. Rochester describes him as an “avaricious, grasping man” (Brontë 5352). About his marriage to Bertha Mason, Rochester recounts to Eyre concerning the probability of despair, “My father and my brother Rowland knew all this; but they thought only of the thirty thousand pounds, and joined in the plot against me” (Bronte 5377). Taking all things into account, could Rochester be a colonizer? I suppose if that was the answer I was looking for I could claw at it. But is it not more plausible that Edward Rochester was a broken-hearted man who was overlooked by a father he could never please, overshadowed by a brother he could never equal, married to a woman he could never hold, wanted by a society he could never honestly enter?  And does this not make him more akin to a damaged love interest in a romance novel than a colonizer in a statement work? In fact, Willis herself is forced to acknowledge (so that maybe the precarious nature of her argument is overlooked) that, “A closer look at the language Brontë uses to describe Rochester reveals this positioning as both colonizer and colonized” (250). While I must concede that this approach is at least intellectually honest, I do not agree that it does enough to sway the scales away from romantic love interest to patriarchal colonizer.  

“She is attempting to find a place in which she can both delight and be delighted in. This is not feminism; this is individualism. This is a beautifully written romance novel.”  

April Trepagnier

As stated, it is necessary to have a colonizer if there is to be a colonized. In my estimation, Rivers is the only character that comes close to that description. As he is never mentioned in Willis’ argument, nor does he come close to achieving his pursuit of Eyre, I feel confident in relegating him to little more than a handy plot progressor – an alternate love interest that gives our independent Miss Eyre a choice in her romantic story arch. This creates a difficulty for the feminist credentials attributed to Eyre; as there is no colonizer, Eyre cannot be the victim of attempted colonization. If there is no attempted colonization, what, then, is Eyre rebelling against to assert her personhood of the female gender? Where is, as bell hooks so eloquently defined, is Eyre’s involvement in the “movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (viii)? At every turn – Gateshead Hall, Thornfield, Moor House – Eyre is not fighting for the equality of humanity without the influence of gender, she is not attempting to tear down the patriarchy, she is not raging at the advancement of colonization through forced religion. She is attempting to find a place in which she can both delight and be delighted in. This is not feminism; this is individualism. This is a beautifully written romance novel.  

I feel it necessary to return to my previous assertion that, as genre fiction, Jane Eyre is a lovely and substantial literary offering. Additionally, that Eyre has overcome frightening amounts of abuse and disdain with her will to be her authentic self without settling for less than she feels she deserves is remarkable, especially coming from a female author in 1847. That Eyre is not a protofeminist or Rochester a colonizer does not in any way dilute the powerful tale of perseverance, journey towards true self, and the desire for love and family against the backdrop of seemingly insurmountable challenges. I will also freely admit that it is my opinion that we are all allowed to interrupt literature in the way we feel appropriate. However, to assert that all women are feminist, and all men are patriarchal oppressors, creates the exact distraction that hooks combats:  

“I tend to hear all about the evil of feminism and the bad feminists: how ‘they’ hate men; how ‘they’ want to go against nature- and god; how ‘they’ are all lesbians; how ‘they’ are taking all the jobs and making the world hard for white men, who do not stand a chance” (vii).  

If the struggle to educate those who do not understand or have never been exposed to the ideology of patriarchal tyranny, class subjugation, or racial oppression is made more difficult because of (probably) well-meaning attempts to point it out even when maybe it is not there, then we would be more responsible as humans to put the betterment of humanity ahead of our individuality of interpretation. As with the fable of the little boy who cried wolf, the real danger that actually does exist will be unheeded, unrecognized, unthwarted due to the conditioning and desensitization that occurs – if everything is a wolf, then nothing is.  

As an aside before I close, here is one more interesting observation that again, while not in the scope of this paper, lends a bit of color to my disagreement. For an essay written to defend the decolonization and celebrate the feminism of one independent Miss Jane Eyre, that Willis consistently refers to Edward as “Rochester” and Eyre as “Jane” really takes the cake.  

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , ,

Voice – “Menopausal Momentum”

February 9, 2021 by

This persona thing is harder than one might think; at least it is for me. I have been writing what I want to write, on my own schedule, from my vantage point, for so long that it is a struggle to do anything else. When we first received the journal assignment, there was a distinction made between a writing journal and a diary. Now obviously I know the difference, but that doesn’t always mean that I insist on the difference. You know, the whole “every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square” thing. That is this.

In an effort to expand outside of what I “normally” do, I have been making a concerted effort to play with different voices. While role play can be uncomfortable, it is more so when you know it is going to be outed in public. I know there are always parts of me in the words I place on the page. I can only assume others know that as well. The apprehension comes in when you try to guess how much of yourself will people assign to person and how much persona. After they decide that, what assumptions, judgments, innuendos will they create? What whispers, side eyes, pearl clutches will they read? It is enough to make you throw the whole keyboard away.

Right up until you don’t. Right up until you find the courage to just say “fuck it” (told you it’s a tactic I employ pretty often) and you just decide you are going to create the thing you want to create in this moment and, if met with ridiculousness, well then, let’s all get ridiculous.

There was a little of this when I decided “Black Barrel” was something I could turn in. I wanted it to be sexy, but I was a teeny bit afraid to write sexy. I mean how much is too much? How much is too little? Where is the Goldilocks of sexy for a writer who is not really versed at it? I dunno so I just went with it.

Interesting fact: The more often you do the scary, the less scary it becomes. I had the same type pause with this next assignment. I really enjoyed doing it. The process was a lot of fun. And, it was one of those creations that guided itself. I can assure you that I had no intention of writing about the aging challenges of women. None. But there it was. And I kinda liked it. But it needed a title. “Menopausal Momentum” was the very first thing that came to my mind. Like really fast. But I threw it out damn near as quick. There was just something too raw, too close, too intimate. I tried a few different things that were so inferior that I can’t even remember what they were now. So, I did it again. “Fuck it,” throw the title on it, turn it in before you can think about it anymore.

And it works. At least I think it does.

Creative Writing Exercise #3 – Voice

Pick a song on your iPod, phone, or a playlist at random and let it influence you as you quickly write a first draft of a poem.

 Menopausal Momentum
  
 Momentum moves
 Saving grace
 Sitting still
 Headspace
  
 I open my silent mouth
 A mermaid song
 Drowned in crashing despair 
 Tides of wasted potential
  
 Wrong place, wrong time
 Sound wave hits my ear
 Confused light at my eye
 Misstep. Again
  
 There was a time
 When I could be considered
 Considerable.
 Today I am considerate
  
 Time made change of my dime
 Inflation devalues the stock
 Thought I was broke in the beginning
 Different hole, different depths
  
 Angry isn’t the word
 Rage radiates into the frizz
 Hair pulled out
 Shedding the gray
  
 Salt burns eyes
 Creates questions in stone
 Melts into watered down comfort
 Things best done alone
  
 Soft petals recall spring.
 I remember.
 I knew how to be lonely then.
 Winter makes me hard
  
 Fur lined coat
 Feel good fake warmth
 Move through the fantasy
 Until momentum returns
  
Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , ,