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: , , ,

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: , , ,

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: , ,

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: , ,

Describe Your Surroundings – Black Barrel

February 7, 2021 by

Creative nonfiction has always been my primary lane. I say primary because I have, on occasion, done different things. I won my first writing competition in the 5th grade. It was a Red Ribbon Week essay detailing my amazing 10-year-old insight into the dangers of illicit drugs and my philosophy on how to avoid them. It was revolutionary for its time. Really.

Not surprisingly, my hormones turned me to poetry. I still have stacks of yellowed typewriter paper (because that’s how old I am) that I have attempted to go through to see if there is anything salvable. I can’t do it. It is just that bad. Of course, I have only tried to do it sober, so maybe I am gonna need a little help. Really, it’s horrible and there’s a lot of it.

Poetry, with the exception of this small little tryst in my teenaged years, has never been my thing. I don’t read it (which is probably why I couldn’t write it), and I’ve never really “gotten” it. I had the good fortune last semester to have an amazing professor for American Lit. Dr. Town did two things that, although I didn’t know it then, has set me up to be a better writer and a more interested reader of poetry:

  • She was okay with the fact that I didn’t like it. She just needed me to engage with it enough to ask an intelligent question.
  • She didn’t insist that poems meant anything in particular. We were free and encouraged to find our own meaning in them provided we could provide intelligent support for our interpretation.

Once the class was over, I still wasn’t a poetry fan, but I wasn’t an eye roller anymore either. That’s definite progress.

Good thing too. Although our first writing assignment lent itself easily to prose, that’s the last time we have seen that style in class. Poetry is first, then fiction, then creative nonfiction. This means, as one would expect, I have read more poetry than I would have opted for myself, and I have to write it. And by “write it” I mean I have to turn it in with the knowledge that it may very well end up projected to the whiteboard in the front of the class.

Great.

Fortunately, Dr. Morris is a poet. This has been immeasurably helpful for a few reasons:

  • He is super passionate – I mean like really passionate – about it and that makes it far more interesting than it typically would have been.
  • Remember the “freedom to play, to suck, to expand, to nurture one small idea into something readable”? He employs that belief in poetry too.
  • And probably most importantly (to me at least) is that he taught me how to read poetry.

Ok, that last one may seem like a silly no brainer. I have a pretty extensive vocabulary. I know how to read. It is one of my favorite things to do. Reading poetry is easy – it’s the understanding that is hard.

Except when you are reading it wrong. I thought for my whole reading life that you just read it. Start at the front of the line, go to the end of the line, stop, go to the next line, rinse, and repeat. I had NO IDEA what a caesura or an enjambment was. I didn’t know that you read to punctuation not necessarily to the line’s end. I did not know that poetry readings weren’t just some weird beatnik thing, that it actually did need to be heard out loud, that sound is inseparable from the meaning. It all kind of came together and created an epiphany when I read W.H. Auden’s quote, “Poetry is memorable speech.”

I am not ready to create “memorable speech” yet. But I am far more open to reading it now. I am creating assignment speech. I offer my first assignment to you just the way I turned it in.

Write a poem (minimum fourteen lines) about your surroundings. You can write in first person (“I am sitting at my desk, which is littered with papers and old coffee cups.”), or write in third person, simply describing what you see (“The room is bleak and empty except for one old wooden chair.”). Challenge yourself to use descriptive language to set the scene. Rather than saying, “The light is shining through the window,” you might say, “The morning sun is streaming through the window, spotlighting a million dancing dust particles and creating mottled shadows on my desk.”

You want to write intriguing descriptions that invite the reader into the setting so they can “see, hear, smell, taste, feel” what you observe.

 Black Barrel
  
 Oaky smoke
 Cherry chill
 In my chest
 Burns it still
  
 Honey warm 
 Invites me in
 Fills my cup
 Described as sin
  
 Buttery smooth
 Leaves lips wet
 Entwined like strangers
 Or lovers just met
  
 Dew drips
 Sweat slides
 Whispered secrets
 To glass confides
  
 Fingerprints
 Destructive heat
 Tucked away
 Till next we meet
Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , ,

Answer Three Questions

February 6, 2021 by

Ok, so here is the first of the school stuff we talked about yesterday. This was the very first assignment in my Creative Writing class. Assigned on our first day of class (a Tuesday), the finished product was due before the following class (Thursday).

I point that out because I think it speaks to the tempo of the class and why it has (so far) been both uncomfortable and beneficial. There is no “learn-until-you-are-competent-enough.” There are no weeks of time allotted to work and rework and (honestly) procrastinate. There is no get up into your head and freak yourself out. This class took care of all that when on the 12th we introduced ourselves and on the 14th we had both turned something in, and had it read out loud. Not the way I would have done it. I would have been wrong.

Anywho, here’s the assignment.

In this exercise, you’ll use three questions to stimulate creative thought. You want to answer the questions as quickly as you can, with whatever ideas pop into your mind. Write as much as you can, but allow the words to flow without pondering too much what you want to say.
– Who just snuck out the back window?
– What were they carrying?
– Where were they going?

Yup, that’s it. There were no other instructions provided. No word count, no focus, no expectation. This was it. My student brain exploded. How in the hell was I supposed to complete an assignment with no expectations, no rubric, no “right” answer?

I can literally HEAR you rolling your eyes. Judge. I don’t care. This college thing has created a whole new beast inside of me. If not created, at least unleashed. The sacrifices I and my family offer to make this happen are not small. The opportunity, for me, is a lifetime dream. The experience has been more than I have ever hoped for. And now that I am getting into major/minor specific classes, it is all that and exponentially more.

I give a shit – A BIG SHIT – about my performance. And, until I figure out how to gauge it differently, that reflects in my grades. I coddle and protect that GPA harder than my FICO – and I will cut you for that bitch.

Anyway, after I put the pieces of my skull back together with a bit of Johnny Walker, I did what I normally do in situations like this. I said, “Fuck it” and I sat down to write.

Let me tell you, taking a creative writing class in the middle of an academic environment has been the kind of juxtaposition that I don’t think I will be able to accurately explain until it’s over. Until then, it is suffice to say that it is jarring and restorative. That restorative part has been the most interesting. It’s like those days when you have been going 90 to nothing for what feels like forever and you still have a shit ton to do and you really can’t take a day off to just sit in a comfy chair wearing your favorite pjs drinking spiked coffee, but you do it anyway and it makes the following days SO much more productive and efficient. It just makes you better.

And while I can’t yet fully articulate that idea, I did finish the first assignment on time and without a hangover. You’re proud of me, I know. I am posting it here and welcome any ideas, critiques, whatever. Seriously, that’s what these blitz type pieces are for – to play, to suck, to expand, to nurture one small idea into something readable. I’ll take all the help I can get.

Atelier
(No Title)
I’m tired. The kind of tired that has settled into the bones and you’re pretty sure sleep can’t help you anymore. I think the time has to be close to 5. I only know because the sun hasn’t broke but the coffee is fresh. That’s as good as I got. If you need to know anything else, I will be of no help.
I think the too skinny redhead waitress is trying to get my attention, but I have none. Her name has been given to me, but I haven’t bothered to remember it. I should have. There’s a time when I would have. I would have smiled broadly, said something meaningful about her hair, the color of her eyes, and employed some long-forgotten memory technique to store her name away. The next time I came in, I would call her by it as soon as I cross the threshold, long before the gesture could be explained by a name tag. She would smile. She would feel seen. And that would be my kindness for the day. If I had accomplished nothing else, there would be that.
It occurs to me she is shouting and waving her arms about. It occurs to me that it might be important.
Important. There’s a lost idea. When was the last time I found something important? A person needs a bit of important in their life to keep from becoming whatever this is I am becoming. I’m not so far gone as to not realize that.
She is some kind of excited. And she is definitely looking at me. Saying something to me.
The hope of important stirs something. Maybe it’s just the coffee starting to move in my head. Or maybe, today will stand out as a day when important showed back up. Except I can’t hear her. I mean I can hear her. Hell, she is screeching so loud the folks in the cemetery across the street can hear her. But my brain, the part that acknowledges the speech of another human as decodable into meaningful, important information, is offline. I have to concentrate. This is important.
“Police…goddamn asshole…fired…”
That’s all I get but it’s a start. I force my brain to consider the snatches. It’s like a puzzle in the air swirling around. I feel like I am running out of time, like it is going to be too late, like I am going to fail all over again and this is important. That can’t happen, not now, not again because what if.
Motherfucker. Is this chick serious? All this commotion over the homeless guy taking off with some bullshit diner groceries? He’s hungry and your dumbass just opens the back window instead of going outside to smoke. You think it’s too cold outside to smoke? Then it’s probably too cold outside to be hungry.
My puzzle falls from my brain and there is nothing important. She is standing next to me now, ridiculously close but the volume of her voice hasn’t changed. It’s gone back to non-words. It is easier to tune out. It is not important.
Bitch. I fucking hate her. I don’t say this out loud of course. But I am assuming my face does something because the sound of her voice stops, and she steps away. Maybe my face literally said, “Bitch, I fucking hate you.” But, unless I am further gone than I think, my face doesn’t really do that. It’s not a language it is versed in. Now disappointment. My face knows that entire lexicon. That’s probably what my face said. Folks can’t typically stand too long in the face of disappointment. They can’t handle it. And I am so horribly disappointed.
I am so fucking tired and all the universe can offer me is stolen bacon.
Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , ,

Now it can be 2021

February 5, 2021 by

Happy New Year Y’all!

Yes, I know it is already February, but whatever. The end of December was all about family. Our oldest daughter got engaged!! January was a blur. Between moving our second oldest to her new college, starting the Spring semester myself, work, and *waves hands erratically* everything else, this is the first week I have felt like my daily planner was functional and not on fire. Judging from conversations I have had, I am not the only one. So, if this is you too, Happy New Year. If it isn’t, leave me your secrets in the comments.

This spring semester is already my favorite so far. I have the opportunity to take two classes that make me all giddy inside in person – like in a real class, with a real professor, with real other students, with real conversation, with real faces.

Let me take a moment to commend Georgia Southern on the job they are doing in the current environment. The safety protocols are in place and adhered to in an effort to make everyone safe and mostly comfortable. After having my last face to face class session moved to an online format, I was worried I would miss another opportunity to take face to face classes. While I am fine completing online work, there are some areas, Lit Theory, Creative Writing, Philosophy, etc., that are just different in a relational environment. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the university attempting to make that a possibility.

Back to my favorite semester so far. Astronomy and Mythology are both online. Astronomy is one of those required core classes that I only take because I have to. Still, the material is pretty interesting so that’s a win. Mythology is absolutely fascinating, and I would have preferred to take in person. Unfortunately, my schedule didn’t work that way. However, I am lucky to have kids who have loved the subject for a long time (thanks Rick Riordan). The littlest little in particular has been especially generous with her time and conversations with me. Her insight and delivery are fantastic and having the perspective of a brand-new teenager has brought a wholly different and interesting level to the subject. And, at least for now, mom is just a tiny bit cool in the eyes of my nearly 14-year-old – I’ll take that as often as she’ll give it.

Introduction to Literary Theory and Creative Writing are both face to face. Four weeks in and my mind is blown repeatedly over all the things I didn’t know about this subject that I love. More and more often I get frustrated with my high school experience. If I had known then what I know now, I am certain I would have been an academic. While I am on my way now, it is tough to feel like I will ever have enough time to acquire all knowledge I don’t have.

As skilled as I am in this whole higher learning thing, it can be intimidating to interact with some of these kids. Granted they aren’t all kids. I have a bad habit of assuming I am the oldest person in the room. I usually am, but I consistently parlay that into an “old enough to be your mother” idea – which isn’t necessarily true. I have often couched into it because it makes me feel more secure in my knowledge, in my ability to keep up; what they have in youth and pliability, I make up for in experience. That works. Usually.

But let me tell you. There are some fucking smart kids in these classes. That’s when it occurred to me how much time they still have to become even more smart, more experienced, more everything. They have so much of their best years still ahead of them. It is ridiculous really to feel like you are on the downward slope…but I am. Unless I live to be 89, I have made the halfway point of my life.

However, I don’t dwell in this idea. I can’t. I am fairly certain that it is this very kind of thinking that can catapult a person into a full-on midlife crisis happens. Next thing you know I am shopping at Forever 21, teasing my hair, and lamenting the fact that my false eyelashes slap the inside of my no line bifocals. I have an amazing non midlife crisis life. I do not have time for all that craziness.

What I do have time for is making today count. You know I love that Rocky quote – “One step at a time, one punch at time, one round at a time.” And that’s just what I am going to do.

“One step at a time, one punch at time, one round at a time.” And that’s what I am going to do.

In that vein, there will be more thoughts spurred by schoolwork here. In my Creative Writing class, we have to keep a writer’s journal – something I always meant to do, but, well, you know. But now that this writer’s journal is a requirement for a grade, a different part of my brain has kicked in. No way am I going to let the fear of writing something stupid get in the way of my 4.0 and seeing my name on the President’s List. I have hard stuff like science and math attempting to do that. But sitting down and writing a minimum of 150 words a day? Please.

In addition to the journal, we also have writing projects which he (and sometimes the class as a whole) critiques either in class or by the professor depending on the time we have. Ok, so let me be super honest and tell you the “in class” part was a surprise. And not just to me. The first time (meaning the second day of class) Dr. Morris posted one of our pieces up on the projector saying, “Ok, let’s go through what you all turned in,” there was an audible tightening in the room. And he did just that. He went through each person’s submission and read it aloud to the class. That shouldn’t be a big deal – it was.

That part has gotten easier and the class is becoming a lot of fun. Dr. Morris is fantastic about just giving us permission to have fun and suck. There’s a pretty good bit of freedom in that allowance – especially given the fact that we are spending quite a bit of time right now writing poetry. That is amazingly uncomfortable to me. I haven’t done that in almost 30 years, and it isn’t good. But have fun and don’t be afraid to suck helps. So does two fingers of scotch. I don’t even care how cliché that sounds. It is just that accurate.

Dr. Morris also gave us permission to post/publish/workshop our work outside of class. I wasn’t sure that was going to be allowed. But true to his teaching style, he just wants to see us enjoy the process and improve. He’s kind of great that way.

I say all that to say that if you start seeing stuff that looks a little different, that’s where it is coming from (or at least how it started). Also, up until now, everything in here has pretty much been my voice, my life, my truth. My person, if you will. Now, there will be things that are not my truth but my imagination. Dr. Morris (and I assume a whole host of other people) call it my persona. Just figured I’d give you a heads up before you ran across something and your brain flipped into “What the hell is going on with April?”

Or maybe the true stuff does that enough anyway so you don’t even notice anymore. Either way, Happy New Year, y’all!

P.S. Here’s the Creed clip…still proving that every life lesson you need to learn is in a Rocky movie

Filed Under: Writing Tagged With: , , ,