Thursday, November 15, 2007

Accepting the Discrepancy

I heard someone say recently that our fear of death motivates so much of what we do irrationally as people and that we can't really develop or move on until we learn to accept our own death. I heard this in a message about "radical acceptance" of the good and the bad elements of life.

Accepting the good and the bad elements of life has really been weighing on me a lot lately, because I've been trying to decide whether it's better to view life as basically bad and spoiled (with some positive surprises) or better to view life as basically good overall (with some negative surprises). I basically came to the conclusion that every single moment and aspect of life is filled with good things and bad things. I think that calling life good OR bad is creating an artificial image that isn't often (if ever) really true and it's an easy lie that we want to tell ourselves. Life sucks. Life is beautiful. We want to create that definition for life because it's easier and it's easier because if we can define life, then to some small extent, we are in control of life; we know what to expect, so we aren't quite so out of control. It is much harder to just accept every part of life that happens to you, and let it happen to you, recognizing that most things are really out of your control. It's harder, but I'm realizing that in the end, it's a much better life.

So I've been thinking a lot about this radical acceptance thing, and about looking every moment in the eye, good or bad, and letting myself really feel it and embrace it, and then give it to God.

In another talk this week, I heard someone talk about a sense of inner conflict that is almost an emotion, a not-rightness, and how this pain always comes from a real conflict - I think he used the word 'discrepancy' - so instead of complaining and bemoaning the melancholy and trying to fix the emotion, we should accept the emotion and take some time to sit down and ask ourselves what the discrepancy is.

I've been struggling with a strong, almost-overpowering sense of inner conflict for several months now. I have wondered if I am again dealing with depression, and I don't rule that out, so my response has been not to let myself slump, not to fall into myself, as it were. I tell myself that I have no reason to feel conflicted, because - in nearly every way - my life is better right now than it has been in a very long time. I'm doing what I want to be doing, and - though there is more financial frustration than I've ever had before - there is not really anything that I think, "If I could change this, I would be happy." So I've done exactly what maybe I shouldn't do, which is to combat the sense of melancholy without even stopping to ask the source of melancholy.

When the speaker talked about stopping to find the discrepancy that needs to be fixed, I did just that, and have spent the past three or four days trying to figure out what the discrepancy is, with no luck. Last night was particularly intense and unpleasant for me, so this morning, when I listened to a song by Joanna Newsom called "Monkey and Bear", I suddenly had a sense of what the discrepancy is, and I realized that they were right: fear of death - unwillingness to accept death - pervades everything, even if (like me) you don't really see yourself as afraid of death.

I haven't exactly figured out what the discrepancy is for me except that it has to do with fears so deep I almost can't touch them, so I think I want to just show you the lyrics to the song, which I transcribed as prose since I want to focus on the story of the song more than the lyricism or poetry of it.

I guess I had a moment when I thought, "I am Bear," and then a minute later, "I am Monkey," and a minute after that, "I am both Bear and Monkey," and a red light went off that said: discrepancy!

I guess for me, Bear is the beast who years to be wild and the artist and the believer, and Monkey is the pragmatist, who wants to be fed more than to be free. And yet it's not that simple, because freedom was Monkey's idea, and the story is told from his perspective, even though everyone dislikes Monkey and loves Bear. If I see myself as both Monkey and Bear, it is all directed at myself. My Monkey (that sounds hilarious) is enslaving my Bear, but it's all still me, all of it! And I'm afraid that Bear is dying...

So here I am feeling that. How do I accept that? Where do I go with that?

Down in the green hay, where Monkey and Bear usually lay, they woke from a stable-boy's cry.

He said, "Someone come quick! The horses got loose, got grass-sick! They'll founder! Fain, they'll die."

What is now known by the sorrel and the roan? By the chestnut, and the bay, and the gelding grey? It is: stay by the gate you are given, and remain in your place, for your season, and had the overfed dead but listened to that high-fence, horse-sense, wisdom...

"Did you hear that, Bear?" said Monkey, "We'll get out of here, fair and square. They've left the gate open wide! So, my bride, here is my hand, where is your paw? Try and understand my plan, Ursula. My heart is a furnace: full of love that's just, and earnest. Now you know that we must unlearn this allegiance to a life of service, and no longer answer to that heartless hay-monger nor be his accomplice. (That charlatan, with artless hustling!) But Ursula, we've got to eat something and earn our keep while still within the borders of the land that man has girded (All double-bolted and tight-fisted!) until we reach the open country, a-steeped in milk and honey.

"Will you keep your fancy clothes on, for me? Can you bear a little longer to wear that leash? My love, I swear by the air I breathe: sooner or later, you'll bare your teeth. But for now, just dance, darling. C'mon, will you dance, my darling? Darling, there's a place for us. Can we go, before I turn to dust? Oh my darling, there's a place for us. Oh darling, c'mon will you dance, my darling? Oh, the hills are groaning with excess like a table ceaselessly being set. Oh my darling, we will get there yet."


They trooped past the guards, past the coops, and the fields, and the farmyards, all night, until finally the space they gained grew much farther than the stone that Bear threw to mark where they'd stop for tea.

"But walk a little faster and don't look backwards. Your feast is to the East, which lies a little past the pasture. When the blackbirds hear tea whistling, they rise and clap, and their applause caws the kettle black, and we can't have none of that! Move along, Bear; there, there; that's that."

Though cast in plaster, our Ursala's heart beat faster than Monkey's ever will.

But still, they have got to pay the bills, hadn't they? That is what the monkey would say.

So, with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite, jerking tight at its tether, in her dun-brown gown of fur, and her jerking of swansdown and leather, Bear would sway on her hind legs; the organ would grind dregs of song for the pleasure of the children, who would shriek, throwing coins at her feet then recoiling in terror.

"Sing, dance, darling. C'mon, will you dance, my darling? Oh darling, there's a place for us. Can we go, before I turn to dust? Oh my darling, there's a place for us. Oh darling, c'mon, will you dance, my darling? You keep your eyes fixed on the highest hill where you'll ever-after eat your fill. Oh my darling, dear, mine, if you dance I love you still."

Deep in the night shone a weak and miserly light where the monkey shouldered his lamp. Someone had told him the bear had been wandering a fair piece away from where they were camped. Someone had told him the bear had been sneaking away
To the seaside caverns to bathe. And the thought troubled the monkey for he was afraid of spelunking down in those caves. Also afraid what the village people would say if they saw the bear in that state: lolling and splashing obscenely. It seemed irrational, really, washing that face, washing that matted and flea-bit pelt in some sea-spit-shine, old kelp dripping with brine.

But monkey just laughed, and he muttered, "When she comes back, Ursala will be bursting with pride until I jump up, saying, 'You've been rolling in muck!' saying, 'You smell of garbage and grime!'"

But far out, by now, Bear ploughed because she would not drown: first the outside-legs of the bear up and fell down, in the water, like knobby garters. Then the outside-arms of the bear fell off, as easy as if sloughed from boiled tomatoes. Low'red in a genteel curtsy, Bear shed the mantle of her diluvian shoulders; and, with a sigh, she allowed the burden of belly to drop like an apron full of boulders.

If you could hold up her threadbare coat to the light where it is worn translucent in places, you would see spots where, almost every night of the year, Bear had been mending suspending that baseness. Now her coat drags through the water, bagging, with a life's-worth of hunger, limitless minnows.

In the magnetic embrace, balletic and glacial of Bear's insatiable shadow; left there! Left there! When Bear left Bear. Left there! Left there! When Bear stepped clear of Bear.

"Sooner or later you'll bury your teeth."

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Dumbledore is Not Gay. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I have to say something: it is not within J.K. Rowling's rights as an author to declare four months after the last Harry Potter book is published that Dumbledore is gay. I'm not talking about whether or not Dumbledore should be gay or has a right to be gay or even might possibly be gay, but the fact is that once a book leaves an author's hands, it is no longer her book! A writer gives birth to a book like a mother gives birth to a baby, and any writer is therefore intensely possessive of their book. But just as a mother cannot declare that her child is gay unless the child declares homosexuality first, an author cannot declare a character to be gay unless the book itself makes that same declaration.

I have no problem with Dumbledore being gay, except that it makes me wonder about Gandalf.... I heard in a history class once that some historians believe most priests and monks in the Middle Ages were actually gay. I've heard that homosexuality may have been something Paul struggled with. I've even heard it said that Jesus was gay. All of these are interesting to think about and worth pondering while you read church history or the New Testament or Lord of the Rings but in the end, it's all speculation, because it doesn't say that anywhere in there.

There is a reason that literature classes still read and dissect Shakespeare and Joyce and Cervantes, and it is that the text takes a life of its own outside of the writer. Maybe Shakespeare gave an interview in which he completely explained Hamlet, but if he did, we've long since lost it, and we've lost it because we don't care very much about what Shakespeare thought; we would prefer to wrestle with Hamlet ourselves because we know that - for ourselves - we can explain Hamlet's behavior better than anyone. We can explain it better because we are reading it, and the story is really half the writer's creation and half the reader's creation. I read it so it's my story as much as Shakespeare's (in a sense) so I can tell it how I want to. That's the beauty of literature and why we keep reading it.

Were Rowling to say at some point that she had always thought of Dumbledore as gay (but for whatever reason never chose to show directly that in the book) then I would be very interested in reading through Harry Potter and trying to get inside Dumbledore's head and figure out if I think he is gay. That's half the fun of reading, trying to figure out what is going on beneath what is happening on the surface. Of course, Harry Potter is not really that kind of book and its characters aren't really all that complex, so I do not think I would find any indications one way or the other as to Dumbledore's sexual tendencies.

Honestly, in my reading, Dumbledore has no sexuality, because Dumbledore is not a "real" character in that way. He is a hero, a distant idol, and even at the end - when Harry begins to doubt Dumbledore's sincerity - the wizard is still out there, away, not part of the action. He is therefore as sexless as McGonnagal or Gandalf or any other great austere saints. Sexuality is a significant and vital part of life, and I don't want to suggest that the really big important ones don't have it, but as long as they are portrayed as the really big important ones (off there somewhere, only stepping in to lend a hand to the little guy) then there is something good in recognizing that you can be somebody apart from your sex. That you can be Dumbledore and no one ever knows - or cares - whether you like men or women or don't even think about it at all.

J.K. Rowling was at a book signing when some kid asked her whether she thought "Dumbledore would ever find true love." This is a funny question to me since Dumbledore dies, and I would have replied "No, he died too soon," but Rowling replied "Dumbledore is gay," which is also funny because (a) Dumbledore is still dead and (b) it doesn't answer the question unless you assume homosexuals cannot find true love and (c) it seems like something a frustrated author would say to a stupid question.

I blame a media determined to be non-judgmental for picking up on this and declaring in headline after headline: Dumbledore is Gay.

So it is with a heavy heart that I have to break the news: I don't care what his mamma says, Dumbledore is not gay. I read the books. I never heard him say it. Sorry.