Ancient Lights by John Banville

John Banville is exactly the sort of author that one thinks of when contemplating the typical Man Booker Prize author.  The quality of his prose is impeccable, almost breathtakingly beautiful.  The pace of the novel is leisurely, the tone is reflective, and it is easy to get swept away in the telling of the story without thinking much about what exactly is happening.

The book centers on Alex Cleave, both his past and his present.  He is preparing for a film about a disgraced academic and reading an account of his downfall.  The process makes him nostalgic about his own past, specifically a scandal that he was at the center of when he was a 15-year old boy.  He had a protracted affair with his best friend's mother, Mrs. Gray.  The man looking back on the boy's affair does not shed adult eyes on the affair--he does not come to terms with what might have been had he not been in a torrid sexual affair with a woman who had problems that he cannot begin to comprehend even when his adult eyes reflect upon her seduction of him, and his obsessive and possessive affair is no more than a sexual maelstrom rather than a turning point in his ability to form adult relationships.  He is able to see the danger and the loss that happened to her when the affair came to light.  He is sorry and sad about that, but is unable to see that her behavior as both whore and mother set him up for a big fall when he entered into relationships with women his own age.  It is very beautiful to read, and yet there are important things missing from Cleave's reflection on his past and what effect it had on his life going forward.

Loss of a Sibling

Today would have been the 52nd birthday of my brother Charles, had he not died when he was 8 years old.

Death of a sibling in childhood is one of the recognized 'big traumas', along with death of a parent and divorcing parents at a young age.  I don't know about the trauma of the other two--my parents are still alive well into my middle age and they are still married--to each other, no less.  But I do know that losing a sibling is a very big loss.

My brother had polio as a baby and was in a wheel chair as long as I can remember.  A wheelchair-bound sibling is one that is home a lot.  I have always been a home body myself, and so I spent much of the 8 years of my brother's life that was not spent sleeping or in school in his company.  So the losses were many fold in my case.  First is that someone you love dies.  Second is that your parents have lost one of their children--which does not improve their parenting skills.  I should know.  Not that I had a sense of it at the time, but when you own son had cancer I became a very marginal parent--I was so upset that I couldn't get any more upset.  What that meant is that I was unable to respond normally to normal things.  That change in personality in a parent is very distressing to children, who like their lives to be predictable and stable.  So a little bit of the parent dies.

The third emotional challenge in having a sibling die when you are a child is that you are not an emotional adult--so every year or two you change dramatically in terms of emotional maturity, but does your grief grow more mature with you?  Not in my case.  Each new emotional skill that I gained growing up I relived the grief I felt about my brother dying.  I was well into my 20's before I finally got old enough to stop starting over again with my sense of loss.

I have another brother, one who is much younger than me--which makes it look like I might have been an only child for a very long time and suddenly got saddled with a little brother.  That was not the case at all.  While I am sure I played the irritated elder sister role to perfection when he was a child, he saved me from being an only child, which would have been yet another loss.  Every life is filled with triumphs and losses--it is not so much what happens to you, said Emerson, but what you do about them.  The ultimate Romantic, which is not exactly my world view, but that sentiment does resonate with me.

If I am lucky, I will live long enough to have many more losses, but in some ways my brother's death gave me an armor that I carried with me through adolescence and beyond.  I felt like I understood surviving loss, that I was less vulnerable for having made peace with myself and the loss of my sibling.  I was completely wrong about that--I discovered when my son was diagnosed with cancer that no amount of loss prepares you for the next one.  But I was able to be fooled about that for many years, and it helped me through the growing up process.  I wish I could see my brother, know what he would have been like as a grown up, have him as a sibling once again, but since that is not possible, I remember him and thank him for the things he taught me and the strength he left me with.  Happy Birthday in the hereafter.

George Gently (2007-2010)

I really like this BBC crime drama, which is set in Northumberland in the early to mid 1960's.  George Gently (superbly played by Martin Shaw) is a man who was on the brink of retirement when his wife is murdered.  He initially comes to town tracking a bad guy, and decides, for a variety of reasons, to stay.  His side kick is Detective Sergeant John Bacchus (played by Lee Ingleby), a man using the methods of detecting that cops were known for at the time--intimidation, jumping to conclusions, and wanting to quickly wrap up a case rather than solve mystery.  He is unhappily married, given to overspending, a bit full of himself and vulnerable  in a number of ways.  Gently is part boss, part role model, part parent to him.  Gently is more methodical, careful, reflective, and stubborn.  They make a good pair, as it happens.

I have a self-admitted addiction to this genre--the BBC does crime dramas like no others, and there are very few that are not worth watching.  George Gently is a cut above this very good fray--the character himself is very good, there are many fewer resources at hand to solve cases with, and the stories are really nicely written.  It is very nice to see the 1960's in England portrayed through the lens of law enforcement--that was the brink of big social change, and it wasn't always easy on the police--nor did they always put their best foot forward.  Finally, the generation gap between Gently and Bacchus allows for a demonstration of some of those changes over time.  Gently is a kind and humane man, portrayed next to some compatriots who may have less patience for their fellow man.  If you like this genre, this is a great series.

Cream of Asparagus Soup

I had some roasted asparagus that I had not paid quite enough attention to when it was in the oven, so it came out a little crispy in some areas and altogether overcooked--not inedible, by any means, but not fabulous even when it was brought to the table.  Needless to say, there were leftovers, and while I usually really enjoy cutting up the vegeatable side dish from the night before into my salad for noon the next day, that was not the fate of this particular asapagus.

So, what to do?
Throwing perfectly good food away is not in my usual repertoire as a cook (it happens, but I go out of my way to avoid it), and I am not want to serve myself something that I would rather not eat.  So the solution to this problem (and many others!) was to make soup.


10 oz roasted asparagus, heads set aside
2 small onions, diced
6 cloves garlic, minced
6 c. stock (I used chicken, but vegetable would work well)
2 medium potatoes, diced
1/2 c. milk
salt and pepper to taste

Saute onions until they are sweating, then add garlic, and saute until soft.  Add potatoes, asparagus stalks (I cut them into 2 inch sections, but you are going to puree this, so it is not necessary), and stock.  Simmer until potatoes are falling apart.  Puree in a food processor until smooth.  Add milk, salt and pepper to taste.  Serve soup with the tops of the asparagus in each bowl (or skip this part and puree them up with the rest, if that suits you better).


The Forgetting Tree by Tatjana Soli

This book largely takes place on a ranch in Central California, a place that reminded me very much of Fresno.  Claire is a woman who is slow to warm up that the lifestyle of solitary living.  She is more suited to city living and academic pursuits, but she falls in love with Forester, a man who inherits a fruit tree ranch from his parents.  His mother expresses a great deal of skepticism about Clare.  She judges her by the way she looks, not her potential--but she changes her tune soon enough.  Forester is the one who could give up on the land.  Clare becomes determined to die on it.

Which almost comes true.  Clare and Forester split up--she is so intensely tied to the land, and he realizes that they need to sell it, and their relationship can't survive the difference of opinion.  Then, when Clare is diagnosed with breast cancer, she still can't compromise.  She loses her marriage, her relationship with her daughters, and she almost loses herself.  It is a shyster, a woman who wants something that she is not revealing and who is telling lots of lies to hide that fact to teach her that she really has to let go of it after all.  It is a cautionary tale.  Never value things and places over people.

 It reminded me of when I was struggling with a decision about changing schools for my lasty son.  All of my kids had gone to this small wonderful school, but then it changed--all the people who mattered to us left the school, and my son was miserable, but we still weren't sure about what to do.  I had an eye opening conversation with a professional acquaintance and flew home to have a family meeting about ending our relationship with the school, after more than a decade.  I was heartbroken about it, but my kids didn't understand it at all.  One of them said, "Mom, the school is just a building.  It is the people who matter, and the very best person there left.  So there is nothing left there for us."  Just a building.  They were so right.  I had my priorities completely mixed up.  I could have ended up just like Claire if I hadn't been set straight.  Don't let that happen to you.

Lincoln (2012)

This is the best 2012 movie that I have seen (in the interest of full disclosure, I have only watched 3 of those nominated, but amongst those three was Argo--so once again I disagree with the powers that decide these things).

The movie deals with a very short period of time in Lincoln's life (it should really be called 'Lincoln 1865' because that is about all it covers).  Lincoln has been re-elected and he felt like it was the time to deal the death blow to slavery once and for all.  He was war weary.  So was the South.  So was the country.  It was a war that left no family untouched.  Lincoln toured battlefields full of dead soldiers and he met with the wounded in hospitals.  He was not shielding himself from the widespread misery that his decision to go to war had caused.  But there was a lot of opposition to an Amendment to the Constitution banning slavery.  Some thought that the Emancipation Proclamation would be enough.  Others openly feared giving former slaves full citizenship and the right to vote. 

The business of politics is a messy one, and passing the 13th Amendment was no exception.  Lincoln openly buys votes with patronage jobs for those leaving Congress.  He personally lobbies Congressmen for their votes.  He works on having Thaddeus Stevens, an acerbic and outspoken abolitionist who led the Radical Republicans, to tone down his rhetoric in order not to scare votes off (Stevens was widely thought to be sexually involved with his mixed race widowed housekeeper, Lydia Hamilton Smith--and he did formally adopt two nephews of her deceased husband who were orphaned, so the personal ties with African Americans were very real for him).  Tommy Lee Jones as Stevens is fantastic, but Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln is truly astounding--he really makes you want to go back in time and have dinner with the President.

Making Chocolate the Oaxaca Way

 On an En Via tour we visited the home of a micro loan recipient who has a chocolate making business.  As is true of so many things in Oaxaca, chocolate is not made the easy way--and it is very important.  Two women who are making the chocolate here are sisters.  One of them is grinding the sugar, and the other one is grinding the cocoa beans, as well as the cinnamon bark.  They both agree that there are three things that you absolutely must be able to do to be considered ready for marriage--you must be able to make tortillas, you must be able to make a mole, and you must be able to make chocolate.  This is a community that lives in a simple manner, but chocolate is considered not a luxury but a staple of life.  Families in the Teotitlan de Valle region of Oaxaca would traditionally have chocolate on Wednesdays and Sundays.  The traditional way to have chocolate is in a hot chocolate form--mixed with either milk or water.  The wooden tool to stir Mexican hot chocolate is both beautiful and functional--not to mention distinctive.

Watching chocolate being made is rather tiring--making it is surely harder still! 

Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke (1790)

This spring I have been reading books on change and government since the Age of Enlightenment.  The thing that has been most surprising to me is that the work that speaks most to me is this one by Edmund Burke.  He is thought of as the father of modern conservatism, which is not exactly a line of politics that is entirely up my alley.  But it turns out that a conservative in Burke's time was really more of a moderate in todays' terms.  Today conservatives seem to want to go back to a previous time.  Burke felt that change was important, but that it had to be done within the context of the existing regime.

He wrote in the late 18th century, which was a time of revoultion.  He was an early supporter of the American Revolution--he felt that the English form or government was failing the colonies and that the proposed changes were well within the context of the way things had been done.  The American colonies had an extensive form of local government prior to declaring their independence, and what they were proposing was that they continue their existing government but that they be treated more fairly.

The French Revolution was another story altogether.  They were proposing a change of government that had no footing within what existed.  They were advocating something that was entirely theoretical rather than something that they knew.  He felt that a change in goverment had to be more gradual, that people did not do well with big change, things that they couldn't understand.  It turns out he was quite right about the French--the revolution devolved into complete chaos, and France, after lots of death and destruction, they ended up pretty much where they started, with what was a dictatorship rather than democrasy.  His ideas have a lot of revelance for us today--how to keep the government in line with what is fair and what is acceptable and the way for the two to meet.

Hitchcock (2012)

 Alfred Hitchcock is the acknowledged master of the suspenseful thriller.  He was never the recipient of a Best Director Academy Award (although they did honor him with a Lifetime Achievement award shortly before his death).  He was well known for sleeping with his leading ladies, for blacklisting them if they defied him, and for ruining careers.  Not a very nice man, all in all, but a very talented film maker.

This movie is about the making of the movie 'Psycho' in 1959.  He owed Paramount Studios one more movie on his contract, and they wanted to tell him what to make--he didn't take kindly to young actresses going against his will, but he was no happier when it was studio executives trying to wield power.  He ended up financing the movie with his own money, and with the full support of his wife, Alma.

This movie is equal parts Hitchcock and the obsession he had with this particular movie with the part that his wife played in his success.

Alma was in the film business when she met Hitchcock and she had a genius for editing--editing scripts, but most of all for editing movies.  The story goes that Hitchcock screened 'Psycho' for the studio executives and they hated it.  Worse yet, he hated it too.  So what to do?  Alma rolls up her sleeves and goes about editing the film scene by scene, frame by frame at times, and no surprise here, it worked.

What probably did not happen in real life (though it is depicted in the movie) is the thanks.  She was seen by people in the know as being the great woman who was standing behind the great man.  But how much of his greatness would have laid fallow without her--so part of his talent was to see what she brought to his work, and  kept her involved with him for his entire career.

This is not a magnificent film, but it is an enjoyable one.

Kidnapping, Rape, Captivity, and Rescue

I will grant you alive, but safe is going to be a long time coming. 
Three women were rescued this week from a captivity that spanned more than a decade.  They were kidnapped  at different times, and from disparate locations, but they have been chained up in a house in a lower income neighborhood in Cleveland for many years, undetected by neighbors.  Their captor was known to the neighbors who thought nothing of him.  He was uninteresting.  Except that he imprisoned and raped these women over many years, resulting in children who have never known anything but captivity.


They were rescued by a man who did what so many do not--he rushed into a situation that he thought was a domestic violence scenario.  Charles Rawlings has matter-of-factly described his rescue of one of the women, but in truth, it was brave of him to aid in her escape.  He said with great humor that he knew something was quite wrong 'when a pretty little white girl rushed into the arms of an unknown black man'.  He knew something was up with that.  The woman he rescued was miraculously clear about who she was, what she had been through, and that she needed the police--immediately.

So that is all good news.  But what comes next?  The book 'The Room' by Emma Donaghue was published in 2010 and nominated for the Man Booker prize.  It is a work of fiction, but it is a similar scenario--one woman, not three, but a child born into a room, raised by his captive mother.  When they escape, it is not the end of a nightmare.  Surviving unimaginable evil does not prepare you to re-enter the world.  Especially not a world that has you in it's spotlight.  The psychological road to recovery and safety is a long and arduous one, for the women themselves and their offspring.  Mothers and children born of rape have overwhelming attachment issues--imagine how this compounds that.  We should all just go away and leave them to their years of therapy in peace.  Wish them well, but pay no attention to them so they can get on with the impossible task of peicing their lives together again.