Category: Personal (page 9 of 10)

Moments of Joining

Grief takes on many forms, including the absence of grief.

Alison Bechdel, Fun Home

I was fifteen when my father left my family—and in my search for an artifact of memory, I came across a 1996 photograph of him holding me in the hospital room where I was born (Fig. 1). The second artifact, a photograph taken by a friend during my freshman year, shows me looking up from reading Dante’s Inferno in my high school dining hall (Fig. 2). The longer I compare the photographs of my father and I, the prouder and more sickened I am by how similar we look: the same small mouths turning down at the corners, the same wary brown eyes, the same thick, dark eyebrows, the same straight noses with an indent on the bridge, the same oddly precise curve to our chins. But most striking of all is the similarity of countenance as I glance up from my reading and he glances up from my face—the identical, slightly bemused expressions as the camera draws our attention away from something that we had been fascinated by.

In the first photograph, the 1996 one of my father and I in the hospital, he holds me to his chest more closely and tenderly than I can recall in any of my conscious memories. Perhaps it was as early as the hours following my birth, then, that the history of my love for my father became joined with the history of my body. Bechdel’s memory of her father bathing her—the “…suffusion of warmth as the hot water sluiced over me…the sudden unbearable cold of its absence” (Fun Home, 22)—is a memory of mine as well. I can recall, as clearly as if it were yesterday, the sensation of lying on my back as water filled each crevice in my body. When he read to me in bed after my bath, it was in these gaps and margins of my still-breathing flesh that I began to imagine droplets of ink and little pools of Times New Roman font; it must have been during one of these instances that I decided to become a writer. My father’s specter haunts each scar and bruise upon my body, although they were inflicted not by his hands, but by mine. I learned that the reason that I would never be called beautiful was because I looked too masculine, too much like him. And he was even there, in person, when I underwent the agonizing experience of tattooing the right side of my head. He was the only one I would allow to accompany me: at times it felt though we were both seeking some sort of clarity in the searing reverberations of a needle against my skull.

But the physical intimacy in the 1996 photograph is not only emergent in the way my father presses me to his chest. My mother once told me that my father had always wanted a little girl: maybe no one ever told him that little girls become women, or maybe he just never listened. At any rate, in the four-page, anguished letter that I sent in the weeks following his departure, I wrote, “You are missing the years of my life when I need you the most—the years when I start to become like you.” This sentiment has never seemed more evident than in the uncanny resemblance between the 1996 photograph of my father and the 2011 photograph of me—a visual transmutation that merges fifteen years, two dueling identities, and a single shared history in the identical expression on both of our faces. When I happened across these two artifacts of my memory, I stared at them for what felt like hours, searching for answers I felt sure they would never be able to give. More than anything, I wanted some kind of explanation for the interchangeable expressions of the man who made and unmade me, and of the daughter who loved and hated him as she could only have loved and hated herself.

To my own surprise, my artifacts of memory posed a tentative resolution to this question. The 2011 photograph, taken in Lower Right of Commons, is the image of someone whose father has already told her he hated her. She has already opened her skin with the edge of a razor, already sought solace in cigarettes, substances, and the bodies of others. The inherent sameness of my expression and my father’s is therefore paradoxically augmented and juxtaposed by the dramatically differing impacts of our shared history: this endless range of contextual differences between each photograph redefines what it means for us to be joined. I am indeed my father—not only what he is, but also that which he never was and could never be. The simultaneous equity and differentiation between the two photographs has compelled me to believe that the imposition of experience upon a subject by an object necessarily distinguishes one from the other—that the subject emerges not merely as the object’s double, but also as an autonomous result of the actions inflicted upon it. I therefore owe vast magnitudes of my selfhood to the influence of my father: but my selfhood is ultimately my own.

It has taken me an uncharacteristically long time to write this piece: perhaps because, while I have written about my body, my sexuality, my depression, my addiction, and myself, I have never truly stricken the untested heart of my own vulnerability. I have never before written about the childhood hatred and adoration that formed the burning core of who I am. The 1996 photograph of my father and I was the most difficult “text” I have ever had to analyze; ultimately, though, it has proven worthwhile. I have always wanted to know if there was any time before all of our symbiotic resentment, any period of life wherein my love for my father was not rendered injurious by the pain he inflicted upon my body and spirit. I wanted to know if we were ever happy, if his love for me had ever even vaguely mirrored my love for him. The tenderness of the 1996 image facilitates the construction of such a memory—one that predates the years of verbal and emotional dissonance. The photograph’s existence, and my discovery of it, creates the visual reality wherein our conflict is neither existent nor foreshadowed, and where I will always be one with my father. It provides me with a history that distances my love for him from the extent and impact of what I experienced.

I chose the photograph not only for its intimacy, its sense of physical merging, but also for the scarcity of detail and the sense of ambiguity. If I could have written something confident, definitive, or self-assured about that image, then the entire piece would have been a lie. When the photograph was taken in 1996, just as in every moment and memory we share between us, my father did not give me much to work with. But this time, he might have given me enough.

Figure 1. My father holds me in the hospital room (1996)

and me

Figure 2. Me, fifteen years old, reading in Commons (2011)

where were you last weekend?

This is not a goodbye. It is a confession, and hopefully a catharsis. I promised myself that I would never let this happen. I promised that I would be different, and better, and stronger than I used to be. That I would not get attached to anybody this time around, because it is never safe for me. Then I broke like that promise; I always, inevitably do.

There are parts of how I feel about you that I will never show you, that I do not understand. I think it is because I may never know what I was to you. I will never really know how you regarded me: if you loved me, if you will remember me. I wanted you to see me differently. I wanted you to want me around, not only as a lover but also as a friend. And maybe you did, maybe I’ll never really know—but even in the best of our days, it just never felt that way to me.

But these are not things that you “should” have given me. These are simply things that I needed—perhaps irrationally, perhaps unfairly, but that I needed all the same. And there is, as it was once written, a world elsewhere, where I can and will find these things. You were never obligated to be the one to give them to me.

There are days when I don’t know if you are lying, or if you are even real. But there was one night when I was certain that you weren’t, and that you were. There was light on the water, and your skin—everything glistened. And I knew you so well: every crevice and contour of your body, all the chaos and radiance of your prismatic, engaging mind. You told me that you loved me, and in doing so you gave me a glimpse of my own resurrected potential to love, to endure. It has been a long time since I have known, however dimly, what that felt like.

I will not soon find your equal. No one can make me laugh the way you do: you made me feel like I was worth something. I am afraid that when I am drunk, or dissociating, I will want you more than I want to, or should. I am afraid that if you asked me now for another chance, I would still say yes. I have to be better, more stable, than that. Sometimes all I want is to be close to you, and you do not want the same, and I simply cannot get my head around that.

You gave me some of the best days of this uncertain life: learning to read the language of your body, the inflections of your voice, the subtleties of your temperament. And I am eternally grateful for that alone—you were the clandestine wonder of this long and trying year. Consequently, I also have one final night to thank you for: a half-drunk, silent taxi ride, a kaleidoscope of city lights, New York’s sleep-dimmed skyline. I felt as close to you then as ever I have.

There is no right way to read this. It is, for me, as much of an artistic endeavor, as it is an effort towards communicative empathy. As you painted me, so I hope to write you: all of the indecisive beauty and subtle conflictions. If I had the skill and the perseverance and the pretension, I think I would want this piece to read like poetry. But I only managed these pages.

A day will never pass when I will not love you in my own confused and confusing way. But I am realizing now that I have a lot left to learn about myself, and that much of it will have to be on my own. But I feel good about that, almost confident, because I am starting to let go of this horrible fear of isolation that I have been harboring for so long. I will love again, because I can love, and I know that now. And I have you to thank for that.

Feminism: Not “For Everybody” Anymore

Feminism is for white women. Feminism is for cisgender women. Feminism is for straight women. Neurotypical women. Bourgeois women. Able-bodied women. Western women. Feminism was always this way. Feminism never tried to be anything else.

When intersectionality was gradually introduced into the broader feminist vocabulary, I like to believe that this became less fully the case. As a queer, not-quite-cis, differently abled, neurodivergent woman, feminist spaces are more accessible to me now than ever before in the history of the movement. But this formative period of social intersection, transnational discourse, and identity politics has brought about its own host of problems. Foremost among them, at least in my mind, is the casual treatment of feminism as something amorphous: an identity to which all women are universally entitled.

But unlike so many feminists before me (hi, Betty Friedan!), I am not arguing that feminism is not for queer people, people of color, trans and nonbinary people, working class people, differently abled people, or First Nation people. Instead, I am arguing the opposite: that feminism is no longer a movement for the women whose opinions and language dehumanize and disenfranchise the aforementioned groups, and that the label of “feminist” should no longer be so easily accessible for racist, transphobic, homophobic, classist, and ableist women.

This line of thinking is a tedious one, though: in an effort to help make the movement as inclusive and supportive as possible, privileged feminists run the risk of worsening the problem through logical and dialectic fallacy. In 1975, British philosopher Antony Flew wrote:

“Imagine [a Scotsman], sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton (England) Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” [He] is shocked and declares that, “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen (Scotland) man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that the Scotsman was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”

This type of inconsistency, casually known as a “No true Scotsman” fallacy, is a vital one for feminists to keep in mind. In the rising tides of feminism’s third wave, it is all too easy for people like myself—relatively privileged feminists who often oppose transphobic, homophobic, racist, classist, and ableist views without directly experiencing the dehumanization that these views entail—to dismiss the women who hold these views as something other than “real” feminists. But in doing so, we fail to address the deeply rooted flaws within the feminist movement. We disregard the fact that if people with racist, transphobic, classist, or ableist views still consider their opinions acceptable or even welcomed within the broader sphere of feminist thought, then the movement has not done enough to publicly challenge and renounce these views. It goes without saying that we are nowhere near where we should be in our efforts to make feminist spaces safe and supportive environments for trans* and nonbinary people, queer people, people of color, First Nation people, differently abled and neurodivergent people, stateless people, and people of the working class. The “No true Scotsman” fallacy is what allows us to maintain the delusion that the copious levels of bigotry, oppression, and supremacy within modern feminism are anybody’s fault but our own.

This is, in fact, another one of the most pervasive flaws in contemporary feminist thought. For far too many women with genuine intentions of allyship (myself included, many times over), the notion of “intersectional feminism” has, instead of promoting actual growth and discourse, caused us to dismiss the racists, homophobes, transphobes, classists, ableists, nationalists, and Eurocentrists within our spheres as anomalous problems—as “not true feminists.” For me, this has always presented quite a paradox. How can we address both the interpersonal and broadly political? How does feminism denounce racism and bigotry, and create an environment of support and solidarity for people with marginalized identities, while simultaneously remaining always cognizant of our own history as a deeply racist, classist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and Eurocentric movement?

This is not an easy piece for me to write. Mostly because I do not have many answers, however deeply I wish I did. But as a feminist and a person, I do know this: I am no longer willing to help empower the women who disempower me and the people I love. Please understand that I am all too aware of how imperfect I am, especially in terms of my feminism. I am constantly guarding my own humanity, preserving my own physical and mental well-being, and generally just doing what I can to carve out a healthy and worthwhile existence in a world that does not seem to have been built for people like me. I make a lot of mistakes, but I am always growing, learning, changing, and I do hope to stay that way.

So I want to say that feminism is for everybody, because that sounds so damn appealing. And let’s make one thing very clear: if by saying “feminism is for everybody” you mean that feminism helps everybody, then still I believe that you are correct. Because in this sense feminism is, and always will be, for everybody. Until the day I die, I will believe that feminism can help everybody, including (or perhaps especially) the white, cisgender men who feel so deeply victimized by it. In some ways, then, my title was misleading, and feminism is still for everybody: for men, for women, for trans and nonbinary people, for people of color, for queer people, for straight people, for white people, for all classes, genders, ethnicities, cultures. I  sincerely believe that we can create a better world than the one we live in now, and that feminism can help us all get there.

But if you are a feminist who silences women of color, who believes that trans women are not “really women,” who opposes a woman’s right to choose, who does not respect gender pronouns, who regards queerness in women as a sexy trend to be appropriated at will, or who votes against legislation that supports working class women, protects stateless people, or defends the remaining territories of First Nation peoples (and yes, I am looking at you, American “Republican feminists”), then I am sorry, but feminism is not for you. Or at least, it shouldn’t be. Not my feminism. Not anymore.

Because if your “empowerment” does not include educating yourself and admitting your own bigotries, then you are doing a disservice to the very notions of solidarity and sisterhood. Because I will not prioritize your feelings or opinions over the people and groups whose humanity you are invalidating—including, quite often, my own. Because whatever quality allowed me to do so in the past (whether it was ignorance or resilience I genuinely am not sure) has clearly been beaten out of me. Because if this is what it means for feminism to be “for everybody,” then feminism (or at least, feminists) might not always be for me.

Works Cited

Flew, Antony (1975), Thinking About Thinking: Do I Sincerely Want to Be Right?, London: Collins Fontana, p. 47

Where Is My Mind?

where is my

charcoal. july, 2015. (unfinished).

Cleaning Out My Bookshelf

“The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories

In which I attempt to validate what it means to be a writer amidst apathetic hyperrealism, and also to remember who I was, and what I am.

Water runs from the tap, floods each crevice of my body. I wish I could write that it covers a lustrous expanse of smooth alabaster skin, but it trickles over an imperfect marring of birthmarks and freckles: fine white hairs visible on my stomach and pale breasts tugged slightly outwards by gravity. My incandescent beauty is only fantasy—one of the few I am able to have anymore.

When I was a little girl, I stepped effortlessly through visions of smoke and half-truths: Arda, Tír Na NÓg, Cittàgazze, Aredante, Charn. I read and wrote with a blissful abandon that I can scarcely imagine today. I sought to walk in worlds of shadow, and return to the daylight when it suited me—but as years passed, I was not permitted to. I do not know why, but the people of this world will bind you here. They will mock what made you, insist that in their ill-kept reality of cheap television and organized sports, what you find true is absurd, childish. Eight years later you will have hickeys and scars and half-shaved hair and a smoker’s cough; you will have acceptance letters from your top universities and a lifetime of disappointment to forget.

When I was a little girl, every word I wrote felt inspired. I walked through dreams more real than any lover’s lips against my skin. But in the harsh light of adolescence I learned to seek that same clarity in razor blades or fingertips—in blood dripping down an empty sink or a quickening pulse as my lips parted and my body arched to meet the curve of my spine. Ecstasy and agony joined in these moments: they were all that I had left of my vanished worlds.

When I was a little girl, I killed characters often, and sometimes brutally. I do not believe it was macabre. I wept for them, and for those they left behind. I wept for myself and what it took from me and what it all meant. I think I killed because my protagonists needed this: even then I knew that living for something was a fallacy–that we had to live in spite of something if we hoped to live at all.

How could I have conceived something like this so young? Maybe I foresaw my depression, my self-loathing, the fragmentation of my family, the departure of the father I loved so desperately, who came closer to walking in those worlds with me than anyone else ever has. But I do not think so. I think that maybe I knew the worth of tragedy long before I felt it, simply because I had read the stories: I knew that Frodo never truly returned to the Shire, that the last of the Valar faded into Westernesse, that Lyra healed wounds in the world with a love she could not keep, that even Narnia fell into ash and ruin.

It’s funny what registers as candid for me. I’ve written about my body, my family, my depression, myself. But this strikes at the untested heart of what it means to make me vulnerable. I have never before written about my childhood, about that love of the intangible that forms the burning core of who I am. These are my words, my worlds, my solace. What would it mean to let others in?

Fantasy and science fiction: The Chronicles of Narnia and His Dark Materials and Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. When I read or I write, I remember who I am and no standard in the “real world” can take that from me. I cannot be ashamed to walk through other worlds, any more than I can blame those who remain shackled to this one. We are where we come from, and I am what I write; my eternal childhood is captured in paper and ink.

Water trickles out of each margin, each gap of my still-breathing flesh, where I used to see droplets of spilled ink and little pools of Garamond font. The bathwater drains and then there is nothing: no mist-filled forests or canyons of wind, no barren seas of moonlit snow or skies frozen with stars. It is 11pm on a Wednesday, 30 degrees outside, my history essay needs writing, and I am alive. I begin to think that maybe its time to start cleaning out my bookshelf.

Ruminations

Posting notes directly from my journal again. I guess it just seemed preferable to starting my homework. I also miss someone.

I do not know why this ability was given
To me, of all people
To unravel the sweet mystery
That is your guarded heart

It should not have been mine.

And yet it is the natural language of my gaze
Peering through incandescent layers
Of gossamer and vanity
Seeking what you are
As it bleeds through what you were and will be,
What you fear, what you think, what you hope to become
Running my hands through hair like cropped silk–

I could still see the imprint of your form beside me
When ultimately, I woke alone.

Notes In Aruba: Directly From My Journal

While I was here, just outside of the city of Oranjestad, I jotted down some thoughts I had at the bars, beaches, and nightclubs that I visited. None of them are especially impressive, but I have recently decided that I will no longer be ashamed of my “unpolished” ideas and creations. Visiting San Diego for the International Comic Convention, coupled with the excessive amounts of Tolkien, Shakespeare, and Milton I have been reading lately, has inspired me to start writing freely again. So here goes.

August 6
I’m out and the lights are like stars. I dream that death is my salvation. I know that in truth it is oblivion. “What a piece of work is man!” “A God! A God their severance ruled!” And so I live on, speaking words that have no meaning, breaking promises I never really intended to keep.

August 8
I found the corpses of two decaying serpents, lying in the dust beside a great structure of stone on this ancient island.
• The fantasy and phobia of decay: it is innate to us
• Two beings entwined in themselves
• A half-foot of distance between them (us?)
• A slow stench hanging in the warm air

I found a beach full of stones stacked together by tourists, all who had hoped that their wish would come true, or perhaps simply wanted to join this manufactured “tradition.” I reject them, and yet I do not disturb them, and instead carve a winding path through wishes unfulfilled: making my way slowly towards the sea.
• I understand now why Tolkien writes about the sea
• Spray kisses my face
• Those colors: a thousand shades of blue and green crowned with white foam
• All water returns there, unchanging
• What a wonderful way to die

Perhaps I discern, beneath layers of tourism and manufactured existence, the ancient vitality of this colonized island: the lost but still-living history that breathes richly, dimly, and slowly throughout its foundations of volcanic rock.

We found this man, Robb he calls himself, and with the appearance of this young father of two other children, all of the briefly forgotten tragedies of a broken home recommence. I’m attracted to him; Cole won’t leave his side. My own father’s absence is stitched through our realities in a way that leaves us dissembled, fluttering in the wind like the skin of that decaying serpent: exposing bare, intricate, beautiful bones.

For Emily (whenever I may find her)

emily

charcoal and #2 pencil. july, 2014. (unfinished).

Driving Me Crazy and Keeping Me Sane: My Time on VII So Far

plip16candid6plip14
If you are reading this post, you should join The Phillipian. 

Why? I am honestly not sure.

I guess you should join The Phillipian because we are inseparable. We do not all necessarily love one another, not even close: but I know that we all love what we stand for. During my time as an Associate, The Phillipian led me to mentors and role models who influenced me more than I could ever have anticipated, and who I have missed more than they might ever understand. But in their absence, the basement of Morse is becoming a second home, and my fellow VII editors are becoming the family I never really had.

You should join The Phillipian because we are passionate, more passionate than you could possibly believe. Five months in the newsroom was enough to transform us into aspiring journalists, loving every new sleepless night a little bit more than the last. We have learned to care about one another as much as we care about our work; because after all, every one of us has something in common — we dedicate all of our time, some of our health, and most our sanity to the well-being of that paper. And somehow, it just inspires us to keep on trying for more.

You should join The Phillipian because it teaches you what it means to fail. I remember sitting down to complete the Upper Management application as clearly as though it were released this very evening. I remember the 60 sleepless hours, the countless coffee stains and cigarettes strewn across my bedroom floor. I remember being told I had no chance, and trying for it anyways. I remember pouring everything I was and everything I had to offer into those fourteen printed pages, and I remember what it felt like when I learned that none of it had been good enough.

You should join The Phillipian because it allows you no time to grieve. You will hold your head up, and you will congratulate your new superiors, and you will write and you will edit and you will organize and you will print—and soon enough you will find yourself laughing again. Soon enough you will find a new story, or a new article, or a new idea, and it will all seem worth it again. Soon enough you will select your own Associates, see your former dreams and determination echoed in their eyes, and you will hope to God that they succeed in all of the ways you could not.

You should join The Phillipian because it will inspire within you a love and a vitality that will transcend the trials of your disappointments, and may in fact be born of that very pain. You should join The Phillipian because despite eight months of what often felt like living hell, I can say in good conscience that not a moment has been wasted. In that newsroom, I have achieved things I had never thought myself capable of, and I have failed in ways I could never have anticipated. I have conversed with Gail Collins in the New York Times editorial office about a Commentary spread I helped orchestrate, and  I have cried in the Morse bathroom more times than I can count.

You should join The Phillipian because the people you meet may surprise you. I have worked and fought and fallen in love with the other editors on our paper, and they in turn have kept me alive during the most difficult year of my life.

You should join The Phillipian because with or without you, it will soon begin its 138th year of bringing information and opinion to the Andover community. And you may well find, as I have, that being a part of that is the most beautiful thing you ever do.

Signed,

Grace Tully ’15
Commentary Editor, The Phillipian vol. CXXXVII
plip4

Electra

A duplicitous scene of memory and motion, seraphim and song: the sensuality of two lovers—one a mercurial visionary, the other a gentle pragmatist—juxtaposed by the violent ecstasy of a fallen angel, whose wings are freed when a mortal tears her skin away.

Rough fingers move across euphonious strings,
Working slowly through the muscles of my throat
The inexplicable is nondescript:
I can only do you justice in metaphor.

In the visceral beauty of evening
I seek solace in your warmth, your flesh,
Your presence reverberates against facets of memory
Breathes dimly through the twilight of my body.

Crescent curve of my form beneath your hands
The soft steady rhythm of your palms:
Moonlight shines pale across vertebral ridges,
Illuminates softly feathered cicatrices of skin.

I can feel, in the silence, his retrograde absence
Working backwards through my reality,
Tearing at the seams of faintest recollection,
Leaving me empty: a labyrinth of want.

My fingernails claw across leveled mortality
Echoing desire in their bite against your flesh,
Go on—tear against me
Push your fingers towards my lips, my jaws
Lace your knuckles through each cleft in my spine.

Go on—
I want this,
I need this.

Silence your doubts, as I have silenced mine.
Tell yourself that I have suffered enough,
And that you want what this is,
And what we are,
Or could be—

And for the rest of my life,
I will love you for it.

The motions are beautiful,
Plumed sockets and soft pulsations,
As your flesh laces through the fabric of my reality,
And with the unfurling of each feathered joint,
I remember what it means
To feel these muscles move again.

So when bare wrists press together
And trembling limbs intertwine:
When fingers clench the wrought iron bed frame
And bodies bend to meet the curve of the moon—

Revel then in raw openings of flesh and memory:
Release me from this nightmare of skin

Your mind is like his: pragmatic, keen—
But when you hear this music in the darkness,
Each note lingering like a trace of falling silver
Tell me please, my atheist, why only for an instant
In soft, sweet, clenching muscles,
We both believe in God.

Let me fall asleep as the sun is rising,
And watch the flecks of golden light
Tangle in the lashes of your azure eyes.
Let that be my final memory.

And if you stay—
Please stay—

Maybe I will wake beside you.

« Older posts Newer posts »