Category: reading life (Page 8 of 10)

Input Update 7/9/2022

Listening to: Michael Haydn’s Trumpet Concerto in D

Reading: “Kubla Khan” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Drinking: Magners Cider

My reading list grows ever longer. The Coleridge came about because I was rereading How to Be Idle, and there’s a little anecdote about how Coleridge probably got the idea for the poem after walking in the countryside and taking some opium. Does not surprise me. I hadn’t read “Kubla Khan” in awhile, but reading it again was fabulous. Very DCC RPG in a lot of ways.

Other books currently reading or in the queue: The Two Towers, Labyrinth (yes, the movie novelization), On Lying in Bed and Other Essays (by G.K. Chesterton), Jonathan Hickman’s run on Avengers, and Jack of Shadows (this one is in the queue). Plus, I have about a dozen more I really want to start reading in earnest. Too many books. I really need a week off from everything just so I can read. It will never happen, but a girl can dream.

Rule 8

I’ve loved Sr. Corita Kent’s “Rules” for Immaculate Heart College’s art department since seeing them on Austin Kleon’s blog, but of all the rules, Rule 8 wasn’t one that stuck with me. I am much more a Rule 9 and Helpful Hints kinda gal, but the other day I was thinking about the difference between reading a book and writing a book, and I thought of Rule 8: “Don’t try to create and analyze at the same time. They’re different processes.” First, I’m not saying that reading a book is the same thing as analyzing it… but maybe I am? We tend to define analysis as this super-serious and intellectual thing, but at its heart, analysis is to study something with care, to look closely, to learn the nature of something. When we read deeply, are we not doing this? When we delve into a book (not just skim it or run across it like basilisk lizards), aren’t we looking closely? Aren’t we trying to learn the nature of the story, of the ideas, of the author who gave voice to its words?

Rule 8 feels like another way of saying that when we take something in, it’s a different process than putting something out into the world. When I read, I’m looking closely at something that is outside myself: I’m taking it in.

When I write, I’m releasing something from within: I’m letting it out.

And these two processes must be different, though related. I can’t be looking closely at something and studying it with care if I’m in the midst of releasing it. My eye is directed inward when I am creating. It’s only once the thing has been released that my mind’s eye can be directed outward. But it’s the cycle between these two visions that Rule 8 is hinting at. It’s not one or the other: it’s not all creating or all analyzing all the time. It’s creating: putting things out into the world. And then it is analyzing: taking things in from the world. Or vice versa. Not sure it matters which comes first, the creating or analyzing. But it’s the interplay between the two, the cycle. That is what matters. We just have to remember to not try to do both at the same time. We can’t steep the tea and drink it at the same time.

On Tidying and Stuff and Resisting “More”

I’ve been trying to Kondo my stuff for over a year. This is partly because I have too much stuff and want to minimize, partly because all my stuff is making it hard for me to keep a (relatively) clean house, and because clutter and an unclean house give me anxiety. I’m also doing it because I want my husband and children to perhaps see my example and follow suit. I’m hoping our house in general can become tidier and therefore more comfortable.

I don’t need a house that is uber-minimalist, not by any means. I like piles of books stacked up on desks and shelves. I like random sticky notes stuck all over the place and tons of kiddo art hanging from the refrigerator. I like that we have an art room that is messy and an art shelf that is wonderfully helter-skelter. But what I don’t like is the feeling of my stuff closing in and creeping all around me like a black pudding. I want to be able to breath. And to dust a room without having to lift fifty million things.

So I’ve been Kondo-ing, but it’s going slow. I did the clothes pretty easily, but then I’ve never been particularly attached to my clothing. Books weren’t hard either because I basically kept everything. (Okay, that is an exaggeration, but  honestly, I didn’t get rid of many books. They are the objects that “spark” the most joy.)

Paper — the category Marie Kondo says is the easiest — has proven to be the hardest so far. This has to do with the fact that I have a lot of drafts of my writing sitting in boxes, and notebooks from years past, and old magazines and cut outs that I plan to use one day for… something (maybe making zines?), so it’s not just a matter of shredding a bunch of old credit card statements and outdated bills. Also, my kids make art at an incredible level — and they often refuse to throw any of it in the recycling box — so we have boxes and boxes of their drawings and art projects. I want to keep some of their things for sentimental reasons, yes, but honestly, most of it needs to go. I feel bad though because this project was supposed to be about tidying my own stuff, not my kids’. Nevertheless, if I’m going to have any sanity, I need to tidy some of their artwork. Remember, for me clutter = anxiety.

So it’s back to the old grindstone, trying to sort my way through all these papers.

The latest installment of The Convivial Society newsletter couldn’t have come at a better time now that I’m rededicating myself to Kondo-ing. In this issue, Sacasas explores the way our economic system and society program us to want and need more and more stuff, and while our culture is perhaps very good at providing for our material needs, it’s less good at satisfying immaterial needs:

This is one of the most perverse effects of contemporary society. People need food, water, shelter, etc. These are, of course, material needs we cannot do without. Profound suffering accompanies their absence. But there are other critical needs which are nonmaterial in nature and thus cannot be simply manufactured and distributed. Your list and mine of what these might be will differ in the details of the enumeration, but I suspect we would both agree that such needs exist and that their absence also entails profound suffering. Material deprivations manifest materially. You can see when someone is being starved. Nonmaterial deprivations typically manifest non-materially. Someone who looks perfectly healthy may bear a crushing load of loneliness, desperation, or anxiety. I would argue that while modern societies may be particularly adept at the satisfaction of material needs (4), they are also structured so that nonmaterial needs are more likely [to] go unmet. These two tendencies are not unrelated. The relative degree of success on the material front depends upon conditions that undermine the satisfaction of nonmaterial needs.

The newsletter goes into much more depth than I’m quoting here, but what struck me about it was that even though I don’t think of myself as being particularly materialistic, my family’s life is still very much centered around material goods. My kids have a woeful amount of toys, so much so that they have taken over the living room. My husband and I buy entertainment-based stuff all the time: board games, role-playing games, gadgets, gear, books, DVDs, CDs, LPs, etc. I tell myself it’s okay to buy these things because these are the things we like, these are the things that “spark joy,” but what if I asked myself a different question? What if I asked myself whether this new CD or record album or book was necessary to my happiness?

I’m quite confident that my answer, in almost every instance, would be “no.” No, I do not need that CD or record album or book to be happy. I can find joy without it. In fact, we have so many books and CDs and records we’ve never even read or listened to that we could probably spend the rest of our lives just making our way through the stuff we already have. And on top of that, we could probably spend the rest of our lives making our own music and telling our own stories and not consuming anyone else’s at all. My husband and I can both play several instruments. We have musical instruments all over the house. We both love storytelling (and related pursuits like puppetry). We could entertain ourselves and our kids without any consumer products at all (as wonderful as many of them are).

But are we willing to live that kind of austerity? And if not, why not? Is it because when we feel an urge for something new, we know we can satisfy it, and there’s nothing really stopping us? How can we stop ourselves when the newest gadget or gear is just a click away?

My desire for more tidiness is one such antidote to the accumulation of stuff, but as a family, we don’t live an anti-materialist life. We — all of us, myself included — accept the default of our economy which is that if you can afford it, there’s nothing wrong with satisfying your desires by getting something new. After all, that newest DCC RPG product looks fun and we love to play role-playing games, so why not? After all, listening to music is fun and we’ll spend hours listening to that new Fleet Foxes album, so why not? I’m not even saying these products are bad or unworthy of purchase, but when we already have a lot of stuff, are they really necessary? Why aren’t we content with the DCC RPG stuff we already have? Why aren’t we content with listening to the four Fleet Foxes albums we already own?

The lure of novelty, of newness, as well as the fear of missing out, are strong pulls on our desire. Austerity and self-denial do not come easily. You’d think, since we’re Catholics, we’d be pretty good at self-denial, and I guess we are when it comes to things like Lenten sacrifices and no meat on Fridays, but when it comes to the things we really love — the books, and music, and games — then it gets a lot harder to deny one’s wants and be content with what one has.

I have no answer to give. I’m lost in the muddle of trying to declutter and minimize my stuff, but I don’t know if I’m ready to stop buying. Of course, I have to buy some things — food, clothing, toilet paper — but can I call a moratorium on buying entertainment products? Can I spend a year without buying a new book or a new game? Can I spend the next ten years?

After all, we have these places called libraries. I can always just check out books I want to read. I can check out DVDs too. And we have enough role-playing stuff already in our possession to last a lifetime.

In many ways, our desire for more stuff inhibits our ability to create. There’s nothing stopping us from making our own music or inventing our own games. There’s nothing stopping us from even making our own movies.

But of course, creating and consuming are two different activities, and they do fulfill two different needs. There’s input and output, after all. But nevertheless, perhaps we need to do more output to balance the scales.

Again, I’m not sure of the answer. I know I want to reject consumerism as much as possible and help my kids to do the same, but I also know how weak and flawed we are as humans. I suppose all I can do is try. I can keep Kondo-ing, and I can keep resisting the urge to satisfy my every entertainment whim. I can invite my children to create more and consume less. I myself can create more and consume less.

I can try saying, “‘That’s enough, thanks,'” to myself and to the marketplace. I have to believe it will be worth the effort.

Input Update 5/8/2021

Reading: The Right to Useful Unemployment by Ivan Illich

Listening to: Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #1

Watching: The Last Blockbuster

 

I have thoughts about nostalgia, video rental stores, Blockbuster Video, the documentary referenced above, etc. that I might riff on in another blog post. Overall, the best parts of the documentary were in watching Sandi the Blockbuster store manager do her thing, and seeing how a humanely-run and community-oriented business can be such an important part of people’s lives (the humanely-run and community-oriented business in question is specifically the franchised Blockbuster in Bend, Oregon, not Blockbuster stores in general).

As far as the Illich book, I don’t know what to think. I was very excited to read it, and it’s the first of his books I’ve tried, but I’m worried that I’m not intellectually up to the task (i.e.: I’m not a good enough reader/not smart enough).

I feel like maybe I’m not getting the nuances of Illich’s points. Based on my reading so far (about 2/3s through), his ideas would fit right in with today’s Covid anti-vaxxers and denialists. And yet, thinkers I admire like Sam Rocha and L.M. Sacasas are Illich guys (as is Mr. Idler Tom Hodgkinson) so I’m not sure if I’m just reading Illich wrong, misunderstanding him, or being too quick to lump him in with the “Free Michigan” people who stormed my state’s capital last spring. Or maybe my reading of the book is right, and Illich would be very much against the vaccine and masks and everything related to slowing the spread of Covid, things I consider to be necessary for the common good and do out of concern for my fellow humans. David Cayley’s piece on Illich and Covid seems to indicate that I am reading him right, which is kinda… bleh.

I was very excited to dive into Illich’s writings because I’ve become more and more disillusioned with our current meritocracy, with our hyper-Capitalist society, and with the ways in which we devalue work that doesn’t contribute to the GDP. But in reading this book and seeing Illich argue against things like gynecology and giving birth in a hospital just seems insane to me. I and/or my daughter probably wouldn’t be alive today without modern obstetrics. His weird swipe against breast self-exams and mastectomies was jarring too. Like, why are you against women getting treatment for breast cancer, Illich?

Anyway, maybe I’m not following his argument or I’m missing some important details. I’m planning to give Tools for Conviviality a try next.

Creative = Make

I’m rereading Tom Hodgkinson’s How to Be Free. I find this book, and its companion, How to Be Idle, eminently re-readable. Both Hodgkinson’s style and his philosophies are so buoyant, so carefree and merry, that I always feel emboldened and inspired when I read his books.

So I’m rereading How to Be Free, and this afternoon I read the chapter entitled, “Reject Career and All Its Empty Promises.” This chapter is relevant for me because I’m thinking about just such a thing (i.e.: chucking my career).

Anyway, the thing that struck me was how Hodgkinson implored his readers to do more manual work — not for money, necessarily, but simply for its own sake. For instance, there’s something quite wonderful about gardening or whittling a piece of wood or knitting or whatever. Not all of our work needs to be “mental work,” and not all of our time needs to be spent focusing on our narrow and restricting “careers.”

This whole thing got me thinking about creativity.

In one of the classes I teach, we spend some time trying to define creativity. Most often, my students come up with some variation of this: “Creativity is figuring out a new way of doing something or an original way to solve a problem.” It’s all about “thinking outside the box” (a most unoriginal expression if there ever was one).

I’ve always rebelled against this definition, though I don’t often say so to my students. I might prod them a little bit with Socratic questions, but I never outright dismiss their ideas. But what annoys me about “originality” and “newness” as central pillars of creativity is that it elevates novelty above all else, AND it ignores the root word of creativity itself: CREATE. Not that newness and originality aren’t aspects of creativity, but they aren’t the center of the thing. Creativity means creating.

To create. To make. To bring something into being.

When looked at this way, creativity is less about ideas and much more about THINGS. When we are creating we are making. And if creativity is making, then anyone can do it. It’s not something that only the rarefied among us is any good at. It’s open to all. Anyone can make something. And thus, everyone is creative.

Being creative, i.e.: CREATE-ive, could mean baking a cake, or drawing a picture, or throwing a party. After all, what does throwing a party really mean? It means creating a party. You gather people and food and drinks, you decorate the place, you make up a list of games and activities for everyone to play. Where once there was no party, you have MADE a party. Brought it into being.

Same thing for knitting, or gardening, or dancing. Or making music, or tinkering, or writing, or building something (or making a baby!). Anyone who does these things is being creative: where once there was nothing, something has been made.

I often hear students remark that they “aren’t very creative,” as if it’s a special skill or something. But it’s not a special skill. It’s simply the act of making. A creative person is one who creates.

And everyone is capable of creating. Everyone can make something.

Leave out whether it’s good or bad; that’s not important. The creating is what’s important. The making.

If I could implore my students to consider one thing, it would be to realize they are, in fact, creative. And that they should spend a good chunk of their time making things, whether it’s a cake or a song or a fabulous party. When we are making things, we are imitating our own Creator. I can’t think of a better way to live.

Read while you eat

This weekend, I decided to stop wasting time on the internet.

I HAD been practicing “digital minimalism” very well until Covid hit, and then suddenly I felt compelled to read more news and consume more media on the internet. After all, I didn’t want to miss important, potentially life-saving information. So I fell back into old habits of reading Twitter threads, Reddit threads, and the like. All in the name of keeping up on Covid stuff (and then eventually the election).

Now that the election is over and we have a normal president again, I feel less inclined to check headlines every five minutes. However, my lunchtime scroll through Twitter is still a thing. Until today.

Today I began the first day of a new habit: Reading a book at lunch.

My lunch break is a “me-time” respite from teaching and being around other people. I am an introvert, so being around people can exhaust me.  At lunchtime, my M.O. is to hang out in my classroom, eat lunch, and scroll the internet (mostly Twitter).

The problem was that scrolling Twitter wasn’t making me feel good. It wasn’t enlightening reading; instead, I felt anxious and upset (usually) due to some fresh outrage about MAGA/Qanon insanity or #CatholicTwitter in-fighting. I was only reading these threads because of FOMO (fear of missing out).

This weekend, though, I realized that I wasn’t reading enough books, wasn’t setting aside time to read more books, and wasn’t using my lunch break in a healthy way. I had fallen back into that stupid internet-addicted habit, so it was now time to make a new habit.

My new habit is this: as soon as the lunch bell rings, I close my laptop, take out my lunch, and open my book. Then I read while I eat.

Today I read a chapter in The Golem and the Jinni. It was fantastic. Best lunch break I’ve had all school year. No Twitter-induced anxiety, no dumb outrages, no mindless scrolling. I read a chapter in a book I’m enjoying, ate peacefully, and got some needed “me-time.”

I know it takes several more repetitions before something becomes a habit, but I’m excited to see this one stick. I *want* it to stick.

My lunch-time-book-time plan feels like a game-changer in my reading habits.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Jennifer M. Baldwin

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑