Jen Funk Weber

Apologies and Excuses

I know, I know. I’ve been MIA for more than a month with no warning or explanation. Again.

I’m sorry. I’ve been away, and though I continued to work, I never made it down the To Do list to this blog. Too many tasks above it.

I did, however, organize and participate in my first webinar, Best Photo Forward, Refining Photos of Fine Embroidery, which, while no longer available as a live event, will remain available as a video product. I need to update the listing on the Funk & Weber site to better convey that, but now you know.

And I have been working on a new puzzle book for Taku Graphics. It contains a bunch of sudoku puzzles, nine or ten of my own from-scratch word and logic puzzles, and all sorts of cool facts about Alaska. I’m hoping to have my part finished by Monday. Fingers crossed!

S4L Book Club – The Help

I totally dropped the S4L Book Club ball, but I also knew that several readers were behind, so maybe you’ve had a chance to catch up. We’ll begin discussing The Help on Tuesday, April 10th. I’m listening to the audio version—which I love, by the way—and didn’t listen at all while I was away, so I started over a few days ago. Different readers read different parts, and I adore the different voices. Kudos to the casting director.

2012 Bookmark Challenge

Yes, the Bookmark Challenge is upon us. Yay! I know several things are going on in various parts of the stitchy world, but I have few details. Stay tuned here for details of our blog collection and events.

Where has Jen been?

What do you say we make this a contest? I haven’t had a contest in ages, and I adore contests.

Based on the pictures below, can you guess where I’ve been? Write your answer in the comments. Be as specific as you can be, but every response earns an entry. In other words, you can guess “Earth” and earn an entry to the contest. And you’d be right to boot!

You have until midnight Monday, April 9th, Alaska time. The winner will be randomly selected from all entries and announced on Tuesday during Book Club. No, there’s no set time for Book Club. I mean I’ll announce the winner in that post.

Well, you can be sure this isn’t Alaska, right?

This is a red-footed booby. If a red-footed booby were to marry a blue-footed booby, do you suppose they’d have purple-footed offspring?

Kayaking, anyone?

This is a Laysan albatross chick. I saw my first albatrosses here! And red-footed boobies, for that matter.

Yes. That was as freaky as it looks. Exposure (i.e., cliff edges) makes me shaky. Don’t worry; I made it back.

So where do you think I’ve been?

Remember, every guess counts and there is a prize to be won!

I really liked the story “Security,” where Olive visits Christopher and his new wife, Ann, in New York. I like that the relationship between Chris and Olive is finally exposed. We get hints of it in other stories, and, of course, we’ve gotten to know Olive ourselves, so I wasn’t surprised at what was revealed: that Chris was frustrated with his mother’s inconsistent affections and violent outbursts. She was unpredictable, and as a child, he was afraid of her.

The canned questions ask, “Do you think Olive is really oblivious to how others see her, especially Christopher? Do you think she found Christopher’s accusations in ‘Security’ shocking or just unexpected?”

My answers are that I don’t think Olive is oblivious; I think she chooses to ignore or deny her understanding. And I think she found Christopher’s accusations both shocking and unexpected, not to mention immensely difficult to accept. She and Henry kept such observations, accusations, and admissions mostly to themselves. There were some passing jabs at one another perhaps, but they certainly didn’t confront them head on as Chris does in this story. She was ill equipped to handle Christopher’s approach.

If we’re calling this book a novel, I would say this is the climax. This is where Olive is forced to look at herself, her life, and her relationships honestly. It is the final turning point for her. We see the result of this life-change in her relationship with Jack Kennison, and I, for one, extrapolate from that an improvement in her relationship with Chris after the book ends.

What did you think? Did you place such importance on the relationship between Olive and Christopher? Did you like that story, find it believable? Do you think it would have the effect I claim it does?

If this is a novel, what would you say the climax was?

In a recent comment, Shelly mentions “Olive’s affair.” I’m guessing it’s a reference to Olive’s feelings for Jim O’Casey, as opposed to her budding feelings for Jack Kennison at the end of the book.

Did you consider Olive’s relationship with Jim O’Casey an affair? Though Jim drives Olive and Chris to school daily, and Olive and Jim have lunch together, they never otherwise act on any feelings of love or attraction. It doesn’t even sound as though they share much in the way of secrets or offer special support to one another. I didn’t consider it an affair.

How about Henry’s relationship with Denise in the first story? Henry offered Denise a lot of support. They discussed and shared their personal lives, their secrets. Did Henry have an affair with Denise?

In your opinion, what constitutes an affair?

How are these two relationships—Olive and Jim’s and Henry and Denise’s—different from relationships with very close friends with whom we share secrets and seek support?

I felt it was unfortunate that Henry and Olive had to look outside their marriage for these kinds of relationships, but they had set the parameters of their relationship, and they seemed comfortable with them, if not completely fulfilled. They both sought to fill certain needs by other means. I don’t think they broke the essential marital contract they had made with each other: they just didn’t include all their needs and desires in their contract.

Do you think in real life people make similarly incomplete marital contracts with their partners? Do they honor them the way Henry and Olive did?

My answers to those questions are yes and no, respectively. I think the modern real-life definition and expectation of marriage is different from what it was to Henry and Olive. I think people don’t always have a clear idea of what they want and expect when they enter into a marriage contract. And I definitely don’t think people are willing to honor their contracts as Henry and Olive did. Between a sense of entitlement and a lack of stick-to-it-iveness, people today are much quicker to throw in the towel when times get tough or a relationship is less than fulfilling. Like so much else in our modern culture, relationships are temporary and disposable.

What do you think?

One of the canned questions about this book is as follows:

In “A Different Road,” Strout writes about Olive and Henry: “No, they would never get over that night because they had said things that altered how they saw each other” (p. 124). What is it that Olive and Henry say to each other while being held hostage in the hospital bathroom that has this effect? Have you experienced a moment like this in one of your close relationships?

“A Different Road” might be my favorite story in the book. It’s really hard to choose.

I don’t want to be the first one to answer the question about what it is that Olive and Henry say to each other that alters how they see each other. What do you think?

Can you think of moments or comments that permanently altered your vision of someone or something? I can think of a few, but I’m not willing to share any of them here. I’m wondering, though, if any of these things really changed the relationship. I don’t think they did. They’re scars, perhaps, dings in the finish, nicks in the drywall, but they didn’t destroy the relationship. Maybe the continuation of a relationship, in spite of the scars and dings, actually makes it stronger. Scar tissue can be tough.

Here’s another line from that story that I really like:

But after a certain point in a marriage, you stopped having a certain kind of fight, Olive thought, because when the years behind you were more than the years in front of you, things were different.

So true! But not necessarily because there are more years behind than in front of you. I think it’s a natural process of spending time with someone, and it happens in all relationships, not just marriages. We come to terms with our own and others’ flaws and weaknesses. We compensate for them, deal with them.

Mike doesn’t tell me to calm down when a bee buzzes near me. Whenever possible, he takes action before it gets near me! Likewise, I take care of all the spiders in the house. And that HUGE one in the Galapagos right by the light switch–it’s best he never hears about that one. He doesn’t argue about how he has to keep his ground moose way far away from the edge on his half of the pizza. I don’t fight the sports.

What are some things you’ve come to terms with in your relationships?

What do you think of Olive? Do you like her? Do you know anyone like her or see any part of yourself in her? Do you believe the transformation she seems to undergo is realistic?

I do like Olive. I think the harshness, directness, and honesty that might rub many the wrong way is something I actually appreciate. In some of those ways, I think I’m like her. I pictured her as my Aunt Evie, and I imagine that’s because I think they are a little alike. I wonder if anyone thinks I’m like Aunt Evie. I can’t say I actually knew her all that well.

I have a little trouble believing Olive’s response to Christopher when things fall apart during her visit in NY. I’m not sure I believe she would deny her own shortcomings the way she does, that they would make her so irrational and fearful and embarrassed. But, then, I know people don’t always make sense. We can be strangely inconsistent.

One of the things I liked best about Olive was her response to Suzanne, Christopher’s first wife. At the wedding, after Suzanne ridicules Olive behind her back, Olive steals one shoe, a bra, and marks a sweater with ink. This is mean and juvenile and absolutely hilarious! She knows it’s beneath her, and she doesn’t care. Oh, yeah, I can relate! I’m not sure I’d have the nerve to do it, but I know I’ve wanted to. It’s mostly harmless, and, let’s be honest, Suzanne deserves it after her cruel comments.

I can completely believe Olive’s transformation, but I think it’s a little slow in coming. I would expect her to appreciate the loyalty of Henry sooner than she does, for instance. I think some of the insights she gains come earlier in real life, but, again, people are all different. Some, I suppose, never gain these insights at all. So, yes, I think it’s believable.

What do you think?

Kirkus says this about Olive Kittridge:

A perfectly balanced portrait of the human condition, encompassing plenty of anger, cruelty and loss without ever losing sight of the equally powerful presences of tenderness, shared pursuits and lifelong loyalty.

Do you agree?

I waffle. Initially, I didn’t think it was a balanced portrait, but I can probably be persuaded. Certainly, Olive’s personality balances out over time; she becomes more aware, resigned, softened, which balances her harshness. Overall, though, I think maybe the book is weighted on the side of struggle and disappointment.

Or maybe I wear rose-colored glasses. While I know some of the horrors of the human condition, and I am pretty sure this will look like reality to some people, if I were to write about my community and my reality, I don’t think it would look like this book. Would yours?

Thanks to a strong recommendation from Shelly in a recent comment, I’ve decided our March book will be The Help, by Kathryn Stockett. I hope you’ll read it and participate in our discussion.

Now, back to Olive Kittridge.

I have a good many questions about this book, but I’m having some trouble articulating them. This is definitely a book that I need to think about and work with in order to grasp in a meaningful way. I’ve started writing two questions but felt they were somehow out of order–that something else should be addressed first. I wish I knew what that was!

Last time, I confessed to feeling a lack of cohesion between the thirteen short stories. Shelly did not feel that way at all. What purpose do you think the non-Olive stories serve? Do they somehow illuminate Olive, even if she’s barely mentioned? Or do they illuminate a theme that relates somehow to Olive?

Take, for example, the story of Julie (“Ship in a Bottle”), whose fiance abandons her on their wedding day. The mother takes a shot at the fiance, and the father is building a boat in the basement rather than a ship in a bottle. Julie runs away, escapes–she’s a ship that’s getting out of the bottle, a boat that slips out of the basement. What does this story do for Olive or the book?

I sort of pride myself on being able to make connections between any seemingly unrelated things, and I can make connections here: Julie feels trapped, like a ship in a bottle. Apparently, the husband does, too, since he’s actually building a boat in the basement. They’re all trapped by the crazy mother and who-knows-what else.

We can say Olive feels trapped, too. Trapped in a marriage to a man she doesn’t completely love, trapped in an unsatisfying relationship with her son, trapped by her own personality, which is so often misunderstood.

Now, these stories were not written to go together in a novel. That wasn’t their initial purpose. Some, at least, were independent short stories, published in different magazines, and then pulled together in this book, probably re-written to a degree.

So what do you think is the purpose of these non-Olive stories, and do these stories do their job?

I think they share a tone and some themes, so I guess their purpose might be to paint a backdrop. I think they work as a collection but not so much as a novel about Olive, as I said before, so I’m not sure they serve their purpose as part of a novel. But that’s not to say I don’t like them. They are well written, evocative, honest, and interesting.

While we’re at it, did you have a favorite non-Olive story? What did you especially like about it?

This book is billed as “a novel in short stories.” Do you like that description? Do you think it’s accurate?

I don’t, and I don’t. I don’t think the stories are connected sufficiently to warrant the classification as a novel.

Honestly, I’m not a huge fan of adult short stories; I tend to call them “long beginnings.” Many, it seems to me, are slices of life as opposed to stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. For some reason, while those kinds of stories won’t fly in KidLit, they are acceptable in AduLit. (Yeah, I just made that up.) But I often don’t find them satisfying. I want a sense of completeness in a story, and I may even want something longer, something I can immerse myself in.

I confess I was attracted to the idea of “a novel in short stories.” Like a novel in verse, I thought it might be an interesting format, despite my feelings about short stories. I kind of feel tricked by the word “novel.”

I think I was disappointed that the stories weren’t more cohesive. Or perhaps I was disappointed that they weren’t more connected by Olive, since she’s the title character. Maybe if the title had been the name of the town they all lived in or something more generic or moody, I would have felt less disappointed. Maybe it was my expectation that Olive would have more of a presence that was disappointed. I think there was a consistent tone to the stories.

Why do you think a writer writes a number of stories about a few characters but then doesn’t connect them in a novel? I wonder if this collection of stories was the author’s idea. If you were the editor, what would you recommend the author do with this collection of stories? Would you want to publish them as they are or follow a different path?

Cognitive dissonance: The feeling of discomfort from holding two conflicting beliefs or a discrepancy between beliefs and behavior.

On one hand, I’m uncomfortable with my ignorance about what products should really cost. On another hand, I’m uncomfortable with the manipulation some sellers use to get me to buy. I think the greatest discomfort for me, though, is the cognitive dissonance I experience wanting to support the environment and fair wages but not always having the resources to do so.

What is the biggest issue for you?

I’ve been wondering what, if any, of my beliefs or behaviors have changed since reading this book. I think I feel more vulnerable to manipulative pricing and selling strategies. The psychological studies presented here convince me I’m not as immune as I’d like to be.

I think more about where my purchases come from and what they’ve gone through to reach me, and I am more interested in economics in general.

I don’t think my actual buying habits have changed, though.

How about you? Have any of your beliefs or behaviors changed as a result of reading this book?

What do you think is in store for our future economy? I don’t think I have a clue!

Do you think our Cheap Culture will carry on indefinitely? I don’t think it’s possible, but I can’t imagine what will happen next.

Cheap has inspired me to read The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times And Ideas Of The Great Economic Thinkers [7th Edition]. I’ve only just begun, but I’m liking it so far, despite the schoolish nature of it. I am terribly ignorant about economics.

For instance, I had no idea that the free market economy is a fairly new system. Prior to the current system, economics was all tied up in tradition and lifestyle; it wasn’t a thing unto itself, or perhaps it didn’t even exist. I’m barely getting my head around these ideas, so I won’t be able to explain it well.

Anyhoo, I’m compelled to learn and think about our Cheap culture more, and this book is my next step. I don’t think I can personally change any of the bad situations resulting from Cheap culture, but I will continue to do my best to act (i.e., buy) in accordance with my beliefs. Does having read Cheap compel you to do anything more or differently?

I’m oh-so-glad I read this book, and I will probably return to it in the future. How about you? Are you glad you read it?

I will begin posting questions about Olive Kitteridge on Tuesday.

What would you say is the one thing that bugs you most about our Cheap culture?

For me, it’s the disposable nature of stuff and thus the waste of resources and accumulation of garbage. Sure, that’s all one thing.

Do you recall the story of the Ikea lamp commercial? I don’t have access to TV, so I never saw the commercial, but it’s described well in the book: An old lamp is set out on the curb with the garbage, having been replaced by a new Ikea lamp. The old lamp is made to look mournful, and viewers are expected to feel sad for it. Then a spokesperson comes on and ridicules anyone feeling sad for the lamp, claiming it’s just a lamp and has no feelings. New is better.

That ticks me off in a couple of ways. First, objects can inspire feelings of nostalgia in people, so being moved by an object does not automatically deserve ridicule. Second, is new really better when we’re living on a huge pile of garbage?

I live the reduce/reuse/recycle life. I would rather re-wire that lamp if it doesn’t function, re-decorate it if the look doesn’t please me, or give it to someone who needs and can use it if I no longer have use of it myself. Replacing it and throwing it away is a last resort, the least desirable option in my book.

Renew is better than new. So there, Ikea.

Then there’s just the sheer volume of useless stuff we humans are creating. Parents, you probably know this better than anyone: How many cheap five-minutes-of-interest toys have collected in or passed through your house? Think of all the little prizes in an arcade, gumball machines, cereal boxes, Happy Meals. How many plush animals does a kid need? Does a child with twenty stuffed animals value them more than a child with just one?

I suppose we can say, “Hey, it’s someone’s job to make and transport those things.” But what about the fuel that’s being used for this? What about the landfill that’s already too full? I’m not on the fence about this: I vote to cut the job and eliminate the garbage.

There was a time when families did very well on a single income. I want that to be true now: have one income be sufficient to sustain a whole family. Can we stop producing so much garbage, reduce the number of jobs available, and raise the salaries of those remaining jobs? What would this look like to consumers? Fewer stores? Less stuff on store shelves? Do we really need a gazillions kinds of cereal anyway?

This is something I notice when I travel in other countries: there aren’t as many product choices on store shelves. Is this really such a hardship? I’m Miss Make-Do-or-Do-Without, so you know what I think. What do you think?

One thing this book teaches me is that I need a better understanding of economics. It seems our economics are dependent on perpetual growth. I don’t know what that means, exactly, but my gut says perpetual growth is an impossibility. It conjures visions of balloons bursting and giant blobs growing, growing, growing until they consume the planet.

Why does an economy need to grow? Can’t an economy become full size and just maintain that size? What would that look like to consumers? Anyone know?

And, finally, is there any way for a culture to come back from Cheap to Reasonable?