Musketeers

*The book currently driving me insane is the fifth of the musketeers. And why is it driving me insane? Ah, good question, my dears. It’s because they are ALL — all — being so excedingly themselves. Athos is secretive and controlled; Aramis is sleeping with the duchess the Chevreuse (blame Dumas, really!) and getting involved in conspiracies; Porthos is dropping hammers on his own head; leaving D’Artagnan to actually TALK to the neighbors of the victim. I can’t give you more than the first chapter, because it is not ready for public consumption yet, but here is the first chapter. (The rest will be ready come Monday. Has to be. It’s drop dead date for my publisher. I might not sleep this weekend, but… eh.) Oh, this is only marginally proofed. It will have two more proofs before being mailed to publisher. For now, y’all just have to live with it. :) *

Those Who Live By The Sword; The Honor of A Musketeer’s Servant
All For One

Athos was not used to being looked at with suspicion and hostility, much less when the suspicion and hostility came from mere commoners – a confused rabble of women and children, servants and passerby, the dregs and crowds of early afternoon in Paris.
In fact, the oldest of the three Musketeers and the guard of Monsieur des Essarts commonly known as the inseparables – Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan – wasn’t used to being looked at directly at all. Though he had now, for some years, lived under a nom de guerre in the ranks of his majesty’s Musketeers, Athos was normally treated as the nobleman he was.
No matter how much blond and elegant Aramis preened, and no matter how many yards of lace and gold brocade the splendid red headed giant Porthos draped himself in, Athos could make them all fade into the background simply by stepping forward and throwing back his head. In his much mended Musketeer’s uniform, his curly black hair tied back with a bit of ribbon, the gaze from his dark blue eyes guarded, he looked like what he was born to be: the scion of one of France’s oldest and noblest families.
And he wasn’t used to people not listening when he spoke; he wasn’t used to being doubted; he certainly wasn’t used to having his words shouted down.
Yet the words, “I will stand by– ” had barely left his lips when the crowd shouted back at him, in confused tumult, drowning them out.
What the crowd shouted — murder and thief and hang him – was not directed at the Musketeer himself, but Athos could not have been more surprised if it had been.

He surveyed the scene before him, his face setting into a hard look composed half of determination and half of disdain.
Porthos’ servant, Mousqueton, almost as tall as his master and nearly as powerful, looked bewildered, held by five guards of the Cardinal. And around them the crowd surged. Behind them was the armorer’s shop, where Porthos had sent Mousqueton to arrange for Porthos’ sword to be mended.
It was a low-slung building, and its wide door normally stood open to the outside street – to allow the inner air, warmed by the forge, to cool. But now the heavy oak doors were shut and there were yet more guards standing in front of them. When the Musketeers had come to find the long-delayed Mousqueton, they’d stumbled on this scene of confusion and public disorder and just managed to step in front of the guards dragging Porthos’ servant away.
Athos raised his hand toward the crowd, palm out, an imperious gesture. His assumption of authority quieted them for a moment. Into the silence, Athos poured his words, “I will vouch for Mousqueton. He is my friend Porthos’” he indicated the redheaded giant just behind him with a head tilt, “servant and I’ve known him long. He is not a murderer.”
He abstained from swearing that Mousqueton was not a thief because, in truth, Porthos had recruited the then famished waif into his service upon Mousqueton’s trying to steal from him. And even now, when he had for many years been employed in a steady if not necessarily respectable position as a Musketeer’s servant, Mousqueton was known to supplement Porthos’ irregular pay in various and creative ways. Athos would be loathe to say how many times the young man had shown up at one of their assemblies carrying a bottle, which he swore had just fallen from an overloaded cart or a chicken which he claimed had been run over by a cart and to which Mousqueton had felt compelled to give mercy.
But Athos was sure, as he was sure of breathing, that Mousqueton would not murder anyone. And yet his words met with the sneer of one of the guards holding Mousqueton’s arm. “A fine thing to say, Monsieur, when he was found next to the murdered armorer. And the armorer’s best sword in this ruffian’s hand!”
And on this the crowd shouted again. Murderer and Thief and other things. Things about the Musketeers and their servants, duelers and bullies and riff-raff all.
Athos felt his hand fall onto the hilt of the sword strapped at his waist. “Do you call me a liar?” he shouted above the abuse of the crowd, “Do you doubt me?”
His voice, or the outrage in it, again bought a few moments of silence. But another of the guards said, “Well, Monsieur, it is not as if it is not known that this man,” he shook Mousqueton whose hands were tied together and who looked too bewildered to resist “is a thief, all too fond of taking that which doesn’t belong to him – eggs and bread and wine.”
“But…” Porthos said, stepping forward. He was twice again as large as most other men, red headed and dressed – as he normally was – in a splendid suit of golden brocade in the latest court fashion. But he looked as bewildered as his captive servant. “But, surely… taking a loaf of bread or an egg is not the same thing as killing someone, or even stealing a sword.”
“Doubtless he killed in the heat of the moment,” another guard said. “When discovered in theft.”
“We’ve told you he wouldn’t kill,” Porthos said.
“Yes, yes,” Athos said, impatiently. His hand held so tight onto the hilt that he felt as though the metal itself might snap under the force of his fury. “And they do not believe us, Porthos. They doubt the word of the King’s Musketeers.”
“With all respect,” one of the guards said, in a voice that denoted he had none, “It is not your word we doubt, so much as your knowing anything about this. We found this man unconscious and holding a sword next to an armorer that had been killed with that sword. No one else was in the shop. No one else was seen to come in. He is the murderer.”
And on this the crowd started shouting again, demanding Mousqueton’s death. And Athos – furious at being ignored feeling his face cool as blood drained from it – pulled at his sword, removing about a quarter of it from its sheath. He would have got it out all together, and challenged all five of the guards of the Cardinal to defend themselves against his fury, had not a hand held onto his arm, forcing the sword back down.
Athos turned to look into the cool gaze, the intent green eyes of his friend Aramis. Tall, slim and blond, Aramis was admired by half the women and not a few men at court. He claimed to wish to become a priest. He claimed that his passage through the Musketeers was just that – a temporary exile on his way to taking orders. But there were very few duelists in Paris who would dare cross swords with him. And the grip of his white, elongated fingers felt like bands of iron on Athos’ arm.
“Will you stop me?” Athos hissed back at him. “I can fight all five of them. Not bad odds, one of the King’s Musketeers against five guards of Richelieu. And the rabble will melt. You know they will.”
“No, Athos,” Aramis said. “You forget the edict.”
“The…” Athos said, and realized, as if on a wave of blind fury that seemed to obscure his gaze, that indeed, he had. Oh, not the edict against dueling. That had been in effect for so many years. Aramis’ own downfall, as a young divinity student, had come about because he had killed someone in a duel. But the edicts just drafted had a new force.
Dueling might have been illegal before, and brought the King’s displeasure down on your head. It did not, however, bring down your head, itself. The new edict called for any nobleman caught in duel to be beheaded in the public square. And while it was said his majesty hadn’t signed it yet, the Cardinal was bringing it before the king every day. Who knew if he’d not signed it, just moments ago.
Athos took a deep breath, trying to control his anger. Many years ago, in the grip of a lesser fury, he’d killed the woman he loved, the woman he’d believed had lied to him and betrayed him in a grotesque way – a way likely to destroy his and his family’s reputation forever. Then, on a wave of doubt and remorse, he’d entered the profession of Musketeer to punish himself for that crime – as other men might enter a monastery to expiate sin. And yet his anger remained within him, in a confused coil with his overwhelming guilt.
That the rabble dared yell at a Musketeer– That they thought they were safe– That his Eminence’s minions, themselves, would dare lay hands on a Musketeer’s servant–
“That’s well,” he said, forcing his fingers to let go of the sword. “That is all very well. But you have an innocent man, and the guilty one is still at large.”
The guard who’d first spoken – a mean man, with a ferret-like face and sparse moustaches – looked as though he was thinking of another insult to heap on the Musketeers. But his imagination or his courage failed and, instead of speaking, he gave Athos a stiff little bow. “Very well, Monsieur. If that is so, you may be able to prove it to his Eminence before the man is hanged. For now, we are taking him to the Bastille, to wait his Eminence’s pleasure.”
Mousqueton seemed to wake at those words. His eyes wild, he stared at them. “The Bastille!” he said, with the terror that the name of that infamous prison never failed to evoke. It was said that men disappeared into it never to be heard from again.
“Certainly the Bastille,” the guard said, almost primly. “For where else could we trust you to stay that your master might not break you out?”
This time it was Athos who put his arm out, to restrain Porthos’ hand as it fell on his sword. The larger Musketeer did not protest it, just stared at Athos, as the guards dragged Mousqueton away and the greater part of the crowd followed.
“Come,” the fourth member of their group – an eighteen year old Gascon, named D’Artagnan– said. “Come.” Though he was the smallest – and youngest – of them all, the dark eyes on his olive-skinned face were full of cunning and Athos knew for a fact that his head was always full of thoughts. People like D’Artagnan looked at life as a game to be well played, a game in which it was important to be always two or three moves ahead of the adversary.
“Come,” D’Artagnan said, again. And, turning, led them into a nearby alley.
“They’re escaping,” one of the mob called behind them, clearly having forgotten that they weren’t accused of anything.
“Well, if they escape, we still have their servant,” one of the guards said, chortling.
It took all of Athos’ will power, while grinding his teeth so it hurt, to keep from going back and punishing the insolence.
But D’Artagnan reached back and grasping the threadbare sleeve of Athos’ second-best doublet, looked up and urgently at his friend, “No Athos. No. It is no part of honor to fall into a trap.”
He led them right, then left again, seemingly at random, until they came to an area where there was no one else around. There D’Artagnan stopped, and turning his back to the blind wall of a garden, he looked at his friends.
“By the Mass,” Porthos said. “You should have let me fight them. They took my poor Mousqueton!”
“Your poor Mousqueton will be well, Porthos,” Aramis said.
“Well? In the Bastille?”
“Surely well, in the Bastille,” Aramis said, throwing back his head and with it the blond, shining curtain of his hair. “Surely you don’t think that they would mistreat him, much less kill him? Not when they know we will be going to Monsieur de Treville with our grievance as soon as we can get to his office. And that Monsieur de Treville will want to ensure Porthos’ servant is treated fairly? The Cardinal is not so foolish that he’ll overplay his hand this soon. He would only risk the King’s ire.”
“But…” Porthos said. And opened his hands as though his words had quite failed him. “The Bastille!”
Most Musketeers, most guards of Richelieu, probably most of the people who knew the giant Musketeer would think he was stupid. Athos, who had been one of Porthos’ closest friends for many years knew better. Porthos was an observant man, an intelligent one, and quite capable of sudden, blinding insight into the souls of men. However words themselves were Porthos’ foe, one that refused to be drawn out into the light of day. And in moments of emotion, like this, Porthos’ lack of facility with words managed to make him seem young and almost small.
“He’ll be safe, even in the Bastille for a while,” D’Artagnan said, taking the lead. “We will, of course, as Aramis says, go to our captain, Monsieur de Treville, and ask him, at once, to make sure that Mousqueton is well and that we have the time needed to prove his innocence.”
“But,” Porthos said, and clutched at his red locks in despair. “How could it come to this? I only asked him to go and get my sword repaired!”
“I was listening in the crowd,” D’Artagnan said, gravely. “While you were… disputing with the mob, I was talking to some of them, and they say that the armorer was found killed – run through with his best sword. And Mousqueton was found unconscious next to him. And you must know that Mousqueton’s reputation…” He floundered, doubtless catching some hint of annoyance in his friend Porthos’ look. “Well, everyone knows how fast Mousqueton’s fingers can be, Porthos.”
“But he wouldn’t steal a sword,” Porthos said. “To what purpose? And if he ran the armorer through, why would he be unconscious? I mean Mousqueton? Surely he wouldn’t faint at the sight of blood! He is my servant. You did tell them that, D’Artagnan, did you not?”
D’Artagnan shrugged. He looked up and his gaze met Athos’. D’Artagnan looked more troubled and worried than his calm words would lead anyone to suppose. “Porthos, they say that a hammer fell from its peg nearby – probably in the fight – and chanced to hit Mousqueton on the head, just as he killed the armorer.”
“God’s teeth!” Porthos said. “Are you telling me you believe Mousqueton killed him?”
“Mousqueton is your servant, Porthos, as you said, he cannot be a stranger to blood and killing.”
“Yes, but… it is one thing to kill someone in a duel,” Porthos said. “And another and quite different to murder someone by stealth.”
“But we don’t know if it wasn’t a duel, Porthos,” D’Artagnan said. “Or a fight.”
Porthos shook his head. “What would he have to fight with the armorer about? Good man, he was, let me have repairs on my sword on credit. He knew Mousqueton…” Words failing him, Porthos simply opened his hands.
Athos could have said many things, among them that the way life was, it was quite possible that a sudden altercation had arisen, or sudden anger. Or he could have said that Mousqueton was, after all, a little inclined to ignore the eighth commandment. But the whole situation – Mousqueton’s being unconscious when found, and clearly unable to give a coherent account of himself, even by the time his master had arrived on the scene – seemed skewed. Surely, it couldn’t be. The circumstances were just too strange. And the guards had been all too quick to seize upon Mousqueton as a culprit.
Perhaps they had accused Mousqueton out of pique against the Musketeers. Or perhaps, just perhaps, because they were hoping to hide the true culprit, if they moved fast enough.
Athos took his hand to his forehead. “I do think, D’Artagnan, that this is all a little too convenient. And, though Mousqueton is doubtless human, and could doubtless have lost his temper, I must say that his being found unconscious does not seem natural.”
“No,” D’Artagnan said. “Fear not. I agree with you. The whole thing is too convenient by far, for Mousqueton to be found unconscious with a bloodied sword in his hand. I don’t for a moment believe it all happened like that, with no one else being involved.”
“But what can we do to prove it?” Aramis asked.
D’Artagnan shrugged. “What we always do. We’ll find out what happened. We ask people who might know something. We examine the armorer’s shop.”
“And we prove Mousqueton innocent!” Porthos said.
“And we prove him innocent,” D’Artagnan said. “Others among us have been accused of murder before,” he looked at Aramis. “Surely the fact that Mousqueton is a servant doesn’t make him any less our responsibility.”
“No,” Aramis said, doubtless remembering the circumstances under which he’d been suspected of murder, circumstances far more incriminating than even Mousqueton’s. “No. Perhaps more our responsibility, since he’s more defenseless than we are.”
“Yes,” Porthos said. “We are his only family, you know? He was an orphan when I took him into my service.”
“Well, then,” Athos said, and though he heard the amusement in his own voice, he knew he was in dead earnest. “Let it be for our servants as it is for us. We’ll prove him innocent or die trying. One for all–”
“And all for one,” his friends answered in a single voice. 

And now, for something completely different!

I had a request in the diner for info about the next in the British Empire. I know, I know, the snippet is on my website, but I thought I’d put a tease here. So… here is… Soul of Fire — the first Peter chatper, which I don’t think was on the preview at back of last book. If it was, I’ll just have to give you more. (Yes, I am too lazy to go downstairs to the other bookshelf where the books are. I’ve been hanging out with musketeers all day and they ARE exhausting):

Dispossessed

Peter Farewell stumbled down the streets of Calcutta, looking like a drunken man but feeling all too starkly sober.
A tall Englishman with dark curls, his classical features—whose symmetry could have shamed the marbled perfection of ancient statues—was marred only by a black leather eyepatch, hiding his left eye. The right one, as though to compensate, shone brightly, and often sparkled with irony.
Many a woman had gazed into that eye and been captivated by the verdant depths that seemed to hide all promises and sparkle with possible romance. Peter Farewell knew his gaze’s power and had consciously avoided capturing any hearts when he could not offer his own in return. For the last ten years, he’d known he wouldn’t make anyone a good husband. Once, he’d dreamed of a world where he could live like anyone else—a world where he loved and could be loved. Now, he did not know what dreams he had, if any. All he had was a mission. One at which he was failing miserably.

He walked blindly through Calcutta. He’d arrived here six months ago, and was staying in one of the palatial mansions of Garden Reach—that place inhabited by East India Company employees and their families. The vast houses would make most noble families in England blush with envy, and it put Peter’s own inherited estate, the rambling Summercourt, to shame.
Summercourt.. As his mind dwelt on his ancestral house, his hand plunged into the pocket of his exquisitely tailored suit to feel a bundle of papers. He did not need to take it from his pocket to see its text floating before his gaze as vividly as if he were reading. The top line read: To Peter Farewell, Lord Saint Maur.
He hadn’t needed to read the next lines—though he had—nor the twelve pages following to know what his estate manager was telling him. That Peter’s father was dead. That Peter was now the only heir to that ancient and noble family name descended from Charlemagne.
The manager’s faithful account of Peter’s inheritance made Peter groan. He’d received the letter—by bearer—just before dinner, and how he’d got through dinner, he’d never know. He’d left immediately after. He’d come, without quite knowing how, all the way to Esplanade Row, where he now stared at the impressive facade of Government House. Like his estate manager’s letter, it resonated with the power of the expected and the prearranged. The manager never said it, but it was clear in his every word that he expected Peter—who, for the last ten years, had been abroad and sown his wild oats, such as they were—to return and shoulder the name of Farewell, the title of Saint Maur, and the responsibilities and needs of his house and retainers.
Not that there was much. At least, there hadn’t been when Peter had last seen it. A large, rambling farm, and an assortment of smaller farms, let to various tenant families. Enough for a shabby gentility of the kind that supported a living similar to a wealthy farmer’s, with pretensions that would make the Royal Family’s seem small.
But compared to the way he had been living, it would be paradise. He couldn’t think of his north-country domains without longing for the smells of the fields around his house. He craved the twang of local speech; the Sunday afternoons in semi-deserted streets; the parks visited by serene families, the children named for kings and queens; the museums; the lending libraries; the places that had sheltered his childhood when he was, in fact, still full of illusions. When he still thought that he might grow up to be Peter Farewell, Earl of Saint Maur, and scion to a noble family.
Only it couldn’t be. Oh, England had shape shifters aplenty among its noble families. Despite the law’s command that they all be killed upon discovery, it was an open secret that several noble families threw out weres now and then.
But all known noble weres were foxes or dogs or—at worse—wolves.
There was even a charming story of a Scottish nobleman who turned into a seal at the waxing of the moon. But Peter didn’t have that innocuous a form. His other shape was a dragon. An eater of humans. A killer.
It was beyond the pale to even think of such a dangerous beast being tolerated. Witness the story of Richard Lionheart, trudging his weary way home from the crusades only to be put to death because more of him was a lion than his heart.
The laws that had allowed John Lackland to execute his older brother and lawful sovereign were still extant. And still enforced.
Tomorrow morning, early, he’d pen a letter for his manager, apprising him of his intent to never return. The man would be disappointed. He would possibly be crushed, destroyed by such a complete break with the past and by his internal certainty that Peter did not care about house or family. Let him think it. If that kept Peter’s secret—and if it kept Peter safe—it was enough.
Peter would stay in India and try to fulfill his mission here. He’d find Soul of Fire, the ruby once used to bind all the magic of Europe to Charlemagne. Six months ago, on the highlands near Darjeeling, he’d separated from Nigel, who might be his last friend in the world, and he’d promised Nigel that he’d find the ruby. And then he’d reunite with Nigel—who held the ruby’s twin, Heart of Light, which would attract Soul of Fire like a beacon—so Nigel could return both stones to the temple at the heart of Africa: the oldest temple of mankind.
Neither man knew what would happen once the jewels were returned to the temple. They’d been convinced that such an act was necessary to prevent horrible catastrophe, and as close to the end of the world as bore no distinction. But Peter didn’t think it would in any way improve his life or his material circumstances. He presumed he would still be followed by his curse, still separated from normal men and limited in how close by them he could live. Yet, for the last six months, since his visit to the temple, the curse had been so slight and so easily controlled that he’d dared to dream. Perhaps, once the rubies were returned, he would be free…
But now, after six months of following a long-dead trail for the ruby that Charlemagne had used to bind magical power to him and his descendants, and then abandoned, he’d grown to believe the jewel had been cut up or destroyed, and no longer existed. His scrying instruments and all his attempts at divination showed him nothing. They had led him here, to Calcutta. For a brief, shining moment, he had been sure the jewel was here. Right in this city. And then, before he could pinpoint its location, the trail had vanished. His scrying instruments had been unable to find it again.
Meaning he’d live out his days in India, futilely trying to find an artifact that couldn’t be found.
He’d already broken his father’s heart, through no design of his own, on that cold morning, so many years ago, when his father had discovered Peter’s secret. He had packed his son up and told him to get out—and stay out. Money would find him, but he must not—he must never—make his way to Summercourt again. He remembered his father’s dour face and the instruction to: “Seek some form of employment that will not disgrace you. And strive not to commit more sins than needed.”
Did his father know, then, that it would be the last time they’d see each other? He had to, didn’t he? He’d told Peter to stay away and never let their paths cross again.
Something caught at the back of Peter’s throat, something that might have been laughter or tears; he wasn’t sure which. He looked up, trying to find something to fix his eyes upon, something that would take his mind off his own misery and the final renunciation of his inheritance, his birthplace—his own being—that he must perform in the morning.
And he saw the girl creeping along the outside of a verandah’s railing. “Good God,” he said to himself. “What can she be about?”
Then his body contorted in cough, as fear for the stranger’s circumstances disturbed the balance of his mind, and allowed the beast within to take control…. 

A final response and a reading list for teens “passionate about learning.”

I’m also going to answer this where the commenter posted (I haven’t seen in which thread yet, since I clicked from the comments page. However, this deserved its own post. To my readers, I PROMISE it’s the last. I’m sure like me you find this grows tedious. Particularly the “talking to a wall” aspect. But hey, this one gets a reading list.

Dear Anon,

Because your comment is moderately literate and at least superficially polite, I have unscreened it. I am, however, going to analyse it. And in future, I will answer no more anonymous posts. You want to discuss things with me, sign it. Caleb did and I didn’t bite him.

“First and foremost, I have read your entire blog and understand your argument.”

You read ALL of it? Really? Including the Wizzy Wiggs saga? WHY?

If you understand my argument, then why are you defending a teacher who was never under attack? I snarked about her annoying characteristics. It might surprise you to know she’s human and that she can be mocked. I will later be posting a reading list for your class. For now, consider reading The Name Of The Rose by Umberto Eco, possibly the only Nobel Prize winner in my conscious life that deserves reading. The final point of theology on which the solution to the mystery hinges is relevant to this attitude. (And don’t watch the movie. It has NOTHING to do with the book.)

“It is true that culture does not equal genetics. I agree with this notion and realize that the point of your blog was not to patronize or attack the teacher. ”

Indeed. First, I’m glad you agree with the “notion” which is as much a “notion” as gravity is a “notion.” Psychologists and sociologists throughout the world rejoice.

As for patronizing and attacking the teacher, do you mean the teacher who was never named in the school that was never named? It might interest you to know I know FOUR IB teachers who are once-published-poets. It might also interest you to know there are TWO IB programs in this city and about six in the rest of Colorado. Oh, and though this might be a bit over your head, not only is there another Robert Hoyt in Colorado, but he’s in IB in a totally different city. Same year as Robert. How do I know this? Because his parents used to live in town and, by coincidence, his parents have the same name my husband and I do. This is borderline freaky, and yet true. Hoyt is a common name in Colorado. Google “Hoyt, Colorado.” It’s a city. Founded by… Hoyts.

Not only was the teacher not named, she was unidentifiable to anyone but those who already knew her. And then only because she’s the ONLY person I have ever heard of afflicted by pronoun-a-phobia.

IF I wanted to attack her I could do what I almost did last December when I was taking some clothes into my son’s room and saw a graded paper on his desk — I could post his answers and HER comments. TRUST me, I’m a teacher. I was trained for and TAUGHT Gifted and Talented. Her comments were much like the poster’s who called me names, only without the profanity. Posting this would destroy whatever reputation she still has and, in case you wonder, I can be INCREDIBLY snarky with material like that. I could make such a comment and critique an overnight blog sensation, linked by major sites interested in education.

Why didn’t I do it? She’s young. There is hope she will learn. There is hope she will grow up. She might be redeemable. (Although for reasons I’ll mention below I’m starting to doubt it, and continued harping on how she shouldn’t be criticized will tempt my worst angels.)

“However, my primary concern lies in the fact that, in my view, you did, in some cases, criticize our teacher. ”

And this is a bad thing, because? Considering I criticized her without naming her… this affects her/you, because?

If you read my “entire” blog you read the posters who are teachers and who mentioned good teachers establish blogs where people CAN criticize them. If this shocks you, again, you shouldn’t be so subservient to ANY authority. That is the mentality of a serf, not a leader.

And might I add I am SHOCKED that the IB program, which is supposed to foster critical thinking is producing so many people SHOCKED someone might consider their teacher less than perfect? Look, my best teachers, my greatest professors, those who are authorities in their field, fell short of perfect. And I wouldn’t have been shocked if a parent took issue with their stranger notions. (If you think your teacher doesn’t have strange notions, consider that “article phobia” is no part of anyone’s theory of writing or style. Unclear antecedents for pronouns are a problem. Pronouns by themselves are just a part of the language and very useful.)

“Trust me, I have complained about my fair share of assignments that I found inappropriate or unnecessary.”

And? This attempt at empathy falls short of the point I’ve made — how many dozen times now? — that the assignment was not just inappropriate or unnecessary (I class most of what my kids do in school as “button counting.”) If I blogged about those, I would do NOTHING else. This assignment was PERNICIOUS and detrimental to the students’ world view and their critical thinking skills.

Okay — thought experiment. Let’s say ten years from now, you’re married, with a child. Your child comes home and tells you, “We’re supposed to do an assignment on how all *insert race here* are lazy and stupid.” Regardless of what you thought or didn’t think of the teacher, how would you react? As far as I was concerned this is the mentality that assignment fosters.

And whether the assignment was “Your cultural ancestry” or not, again, that’s how most people understood it, which leads me to believe there was something in how it was phrased. The further reason to believe this is that I’ve lived with my son for sixteen years. He’s not infallible. He can be a right royal pain in the backside. HOWEVER he’s an IB student. You tell me how often you guys misunderstand “for point” assignments. There are IB jokes on this subject!

“However, there is a difference between a bad assignment and a bad teacher.”

Yes. Granted. A lot of these assignments come from above. Note that to the extent I criticized your teacher, it was for other things. Note also that those were light, glancing blows. I could do MUCH worse. Note that I didn’t identify her or even give many of her defining characteristics. I COULD have.

“There is also a difference between complaining about a teacher in the privacy of your home or with the teacher themselves, and complaining about a teacher in a public forum.”

Yes, there is a difference. When I complain in a public forum I make my peers and other parents aware of the sad state of education even for the very gifted. Your point is? If I had named her and said “Ms so and so is a bad, bad teacher” it would STILL be valid. It would still be within my rights. My TAXES pay for the teacher. She is a PUBLIC employee.

In case your in-depth reading of my blog missed this — I grew up under a socialist regime. The idea that you should only criticize authorities in private is very well known to me. And repulsive. Private criticism makes it impossible for people to realize others are facing the same problem. I assign you to read The Gulag Archipelago, which I first read in a photocopy, clandestinely passed around my ninth grade class. It wasn’t “forbidden” as such but it was frowned upon. As in this would definitely be reflected on your grades and affect your chances at college. Hence, photocopies. And brown paper covers.

“With that said, I wish to formally apologize for my classmates’ improper comments. I assure you that they meant no harm.”

IMPROPER? I’d say improper, illiterate and illogical. I’d also be ashamed to be associated with them in any way shape or form.

As for no harm, consider this — although I stray into my personal life now and then, because a lot of the fans/friends who read this have an interest or because the anecdote illustrates a larger point, as this one did, this blog is attached to my professional image. Although I’m fairly sure the circus here in the last couple of days has not hurt it, it’s also not even REMOTELY related to writing, except as far as you and your classmates have provided bad examples of it.

I’ve also lost two days of my work under an avalanche of what amounts to a “cyber attack.” Contrary to the idea that I write for my ego or derive “superiority” from it — an idea that would be at best hilarious to anyone in this field. Our experiences mostly resemble an unending series of kicks in the teeth, except for the very lucky few — this is my job. I get paid for it. My monetary contribution is NECESSARY to this household.

Imagine — a thought experiment again — that your classmates decided something your father did/said MONTHS ago without identifying the teacher/school he referred to was mortally injurious to the honor/standing of a teacher who is very popular with the class. (Something that has NOTHING to do with being a good teacher, btw. In fact, it’s often proof one is NOT a good teacher, whatever the sixties generation believed.) They decide to go to where he works and stand in his office screaming at him. He tries to ignore them but every five minutes, another one screams. So he starts answering them and all of them, even the polite ones, keep repeating the same things he already disproved, until it’s obvious they don’t want to listen, they just want to yell at him for this “bad” thing he did, which no one would have noticed till THEY called attention to it.

Would you see it as their having done him no harm? Now suppose because of this your father will have to spend the weekend working to make up time lost. Suppose you had a family trip planned. (BOTH of these apply in this case.) Would this be no harm?

Again, critical thinking skills and evaluation of consequences are missing here. To “defend” your teacher, in a blog that’s NOT primarily about education, in a post in which she was never named nor her school identified, you flocked to interfere with someone’s performance of her job.

Yep, seems like the teacher is doing a fine job of teaching you empathy — which is at least part of analysing literature — and logical thinking.

“All I ask is that you understand where we are coming from. ”

I DO understand where you’re coming from. Oh, I do. You’re coming from a cult of personality, where your teacher’s self-esteem (She is of that generation, poor thing) is so important, she can’t stand the idea that anyone, anywhere can refrain from agreeing with her or could possibly think her less than stellar. This attitude — EXPLICIT or not — has communicated itself to her students.

“I personally feel as though our English teacher is one of the best educators I have ever encountered in my 12 years of public schooling.”

My sentiments. This goes to the heart of why MORE parents should blog about the state of our education and the senseless/counterproductive things that teachers do or their lack of preparation to teach.

Since ours is a national education system, this is a matter of national concern. I know we’re all very busy, but we’ll just have to keep a closer eye on teachers from now on.

Also and for the record your feelings are never proof of anything.

“She not only taught me the importance of literature, she has also inspired me as a student and learner.”

Really? Do you know, in one of my final tests in college, the question was as follows “What is the difference between literature and real life.” This was THE question upon which my graduating from Theory of Literature hinged.

I answered by comparing literature to Plato’s cave. What you think you see in real life is actually the projected images in the cave. Literature is the only way you can see “the real thing.”

Though it is not my job to teach you the importance of literature, and though doing so would take FAR longer than I have, let me give you a quick look-see:

Reality is chaotic. The human brain is a mechanism for ordering reality. Literature is the only thing that gives us the ability to “see” into others’ minds, and see how they order reality. For this reason, it is very important. (Other reasons too.)

We’ll leave alone the fact that I know what you’ve been reading and most of it falls under more “trendy” than any definition of literature that will stand the test of time. You could get the same — very flawed — points by reading Marx’s books. We’ll even leave aside the fact I’ve read her graded tests — IF your teacher has managed to communicate to the class that different brains process reality in different ways; that we’re all prisoners of our time/age/class except for the ability to experience someone else’s mind in a book (Movies don’t do it, they’re externalized) NONE of the commenters so far showed it. No, not even you.

Also the reading comprehension on display and the constant resurgence of things that I or my posters have disposed of (“You should never criticize a teacher personally” being one of those) tells me your ability to process/analyse information is less than stellar. If she’s not teaching you to extract meaning from text WHAT is she doing?

The needless, sweeping, palpably inaccurate statements such as “I’ve read your entire blog” and repetitive phrasing “As a student and a learner” betray a sad lack of understanding of HOW to express yourself in writing.

Let me add, cold comfort though it is, that so far you’re the best I’ve seen of your teacher’s handywork. YOU are condemning her in a way I never wanted to and could never manage on my own. Reminds me of a poem by Reiner Kunze on the celebrations on Lenin’s anniversary “Even if he wanted to be remembered this way/It would be an insult.”

On a personal note — Robert does write. Professionally. Since we’re not a wealthy family – whatever you heard about what writers make is oh, so wrong – this is part of how he intends to finance his education. I’ve hesitated to even mention this, but your teacher with her insane obsessions with pronouns (Oh, yeah and barring the word “show” because — and this is a direct quote, ladies and gentlemen who normally read this blog: “I see words as little images, and “show” is a little man who comes out and flashes you.” Yes, she teaches eleventh grade to a supposedly GIFTED program. Not, as it might sound, second grade) and whatever else Robert hasn’t gotten around to mentioning (MOST of her comments on Robert’s papers could be effectively countered with “sounds like a personal problem to me.”) has RUINED Robert’s style and voice. I could simply type in his essays from the end of last year and his essays now, when he engages in verbal contortions to avoid triggering the teacher’s phobias. THAT too would be sufficient indictment of her and her teaching “methods.” And before you say you shouldn’t allow a teacher to do that. True. But he’s with her almost every day. I’ve seen editors and agents do this to professionals. He doesn’t have enough experience to avoid its being done to him. Nor should he have to.

Oh, mind you, it will pass. But she has cost him probably — already — a couple of novel sales, because his revision of the novel — requested by the editor — is on hold till he’s out from under this teacher’s influence.

“It is teachers like her that make me passionate about learning.”

Learning WHAT exactly? Being passionate about generic “learning” is not a virtue, whatever they taught you in your school. I could spend the rest of my life learning the fine art of gilding dog poop. Would that be a valuable skill? Is all learning equal? What if I were “passionate” about it? Do feelings trump logic?

Let me see what you and your classmates have demonstrated you’ve learned in this blog in the last day: That those in authority cannot be “dissed” by a mere parent? That anyone who does so, no matter how obliquely, deserves a full frontal attack and a “reality check”? That the use of profanity is the clincher in an argument? That teachers are superhuman beings and – like the devil – should never be mocked?

Or simply that “literature” is important? That you are both a student and a learner? That you have the capacity for empathy of a small rock? That you are completely and thoroughly devoid of the burden of any knowledge of philosophy, history, logic, language and (as I’ll prove below) STATISTICS.

I realize most of this is not an ENGLISH teacher’s fault. You’ve been failed by a much larger system. Still, she never taught you the importance of clear and specific writing; never made it possible for you to make a point in a readable and pleasant manner. Also, she hasn’t encouraged critical thinking skills — which I believe are part of IB mission? And she hasn’t taught you reading comprehension. YES I can get all this from yours and your classmates’ comments. You could too, if you had been taught to analyse text.

However, on the off chance she made you passionate about learning SOMETHING, I assign you to reading Stephen King’s On Writing; Strunk and White Elements of Style; Renni Browne and Dave King’s Self Editing for Fiction Writers; James Kilpatrick’s The Writer’s art.

“Finally I wish to clarify that our English teacher made no mention of your blog.”

Very interesting that you need to mention this. I am then left to assume that, as my colleague Kate Paulk pointed out, your teacher is at least very efficient in teaching mind-reading, since ALL of the posters harp on the fact I haven’t talked to/met the teacher. HOW do you know that? This post is SIX months old. I haven’t mentioned the teacher again. HOW do you know I haven’t talked to her? Well, tell me. I’d love to know.

BTW I’ve avoided mentioning her all these months because she’s not that important to me, whatever the gravitational position she holds in her students’ life — not for lack of temptation.

By the way, just as an FYI, that temptation is looking SWEETER by the minute. In fact, the song “One step over the line, sweet Jesus, one step over the line” has been running through my head. I am EAGER for that step to be taken, because since yesterday I’ve found I DO have so much to say about THIS teacher specifically, with school mentioned. And city. And program. And the teacher’s name.

More importantly, you know, I DO have her graded papers — well, Robert does, but he’s at school. And I’m home. And I know where he keeps his stuff. I could just post those with my responses to her comments. That would be fun, wouldn’t it? Well… for me and my regular readers. Or how about I dig through my mailbox where the now deleted anonymous comments are stored and illustrate her pedagogical art in her students’ stellar words? (Humming — one step over the line, sweet Jesus.)

LET me add that ALL of you seem to labor under the impression that I am either fair or NICE. Even the little girl who called me a bitch was under the impression the word would shock me. This is often a tactic used on middle-aged women by aggressive youngsters.

But, you see, I lived through rougher times than you can imagine. My confrontational experiences have included people pointing machine guns at me. They didn’t shut me up, so “bitch” and guilt trips over dissing a teacher “in a public forum” are likely to fail as well. Actually, because I’m of a contrarian disposition, it will PUSH me the other way.

As you will learn — and it IS a valuable experience, perhaps the most valuable in your life — things don’t always go EXACTLY according to plan. Google “Law of unintended consequences” for your further enlightenment.

I have tried to be fair. And in deference for the fact that both you posters and your teacher (if indeed there is a difference) — at least as shown in your comments — are emotionally younger than my thirteen year old who is very young indeed, I’ve held my fire. But this is very rapidly reaching the point where I take off the gloves. TRUST me this is something none of you wants. And it’s not a threat. It’s a promise. You’re a little old for this movie, but I’m sure you’ve heard “Make my day!” Do. Please.

“We are all self-motivated students who independently replied to you.”

Okay, this one has me puzzled. Are you in the advanced Math program? Because so far, I’ve believed that teacher to be competent. Sometimes a little strange, but competent. HOWEVER if you are in the advanced math program, I will have to revise this opinion.

Consider this — the post did not mention your school and your teacher by name. I can perfectly understand the wish to google schools/teachers. Writers google agents and editors ALL the time. However, a google for your school name and teacher, would NOT bring this up.

So, let’s say the idea that Robert’s mom writes has gotten around, and that all of you decided to look at my blog. AT THE SAME TIME. In this incredibly compressed period of time. First, it’s not that FASCINATING and I know blog-reading behavior. You read one page, maybe two. Snicker at the idea that to me Robert is a child. Okayfine. IF – and considering how far back you have to go, this is unlikely – you find that post, you might drop a CASUAL “Hey, the teacher is okay, and the assignment wasn’t THAT.” At normal rate of responses, I would get maybe one of these a month for the next two years.

BUT why did ALL of you — AT THE SAME TIME — not, a trickle over weeks/months but in the space of — now — thirty some hours — post “independently” to the same SIX MONTHS OLD post. And how do you ALL manage to misinterpret the post in exactly the same way and bring up the exact same “points.”

I’m not the mathematician in the house. My husband is. I’m sure he can give me a seat of the pants estimate on the probability — or even possibility — that you’re all posting independently. However, even without being a mathematician, I can safely say it is FAR lower than the possibility that a coin, when thrown, will fall neither on one side nor on edge, but will remain suspended middair.

I’m sorry, I don’t believe in magic. I only write it as FICTION.

In a court of law the messages of the last day are prima-facie evidence of “a conspiracy to harass.” No jury would buy that “independent” thing.

To avoid this type of embarrassment in the future, I recommend reading “The cartoon guide to statistics” by Larry Gonick. It will serve you well in life. Oh, and it’s funny too.

” It may be our hormones that are telling us to write these posts”

WHAT is this? The son of Sam defense? If your hormones are in any way concerned with your English teacher, someone at the school should look into it ASAP. (One step over the line, Sweet Jesus.) And if you believe your hormones actually TALK to you, hie thee with all speed to either the detox center or the psychiatrist.

If what you MEANT — without sounding deranged — is that “the emotional turmoil of adolescence might be responsible for these posts” let me just say “No.” Lack of understanding of the world and self control, plus the unhealthy atmosphere your teacher has CLEARLY fostered, plus the antics of a school system devoted to the deification of teachers as uber-menschen has caused you to write this. As weird as this is — adults have hormones too. In a a court of law, “My hormones made me do it” is no more a defense than “but the dog told me to cut up the neighbors and put their pieces in a trash bag.” No, wait. I correct myself. There is NO way to express what you tried to say without sounding insane.

I assign you to read Red Planet and Podkayne of Mars, for a better understanding of the concept of “individual responsibility” which seems to have completely evaded you.

“but regardless, the shear number of positive responses for our teacher demonstrates the impact she has had on all of our lives.”

Yes, yes, indeed it does. However, to quote my friend Kate, impact can be either good or bad and in this case I would say it is uniformly bad — just from what I see in my blog.

I will not be so unkind as to make fun of your typo. I’m the queen of typos, that’s why I have copy editors. However there is a psychological school that believes that typos reveal the deeper works of the subconscious and often try to sound the alarm about a behavior that we are not consciously aware of.

Your typo made me think of sheep, which is what you and your classmates have shown yourselves to be on this blog.

Quickly, let me disabuse of some notions:

A popular teacher is not necessarily a good teacher. I’m sure my posters who were in school in the sixties can provide plenty of examples.

A good way to get students’ adoration is to give them power over adults and to encourage them to think that the adults are in awe/scared of you. As a general guideline ANY teacher who comes into the classroom and starts off with “I’m sure you’ll teach me more than I’ll teach you” is a BAD teacher. They’re trying to get your buy-in on their personality, not their competence. Now, I don’t know if your teacher has done this, but I would bet she did. (Well, give it a little leeway. Some teachers say this because they think they have to. OBSERVE them. If they mean it, they are no good.) Another line is “you are the best educated, brightest,” (etc) “generation.” It’s hooey. Every generation has believed this of itself. If they say it without irony, they’re trying to put one over on you.

Your teacher is supposed to command your RESPECT for concrete achievements; not your “love” for her being “a friend”. The other is a Hollywood fairytale.

GOOD teachers live on after death and their written words influence generations yet unborn. This is not a function of being “the most caring person ever!” It’s a function of having something to teach and communicating it effectively.

Beyond this, the fact you ALL rushed to defend her, even though she hadn’t been attacked, betrays a form of insanity usually found in cults.

Please, for your own sake and the sake of your future, read “Seductive Poison: A Jonestown survivor’s story by Deborah Layton.

Also, because one of the ways adults use to gain power over teens and convince them that the adult is “special” and “important” and “must be defended” read about the cultural revolution. A GOOD — i.e., not “official” coming from a dictatorship. Yes, China is STILL a dictatorship — biography of Mao will help. Read biographies of people who survived the cultural revolution, too. It might give you some insight into the processes of being “loved” and how illegitimate they can be when foisted by a figure of authority from above. I have one of those bios, but I can’t find it now. It’s in the library and I haven’t had time to reshelve in some weeks.

Since I’ve given most of the reading list already, you might wish to read “Kicking the Sacred Cow” by James P. Hogan, which, if read and absorbed, even if you don’t agree with everything he says, will give you a little more understanding into the world and how authority works.

And for the love of Heaven, stop sipping that koolaid.

The Mess in the multi-culti Thread

In the last five minutes, I have received the following comments on a post MONTHS old. Note the repeated same meme and themes. NOTE the continuous hammering — as you’ll see it if you go to this thread — of things I’ve already explained/refuted.

The comments, being anonymous, are screened. I have a book to write and I don’t have time to play with idiots. However, I’m going to post the comments here, before I delete and ban — to show that a) it’s a troll cluster. b)It’s coordinated action. c) There’s NO vestiges of rational thought behind it. d) If this continues I will ask LJ to investigate as net-harrassment. I have witnesses.

Oh, yeah, and the person complaining that Alyson’s “hell” picture is a “threat.” Yes, indeedy. Beware the Mormon housewife. She has powers you cannot dream of. Hygiene. Sanity. Coherence. Terrible and fearful are they! (Also, and incidentally, Alyson is one of my best friends, part of an adopted “family.” While she is a writer, she’s not published — at least not in novels nor pro stories. And she could kick around the block the behind of all my dear “anonymi”. On logic, understanding of the world and, oh, last but not least, grammar.)

In more or less inverse order — with my response — here goes. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s hear it for the anon-mice

1- Their reply was:
No, I didn’t post two comments. The comments were from two different people who just happen to have the same opinion.

And no, I am not obsessed with this teacher.

But I do think rather than lurking on the internet complaining about someone, you should talk to them in person.

And when you correct our grammar, it doesn’t hurt us as badly as you think.

Answer #1 — really? Because I unscreeened one comment from ONE anonymous, and then yours came through unscreened. So, that’s not your first comment.

Your harping on my not talking to someone has been addressed.

THE POST WAS NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT THE TEACHER. Get someone to write this on your forehead, mirror image, so you can see it every morning when you wake. That will save me repeating it ad nauseum.

Oh, and btw, I never imagined you had the slightest concern with grammar.

And if you’re not obsessed with the teacher, WHY do you “love” her. And why is this ALL about her? Right…

Next up — come on MOUSIE:

Well I am thoroughly surprised that an intelligent published author (far better than those once published poets) would blog about how irritated she is that her son had a simple, straightforward English class assignment. It would seem to me that discussing why students have to do this project with the teacher would have been a mature solution. Blogging an angry letter that you didn’t actually send but obviously intended someone to find… not so much.
And as for your “respect” for teachers in the previous comments, I find it hard to believe that you don’t think a teacher should be respected because they aren’t a priest or a doctor. What?!
And by the way, my teacher didn’t tell me to write this. I CHOSE to write this because after reading your blog, I thought you might need a reality check.

By the way, I am proud of my cultural heritage.

And Answer number 2:

Have I said I was more intelligent than once published poets? I said I was more intelligent than someone, not that this was based on her being a poet. I just find it amusing she thinks this is her credential. I did not mention her NAME or the school she teaches at.

Okay — WHY would I want to discuss anything about this project. It’s a stupid project. The assumptions behind it are racist/sexist and every other ist you wish. IT’S STUPID. And I did NOT intend anyone to find it. Look, I didn’t mention school or teacher. GO BACK TO THE COMMENTS. READ THEM. If you don’t get them, study reading comprehension.

INCIDENTALLY I’m not “lurking” on the internet. This is my blog, with my name.

And yes, of course I need a reality check — go study the cultural revolution where the elders got reality checks from the young, untutored masses. So nice. Great result. And of course your teacher didn’t put you up to this. DID I mention this post is months old? MONTHS. So why is everyone so hot about it all of a sudden? And why is everyone obsessing on the same refuted points. Either the teacher put you up to this, or someone else did. This is centralized action.

As for your heritage — good. A better writer than I said it as I can’t — Robert A. Heinlein in Time Enough For Love: “This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.”

And the third little rodent is:

Subject: Wow.
Well, you can certainly delete whatever comments you want to, but for someone with such an open mind, I think you might want some “discussion.”
You seem to be perpetuating a cycle of nasty criticism. You blogged about a teacher you didn’t even know, got called out on it and then responded by blogging angrily yet again at the commenter.
So do you REALLY want discussion? Or do you just like criticizing people you’ve never met?
I’d really like to discuss why you think that a cultural heritage project based on the definition of culture (OBVIOUSLY) as someone’s ancestry, is so oppressive and bad. People did their projects on “immigrant” culture or “American” culture or “Texas” culture!

Answer #3

Discussion is NOT calling someone a bitch. Discussion is not having the same things hurled at you over and over again after you disproved them/responded to them — and Laura did it better than I couuld btw. You want an answer to your question, go read her comment. You might also finally get I WASN’T BLOGGING ABOUT THE TEACHER except incidentally. Though I’m not impressed with the quality of her defenders, frankly.
You want discussion? Go read what’s posted. Go to Amanda’s blog and get trounced (you will.) I have a job and a life.

If you don’t get what is so bad about seeing culture as someone’s ancestry, read the history of the Third Reich.

Mousie #4:

Subject: Re: Afterthoughts
No teacher asked me to post on your blog, and if she did, I wouldn’t have listened to her.

Answer #4:

Of COURSE not. Such brave independent thinkers, all posting at the same time defending a teacher who didn’t need defending. Like all the people who dress differently by wearing the same thing everyone else does. Either the teacher asked you, or someone else did. All of a sudden, out of the blue all these “unrelated posters” just had to come and comment on a post months old, and all had the same obsession with the teacher and defending the teacher — without bothering to notice the teacher was NOT the focus of the post. And that I was no more than vaguely annoyed at her. And that the post was MONTHS old. MONTHS.

Swampland, Florida. I sell it to you cheap.

Possible Mouse #5

Subject: Culture Project
While I agree with you that a person should not be attached to a culture as a result of their genetics, I would have to say that the “culture project” in this gifted class has been misinterpreted.
The assignment which was assigned was to explore and gain knowledge on a culture. In no way, shape or form was the project strictly linked to the individuals genetics. Many people chose to investigate a culture that they were simply intrigued by. Some students chose to research their culture (and by culture I mean, yes, their genetic makeup)in order to gain understanding about family traditions and family history.
And yes, as a student in a gifted class much like Roberts, I understand that this project can be taken as a bunch of BS which one can create last minuet and still get a good grade. Learning how to manipulate the system is how I survived in this program. However, along with the BS their is a little bit of learning. I know understand where all of my grandmother’s stories come from, and I am glad that I was forced to do the culture project.
So no, the children in this gifted class were not restrained to tuti fruti, They were allowed to chose whatever flavor they wanted.

Answer # 5 – A polite mouse, so he/she gets the benefit of the doubt.

Really? Indeeed? Then why do the other posters seem to think it was about THEIR ancestry and that this is indeed their culture?

Of note though I covered this in the previous entry — what annoys me secondarily about the assignment is that you think you can present a “culture” in class in our day and age and make it, somehow relevant.

Questions to ask yourself —

1 could you say “the Elbownians are terribly racist?”

2 could you say “The Elbownian traditional religion encourages child sacrifice?”

3 could you say “I find these aspects of this culture distasteful”

No? Then criticism is reserved for the culture to which most of you belong/in which most of you live. Which means kids leave school thinking our history/culture is uniquely bad. If you don’t think that’s a tragedy… I can’t explain it to you. Studying other cultures is only valid if you can see the bad with the good. Culture-tourism won’t do it.

I KNOW. I write about other cultures, often. I KNOW I don’t always get it right. I wouldn’t bet on getting it right most of the time. And I spend months — sometimes years — researching for a story.

These projects are pernicious. They’ve contaminated our understanding of the world. And no, that’s not your teacher’s fault. I don’t ascribe any superpowers to her, despite the blog cluster. I do think she could improve her performance. I do think she shouldn’t invent rules.

But… eh. She’s not the only one or uniquely bad.

See my previous entry.

And as I said, I’m done. Supid neener neener trolling will be deleted.

Blogging is CULTURE!

Yes, I am obsessive :) At least I am obsessive about the meaning of words, and I’m getting very tired of this Red Queen world we live in. (And for those whose cultural references are wafer-thin, no I’m not calling Marx gay. For those of you reading this over morning coffee, sorry about the keyboard)

So, once and for all let’s lay down what culture is and isn’t. It should be obvious, but these days it seems to be an arcane and hidden secret. I’ve seen culture used as a substitute for “race” leading to someone being called racist when they criticize a culture. I’ve seen culture attached to an individual so that adoptive parents get asked if they’re teaching the child from across the world about “her culture” — not her ancestor’s culture (oh, no) but HER culture, apparently part of her DNA. I’ve heard people tell me all cultures are equally valid. Which, as you’ll see, is the equivalent of saying that everyone’s mental arrangements are equally valid — yours and the profound disturbed individual’s who sits in a corner talking to green aliens you can’t see. And I’ve seen it — more justly — applied in situations where it might or might not apply.

Yes, there are definitions of culture that accord with what I’m going to say. Those of you who took sociology or psychology know this. At least those of you who took them before the Crazy Years set in. Now, who knows?

However, it is also something you can find for yourself if you read, look around and think.

So, what is culture? Well, think of culture as a collective personality. Though I’m not Freudian, it is convenient to explain it in Freudian terms, so indulge me — the collective personality, like the individual one, is composed of three parts. (Cultura omnia divisa est in partes tres {no, I do NOT know Latin I’m just minus coffee and silly})

The super ego — what the culture tells itself it is and what it aspires to be. This often includes the deeds of ancestors and their supposed reflection on the present descendants. “Great so and so was the first to climb the Everest in his underoos, this shows we’re a people of courage and determination.” You can see this in the Odyssey and the Iliad, for instance — oral traditions that defined and in a way created the Greek culture as much as the Greek civilization created it. This is by the way usually not — what was it DawnH called it that was so appropriate? “Student Tourism” I think — what a Student Tourist gets out of a cultural assignment, unless they are of an unusually bookish turn of mind. And if they do get it “The Elbownians are a valiant people locked through history in a deadly struggle with the mud that pervades their country” it is because a native distilled it and put it up on a wikipedia page. And even then, they are likely to miss the full picture that would be in the mind of someone living in the culture. And the people living in the culture don’t SEE it either. They simply live it.

Even those who have changed cultures start losing sight of the edges of the new one, once they’ve been in it long enough. When I was in Portugal, reading Heinlein, I’d have told you American culture was all about “underdog makes good.” Which the “superego” part of American culture is, in a way, but not just. Now, twenty some years later, as an American, it would take me a book to describe the “super ego” part of American culture. Because it has become my culture, it is all tied up with the other two parts of it, now, which are:

The ego — this is what the culture thinks it is, and in many ways how it expresses. Do people work too much or too little? Do we pride ourselves on our large number of holidays? Are our holiday religious or political? Do we wear little square hats? Do we eat purple buns on Hogswatch Night? Do we tie bows to our nostrils on the first of May? Cultural. This part would include the language as spoken, treatment of women and children, treatment of pets, whether Vlad Dracul is a monster or a national hero. You know, that sort of thing.

The subconscious — this is the built in assumptions in the culture — what has been interiorized and passed down, what has been absorbed through the skin, as it were, without having any clue why. And by the way when I say “passed down” or absorbed through the skin I don’t mean it’s biological. It’s a figure of expression. This comes, like the personal subconscious, in many ways. To begin with, it’s transmitted by child rearing. When an adult or a clan are faced with a child to rear, they are in a situation of reacting day to day. I.e., if you haven’t heard this — those of you who are childless and like to speak about how you’ll raise your children, enjoy it. Your coherent theories won’t last past your child’s birth. Because it is composed of your living and teaching that child you’re going to coherently or not pass on a lot of the culture. Say, for instance, your culture believes one should be kind to beggars. When your kid starts screaming about the dirty old man on the corner, you’re going to discipline him. In a culture where beggars are routinely cursed away from the door, this would be considered bizarre. You never tell your child “our culture doesn’t do that.” And you might not even think it. It’s just there. I don’t think any American parent in the twentieth century needs to tell their children “it is frowned upon to marry for money and social influence” a statement that would make their ancestors a few generations back scratch their heads.

There is more to this submerged part of culture. As with examining the individual subconscious, it is easy to get carried away by pseudo-clever images and discoveries. “Doctor, doctor, I dreamed about pears last night.” might be significant or not. Being a linguist, I’m always discovering past traumas in the language. Like in the region of Portugal from which I come, Russo is the slang word for both blonds and pigs. The region is within Viking raiding range and the tribe that raided those coasts was the Rus. Is the slang derived from this? I’d lay odds. However, Russo is not used in a pejorative way when applied to blonds. And when asked to explain it — when I was very little — my mom is by and large innocent of — and not fond of — history, thought it was because so many pigs are pink. So how much does the use of the word affect the perception of blonds? And pigs? I don’t know. There must be someone out there who can get a grant to study subconscious cues buried in language. It is beyond me. I suspect some of the time this does affect our perceptions and some of the time a cigar is just a cigar.

Which, of course, makes cultures not an easy thing to study or understand. Particularly not by outsiders.

This view of culture as personality is confirmed by psychiatrists who refer to various “reactions” that cultures have, which are similar to personality. For instance, our deep division since 9/11 and the way people seem to talk past each other? Regression and splitting, which I’m given to understand is a normal reaction to shock.

The thing is that culture processes things FAR slower than individuals. (Also, and this is my humble opinion, at the brain power of a two year old.) So a truly huge trauma — say WWI — can take centuries to process. When you look at Europe, remember they’re still feeling the after effects of the hundred year war, and this will give you a feeling for how long it can take to work itself through. When the Bible speaks of punishing sins through the seventh generation, I think this is what they were referring to.

What this means is that some cultures are still, in the twenty first century, processing shocks that occurred centuries ago. The way in which they process them can be profoundly maladaptive to modern conditions. This is what makes nonsense of “all cultures are equally valid.”

I’ll give an example from Portugal, simply because I’ve been a part of that culture and I’m now a part of this one — to any Portuguese hearing this, no, I’m not running Portugal down. Portugal has a deep history and some interesting battle scars, but the last thing you can say is that Portuguese are a danger to the world. Individual Portuguese are often a danger to themselves, but rarely to the world. This is just a convenient way to show cultural differences. And, btw, a contrived one.

When I first came to the states, I was SHOCKED to see houses and fields without walls. I was even more shocked when people put lights on their outdoor trees for the holidays. The reason this was so mind-blowing is that anything outside your walls and easy to take in Portugal, would be taken.

This does not mean, btw, that the Portuguese are thieves, or that your average Portuguese would come steal your Christmas tree. No, it means it’s an accepted, unexamined part of the culture that if it’s not defended it’s anyone’s. (Or it was. As with everything I say about ways of living in Portugal this is twenty years out of date, and refers only to my region.)

In the States, otoh, no one would dream of taking your outdoor lights, unless you live in a very dangerous neighborhood. In ours, I’ve been known to leave gardening implements and such in the front yard — brain of a minute, that’s why — and still find them there the next day. If I left them on the devil’s strip, though, a college student might take it, since they tend to view anything left there as a “please take it out of my hands.” (We often do this with old chairs, etc, and so do the neighbors.)

Why the difference? Well, I’m sure I’m only seeing SOME of the reasons, because I haven’t made a study of it, but having lived in both cultures I can tell you why one would view picking up stuff from the neighbors’ yard with disapproval and the other not. a) Portugal was the welcome mat of Europe since before history. Everyone stopped, landed, conquered or mingled. This meant that a lot of people brought with them the invader ethos of “what I can grab is mine” and the others got the idea of “defend it behind walls or it’s free.” b) invaders often became ruling overlords and took all the property by right of conquest, leaving the natives to scramble for bits of what used to be theirs. c) Portuguese are often profoundly alienated from their government. Which fosters the idea of “them as can, get.” d) Portugal has gone through periods of great scarcity as recently as the 20th century. And while it isn’t true that necessity makes people immoral, it does tend to reinforce the sense of alienation and of “having to fend for oneself.”

America has not had any of this except invaders coming in — before some person points it out — and despoiling the natives. And that was a far more complex picture than the sixties’ books, the noble savage tales, etc, try to make you believe. Also, it happened to a small minority of the population, once. (Unless you count the south, and I’m not going there.) Most people’s ancestors weren’t even here at the time. Oh, yeah, and the Great Depression was a period of scarcity, but it didn’t last more than a generation. The habits of that didn’t get passed on too far (Though PJ O’Rourke is correct in asserting all Americans are descended from the Great Depression on one of their family sides. Even the ones whose family wasn’t here at the time, but that’s fodder for another day.) So attitudes here are completely different.

Culture, being transmitted half unconsciously, as it is, doesn’t pick and choose. It is often blundering and blind. It is OFTEN counterproductive. The behavior of what’s buried in the subconscious of a culture often means that people behaved in ways contrary to their image of themselves.

One exception to how the culture holds — or doesn’t — and how fast it can process things — some cultures change faster than others. I suspect all colonial cultures are more adaptive than cultures that have been in the same place over centuries. (Then again, this isn’t true linguistically. when finding a dead language, you know which one is the colony and which one the land of the mother tongue, because the culture retains more archaic elements. And if you don’t think this is true — though it’s changing these days — you don’t know how much of the US speaks in almost Shakespearean way compared to GB) At least I assume this, because I know what a difference “aculturation” can make. Also, the US is uniquely adaptive (in the sense of able to change quickly) due to the combination of factors of — being a colony; nuclear family unit mobility; mass media as arbiters/shapers of culture; public education that subtly or not pushes an agenda. These last two were perfected by totalitarian regimens of the 20th century, too. And they do allow one to shape the culture, to an extent. The extent to which they fail is why you can’t create a “homo sovieticus” and why the cultural revolution looks to us like a period of high insanity. Also, the US’s high-adaptive qualities make it very easy for us to veer into weird turns of mind or get bizarre ideas that leaves the rest of the world scratching their heads. (This parallels highly adaptive individuals who seem to remake their personality from the ground up every decade. I’m sure you know some.) I’ll give an example — a lot of grammar books today devote more time to explaining how to make your language gender neutral (“herstory” — proof that philology is a different country. They do things differently there) than to explaining how to use the subjunctive (and to Prime Crime proof readers — yes, you can have my subjunctive when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.) To the rest of the world, this is a lot like your friend who always wears something red because it brings her goodluck, okay? ’nuff said.

Part of the reason that it “burned” me for my kids to be told to write about their “culture” is that in the US this is borderline insane. It might have made some sense, if, say, my child was trekking to school from a nearby reservation, coming from an ethnic neighborhood his friends didn’t come from, or my entire family had moved here and we still lived in a multi generational household. Cultures can subsist for centuries within a larger culture given isolation — physical or mental — and group cohesion. But even then, the general culture slowly infiltrates the smaller one in most cases. (Find and read the short story In Venus, do we have a rabbi” for a wonderful take on this.

I.e., yes, there is such a thing as a family or clan culture — of course there is — this is why we hear of dysfunctional ghetto culture (though I’d like to submit in that case the picture is incomplete, as that’s just a part of a larger culture — ours — that rewards abhorrent and counterproductive behaviors, partly based on an enshrining of “subversiveness” as a god which is an extreme projection of the underdog meme.) But because culture is a generational thing, it doesn’t remain in any obvious ways past a couple of generations when every new generation moves around and starts anew amid strangers. Actually, the meaningful ways in which it does get passed on, could never be mentioned in today’s school. Religion. Morality. View of the world. Once you strip the “We have worshiped Annoya for fifty generations. We think flogging your squash is bad. We think only other Elbonians can run telecom companies.” which you CAN’T say, you’re left with “We make these interesting cookies out of crickets, and we wear pink scarfs on St. Ethelred’s day” which are not even an approximation of culture.

Ditto with “are you going to teach your adopted Elbownian baby her culture?” So many levels of insanity there. My adopted Elbownian baby is an American now. This is her culture and where she’ll grow up. Would it be a good thing to teach her about her ancestors and where she came from? Undoubtedly. Though if her elbownian ancestors were responsible for a kneean massacre two generations back, I’ll withhold teaching her this until she’s old enough to understand it’s not her fault. On that, btw, I favor teaching EVERY child about EVERY culture. Including but not limited to ancient ones. It helps them gain more perspective on what behaviors work in the long run and which don’t. (“The mothers of Rome used to tell their sons ‘come back with your shield or on it.’ Then they stopped saying it. Rome didn’t last much longer.” RAH) My sons have through my urging — okay, pushing and guilting, this too is cultural — read more about foreign history and culture by the end of elementary than most adults with a college education. Robert, who gets bored in the summer, and Eric who forages my research shelves on the sly, in the happy certainty he’s doing something naughty, know FAR more about Asian history than I do, and a lot more about other places/times too. This is a good thing. But it is not what these ‘culture’ assignments achieve.

While talking of this, instances of doubtful use of “culture” is “school culture” or “the culture of this city” — these might be true in places where schools are attended by generation after generation — my elementary school, for instance — of the same families. Here… you could say that each “generation” — four years? — of school has their own “culture” but once the school has turned completely over — and usually these days that includes staff — everything that could be considered a culture is completely different. My younger son is three years younger than the older, and by the time he reached Junior High, it was a completely different school than the one his brother attended. One or two teachers were left, but usually in different capacities.

As for every culture being equally valid — no. It isn’t. A culture in which female mutilation was once adopted for — doubtless and I could go into it and speculate why, but it would take volumes and attract flames — what was a psychological if not a physical necessity, might still be completely attached to the practice. This doesn’t mean it is valid to cut out people’s functional organs. Even if it allies anxiety. IOW it’s about as functional as individuals who want a limb amputated for no reason. In the twenty first century where “what was over there is over here” their and dysfunction can be our issue. This must mean at the very least such “cultural” practices must be condemned. Vocally. Not excused because “it’s their culture.” Culture is not race and condemning it is NOT racism. If you think it is, you don’t understand either word.

“Culture” as it’s taught in the schools CAN lead people to become incredibly racists without knowing it. Like… the idea that an elbownian baby is somehow, primarily elbownian. The idea that the baby’s behaviors were racially set at birth. A word to the wise — Hitler would have LOVED that one.

Part of the reason this cultural tourism makes me want to scream is that it makes our kids think of culture as race and further muddies the waters, and makes it harder for the world — as a whole — to survive in the twenty first century and beyond.

The other part is that when you do the “cookies and scarves” version of the culture, the kid emerges thinking “Other cultures are cooler than ours. They have all this quaint stuff.” The setting of the classroom; the political correctness of our times; the desire to not offend anyone there limit the assignment. You can’t say “Elbownians have through history committed or attempted to commit several Kneean genocides.” You can’t say “Elbownians are mired in generational poverty, because it is considered demeaning for an Elbownian to do manual work.” You can’t say “Elbownian women never learn to read because that would hinder getting them married off at twelve.” No. You do the pretty outfits and the tasty food.

I would rather — oh, far rather — discuss Portugal with someone who never heard of it, than with someone who once did a project about Portugal for school and THINKS they know about it. Because first they have to unlearn the nonsense. “No, we don’t wear scarves for St. Ethelred’s day. For crying in bed, no one has done that since the eighteenth century!” One sf/f book I read, the author had CLEARLY painstakingly researched Portuguese culture. I can tell you the books he’d read. And yet, he was completely, thoroughly and bizarrely wrong. (No, I didn’t write to him. I talked myself out of it.) What’s more he was wrong in ways, that, though he based his stuff on the writing of some Portuguese, was patronizing and insulting even to me, who am now, at best, marginally and nostalgically “Portuguese raised.” (This is a danger I’m aware of with some of my books. Which is why I like to make them historical and in parallel worlds. I’m aware there are things that will make someone raised in the culture want to brain me with an elbownian cookie.)

Have children read history. Sure, have them watch movies/read novels that take place in these countries. Preferably stuff done by natives. Send them off to read blogs written by people of this nationality. BUT don’t teach them it’s their “individual” culture (Ah!) or that every culture is equally valid (Double Ah!) and remove the accusations of “racism” from the discussions of culture. One thing we know, if you study history — all our ancestors were despicable. ALL of them. Really. And most noble savages were more savage and less noble. (As cultures if not as individuals.) Living hand to mouth and uncertainly does that to people. (If you think an oak tree provides all of an individual’s necessities, you have other issues.)

All of you — like all of me — are descended from slave traders, mass murderers, genocidal maniacs, cannibals. All of you — like all of me {g} — are descended from geniuses, saints, heros, philanthropists, artists and yes, slaves and people who got raped or eaten. Oh, and there are very good chances, even if you are like my friend Becky Lickiss, who doesn’t tan just turns slightly less bluish in the sun, that you have ancestors of every skin tone from shoe-polish to pink.

Culture and guilt are NOT genetically transmitted. For that matter, racial characteristics are only spottily transmitted and only for limited generations. Racial guilt never is. It doesn’t exist, unless you are thinking in terms of “original sin.” You are ALL free. Now go in peace.

Rudeness and Bloguiquette and “you want some fries with that catchup?)

I wrote a much longer post on this, but LJ — perhaps wisely — ate it. So, now I will just say generally:

a) If you comment on my blog and call me a loser, I will delete your comment

b) If you comment on my blog and make ad hominem attacks “you clearly have too much time on your hands”, “you need to open your mind” I will delete your comment

c) If you comment on my blog and IN ADDITION to the above completely misunderstand the point of my post and show the reading comprehension of a learning disabled sixth grader — if that — your comment will be deleted.

d) If, in the same night and within the space of an hour, you send me TWO ANSWERS to a post I put up … months ago and accuse me of overreacting in that post, you do not know the meaning of the word “irony.”

e) If you feel it necessary to tell me my blog is boring and I complain about stupid little things DON’T READ IT. No one is making you. If you want to read it and, instead of taking offense at things presented from a pov you’re not used to seeing, choose to consider there might be a larger point behind the postings, you’re welcome to. 

f) If you’re not sure whether  something is germane to the discussion OR an ad hominem attack, ask yourself “What do I hope to achieve from this comment? More discussion?” If it is more discussion, then it’s probably germane. “Or to upset the blog writer and prove how much more smarter/open minded/whatever I am?” If it’s this second your comment is probably an ad hominem and again — what will happen to it boys and girls? — that’s right! It will be deleted. Note that even a Germane question such as “are you sure your son understood the assignment” can beocme a wrong question when you call the person a loser or close minded in the next sentence.  CONSIDER the effect of your words.  If you cannot make this determination by yourself, find someone who can and ASK them for help.

Right. Now that’s done.  (Rinses hands.)  Now, for my friends, readers and other people who understand the meaning of “I don’t need to go to someone else’s blog and work on my private neurosis” and who have asked me questions over the last few weeks, both on LJ and via email:

I suspect this post is more irrational than not, mostly because I’ve been writing all day — I have TWO novels overdue, each hanging by less than twenty pages of revision and each interfering with the other. I HATE it when that happens. The fact that they take place 200 years apart and in different continents is NOT helping.

Yes, I will continue the series on writing soon. I’ve also had several — interesting — thoughts on the nature of learning languages and how this idea that people can’t change their culture is tied in to the quality of our — American — language teaching, particularly the fact that what I call “faux total immersion” has become standard. These will undoubtedly become a post sometime. And weirdly not a complaint, but… a modest proposal, shall we say?

I’ve read some good books and at least one I want to blog about. Until I have time, go out and buy The Year of The Hyenas. Buy it. Read it. It’s a mystery, with some paranormal elements — not enough to detract from the mystery. I got it as a gift and read it during a weekend away. It’s worth your time. Read it.

Other than that, since last I posted, I managed to get pneumonia one more time, and bronchitis once, and have had minor surgery on my — natch — RIGHT hand (Yeah, because that didn’t affect my typing AT ALL.)

I’ve delivered the second book in the shifter series. I’ve come up with half a dozen novels that want to be written yesterday. AND a couple fanfic novels too. Because my life is full of fun. I’m going to start wearing a tinfoil hat, to keep ideas at bay. I’ve started drawing. (Do you really want to know? Probably not.) If I find a scanner maybe I’ll post some of it. I find it very restful to use a different area of my brain. I’d reached a point that taking weekends off or whatever was not working. My head kept ticking on novels. The art turns it off, though, and alows me to come back to the page fresh. I tired of noodling with it on my own and so I’m taking two classes. Just getting out among non-writers is good sometimes.

The cats are still alive. The not my cats are still alive, too. D’Artagnan has acquired a new nickname. In addition to butterpat, sausage, notorious ILB (Innappropriate Licking Boi) and Lord of Tentistan, he’s now bah-lamb. This because he has a distinctive meow that sounds something like mah-ah.

The boys are still alive. Eric is miraculously becoming handy in Latin. NOT proficient, mind, but “handy” enough to figure out word roots. Good first year stuff. He’s learning French too. In History he’s been exploring the age of discoveries. In math, he’s doing geometry. And in art, he’s outstripping mommy. :) (Not that this is difficult.)

Robert is trying to start a social life again, which is good as I’ve been much worried about him. His French, which I thought past praying for, is moving towards fluency (yay) after he started reading mysteries in French. And he’s editing his novel.

Both of the boys’ hair is going curly, which seems like adding insult to injury. I wanted curly hair. I did.

The local con came and went and I couldn’t enjoy it, since I was dealing with pneumonia. Did panels, but didn’t socialize because I don’t like getting other people sick and I know I’m not the only one on crazy deadlines.

Haven’t heard from the Simean — or the rest of you — in much too long.

I hope — hope — to be out of the woods on Monday, at which point I look forward to a normal schedule and a semblance of normal interaction.

Till then, keep good thoughts coming my direction. I’ll dig myself out from under.  Gots shovel.