Within the last month, I ran across a writing contest that presented the following question: "when did you know that you had become an adult?" I've thought about that question nearly every day, and I think I've come up with a pretty good answer. It not only captures when I felt like I became an adult, but I think it also sums up how and when I start to view other people as adults, too.
I think people, myself included, become adults when their general priorities begin to include others. Basically, it's when the super ego kicks in, and, honestly, in today's society, I see a lot of kids' in adult bodies and adults in kids bodies, too. I've run into men and women who have been given the opportunities to become adults and have rejected them because their id has become too active. Examples? Men and/or women leaving their wives and kids because they just don't want all that responsibility or want to keep "playing the field" without caring for those they have sex with, divorced men and women who go clubbing, out with friends, etc. more often than being a parent to their kids, men and women who continuously accept gifts from family and friends and never find a way to show the same. With how much our society is promoting this self-gratification, it's no wonder more and more kids in adult skins show up.
On the flip side, there are adults in kids' bodies out there, too! It truly astonishes me when I see a child taking care of all of his/her siblings so a parent can work nights or weekends. I've also seen kids (a few) who take turns making dinner so parents can take a minute to relax. Even heavier, I have seen siblings pull together to help raise an infant, and all of these examples push the super ego into activating itself very early.
As I reflect on my own life, I think I became an adult when I stopped dating simply because it amused me and made me feel good and began sharing that happiness with the person I was dating. I started caring about when he felt bad and what goals and obstacles were in his life. Even more so, I started dating a man who actually wanted someone else (me) to be a part of his life and go through the fun and adventure with him, which means he was an adult, too.
The adults in our world are those who look out for others as well as themselves, and I certainly hope adults are the ones having children, leading countries, heading businesses, and multiplying over the kids in adults' skin.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Why Are We Becoming "Aliterate?"
I've been reading chapters of Mark Bauerlein's slighly pessimistic book, The Dumbest Generation, and one of the better chapters brought up the idea that Americans are becoming "aliterate" instead of illiterate. This reminds me of Twain's famous quote, "A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read." Although some of Bauerlein's ideas tend to be debatable, in my opinion, this one is the exception. People, not just kids and teens, are not reading like they used to, and I was one of these people just two years ago.
I am ashamed to say that as an English instructor, I only read about three or four books a year back in 2007. However, I was lucky enough to pick up King's On Writing, and I was struck by his ability to read about 60 books a year. I came up with my own goal to read twenty-four books that next year, and I read twenty-six.
Although not every book was a classic or one I would recommend to friends, I felt like with each book, my brain was beginning to use a few millimeters more than before. I began to think differently about situations and apply some of the ideas I found in those books to my own theories and beliefs. What helped even more was challenging myself to try new authors. Up until a few years ago, I had never read a Carl Hiaasen book or even wanted to bother with Dickens again, but I tried both of them, and I found a new appreciation for the latter of the two because I never gave the book my full attention.
Books can be so much more than a story on paper. They connect us with other people as well. I love the ding that goes off in my head when I see someone reading one of my favorites at the beach or hearing a student interpreting something we both read in a totally (and valid) way than I had thought about it. I love the nostalgic feeling that comes along when I read Corduroy to my son, or when I see books I had as a child that I know I want to read to him. During the breaks at my job, I have had numerous conversations with colleagues about The Road, and they have always resulted in different interpretations that all had serious merit. Although film conversations can be similar, authors don't always have deliberate roads they want you to go down, and films usually do.
So why are so few people reading? Books are cheaper than a video game (even an old, used one,) a movie ticket, a computer, or a cell phone, and yet they still collect dust in libraries and bookshelves. Have we become a culture so engrossed in instant gratification that we don't want to put in a few hours to read a novel because "there isn't time for that?" It's amazing to me that so few Americans have little time for books, but they DO have time for all of the other things I've listed. In my humble opinion, none of the previously-mentioned options of entertainment can stimulate a mind like a book, and these are what people are choosing.
The final quote I end with is one I included as an essay choice on a final for my high school class. Though most of the students attempted it, only about 1/4 of those who did received an A on it. Of course, the irony of it was that those with the A's all read above and beyond the required books, and those who didn't possibly read one entire book all year.
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them."- Ray Bradbury
I am ashamed to say that as an English instructor, I only read about three or four books a year back in 2007. However, I was lucky enough to pick up King's On Writing, and I was struck by his ability to read about 60 books a year. I came up with my own goal to read twenty-four books that next year, and I read twenty-six.
Although not every book was a classic or one I would recommend to friends, I felt like with each book, my brain was beginning to use a few millimeters more than before. I began to think differently about situations and apply some of the ideas I found in those books to my own theories and beliefs. What helped even more was challenging myself to try new authors. Up until a few years ago, I had never read a Carl Hiaasen book or even wanted to bother with Dickens again, but I tried both of them, and I found a new appreciation for the latter of the two because I never gave the book my full attention.
Books can be so much more than a story on paper. They connect us with other people as well. I love the ding that goes off in my head when I see someone reading one of my favorites at the beach or hearing a student interpreting something we both read in a totally (and valid) way than I had thought about it. I love the nostalgic feeling that comes along when I read Corduroy to my son, or when I see books I had as a child that I know I want to read to him. During the breaks at my job, I have had numerous conversations with colleagues about The Road, and they have always resulted in different interpretations that all had serious merit. Although film conversations can be similar, authors don't always have deliberate roads they want you to go down, and films usually do.
So why are so few people reading? Books are cheaper than a video game (even an old, used one,) a movie ticket, a computer, or a cell phone, and yet they still collect dust in libraries and bookshelves. Have we become a culture so engrossed in instant gratification that we don't want to put in a few hours to read a novel because "there isn't time for that?" It's amazing to me that so few Americans have little time for books, but they DO have time for all of the other things I've listed. In my humble opinion, none of the previously-mentioned options of entertainment can stimulate a mind like a book, and these are what people are choosing.
The final quote I end with is one I included as an essay choice on a final for my high school class. Though most of the students attempted it, only about 1/4 of those who did received an A on it. Of course, the irony of it was that those with the A's all read above and beyond the required books, and those who didn't possibly read one entire book all year.
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them."- Ray Bradbury
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The New and "Improved" Meetings
As I sat through an extremely boring lecture today, I glanced around the room and noticed several of my peers texting away on their Blackberries and cell phones. At first, I thought it was completely inappropriate and rude, and then I became jealous of their boldness because I wasn't doing it.
This begs the question, "is it rude to multitask during meetings and lectures, or is it a good use of a possible waste of time?"
Some places have chosen to ban texting during meetings. Others choose to ignore it or simply make a mental note of who is bold enough to do it in front of them. However, it isn't just texting that's become popular. I've seen people reading novels, drawing full-out portraits, playing tic-tac-toe, and even talking to others directly in the path of a speaker. If the person has an iPhone, the sky is the limit as far as what to choose to do instead of listening. Is this a sign of rudeness or the times? Personally, I think it's a little of both. I think some people are too rude to think about even remotely hiding their behavior, and it not only sends a message of distaste to the speaker but to the other people choosing to listen instead of doing the same thing. "Is that how your mother raised you?"
On the other end of the spectrum, I have been subjected to some speakers who were so insanely boring that doodling on a sheet of paper was the only reason I didn't fall asleep, which, I think, would have been much ruder. When it's proven over and OVER again that lecturing is the worst way to teach, you'd think that people would stop doing it. At least three times now, I've sat in lectures where the instructor presented this very fact. I was tempted to whip out my phone and start texting right there with the research to back up my choice.
So what's the answer? Do we ban texting? Would that work? Possibly. A better solution? Stop unnecessary meetings and lectures. Workplaces with e-mail should send out information for employees to read and assume they have read it. I know I'll take an e-mail over a meeting every single time...unless alcohol is being served. Workers will appreciate the extra time to get things done rather than sitting around eating stale "refreshments" and listening to someone reading the things on the handout in front of them.
As far as the lectures, end them. Once again, technology creates an opportunity. PowerPoints can be sent easily, and for classrooms, students can read them on their own at home and discuss the important points in class. For topics that involve lots of reading, create forums for people to respond to topics about the issues instead of ordering them to spend ten hours of their lives listening to, once again, someone reading handouts to them.
If you want people to stop being rude during meetings, attempt to end or avoid the meetings.
This begs the question, "is it rude to multitask during meetings and lectures, or is it a good use of a possible waste of time?"
Some places have chosen to ban texting during meetings. Others choose to ignore it or simply make a mental note of who is bold enough to do it in front of them. However, it isn't just texting that's become popular. I've seen people reading novels, drawing full-out portraits, playing tic-tac-toe, and even talking to others directly in the path of a speaker. If the person has an iPhone, the sky is the limit as far as what to choose to do instead of listening. Is this a sign of rudeness or the times? Personally, I think it's a little of both. I think some people are too rude to think about even remotely hiding their behavior, and it not only sends a message of distaste to the speaker but to the other people choosing to listen instead of doing the same thing. "Is that how your mother raised you?"
On the other end of the spectrum, I have been subjected to some speakers who were so insanely boring that doodling on a sheet of paper was the only reason I didn't fall asleep, which, I think, would have been much ruder. When it's proven over and OVER again that lecturing is the worst way to teach, you'd think that people would stop doing it. At least three times now, I've sat in lectures where the instructor presented this very fact. I was tempted to whip out my phone and start texting right there with the research to back up my choice.
So what's the answer? Do we ban texting? Would that work? Possibly. A better solution? Stop unnecessary meetings and lectures. Workplaces with e-mail should send out information for employees to read and assume they have read it. I know I'll take an e-mail over a meeting every single time...unless alcohol is being served. Workers will appreciate the extra time to get things done rather than sitting around eating stale "refreshments" and listening to someone reading the things on the handout in front of them.
As far as the lectures, end them. Once again, technology creates an opportunity. PowerPoints can be sent easily, and for classrooms, students can read them on their own at home and discuss the important points in class. For topics that involve lots of reading, create forums for people to respond to topics about the issues instead of ordering them to spend ten hours of their lives listening to, once again, someone reading handouts to them.
If you want people to stop being rude during meetings, attempt to end or avoid the meetings.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Positive and Stephen King
This past April, I began the epic task of listening to the entire book, The Stand, by Stephen King. Although I don't think King is a big religious fanatic, I found it interesting to see how much my faith in God grew through the reading of this book.
Let me begin by saying that I tend to question my beliefs. In fact, I question them on a near daily basis. However, the way that King brings about the idea of God in this book and His interaction or lack thereof at times with the survivors truly inspired and amazed me. At one point, an agnostic speaking to Mother Abigail (who basically represents God's chosen One) "says" (he's mute) that he doesn't believe in God. She simply laughs at him and responds with "that's ok. He believes in you." Although it isn't a long response, it seems to sum up what I needed to hear about God at that moment.
In a much later chapter, when four main characters are sent out to face Randall Flagg and his disciples, it is well-known that they will all probably die before accomplishing this. One of the main characters, Franny, is furious that her lover is one of them and yells at Mother Abigail saying that this God is a sadist who enjoys causing people pain. He allowed millions to die, and now he is continuing to call for death. In response, Abigail heals Franny's back, and Franny insists that it's a bribe. Abigail responds that it's just God's faith in her.
It fascinates me to see an author like King, who tends to be so much gloom and doom, opening his mind to more optimistic ideas about our world and beyond. Perhaps he didn't mean to do this, but it influenced me more than I initially thought. It speaks that not everyone believes in a God who chooses to destroy things, but He rather lets Man make the final decisions, such as the case in this book with men choosing to create a superflu that is accidentally released.
Continuing with King, I used to praise his horror-writing ability, but I am finding that after reading The Dark Tower, The Stand, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and his newest not-as-scary short story collection, After Sunset, I tend to enjoy his non-horror writing even more. He's descriptive and humorous while telling tales of sorrow and tragedy, and his messages in most of those books listed are those of hope and mystery instead of horror and pessimism. I guess if you're reading this and wrote the guy off based on a bad horror book, i.e. Rose Madder. I would gently push you into trying one of the non-horror books and see what I've seen, a man who tries to find meaning in some unlikely places.
Let me begin by saying that I tend to question my beliefs. In fact, I question them on a near daily basis. However, the way that King brings about the idea of God in this book and His interaction or lack thereof at times with the survivors truly inspired and amazed me. At one point, an agnostic speaking to Mother Abigail (who basically represents God's chosen One) "says" (he's mute) that he doesn't believe in God. She simply laughs at him and responds with "that's ok. He believes in you." Although it isn't a long response, it seems to sum up what I needed to hear about God at that moment.
In a much later chapter, when four main characters are sent out to face Randall Flagg and his disciples, it is well-known that they will all probably die before accomplishing this. One of the main characters, Franny, is furious that her lover is one of them and yells at Mother Abigail saying that this God is a sadist who enjoys causing people pain. He allowed millions to die, and now he is continuing to call for death. In response, Abigail heals Franny's back, and Franny insists that it's a bribe. Abigail responds that it's just God's faith in her.
It fascinates me to see an author like King, who tends to be so much gloom and doom, opening his mind to more optimistic ideas about our world and beyond. Perhaps he didn't mean to do this, but it influenced me more than I initially thought. It speaks that not everyone believes in a God who chooses to destroy things, but He rather lets Man make the final decisions, such as the case in this book with men choosing to create a superflu that is accidentally released.
Continuing with King, I used to praise his horror-writing ability, but I am finding that after reading The Dark Tower, The Stand, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, and his newest not-as-scary short story collection, After Sunset, I tend to enjoy his non-horror writing even more. He's descriptive and humorous while telling tales of sorrow and tragedy, and his messages in most of those books listed are those of hope and mystery instead of horror and pessimism. I guess if you're reading this and wrote the guy off based on a bad horror book, i.e. Rose Madder. I would gently push you into trying one of the non-horror books and see what I've seen, a man who tries to find meaning in some unlikely places.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Missing Pieces?
Over the last few weeks, I've been experiencing this horrible feeling similar to that sinking dread we all feel when we lock keys in our cars. However, this one has less dread and more sadness attached, and I just can't figure out why.
I tried looking back over my life to see what I did then that I'm not doing now, and I'm having a rough time figuring it out. As far as I can remember, I've always been a person who enjoyed taking risks. We're not talking Vegas slots, but we are talking risks involving life-changing experiences. I guess the last one I took was having a child, and since then, I've felt kind of "average" if that can accurately capture it.
Don't get me wrong. I love my life. I have an amazing husband and a wonderful child, and I wouldn't do it over again any other way. However, I don't feel much like me anymore, and I'd like to know how to find that person again, if it's possible. I never felt the type of guilt I feel now, and I never felt the type of "averageness" I feel now. Work is a complete joke since I figured out how to play the game and keep myself under the radar, and that's sad because I have no drive there to move forward.
I often feel like my outer layer is slowly falling apart piece by piece, and each piece is something I want to keep. Is there a way to stop this? What is it that's happening in the first place? I don't know these answers, but I can say that it's becoming worse as the years go by, and I'd like to salvage the parts that are still there.
I tried looking back over my life to see what I did then that I'm not doing now, and I'm having a rough time figuring it out. As far as I can remember, I've always been a person who enjoyed taking risks. We're not talking Vegas slots, but we are talking risks involving life-changing experiences. I guess the last one I took was having a child, and since then, I've felt kind of "average" if that can accurately capture it.
Don't get me wrong. I love my life. I have an amazing husband and a wonderful child, and I wouldn't do it over again any other way. However, I don't feel much like me anymore, and I'd like to know how to find that person again, if it's possible. I never felt the type of guilt I feel now, and I never felt the type of "averageness" I feel now. Work is a complete joke since I figured out how to play the game and keep myself under the radar, and that's sad because I have no drive there to move forward.
I often feel like my outer layer is slowly falling apart piece by piece, and each piece is something I want to keep. Is there a way to stop this? What is it that's happening in the first place? I don't know these answers, but I can say that it's becoming worse as the years go by, and I'd like to salvage the parts that are still there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)