bearing blog

Put up or shut up: early meal planning.

The baby turned 18 months old yesterday.  His babbling is peppered with "Mine!" and "'Elp-bee! 'Elp-bee!" and "DOG DOG DOG DOG DOG."  He answers Yes and No, tells us when he needs a new diaper, uses forks and spoons and regular cups like an expert.  He is coming right along.

It is time for me to stop making off-hand remarks to Mark and other people about how frustrated I am that I have not yet gotten back to my pre-pregnancy weight.  I think it is happening kind of on its own, but very slowly.   The number of pounds left to lose is not terribly large -- about eight pounds -- and honestly, it isn't a bad place to be; I think I look fairly normal.  But I'm longing to get back into my old clothes, which are tantalizingly, only one size away.  I've held off buying a new wardrobe in the larger size that I've been wearing for most of a year.  

But these yoga pants are not going to last forever.  Eventually I either have to get back to the old size, or buy clothes that fit me now.

+ + +

It isn't so much the need to go on a crash diet as it is the need to refocus on my lifetime maintenance habits, with strict enough attention to calories that I can't fool myself.  I never really have emerged from the "eating for two" mindset, and if I want to eat for one in the future, I need to remind myself exactly what it looks like and feels like.

I know what this takes:  single-minded attention that prioritizes the Calorie Project above all else.  (See this category if you don't believe me.)  Mark knows what it takes too:  a lot of support from him.  For example, I'm going to cut out alcohol with dinner for six weeks, and he will help by not opening bottles of wine or offering me a beer with dinner.

So together we looked at the calendar and picked out a roughly six-week period this summer:  July 21 through September 3.   There's not a whole lot going on for us in there, and it seems like a good time to try.  

I have been thinking of it as the "put up or shut up" block.  It isn't good for me to be constantly fretting about still carrying around extra weight, but not making the commitment to do something about it.  At the same time, I'm not ready just to say "oh well, I guess this is my size now" until I've achieved some closure by taking a real stab at it.  

So, I keep saying:  "I'll work on it for six weeks, and then I'll stop complaining about the extra weight."

And Mark keeps reminding me:  "You know, if you really do work on it, you might actually lose the weight."

And I reply:  "Well, then, I hope I do stop complaining about it."

+ + +

I must prepare for this.

 I have so much less disposable time than I did the last time I focused.  I need a strategy that does not rely on me laboriously counting each day's worth of calories the night before.  Hence, I am going to try for meal-at-a-time counting, which I can do pretty well on the fly, and shooting for 400 calories at each meal.

And I need serious meal planning, ideally of all six weeks at once.  I started by sitting down with a calendar and methodically working out the following information:  there will be

• 11 evenings that we have to eat quickly and then go to the gym
• 6 Sunday cheese-and-cracker suppers
• 5 date nights
• 5 ordinary Saturday evenings
• 4 ordinary Friday evenings (similar to Saturdays, but meatless)
• 4 consecutive evenings with Mark out of town
• 4 weeknights after busy days
• 3 dinners I take to H's house
• 3 dinners provided by H

Then I considered family favorite meals and consulted a couple of 400-calorie-meal-plans to come up with ideas.  I rejected all meals that I usually compulsively eat more of (e.g., homemade garlic-bread-crumb-topped macaroni and cheese).  

 Repeats are okay, and some things can't be planned, so I came up with something less than the corresponding number of dinners for each type.   

Gym nights:

• Chile cheese egg bake, salad, and a cooked green vegetable
• Sweet and sour cabbage salad, kielbasa, and mashed potato
• Skillet gyros (it's just ground beef and oregano), pita bread, and Greek salad
• Turkey BLTs (that is, deli turkey plus real bacon -- no turkey bacon), broccoli, and apples
• Slow cooker tortilla soup, limited chips, and fruit salad
• Southwest corn and bean chowder with ham, limited cornbread

Ordinary Saturday evenings:

• Yogurt-marinated chicken on the grill, sliced cucumber salad, pita bread, cooked greens
• Grilled steak, corn on the cob, tomato salad, melon
• Moroccan-spiced grilled chicken, couscous, salad of sliced radishes and oranges
• Hamburger patties, on buns for everyone else, cooked green vegetable, carrot salad

Ordinary Friday evenings:

• Minestrone soup, fruit salad, and a limited supply of parmesan pita toasts.  
• Cheese tortellini with red/yellow/green peppers.
• Tilapia fish tacos with pineapple chunks, cabbage slaw, and guacamole.

Mark out of town:

• Grilled cheese sandwiches and homemade tomato soup for kids.  Soup, cheese, crackers for me.
• Roasted chicken legs, fruit salad, bread and butter, and cooked green vegetable.

Busy-day weeknights:

• Baked teriyaki chicken breasts, white rice, kale, oranges.
• Rotisserie chicken from the grocery store, sweet potatoes, broccoli.
• Deli turkey sandwiches with asiago cheese, apples, almonds, and chips.

Meals taken to H's:

• Crockpot hili over whole wheat spaghetti with shredded cheddar, french-cut frozen green beans
• Crockpot salsa chicken in brown rice bowl with cheddar, cilantro, beans, corn, lettuce.

Date nights and cheese-and-cracker suppers don't need a plan as much as a strategy:

• For the date nights, it has always worked well to split everything with Mark in about a 2-to-1 ratio.  
• For cheese-and-cracker suppers, I'll make sure I have my own little three-ounce portion of some nice blue cheese, a couple tablespoons of fig preserves, and some Triscuits, and not touch any of the other stuff.  I know my blue cheese is safe from everyone else at the table, so that should work.  Or I'll have my own three ounces of lox and a couple tablespoons of cream cheese.   A pot of decaf coffee already brewed will help, too, for the end.

I'll plan each week in more detail when I sit down to make the grocery list, but at least I have already done the work of identifying meals.  For breakfast and lunch I will probably employ the same-thing-every-day-for-a-week strategy.  I guess I'll check in on that later.  For now, it's business as usual.

   

 

Sunday morning run, in bad cell phone photos.

Yesterday I did paperwork at the gym while I was waiting outside the 8yo's aikido class. Normally I am not a watching-the-lesson mom; I am a getting-my-own-workout-in mom. But yesterday I just couldn't face going round and round the track eighteen times in a mile, when I knew there would be nice weather today. (My daughter has not yet reached the age where I am allowed to leave the premises while she is in the Y.) So I told myself, "Tomorrow I will go run around the lake. I will get up early and be back in time for breakfast. That will be so much nicer than being inside."

And this morning I did. It wasn't hard to roll out of bed at all, because I was looking forward to it. I enjoy running around the lake so much more than running indoors, it really is a treat.

I drove Mark's car to the western side of South Minneapolis and parked about three blocks away from the lake. Sometimes I feel a little ashamed of the fact that I usually drive somewhere in order to go for a run in a pleasant urban environment. Unfortunately, I live in something of a running-path desert. Any out-and-back run of the lengths that I have time for would be at least fifty percent sidewalks-and-intersections. Annoying!

(Biking, on the other hand, would make a lot of sense. I really need to buy a bike lock.)

I could have parked closer to the lake, but I have two good reasons for parking here. One of them is that it is a pleasant walk through a residential neighborhood to get there. The street I park on dead-ends here, but the sidewalk doesn't.

The sidewalk looks almost as if it is going right into someone's yard, but eventually it turns right (heading north) and passes directly in front of the wide porch of a big, pretty yellow house that faces the lake. A couple of summers ago, I was watching it be renovated, a little bit of progress each time I went for a run.

This summer, the house next door is getting an overhaul. I can smell freshly sawn lumber, possibly even cedar. It looks a little blocky and ad hoc -- not, I think, faithful to the architectural bones of the house -- but you can't deny that these two stories of front porch will take advantage of its excellent lake view, at least in three seasons. Love those little casement windows on the first level.

At this point I have not yet started running. Down a sloping sidewalk in front of these two housew, and a third house that is the home of the Minnesota Zen Center, and a left turn, and across the helpfully placed crosswalk. Careful, there is a bike path at the bottom of the steps. Look both ways!

 

l

The bike path is one-way (commuters can bike the other way on the road), but the walking path is not. Today I turn left:

 

And off I go, running easily. I don't feel like working super hard. I feel like having a nice easy morning run. So easy that I can stop and take photos from time to time, with the camera in my cell phone that I keep zipped into my little performance-fabric wrist wallet along with the car key and a twenty dollar bill.

 

(Once, on the theory that you should give gifts that you would like to receive, I wrapped up one of these extremely useful wrist pouches for the $15 women's random Christmas gift exchange in our extended family. Mine was the last present unwrapped. It was obviously a disappointment. The next year I went on a different theory and brought a bottle of some kind of alcoholic chocolate mint truffle drink. That appeared to go over somewhat more successfully. Go figure.)

Not many people running around the lake today. But there are anglers on the dock!

 

I like to start out running south in the early morning, because of the sight of my own shadow stretching out before me, taller than life, running on ahead. It is curiously uplifting. If I am ever entertaining the slightest reluctance, if the inner whiner complains that the end is too far off, the shadow-runner seems to say, "Just put one foot in front of the other. Follow me; I do this kind of thing all the time." By the time I pull ahead of her, partway around the lake, I will have left the complaining voice far behind.

(unfortunately it is hard to get a shot of the shadow runner in action)

 

Rounding the south side I am momentarily startled by this silhouette:

It is a statue or something of a lake monster. I have seen it before, but not here. The last time I remember seeing it, it was in Lake Nokomis, visible from Cedar Avenue where it crosses the water. I think there must be someone in the city parks department whose job it is to move this enormous figurine around from lake to lake so that each year it is found in a different place.

Given that the city does a competent job (seriously) with things like snow removal, I suppose I can find it in my heart to approve of a few of my tax dollars going for, uh, whimsy.

At seven on a Sunday morning there are not many boaters out.

Shouts come over the water from a chaperoned group of kids who are doing something with a sailboat, not very far from shore, that has its sails down. Maybe they have just finished a sailing lesson? Are just starting one? Anyway, the lifejacketed kids and adults on the shore are yelling "Paddle! Paddle!" at the kids in the boat. Not in an emergency kind of way, but in a this-is-hilarious kind of way. There may be a story here, but I do not stick around to find out about it. I pass the dock, pass the always-staffed booth where we can find out more about aquatic invasive species, and leave that story behind.

I walk back from the lake, admiring the gardens here and there. This neighborhood's residents love their gardens.

And come to the other reason I parked three blocks from the lake:

 

I am thirsty. Large iced cold press in hand, no flavor but a shot of cream, I sit down for my post-run selfie so I can model my favorite running shirt. I call it the "Plausible Deniability" shirt:

The word "Half" before the word "Marathon" and the tiny afterthought "& 5K" in the fine print testify to the truth. Especially the afterthought.

Have a great Sunday!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Post-Obergefell.

This morning you get unformed notes, because I have stuff to do and lately a bad habit of never sitting down at all to write anything because I don't have it all put together in my head.

1. I'm aware that there's a substantial bloc of thoughtful Catholics who would peg this as the wrong attitude, and I fully admit that they might be right, but my primary feeling towards the issue of SSM on the national level has been, for years, for better or worse: Look people, this is going to happen. Might as well learn to deal with it now. And by "deal with it," by the way, I don't mean "accept SSM in all its okayness," but "resume the work of loving our neighbor, and speaking the truth about the human condition with word and action, in a society where we are a distinct religious minority with respect to this issue."

2. Also, I can't help but wonder if the Right as a whole and Catholics as a group had entertained the idea of civil unions a long time ago, which were apparently inconceivable back in the day but all of a sudden seemed like a much more reasonable idea as soon as SSM looked like it had a shot of gaining real support, we would already have learned quite a bit about living as said religious minority.

3. Tl;dr: I believe that the American public's shared civic understanding of the purpose and meaning of marriage diverged from the sacramental understanding two or three generations ago. The main difference is that before, it was possible for Christians to pretend otherwise.

Corollary to (1) and (2) and (3): I am aware that this attitude made me significantly less-than-fervent in the efforts to forestall acceptance. I am aware that I promoted a pragmatism that left no room for hope. I think I made the minimum effort that a voting, Mass-going Catholic should make, no more. Failure of hope? Probably. Premature pragmatism? Yes. Rooted, at least partly, in a desire to be seen as a Voice of Reason by everybody? Yes. I have taken it to confession, this very morning, that I closed my mind to more defense-minded, hope-minded people and arguments, that I spoke reasonably (I like to think) as a means to the end of seeming reasonable. Lord have mercy on me, on us all.

4. Yet, here we are, and I have renounced my imperfections in the advocacy of pragmatism, but I don't actually reject the pragmatism itself. Consequently, my emotional reaction to the outcome of Obergefell is, for better or worse: Now that we've gotten that over with, we can get on with the real work. And by "real work" I mean the stuff that the Christian Church is good at, which is many things, but which is emphatically not trusting in governments to maintain the culture to our specifications.

5. In other words, we are back to personal conversion and spreading the Good News, which sounds as if it is increasingly ironically named the Good News, but which in fact is not ironic at all, which means that we are at a bit of a linguistic disadvantage here in the affluent West. We have to be, I don't know, speakers of a kind of creole. And really, has it ever made sense to try to convince the dominant culture to conform to Christian standards of behavior while declining to preach, first, Christ crucified?

Corollary to (5): I believe we are now able to admit that we are in the position of the early Church in places like Rome or maybe the missionary church in places like the British Isles. We are a religious minority that has one understanding of the purpose and meaning of marriage (of human nature, really), living in a civic society that holds an understanding that is mutually exclusive with ours. We hope to worship without fear, and also we hope to make of all disciples. We have an advantage of being less miniscule in number; but we also have a new disadvantage, namely, that almost everyone around us has heard quite enough, thank you, of an extremely garbled version of our message.

6. Speaking of garbling the message. Probably because of what has been going on in my home archdiocese, I am feeling a bit like the institutional Church is reaping what many of her priests and bishops have sown for fifty-odd years. Let me put my attitude in context, again in full disclosure: I'm disgusted with our archdiocesan leadership. Our credibility as an institution has been squandered on coverups, and promises that we have now all put it behind us, and then more coverups. The archdiocesan child protection policy is apparently little more than what in a different context we call "security theater." It would indeed be good for us all to sacrifice some convenience to secure real protection of vulnerable people. Sadly, here in Minneapolis-St. Paul, I have a strong impression that while ordinary folks are waiting barefoot in a long line to be frisked, the VIPs are letting each other past the line through the side door. Who will listen to us now on issues of marriage and the family? Whose fault is that?

7. I may not have had resolve to fight before, but (because, I guess, we are now in the place that I wanted to jump ahead to) I have a measure of resolve to fight today. The culture war is sure to continue. I expect a long string of First Amendment lawsuits, some of which will have legal merit and some of which will not, some of which will win and some of which will not, and time will tell whether First Amendment protections of dissenting opinions will remain robust. We will each of us, as always, have a duty to defend our own family, and to defend the truth.

8. And yet I can't stand with the (understandable) impulse to self-defense. We are stuck with many inconvenient words of Jesus that appear, oddly enough, to predict that neighbors will say nasty things about his disciples, that family members will reject them, that they will be thrown in jail, etc. Oddly enough again, these words appear to endorse accepting this situation. As if it were a blessing or something. This is obviously folly. Someone's folly, anyway.

9. I saw a lot of celebration yesterday, and that is something I understand. People who feel victorious celebrate; it is a natural, basically good impulse. I also saw a lot of spitefully gleeful rhetoric. This is not a basically good impulse. It saddens me. There is a lot of work to be done in engaging hearts and minds.

10. There is conversion to be called for, too, among people who hold to the sacramental understanding of marriage, because -- face it -- from time to time the dominant rhetoric betrays an outright false understanding of the dignity of all human persons. End derogatory slurs now. End ridicule now. End code words now. Shut it down. Clean up our own house. There is a lot of work to be done engaging hearts and minds.

11. We are supposed to act in ways that so that we are confident no one can misinterpret our actions as approving of sin. Obviously we cannot totally control how another person will perceive our acts, but we are supposed to refrain from acts that give the impression of endorsing falsehoods. We should also be trying to refrain from acts that give the impression of rejecting persons. We might be in a better position today if we had worried as much about giving the impression that we do not love people if they are the wrong sort of people. For there more ways than one in which we can give an impression of endorsing falsehoods about the nature of the human person.

12. So, #LoveWins was the hashtag of the day yesterday. This is two-thousand-year-old news. May I suggest #LoveHasAlreadyWon? Be not afraid, folks.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Sister things.

I started to read Laudato Si' last night, in bed with an iPhone, and didn't get very far into it before I was too sleepy to go on and had to put it down.  The dim rectangular afterimage of a glowing screen danced before my eyes for a few moments as I rolled over, snuggled in next to a baby, and let my mind wander.

Occasionally it's at this time that my brain makes odd connections.

+ + + 

I've written a little bit recently about Japanese author Marie Kondo's The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up.  Mostly I wrote about the practical advice on getting rid of stuff.  I haven't written so much here about what a deeply foreign book it seems to be.   I don't think the content must have been updated very much for an American audience.   Kondo is Japanese, and wrote for Japan.  

She takes for granted, for example, that the reader's home is laid out like a Japanese home.  Here she is on closets:

If you have built-in closets in your home, most of the things in your house can be stored inside them.  

Japanese closets are ideal storage spaces.  They are deep and wide, are divided into top and bottom by a broad and extremely sturdy shelf, and have a cupboard built into the wall above.

And on the "fatal mistake" of storing things near where they are to be used:

For people like me who are naturally lazy, I strongly recommend focusing storage in one spot... If it only takes ten to twenty seconds to walk from one end of your home to the other, do you really need to worry about the flow plan?

Yeah, she's not thinking about American ramblers, or four-level urban homes with detached garages.

And then there are little tidbits like this:

I once worked as a Shinto shrine maiden for five years.

A very noticeable feature of the whole book, one that is central to her concept, is a relationship with inanimate objects that can seem a little bit bizarre.  It fits right into my personal preconception of Japanese household culture, which I admit is heavily and almost exclusively influenced by Studio Ghibli movies such as My Neighbor Totoro, populated with strangely alive, anthropomorphic objects, down to spidery, googly-eyed balls of soot.

Anyway, to sum up, Ms. Kondo describes the process of selecting, storing, and using possessions as almost a dialogue between herself and the objects.  Here are a few selections from different parts of the book.

When you come across something that's hard to discard, consider carefully why you have that specific item in the first place.  When did you get it and what meaning did it have for you then?  Reassess the role it plays in your life... [If] that particular article of clothing has already completed its role in your life,... you are free to say, "Thank you for giving me joy when I bought you," or "Thank you for teaching me what doesn't suit me," and let it go.

...

Can you truthfully say that you treasure something buried so deeply in a closet or drawer that you have forgotten its existence?  If things had feelings, they would certainly not be happy....Let them go, with gratitude.  Not only you, but your things as well, will feel clear and refreshed when you are done...

...

When you are choosing what to keep, ask your heart; when you are choosing where to store something, ask your house.

...

This is the routine I follow... First, I unlock the door and announce to my house, "I'm home!" Picking up the pair of shoes I wore yesterday and left out in the entranceway, I say, "Thank you very much for your hard work," and put them away... I put my jacket and dress on a hanger, say, "Good job!" and hang them... I greet the waist-high potted plant by the window and stroke its leaves.  My next task is to empty the contents of my handbag ... Before closing the drawer, I say, "Thanks for all you did for me today." 

 So, this stuff is kind of weird.  A few amateur reviewers I've run into have described it as "delusional."  I think it's more that this comes from a culture, and a way of relating to inanimate objects, that most of us are not familiar with.  

It's not like Westerners don't anthropomorphize objects; it's just that we mostly do it when we're annoyed with them, as in "OUCH! Damn this car door!" when we slam our fingers in it, or "This stupid shopping cart doesn't want to roll straight!"  or sometimes when we need to pretend we are explaining them, like "This material won't dissolve in water because it's hydrophobic."

+ + +

So I had kind of brushed off the Kondo-isms as "probably just a Japanese thing."  And then I encountered something small and almost entirely unrelated that made me reconsider it in a slightly different light.

I only got a little way into Laudato Si' where there is a short discourse on St. Francis of Assisi.  In par. 11, Pope Francis briefly described the saint's attitude toward non-human things:

He communed with all creation, even preaching to the flowers, inviting them “to praise the Lord, just as if they were endowed with reason”.  His response to the world around him was so much more than intellectual appreciation or economic calculus, for to him each and every creature was a sister united to him by bonds of affection....

His disciple Saint Bonaventure tells us that, “from a reflection on the primary source of all things, filled with even more abundant piety, he would call creatures, no matter how small, by the name of ‘brother’ or ‘sister’”. Such a conviction cannot be written off as naive romanticism, for it affects the choices which determine our behaviour. If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs.

By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously. The poverty and austerity of Saint Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but something much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into an object simply to be used and controlled.

Mind you, Francis (the pope) is mostly writing fairly narrowly here, about Francis (the saint)'s attitude towards "nature" -- by which we often mean plants and animals and the sea and the air and the earth, not always the collection of all objects around us.  That Saint famously called natural objects "brother" and "sister" because they, like us, are created by the Father.  His words remind us that in many respects, though we are persons and not objects we are more like to the rest of creation than we are to the Godhead.  They are words of humility.  But that's not all they are words of.

Some of what St. Francis was getting at, when he preached to birds and addressed "brother sun, sister moon,"  is gratitude.  Because that is what a Catholic vision of "respect for the natural world" must, in the end, be reduced to.  Respect is actually something owed to persons, and all "respect" for objects, natural or man-made, is really a respect for persons; the object is merely a means of transmission.  Example:  we show respect for, say, an American flag, not for its own sake, but because it's a way to visibly respect people who also share that flag, sometimes (as at a military funeral) very specific people.  

And we "respect" the natural world, not for its own sake, but (practically speaking) to steward it and share it for the sake of other people's livelihood, and (more fundamentally speaking) out of gratitude to God for making a gift of it to all of us.  Wastefulness and an attitude of total control risk us taking for granted this world of objects for which we should give thanks every day.

+ + + 

So, I told you that I sometimes make really odd connections when I'm drifting off to sleep.  I realize this is kind of a corny one.  I am not putting The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up on the same level as a papal encyclical.

But the slight cross-cultural glimpse into Kondo's world of paying little homages to her possessions connected in my mind with St. Francis calling creatures "brother" and "sister."   I think that there is something to be said for "speaking a language of fraternity and beauty" -- not just about blades of grass, vast canyons, colorful birds, cherries in bloom -- but even about the mean little things that we surround ourselves with, the things that we make, buy, and use.  

Kondo recommends addressing our excess things personally as a literal act that frees us from needing to cling to them.   She has you looking your possessions in the face, so to speak, and intentionally choosing which to let go.  It is not hard to imagine that, having practiced this small asceticism, one might find it easier to choose not to acquire so much in the first place.  To avoid waste not by keeping many things that "someday" you might use, but by never buying up so many things in the first place.  Treating useful or beautiful possessions "the way they want to be treated" -- that being a sort of shorthand for "the way that will keep them functioning for a long time."  Passing on things that still have some use in them, without dumping unwanted items on people.  While acknowledging that this is a bit of a corny connection to make, I wonder if it might not be a good practice to behold and handle each of our possessions with some spark of gratitude for each one to the God from whom all blessings flow.

John Paul II's life's work, one could argue, was spent teaching us not to treat persons as if they were objects.  

I could quip here that in this introductory part of Laudato Si', Francis is teaching us not to treat objects as if they were objects, either.   At least:  not objects "simply to be used and controlled."  

May we use objects?  Yes!  That is one of the things that separates them from persons.  We are not allowed to use persons.  We are allowed to use objects.

May we control objects?  To the extent that we can do so, yes.  Again, this is one of the things that separates them from persons.  We are not allowed to control persons all the way to their innermost being, who retain  their free will and capacity to use reason absolutely, and no one has the right to interfere with those.  We are allowed to control an object.

So the problem is in "simply" using and controlling them, I think.  There is at least one other thing we must do with all objects:  receive them with gratitude.  Not really for the sake of themselves, but for the sake of the one who gives them to us as gifts.

Happy Father's Day...

...to someone who makes a gift of himself to us every day.

Silent is deadly.

"People talk about racism and "reverse racism," but if you’re a white lady like me, what you get to see most is not incidents of probable racism against any particular person, but all those things white people say and do when they’re left unsupervised."

--Jen Fitz, writing here at Sticking the Corners

+ + +

 

"This is where the party ends."

-- They Might Be Giants, "Your Racist Friend" (Flood, 1990)

 

+ + +

The following is not a question of equivalencies. It is a question of consistency.

+ + +

Catholics who try to be faithful to the Church's teachings speak and write a great deal about sending messages with our actions.

To make an example of current events: It's not a simple matter for Catholics to decide whether to attend a ceremony celebrating a sexual union (of any kind) that we know isn't a valid marriage. Even if everyone knows our beliefs -- we aren't supposed to leave people confused in any way about what we stand for. We may not say a word; but our silent presence may be taken as assent and acceptance; in fact it is a kind of assent and acceptance.

Conservative Catholics know this. Liberal Catholics know it too. We each of us, if we have integrity, behave accordingly, maybe with some internal struggle, to send the message we believe we should send, by providing or withholding our presence.

+ + +

Silent presence happens in other contexts, too, where actors wish to promote a view of human nature that is patently opposed to the teaching of Christ.

And by "contexts" I mean holiday dinners with relatives, meetings with co-workers, drinks with your buddies; and by "a view of human nature that is patently opposed to the teaching of Christ" I mean all sorts of notions that are contrary to human dignity.

Notions that entire groups of people deserve blame for the actions of some of their members.

Notions that individuals can be judged by the characteristics of a group.

Notions that demeaning language -- objectifying language -- mocking language -- language that fails to treat persons as individuals, individually redeemed by Christ, individual agents working toward their own salvation in the context of the world -- is harmless if none of its targets are there to hear it.

Are we sending a message that might confuse people into thinking that, because we are there, we agree? Are we endorsing this language without meaning to?

+ + +

I have been the nice white lady standing uncomfortably -- and yet silently -- in the presence of another who is telling a story about Those Blacks, You Know How They Are. I have stayed in the meeting when the female speaker makes the crack about how a bunch of women will not be able to get anything done in a reasonable amount of time. I have done the thing where you don't laugh at the disgusting joke about gay people, or whomever -- the thing where you remain silent, because it's polite and you have reasons not to cause a scene, and maybe the teller will notice that you don't, actually, think it's funny -- but it is, in the end, the "thing" where you remain.

Silently, but you remain.

That too, my friends, is sending a message of acceptance. Acceptance of a seriously distorted view of human nature and of human dignity. Acceptance that is in no way reconcilable with the teaching of Christ.

The teaching of Christ is the teaching that welcomes the stranger, the person who is different, frightening, repulsive.

Welcoming the stranger is, as the nation learned to its grief in Charleston this week, not without personal risk.

+ + +

I had a moment of clarity around Christmas, as often happens around the holidays, when I found myself in a Nice White People situation. The kind where a forceful, humorous personality, the life of the party, feels himself safe, among people who will not challenge him. He's just messing around, after all! It's just a joke! And in this case, the joke involved dehumanizing slurs directed at gay people.

(But he has Democrat cred! Everyone knows he is a supporter of gay rights! Of same sex marriage and antidiscrimination statutes! ... Nonetheless, I am here to tell you that on occasion such people will still, if they are among a safe crowd, tell crude and dehumanizing jokes. I don't understand it, but it is true.)

I must have stood by silently a thousand times before, in this and other situations. It is not my job to set people on the right path. I may be opinionated, and I am free with my opinions on this blog, but I am not eloquent on the spot. I am reluctant to make trouble, at least when it comes to people that I have to get along with in the future for some reason.

The difference this time is that in the circle, in the conversation, in the party, I was standing, a drink in my hand, right next to my two oldest sons.

I heard the slur.

I saw my teenaged son look away, down into his Coke.

And in that moment -- and hours later, too -- I understood that I had been placed in a position where silently remaining was not acceptable, and that to silently remain would be a direct violation of my duty towards the young people in my family. The people I am charged with raising, and teaching.

+ + +

This is where the party ends

I can't stand here listening to you

And your racist friend.

I know politics bore you,

But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you

And your racist friend.

+ + +

Like I said, I am not eloquent on the spot. So I didn't speak up, not then.

But I let the expression of contempt and disgust play across my face. It was real, not faked. I don't have much of a poker face anyway.

And I left the room. (Yeah, I know. My kids were still there in the room, with the joke hanging in the air like the smell of a fart.)

And I did not look the speaker in the eye again. And he knew I was not looking him in the eye.

+ + +

That night I dreamed I was driving a car on an empty road, and up ahead curious clouds roiled into the sky. I was studying them and wondering what they were, wondering if a thunderstorm was brewing, when -- too late -- I realized I was driving straight toward a towering cloud of volcanic ash, and it was pouring over the road in front of me, obliterating everything in its path. I swerved the car to the right, I felt my body thrown to the side by the force of the turn, and the wall of ash flooded over my car and into the windows, snaring the tires, dragging my car along with it, enclosing me in darkness, suffocating me.

I woke up still suffocated.

I got up out of the bed, leaving Mark sleeping beside the baby. I went downstairs and found my boys and I told them: Last night you heard some vile language about people who don't deserve to be talked about in that way. I want you to know that it wasn't right. No matter who says it, it isn't right for people to use language like that about other human beings.

They listened to me with serious faces. "We know," they said.

"I know you know," I said. "And I also want you to know that I didn't say anything about it last night because didn't know how to respond last night. But that I am going to respond now, and I am going to let that person know that I do not want him to talk that way where you kids can hear."

And then I went upstairs and I wrote an email, and I hit Send.

+ + +

It was the loveliest party that I ever attended

If anything was broken, I'm sure it could be mended

My head can't tolerate this bobbing and pretending

Listening to some bullet-head and the madness that he's saying.

+ + +

So it's like this. I am one of those people who has no sense of humor. I am unacceptably self-righteous. There is no getting around it.

God give me the courage never to find that crap funny ever again. God give me the courage, if not to speak up, then to leave the room, again, and again, and again.

+ + +

Sometimes, Nice White People get together and they say objectifying things that they think are harmless. I think they think they are harmless because everyone else in the room is also a Nice White Person. Or occasionally it is Nice Straight People. Sometimes it is A Bunch Of Great Guys. Occasionally it is women objectifying women, not always Those Other Women either, believe you me; I have been in these rooms.

No one whose feelings might be hurt is there. Ergo hurt hasn't happened, right?

 This is wrong. Because

    (a) it normalizes the objectification of human beings,

    (b) it is always an offense against human beings because it is an offense against truth, and

    (c) sometimes the Nice White People who can hear are not, in fact, particularly nice. Sometimes they are disturbed people. Sometimes they are impressionable because they are young. Sometimes they are vulnerable. Sometimes they are vile racists who add what they hear to their experiences that tell them racism isn't so vile, that they are among friends even in their vile racism.

+ + +

Serious Catholics know that silent presence sends a message of acceptance and assent. We know this!

We know it is important not to confuse people about the truth.

Can we just try not to leave them confused about all the truths as well? Like the truth that a human being is an entity to which the only appropriate response is love? And that dehumanizing use (as the butt of a joke, as a scapegoat, as an outlet for sexual urges, as a political point, as a means to an end) is never the right response?

Why are we only worried about confusing people about part of the Christian message? Can we come up with a way to make it not at all confusing that we believe in charity towards all?

Out through the kitchen, to the bedroom, to the hallway

Your friend apologized, said he could see it my way

He let the contents of the bottle do the thinking

Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

+ + +

My heart is heavy this week. Pray for Charleston, and give thanks for people who welcome the stranger and who will go on welcoming the stranger, in everything they say and in everything they don't say.

 

 

 

-----

*Since this was first posted I elected to adjust slightly the wording in the paragraph about ceremonies, to reflect the fact that, while there's plenty of advice to be had out there, and maybe individual bishops have advised their faithful on it, I don't know of any explicit direction in Catholic doctrine stating what particular Catholics must do or not do with respect to social invitations, the circumstances of which can vary greatly.  It's not a matter to take lightly, but as far as I can tell, it remains a matter of conscience.  Everyone, however, appears to agree that the reason it is not to be taken lightly is because presence speaks.

Out with the old, in with the new.

I'm writing a blog post this morning while I wait for the hot dog buns to rise; I want to bake them before I leave the house.  This morning, it's a trip to a playground until lunch time; lunch at home (hot dogs, coleslaw left over from dinner two days ago, and bell pepper soup left over from last night).  

This afternoon,  I'm going to tackle my 2014-2015 school papers.   A slow-motion tackle, because I can't toss them until I've processed them somewhat.  

My top priority is to compile a summary for each of the three subjects that I taught to H's and my 9th-graders, because they won't have a record that's good enough for college applications unless I do that, and I owe that to H's son (as well as to mine).  My second priority is to compile summaries for the other subjects that my 9th-grader did.  After that, I'll move to the subjects I taught to H's middle-school kids, and finally to the subjects that my younger kids did under my supervision.  As I close out each subject, I'm planning to order the materials I need for the same subject next year, and make room in the shelves and bins for those materials to land as they arrive.

The binder in the foreground, with the child's painting of a flower on it, is -- was -- my Master Binder all last year.  I'll open it up, turn to the section on "9th Grade History," and pull all the papers out.  Then I'll grab all the emails in my "history work" section of my email folder, and all my daily record sheets, and sit down and write a summary of the year.  I'll compile that, along with copies of all of H's son's written assignments that I might have in my own possession (he's supposed to have saved many of them in his own notebook and on his Google Drive account, and she should be able to access those without my help), and send it on.  I expect this will be about three hours' work, some today, some tomorrow.

Then I'll throw out the material I don't think I'll need any more.  I'll save some that might be helpful to me the next time I have a round of students studying Modern World History.

I'll get on the horn, er, internet, to various homeschooling and/or office supply vendors and buy the materials I think I still need to buy for next year's American History work (for which, God help me, I'm designing the curriculum from scratch).

And then I will do something similar with Latin and with Geometry.

+ + +

Normally we have a preschool music class on Wednesdays, but the new session doesn't start till next week, so my calendar is emptier than usual.  Hence the playground visit.  Going to the park this morning is something I have to force myself to do.  All I want to do is sit in front of my computer and pound out curriculum plans and put more curriculum to bed.  

Especially since we altered our screen time rules for the summer -- in part so I would have plenty of morning time to crank out lesson plans -- to be "I won't bug you till 2 p.m., but after 2 p.m. all screens are off, and by the way you aren't allowed to use Mom's computers at all."  And it's morning, and my playground visit will eat into everyone's precious screen time.

But I need to at least pretend to be interested in encouraging play outside the house.  Now where did I put that sunscreen?  The hot dog buns are almost done.

Still Kondo-ing.

For inspirational purposes, I subscribed for a while to a Tumblr feed called Unfuck Your Habitat (frequently, for obvious reasons, abbreviated as UfYH.) It specializes in encouraging people to keep their living spaces livable through "twenty minutes at a time," "as much as you can handle" work.  Users frequently post before-and-after pictures on the Tumblr site to show what they accomplished in twenty minutes, or in a few "20/10s" (sessions of twenty minutes of work, ten minutes of rest).  It is popular among people who suffer from depression or other disabilities that make it hard to get up and do things like a day of thorough spring cleaning, or people whose habitats are so far gone that they don't know where to start.  

It's also probably nice for a lot of folks that (unlike something like FlyLady) it isn't aimed squarely at an audience made up of, what used to be called, with no trace of irony, "housewives."

The UfYH website has some helpful, systematic ideas and basic cleaning instructions, and there is also an iOS app (called, I believe, "Unfilth Your Habitat" to get around the obscenity rules at the Apple Store) and now an Android app with a few tools (timers, to-do lists) for the method.

I bring this up because the other day on the UfYH Tumblr someone asked about the Marie Kondo method:

Have you heard of Marie Kondo’s “KonMari” method of tidying/organizing? If so, what do you think? ... I kind of have to call bullshit on her claim that none of her clients has ever regressed. Are they terrified of her? Does she select only clients who are unlikely to regress? Thoughts?

Answer (emphases are mine):

So, I get like at least a half dozen asks a day about Marie Kondo and The Life-Changing Art of Tidying Up, which up until now I’ve chosen not to address because, to be honest, I still haven’t finished reading the book...

Broadly, I think there is no one system that is likely to work for everyone, UfYH definitely included. I think that if a system speaks to you and you agree with the principles behind it, you’re far less likely to regress back to your old ways. So I don’t think that’s bullshit, necessarily, that she has clients who don’t regress; she may just have clients for whom her system is the right fit.

From what I can see, UfYH and KonMari differ in two major ways.

First, she advocates “decluttering” (not a word I use, ever, really) [bearing notes:  KonMari's translator uses the term "discarding"] by category: so, all clothes, then all books, then all keepsakes, etc., and says that a “little-by-little” approach doesn’t work. Obviously, UfYH is based almost entirely around “little-by-little” and focuses on the fact that trying to go through all of your clothes in one shot can be completely overwhelming and itself an obstacle to getting organized. I think the people who find UfYH useful need a little-by-little approach so that they can get started, keep going, and eventually get to a point of maintenance, rather than crisis. 

Second, KonMari advises you to only keep items that “spark joy” in you. While I think this is a great concept, I’m somewhat of a realist and a cynic and I know for a fact that my home will never be a carefully curated collection of items that only bring me joy, and I think lots of people live the way I do. I have items that are necessary, items that are useful, and items that I really need to have around, many of which do not “spark joy.” I believe wholeheartedly in paring down your belongings to what you really need or want, but I also think that there’s nothing wrong with you if you don’t have an emotional connection to your cooking utensils.

Do I think the KonMari method is bad or wrong? Of course not. I think everyone should use what speaks to them and what is useful and applicable in their own lives. It’s a vastly different approach than mine, which is good, because people are complex, and what works for one won’t necessarily work for another. I think it’s great that her method works for so many people and has inspired so many to try to get their homes and messes under control. I want everyone to have a home they’re comfortable and happy in, no matter what journey they take to achieve that.

A note on the joy-sparking thing:  With the help of a translator, Marie Kondo did an English-language IAmA on Reddit some time ago in which someone asked her

What about keeping objects that don't spark joy but that I don't want to spend money or time replacing right now and which are still helpful - for example a computer, a mattress, a toothbrush, a frying pan, a suit, a blender, a coffee table? Should I keep these if they don't spark joy but I still use them regularly?

She replied:

So those things are helping you every day. Because you are using them.

Even if they are not sparking joy, they are helping you every day. They are making your days go by - meaning, you have not realized that they are making you happy. They are sparking joy to you, subconsciously. So it's you, just not realizing that sparks joy for you. So you should convince yourself that they are sparking joy, and you should prioritize their status, because they are making your day, everyday. Then, gradually, you will start seeing some sparking joy concepts from those items.

Be grateful for what you have, I think, is a more usual way of putting that in perpective.

(The Reddit IAmA is not terribly long -- 148 comments -- and is well worth your time if you enjoyed Kondo's book.)

+ + +

So, can you do it all at once or is that too big of a job and it's just going to make a big mess that will remain after you get distracted from it?

  Here are some points about the system that if you heed them will go a way toward solving the problem.

(1) You're supposed to sort quickly.  Go with your gut, your first impression.  Don't pause to think too hard about each item.  Just pass it through your hands and ask yourself (let's say the item is a book) "Does this item make me happy when I see it on my shelf?"

(2) If you have too many things in a category -- and Kondo does not specify how many is "too many" or what limitation (space? attention? time?) makes the category too big -- you are supposed to break the category down further.  For example, you are supposed to put all your books on the floor and sort them all at once  unless you have too many books to do this.  She suggests some categories of books, but only so that you can see the order in which to tackle categories ("general pleasure reading" comes first, reference books later).  It is clear that the only purpose of the categories is to deal with as many books as you can manage at once, and to deal with like books together.  

So, for example, I dealt with all my personal "pleasure reading" at once, over the space of a few hours spread over a couple of days, using space in a spare room.  I went through my shelves, pulled out everything that counted as "reading for pleasure," and put it on the floor; then I sorted it into three piles:  

• sparks joy in me personally when I see it just sitting on the shelf (the KonMari book criterion):  this pile, when complete, went back onto my bookshelves, in a section that I marked "complete" and didn't pull from again
• to be considered later for whether it sparks joy in me as part of my homeschooling library: this pile was temporarily stored in a spare bedroom until it was time to consider the "homeschooling library" as a set
• neither: these went right into boxes that I taped up as they became full

But I could have broken "general pleasure reading" into smaller categories:  pop science and novels would have been the two largest categories, and those would have each fit on my dining room table, and I would have been forced to finish each category in one day by dinner time.  They are both kinds of pleasure reading, and so they compete with each other for my time and attention in one sense, but they please me for different reasons, and so I think novels and pop-sci could be considered separately as subcategories.

It was pretty obvious to me that "homeschooling curricula" was its own category, and "books meant for the children to browse but which really belong to me" was also its own category.  I get the impression that you should break it into categories that are as large as you can handle -- the benefit of small categories is that you can be done with a "session" more easily without it being a multi-day messy project, but the benefit of large categories is that it's easier to discard.

(3) Can't stress this one enough.  Have plenty of boxes and tape (and some trash bags -- some stuff will not be in good enough shape to donate) ready to go before you start.   Fill a box, seal it right away, get it out of your house ASAP.  Mine went to a fundraising garage sale.  

No matter how you do it, it's a long-term project, but it really does break down into manageable pieces very well, and there's an order to it; this method gets you straight through the "But where do I START?" paralysis.  

First:  Restrict yourself to discarding your own unloved stuff, not your other family members' stuff.

Then, she says, start with clothes.  If you have too many clothes to pile them all on the floor at once, start with tops.  And so on.

When clothes are done, move to books.  If you have too many books to pile them all on the floor at once, start with general pleasure reading, and so on.  I extrapolated from that to say:  If you have too many general pleasure reading books to deal with at once, start with one easy-to-define subcategory of pleasure reading (such as novels).  And so on.

+ + +

I finished clothes, and I finished books, and now I'm about to discard "papers."  The timing is good because it's the end of a school year, and so I'm drowning in papers that I need to cull.  

A very important note here is that "papers" does NOT include things that are kept for sentimental reasons.  Even if they happen to be made of paper, these -- old love letters, photographs, children's dear little artworks, etc. -- differ fundamentally from insurance policies, credit card statements, envelopes with important addresses on them, immunization records, tax forms, and the like.  Sentimental objects come last of all. When, having just finished "books," one gathers "papers" to discard them, sentimental paper-based objects are passed right over.

I am starting this just as I get back from a weeklong vacation from the Internet, and so I decided to practice the paper-discarding technique on my email inbox first, while I gather papers together.  Kondo's rule is to discard every paper unless

• it is currently in use, or 
• it is needed for a limited period of time, or
• it must be kept indefinitely.

That is a funny way of putting it, but note the difference in the verbs.  It "is" in use, it "is needed" for a limited period of time, "it must be" kept indefinitely.  Note the absence of verbs like "want" or modifiers like "might."  When you turn it into asking yourself a question about whether to discard something, you wind up asking:

• Must I keep this thing for I don't know how long?  (Yes to relatively few things.  The title to the house and car come to mind.  The children's birth certificates.  Contractual documents.  Tax records -- technically only must be kept for a few years but that's pretty long.)
• Do I need  this thing for a known period of time?  (Yes to a larger category of things.  The kids' immunization records, which I'll need only until the next doctor's appointment when I will get a new copy.  Standardized test results, which I need to compare from year to year but which will become moot as each child graduates high school.  Receipts for things that have not been delivered yet.  Forms I need to fill out.  Mail that I need to read.)
• Am I using this thing?  A large category.  I think of it as, "If I didn't have this thing, would it mess up some project I'm currently working on?"  A lot of schoolwork-related papers belong in this category at any given time.  Right now I have a lot of scratch paper that I'm using to plan next school year, for instance.  And I have a pile of schoolwork for the high school kids that I want to summarize into a sort of "report" for my own records and for H's records.

 When it comes to storing papers, Kondo suggests only three files.  They are not quite the same as the three categories of "things not to throw away."  The three files are:

(1) Needs to be dealt with

(2) Contractual documents and other items that are infrequently accessed

(3) Items that are more frequently accessed

Yup:  that's how she puts it.  "Infrequently" and "more frequently."

+ + +

Before I started going through my email box yesterday, I created three new folders:

• 00 Deal With
• 01 Save - Access
• 02 Save - Infrequent

(The numbers are there to defeat by brute force the email program's automatic file-alphabetizing feature.)

I began going through my inbox with the goal of emptying it, sorting everything I don't delete into one of those  three top-level folders.

Very quickly I realized that it would be helpful to have another top-level folder for the specific purpose of keeping email purchase receipts just until my Amazon, etc., orders arrive undamaged.  These are, technically, a kind of "Save - Access" document, but there are so many of them and they only need to be kept for a short time, that really they should be grouped together.  So I created a fourth folder:

• 03 Orders - Purge

and its name is a reminder that every so often it can be purged completely when I am not waiting for any orders to be delivered.

It took me all day, but I got my inbox to empty.  I still have a gaggle of folders to go through with names like "Archive 2009" and "Rome Trip" and "History Schoolwork" -- not that I really have to delete things, since my email folders are searchable and I have an unlimited-space account.  I could just move the whole file-tree into "02 Save- Infrequent."  It's more so that I can comb through them to find out, once and for all, if anything in there really ought to go into "Deal With."

+ + +

So that's today's project.  Once I've finished that, I'll actually "deal with" the things in "00 Deal With." Some of this "dealing" will involve printing things:  turning email into Papers.  And then I'll begin tackling the first of the two boxes on my schoolroom counter, boxes which have been collecting a slow drift of papers for the last few weeks, boxes of papers:  one labeled "School Paper" and one labeled "Non-School Papers."

 

A kick in the pants.

A few weeks ago, I was facing a weekend with Mark out of town, and I needed to clean out the guest room.

Our house has a tiny fourth bedroom up in the attic; at some point, one of the children will likely use it as sleeping quarters, and ostensibly it is a room for guests. For years it has hosted nothing but out-of-season and recently outgrown clothes waiting to be sorted. When guests come, we sometimes sort them; often we stuff the piles somewhere else, such as in Mark's shop, and then put them back later.

I anticipate guests soon, and I kept going up to the attic, opening the door, looking at the piles (there was literally no floor space), and closing the door again. I needed a kick in the pants.

So I got myself a copy of a book I had heard about some months before, Marie Kondo's The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up. And it kicked me. Hard.

+ + +

This is not a book review. This is more a report card, on myself. You can find other reviews of the book in many places, including a recent discussion by an economist of why Kondo's method helps us combat certain irrational tendencies that make us hang on to stuff we don't need. It's less about organizing than it is about getting rid of stuff you don't use or love, and then storing what you have.

This is not the first time I've tried to discard belongings, but it's the first time I ever tried the strategy of discarding by category. Usually, I have "cleaned out" my home location by location. Like this:

PROBLEM: I need to put more books in this bookshelf and there's no room

SOLUTION ATTEMPT 1: Try to move some books to space on a a different bookshelf.

SOLUTION ATTEMPT 2: Get rid of just enough books to make room for the moved books.

I must have done this dozens of times since we moved into our house -- "cleaned out" by discarding just enough things in an overfull location to make room for the new things I wanted to put there. I probably managed to get rid of anywhere from three books to maybe one whole box of books at a time this way. For a while I tried to impose on myself a "one book in, one book out" rule, but I never was able to stick to it.

When I stopped discarding books by location, and instead did them by category -- all at once -- I boxed up nine "small" U-Haul boxes of books in the space of two weeks. And without any sense of regret about it. I found nine boxes' worth of books on my shelves that I did not want to keep. They had been hiding in plain sight all that time. Some of them too damaged to use, some of them duplicates, some of them no good, some of them having served their purpose long ago.

The undamaged ones are going on to a garage sale fundraiser this weekend, and may they find new life with someone else.

+ + +

The idea is to discard by category, if you have enough books that doing them all at once is impractical. I went through every shelf, bag, box, and bin in my house looking for "pleasure reading" books, both fiction and nonfiction, and piled them on the floor in our game room. The mountain of books was knee high: sci-fi, classics, popular science, poetry anthologies, mysteries, humor, everything that I read because I enjoyed the subject matter. And then I sat on the floor with a donation box to my left and a clear floor space to my right, and sorted.

The criterion is not "Did I enjoy this book?" It is not even really "Will I read this book in the future, or lend it to someone?"

The criterion, as I understood it (this is not exactly how Kondo puts it) is, "Will the sight of this book on the shelf make me feel happy?" Because, of course, that is where our books spend 99% of their time. That is most of what we "do" with books: surround ourselves with them. An individual book should make me happy to be in its presence when it is closed and resting on my shelf. If not -- if it only makes me happy while I am reading it -- then I might as well give it away, and borrow it someday if I wish to read it again. For we don't have to own a book to read it.

Once I understood that, it was not at all hard to discard books. And with all the general-knowledge, pleasure-reading volumes spread out before me, picking them up one at a time, I could easily tell the difference between the books that I met as one meets an old friend, and the books that I didn't.

I passed through other categories: reference books and textbooks; self-help books; children's picture books. I have accumulated a fairly large collection of theology volumes, and it was especially easy to distinguish the "keep" from the "get rid of" there; with theology either you read it once and you've gotten everything you are going to get out of it, or you read it once and you know you'll turn to it again and again.

I departed from Marie Kondo's method in one respect. She says to handle each item only once. But as I went through each category, many books were diverted into a sort of recycle stream to be considered again under a different criterion: Even if I did not desire to keep this book around for me -- did I want this book to be part of my homeschooling library, the set of books that I keep around precisely so there are plenty of different things for the children to read as part of their school days?

I mean, I have never been able to get into Jane Austen. I have picked up and put down Emma and Pride and Prejudice countless times. I am probably never going to read either. They do not spark joy sitting on the shelf (rather, when I see them I am reminded of my failure to finish them). At least not for my own sake.

But -- as part of a library of volumes that I want to be available in my home for the readers who live there and visit there -- I am happy to see them waiting for the right person to come along and pick them up. So they stayed.

+ + +

There is a lot more space in my shelves now. I will be moving on to the next category -- papers -- starting today, at the same time as I put the old school year to bed and begin buying materials for the new one. It is good timing, and it feels like a fresh start, just in time for summer.

Posted with Blogsy