Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog, page 75
February 6, 2012
Book Recs-
Catching Jordan by Miranda Kenneally
I loved the idea of a girl as a high school quarterback. There was a part of my brain that kept insisting that this was sheer fantasy, that it could never happen. Because girls are too fragile, too weak, and the prejudice is just too much against them. But the author was clever enough to give that voice a name in the book, and doubly clever to make that voice Jordan's father, who is a professional NFL player. I am not a football fan. I'm a triathlete, that's what I geek out over. But I understand enough about football to get what's going on, and I loved the descriptions of practices and games. To me, an athlete, they felt very real. The romance was almost a second thought to me, much less important. I'm not sure if I liked it because there's no reason that a jocky girl can't have romance, too, or if I felt like it made the book too girly. I think that my internal debate in and of itself tells me something about how well the author did her job. Until the reality of girls playing football, this book will open the gap.
Cloud Roads by Martha Wells
Sometimes I talk about "unnecessary" details in character description and world building. I can't think of a better example of that than Cloud Roads. I don't mean that I want the author to go on and on about irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the plot. But a bit here and there, just to leave the reader wondering if that will matter later, is perfection, like the chocolate curls on top of cheesecake that is already perfection. I felt like this world was so complete, and these characters so real that they could have walked off the page. I wanted to read more and more about them. I actually wanted to write about them myself, because they seemed like they were real people I could steal from.
OK, I'm nattering on without saying anything about the book specifically. A young man who can shape shift lives among humans who can't until the day when he sees another shape-shifter and discovers that he is a lost "consort," an important member of the court of shape-shifters. And they want him back. Or they mostly want him back. The court is not a simple place to be, and they are under attack by other creatures who are genetically related but "evil." How those genetic relationships are going to play out is something for another book, but this is a rich, full story. I loved the twists in the relationships between the male and female characters. On the one hand, this is a story of the lost princess who is found and then betrothed to the prince. Only it's not a princess, it's a lost prince. And he isn't sure if he wants to be married to the queen. She has power over him that really frightens him, magical power that "unmans" him to a certain extent. And the cost of coming back into this world that has forgotten him is giving up everything that he used to be. Loved, loved it!
I loved the idea of a girl as a high school quarterback. There was a part of my brain that kept insisting that this was sheer fantasy, that it could never happen. Because girls are too fragile, too weak, and the prejudice is just too much against them. But the author was clever enough to give that voice a name in the book, and doubly clever to make that voice Jordan's father, who is a professional NFL player. I am not a football fan. I'm a triathlete, that's what I geek out over. But I understand enough about football to get what's going on, and I loved the descriptions of practices and games. To me, an athlete, they felt very real. The romance was almost a second thought to me, much less important. I'm not sure if I liked it because there's no reason that a jocky girl can't have romance, too, or if I felt like it made the book too girly. I think that my internal debate in and of itself tells me something about how well the author did her job. Until the reality of girls playing football, this book will open the gap.
Cloud Roads by Martha Wells
Sometimes I talk about "unnecessary" details in character description and world building. I can't think of a better example of that than Cloud Roads. I don't mean that I want the author to go on and on about irrelevant things that have nothing to do with the plot. But a bit here and there, just to leave the reader wondering if that will matter later, is perfection, like the chocolate curls on top of cheesecake that is already perfection. I felt like this world was so complete, and these characters so real that they could have walked off the page. I wanted to read more and more about them. I actually wanted to write about them myself, because they seemed like they were real people I could steal from.
OK, I'm nattering on without saying anything about the book specifically. A young man who can shape shift lives among humans who can't until the day when he sees another shape-shifter and discovers that he is a lost "consort," an important member of the court of shape-shifters. And they want him back. Or they mostly want him back. The court is not a simple place to be, and they are under attack by other creatures who are genetically related but "evil." How those genetic relationships are going to play out is something for another book, but this is a rich, full story. I loved the twists in the relationships between the male and female characters. On the one hand, this is a story of the lost princess who is found and then betrothed to the prince. Only it's not a princess, it's a lost prince. And he isn't sure if he wants to be married to the queen. She has power over him that really frightens him, magical power that "unmans" him to a certain extent. And the cost of coming back into this world that has forgotten him is giving up everything that he used to be. Loved, loved it!
February 3, 2012
Friday Tri: Swimming Drills
It's hard to learn how to swim as an adult, especially if you are athletic as a runner or biker. The rules are very different. Whereas running and biking are all about your heart and aerobic capacity, swimming is all about your technique. You should float in the water, and you should feel comfortable. You should have a part of your stroke that is pure glide, where you aren't working at all. You should also have an even stroke, which means learning to breathe on both sides. Here are some drills that beginning swimmers should start every swim day with, before any workout that will tax your heart:
1. One arm drill, where you swim with left arm only on the way out, right arm on the way back. Helps even out your stroke.
2. Breathing drill. Breathe every third stroke, every fifth, every seventh, every ninth.
3. Golf drill, where you try to decrease the number of strokes you take to cross the pool. This forces you to glide more.
4. Catch up drill, where you don't take a stroke until the other arm touches your fingers in front of your body.
5. High elbow recovery, to make sure that you are keeping your elbows from dragging.
6. Focus on last part of your stroke to finish the final third and work your biceps.
7. Focus on front part of your stroke and make sure you aren't crossing over. Your hand should hit the water directly in front of your shoulder.
8. Fist drill. Swim with your fists closed. This helps you think about other parts of your arm that propel you forward, not just your hand.
9. Get some fins so you can do some swimming with fins. I think they mimic swimming with a wetsuit fairly well. They can also help make it easier to swim for beginners and more time in the pool means better swimming. You don't want to rely on them all the time, though.
10. Use a kick board to get in more time. If you struggle with breathing, use a kickboard on alternate laps and then you can get more distance in and still not feel like you're going hypoxic.
1. One arm drill, where you swim with left arm only on the way out, right arm on the way back. Helps even out your stroke.
2. Breathing drill. Breathe every third stroke, every fifth, every seventh, every ninth.
3. Golf drill, where you try to decrease the number of strokes you take to cross the pool. This forces you to glide more.
4. Catch up drill, where you don't take a stroke until the other arm touches your fingers in front of your body.
5. High elbow recovery, to make sure that you are keeping your elbows from dragging.
6. Focus on last part of your stroke to finish the final third and work your biceps.
7. Focus on front part of your stroke and make sure you aren't crossing over. Your hand should hit the water directly in front of your shoulder.
8. Fist drill. Swim with your fists closed. This helps you think about other parts of your arm that propel you forward, not just your hand.
9. Get some fins so you can do some swimming with fins. I think they mimic swimming with a wetsuit fairly well. They can also help make it easier to swim for beginners and more time in the pool means better swimming. You don't want to rely on them all the time, though.
10. Use a kick board to get in more time. If you struggle with breathing, use a kickboard on alternate laps and then you can get more distance in and still not feel like you're going hypoxic.
February 1, 2012
Wednesday Writing: Characters Who Feel Real
When I read a book, I want to have the feeling that the characters live on long after I turn the final page. I want to have the feeling that they lived before the story opened, and that there are, in fact, many smaller or larger stories, that could be told about these characters, but which for artistic reasons the author has chosen not to tell. I want to feel as if the scenes I read about could have gone on, but the author chose to cut them off at a particular moment so as to make sure I was not bored. I want to have the sense that the legends and stories that I read about are only a part of the culture, and that there are dozens of corelary texts waiting to be written. I want to feel that I could guess the names of these characters' children and what they would like be good at and how their parents would react. I want to imagine what life would look like if I peeked around the corner of the page and saw people at the edges of the kingdom.
I do not know how to tell authors to do this. I am not sure that there is one way. Writing is, after all, a sleight of hand. There are only the words on the page. There are no real people hurt in the writing of a book. There are no real people at all, however real the characters feel to the reader. Some writers certainly do a lot of writing of character studies or pre-writing where they explore the characters and the world they are in. Some writers end up taking out hundreds of pages of material that didn't turn out to be what was just right for the story to be told. But I am not at all convinced that doing these things is what gives the feeling I want. I have certainly read books whose authors have done all that work and yet the characters still don't feel as substantial as I need them to be. I think there are authors who do no pre-writing at all and very little drafting and their books come out as if they had spent all their lives doing that.
My own prejudices tell me that the authors whose books I like are people I would like with world views I would find interesting and would probably agree with. They are people who think about the world deeply and analyze other people's reactions in the way that I do. But of course, this isn't true, either. I've met plenty of authors whose books I adore who I personally cannot stand. And the reverse is also true, people who I connect with on a personal level do not always write fiction that I love. I do not know why this is so. I wish it were. It would make my understanding of the world simpler. But the world is not simple and neither are books or authors.
I will say that I think characters should think. A lot. My characters always think too much in early drafts, but I cut that out. And maybe that ends up leading to the feeling that my characters live and breathe beyond the pages of my book. Strangely, I don't often have my own characters in my head, though I do have other author's characters in my head. Or maybe the truth is that most of my characters are aspects of myself or people I know so that when I hear their voices, I register them as someone else.
I remember reading a well-known sf author who insisted that characters are not people and that they only exist in a novel to serve the author's purposes and to propel the plot and the reader forward. I do not know if I would have had the same reaction to that author's next novel without reading this, but I felt immediately as if those characters were not real, that they were puppets on a string. I do not want my characters to be puppets on a string. I want them to feel real, and for me as an author that sometimes means that I allow them to take control of the plot and tell me what is going to happen next and what they are going to do next, and whose story this is really going to be about.
I am not crazy. I know that there is no literal truth to what feels real to me in those moment. That is, there are no other people living in my head, no alternate personalities. My characters are made up people, not real ones. My stories ultimately all come out of my head, and all of their pieces must have genesis there, as well. When a character refuses to do what I want him/her to do, I know that it is my subconscious that is reacting to my conscious mind, trying to give it guidance as to what will feel more authentic in a story. I know that I cannot really tell a story about someone whose life experience is absolutely different from mine. And yet I try. That is my job as an author, to try to get out of myself. And at the same time, to stay inside myself as deeply as I can, so that a reader can do the same.
I do not know how to tell authors to do this. I am not sure that there is one way. Writing is, after all, a sleight of hand. There are only the words on the page. There are no real people hurt in the writing of a book. There are no real people at all, however real the characters feel to the reader. Some writers certainly do a lot of writing of character studies or pre-writing where they explore the characters and the world they are in. Some writers end up taking out hundreds of pages of material that didn't turn out to be what was just right for the story to be told. But I am not at all convinced that doing these things is what gives the feeling I want. I have certainly read books whose authors have done all that work and yet the characters still don't feel as substantial as I need them to be. I think there are authors who do no pre-writing at all and very little drafting and their books come out as if they had spent all their lives doing that.
My own prejudices tell me that the authors whose books I like are people I would like with world views I would find interesting and would probably agree with. They are people who think about the world deeply and analyze other people's reactions in the way that I do. But of course, this isn't true, either. I've met plenty of authors whose books I adore who I personally cannot stand. And the reverse is also true, people who I connect with on a personal level do not always write fiction that I love. I do not know why this is so. I wish it were. It would make my understanding of the world simpler. But the world is not simple and neither are books or authors.
I will say that I think characters should think. A lot. My characters always think too much in early drafts, but I cut that out. And maybe that ends up leading to the feeling that my characters live and breathe beyond the pages of my book. Strangely, I don't often have my own characters in my head, though I do have other author's characters in my head. Or maybe the truth is that most of my characters are aspects of myself or people I know so that when I hear their voices, I register them as someone else.
I remember reading a well-known sf author who insisted that characters are not people and that they only exist in a novel to serve the author's purposes and to propel the plot and the reader forward. I do not know if I would have had the same reaction to that author's next novel without reading this, but I felt immediately as if those characters were not real, that they were puppets on a string. I do not want my characters to be puppets on a string. I want them to feel real, and for me as an author that sometimes means that I allow them to take control of the plot and tell me what is going to happen next and what they are going to do next, and whose story this is really going to be about.
I am not crazy. I know that there is no literal truth to what feels real to me in those moment. That is, there are no other people living in my head, no alternate personalities. My characters are made up people, not real ones. My stories ultimately all come out of my head, and all of their pieces must have genesis there, as well. When a character refuses to do what I want him/her to do, I know that it is my subconscious that is reacting to my conscious mind, trying to give it guidance as to what will feel more authentic in a story. I know that I cannot really tell a story about someone whose life experience is absolutely different from mine. And yet I try. That is my job as an author, to try to get out of myself. And at the same time, to stay inside myself as deeply as I can, so that a reader can do the same.
January 31, 2012
Gender Masquerades #4: The Holiday
Amanda (Cameron Diaz) explains to Graham (Jude Law) that her parents broke up when she was in her teens. She has been unable to cry since and she says that something is wrong with her. Her boyfriend complained that she is not very good in bed, apparently because she doesn't like much foreplay. Two fairly traditional male characteristics establish this very feminine-looking character: she's unemotional and she likes her sex fast and uncomplicated.
On the other hand, Graham tells Amanda that he has the opposite problem. He cries all the time. He is a book editor and we later discover that he is a single parent to two daughters (Sophie and Olivia) and spends most of his time delighting them with his silly antics like "Mr. Potato Head" and decorating their bedroom with stars and making their beds into tents. He is a hot, sexy guy in traditional ways, but has the edges rounded with some more feminine characteristics.
This is classic role reversal in romantic comedies. Amanda has certain male characteristics and Graham has certain female characteristics and the climax of the movie depends on these dissolving so that they can have a proper relationship as a proper man and a proper woman. In this case, Amanda learns to cry just as she is leaving Surrey and she runs back in one of the silliest scenes ever, deciding that the car she has hired isn't fast enough, so instead she runs in high heels pushing her bag. She finds Graham inside his sister's cottage, weeping, flings her arms around him and decides to stay. The final scene shows him on New Years' Eve with his daughters, Amanda, and his sister Iris and her new boyfriend Miles.
What I find interesting about this comedy is how much I believe Cameron Diaz's character as Amanda and Jude Law's character of Graham and how that interferes with the "happy" ending. Yes, Amanda cries and she hasn't been able to cry before. Yes, I want for her to get together with Graham and his two cute little girls. But I don't believe for one moment that she will give up her successful career in LA as a producer of movie trailers. And I don't believe for one moment that Graham will move his daughters to LA nor that he would be happy being anything but a book editor who weeps over words and takes care of his daughters. The characters have been too well established in a role reversal. The acting and writing has been too strong for me to let them take it back.
Everything that has gone into making the problem in this romantic relationship argues against it ever being resolved. I don't want Amanda to give up her career and take over mothering those kids. I want them to work something out, but I have no idea how they would really do it. While Amanda cries this one time, I also don't think think that she will become a weepy female character who is easily in touch with her emotions. And if her sex life changes, what about what attracted Graham to her in the first place? Is he going to stop having a cow in his backyard or in loving his two daughters to distraction? Then what about the reasons that Amanda fell in love with him in the first place?
The Iris/Miles relationship is far easier to believe as a happy ending, in part because there hasn't been any interesting gender role reversal going on with them. She is a writer, he's a musician. Either of them could move, it seems, to where the other is. He's laid back. She's neurotic. It's a match made in heaven, yes? But however charming Jack Black is, however much I like Kate Winslet, I must admit that their relationship had none of the power that the Amanda/Graham pairing does. Maybe because it isn't as fraught with impossibilities. I think the writers spend more time making us fall in love with the Eli Wallach character than setting up problems with Iris and Miles.
This movie has made me wonder a lot of things about my own interest in romance and happy endings. I told my daughter recently that men like to watch movies in which characters like themselves (men) get power. This generally involves lots of explosions and getting the girl in ways that I find uninteresting. Women tend to watch movies in which characters like themselves (women) get power. This generally involves them getting married to powerful men. Put like that, I am uneasy about my own interest in romance. On the other hand, I think my favorite romances are a lot more than romance, and they play with role reversal and gender in ways that are fascinating. Romance novels are ultimately about male and female power. But how much can a really good writer (like, say Megan Whalen Turner) use a very old and traditional form to say something really completely different about power and gender?
I think that one of the reasons that romantic comedies use role reversals is that it establishes sympathy. If a man has a couple of female characteristics, then he is more attractive to a woman because she believes that he understands her. And vice versa. A woman with a couple of male characteristics is more attractive to a male character. She is stronger and harder to get, which according to the logic of romantic comedies makes her a better catch. And yet, so often the resolution depends on both the man and the woman returning to their traditional roles to get married. It's as if there is a tease in the movie, a promise that gender roles don't have to be quite so rigid. But then it's taken away at the end. Oh, no, you can play with gender until you get married. And then society has to have its way and you have to follow the rules. You have to "heal the rift" that was created by you trying to change the rigid gender code.
I like The Holiday as a romantic comedy more than others for precisely the same reason that I dislike it. My romantic side is rooting for the characters to get together. But my gender-bending side wants them not to get together and give up who they are. I end up wondering if this is what was intended when the movie was made or if the story took over and no one realized what the message of the movie was going to be, in terms of successful romance.
On the other hand, Graham tells Amanda that he has the opposite problem. He cries all the time. He is a book editor and we later discover that he is a single parent to two daughters (Sophie and Olivia) and spends most of his time delighting them with his silly antics like "Mr. Potato Head" and decorating their bedroom with stars and making their beds into tents. He is a hot, sexy guy in traditional ways, but has the edges rounded with some more feminine characteristics.
This is classic role reversal in romantic comedies. Amanda has certain male characteristics and Graham has certain female characteristics and the climax of the movie depends on these dissolving so that they can have a proper relationship as a proper man and a proper woman. In this case, Amanda learns to cry just as she is leaving Surrey and she runs back in one of the silliest scenes ever, deciding that the car she has hired isn't fast enough, so instead she runs in high heels pushing her bag. She finds Graham inside his sister's cottage, weeping, flings her arms around him and decides to stay. The final scene shows him on New Years' Eve with his daughters, Amanda, and his sister Iris and her new boyfriend Miles.
What I find interesting about this comedy is how much I believe Cameron Diaz's character as Amanda and Jude Law's character of Graham and how that interferes with the "happy" ending. Yes, Amanda cries and she hasn't been able to cry before. Yes, I want for her to get together with Graham and his two cute little girls. But I don't believe for one moment that she will give up her successful career in LA as a producer of movie trailers. And I don't believe for one moment that Graham will move his daughters to LA nor that he would be happy being anything but a book editor who weeps over words and takes care of his daughters. The characters have been too well established in a role reversal. The acting and writing has been too strong for me to let them take it back.
Everything that has gone into making the problem in this romantic relationship argues against it ever being resolved. I don't want Amanda to give up her career and take over mothering those kids. I want them to work something out, but I have no idea how they would really do it. While Amanda cries this one time, I also don't think think that she will become a weepy female character who is easily in touch with her emotions. And if her sex life changes, what about what attracted Graham to her in the first place? Is he going to stop having a cow in his backyard or in loving his two daughters to distraction? Then what about the reasons that Amanda fell in love with him in the first place?
The Iris/Miles relationship is far easier to believe as a happy ending, in part because there hasn't been any interesting gender role reversal going on with them. She is a writer, he's a musician. Either of them could move, it seems, to where the other is. He's laid back. She's neurotic. It's a match made in heaven, yes? But however charming Jack Black is, however much I like Kate Winslet, I must admit that their relationship had none of the power that the Amanda/Graham pairing does. Maybe because it isn't as fraught with impossibilities. I think the writers spend more time making us fall in love with the Eli Wallach character than setting up problems with Iris and Miles.
This movie has made me wonder a lot of things about my own interest in romance and happy endings. I told my daughter recently that men like to watch movies in which characters like themselves (men) get power. This generally involves lots of explosions and getting the girl in ways that I find uninteresting. Women tend to watch movies in which characters like themselves (women) get power. This generally involves them getting married to powerful men. Put like that, I am uneasy about my own interest in romance. On the other hand, I think my favorite romances are a lot more than romance, and they play with role reversal and gender in ways that are fascinating. Romance novels are ultimately about male and female power. But how much can a really good writer (like, say Megan Whalen Turner) use a very old and traditional form to say something really completely different about power and gender?
I think that one of the reasons that romantic comedies use role reversals is that it establishes sympathy. If a man has a couple of female characteristics, then he is more attractive to a woman because she believes that he understands her. And vice versa. A woman with a couple of male characteristics is more attractive to a male character. She is stronger and harder to get, which according to the logic of romantic comedies makes her a better catch. And yet, so often the resolution depends on both the man and the woman returning to their traditional roles to get married. It's as if there is a tease in the movie, a promise that gender roles don't have to be quite so rigid. But then it's taken away at the end. Oh, no, you can play with gender until you get married. And then society has to have its way and you have to follow the rules. You have to "heal the rift" that was created by you trying to change the rigid gender code.
I like The Holiday as a romantic comedy more than others for precisely the same reason that I dislike it. My romantic side is rooting for the characters to get together. But my gender-bending side wants them not to get together and give up who they are. I end up wondering if this is what was intended when the movie was made or if the story took over and no one realized what the message of the movie was going to be, in terms of successful romance.
Monday Book Recs--Parker
I finished reading Sixkill, Robert Parker's final Spenser novel. I've read all the Spenser novels. I've liked all of them to one degree or another, and this one was good. I thought that the character of Sixkill was a little too much like the wisecracking Hawk only less politically correct. I liked the mystery itself and how it unfolded. I always like the sparseness of Spenser novels. It's something I aspire to, to write so cleanly and say so much in so few words.
In the more recent Spenser novels. the character of Susan Silverman has become gradually more annoying to me. After reading this novel, I tried to analyze why this was so. In some ways, she is such an unusual female character that I ought to like her. She's Harvard educated, obviously smarter (at least in a bookish way) than Spenser. She's self-controlled and strong physically as well as emotionally. She and Hawk have an interesting relationship. I like that she isn't clingy or jealous of Spenser, even if he is with potential rivals for her affection.
On the other hand, Susan is such a fantasy female. She is always referred to in terms of her physical attractiveness. She can't be on stage for two lines without Spenser reminding the reader of how hot she is. Whenever she and Spenser have a conversation, she always has to tell him how great their relationship is and how he is a man who has to do what he has to do, and she's a woman who lets him. I have nothing against women who have attractive figures. I think it's the idea that she is perfect that annoys me. I have never met a woman who doesn't know that there are certain parts of her body that aren't perfect and any man who is close to a woman would know this, surely. If he doesn't, he's an idiot. It's not that he is telling a better truth. It's that he's making up this image in his head that isn't real and that bothers me.
I also am annoyed at how incompetent Susan is in the kitchen for some reason. I don't know why I hate this. It's not because I think that women HAVE to be cooks or slaves in the kitchen. It's just that I think anyone can be competent in the kitchen and it confuses me when someone who is so competent in other ways claims to be so incompetent in something that seems so basic. Susan goes out with Spenser to eat a lot (since she doesn't cook) and it annoys me that Spenser likes to tell the reader how very, very little she eats. This bothers me in the same way that I am bothered by models who claim that they are just naturally thin and they don't have any eating disorders or ever feel hungry.
Or how I am bothered when I read boks about girls who only eat celery and water and are just perfectly happy that way. I don't believe such people exist. Yes, some people claim they are this way. Generally, these women are very disturbed and have no energy and end up in some kind of hospital. A woman who exercises as much as Susan seems to would surely have an appetite. She might watch what she eats and eat only healthy food or count calories. But she would eat real food and she wouldn't apologize for it. Yeah, I'm projecting here, but I don't think I'm projecting improperly. Women's bodies may have a lower metabolic rate than men's, but they have to fuel workouts and muscular development. They don't eat nothing. The idea that women should eat nothing to me is part and parcel of the idea that women should be small, dainty, insignificant, and as invisible as possible--which I hate.
Finally, I am annoyed by the fact that Susan's expertise is in psychology, essentially human relations. She is always explaining why people do what they do. Because you know, that's what women are good at, reading other people. If this is, in fact, true, it is only because women have no other way to exert power except through manipulation and they have learned how to read other people because they are so often observers in social interaction rather than getting what they want.
I have found this stereotype so often in literature written by men about women that I want to scream. It shouts "Deana Troi" at me from Star Trek Next Generation. We can have women who are "emotional" or who are doctors and care for others. But we can't have women who are warrior Klingons on starships. We can't have women who threaten men's roles. Oh, no. I think the male writers who do this have absolutely no idea that they are avoiding letting women take their roles over for them. They just can't conceive of a world in which women do anything that men do and can be seen as people without trying to decide whether they are "feminine" enough at the same time.
In the more recent Spenser novels. the character of Susan Silverman has become gradually more annoying to me. After reading this novel, I tried to analyze why this was so. In some ways, she is such an unusual female character that I ought to like her. She's Harvard educated, obviously smarter (at least in a bookish way) than Spenser. She's self-controlled and strong physically as well as emotionally. She and Hawk have an interesting relationship. I like that she isn't clingy or jealous of Spenser, even if he is with potential rivals for her affection.
On the other hand, Susan is such a fantasy female. She is always referred to in terms of her physical attractiveness. She can't be on stage for two lines without Spenser reminding the reader of how hot she is. Whenever she and Spenser have a conversation, she always has to tell him how great their relationship is and how he is a man who has to do what he has to do, and she's a woman who lets him. I have nothing against women who have attractive figures. I think it's the idea that she is perfect that annoys me. I have never met a woman who doesn't know that there are certain parts of her body that aren't perfect and any man who is close to a woman would know this, surely. If he doesn't, he's an idiot. It's not that he is telling a better truth. It's that he's making up this image in his head that isn't real and that bothers me.
I also am annoyed at how incompetent Susan is in the kitchen for some reason. I don't know why I hate this. It's not because I think that women HAVE to be cooks or slaves in the kitchen. It's just that I think anyone can be competent in the kitchen and it confuses me when someone who is so competent in other ways claims to be so incompetent in something that seems so basic. Susan goes out with Spenser to eat a lot (since she doesn't cook) and it annoys me that Spenser likes to tell the reader how very, very little she eats. This bothers me in the same way that I am bothered by models who claim that they are just naturally thin and they don't have any eating disorders or ever feel hungry.
Or how I am bothered when I read boks about girls who only eat celery and water and are just perfectly happy that way. I don't believe such people exist. Yes, some people claim they are this way. Generally, these women are very disturbed and have no energy and end up in some kind of hospital. A woman who exercises as much as Susan seems to would surely have an appetite. She might watch what she eats and eat only healthy food or count calories. But she would eat real food and she wouldn't apologize for it. Yeah, I'm projecting here, but I don't think I'm projecting improperly. Women's bodies may have a lower metabolic rate than men's, but they have to fuel workouts and muscular development. They don't eat nothing. The idea that women should eat nothing to me is part and parcel of the idea that women should be small, dainty, insignificant, and as invisible as possible--which I hate.
Finally, I am annoyed by the fact that Susan's expertise is in psychology, essentially human relations. She is always explaining why people do what they do. Because you know, that's what women are good at, reading other people. If this is, in fact, true, it is only because women have no other way to exert power except through manipulation and they have learned how to read other people because they are so often observers in social interaction rather than getting what they want.
I have found this stereotype so often in literature written by men about women that I want to scream. It shouts "Deana Troi" at me from Star Trek Next Generation. We can have women who are "emotional" or who are doctors and care for others. But we can't have women who are warrior Klingons on starships. We can't have women who threaten men's roles. Oh, no. I think the male writers who do this have absolutely no idea that they are avoiding letting women take their roles over for them. They just can't conceive of a world in which women do anything that men do and can be seen as people without trying to decide whether they are "feminine" enough at the same time.
January 27, 2012
Friday Tri: Strengths and Weaknesses
There are two theories on how to improve in almost any sport. Theory #1 is that you should figure out what your weaknesses are and work on them until they aren't weaknesses anymore. Theory #2 is to figure out what your strengths are and to make them so strong that no one can touch you there and don't worry about your weaknesses because you'll compensate for them in other ways. I think there are probably lots of ways in which these two ways of thinking can be pressed beyond triathlon into almost any part of life.
My weaknesses in triathlon are:
1. swim stroke--I was always a windmill swimmer and that is supposed to be "bad."
2. running--either I'm a bad runner naturally or I end up dying at the end of a race.
3. nutrition--I'm constantly fighting nausea, before, during, and after every race.
4. sleep issues--nerves makes me lose sleep which makes me do worse.
5. needing more recovery--this has gotten worse as I get older.
My strengths in triathlon are:
1. the bike--I can keep up with pros on the bike
2. transitions--I am efficient and know what steps to leave out
3. focus--I am not distracted during training or racing
4. setting goals and meeting them--I can hardly stop myself from doing this
5. ability to deal with pain--I have to really work hard to notice pain
I've done a few things in the last 8 years (has it been that long?) since I started triathlon to deal with my weaknesses. Some have been successful and some haven't been. I have changed my swim stroke dramatically, working on high elbow recovery. I've forced myself to do some long running races to get more mileage in. I've found food that I can eat that never makes me sick (bananas, which I actually hate) and I know how much to drink directly after a race to prevent a migraine. But there hasn't been a real cure. I've learned to deal with the weaknesses better, but I'm not sure I've really made them into strengths.
In fact, as I've dealt in particular with the problem of sleep issues and needing more recovery, I have realized that my so-called "strengths" are actually causing my weaknesses. In order to deal with these two weaknesses, I have had to give up certain parts of my strengths. For example, last year was the year of no goals. I did not set goals for any races. In addition, I refused to allow myself to set up any race training plans for myself. I can do race training plans in my sleep and I do them for other people who need them. I'm not saying I'm beyond them. It's just that setting up a plan and writing it down makes it hard for me to sleep at night. So I've had to give that up and let myself train by what feels right and what seems to make sense based on previous training.
I'm convinced that there are things that a triathlon coach would be able to teach me, about my swim stroke, about my nutrition, and other things. But to sign up with a coach would put enormous pressure on me. And while I rise up to meet such pressure, there are consequences for it that end up hurting the rest of my life and ultimately triathlon, as well. It turns out that what I thought were my strengths actually turn out to be weaknesses. Or maybe put another way, my weaknesses are just the flip side of my strengths. I can't really have the one without the other.
I have found this to be so true of everything in life. When I see my kids doing something that annoys me, I remind myself all the time that this is just the flip side of one of their strengths. 14 drives me insane with his need to have nothing interrupt his schedule. But it is because of his schedule that he is able to be so successful at getting things done right and on time. 17 is so sweet that she can never assume the worst of anyone. She doesn't anticipate and is often blind-sided by other people who are not like her. But would I want her to change that sweetness? 16 is musically brilliant and insanely self-critical, emotionally needy and impatient with those who are slow. If she were not like that, she would not be able to do what she does.
I can certainly choose to put weight on one side of the scale, so that there's a different balance of strengths and weaknesses, but I can't really take weaknesses off the scale. They're attached to strengths on the other side. Touch one side and you touch both sides. Sometimes, it's really just a matter of looking at the scale differently. Why is it that one side has to be called "weaknesses" at all? Or the other side "strengths"? It really just depends on what you want to get done.
My weaknesses in triathlon are:
1. swim stroke--I was always a windmill swimmer and that is supposed to be "bad."
2. running--either I'm a bad runner naturally or I end up dying at the end of a race.
3. nutrition--I'm constantly fighting nausea, before, during, and after every race.
4. sleep issues--nerves makes me lose sleep which makes me do worse.
5. needing more recovery--this has gotten worse as I get older.
My strengths in triathlon are:
1. the bike--I can keep up with pros on the bike
2. transitions--I am efficient and know what steps to leave out
3. focus--I am not distracted during training or racing
4. setting goals and meeting them--I can hardly stop myself from doing this
5. ability to deal with pain--I have to really work hard to notice pain
I've done a few things in the last 8 years (has it been that long?) since I started triathlon to deal with my weaknesses. Some have been successful and some haven't been. I have changed my swim stroke dramatically, working on high elbow recovery. I've forced myself to do some long running races to get more mileage in. I've found food that I can eat that never makes me sick (bananas, which I actually hate) and I know how much to drink directly after a race to prevent a migraine. But there hasn't been a real cure. I've learned to deal with the weaknesses better, but I'm not sure I've really made them into strengths.
In fact, as I've dealt in particular with the problem of sleep issues and needing more recovery, I have realized that my so-called "strengths" are actually causing my weaknesses. In order to deal with these two weaknesses, I have had to give up certain parts of my strengths. For example, last year was the year of no goals. I did not set goals for any races. In addition, I refused to allow myself to set up any race training plans for myself. I can do race training plans in my sleep and I do them for other people who need them. I'm not saying I'm beyond them. It's just that setting up a plan and writing it down makes it hard for me to sleep at night. So I've had to give that up and let myself train by what feels right and what seems to make sense based on previous training.
I'm convinced that there are things that a triathlon coach would be able to teach me, about my swim stroke, about my nutrition, and other things. But to sign up with a coach would put enormous pressure on me. And while I rise up to meet such pressure, there are consequences for it that end up hurting the rest of my life and ultimately triathlon, as well. It turns out that what I thought were my strengths actually turn out to be weaknesses. Or maybe put another way, my weaknesses are just the flip side of my strengths. I can't really have the one without the other.
I have found this to be so true of everything in life. When I see my kids doing something that annoys me, I remind myself all the time that this is just the flip side of one of their strengths. 14 drives me insane with his need to have nothing interrupt his schedule. But it is because of his schedule that he is able to be so successful at getting things done right and on time. 17 is so sweet that she can never assume the worst of anyone. She doesn't anticipate and is often blind-sided by other people who are not like her. But would I want her to change that sweetness? 16 is musically brilliant and insanely self-critical, emotionally needy and impatient with those who are slow. If she were not like that, she would not be able to do what she does.
I can certainly choose to put weight on one side of the scale, so that there's a different balance of strengths and weaknesses, but I can't really take weaknesses off the scale. They're attached to strengths on the other side. Touch one side and you touch both sides. Sometimes, it's really just a matter of looking at the scale differently. Why is it that one side has to be called "weaknesses" at all? Or the other side "strengths"? It really just depends on what you want to get done.
January 25, 2012
Writing Wednesday: What Are You Afraid Of?
When talking about my frustrations with my writing process, which is generally writing drafts of new projects rather than focusing on trying to fix a project that someone has shown interest in or that I love, a friend asked me, "What are you afraid of, Mette?" I don't usually think of myself as someone who reacts out of fear and at first, my response was to say, I'm not afraid of anything. I'm fearless. It's the world and everyone who is just being stupid, not appreciating the way that I am.
And then a few days and a few weeks later, I sat with that scary thought. What am I afraid of? What is it that I am trying to avoid by doing what I am doing? I think we all avoid things. I'm not a procrastinator by nature. I tend to do jobs as quickly as possible that I dislike and that have a deadline so I can get them out of the way. But in the creative world, it doesn't quite work like that. You can seem to very busy and actually be doing nothing that will actually work for your career at all. Which is me absolutely. I like to say at the end of the day, I have these word counts. That means I'm working hard. That means I'm doing my job as a writer. That means I'm good.
I am desperate for the kind of approval that I used to get in school and that really you only ever get in school. Teachers who give you "A"'s. I used to love that. Do this, remember that, write this paper. Get an A. But the problem is, real life isn't all that much like school. Real life doesn't have a defined rubric of how to get a good grade. A real job doesn't give you an example of how to solve the problem. You have to invent the solution all on your own. If someone else knew how to fix it, they'd do it themselves. That's what your job is. To figure out how to do it right and there's no answer anywhere. In fact, even when you do it right, no one will really know if it's really right. It may be years later before the real proof comes in. It may be never. Certainly no one is going to come up to you and say, You get an "A" as a writer or you get an "A" as an engineer. There are job performance reviews in some jobs, but do those mean anything? I don't see a lot of truth in them. And sometimes people who are bad get fired or laid off and sometimes people who are good face the same fate. No guarantees.
As a writer, you can surround yourself with a community of writers and friends who will read your writing and tell you you're doing a good job or give you a nudge on where to fix things. You have an editor and an agent who might tell you the same thing. You have readers who will give feedback, and reviewers who do the same. You might win awards. You might make money. But there are great books that don't win awards. I daresay there are great books that are never even published because they are, in fact, so great that no one understands them yet. And there are crappy books that sell a lot and fifty years later no one remembers. Or they do. Who knows?
One of the things I am afraid of is that I am not good enough. I want to get an "A" in writing, but there is no such thing. And maybe that is what I am afraid of most of all, that I will never actually receive the approval that I want, and that I ultimately have to figure out a way to give it to myself. I have to stop looking around, trying to figure out what the teacher wants and giving it to her or him. I have to look inside, ask myself if this is what *I* want and move on.
And also, I have to live with the imperfections that become apparent as a writer works through a second draft. For me, if I work through a first draft quickly enough, I don't have time to notice the flaws. And that's the way I like it, having this illusion that my ideas are great and that I don't need to work on them. Because working on my writing is really hard work. I've always had trouble motivating myself to revise except when I have an editorial letter waiting for me. Then it's like I have a teacher again. But the problem really is that I may sometimes be using the editorial letter the wrong way, too, and not looking inside myself for the answers, which is the only place they can be.
The scariest thing about being a writer? There is no "A." It's not just that I don't know how to get it, it's accepting that the real world is a place where you just do your best and you never know if it's any good at all. Because there isn't really any objective system of measuring such a thing. There never will be and it would be a terrible thing if there were, especially for a creative person. I mean, I got into writing because I wanted to live in a world with fewer constraints, and yet I am so used to them, that I pull those expectations in with me. Here in this world, the only kudos that matter are the ones that you give yourself. And they come from within, where I am not used to looking.
And then a few days and a few weeks later, I sat with that scary thought. What am I afraid of? What is it that I am trying to avoid by doing what I am doing? I think we all avoid things. I'm not a procrastinator by nature. I tend to do jobs as quickly as possible that I dislike and that have a deadline so I can get them out of the way. But in the creative world, it doesn't quite work like that. You can seem to very busy and actually be doing nothing that will actually work for your career at all. Which is me absolutely. I like to say at the end of the day, I have these word counts. That means I'm working hard. That means I'm doing my job as a writer. That means I'm good.
I am desperate for the kind of approval that I used to get in school and that really you only ever get in school. Teachers who give you "A"'s. I used to love that. Do this, remember that, write this paper. Get an A. But the problem is, real life isn't all that much like school. Real life doesn't have a defined rubric of how to get a good grade. A real job doesn't give you an example of how to solve the problem. You have to invent the solution all on your own. If someone else knew how to fix it, they'd do it themselves. That's what your job is. To figure out how to do it right and there's no answer anywhere. In fact, even when you do it right, no one will really know if it's really right. It may be years later before the real proof comes in. It may be never. Certainly no one is going to come up to you and say, You get an "A" as a writer or you get an "A" as an engineer. There are job performance reviews in some jobs, but do those mean anything? I don't see a lot of truth in them. And sometimes people who are bad get fired or laid off and sometimes people who are good face the same fate. No guarantees.
As a writer, you can surround yourself with a community of writers and friends who will read your writing and tell you you're doing a good job or give you a nudge on where to fix things. You have an editor and an agent who might tell you the same thing. You have readers who will give feedback, and reviewers who do the same. You might win awards. You might make money. But there are great books that don't win awards. I daresay there are great books that are never even published because they are, in fact, so great that no one understands them yet. And there are crappy books that sell a lot and fifty years later no one remembers. Or they do. Who knows?
One of the things I am afraid of is that I am not good enough. I want to get an "A" in writing, but there is no such thing. And maybe that is what I am afraid of most of all, that I will never actually receive the approval that I want, and that I ultimately have to figure out a way to give it to myself. I have to stop looking around, trying to figure out what the teacher wants and giving it to her or him. I have to look inside, ask myself if this is what *I* want and move on.
And also, I have to live with the imperfections that become apparent as a writer works through a second draft. For me, if I work through a first draft quickly enough, I don't have time to notice the flaws. And that's the way I like it, having this illusion that my ideas are great and that I don't need to work on them. Because working on my writing is really hard work. I've always had trouble motivating myself to revise except when I have an editorial letter waiting for me. Then it's like I have a teacher again. But the problem really is that I may sometimes be using the editorial letter the wrong way, too, and not looking inside myself for the answers, which is the only place they can be.
The scariest thing about being a writer? There is no "A." It's not just that I don't know how to get it, it's accepting that the real world is a place where you just do your best and you never know if it's any good at all. Because there isn't really any objective system of measuring such a thing. There never will be and it would be a terrible thing if there were, especially for a creative person. I mean, I got into writing because I wanted to live in a world with fewer constraints, and yet I am so used to them, that I pull those expectations in with me. Here in this world, the only kudos that matter are the ones that you give yourself. And they come from within, where I am not used to looking.
I'm doing manuscript critiques again
If you are interested, contact me at mette@argonautfilms.com and we can talk specifics. Basically, I charge $1 per 250 words and I prefer to read YA MG and adult genre fiction (sf/f). I usually ask for you to send me a one sentence description of the book before I go forward with it, and I critique the manuscript, query letter, and synopsis all at the same time. I send comments in text in Word and then also write an extensive revision letter like you might receive from an editor.
I have had some people complain that my critiques are harsh. I do try to make sure that I tell you what I think you have going right in addition to things that need to be fixed. Also, for those who are new to the YA field, there may be terminology I use that you don't expect, like the fact that YA is considered "children's." I do know the field well and while I can't guarantee publication, I do think I can give you a good idea of what to work on to move it to the next step and how people are responding to it if you've sent it out. I can also give you some insights into the commercial aspects of the publishing world.
I do need to charge money for this service in order to justify the time away from my own writing, but I honestly do it because I want to help other writers. I remember being in that situation where you feel like you are almost there and you think that if someone would just tell you what was going on while they read the manuscript, it would help you enormously to go from rejection to at least a revision request.
I have had some people complain that my critiques are harsh. I do try to make sure that I tell you what I think you have going right in addition to things that need to be fixed. Also, for those who are new to the YA field, there may be terminology I use that you don't expect, like the fact that YA is considered "children's." I do know the field well and while I can't guarantee publication, I do think I can give you a good idea of what to work on to move it to the next step and how people are responding to it if you've sent it out. I can also give you some insights into the commercial aspects of the publishing world.
I do need to charge money for this service in order to justify the time away from my own writing, but I honestly do it because I want to help other writers. I remember being in that situation where you feel like you are almost there and you think that if someone would just tell you what was going on while they read the manuscript, it would help you enormously to go from rejection to at least a revision request.
January 24, 2012
My Gender Masquerade: Mette/Eddie
This is what I looked like in 4th grade. My mother cut my hair and she tended to keep cutting and cutting until it got straight, but I think that I liked it really short. I remember when people used to ask me if I was identical twins with my brother. I liked being taken for a boy. I'm not sure that "tom-boy" is the right phrase to describe me or not. I didn't hear that often as a kid. I wasn't an athletic type. I did climb trees, but wasn't into sports. I also hated wearing dresses, which in those days girls had to do every day at school.
I remember that my fourth grade year, I finally had a male teacher. I hadn't had any male teachers until that point. And I was determined that I was going to show this teacher what I could do, so I whipped through the regular mathbook in just a few weeks, and then proceeded to go through all of his supplementary math material. He told me once that no one else had gotten as far as I had, and that was what I wanted, for him to see me as really smart. My big rival that year was a girl named Toni who also turned out to be my best friend later.
The interesting thing about this teacher was that he didn't realize that I was a girl. My name is so unusual that people have no idea how to pronounce it or even if it is male or female. And at some point, someone typed it wrong and I started to be known as "Ette" instead of "Mette," which was fine with me. I have sometimes wondered if he would have treated me differently subtly or less subtly if he had realized I was a girl.
I knew he thought I was a boy because he once gestured at me as he was making a point about proper pronouns. "He," he said, and pointed to me. I liked that a lot. I liked being "he." I liked having a secret. I liked that the person I was at home wasn't the person I was in Mr. Condie's class. There was a certain freedom that I felt as "Ette" rather than "Mette" that I enjoyed. Maybe it was partly because I didn't have to choose whether I was going to be male or female or maybe it was because I felt that boys have more freedom than girls. I don't really know.
This is the year that I was at the skating rink and told to get off the ice since it was "all girl's" skate. I was annoyed at being told that, but there was something powerful about knowing something that these people didn't know about myself, and being able to put on a different personality. I played with names later in my life. In 7th grade, I decided to go by "Marie" instead of "Mette" because I didn't like having to explain about my name to every person that I met. Then I switched back to "Mette" when I was in 9th grade because I rather liked the uniqueness. But the gender confusion from this one year in elementary school is something I have thought about a lot in later years.
In 5th grade, there was no more mistaking me for a boy. I went through puberty painfully quickly. I have the stretch marks to prove it. I went from a flat chest to a size B cup in a couple of months and my mother, who had 10 other children to look after, didn't move fast enough to get me wearing a bra, so I got a lot of comments at school from boys in particular who had decided this was a way to make themselves feel powerful. We'd call it sexual harassment now, and I went through it for years, having my bra straps yanked on, being told what boys thought of my size, and on and on. I ignored it completely, not deeming it worthy of even comment. But there was no going back to pretending to be a boy at that point. I was not only a girl, but by sixth grade, was frequently mistaken for a high school junior or senior.
What I refused to do was to become "that" kind of girl. I didn't wear makeup. I didn't curl my hair except for occasions when my mother insisted. When I went to church, which was the one occasion when I was forced to wear a dress, I wore the same jeans skirt with a plain top and sneakers on my feet. This was also in part a rebellion against the other girls at church who seemed to be having a contest to prove whose father was the wealthiest. My parents had bought a house in a nice neighborhood without knowing much about the area when we moved in, and one of the names for it was "Snob Hill." We also happened to live across the street from the Osmonds. Yes, those Osmonds. Girls wore Prom dresses to church that cost hundreds of dollars and had their hair and nails done at pricey salons. This seemed ridiculous to me on multiple levels, and it certainly didn't make me interested in choosing to "amsquerade" as feminine. I wasn't trying to masquerade as "masculine" anymore, either, I just was refusing to choose either one or the other.
Here are the traits that I see traditionally accepted these days as . . .
Masculine:
aggressive
smart
outspoken, outgoing
strong
fast
crude
rule-breaker
plain-spoken
competitive
driven
ambitious
Feminine:
quiet
small
demure
beautiful
social
clean
neat
obedient
manipulative
musical
emotional
"spiritual"
kind
nurturing
How I would describe myself both then and now:
quiet
introverted
smart
strong
competitive
rule-breaker
efficient
driven
ambitious
creative
artistic
nurturing
OCD
thoughtful
dreamer
interesting
sympathetic
questioning
There are plenty of these descriptive words that apply to me that people often think of as "masculine," fewer as "feminine." I once told my kids that I'm 70% boy and 30% girl, but really, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I just happen to have 70% of the character traits that are associated with boys and fewer that are associated with girls, and then a bunch of other traits that don't necessarily seem to be associated with either one, like artistic and dreamy and thoughtful and OCD.
There's an article here about how creative people are often androgynous, but when I read it, I just thought how odd it was to even think in that kind of a binary. It's not that creative people are deliberately choosing to be both masculine and feminine. It's that they simply refuse to reject certain characteristics because they happen to be labeled that way. I'm not going to stop being competitive at triathlon because someone decides that it's not "feminine." I'm not going to change my style of parenting because I think it isn't strong enough. I am who I am and I may change, but it won't be because of some artificial binary structure that society decides is useful for controlling people.
I am biologically a woman. I have chosen to take the role of mother with my children, and have chosen largely to stay home with them. My husband is largely the financial force in our house. But saying I'm a "stay at home mom" doesn't bother me. I don't need the approval of other people in my choices. I do what works for me. My kids know I'm an ardent feminist. My oldest daughter (and my other girls) and great at math and science. My son's first love in life is cooking. So what? To me that doesn't mean I'm trying to get them to break barriers. I'm just allowing them to choose what they want regardless of their biological gender. I sometimes put on makeup and wear heels if I am putting on the role of "author Mette Ivie Harrison." It doesn't bother me. I am simply doing what is expected of me so that I get the social respect I want.
I won't wear nylons, however. I do have certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. I wear tights in the winter because they are comfortable and warm. I don't paint my fingernails or perm my hair, but I have in the past. I wear men's watches, because I like them bigger, and I also follow Stacy and Clinton's advice to women to wear a jacket. There is nothing inherently good or bad about choosing certain male or female characteristics that feel more authentic to me at the time. I'm not going to set rules for that for myself and I try to allow others the same freedom.
I remember that my fourth grade year, I finally had a male teacher. I hadn't had any male teachers until that point. And I was determined that I was going to show this teacher what I could do, so I whipped through the regular mathbook in just a few weeks, and then proceeded to go through all of his supplementary math material. He told me once that no one else had gotten as far as I had, and that was what I wanted, for him to see me as really smart. My big rival that year was a girl named Toni who also turned out to be my best friend later.
The interesting thing about this teacher was that he didn't realize that I was a girl. My name is so unusual that people have no idea how to pronounce it or even if it is male or female. And at some point, someone typed it wrong and I started to be known as "Ette" instead of "Mette," which was fine with me. I have sometimes wondered if he would have treated me differently subtly or less subtly if he had realized I was a girl.
I knew he thought I was a boy because he once gestured at me as he was making a point about proper pronouns. "He," he said, and pointed to me. I liked that a lot. I liked being "he." I liked having a secret. I liked that the person I was at home wasn't the person I was in Mr. Condie's class. There was a certain freedom that I felt as "Ette" rather than "Mette" that I enjoyed. Maybe it was partly because I didn't have to choose whether I was going to be male or female or maybe it was because I felt that boys have more freedom than girls. I don't really know.
This is the year that I was at the skating rink and told to get off the ice since it was "all girl's" skate. I was annoyed at being told that, but there was something powerful about knowing something that these people didn't know about myself, and being able to put on a different personality. I played with names later in my life. In 7th grade, I decided to go by "Marie" instead of "Mette" because I didn't like having to explain about my name to every person that I met. Then I switched back to "Mette" when I was in 9th grade because I rather liked the uniqueness. But the gender confusion from this one year in elementary school is something I have thought about a lot in later years.
In 5th grade, there was no more mistaking me for a boy. I went through puberty painfully quickly. I have the stretch marks to prove it. I went from a flat chest to a size B cup in a couple of months and my mother, who had 10 other children to look after, didn't move fast enough to get me wearing a bra, so I got a lot of comments at school from boys in particular who had decided this was a way to make themselves feel powerful. We'd call it sexual harassment now, and I went through it for years, having my bra straps yanked on, being told what boys thought of my size, and on and on. I ignored it completely, not deeming it worthy of even comment. But there was no going back to pretending to be a boy at that point. I was not only a girl, but by sixth grade, was frequently mistaken for a high school junior or senior.
What I refused to do was to become "that" kind of girl. I didn't wear makeup. I didn't curl my hair except for occasions when my mother insisted. When I went to church, which was the one occasion when I was forced to wear a dress, I wore the same jeans skirt with a plain top and sneakers on my feet. This was also in part a rebellion against the other girls at church who seemed to be having a contest to prove whose father was the wealthiest. My parents had bought a house in a nice neighborhood without knowing much about the area when we moved in, and one of the names for it was "Snob Hill." We also happened to live across the street from the Osmonds. Yes, those Osmonds. Girls wore Prom dresses to church that cost hundreds of dollars and had their hair and nails done at pricey salons. This seemed ridiculous to me on multiple levels, and it certainly didn't make me interested in choosing to "amsquerade" as feminine. I wasn't trying to masquerade as "masculine" anymore, either, I just was refusing to choose either one or the other.
Here are the traits that I see traditionally accepted these days as . . .
Masculine:
aggressive
smart
outspoken, outgoing
strong
fast
crude
rule-breaker
plain-spoken
competitive
driven
ambitious
Feminine:
quiet
small
demure
beautiful
social
clean
neat
obedient
manipulative
musical
emotional
"spiritual"
kind
nurturing
How I would describe myself both then and now:
quiet
introverted
smart
strong
competitive
rule-breaker
efficient
driven
ambitious
creative
artistic
nurturing
OCD
thoughtful
dreamer
interesting
sympathetic
questioning
There are plenty of these descriptive words that apply to me that people often think of as "masculine," fewer as "feminine." I once told my kids that I'm 70% boy and 30% girl, but really, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I just happen to have 70% of the character traits that are associated with boys and fewer that are associated with girls, and then a bunch of other traits that don't necessarily seem to be associated with either one, like artistic and dreamy and thoughtful and OCD.
There's an article here about how creative people are often androgynous, but when I read it, I just thought how odd it was to even think in that kind of a binary. It's not that creative people are deliberately choosing to be both masculine and feminine. It's that they simply refuse to reject certain characteristics because they happen to be labeled that way. I'm not going to stop being competitive at triathlon because someone decides that it's not "feminine." I'm not going to change my style of parenting because I think it isn't strong enough. I am who I am and I may change, but it won't be because of some artificial binary structure that society decides is useful for controlling people.
I am biologically a woman. I have chosen to take the role of mother with my children, and have chosen largely to stay home with them. My husband is largely the financial force in our house. But saying I'm a "stay at home mom" doesn't bother me. I don't need the approval of other people in my choices. I do what works for me. My kids know I'm an ardent feminist. My oldest daughter (and my other girls) and great at math and science. My son's first love in life is cooking. So what? To me that doesn't mean I'm trying to get them to break barriers. I'm just allowing them to choose what they want regardless of their biological gender. I sometimes put on makeup and wear heels if I am putting on the role of "author Mette Ivie Harrison." It doesn't bother me. I am simply doing what is expected of me so that I get the social respect I want.
I won't wear nylons, however. I do have certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. I wear tights in the winter because they are comfortable and warm. I don't paint my fingernails or perm my hair, but I have in the past. I wear men's watches, because I like them bigger, and I also follow Stacy and Clinton's advice to women to wear a jacket. There is nothing inherently good or bad about choosing certain male or female characteristics that feel more authentic to me at the time. I'm not going to set rules for that for myself and I try to allow others the same freedom.
January 21, 2012
Friday Tri: 10% Rule for Running and Illness
In running, there is a good rule of thumb that you don't increase more than 10% per week in mileage. Also, you don't increase your longest long run from week to week by more than 10%. So this means you can't cheat by taking a day off and then adding that to your next day's workout if it ends up being more than 10% more than the long workout the week before.
If you are sick and you haven't done a workout for a couple of days, or even a couple of weeks, you are going to have to go back that many days or weeks in your workout plan. You aren't going to be able to just keep going on the plan, even if you're completely recovered from the illness. And please PLEASE do not try to "make up" your missed days by adding them onto your workouts moving forward.
Do I workout when I'm sick? It depends, honestly. If I have a fever, I don't workout ever. But I mostly choose based on how I feel. If I feel like crap, I don't work out. If I can't get out of bed, I don't work out. If I just have the sniffles, I still workout, but mostly because I feel better when I workout. Still, I usually cut the mileage in half and also make it a lot easier.
Back to the 10% rule, if you are starting from scratch, you're going to have to start at some distance. For me, I started at .1 mile on a treadmill. Then I went up .1 mile at a time. I think this is a pretty reasonable increase. I also always took Sundays off, so there was one day a week where I had complete rest. I think that whether you are religious or not, one day a week off is a good plan.
A lot of people who run or do any form of exercise do the same thing every day, the same distance and the same pace. I don't think this is a good idea because your body tends to get used to it and then you don't have any more fitness gains. If you are getting older, you are going to lose muscle mass unless you fight against it with varied workouts. That's why you do weight lifting one day, and then different kinds of running, like hard running one day and a long run a couple days later. But if one week your longest long run is 6 miles, then the next week, it should be 6.5, not 7.
If you are doing something like biking or swimming, where there is less impact on your joints, you can possibly play with the 10% rule a little bit, even increase it up to 20%, though you should realize that this will increase your risk of injury or just as bad, discouragement and your need to recover.
Even the best runners have a limit as to how many miles they can do a week without injury. This tends to be right around 100 miles. For a good runner, that is about 10 hours a week of running. That's not that many hours of running, at least to a professional athlete. Add in some stretching and some weight training, and you have maybe twelve hours.
A professional swimmer like Michael Phelps will put in 5-6 hours a day, 6 days a week in the pool, which is more than triple what a runner can do. A professional biker will do about the same as a swimmer in terms of hours, maybe more. Running is just extremely hard on the body. It has certain benefits, like being weight bearing and it is possibly the most difficult workout possible, since you have to move your entire body weight without any assistance.
People who are starting out in a workout routine will probably want to keep their running pretty limited. Maybe once or twice a week for just a few minutes, like 4 or 5. Those who are more fit can run up to three or four times a week. I don't actually recommend running more often than that. I don't run more than that, even when I am in hard core training for a 50 mile running race.
I have a lot of friends who are exclusively runners. Frankly, I think they are crazy. They get injured fairly often and then they go crazy because they have nothing else that they like to do for fitness, and even though they know they should stay off their legs, they can't do it. They keep pushing before they are ready and often end up extending their injury phase. I sometimes want to shake these runners and tell them to find something else that they like to do. It would probably improve their running if they had some cross training skills. And not getting injured is possibly the number one important thing that you can do for your fitness. Obviously, we don't always have 100% control over this, but we do have some control.
When people hear that I have done ultramarathons and Ironman competitions, they seem to think that I must be running every day for hours. It isn't true. One day a week I do a long run, sometimes two days a week. Then I do other things with my time. I want to keep my muscles working, and make sure that my heart is being conditioned, but I don't want to kill my knees or hips which are both problem spots if I do too much running.
At my peak, I will be running 70 miles a week, and that is 40 miles one day, 20 the next, and then a couple of four or five mile runs in the rest of the week. But that's unusual for me. Most days I run 2-3 miles after a warm up bike. Some days I do the elliptical machine instead of running because it's easier on my knees, and then I go swimming at the gym. Some days I just do a long bike and don't do any running at all. From November to April, my average running miles per week is about 20.
Back to the 10% rule, please exercise reasonably. Even if you are only walking, I have had friends who decided to walk 10 miles one day after years of inactivity. And then they can't move the next day. That's just silly.
If you are sick and you haven't done a workout for a couple of days, or even a couple of weeks, you are going to have to go back that many days or weeks in your workout plan. You aren't going to be able to just keep going on the plan, even if you're completely recovered from the illness. And please PLEASE do not try to "make up" your missed days by adding them onto your workouts moving forward.
Do I workout when I'm sick? It depends, honestly. If I have a fever, I don't workout ever. But I mostly choose based on how I feel. If I feel like crap, I don't work out. If I can't get out of bed, I don't work out. If I just have the sniffles, I still workout, but mostly because I feel better when I workout. Still, I usually cut the mileage in half and also make it a lot easier.
Back to the 10% rule, if you are starting from scratch, you're going to have to start at some distance. For me, I started at .1 mile on a treadmill. Then I went up .1 mile at a time. I think this is a pretty reasonable increase. I also always took Sundays off, so there was one day a week where I had complete rest. I think that whether you are religious or not, one day a week off is a good plan.
A lot of people who run or do any form of exercise do the same thing every day, the same distance and the same pace. I don't think this is a good idea because your body tends to get used to it and then you don't have any more fitness gains. If you are getting older, you are going to lose muscle mass unless you fight against it with varied workouts. That's why you do weight lifting one day, and then different kinds of running, like hard running one day and a long run a couple days later. But if one week your longest long run is 6 miles, then the next week, it should be 6.5, not 7.
If you are doing something like biking or swimming, where there is less impact on your joints, you can possibly play with the 10% rule a little bit, even increase it up to 20%, though you should realize that this will increase your risk of injury or just as bad, discouragement and your need to recover.
Even the best runners have a limit as to how many miles they can do a week without injury. This tends to be right around 100 miles. For a good runner, that is about 10 hours a week of running. That's not that many hours of running, at least to a professional athlete. Add in some stretching and some weight training, and you have maybe twelve hours.
A professional swimmer like Michael Phelps will put in 5-6 hours a day, 6 days a week in the pool, which is more than triple what a runner can do. A professional biker will do about the same as a swimmer in terms of hours, maybe more. Running is just extremely hard on the body. It has certain benefits, like being weight bearing and it is possibly the most difficult workout possible, since you have to move your entire body weight without any assistance.
People who are starting out in a workout routine will probably want to keep their running pretty limited. Maybe once or twice a week for just a few minutes, like 4 or 5. Those who are more fit can run up to three or four times a week. I don't actually recommend running more often than that. I don't run more than that, even when I am in hard core training for a 50 mile running race.
I have a lot of friends who are exclusively runners. Frankly, I think they are crazy. They get injured fairly often and then they go crazy because they have nothing else that they like to do for fitness, and even though they know they should stay off their legs, they can't do it. They keep pushing before they are ready and often end up extending their injury phase. I sometimes want to shake these runners and tell them to find something else that they like to do. It would probably improve their running if they had some cross training skills. And not getting injured is possibly the number one important thing that you can do for your fitness. Obviously, we don't always have 100% control over this, but we do have some control.
When people hear that I have done ultramarathons and Ironman competitions, they seem to think that I must be running every day for hours. It isn't true. One day a week I do a long run, sometimes two days a week. Then I do other things with my time. I want to keep my muscles working, and make sure that my heart is being conditioned, but I don't want to kill my knees or hips which are both problem spots if I do too much running.
At my peak, I will be running 70 miles a week, and that is 40 miles one day, 20 the next, and then a couple of four or five mile runs in the rest of the week. But that's unusual for me. Most days I run 2-3 miles after a warm up bike. Some days I do the elliptical machine instead of running because it's easier on my knees, and then I go swimming at the gym. Some days I just do a long bike and don't do any running at all. From November to April, my average running miles per week is about 20.
Back to the 10% rule, please exercise reasonably. Even if you are only walking, I have had friends who decided to walk 10 miles one day after years of inactivity. And then they can't move the next day. That's just silly.
Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog
- Mette Ivie Harrison's profile
- 436 followers
Mette Ivie Harrison isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
