Finally Together
A Wedding in December is the fourth novel by Anita Shreve that I’ve read. (The others: All He Ever Wanted ; The Weight of Water ; The Last Time They Met.) The reason I keep going back to read Shreve is her ability to communicate about people, emotions and relationship. Yes, yes, if her books were movies, they’d be “chick flicks” — but I can’t help it, novels with this kind of depth and character development appeal to me. In an Anita Shreve work, I feel I get to know and care about the characters, and by the time I finish reading, I don’t want to let them go.
If you go to Amazon.com, you can find the remarks of some folks who were less than thrilled with this novel. I wasn’t disappointed, however. The story revolves around a reunion — a “Big Chill” kind of event, in a sense. Seven former high-school classmates gather together at an inn in the Berkshires to witness the wedding of Bill & Bridget — two who were high-school sweethearts, but did not end up together. Each of them, ultimately, married someone else. However, at their 25th reunion, they reconnect: Bridget a single mom of a teenage son; Bill still married, with a daughter. They resolve to finally pursue a life together, even though it is at the cost of Bill’s marriage. Bridget then gets breast cancer, and they decide to get married, to make public their commitment to each other. Nora, one of the former classmates and owner of the inn, hosts the event at this idyllic setting in the mountains.
But, this is not really intended to be a book review! What resonated with me, and why I am writing about this today, were the pervasive themes of “distance” and “closeness” in relationships, and how Shreve juxtaposed them. Nora & Harrison, Agnes & Jim, and Innes & Hazel are couples at great emotional and geographic distance. These all, are stories of love denied, love delayed, love hidden, love forbidden. In each case, there is evidence of great pain and sacrifice given the distance and unavailability of one for the other.
Then, there are Jerry & Julie, and Rob & Josh, couples who are currently “together.” Jerry & Julie’s relationship, however, seems to parallel the emotional distance of the other relationships.
The only two couples who are really “together,” and devoted to each other, are the ones for which the obstacles appear to be the greatest. Rob & Josh, of course, are gay men. Bill & Bridget have had to endure the dissolution of his marriage (and the rejection by his daughter) for them to be together — and then they become destined to tackle the challenges of Bridget’s cancer: a condition that may severely limit any real time (or really good time) they may have with each other.
Bill & Bridget waited 25 years to decide that they were meant for each other. They’re finally together, though, despite the obstacles. Nora and Harrison come together during the weekend, but it’s unknown, at the end of the story, whether or not they have a future. Agnes & Jim, Innes & Hazel: how will these couples do? Will they eventually seek out a way to be together after years and years of distance?
Here are my personal dilemmas: How long does one wait in this existence for one’s true love? A lifetime? When you give away your heart, how do you retrieve it? If you can’t really be with the one you love, is it actually possible to love the one you’re with?
The Kindness of Strangers
I like to go to the post office on Sunday mornings these days. The self-service facilities are great, there are few others there at that time, and I don’t have to stand in line to mail a package anymore. This morning, as I was getting out of my car in the post-office lot, there was a rather pleasant-looking young woman, standing on the sidewalk, waving at me and trying to get my attention. She was probably 20 years old, nicely dressed, but shivering in the cold and wind, nervous, and seemed to be near tears. She timidly asked if she could have some change, as she was trying to get enough together to afford a bus ticket to Salem. She kept saying that she’d never done anything like this before, and that I must “think her weird.” I asked her what the story was, and she said haltingly, in a very quiet voice, that she’d been living up here in Portland for about three weeks, but that her boyfriend had just kicked her out, so she needed to get back to Salem. She said that she thought she’d try asking people for money to see if she could get the sixteen dollars together to pay for the Greyhound to take her south (and “home,” I inferred).
She looked afraid and vulnerable; she was trembling. I very rarely open my pocket or wallet to strangers on the street, but this seemed like a good cause if there ever was one. I had a $5 bill in my wallet, so I extracted it and handed it over to her. She asked if I wanted it mailed back to me, but I said no, wished her luck, and told her to “be safe.”
As I was in the post office, I immediately got to thinking that I should have done more. It was cold out there today. What should I have done? Offered her a ride to the bus station? Paid for her ticket to Salem? Well, yes, to both of those (after) thoughts. I finished up mailing my package, went back out into the lot to find her, but she had disappeared.
I am kicking myself for not thinking faster: for not taking the risk of offering more, and more complete, assistance. Why didn’t I? Why did I hold back? Well, my own fear would appear to be the only answer. I feared the unknown: in terms of getting involved with someone for twenty minutes that I didn’t really know and could turn the tables on me, or enlist me in some kind of bigger “con.” Are those OK reasons?
Oregon’s Schools
An editorial in The Oregonian today discussed the recent death of the “CIM” (Certificate of Initial Mastery) for public K-12 schools in Oregon. The “CAM” (Certificate of Advanced Mastery), of course, never, really, had a life. Both of these initiatives were products of school-reform legislation passed by the Oregon Legislative Assembly in 1991 (as the “Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century”) but, from the beginning, faced impressive amounts of resistance from a number of constituencies: politicians, educators, parents, and students alike.
So, here we are, fourteen years later, admitting the failure of these proficiency-based approaches to student learning…at least as they have been implemented here in Oregon. Susan Castillo, our current State Superintendent of Public Instruction, indicated yesterday that the CIM and CAM embraced “...high standards, strong accountability for student performance and creat[ed] a relevant learning experience…” (The Oregonian, December 10, 2005, p. B4), and vowed not to abandon those goals. What she plans to propose to the Oregon State Board of Education and to the legislature, in the place of CIM and CAM (if anything), remains a mystery.
Really, folks, even after years and years of effort, the CIM and CAM never had a chance in this state, despite the superhuman efforts of so many who wanted to see them succeed. The Proficiency-based Admissions Standards System (PASS) of the Oregon University System (public higher-education’s response to lower-ed’s reforms) was, in my opinion, always similarly doomed. Why? Well, timing might be one response, but lack of leadership, funding, and commitment are really the answers.
In 1991, when the initial school reform legislation was enacted (it has been amended in every legislative session since then), Oregon voters had just passed Measure 5, the property-tax limitation initiative, in the 1990 election. When I moved away from Oregon in the summer of 1990, I knew of no one who gave Measure 5 a chance of passing. But, come that November, it did. And, in terms of the political and economic landscapes of the state, Oregon has never really been the same. Certainly Oregon education, at all levels, has quite dramatically changed since then.
We are idea rich and dollar poor. Well, truthfully, we're probably idea poor as well. The “no new taxes” mantra of the first G. Bush, has been translated, by Oregon voters, into “no taxes.” Period. It seems the citizens of this state expect government, and the education systems it supports (K-12, community colleges, public universities), to do their jobs with less and less. But, to the point here, Oregon passed school-reform legislation at the very time that we were beginning to seek ways to implement Measure 5, and there just has never been enough money to do the job. School reform really wasn’t (and isn’t) that bad of an idea. It’s just that it takes resources, and, of course, leadership. The likes of Norma Paulus, Stan Bunn, and Susan Castillo, our elected State Superintendents since 1991, simply put, have been prime examples of poor educational leadership.
Oregon: we deserve better. We need resources. We need leadership. We need an enlightened public.
The Well-Lived Life
This weekend, my brother-in-law Dave (in Rochester, MN) had to have emergency surgery. As I write this, late on a Sunday afternoon, he’s apparently out-of-the-woods and on his way to making a recovery. But, of course, every incident such as this only serves to remind us of the fragility of our existence. It certainly reminds me, anyway.
And, regarding this existence: I’m always questioning about how to make the most appropriate use of the short, short time I have here on Planet Earth. For example, has my decision to be an educator been a sound one? Am I as healthy as I want to be? Am I happy doing what I’m doing and where I’m doing it?
