Skip to content

Screen Door

I’ve been getting some dislike mail about the grammatical structure of my posts, or that I’m sounding less coherent, and while I never found the need to defend my extemporaneous writings before, I probably should say that my entries are unpolished intentionally. I’m in the throes of a ten-step recovery program for writers who haven’t turned out anything for five years, so excuse me if I’m choosing to be a little raw with my posts. I think my entire existence as a writer has been about putting out material that’s been raw and truthful, so I’m not going to stop now, necessarily. If any of you ever wants a grammar beat down, give me a call. I’m happy to slap you around with the dangling participle I keep handy for just such an occasion.

Now if I may continue:

I hopped on the 146 to the South Loop of Chicago, where I needed to conduct some business. It takes a long time to travel the three and a half miles from my apartment in Lakeview to the Loop by bus, so there was an opportunity for me to sit at the back and think without worrying about missing my stop. When the bus got close to the Loop, I thought I was attentive in finding my stop, but when I was the last one on the bus and the driver waved to me to come forward, I knew I missed something. I handed her a rectangular card I kept my notes for this trip on. It was an important card, one that had my name and contact information on it. My school made me about a thousand of them, and whenever I need to write down directions, I turn to these cards, for some reason. I like that they’re cards, too, and not thin sheets of paper from a pad. It’s almost like having my own baseball card, only my picture isn’t on the front – my career stats aren’t on the back. I wouldn’t mind the picture on the front so much, because I’m happy with the way I look, but the stats on the back might bother me. I haven’t been the George Brett type – the Cal Ripken, if that helps you – someone who has stuck with one team his whole life. I’ve moved around to different organizations and different towns, and I’m starting to seriously contemplate why I’ve moved so much. I’m pretty sure it’s about not wanting to commit to a final resting place and about fear of death.

The bus driver didn’t really know what to make of my notes at first. There were a lot of numbers and arrows and one of the bus routes wasn’t even hers. The bus drivers of Chicago can tell you everything you need to know about their particular route. They know which restaurants fill up at Happy Hour, where all the careless pedestrians are, and where there always seems to be parking available. If you ask them about anything away from their route, though, even a block outside of their route, they have a hard time giving you any kind of direction. The driver helped me, though. Her long manicured nails tapped and scratched the front of the card while she was thinking of a way to get me toward my destination, the place I needed to conduct business. I kept tried to give her an out, told her I’d just get off where we were, run into Starbucks, and look it up online. She conceded and let me off at a nonscheduled stop, which is something these bus drivers never seem to do. I looked up at the sign at the bus stop, the one that explains which buses stopped there, and the 146 wasn’t on this sign. I felt special.

As much as I dislike western Massachusetts, and as disappointed as I am in how Pittsfield never did bounce back like everyone said it would, I miss our house. Since I left my parents’ when I was twenty-four, there’s not been a place I settled down in for as long as I’ve been in that house in Dalton. I miss the things that make it my home. There’s no way to properly write how much I miss my family, so I won’t even bother. Instead I’ll tell you that I miss my dog, and I miss my garage door, the one on the right, with the hole in one of the panels. I miss the precariously stacked pile of firewood on the right side of the garage, miss watching my neighbor, the hump, walk out to get his paper every morning. I miss looking out the living room window and onto the porch, where our porch rockers are, and hearing Molly’s paws on the floor, and I miss the screen door Jennet found who knows where but restored it to a soft, middle-class luster.

I’m never going back there, though, because it’s a stale place inhabited by stagnant, mediocre people – little fish in a little pond – and I’m getting my sons out of there.

I made my way west across West Lake Street, which crosses the Chicago River and runs directly underneath the EL, following its path for a few blocks. It wasn’t raining at all, but it was damp. Maybe it was snowing. As I walked west, I had to stay to the right, really close to the buildings, because water was coming off the tracks in a steady stream, as if the trains were swollen gray clouds that finally reached their saturation points. I like to think it always rains here, like some kind of anti-oasis, but I imagine it’s dry when it’s sunny…

Let me edit here, because I hit on a cool image of the EL as a long cloud: Let’s change “clouds that finally reach their saturation points” to “pouring rain on the street below.” So,

It wasn’t raining at all but it was damp, cold. It may have been snowing, I don’t remember. As I walked west, I stayed to the right, really close to the buildings, because water came off the tracks in a steady stream, as if the train were a long, swollen, grey cloud, pouring rain on the street below. I love to find the poignancy in every little scene, so I convinced myself for a second that it rained there all the time, like some kind of anti-paradise – poured down on the homeless people who made their homes beneath the bridge. It’s not realistic, though, to think the water pours down when it’s sunny.

Then the EL roared over my head with such a thunder that I didn’t know where I was, as if everyone under the bridge were tossed into the air, and we were not coming down to regain our bearings until the thunder stopped. The Loop is home to just about every EL route in the city, so the thunder is constant.

So when I walked further and saw makeshift cardboard homes tucked rather permanently into the catacombs under the bridge, it made sense to me. At least poignancy and metaphor began to fuse together, which is what we want in our clever little essays, right Meghan Daum?

The homes were tucked in the side slots of the cement, the catacombs under the bridge – equidistant cement beds where cardboard boxes nestled perfectly. To seal off the walls of these homes, the cardboard was overlapped. Plastic sheets and worn blankets covered the walls, and what I want to get at here is that there was a kind of doorstep, a section of plastic grass, that indoor/outdoor carpeting, where someone might wipe his shoes clean before going inside. These men sleep in their shoes; never have the comfort of removing their shoes in their own homes because you have to be ready to move when the proverbial Billy club taps atop the roof of the temporary home. Who was moving this home, though? It seemed too permanent to be able to pack up, even fold up, and move to a different location. It’s possible that these homes were permanent and that the inhabitants were the ones who changed. That wouldn’t make sense, though, because if the Chicago Police wanted them out of there, there would be no house to begin with.

So maybe the man did remove his shoes, occasionally, when he knew he’d be in for the night, when there may have been an understanding that he wouldn’t be bothered, because the rough, smoking, bundled, and brawling Chicago Police have hearts and better things to do (There are murders being committed, for chrissakes and you’re arresting me?) The Chicago Police know this line and protect the men who make their homes under the bridges – the busy, thunderous bridges.

I wish I had the skill to describe these catacombs correctly. They were shielded from traffic on the left and open to pedestrian visage on the right. I wish I had the smoothness of working the screen door into this scene because in front of one of the homes in the catacombs under the bridge of the EL on W Lake Street, a splintered and forgotten screen door rested horizontally. When the great trains: the Blue, the Pink, the Brown lines thundered above the home, the screen door shook, the teacups rattled in their cabinets, and the man inside the box slept.

 

Pipe Down, Shalom Auslander

My blog gets approximately fifty hits a day, which qualifies it as a personal journal, for the most part. The people who read it are people who care about me, people who dislike me and want to see if I talk about them (You (plural) know who you are.), and those who are interested in J.D. Salinger. Based on what people search before arriving at my blog, this is what they’re really interested in:

  • Where does J.D. Salinger live?
  • Did Frank Tempone really move to Chicago? If so, why did he go? What fucking happened? (Answer: None of your fucking business.)
  • Is Junot Diaz married?
  • Is Junot Diaz gay?
  • Is Junot Diaz an asshole?
  • What’s Amy Hempel up to?
  • What does it mean to have a 120/96 blood pressure?
  • Does anyone contemplate dialogue about ‘building a fire’ from Cormac McCarthy’s The Road?
  • Is Sherman Alexie as terrible as I think he is?

The day J.D. Salinger’s death was reported, I received 1,619 hits. The next day, January 29, I received 1,543 hits. January 30? 747. The numbers are dwindling, and soon my blog will return to its near-anonymity, but before that happens, I want to use my little moment in the sun to take a shot at an oh-so-irreverent writer named Shalom Auslander.

Actually, to have fifty people read your work – think about you – per day, isn’t too bad. Think about who pays attention to you on a normal day. How many people call you, for instance, or visit, or read anything you’ve written? How many of these people are strangers?

This fifty-per-day number is excluding the students who listen to me every weekday. Fifteen years as a teacher, all those student-listening sessions – I’m a lucky person.

I regret that I have nothing to help me parlay all this attention into big book sales. You know: someone shows up to look at the photos my wife took of Salinger’s house, see I’m selling a little book, and they consider buying it if they like my writing.

When Salinger died, some media outlets scrambled to cover his death and secured interviews with a few supposed experts to get their reactions to Salinger’s passing. NPR put together something decent, but had two writers, people meant to give a special kind of insight on Salinger. The first one to offer commentary was Rick Moody, whose writing I kind of like after reading it four or five times, but the pretension in his voice, his demeanor, his gait, sicken me. That’s really all I have to say about that.

The other guy was Shalom Auslander, someone obviously influenced heavily by Salinger. He has the irreverence down, but none of the talent Salinger had. My problem with him in this program happened in a span of like thirteen seconds. Host Robert Seigel, in introducing Auslander’s commentary, said “…as for Salinger’s final journey, writer Shalom Auslander was a bit concerned.” Auslander then says:

“I hope he’s being left alone. I hope God is leaving him alone, but I doubt it. That guy is probably a bit of a nag, probably chasing Salinger around for autographs…”

You might think it’s completely psychotic, but this upset me. Yes, I hunted down Salinger’s house and posted the photographs on my blog, but what this guy did to Salinger was worse.

Here’s some of Auslander’s work, fresh from his website:

Three sentence fragments in one paragraph, an annoying voice, riddled with cliché, and the words “Bling bling.”

Me? Photographs. Him? Copied his style, rendered it into unreadable garbage, then got on the radio while Salinger’s corpse was still warm, concerned that God wasn’t leaving Salinger alone. You know who should’ve left Salinger alone, Shalom? You. You should have.

Touché, Piccadilly Notebooks

I was just browsing in my local Borders, but only because it was there. Borders is by far the most inferior of the book chains on and off the web. There’s no stock, their prices are too high for an alleged big book chain, and they brew terrible coffee. In my browsings, I came across a Moleskine-looking display of notebooks – only they weren’t Moleskines. These were called Piccadilly, an obvious ripoff of Moleskine. They’re black, have the elastic band wrapped around the notebook, the paper seems to be high quality, and most importantly to me, it opens up like a Moleskine does. The problem with most small journal-type notebooks is with the binding. Most have a seemingly spring-loaded binding that makes it impossible to write in the notebook without using a small boulder to hold down the other side of the book. It’s especially cumbersome for left-handed writers, like I am. Normally, with inexpensive, pretentious notebooks that white people like, you have to crack the binding in half for it to lie flat.

Piccadilly Notebooks don’t have this problem and they are 50% cheaper than Moleskine notebooks. Piccadilly, Inc. needs to know, though, that in spite of being a Borders exclusive company, the Moleskine display is way more prominently placed than the Piccadilly one. You walk into a Borders and the Moleskine display is right there in your face. The Piccadilly display is nestled in a ghost town section of my Borders, upstairs and buried on a shelf next the cookbooks.

Still, I’ll not buy one of these notebooks, nor will I buy a Moleskine ever again. Couple reasons: I have a few blank ones left from a Borders Outlet going out of business sale, where I got a bunch of lined Moleskines for three bucks a piece, and these Mead Composition books, the ones that were apparently good enough for my writing habits before I decided to lean toward being trendy. Mead Composition books range from $1 at Target to two or three dollars at CVS or Walgreens. It still looks cool, too, to walk around town with a Mead Composition book.

And I’ll Miss Tom Brokaw, Too

When people like J.D. Salinger die, we’re not necessarily distraught over the loss as if it were a person particularly close to us. I think our sometimes inexplicable grief is a reaction to the thought that another piece has broken off the foundation of our frame of reference. Even in his isolation, a refusal to acknowledge any of us, J.D. Salinger occupied an important place in the lives of literary people. He was someone we knew, or at least knew of, and he provided us with a sense of security in a way. When things get particularly bad in the world, we could, if we wanted, say: “Well, at least J.D. Salinger is still in that house over in Cornish, New Hampshire.” There’s something to be said about this. Losing parents, siblings, and close friends tear huge chunks of our foundations out, and that’s a permanent pain that we might learn to live with. Celebrities or cultural icons are small parts of this foundation, but there’s still a feeling that we’ve lost something faintly significant when they’ve gone.

Kurt Cobain committed suicide during my first year as a teacher. I was 25 and my students were 13, 14, or 15. I always resented them for all their skulking around, the crying, the t-shirt wearing, the candlelight vigils, because I always thought Kurt was more mine than he was theirs. All I could do was sit there and watch what I thought was false grieving for someone only I had seen in person.

But maybe Kurt Cobain provided some kind of a small piece of a foundation for these kids, and they were completely surprised by the small hole his death left in their lives.

So it’s sad to lose people like Salinger, Howard Zinn, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, Tim Russert, Dick Schaap, Michael Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and Walter Cronkite, even if they weren’t necessarily important in the grand scheme of things, because they occupied a small place of stability in our lives.

Who are the people that hold small pieces of the foundation of your frame of reference? Maybe none of us knows until he or she is actually gone.

Remarkable, Unmistakable

The truth is that I always thought it would be cool to be a brooding, isolated person who was misunderstood by everyone. There may have been times in my teens and early twenties when I actually practiced this artifice on people with the convenience of being able to revert to my happiness.

I had a very good childhood, and that never boded well for me as a writer. I needed to have a terrible childhood, been abused or something. I needed a tragedy early on to be a good writer, because in my mind, if there was no tragedy, there was no conflict, and thus (thus?) nothing to write about. If there was no family tragedy, then I’d have to drink, snort coke, do (do?) speed, drop (I know this one is correct) acid, or something. I wasn’t interested in any of that, either.

So now that I got my wish, experiencing all of it genuinely, hearing from people of different degrees of importance in my life that I am aloof, an asshole, that I isolate myself, I’m unfriendly, moody, unreliable, a terrible host, bad friend, that I exhibit the behaviors of an alcoholic (Yes, someone recently said that to me despite the fact that I drink one beer every two or three weeks, but I think I’ve figured out why I come across this way.) — now that it’s all too real, and that there’s nothing I can do to revert to my strong roots in happiness, it is remarkably and unmistakably painful.

Remind Me That I’m Not Raymond Carver

It’s difficult for me to admit I’m getting older, or to accept it with any kind of grace. I have always been like this, though, especially with respect to my writing. The easiest way not to get anything done as a writer is to pick your favorite writer, figure out how old he was when he published his great works, then reflect on how old you are and how far along you have come in your writing. Are you ahead of his pace? Is there still time to write that book and endure the twelve to twenty-four months it would take for the publishing house to release the book? Can you get away with calling yourself a late-bloomer? Kerouac published The Town and the City at 28. Bad news for me. The good news ? He published On the Road at 35. This was encouraging until I turned 35 and hadn’t published anything more than a handful of my stories in literary magazines.

This psychosis is the best way to disappoint yourself with absolute nonsense.

Despite only publishing in small, but ambitious and hard working magazines (Another Chicago Magazine, 580 Split, upstreet, et al.), there was a time my work was on the desks of the editors of Esquire, Playboy, and The New Yorker — placed there by an agent and getting special consideration. No, the stories were never published, but neither were yours. Mine got personal attention, as did my full manuscript from big publishers like Random House and Vintage and Simon & Schuster. I say this not necessarily to brag, but in an attempt to convince myself, now 39, that where there was once hope and promise, there still can be. I can still do it if I choose to, regardless of how old I am.

To further these insane behaviors, I texted my wife some frantic instructions to search through my cardboard writerly archives in our attic back in western Massachusetts and find, in the piles of rejection emails and letters, the one letter to my agent from some major editor that read “His work is reminiscent of Ray Carver’s.”

Jennet, my wife, told me she was amazed by how many letters there were, and how many of them contained specific, personal, and sometimes lengthy notes from editors and publishers about the promise of my work.

“So you were impressed,” I asked her. She said yes.

I need to find that letter, because I need to tell you the editor’s name, and I need to hold onto that shred of a reminder that my work once meant something. This guy: he didn’t say, “Hey, this guy reads like Raymond Carver…” He said “Ray.” He called him Ray. The people who knew Carver did not call him Raymond, they called him Ray, just like this guy. Are you understanding what I’m saying? Can you feel this completely?

So, naturally, I bought Raymond Carver: A Writer’s Life, a beautiful biography written by Carol Sklenicka. I love reading this book because I feel some sort of kinship with this man. It doesn’t matter that it might be false. It doesn’t matter that you think I might be silly in thinking any of this. All that matters is what I think. I need this right now, and you’re going to let me have this.

I hate the idea of annotating books I read for pleasure. Books I teach, or facilitate discussion with? I have no problem highlighting, writing notes, anything.

With this book, however, I find myself writing notes, journal entries, blog topics, diatribes, and personal admonitions in every little bit of white space I can find. Something about the contents — something about Ray Carver’s life (That’s right, I called him Ray — I can call him Ray), and how close I feel to it, is pushing me to write again. It’s commanding me to write without regard to what the end result will be. I haven’t had this feeling in a very, very long time.

The first bit of jottings have to do with the idea of saving your work. Lame writers who are deathly frightened that they will never be able to produce anything remotely good again will often save their “best” stories for the best possible publications. In other words, if a publication of little note expresses interest in your work, you’ll send them a story or essay just good enough to satisfy them, while saving your alleged masterpiece for when Esquire comes calling. Writers have the right to choose the fate of their particular creations, but it doesn’t mean it’s not completely paranoid and presumptuous.

Carver never really seemed to do this. He just kept writing. Yes, it seems that he was concerned about where his work went, but never to the point of it stopping his production. There wasn’t one particular piece he held onto for dear life because he had ten or twenty in the works right behind it.

A couple of writers come to mind when I think of this. Nance Van Winckel is a writer from the Pacific Northwest and a former teacher of mine. She always told me that publication never stopped her production. She received hundreds of rejections. Yes, hundreds, because she’d constantly send her stories and poems back out (revised) as fast as they were rejected. The result: a ton of publication credits in the country’s most prestigious literary magazines and several published books.

The other person I think of is Stephen Dixon. He has authored twenty-nine novels and short story collections, and he seems to care not a bit about where his work is published. He just keeps generating new material, constantly, and is so confident in his production that he’ll allow any particular story, essay, or novel excerpt to fall anywhere: small university lit mag, major glossy that publishes fiction, fledgling online mag. It doesn’t matter.

I am 39 and I care a little bit less about how old I am and where I stand as a writer than I did an hour ago. I’m not going to be frightened anymore, and I need you to know, whoever the fuck you are, that I’m just getting started.

The Pregnant Snowman

When I was a kid we built snowmen, and the one I remember most, for some reason, is one my father helped us build during the blizzard of 1978. I’m assuming it was during this time, but maybe I’m compressing every snowstorm into the memory of the big one in 1978, when we could have jumped into the snow from the top of our house on Johnson Avenue and landed safely in a heavenly cloud of powder. I’m not just compressing snowstorms, either, but also the physical appearance of my father, who, in his best days, sported a gorgeous, full, chestnut brown mustache.

He was a handsome and fearsome man, and we built that snowman together that day. I know my mother was there, and Billy was there. If it was 1978, Jeffrey would have been just born, but I don’t remember him being there. The snowman was an ordinary one, but it had what appeared to be a bruise on its foundation. In other words, if a snowman is built of three progressively smaller snow mounds, one atop the other, the one with the bruise was the bottom snow mound. I remember my father made a comment to my mother about the bruise, which was a little brown area on the snow, claiming that the snowman must be pregnant. My mother laughed at him, as she does often when my father gets going with his jokes. Despite the man’s severity through most of our youth, he could have my mother laughing so hysterically that it would send her into coughing fits, tears streaming down her beautiful face.

I might be a remembering a photograph, too, come to think of it, because I’m getting an image of a photograph. My mother must have taken the picture, because I cannot remember one single instance when my father ever had a camera in his hand. A vision of him drawing a camera to his eye to take a snapshot is completely foreign to me.

If they took a picture of this strange snowman, it strikes me as an anomaly not unlike a UFO sighting. Why take a picture of a snowman with a brown spot on the bottom snow mound? What does a brown mark have to do with being pregnant? It makes no sense.

On Condescension

…so what seemed like fourteen kids board the bus, howling. People in the front seats scatter like there’s been a cockroach infestation. Kids take the seats, surround an older woman who scolds them. Their mother, pushing a stroller — a two seater — boards the bus behind them.

– Just sit down. I don’t want you to speak. Just sit down.

One of the younger of the fourteen hides under the seat, thrashing in the vomit and antiseptic and who knows what else, but little children like to hide underneath things.

– Sit down, the mother keeps saying. I don’t want you to talk. Could you please just stop talking.

She looks like she’s speaking to the old woman, but she’s not. She’s pleading with the eldest of the fourteen kids. It seems like they’ve been through this before, because when the mother of fourteen begins to weep, the eldest daughter, probably about twelve years old, bows her head.

At the next stop, the mother drags the stroller off the bus. She exits without saying a word, as if she hoped the bus would take two or three of her children away. Around me, people are snickering: the two Philippinas who gave up their seats for the little ones, a gay couple sitting on a side row of seats. Actually, the Philipinas chuckled first, ridiculed the weeping and overworked mother in Tagalog. Then the gay couple fortified the derision by grinning condescendingly.

I say: Actually, it isn’t really funny. That woman was weeping.

They say: —

I think: Good. You should shut the –

I want to say: And you know what’s funny, gay couple? You walking your shitzu, talking to it like it’s a real person. scooping up its shit with your hand covered with a plastic bag. The shitzu’s done, so while you’re checking the seeds in his shit to make sure his rigorous diet is all according to plan, it’s kicking up grass in your face during its post-shitting ritual.

See, that’s smirkable.

I Write About You

The things that scare me most are about routines, redundancies, traditions: waking up the same time every morning, the same bus stop and same route.

There was a handsome Asian man preparing his coffee next to me, and he smelled sour. Sour doesn’t quite describe it correctly, but it was a marrying of cologne and his breath, which could have benefitted from a mint. What if that smell was all we knew, though? What if that’s what we recognized as a pleasant smell? You couldn’t what-if smelling salts in the same way but you probably could with this kind of smell. If we all believed, were conditioned to believe, that the odor coming off this otherwise clean gentleman was what I should have expected…

I use the back door of this coffeeshop for a few reasons. I like the chairs. They’re plain, neat, brown lounge chairs, just wide enough to hug you if you settled into one with newspaper in hand. There are three chairs, arranged triangularly in front of a fireplace that will be roaring in another month. Someone’s job here will be to light this thing, or flick a switch to light this thing, every morning at the same time. Maybe it’ll be the manager with the nose ring, because she loves fireplaces, or maybe it’ll be the gentle, tall guy with one arm, because he’s been here for three years, and he’s always lit the fireplace.

I use the back door because it’s a large, wooden door. The one up front is a steel and glass, retail store door. The big wooden door has modern amenities: a push bar to open it, for instance, but it’s still better than using the narrow one up front.

The back door is closer to the crosswalk, too.

Before I cross I see the Asian guy again, and he’s sitting at a table outside with his son – a boy about the same age as David – and he’s teaching the little boy Rock, Paper, Scissors. Big fist and little fist are pounding open palms, and I’m watching from the corner. There are bright white teeth and there is laughter.

I’m always writing about things like this. Things are always reminding me of my sons, because I’m taking them everywhere with me. David has never been in this coffeeshop, but he is with me, and there’s a smile on his face, and he is asking questions:

Where did the moon go?

What’s in the cup?

Are you proud of me?

Do you ever write about me, Daddy?

I have fallen into a routine I love here. David is with me right now, through the big wooden door he wants to push open for me. He’s with me in the ridiculous tears down my face when I cross the street to go to work. He’s with me through the pain, pain, pain.

On Being a Man

Part of the enjoyment of being a teacher of English is that you will read books you never would have considered picking up in the bookstore. I had to read a series of books for an American Experience class I’m teaching, and strangely, both dealt with the African-American experience: Kindred, by Octavia Butler and Passing, by Nella Larson. I’ve taught for fifteen years, and not only had I not read either of these books before, but I had never heard of these books before. Forget what it says about how much more I need to read. It makes an embarrassing statement about me as a so-called educated white person. Nella Larson (1891-1964) was a librarian turned writer from Chicago and wrote during the Harlem Renaissance, which coincided with, or most likely, helped to define, the Modernist movement in the United States.

As I ventured into the book, the comparisons to The Great Gatsby were coming to me vividly, complete with Nick Carroway’s counterpart in the book, Irene Redfield, and a conglomeration of Daisy and Gatsby named Clare Kendry. Both are Modernist fictions in the way each examines the problem with obsessing over identity, and I was a little suspicious of how Larsen seemed to borrow a lot from Gatsby (I checked to see which was written first and didn’t automatically assume Fitzgerald had done it first, which makes me a little better white person, no?)

As I got deeper into the book, though, the third-person, omniscient, psychological ruminations turned me toward comparisons to Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, starring Irene as Clarissa Dalloway and Clare Kendry as an amalgamation of Sally Seton, Peter Walsh, and Septimus Smith, complete with the jumping out the window bit. That’s when I found out Larsen’s career was basically cut short because of accusations of plagiarism. None of the accusations had to do with Gatsby or Mrs. Dalloway, and nothing was ever really proved as far as I could tell from my brief research, but it was obvious to me that these major Modernist works set her on the path she took in Passing. Still, it’s an excellent book that only she could have written.

Being a librarian, though, I don’t blame her for mistakenly borrowing the plots, characters, and themes of these books. Librarians read the books they recommend constantly. They are always, always reading, so it’s natural for everything in those books to burn into her mind, only to spill into her own work later. I wrote a lot during my years as a middle school teacher, and I was very proud with what I had written. Then one day I was discussing The Pigman by Paul Zindel with my seventh graders and noticed that I had actually lifted a line from the book and wrote it, unknowingly, into one of my stories. It was horrifying. Lydia Davis once said that she never reads anything while she’s writing, and I can see why.

But I question whether my conclusion about Nella Larson’s borrowing had more to do with my familiarity with both of the texts I compared to her work. Maybe the characters line up so obviously to me because I wanted them to – that it could be done with thousands of literary characters, and that it might have more to do with the people of the time.

How great is my job that I can claim to have read and analyzed great books over and over again? Using my brothers as examples, Billy works with numbers – can claim a thorough familiarity with numerical figures and how they are applied to proper bookkeeping for a multi-million dollar pharmaceutical firm. Fun.

Jeffrey can claim to have thoroughly studied the mechanisms of cooling systems, small motors. He can set up and take down an Olympic-caliber ice-surface. He can also discuss what happens on the tarmac of a major airline, how to place occupied coffins into the baggage compartment of a jet, and how to set up a landscaping business.

I’m able to say that I’ve experienced worlds of fiction and in doing so, I’ve found out something different about myself and the literature every time I’ve read it, as long as it isn’t anything by Gary Paulsen, which is the absolute worst writing I have ever read by someone so successful – even worse than James Frey.

So what does it all mean? What kind of advantage can I say I have by being able to boast that my skill – the thing I do every day – is to be able to pull apart, analyze, and ostensibly reassemble the words of a writer – to be able to live in someone else’s world every single day and avoid my own. If all other things were equal, I might be able to say I had an advantage. But all things are not equal.

There are four major components, as far as I can tell, of being a man:

His Fatherhood

His Job

His Personal and Individual Identity

His Marriage

My brothers are great fathers. There’s no disputing this. I would like to think that I am, also, a great father, despite the fact that I am now living 800 miles away from them, and can kiss them only by puckering my lips on video chat, repeatedly, because “I didn’t get it, Daddy. Jack was blocking me…” Despite the fact that I have left my sons, I think I’m as good a father as my brothers.

To my brothers, again, as far as I can tell, the job is the means to support their families and barely anything more. My occupation is part of my lifestyle, or my personal identity, for better or worse. It means that after the work is done, my brothers go home to be husbands and fathers, and I am constantly wrapped up in my work because my work is my lifestyle. I have never separated my work from my personal life, and I have let my personal life and obsession over my own identity consume me. I think this is the definition of a self-centered person.

My brothers’ personal identities relate directly to their children and wives and nothing else. My brothers have no passions, as far as I can see, other than their wives and children. They have sacrificed their personal identities for their families, and they are seen as good men for it, while my obsession over my personal life has nearly destroyed my marriage and broken me into jagged pieces.

I’ve come to Chicago to try and put myself back together.