Sunday, December 24, 2006

Death & Diamonds

Op-Ed Contributor | A Work of Fiction

A Real Gem

Published: December 24, 2006

Thanks to cutting-edge technology and a patented process, the newly bereaved no longer need to say goodbye. For a reasonable price, the compassionate and caring consultants at Eternal Love Gemstone Inc.® will transform the carbon of your loved one into a beautiful, gemologist-certified diamond mounted in any one of our wide variety of jewelry settings. True love is eternal. So is a diamond.

THERE’S no question my wife, Marsha, is batty, but this time I think she was on to something. Not that I would have agreed to the idea if she’d run it past me ahead of time: I had plenty of notions about the afterlife, but they usually involved angel wings and St. Peter at the heavenly gates. Never did I imagine this.

It took me a while to clue in to what was happening. Being dead is disorienting enough: one minute you’re cleaning out the eaves and reaching a little farther than maybe you ought and the next someone is zipping you up in a bag. And the bedside manner of that mortician left something to be desired, bouncing around to that horrible hip-hop and ramming things into me like nobody’s business. It’s disrespectful is what it is. Would it have killed him to play a little Brahms? Then in the crematorium — everything went so dark for so long I was terrified I’d been put in the ground or sealed in an urn. And the pressure! Lord help me. It wasn’t until that fellow plucked me out of the squeeze thing and held me up to a jeweler’s loupe that I finally understood what was going on, and that’s only because I remembered that story on NPR.

I guess Marsha remembered it too. At the time I thought the whole concept was nuts and said so. Marsha just sat quietly and listened. My only complaint is that the place she sent me also does pets. Did she check how well they clean their equipment? For all I know I’ve got dog residue in me. Speaking of which, she’d better not be planning on doing this with that sloppy mutt of hers. I’m guessing this wasn’t cheap, and Barney’s no purebred.

When Marsha cracks open the box and looks in at me, she holds her hand to her chest. I gather it’s Christmas. Gift-wrapping me seems a bit over the top, but I suppose she was excited at my reappearance. Like I said, Marsha’s a little on the ditzy side. Lord only knows what she’s been up to while I’ve been gone. Probably run up all the credit cards, and I’ll bet she hasn’t checked the car’s oil once.

She looks different — thinner, and her hair is blond. She’s also wearing makeup, something I never approved of. She looks ridiculous for a woman her age, slathered in orangey-pink mousse with her eyelids painted blue. Talk about mutton.

She holds me up to the light, letting me dangle in a most disconcerting way before finally fastening me around her neck. It’s a strange view. Life as Marsha sees it, only 10 inches lower. She may be a ditz, but I’ll tell you what: she was using her head when she had me set in a pendant rather than a ring. Just watching how much her hands move makes me want to vomit. I’m dizzy enough nestled on the relative calm of her throat. I think it’s the facets: I suppose I’ll get used to them, but I feel like a housefly coming around after an anesthetic.

Marsha sips her coffee and patters into the kitchen. I’m still woozy, but I can see that she’s preparing a turkey breast rather than an entire bird. I assume this means our hippie son decided not to come home for Christmas. Still following that wife of his around, I suppose. Doctors Without Borders indeed. And what is he? Her scrub nurse? Apparently he was too good for the shoe business. Fifty years I worked so I’d have something to leave him and he’d rather go traipsing around Afghanistan. Children, they rip your heart out.

Marsha wanted more, but I was thinking of her when I laid down the law. Think of all the heartache I saved her. She never saw it that way, but this proves me right. Would it have killed Justin to invite his mother for Christmas? I know Karen never warmed to us, but this year at least you’d think she’d make the effort.

Marsha is humming “Little Drummer Boy” and poking stuffing under the turkey breast. Her fingers are coated with bread crumbs, butter and sage. That huge yellow beast of a mongrel is standing on his hind legs right beside her licking the counter, and she’s doing absolutely nothing to stop him, just humming and stuffing, humming and stuffing — meanwhile his great pink tongue and dirty toenails are inches from the food. I probably ate dog slobber every meal of my life since the moment she talked me into letting her keep him, never mind what he brought in on his feet. But I’m lonely with Justin gone, she said. I’m not ready to be an empty-nester. What was I going to do? Dollars to doughnuts she lets him sleep on the bed now. I always suspected she let him up on the furniture the second I left for the store.

Marsha puts the meat in the oven and rinses her hands with water only, no soap. I’m surprised I didn’t die of E. coli. When she moves into the dining room, she doesn’t even try to make Barney get down, just leaves him scrounging on the counter. She circles the table, arranging two place mats, two napkins, two china plates — oh God. Justin is coming home. Karen must have left him. I knew she was no good. I told Marsha right from the beginning, but would she listen? Oh no. Give the girl a chance, she said. Only a very special person could do that kind of work. Now who’s right? Eh, Marsha? I’m just surprised he’s not back living in the basement.

O Lord, please tell me he’s not back living in the basement.

When the phone rings and Marsha hurries back to the kitchen, she doesn’t seem remotely fazed to find Barney standing with all four feet on the kitchen table. “Oh, Barney, you’re impossible!” she says with no conviction whatever. She might as well have said, “There’s a good boy.” Barney grins at her for the space of a couple of wags with his legs splayed, and then goes back to the business of dragging his grotesquely long tongue across the table’s surface.

Marsha plucks off an earring — I haven’t seen those before, did she get her ears pierced? — and reaches for the phone.

“Hello?”

I’m close enough to hear every word: “Merry Christmas, Mom!” Justin and Karen chirp, immediately before launching into a bad rendition of “We Wish You a Merry Christmas.” They have half a nerve. I suppose he thinks a phone call will make up for leaving his mother alone on her first Christmas of widowhood. She should hang up on them, but she won’t. She always coddled Justin. Let him get away with murder, just like the dog.

“Oh, goodness!” says Marsha. “That was lovely! Sounds like you’re having fun.”

“We’re fine, but I still think you should be here with us,” Karen says.

Marsha’s hand waves dismissively in front of her, as though they can see her. “Don’t worry so much.”

“It’s not good to be alone on Christmas. Especially this one. You should be with family,” says Justin.

“I’m fine, sweetheart.”

“Do you want us to come get you?” Karen asks. “Justin could be there in a couple of hours. The bird is huge. Pack a bag, stay a few days.”

“No, really. I have plans.”

“Plans? Are you going out?”

“I’m having someone over.”

“One of your girlfriends?”

“No,” Marsha says.

“Oooooh,” trills Karen. “Anything we should know about?”

“Not yet.”

Not yet? Not yet?

“Well, if you’re sure you’re O.K. ...”

“I’m fine, sweetheart. Oh — there’s my doorbell. Must dash! Love you!”

Marsha kiss-kisses into the receiver and hangs up. She pauses to clip her earring back on (thank God she hasn’t completely lost her mind) and stops in front of the hall mirror long enough to fluff her hair. When she opens the door, my business partner is behind it.

Morty? What does Morty want with my wife on Christmas? He’s Jewish, for crying out loud.

Morty struggles out of his coat and drapes it across the hall chair in an overly familiar gesture. When he leans in to kiss her and dangles his stubbly neck wattle over me, I want to throw up. He has Old Spice stink lines rising off him. “Merry Christmas to my beautiful business partner!” he says, pressing a wrapped gift into her hands.

His bug eyes flash. He reaches out and mauls me with fat sausage fingers. Hey, Marsha? You want to get a clue? The bastard’s looking at your cleavage. Which you apparently powdered.

“So that’s him, is it?”

“It is.”

“I thought you said it was a diamond.”

“It is a diamond.”

“It’s yellow.”

“They come in yellow, blue, or red. I liked the blue better, but it takes longer and I’d already waited 26 weeks.”

“Diamonds are supposed to be clear.”

“It has something to do with the remains.”

“Huh,” Morty ponders. “How big is it?”

“Just under a carat.”

“Really? I’m surprised. Norm wasn’t exactly a small man ...”

And just who’s talking, Mr. Porkster? Checked a mirror lately? You haven’t missed a meal in 76 years.

“The longer the remains are in the press the bigger the diamond, but I wanted it for Christmas. It’s the only jewelry I ever got from him.”

I beg your pardon? Are you forgetting your wedding ring? Maybe it’s not the biggest, but it’s all I could afford at the time. I know I said I’d replace it one day, but by then we were married and I figured I didn’t need to impress you anymore. O.K., O.K., maybe I should have replaced the diamond. But can you please not complain to Morty, of all people? Sweet Jesus, woman.

She shows him into the kitchen and ladles steaming mulled wine into garish mugs with snowmen painted on them. From the Home Shopping Network, no doubt. Barney crashes down from the table and greets Morty, who goes to great pains to pretend to like him, even crouching on the floor. He struggles to his feet when Marsha hands him a mug garnished with a cinnamon stick.

I had forgotten just what a bore Morty could be. Through the rest of the preparation and halfway through dinner he hardly lets her get a word in edgewise, what with yammering about his condo in Florida, his sons and their children, his sailboat, the marvelous life he’s built. Just when I’m finally managing to tune him out the old son-of-a-gun comes up with, “We could be more than business partners, Marsha.”

I want to kill him. I want to leap from her throat and wrap around his and twist, twist, twist until his eyes pop and his tongue swells blue and his skin is black.

Marsha drops her eyes. “Please, Morty. It’s only been six months.”

Yes. That’s my girl —

“My Becca’s been gone four years. Life is short, and let’s face it, we’re not getting any younger.” He reaches across the table and snags the tips of my wife’s fingers. She doesn’t pull away. “Becca always said that if she went first she wanted me to find someone else. I’m sure Norm wouldn’t want you to be alone.”

Speak for yourself, Buster! And Marsha! For God’s sake, we played bridge with Morty and Becca for 40 years! He’s after the other half of the business is what. He doesn’t want you.

“I could get you a real diamond. A clear diamond.” He raises one of those Donald Trump eyebrows, and I suddenly realize Marsha is not the only one dyeing her hair.

Marsha withdraws her hand. “Goodness.” She folds her hands in her lap, where Barney’s massive head is resting. Then she rises. “I’ll be right back.”

“Marsha —”

“I have to check the pudding.”

IN the kitchen, she stands in front of the microwave, staring at her reflection in the glass. She brings her hands to her cheeks and holds them there, breathing heavily.

I could kill him for upsetting her. He’s my business partner, for crying out loud. You don’t go after your partner’s wife. I know she’s lovely. She always has been. I can’t say I care for the blond hair, but she could still pass for 60 in the right light. I hope I told her enough. I think I did, but what do I know? I never knew she held a grudge about the diamond, and now Morty’s in my dining room putting the moves on her. All these years you think you know someone.

Marsha drops her hands so they cup the back of her neck. Then she tips her head back and closes her eyes. Poor ditzy Marsha — probably thought she was doing a good deed, inviting lonely old Mort over on a holiday, never even thinking that for him it isn’t a holiday.

All of a sudden I’m swooping down toward the counter. It takes me a moment to process that she’s taken me off — I’m still getting used to the facets, and to complicate matters she covers me with her hand. Oh, and she’s set me in a puddle of congealed gravy. Nice.

“I’m sorry, Norm. I don’t want you to see this,” she whispers.

Say what? You don’t want me to see what?

She closes her eyes and takes a deep breath. For a moment I think she’s going to put me back on, but then she straightens her dress and disappears around the corner.

I hear the scraping of table legs across the floor and the muffled sounds of conversation. The pitch rises and falls: he pleads, she responds, and not with as much conviction as I’d like, either. I’m trying desperately to make out the words but it’s hard because stupid Barney’s nails are click-click-clicking toward the kitchen. He’s roaming unattended.

And here he is, and I do mean right here — the broad yellow forehead, the disgusting nose, the dopey eyes and eraser-pink tongue swooping, arcing past and rasping against the dried gravy. Then all is a jumbled, swirling riot of rank, metallic breath, browned teeth and wet mucosa.

I’m halfway down before I realize. My chain must be trailing because he gags — his throat muscles contract around me and I wonder briefly if this is what birth feels like — and then I’m enveloped by churning blackness.

Behind the monstrous symphony of Barney’s guts is a muffled trill of laughter, and the tinkle of cutlery on fine bone china.

Sara Gruen is the author, most recently, of “Water for Elephants.’’



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Friday, December 22, 2006

Art of Conversation

The art of conversation

Chattering classes

Dec 19th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The rules for verbal exchanges are surprisingly enduring


Bridgeman

SIR ISAIAH BERLIN, a Latvian-born Oxford philosopher who died in 1997, may well have ranked among the greatest conversationalists who ever lived. According to Robert Darnton, a Princeton historian, Berlin's friends would “watch him as if he were a trapeze artist, soaring through every imaginable subject, spinning, flipping, hanging by his heels and without a touch of showmanship”. Darnton reckoned that Berlin's only match in relatively modern times might have been Denis Diderot, an 18th-century French Enlightenment philosopher. By one account Diderot's conversation was “enlivened by absolute sincerity, subtle without obscurity, varied in its forms, dazzling in its flights of imagination, fertile in ideas and in its capacity to inspire ideas in others. One let oneself drift along with it for hours at a time, as if one were gliding down a fresh and limpid river, whose banks were adorned with rich estates and beautiful houses.”

Churchill was another magnificent talker, perhaps the greatest of the 20th century, but often a poor listener. Virginia Woolf was given, in the words of one biographer, to “wonderful performances in conversation, spinning off into fantastic fabrications while everyone sat around and, as it were, applauded”. A short list of the greatest living conversationalists in English would probably have to include Christopher Hitchens, Sir Patrick Leigh Fermor, Sir Tom Stoppard, Studs Terkel and Gore Vidal.

Great brilliance, fantastic powers of recall and quick wit are clearly valuable in sustaining conversation at these cosmic levels. Charm may be helpful too—although Samuel Johnson, one of the most admired conversationalists of 18th-century England, seemed to manage without much of it. For those of more modest accomplishments, but attached to conversation as one of life's pleasures and necessary skills, there is a lively market in manuals and tip-sheets going back almost 500 years, and a legacy of wisdom with an even longer history. One striking thing about the advice is how consistent it remains over time, suggesting that there are real rights and wrongs in conversation, not just local conventions.

The principle that it is rude to interrupt another speaker goes back at least to Cicero, writing in 44BC, who said that good conversation required “alternation” among participants. In his essay “On Duties”, Cicero remarked that nobody, to his knowledge, had yet set down the rules for ordinary conversation, though many had done so for public speaking. He had a shot at it himself, and quickly arrived at the sort of list that self-help authors have been echoing ever since. The rules we learn from Cicero are these: speak clearly; speak easily but not too much, especially when others want their turn; do not interrupt; be courteous; deal seriously with serious matters and gracefully with lighter ones; never criticise people behind their backs; stick to subjects of general interest; do not talk about yourself; and, above all, never lose your temper.

Probably only two cardinal rules were lacking from Cicero's list: remember people's names, and be a good listener. Each of these pieces of advice also has a long pedigree. At a pinch you might trace the point about names back to Plato. Both found a persuasive modern advocate in Dale Carnegie, a teacher of public speaking who decided in 1936 that Americans needed educating more broadly in “the fine art of getting along”. His book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is still in print 70 years later and has sold 15m copies. To remember names, and to listen well, are two of Carnegie's “six ways to make people like you”. The others are to become genuinely interested in other people; smile; talk in terms of the other person's interests; and make the other person feel important.

Cicero's rules of conversation seem to have been fairly common across cultures as well as time, if varying in strictness. It might reasonably be said that Italians are more tolerant of interruption, Americans of contradiction and the English of formality, for example. These rules of conversation also intersect with those of politeness more generally, as formulated by two American linguists, Penelope Brown and Steven Levinson, the pioneers of “politeness theory”.

Courtesy counts

The Brown and Levinson model says, roughly speaking, that Person A probably does not want to be rude to Person B, but in the way of things, life may sometimes require Person A to contradict or intrude on Person B, and when that happens, Person A has a range of “politeness strategies” to draw on. There are four main possibilities, given in ascending order of politeness. The first is a “bald, on-record” approach: “I'm going to shut the window.” The second is positive politeness, or a show of respect: “I'm going to shut the window, is that OK?” The third is negative politeness, which presumes that the request will be an intrusion or an inconvenience: “I'm sorry to disturb you, but I want to shut the window.” The fourth is an indirect strategy which does not insist on a course of action at all: “Gosh, it's cold in here.”

The first three of those options are plain instrumental speech, and are the sort of approaches that the conversation manuals warn you against. The fourth one alone leads into the realm of conversation as such. Here the purpose of speaking is not so much to get a point across, more to find out what others think about it. This principle of co-operation is one of the things that sets conversation apart from other superficially similar activities such as lectures, debates, arguments and meetings. Other qualities which help to define conversation include the equal distribution of speaker rights; mutual respect among speakers; spontaneity and informality; and a non-businesslike ambience. The last of these was well caught by Johnson when he defined conversation as “talk beyond that which is necessary to the purposes of actual business”.

If conversation, and politeness, do have common features across time and culture, it is not all that surprising that newer manuals will find little to add in terms of fundamental principles. They can, however, offer specific tips which are useful in the right circumstances, and these, too, change little with the years. “Never recount your dreams in public,” wrote the anonymous author of “Maximes de la Bienséance en la Conversation”, one of the first manuals of conversation published in France, in 1618. Margaret Shepherd, author of “The Art of Civilized Conversation”, a manual published in America in 2006, offers the same prohibition. Among the ill-judged remarks that she calls “saboteurs of small talk”, she includes “self-absorbed comments like ‘I had the strangest dream. You were in it. Uh, let me try to remember it’.”

The more modern the manual of conversation, the more concrete its advice is likely to be. Ms Shepherd offers seven quick ways to tell if you are boring your listeners, which include: “Never speak uninterrupted for more than four minutes at a time” and “If you are the only person who still has a plate full of food, stop talking.” Her checklist of things best not said to the parent of a newborn baby should be memorised for future use. It comprises: “What's wrong with his nose?” “Should he be that colour?” “Isn't he awfully small?” “Shouldn't you be breast-feeding?” “Did you want a boy?” “Is he a good baby?” “He looks like Churchill!/She looks like ET!” “It's really cute!”

It is easy enough to see the usefulness of such tips, but they capture none of the joy which comes from the mastery of conversation. For enthusiasts conversation is an art, one of the great pleasures of life, even the basis of civilised society. Mme de Staël, a great talker and intellectual of the French ancien régime, called conversation “a means of reciprocally and rapidly giving one another pleasure; of speaking just as quickly as one thinks; of spontaneously enjoying one's self; of being applauded without working...[A] sort of electricity that causes sparks to fly, and that relieves some people of the burden of their excess vivacity and awakens others from a state of painful apathy”.

The Athens of Socrates and Plato, in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, is often seen as home to a first golden age of conversation. That view has relied mainly on the writings of Plato, whose dialogues, often with Socrates as speaker, constitute “a search among friends...for the divine ideas of the true, the beautiful, the good”, says a modern French scholar, Marc Fumaroli.

Bridgeman Old French masters

The second golden age of conversation, among the French elites in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, is much better documented. Historians associate the rise of conversation at this time with the prestige enjoyed by women in French high society, which was perhaps unique in Europe before or since. Women ran the salons where the culture of the time was created, and their presence civilised the men they invited there. Another factor was the leisure forced on the French aristocracy by an absolute monarchy. Their political ambitions thwarted, the upper classes turned their energies towards entertaining themselves. A man without conversation was liable to find himself devalued, whatever his other qualities: “In England it was enough that Newton was the greatest mathematician of the century,” wrote Jean d'Alembert, a French philosopher and mathematician; “in France he would have been expected to be agreeable too.”

The conversation of the French salons and dinner tables became as stylised as a ballet. The basic skills brought to the table were expected to include politesseesprit (wit), galanterie (gallantry), complaisanceenjouement (cheerfulness) and flatterie. More specific techniques would be required as the conversation took flight. A comic mood would require displays of raillerie (playful teasing), plaisanterie (joking), bons mots (epigrams), traits and pointes (rhetorical figures involving “subtle, unexpected wit”, according to Benedetta Craveri, a historian of the period), and, later, persiflage (mocking under the guise of praising). Even silences had to be finely judged. The Duc de La Rochefoucauld distinguished between an “eloquent” silence, a “mocking” silence and a “respectful” silence. The mastery of such “airs and tones”, he said, was “granted to few”. (sincere good manners), (obligingness),

Conversation was also flourishing across the channel in the early 18th century, but for a different reason. This was the golden age of the British coffee house. Whereas the French salon excluded politics from polite conversation, in the British coffee house politics was a main preoccupation. Foreign visitors remarked both on the free range of speech there and on the mingling of classes and professions. A modern German sociologist, Jürgen Habermas, linked the coffee houses with what he called the “rise of a public space” outside the control of the state, or, as we might say now, civil society.

Bridgeman

But if British liberals were keen on free speech, they were much less preoccupied than their French contemporaries were with its forms and flourishes. Dr Johnson was considered so great a talker that a contemporary compared his conversation to Titian's painting. But he also could sit stonily silent through a dinner that bored him, or contradict and interrupt in defiance of all common etiquette. Even Boswell, his devoted note-taker, acknowledged his “dogmatic roughness of manner”.

Strong and silent

Johnson was far from the only Englishman to have matched a love of conversation with a reputation for occasional difficult silences. As he himself said: “A Frenchman must always be talking, whether he knows anything of the matter or not; an Englishman is content when he has nothing to say.” In his book “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville refers to the “strange unsociability and reserved and taciturn disposition of the English”. But for Charles Dickens, another foreign visitor to America in the 19th century, it was the Americans who seemed taciturn. He blamed this on a “love of trade”, which limited men's interests and made them reluctant to volunteer information for fear of tipping their hand to a competitor. The idealisation of silence remained strong in American culture into the 20th century: think of the laconic heroes of Western films, or of Hemingway's novels.

More recently it has been neither trade nor taciturnity, but the distractions of technology, which have seemed to threaten the quality of conversation. George Orwell complained in 1946 that “in very many English homes the radio is literally never turned off. This is done with a definite purpose. The music prevents the conversation from becoming serious or even coherent.” The television attracted similar comment when it became commonplace two decades later.

In 2006 an American essayist, Stephen Miller, published a book called “Conversation: A History of a Declining Art”, in which he worried that “neither digital music players nor computers were invented to help people avoid real conversation, but they have that effect.” A reviewer of Mr Miller's book found it “striking” that past generations would “speak of conversation as a way of taking pleasure, much as a modern American might speak of an evening spent browsing the internet”.

Bubbles Still talking

Conversation has survived worse challenges (Johnson thought it might be killed by a return of religious zealotry), and it will doubtless survive more. For evidence that it thrives still, go into any smart New York restaurant, where the noise level will be deafening. Or go into a Barnes & Noble or Borders bookshop and look at the shelves of manuals on how to talk better. Most of them are aimed at people who want to talk more persuasively and engagingly in order to get on in their careers, not at people who want to engage in conversation for the sheer pleasure it affords. But these motivations are far from exclusive. Making friends and influencing people, to borrow the language of Dale Carnegie, amount in the end to much the same thing. Both of them require charm, courtesy and the desire to understand the ideas and opinions of others. And whatever the strategic objective, those will never be bad tactics.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Bless This Mess

Saying Yes to Mess

Edward Koren

Published: December 21, 2006

IT is a truism of American life that we’re too darn messy, or we think we are, and we feel really bad about it. Our desks and dining room tables are awash with paper; our closets are bursting with clothes and sports equipment and old files; our laundry areas boil; our basements and garages seethe. And so do our partners — or our parents, if we happen to be teenagers.

Skip to next paragraph

Readers' Opinions

Share Your Thoughts

How messy is your desk or closet? What do you think that says about you?

Related

The Secret Order of Disorder (December 21, 2006)

Mark Graham for The New York Times

CLUTTER KING Don Springer won a company’s contest for worst “clutter nightmare,” but he insists he can find anything in his home office blindfolded.

Jodi Hilton for The New York Times

POETS OF PILES David H. Freedman is a co-author of “A Perfect Mess.”

This is why sales of home-organizing products, like accordion files and labelmakers and plastic tubs, keep going up and up, from $5.9 billion last year to a projected $7.6 billion by 2009, as do the revenues of companies that make closet organizing systems, an industry that is pulling in $3 billion a year, according to Closets magazine.

This is why January is now Get Organized Month, thanks also to the efforts of the National Association of Professional Organizers, whose 4,000 clutter-busting members will be poised, clipboards and trash bags at the ready, to minister to the 10,000 clutter victims the association estimates will be calling for its members’ services just after the new year.

But contrarian voices can be heard in the wilderness. An anti-anticlutter movement is afoot, one that says yes to mess and urges you to embrace your disorder. Studies are piling up that show that messy desks are the vivid signatures of people with creative, limber minds (who reap higher salaries than those with neat “office landscapes”) and that messy closet owners are probably better parents and nicer and cooler than their tidier counterparts. It’s a movement that confirms what you have known, deep down, all along: really neat people are not avatars of the good life; they are humorless and inflexible prigs, and have way too much time on their hands.

“It’s chasing an illusion to think that any organization — be it a family unit or a corporation — can be completely rid of disorder on any consistent basis,” said Jerrold Pollak, a neuropsychologist at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, N.H., whose work involves helping people tolerate the inherent disorder in their lives. “And if it could, should it be? Total organization is a futile attempt to deny and control the unpredictability of life. I live in a world of total clutter, advising on cases where you’d think from all the paper it’s the F.B.I. files on the Unabomber,” when, in fact, he said, it’s only “a person with a stiff neck.”

“My wife has threatened divorce over all the piles,” continued Dr. Pollack, who has an office at home, too. “If we had kids the health department would have to be alerted. But what can I do?”

Stop feeling bad, say the mess apologists. There are more urgent things to worry about. Irwin Kula is a rabbi based in Manhattan and author of “Yearnings: Embracing the Sacred Messiness of Life,” which was published by Hyperion in September. “Order can be profane and life-diminishing,” he said the other day. “It’s a flippant remark, but if you’ve never had a messy kitchen, you’ve probably never had a home-cooked meal. Real life is very messy, but we need to have models about how that messiness works.”

His favorite example? His 15-year-old daughter Talia’s bedroom, a picture of utter disorder — and individuality, he said.

“One day I’m standing in front of the door,” he said, “and it’s out of control and my wife, Dana, is freaking out, and suddenly I see in all the piles the dress she wore to her first dance and an earring she wore to her bat mitzvah. She’s so trusting her journal is wide open on the floor, and there are photo-booth pictures of her friends strewn everywhere. I said, ‘Omigod, her cup overflows!’ And we started to laugh.”

The room was an invitation, he said, to search for a deeper meaning under the scurf.

Last week David H. Freedman, another amiable mess analyst (and science journalist), stood bemused in front of the heathery tweed collapsible storage boxes with clear panels ($29.99) at the Container Store in Natick, Mass., and suggested that the main thing most people’s closets are brimming with is unused organizing equipment. “This is another wonderful trend,” Mr. Freedman said dryly, referring to the clear panels. “We’re going to lose the ability to put clutter away. Inside your storage box, you’d better be organized.”

Mr. Freedman is co-author, with Eric Abrahamson, of “A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder,” out in two weeks from Little, Brown & Company. The book is a meandering, engaging tour of beneficial mess and the systems and individuals reaping those benefits, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose mess-for-success tips include never making a daily schedule.

As a corollary, the book’s authors examine the high cost of neatness — measured in shame, mostly, and family fights, as well as wasted dollars — and generally have a fine time tipping over orthodoxies and poking fun at clutter busters and their ilk, and at the self-help tips they live or die by. They wonder: Why is it better to pack more activities into one day? By whose standards are procrastinators less effective than their well-scheduled peers? Why should children have to do chores to earn back their possessions if they leave them on the floor, as many professional organizers suggest?

In their book Mr. Freedman and Mr. Abrahamson describe the properties of mess in loving terms. Mess has resonance, they write, which means it can vibrate beyond its own confines and connect to the larger world. It was the overall scumminess of Alexander Fleming’s laboratory that led to his discovery of penicillin, from a moldy bloom in a petri dish he had forgotten on his desk.

Mess is robust and adaptable, like Mr. Schwarzenegger’s open calendar, as opposed to brittle, like a parent’s rigid schedule that doesn’t allow for a small child’s wool-gathering or balkiness. Mess is complete, in that it embraces all sorts of random elements. Mess tells a story: you can learn a lot about people from their detritus, whereas neat — well, neat is a closed book. Neat has no narrative and no personality (as any cover of Real Simple magazine will demonstrate). Mess is also natural, as Mr. Freedman and Mr. Abrahamson point out, and a real time-saver. “It takes extra effort to neaten up a system,” they write. “Things don’t generally neaten themselves.”

Indeed, the most valuable dividend of living with mess may be time. Mr. Freedman, who has three children and a hard-working spouse, Laurie Tobey-Freedman, a preschool special-needs coordinator, is studying Mandarin in his precious spare moments. Perusing a four-door stainless steel shoe cabinet ($149) at the Container Store, and imagining gussying up a shoe collection, he shook his head and said, “I don’t get the appeal of this, which may be a huge defect on my part in terms of higher forms of entertainment.”

The success of the Container Store notwithstanding, there is indeed something messy — and not in a good way — about so many organizing options. “When I think about this urge to organize, it reminds me of how it was when Americans began to take more and more control of their weight: they got fatter,” said Marian Salzman, chief marketing officer of J. Walter Thompson and co-author, with Ira Matathia, of “Next Now: Trends for the Future,” which is about to be published by Palgrave Macmillan. “I never gained weight until I went on a diet,” she said, adding that she has a room in which she hides a treadmill and, now, two bags of organizing supplies.

“I got sick of looking at them so I bought plastic tubs and stuffed the bags in the tubs and put the tubs in the room.” Right now, she said, “we are emotionally overloaded, and so what this is about is that we are getting better and better at living superficially.”

“Superficial is the new intimate,” Ms. Salzman said, gaining steam, “and these boxes, these organizing supplies, are the containers for all our superficial selves. ‘I will be a neater mom, a hipper mom, a mom that gets more done.’ Do I sound cynical?”

Nah.

In the semiotics of mess, desks may be the richest texts. Messy-desk research borrows from cognitive ergonomics, a field of study dealing with how a work environment supports productivity. Consider that desks, our work landscapes, are stand-ins for our brains, and so the piles we array on them are “cognitive artifacts,” or data cues, of our thoughts as we work.

To a professional organizer brandishing colored files and stackable trays, cluttered horizontal surfaces are a horror; to cognitive psychologists like Jay Brand, who works in the Ideation Group of Haworth Inc., the huge office furniture company, their peaks and valleys glow with intellectual intent and showcase a mind whirring away: sorting, linking, producing. (By extension, a clean desk can be seen as a dormant area, an indication that no thought or work is being undertaken.)

His studies and others, like a survey conducted last year by Ajilon Professional Staffing, in Saddle Brook, N.J., which linked messy desks to higher salaries (and neat ones to salaries under $35,000), answer Einstein’s oft-quoted remark, “If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk?”

Don Springer, 61, is an information technology project manager and the winner of the Type O-No! contest sponsored by Dymo, the labelmaker manufacturer, in October. The contest offered $5,000 worth of clutter management — for the tools (the boxes, the bins and the systems, as well as a labelmaker) and the services of a professional organizer — to the best example of a “clutter nightmare,” as expressed by contestants in a photograph and a 100-word essay. “Type O-Nos,” reads a definition on the Dymo Web site, are “outlaws on the tidy trail, clutter criminals twice over.”

Mr. Springer, who in a phone interview spoke softly, precisely and with great humor, professed deep shame over the contents of what he calls his oh-by-the-way room, a library/junk room that his wife would like cleaned to make a nursery for a new grandchild. With a full-time job and membership in various clubs and organizations, and a desire to spend his free time seeing a movie with his wife instead of “expending the emotional energy it would take to sort through all the stuff,” Mr. Springer said, he is unable to prune the piles to his wife’s satisfaction. “There are emotional treasures buried in there, and I don’t want to part with them,” he said.

So, why bother?

“Because I love my wife and I want to make her happy,” he said.

According to a small survey that Mr. Freedman and Mr. Abrahamson conducted for their book — 160 adults representing a cross section of genders, races and incomes, Mr. Freedman said — of those who had split up with a partner, one in 12 had done so over a struggle involving one partner’s idea of mess. Happy partnerships turn out not necessarily to be those in which products from Staples figure largely. Mr. Freedman and his wife, for example, have been married for over two decades, and live in an offhandedly messy house with a violently messy basement — the latter area, where their three children hang out, decorated (though that’s not quite the right word) in a pre-1990s Tompkins Square Park lean-to style.

The room’s chaos is an example of one of Mr. Freedman and Mr. Abrahamson’s mess strategies, which is to create a mess-free DMZ (in this case, the basement stairs) and acknowledge areas of complementary mess. Cherish your mess management strategies, suggested Mr. Freedman, speaking approvingly of the pile builders and the under-the-bed stuffers; of those who let their messes wax and wane — the cyclers, he called them; and those who create satellite messes (in storage units off-site). “Most people don’t realize their own efficiency or effectiveness,” he said with a grin.

It’s also nice to remember, as Mr. Freedman pointed out, that almost anything looks pretty neat if it’s shuffled into a pile.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Reasons "Why" overrated

Essay

Sometimes, the Why Really Isn’t Crucial

Liegh Wells

Published: December 19, 2006

“Why do I use drugs?” I am asked every few weeks by a patient in our methadone clinic.

I take the query as a good sign; curiosity about oneself is usually healthy. But the premise behind the question — that a person can reliably identify the psychic roots of an addiction, or any other act of self-sabotage — is highly overrated.

Research psychologists have known for decades that it is very difficult to determine causation in mental life and thus, of behavior. For one thing, we can never perform an experiment. Take my patient Karen, 50, who spent most of the 1990s smoking crack. She is certain that the decade-long binge would never have happened had her mother not died when she was 12. We will never know if she is right because we cannot rewind Karen’s life, play it again, and see what would have happened if her mother had lived.

Reconstructing the story of one’s life is a complicated business for other reasons. What scientists call hindsight bias kicks in when we try to figure out the causal chain of events leading to the current situation. We may well come up with a tidy story but, inevitably, it will contain large swaths of revisionist history. It’s not that we bias ourselves deliberately; it happens because the mind tends to make events in the past appear comprehensible and orderly. We forget the uncertainties that might have beset us as we struggled in real time.

Narratives are shaped also by a natural tendency to focus on information that confirms theories we already hold. These theories — for example, that molested children are likely to grow up to have sexual compulsions of their own — may be imbibed from the media, self-help books or therapists.

If our own accounts of our actions are often so slanted and embellished, is composing them simply a misbegotten quest? Surely not. To a therapist, the attempt signals that patients are aware that they have a problem worthy of attention. And the narratives themselves can help them make sense out of confusion. This, in turn, can diminish anxiety and exaggerated guilt. Such relief might be sufficient in and of itself for some, or, depending on the goals of therapy, it could embolden a patient to make further healthy adjustments.

But the grail-like search for insight can also backfire when it becomes a way for patients to avoid the hard work of change. This was my experience with Joe, a 24-year-old heroin addict. At every session, Joe would talk about his childhood relationship with his father, seeking new clues for how it damaged him and drove him to heroin.

When I tried to change the topic to on-the-job stresses, which he linked to heroin craving, he said he’d rather “do psychotherapy.” Joe was forestalling the need to make practical changes. The many-layered drama with his dad doubled as an excuse for using heroin, absolving him of the responsibility to quit. When I proposed that possibility to him, he said, “Maybe you’re right.” But nothing really changed. He died of an accidental overdose a few months later.

Finally, insight has no guaranteed relationship to change. A colleague of mine treated a 45-year-old woman, Joan, who came for therapy because she hated her chunky body. Joan firmly believed that once she discovered The Reason for her overeating she would stop.

After a few months, Joan told my colleague that her father had developed cancer the year she went off to college.

“You know, I never made the connection until now,” she announced triumphantly, “but I started overeating when he began to waste away. It’s like I was trying to nourish him through myself.”

A poignant metaphor, yes, but months later she hasn’t lost a pound.

It is time to retire the myth that insight is a prerequisite for change. For the patients in our clinic, change without hard-won insight is the rule. And who has time to wait? Not Natalie. This past month she and I worked on getting an abusive, shiftless boyfriend out of her apartment; finding tutoring for her son; and building a new social network to replace the drug users that she used to hang out with.

At this stage in her treatment, awareness of what she needs to do will get Natalie further than insight. Less chaos in her life means less anxiety and that means less risk of relapse.

Down the road she may ask, “Why did I use drugs?” But in the meantime, what’s important for Natalie and her son is that she is determined to stop.

Frederic C. Bartlett, a British psychologist, coined the term “effort at meaning” to describe the human impulse to make sense of feelings and circumstances. Self-explorers be warned: it is an effort often fraught with distortion and even hazard, when it prevents one from making the changes that need to be made in the present.

Sally Satel is staff psychiatrist at the Oasis Drug Treatment Clinic and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Exercise

Personal Health

To Avoid ‘Boomeritis,’ Exercise, Exercise, Exercise

Published: December 19, 2006

An apology to all baby boomers and beyond: I’m afraid that in our efforts to get everyone to become physically active, we’ve sold you a bill of goods. A 30-minute walk on most days is just not enough. There is much more to becoming — and staying — physically fit as you age than engaging in regular aerobic activity. (Of course, the same applies to those younger than 60.)

Skip to next paragraph
Stuart Bradford

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Fitness and Nutrition

In addition to activities like walking, jogging, cycling and swimming that promote endurance, cardiovascular health and weight control, there is a dire need for exercises that improve posture and increase strength, flexibility and balance. These exercises can greatly reduce the risk of injuries from sports and endurance activities, the demands of daily life, falls and other accidents.

Musculoskeletal injuries are now the No. 1 one reason for seeking medical care in the United States. And falls, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last month, have become the leading cause of injury deaths for men and women 65 and older.

Unless you do something to slow the deterioration in muscle, bone strength and agility that naturally accompanies aging, you will become a prime candidate for what Dr. Nicholas A. DiNubile, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, calls “boomeritis.”

“By their 40th birthday, people often have vulnerabilities — weak links — and as the first generation that is trying to stay active in droves, baby boomers are pushing their frames to the breakpoint,” Dr. DiNubile said in introducing a November press event in New York sponsored by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and the National Athletic Trainers’ Association.

“Baby boomers are falling apart — developing tendinitis, bursitis, arthritis and ‘fix-me-itis,’ the idea that modern medicine can fix anything,” he said. “It’s much better to prevent things than to have to try to fix them.”

Dr. DiNubile pointed out that evolution had not kept up with the doubling of the human life span in the last 100 years. To counter the inevitable declines with age, we have to provide our bodies with an extended warranty.

Assess Your Fitness

In their recently published book, “Age-Defying Fitness” (Peachtree Publishers), two prominent physical therapists, Marilyn Moffat of New York University and Carole B. Lewis of Washington, D.C., provide the ingredients to help you make the most of your body for the rest of your life: a quick quiz and a five-part test to assess the status of your posture, strength, balance, flexibility and endurance, followed by five chapters with step-by-step instructions on how to safely improve the areas in which you are lacking.

The therapists describe what happens to these “five domains of fitness” as you age. Posture begins changing as early as the teenage years, the result of activities like prolonged sitting, carrying a heavy purse or briefcase, or working at a computer.

Strength declines as muscle fibers decrease in size and number and as the supply of nerve stimulation and energy to the muscles diminishes. Balance deteriorates as muscles tighten and weaken and joints lose their full range of motion.

Flexibility declines because connective tissue throughout the body becomes less elastic. And endurance falls off because of reduced flexibility, weakened muscles, and stiffer lungs and blood vessels.

Still not convinced you need to work on your fitness? See how you do on the therapists’ quiz:

¶Are you not standing as straight and tall as you once did?

¶Is walking up a flight of stairs a strain at times?

¶Are you getting up from a chair more slowly than you used to?

¶Is it getting harder to look to the left and right while backing up?

¶Do you get stiff sitting through a long movie?

¶Is standing on one leg to put on your shoe difficult or impossible?

¶Do you trip or lose your balance more easily?

¶Does walking or jogging a distance take longer than it used to?

As a daily exerciser I consider myself a physically fit 65-year-old, and I did well on the quick quiz, but I flunked the tests for balance and flexibility. So I’ve added exercises to my weekly regime to improve these two domains of fitness.

“The antidote to aging is activity,” the therapists wrote. “Inactivity magnifies age-related changes, but action maintains and increases your abilities in all five domains.”

No Time to Waste

Dr. Vonda J. Wright, a sports medicine specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the New York meeting that “boomers are 59, and we must intervene now to head off what happens to those who age in a sedentary way.”

Injury and arthritis are the main reasons people stop exercising, she said. She urged those in need of a joint replacement not to postpone the surgery, which she likened to repairing a pothole.

Marjorie J. Albohm, a certified athletic trainer affiliated with OrthoIndy and the Indiana Orthopedic Hospital in Indianapolis, cautioned against “cookbook recipes” for exercise. “The key to a good workout is customization,” based on a professional assessment of flexibility, cardiovascular endurance, strength and balance, she said. “The goal is to minimize symptoms and prevent new injuries,” Ms. Albohm said, and she urged people to listen to their bodies to avoid making things worse.

Ms. Albohm emphasized flexibility, saying it is “not optional” as you age. “To prevent stiffness and maintain joint mobility you should stretch daily for 15 to 20 minutes,” she said “using slow, controlled movements, before or after your exercise program.”

For cardiovascular endurance, she recommended alternating between weight-bearing (walking, jogging) and non-weight-bearing (swimming, cycling) aerobic activities three days a week for 30 to 45 minutes each time.

Muscle strength, Ms. Albohm noted, can be increased at any age, even in one’s 90s, to protect against falls, maintain mobility, prevent new injuries and empower individuals. Especially important is strengthening the muscles in the front and sides of the thighs, which help support the knees, and strengthening core muscles of the trunk (back, buttocks and abdomen) to protect the spine and support the entire body.

Finally, we need to worry about our bones. At least 1.5 million “fragility fractures” occur annually in the United States. These are breaks that result when someone falls from a standing height or less, trips over the cat or lifts something heavy, and they affect men as well as women, Dr. Laura Tosi, an orthopedic surgeon at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., said at the New York event.

“A history of a fragility fracture is far more predictive of future fractures than a bone density test,” Dr. Tosi said, adding that a major cause is a shortage of vitamin D, which lets calcium into bones.

“The current standard for vitamin D is not adequate,” she said, and predicted it would soon be raised to perhaps 1,000 International Units a day. Vitamin supplements are crucial, because adequate amounts of vitamin D cannot be absorbed through diet and sunshine alone.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/