Testament of Youth

Testament of Youth is a book written by Vera Brittain, and is the 3rd of the 4 books which I purchased for Nora this past Christmas.  I finished reading it a few weeks ago.

It is hard to fully articulate all that I have felt and thought about as I read this book. While it is similar to The Golden Notebook, which I read previously to this, similar in that it is written by a woman, and that it is about a time in history that I did not live, (in this case from 1900 to 1925), it is as if it was written by someone from an entirely different world. I guess one might say it reflects an era during which woman were hardly recognized as people let alone people with ideas and talents, yet also an era that enabled women to experience the world and the world to see just what they were capable of as it was an era which ended with the most horrific of wars, World War 1.  And, finally, an era in which the phrase The Lost Generation was coined, as, not only did millions of young people die, but for those that survived, a mixture of guilt and "what-might-have-been" was an ever present cloud which infiltrated every aspect of the rest of their lives.  Yet, strangely, perhaps it was only because of such monumental loss and suffering, could women such as Vera Brittain emerged, and then inspired that next generation of women as I discovered in the Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing.  I was certainly not conscious of the details of these books when I purchased them for Nora, but I am very happy that I read them in succession. 

Testament of Youth is the autobiography narrated by a young woman who escaped the structure and strictures of the Victorian Age by going to college (to learn), and volunteering to serve as a nurse's aide during WW1, only to return to life after the war having lost her betrothed, her closest friends, and her brother to find that while she had been dramatically changed by her experiences, society and the norms of the time had not completely followed suit. Over the course of my reading it, I became immersed in a world both long gone in its description of the obvious prejudices concerning women and their role in society, but also so detailed as written by Brittain that I became her, felt her joys and sorrows, lived her life despite the obvious distance in time and experience between us.  It inspires me to wonder if I could ever write something that can transport my readers as she did for me. She has set a very high bar for me to aspire to in terms of my own efforts at writing.

But what is truly amazing to me is how in the intervening 100 years, while so much has changed, some fundamental concepts have not.  Consider this:

"There is still, I think, not enough recognition by teachers of the fact that the desire to think - which is fundamentally a moral problem - must be induced before the power is developed. Most people, whether men or women, wish above all else to be comfortable, and thought, is a pre-eminently uncomfortable process; it brings to the individual far more suffering than happiness in a semi-civilised world which still goes to war, still encourages the production of unwanted of children by exhausted mothers, and still compels married partners who hate another to live together in the name of morality."

Now, it may be clear that the last part of this quote might come from a woman seeking more happiness in life than a nice house, prosperous husband and a few kids to cook, sew and care for, and, along with the efforts of other women like her, actually accomplished the goal of creating an environment in which the stimulation of the mind and soul for a woman became an actual thing, but the part about couples staying together did not automatically follow (it wasn't that long ago that divorced woman had no rights to property from a marriage so divorce was an exclusive option for the man), and certainly inspiring independent thought is still a goal that faces obstacles from all varieties of institutions, religious, political, and cultural alike.    

In 100 years, and despite some amazing advances in the areas of transportation, communication, education, knowledge, and medicine, we are still neck deep in some of the vestiges of the tribalism that centralized power within one gender and one race, and which led to 2 World Wars during which thought and reason were put aside for violence and hatred. 

What is more disturbing, is that even after the death and destruction of WW1, Brittain reflects on those who did not suffer as others did.  She is amazed, during one of a number of reprieves from the war when she was able to travel back to her home in England when she was faced with what she described as the petty complaints about a lack of meat or butter, as compared to the suffering of the soldiers she attended to, and then later, the utter deprivations which were foisted upon the populations of the losers of the war. She becomes more and more aware of how retribution and revenge against the losers of WW1, is not only a rejection of the morals that she believed the winning side stood for, but the exact opposite course which should be followed, yet, she feared, would be followed by the "old men" in charge who led the world into the destruction of The Great War, and who, by not changing their base premises, would lead to another destructive conflict.  

Another aspect of Brittain's story, is her ability to tell her story years later (Testament of Youth was written many years after the events), and yet still reveal her growth as a person as if it is happening live as she writes.  She allows her character to evolve right before the reader's eyes even though the story it about herself.  The experiences which lead to her embrace of pacifism are not surprising after the fact, yet are not obvious as the evolution of this philosophy occurs.  I guess one might say that her logical path to pacifism was built on a foundation of emotions guided by real life events, all of which strikes a note within me in regards to my own thoughts of the glorification of war and violence that I see in our world today.

When I hear of everyday Americans who are stockpiling weapons and ammunition for the coming revolution, as they describe it in almost gleeful terms, I wonder just how far removed we are from the attitudes that led to WW1 and WW2.  Those who advocated for war in those situations were able to demonize those on the other side, were able to convince entire populations that God and justice and morality were on their side, even when bombs and destruction reigned down from the skies on civilians on both sides.  At least in those wars, the enemy were people who spoke other languages, followed other cultural norms.  Today's revolutionaries, at least in America, seem to have decided that other citizens of America and/or the United States Government are the enemy.  They don't seem to realize that the people they will be targeting through the scopes of their guns are those who have volunteered to serve in the US Army, or their state's National Guard, or perhaps even their neighbors who are local police officers.  While I have never served in a war, never experienced the horror as described by Brittain, I am just as convinced that war is very rarely the answer to conflict resolution, and equally amazed that so many Americans today have decided that it is OK to shoot or kill a fellow American over a myriad of disagreements or mistakes or misunderstandings.

Finally, the book reminded me multiple times of the people who have been complaining about having to wear a mask during a pandemic, to save the lives of their elderly and sick neighbors, family and friends.  People who don't seem to want to experience any type of discomfort in a cause which will help our country defeat a virus that has killed more people than any other calamity that has faced our country.  But worse, I wonder if the open disregard for the health and lives of those who are still dying, 1500 to 2000 per day, is simply because they are the old and sick among us.

Would there be such vaccine and mask resistance if 1500 children were dying every day?  Would people be more likely to do whatever it takes to prevent the loss of so many young lives?  What saddens me is that we very well might have far less push back against the government and medical community if it was children that were dying.  In fact, I would suggest that there would be criticism against both those entities for not doing enough, if it was those under 12 that were dying in our communities.  

The thought that we might be a bit less willing to sacrifice our youth for the "freedom" to disregard even the most minimal of health requests might be true is unnerving for me to suggest, but I have heard far too many comments suggesting or intimating that the loss of the old or sick is acceptable. Or worse, is their own fault for being old or sick.  

The Testament of Youth, more than anything, laments the loss of life and hope that Vera Brittain and those of her generation experienced.  While I am sure that 50 years from now, there will be books and stories written by those who experienced the worst of the Covid pandemic, I wonder if there will be the same sense of loss associated with this time in history, or if there will be those who wondered why we cared so much, were willing to sacrifice some material and economic goals to save a million old and sick people in America. Let's hope that the future America has not fully embraced the concept of survival of the fittest, but rather marks the unwillingness of those who did the least to prevent death, who seemed to encourage practices that led to more death, as far less patriotic than they consider themselves today.

Time for a Third Party

It is very difficult to predict the future, Nostradamus aside. Certainly, one can make educated guests about certain aspects of life, for instance, someone intimately involved in technology may be able to make accurate predictions about a future which might include a new way of communication, transportation, or energy extraction.  

But if it is difficult to predict what is to come, in general, it is certainly difficult to predict the future in political terms. Who could possibly have foreseen the presidencies of Carter, Clinton, Obama or Trump four years before their respective election wins. 

Notwithstanding this acknowledged challenge, I wonder if it is not time to predict the rise of a 3rd party in American politics?  We can all see the hold that the former president has on the GOP, despite the appearance of some recent cracks in that control.  I have said in a previous post that I did not see the long term benefits of such cult like adherence to Trump, given his penchant for outrageous behavior and statements (i.e, that he might pardon the 1/6 insurrectionists should he win in 2024), and the statistical possibility that he may no longer be with us in 6 or 8 years, but considering the apparent strength of the MAGA movement and the fact that they even boo Trump when he recommends the Covid vaccine, I can easily see either a new party forming under the philosophy underlying this perspective, or if they continue to influence the GOP to cause further RNC declarations that the 1/6 riot was "legitimate political discourse", perhaps a more moderate version of that party might go their own way.

Regardless of how the split shakes out, I believe it is time for such a movement to actually work, this time. (Should it work, it will be another reason to praise Donald Trump, assuming it turns out that those of us who think it is good to have a strong 3rd party are proved correct, even if that praise is of the backhanded variety). 

Oh sure, you might be thinking, two right leaning parties means the Dems always win. But that is not how I would envision such a split, if conducted properly, because if a 3rd party becomes strong enough to be effective, it would have to draw on independents, and middle leaning voters from both sides of the aisle.  An electorate which is fine with personal freedom that includes the right to marry whomever one loves, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to vote in person on the day of an election or by mail without any restrictions or only for arbitrarily decided reasons, the right to guaranteed sick leave, and paid parental leave after the birth of a child, the right to equal opportunity (which is not equal outcomes), the right to decide to have a child or not.  And, an electorate which wants our government to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, to reward hard work, to levy fair taxes but also return services that help all people, not just those already at the top, to recognize the importance of strong families by helping all families, not just those defined by outdated definitions of who encompasses a family or a marriage, to make world view decisions, that improve the lives of all members of the planet, not just those few who will profit from some trade deal, or police action, or UN sanction.

In short, a party who takes the best of both parties without the extreme versions that only seem to harden partisanship rather than cooperation.  To me, a 3rd party that can garner even 25% of the vote, meaning 25% of our representatives in Congress and 25% of those chosen in a presidential administration, means that to get anything passed, at least 2 of the 3 sides would have to come together to create laws and policies that make sense for most people, that throw out the crazy viewpoints and stick with the ideas that resonate with most Americans. 

Yes, I know that any political system, run by humans will have its problems. But at least with a strong 3rd party, there would have to be some compromise, some cleansing of the radical portions of each side, whether it be silly slogans like defund the police or America first. 

It was not that long ago, that a law that improves access to the ballot box, or provide infrastructure improvements would not have been political footballs, since enhanced democracy and modern roadways and bridges help all Americans, but, at least currently, we no longer live within that political landscape. 

I believe that a 3rd party that emphasizes freedom for all Americans, not just those who look, worship and love like yourself, that believes that opportunity is the most precious aspect that capitalism can provide, and acknowledges that we can hold two thoughts in our head at once, such as that our founders were flawed but still gave us a great foundation to build upon, that America is a great place to live despite the atrocities we committed against the Native population and minorities. A party that believes that we can do what is needed to address critical issues like climate change and a biased justice system, and the insidious prevalence of any of the various isms that give fuel to people to hate each other over religion, race, politics, gender identity, basically anything that makes one person different from another, which if you think about it, means we hate the very creator who has provided us with the opportunity to experience such diversity. Yes, a party that actually believes in the Golden Rule of treating others as you would wish to be treated.

Towards that end, I posted the following entry in October of 2018.  It is a story about a family who recognizes the problem with the 2 party system of their time, and concocts a plan to address that problem by creating a 3rd party, albeit much more under the radar than what seems to be occurring today. The story is called The Wedding about which I have a few comments included in the post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-wedding.html

The Golden Notebook

As mentioned in a previous post, I again purchased some books for Nora for Christmas.  One of them was The Golden Notebook, by Doris Lessing which I recently finished.

First, for those of you who might be interested in reading this book, it is not for the faint of heart, by which I mean it is not a "beach read".  Lessing touches on a myriad of subjects, both controversial, and basic to all people, but from the perspective of what she calls a Free Woman, something that would most likely be defined in as many different ways as there are people who choose to think about the concept.

Doris Lessing (1919-2013) was a novelist with an incredible range of experiences to draw upon for her career as a writer.  Born in Iran of British parents, lived in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) from the age of 6 through 30, then moved to London, where she did most of her writing, Lessing's literary career has earned her many accolades, including a lifetime achievement award for British Literature (the David Cohen prize) and inclusion in the list of the top 50 British writers since 1945; fifth on that list which is all gender inclusive, if you were wondering.

So, what is The Golden Notebook about? Perhaps the best answer, might be the quote on the back of the book.

"What's terrible is to pretend that the second-rate is the first-rate. To pretend that you don't need love when you do; or you like your work when you know quite well that you're capable of better."

In The Golden Notebook, Lessing tells her story in the guise of her main character Anna, but also in the other characters which are interspersed throughout the book, characters in the story of Anna, and characters in the stories that Anna writes, especially the novel for which Anna is famous, Frontiers of War. Both Anna and all of the female characters seem to me a reflection of the various aspects of Lessing.  Through them, she details her struggles with defining herself, in light of that overall belief that we all intrinsically know when we our compromising our values, we all know when we are chasing the first rate, or best sides of ourselves, and when we are settling for the second rate, and how we rationalize the acceptance of being less than we can.

What I also found interesting is the political component of this book, as Anna and a number of the characters, male and female, are members of the communist party.  (The time period for this book is the 1940's and 50's). There is an interesting interlude between Anna and a female representative of a movie concern who is trying to convince Anna to approve her book to be made into a movie.  This theme actually appears more than once in the book, but in this case, the person advocating for the movie, after realizing that Anna is not all that interested in the project, suggests that Anna visit her in New York the next time she is in the States.  Anna replies that the woman should probably have done a better job of researching Anna, as this conversation occurs during the McCarthy era in American politics, and that perhaps this movie representative might not want to be associated with Anna given the Red Scare occurring in America.  What is really fascinating is that this woman's demeanor completely changes when Anna tells her she is a Communist; she seems incapable of having the two thoughts in her head that a confident, smart, accomplished woman could write such an impressive book, and be a communist.

Even more interesting, is that Anna becomes dissatisfied with the communist party, over time, not because she no longer believes in the tenets of the party, specifically its promotion of equality for women, minorities, workers, etc, but because she sees how corrupt the leaders of the party become over time, especially in light of the horrible actions of Stalin.  She laments the decline of the ideals of her youth and belief that communism would bring more equality only to find that the actions fell far short of the ideals once the party became more important than the movement. Party and ideology over real change.  Not unlike the dissatisfaction so many Americans today feel about our 2-party system that rewards loyalty to the political and party leaders over the country's needs. 

It is impossible to summarize The Golden Notebook in a brief post as this, but I can touch on one of the topics that Lessing expounds upon, that of honesty with oneself which hearkens back to the quote I reproduced above.  As I said before, Lessing uses the characters in her story to tell us about herself as many writers do.  So why not just write an autobiography?  I guess one could defend the idea of fiction over non-fiction in that the second allows for some poetic license to illustrate a point whereas the other might just seem like an exercise in egotism by some readers. 

But I also think there is a danger in telling a story based on one's own life, in that one must face the reality of events head on, no holds barred.  And then, even more difficult, to write that account while understanding how the events of one's life has affected oneself, created, molded the person now writing that account.  (As a side note, I don't believe that anyone should even consider writing an autobiography, nor should we as readers encourage such writings through interest or monetary outlays, until the person is at least 50 years old.  Before that, it seems to me be just so much Here, look at me!). 

In addition to the danger of writing about oneself from the standpoint of understanding how events actually mattered, actually influenced one's later (and ongoing) life, there is the problem of how truthful one can be about others.  If one's parents were truly horrible people, does saying so sound like so much sour grapes?  In fiction, it is so much easier to just say that character X is based upon a parent or some other adult, and the finger pointing is reduced.  Does that mean that to be truly honest requires the ability to understand the limits of how honest one's family and friends are willing to be? Or, if the unconventional aspects of one's own life are to be truly detailed in all their less than "normal" glory, how might those revelations hurt one's family?  How many families would be aghast to read about flirtations with communism, homosexuality, drug abuse, or any sort of "deviant" behavior as defined by the morality that all generations use to judge the generations that follow?

In this regard, Lessing is brutally honest about the feelings and actions of her characters, all their deviant activities, but still leaves us to wonder which reflect her, as a person.  I am convinced that in aggregate, her characters all add up to her, but that is me.

I have mentioned before that I recently retired.  Once I had made that decision, I was much less reluctant to offer my opinions about the policies and direction of my employer.  I always felt I was more free in my conversations with those above me in the chain of command, as reflected in the fact that I was once fired from a job after questioning the work ethic of the daughter of the owner of the company, but there was certainly a further lowering of the guardrails as I approached retirement.  Similarly, we see a loosening of the tongues of some politicians once they decide not to seek office.  All of a sudden, the truth doesn't require the blessing of the party leaders before being opined.  It is also said that as we age we might become more truthful as there is less to worry about in terms of reputation or ambition.

But truth in writing is not just about saying whatever is true, feelings be damned.  Truth in writing should be about truth in revealing one's own world, one's own life's events, one's own feelings.  Tell all books may reflect truth, but far too many capitalize on our seemingly natural need to see the powerful brought to their knees, with all their personal flaws revealed, as if any human does not have flaws.  Perhaps that is part of the problem, the belief that there are people without human frailty, or more precisely, the need for us to believe that people with extraordinary insights and innovations must also be without flaws, to be superhuman.

So where do I go from here? I have a number of ideas in my head about what to write and how to present those ideas.  I have toyed with a loosely based autobiography, with the understanding that I can always say that an activity or feeling of what appears to be of myself is merely a partial reflection, or a combined reflection of myself and other people I have known.  At this point, I feel better about presenting my truths in fiction form, so as to protect any family member or friend who may feel betrayed of misrepresented, although I know that, deep down, that is really just me being scared to identify with the most truest me and not quite ready to be completely honest.

In the meantime, I am grateful for writers such as Doris Lessing, for her lessons on what it means to be a woman, in what it means to be a person, and in how we can honestly portray the intricate interplay of our feelings, our memories, our experiences in stories, both fictional and nonfiction. And in the search for what is first rate for ourselves, and our country.