It's Tapestry's Launch Day!

From Tapestry: A Lowcountry Rapunzel --

“Such wonderful timing. I received a new book for you just yesterday.” Anne entered the room, beverages steaming on a silver tray. As she placed it on the coffee table, she slipped out the volume she’d been carrying beneath it.... Gaynelle took a long sip of the sweet, rich cocoa then sank into the sofa cushions, resisting the urge to pull her feet up. When she grew up, she would have a couch just like this. She’d wear thick socks and curl up with a book, right in front of the fireplace, with a big silver pitcher of cocoa and fancy teacups. Exactly like this, except without shoes.

 

Tapestry Receives 5-Star Seal from Readers' Favorite

My first professional review for Tapestry: A Lowcountry Rapunzel, to be released later this month! “The characters were brilliantly developed… The Southern dialect was very interesting and I was introduced to something new and fascinating. I just loved Gaynelle, her fondness for reading, the way she fell in love, and her innocence.” Alma Boucher for Reader’s Favorite, 5-Star Review.

Neither Emerson nor Thoreau, but Most of All not Gladwell…

 Emerson and Gladwell are polar extremes, but if we could get their better ideas to meet up in the middle, we might have something reasonable to work with. Maybe.  –S.A.

I was horrified a few years ago when I read Malcolm Gladwell’s famous book Outliers after it was assigned to my child at school for required reading. His disdain for individual genius and hard work was insufferable. He argued away well-deserved merits as being merely a product of one’s day, one’s location, one’s society. He wanted to delay education—though personally, despite being born in June (at the end of the school year), I would have been devastated at having been held back an entire school year and always secretly hoped I might get to skip a grade. Even his podcasts made me livid: the last one I listened to bashed a university for offering local, fresh produce and organic, even gourmet foods; he thought they could reduce tuition if they stuck to fast food, it seems—never even mentioning the greater environmental costs nor their worsened health as considerations, so myopic was his vision.  Every time I hear or read him, I want to scream, which is an urge only fed by the praise continually heaped upon him.  What’s maddening, too, is that he appears to be well-meaning—and of course he’s right there are many potential geniuses who never get the opportunity to express their genius in a productive way, but that certainly doesn’t negate the brilliance of those ‘fortunate’ or clever enough to be successful, which seems to be what he tries to do…

In contrast, I found Ralph Waldo Emerson to be so inspiring. I’d here and there hear brilliant quotes attributed to him, and one day about a decade ago I looked up (online) his essay on Self-Reliance, only to be inspired at every word.  Sheer brilliance, expressing ideas as I’d never thought of them. I got shivers at “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”—seriously! It challenged my beliefs entirely. What I didn’t realize, however, and only just found out, was that the version of his essay that I read seems to have been a lovingly edited version of his full essay, which has notions taken to the opposite extreme from Gladwell, giving society no credit whatsoever for the making of geniuses. Emerson ends up being uncharitable and pompous—quite awful, in fact, mocking those who dedicate their lives to helping others and claiming that genius comes solely from within, not from teachers (as if our ideas aren’t inspired by others’ ideas).

Ralph Waldo Emerson 

My husband pointed out how important a good editor is after listening to me lament today over praising Emerson’s essay on Self-Reliance for so many years, shamefaced at the thought that I might have inspired someone to actually read his full essays for inspiration—which, again, I hadn’t actually realized until now had not been the case for me with “Self-Reliance”, that it had been beautifully abridged. Even had I realized, the possibility never would have occurred to me that his messages would so disintegrate in their fuller forms.

Henry David Thoreau

Perhaps I should have suspected it, though. I’d known already that Emerson was a mentor to Henry David Thoreau, fourteen years his junior, and I listened with dismay to Thoreau’s On Walden Pond several years ago (see my previous, somewhat more charitable blog here). He’s so adored, but to me he sounded like a spoilt, college-age philosophizing brat squatting on someone else’s land, disdaining those who work hard and have families to support—even while he was receiving assistance from those in town to support him in his own little hermit, nature-centered lifestyle. His ego just bowled me over. I struggled to comprehend how he’d gained Emerson’s approval, but now I get it so much better.  Emerson likely encouraged such pig-headedness, focusing on the idealism beyond it.  No doubt I could be inspired by select quotes from Thoreau’s book, too (and likely have been, given how I do like the idea of getting closer with nature—and many of his other ideas, actually), but I took offense to his attitude, which is unfortunately similar to Emerson’s, after all.

Sigh. I’m sure there’s much inspiration to be had from Emerson, Thoreau, and even Gladwell. My takeaway suggestion? Be inspired by quotes and their more positive ideals then leave it at that. Especially with Emerson. I do believe he has elements of genius, and the way he expresses isolated ideas leaves me brimming with intellectual excitement at seeing them in a new light. But don’t waste your time on his full essays—the better ones seem to extend his brilliant notions into uncharitable conclusions, and the worst sound like the ravings of a lunatic, frankly. Perhaps you’ll come across excerpts of his essays, though, and they could inspire you in a good way. 

As for Malcolm Gladwell, you’ve probably surmised that I’d like to stuff everything I’ve ever heard of his in the rubbish bin—but that’s because he seems to be trying to tear down anything or anyone that is inspired and otherwise impede those who have any sort of advantage, I suppose in a sort of even-the-playing-field urge. As a result, I become defensive of our geniuses and heroes. I take it he feels theirs is just one aspect of the experience of the ‘common man’, their unfair advantages negating their personal achievements, which could and would eventually have been successfully completed by loads of other people (in his opinion, though I’d argue certain events are too time-sensitive for that)… and while the metamessage to spread advantages more universally might be beneficial, I can’t bear watching the reputations of inspired, well-meaning people be squashed—no matter how I’m criticizing these particular ones all so much in this blog! Yes, I can be a bit of a hypocrite at times, I suppose, but better that than letting a foolish constancy be a hobgoblin to my mind, which we must hope is not so little, right?

What brought me back to Emerson presently, at this point, so many years after reading his essay? Well, after hearing in First Principles (see this blog entry) of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s criticisms against focusing on the Classics too much, I remembered how inspiring he’d been and so bought a book of his full essays (after a Bookbub ad offered me a suspiciously-timely deal). The beginning was disappointing, so I skipped to re-read “Self-Reliance” first, hoping to get in the right frame of mind. After that unpleasant surprise, I jumped over to his essay on the “Over-Soul”, which frankly sounded like he was high. 

Quitting that, I decided to read his essay on “Love”. There he began to redeem himself. I liked when he said:  “In giving him to another, it still more gives him to himself. He is a new man, with new perceptions, new and keener purposes, and a religious solemnity of character and aims. He does not longer appertain to his family and society; he is somewhat [removed]; he is a person; he is a soul.”  Oh wow, right?  Like I said, Emerson does have some genius. He even alleviated some of my pique with him by speaking thus: “The soul… detects incongruities, defects, and disproportion in the behavior of the other. Hence arise surprise, expostulation, and pain. Yet that which drew them to each other was signs of loveliness, signs of virtue; and these virtues are there, however eclipsed.”  Thus mollified, I kept reading.

If only he’d left it there—and to his talk about how love arouses him to ‘aspire to vast and universal aims’! Oh, but no. He obliterates our inspired feelings at the end by saying, “Though slowly and with pain, the objects of the affections change,” and goes on to claim that what was really important was the progress of the soul, as though the person he was in love with had merely been a replaceable Muse!  Seriously depressing, Waldo! 

See what I mean by him taking a lovely, inspiring idea and ruining it? His idea of the benefits to the self of falling in love is a novel, inspiring, true idea—but then to make that the whole point of love entirely? Agh!  Well, I suppose it could be a consolation for some, but he didn’t present it as the ‘consolation prize’ for those who were no longer in love, but more as an inevitable outcome.

Perhaps I should have better listened to Emerson’s disdain for ‘the Classics’ and skipped him, too! That replaceable Muse… But then we land on Gladwell. So perhaps instead I should go read modern interpretations of the Classics… or simply find modern thinkers I better appreciate.

Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Hearts Gives the Political Situation, Especially

Hurrah to Nadine Akkerman for her amazing biography of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, a major political force during the Thirty Years War. She was the daughter of King James I of England, married to the Elector Palatine, became a monarch of Bohemia, then lived out most of her life as a queenly refugee in Holland, fighting for the restoration of the Palatinate—which eventually did happen in part, if not to her satisfaction, her motto being: ‘plustost morte que changée’ or ‘I rather break than bend.’

I suspect Nadine Akkerman is the world’s foremost expert on all things specifically Elizabeth Stuart. She has spent much of her life’s work in collecting and analyzing Elizabeth Stuart’s existing correspondence, which is mostly political in nature, and I see this focus reflected in Akkerman’s biography.  She does include major life events and family stories, mostly reinforcing what I knew already.  What this biography particularly did for me, however, was to deepen and broaden my understanding of the political role and situation of Elizabeth Stuart specifically. I learned more about her financial situation as well—and appreciate her being vindicated a bit that way.

Akkerman definitely exhibits this Stuart princess's liveliness, though!  She displays countless times that Elizabeth had a certain spunk and force about both her correspondence and her nature. Those of her time compared her to Diana (analogous to the Greek goddess Artemis), the avid huntress.  Elizabeth was a phenomenal huntress herself, and she was so charming that she was given the epithet, “Queen of Hearts.”  What might not seem so charming to us today, however, was how she addressed some of her English friends, especially—her dear, honest, fat Thom (for Thomas Roe, an ambassador); the ‘ugly, filthie Camel’s face’ James Hay, Viscount Doncaster, and similar seemingly-disparaging descriptors for other men, in particular those that she was in correspondence with. Some of her nicknames were merely cute, such as calling the chaplain William Twisse, ‘Dr. Twyst’.  I suspect that such playful, insulting addresses kept fears at bay about inappropriate attachments, as I’m sure her correspondence was scrutinized.  But such names weren’t only for the men—she called her own children her 'little black babies' and she referred to one of her ladies-in-waiting as ‘my Dulcinea, the reverend Countess’, which had an ironic sting as it referenced Don Quixote’s love for a peasant girl, whom he only imagines a countess. The countess’s husband had died shortly after their marriage, and the title had significantly elevated her rank; the irony is, though, that Elizabeth clung fiercely to her own title of Queen of Bohemia her entire life, though they were deposed within a year or so of their coronation. As she was an anointed queen, I agree that it was her title to keep, rather like a dowager queen, but it is surprising that she would give her ‘Dulcinea’ such a hard time.  Maybe Elizabeth realized this, though, as she had no trouble laughing at herself. One of my favorite lines of the biography was, “What Elizabeth’s court lacked in numbers, however, it more than made up for in attitude.” 

I especially appreciated learning about the galling rivalry that developed with Amalia Solms, her erstwhile lady-in-waiting who grew so proud married to a prince of Orange that she deemed her daughter too good even for the Prince of Wales. Granted, he was a bit down on his luck at the time—and after seeing how the queen of Bohemia had remained a refugee for ages, I suppose Amalia had good reason to be hesitant!

I would have liked to learn a bit more about many of Elizabeth’s private relationships, though obviously Nadine Akkerman doesn’t have a crystal ball. I’m especially curious about Lord Craven, who supported Elizabeth Stuart during much of her older age—and there is at least a bit more known about him, if not ‘them’. Likewise, I was hoping to find out more about her friendship with Anne Dudley. Nor does Akkerman even talk much about Scultetus (I think his name came up once, perhaps), whom I’ve understood to be a troublemaking religious figure in her husband’s court.  Even when the author discusses Prince Charles’ incognito journey to Spain (to see about his ‘Spanish Match’) at length, she fails to mention that he stopped back in France and met his wife for the first time! I chalk up this omission to the author being intensely centered on Elizabeth’s own political correspondence, wherein lies much of Elizabeth’s historical importance. So with regards to Prince Charles’ incognito journey, Elizabeth was in hot water with her dad for sending an ambassador to ‘stop’ the Spanish match, and THAT was Akkerman’s focus. I am actually so grateful that Akkerman does have this focus.  Not only has she put together all of that correspondence—a herculean task—but she even solved ciphers and uncovered invisible ink messages.  It’s incredible what she has done, and now she’s distilled it into a single comprehensive biography.

I can’t say enough how delighted I was to read this particular biography about Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia. Long ago I started writing a novel about Elizabeth Stuart, who is supposedly my ancestress, and so while reading Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Hearts, I ended up roughly outlining a whole series! I’m not sure if I will actually write those novels, but if I ever do, they will be more accurate for having learned much about Elizabeth Stuart’s world from Nadine Akkerman.

Silk was Shortlisted for 2021 Goethe Awards by Chanticleer International!

 

Silk: Caroline's Story made it to the just-released Short List for the 2021 Goethe Awards!  Honestly, the short list doesn't seem that much shorter than the long list, but I'm happy to still be on it...

First Comes Marriage by Huda al-Marashi: the Sad, Tender, Introspective Memoir of a Muslim-American Woman's Arranged Marriage

Huda—I’ll refer to the author by her first name, as that’s the one she uses throughout the audiobook to refer to herself, mostly—is an American Muslim woman who has written about her experience regarding courtship and marriage while growing up in a Shia Muslim family in California.  I’ll admit I enjoyed her voice very much. It was enthralling to hear directly from a Muslim woman about her experiences and beliefs, her struggles to align her family values and faith with American culture. 

I actually could relate quite a lot to her personality—that driven Type A personality, critical and so concerned with doing the ‘right thing’.  Honestly, she’s hardest on herself throughout the book, though the point of her memoir seemed to be that she was neverendingly critical of Hadi, her match.  Well, I suppose she was also trying to point out that her notions of romantic love (from American media and culture) made her marriage more difficult, and I believe she may have been subtly trying to point out that such notions are innately selfish.  I suppose they are, at least at first glance, though isn’t self-care (i.e., being selfish at least to a degree) important for our well-being, our spirits, our families’ happiness?  Hmm, maybe I’m putting a twist on it that isn’t quite fair—for she’s all about making pragmatic choices, and isn’t that the point of those arranged marriages?  Pragmatism is inherently selfish, right?  Not necessarily in a bad way, oftentimes, as it can protect the interests of so many.  Maybe her point is simply that romantic notions can undo us, lead us astray from our pragmatic best interests, lead to undue disappointment.  And, of course, romantic ideals are ‘ideals’ and thus hard to achieve perfectly.

Perhaps you’ve gathered that I did NOT love the ending of this memoir.  I felt we’d barely begun, that little had been resolved even though she had shown a shift in her attitude towards Hadi towards the end. When the story concluded abruptly (that’s the thing with audiobooks—you’re sometimes not as braced for it to be the end unless you’re really paying attention), I just shrieked, “What!?” a few times.  Granted, memoirs and autobiographies and even biographies can be that way, much more so than novels.  Huda had had so many disappointments, though, and I’d have liked to have actually seen at least a few of them resolved, quite aside from her relationship with Hadi, which I was by no means convinced was ‘all better’.

I do recommend this memoir for the cultural viewpoint and wonderful introspection. Don’t believe her that she’s so mean and critical—sure she is, in a way, but she aims that insightful critique doubly on herself (at least). She redeems herself a bit near the end with some of her charity work, and I think that’s a wonderful thing for us all to do (none of us are perfect, and it’s important), but I really wanted to see her spirit and self-esteem restored a bit more before the ending, though maybe she had no true desire whatsoever to glorify arranged marriages with ‘Oh, it’ll be just fine!’. 

One saving grace about the end of the story is that she’s in Mexico, and so then we’re getting the Arab-American female perspective on living in Mexico and facing their culture, just a bit.  Quite interesting to have that extra layer of cultural discussion. 

For non-Muslim Americans reading or listening to this memoir, maybe the REAL point of the story is to guide us to be a little less fearful and more sympathetic, more open to their culture.  After all, in college she signed up for classes on Arab/Muslim culture simply so that she could explain to her classmates points the teachers  got them worked up about (hmm, earlier charity work of a sort!).  On that note, perhaps she and her family decided it would be best if her memoirs showed that things aren’t ‘all wonderful’, that her life is hard, too, so that perhaps the rest of us will regard Muslim-Americans with a little less hostility and a little more sympathy. Having been born in California and having attended a private Catholic school, she knows perfectly well that we’re never going to swallow that arranged marriages are a fantastic idea. 

I leave this memoir liking Huda—the way her mind works, her critical introspection, and her zeal for compassion.  And with regards to their Muslim practices, she did reduce my fears in general, as I felt warm towards their families and wish the best for them. I even felt fascinated and amused by the zealous face-slapping Huda did at one point.  Frankly, if she’d come across as more dogmatic, though, that warm, sympathetic, open vibe would not have been the end result.  And she really doesn't come across as overzealous, as she doesn't even wear the hijab.

Nevertheless, I still feel obliged to point out that Huda was a lucky, intelligent, pretty, healthy girl with a wonderful, well-off family. Even her own mother’s story is not as nice as hers.  Yet with all her fortune, Huda still had a hard time being matched with a nice boy near her own age, everything fairly optimal.  For girls whose families don’t adore or prioritize them quite so much, who don’t have the money to be so indulgent, their lives can be and often are absolutely ruint with bad matches.  I suppose that’s obvious, but after a whole book full of lovely families with their children’s best interests in mind, I’d like to point out that Huda’s story is a best-case scenario—and still leaves us rather sad for her.

First Principles by Thomas E Ricks Explores Greco-Roman Influences on the First Four American Presidents

First Principles by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Thomas E. Ricks is about the four first presidents of the United States, their educations, and their background/interest in the Classics (Latin & Greek philosophical roots).  I listened to the audiobook and feel as though I now have a basic grounding and should presently go back and listen to it again. Not sure I will, though, so I will go ahead and review it while it’s fresh in my mind.

The best part about this book, in my opinion, is how Ricks compares and contrasts the Founders, making each of them more distinctive by having their foils depicted right there alongside them.  For instance, I’ve always thought of Thomas Jefferson as such an intellectual, but it sounds as though James Madison was truly the forward-thinking, thoroughly-educated genius among them. Thomas Jefferson seems the eclectic dabbler in comparison (if still fairly genius, in my opinion).  John Adams was perhaps presented in the most and least flattering lights—he never owned slaves, but in his presidency he passed the ‘alien and sedition’ acts, which are counter to the Free Speech amendment, and then (this is my own contribution) there was his refusal to ‘remember the ladies’, as his wife Abigail implored him to do, though Ricks spends little to no time discussing this nor the wives of these Revolutionaries, nor to my recollection any of the female leaders of the Revolution (for that sort of reading, I can’t recommend Cokie Roberts’ Founding Mothers highly enough, though she doesn’t at all zero in on the topic of Classicism).  Frankly, Ricks’ writing reminds me that one of the reasons the old history books are so dull for women and minorities is because they really do talk almost exclusively about white men. 

Ironically, Ricks cogitates on the wrongs of slavery quite a bit, merely presenting it as a severe vice among virtues without looking once at the practical reasons the slaveholding Revolutionaries may not have found it prudent to discard their wealth and leave it to less ethical (but still wealthy) people to lead. The Revolution likely wouldn’t have happened at all if Washington had destituted himself. Or Jefferson. Or Madison. (Not sure about Adams, but he didn’t own slaves anyhow—and he was actually the poorest of the four.)  From what I gather, none of these four Founders was a fan of slavery, and they even spoke about the evils of it, but Ricks doesn’t care to nuance and just thumbs his nose at them for being hypocrites.  And there’s some truth to that, of course—though I mostly suspect Ricks doesn’t want to be accused of being an apologist for slavery.

Ricks heaps on the praise and the criticism, and unfortunately I don’t feel that he so much empathizes with any of the Founding Fathers. He throws in slanderous accusations with seeming impunity. Perhaps they’re true, but I would have preferred it if he had treated them with a bit more delicacy—yes, mention them, but take the time to fully explain the evidence and give any possible defense that might apply (though I guess that might open him to slanders of being an apologist for whatever they did wrong). It’s a bit unsettling to leave terrible, possibly unjust accusations mostly unaddressed and simply move forward. All those aside, I have to say Ricks is like a professor giving grades: Washington gets an A for bravery and rigid, upright reserve, a D for education, and a high F for slavery (after all, he did free some in his will); Adams’ report card shows an A for not having slaves and an A for education, but a D for feeling eternally sorry for himself and expressing it; etc.

In leaving out any real discussion of their family lives and personal relationships, I suppose it was easier for Ricks to maintain his focus on these four and their interactions with one another—and their educations—but I’d have appreciated a more human, empathetic angle. I really do think this could have been done without so much more effort, without confusing his focus. If he can take the time to put in the scandalous accusations, he should have been able to devote a couple of pages for each of them on their family lives.

I’d expected to learn a bit more about the Classics in this book, but I do think Ricks managed to give us some important takeaways, such as that Cicero and Cato were considered the epitome of leadership, whereas today’s better-known Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were then regarded more as the egomaniacal tyrants that they were. Makes sense to me. It’s also good to know that Catiline was the name commonly bandied about amongst our Founders as an insult—after many attempts by the murderous Catiline to overthrow the government, Cicero’s troops did kill him. Cicero was an institutionalist and fine orator, whereas Cato was fighting against corruption, if I have that straight.

It was good to gain an understanding of the American shift against Greek and Roman learning, which occurred around the time of the Revolution. Our Founders already had their educations, so their references that way continued, of course, but the newer generations saw far less reason to revere the ancient past. Classical learning was a fundamental bedrock for these forefathers, and yet these same studies were rejected almost as soon as the nation was founded.  Not altogether, I suppose. They still offered Latin as a matter of course into the 20^th century, but Ricks quoted Emerson as disparaging the Classical studies in preference to more modern writers, and I have to admit I was a bit like, “Well, yeah, I’d way rather read Emerson!” (see my significantly modified view on Emerson here).  Ricks also duly pointed out that there’s so much more for us to learn now, especially in the sciences, that we simply don’t have time for everything. I’m wondering, though, if a condensed study on Greco-Roman highlights would behoove our educations, our cultural literacy.  Maybe a single, focused course in high school?  I never appreciated Homer at all, but maybe I would a bit more in context.  And a basic concept of who Cicero, Cato, and Catiline were would give us hooks when we come across the Founding Fathers’ quotes, letters, and speeches.

In the latter part of First Principles, Ricks skims forward to changing attitudes and friction leading up to the Civil War. I do understand this, as the Civil War happened less than a century after the Revolution, but I was rather sorry not to hear more about other Founders and their Classical influences. That said, however, I am increasingly impressed at how close those two wars were, how there were even some people who lived through both.

I did take issue with Ricks’ assertion of how few families were officially members of churches, both at the Founding and in the 19^th century, his point being that religion seemed increasingly more important to the populace than Classical studies. I’m skeptical about the idea that our nation was ever so irreligious, though. In fact, I would have expected that the number of citizens who were members of churches to be nearer 100%, whereas Ricks suggests that it went from 1 in 6 up to 1 in 3 or so. I can hardly believe the numbers were so low, and I wonder if it’s merely an artifact of the people not caring for official records. At my parents’ church, a woman just officially joined in her late 80s, after realizing that she wasn’t technically a member of the church she’d attended her whole life; there had just never been much of a focus on ‘official’ memberships. Ricks seems a little out of touch on this topic, in my opinion.

At the very end of his book, Ricks can’t resist become more subjective, throwing in his personal insights with regards to our current political state (which I often agreed with, but not always). I suppose he’s completely within his rights to do that, but it felt a little extraneous and not pertinent to the theme of the book (though he tried to present his personal political views as takeaways).  I probably couldn’t have resisted, either, though...

Altogether, despite my critiques, I did appreciate this book for a focus I’ve long wished to know more about (those mysterious Greco-Roman influences on our Founders)—and for giving me a better idea of the distinct personalities of these first four presidents.  Thank you, Thomas E Ricks, for contributing to my cultural literacy.