Store-ies

When I was in my early 20s, a new takeout place opened up on my street. I don’t remember the name of the shop, but a sign in the window announced that it sold gyros. Since my diet as a college student had consisted mostly of dining-hall food and pizza, the word “gyros” was new to me. I was curious to try one.

I walked into the store and encountered the proprietor, a large, bald, scowling Greek man who stood behind a high counter. “Could I have a gyro, please?” I said.

The man leaned forward indignantly. “A jye-ro?” he said, mimicking my pronunciation. “What’s a jye-ro?” Then, rising up to his full height, he barked, “It’s a…” followed by a Greek word that had no resemblance to “gyro.” It sounded to me like “hee-ros,” with a hard “s” at the end indicating that it was singular, not plural.

“Thank you, I’ll remember that,” I squeaked out. Despite the humiliation I experienced in acquiring this food item, it turned out to be delicious — definitely something I’d want again.

So a couple of weeks later, I strode confidently into the shop. “I’d like a hee-ros, please,” I said.

The man stared at me with bulging eyes. “Hee-ros?” he bellowed. “You want a hee-ros?!” He paused as I looked up at him helplessly. “The word is YEE-ros!” he said. “Hee-ros means PIG!”

To this day, whenever I order that particular Greek delicacy, I’m careful to ask for a “yee-ros.” And invariably, the person behind the counter looks at me quizzically and says, “You mean a gyro?”

There’s not much point to that tale; I just like it. But it makes me think of another store that opened a few years later on the same street. Not only don’t I remember the name of the store; I don’t think it had a name. This store’s only products were clocks and ceiling fans, which struck me as a delightfully random combination — like shoes and lightbulbs, or paper clips and accordions. Quirkier still was a little display in the corner that had nothing to do with either clocks or ceiling fans. It was called “Adopt an Ancestor,” and it consisted entirely of framed, antique photos of anonymous people, most likely acquired at estate sales. As was the style in the days those photos were taken, their subjects were stiff, well dressed, and stern-faced.

We think of ghosts as people who died but had unfinished business on earth, and therefore are unable to extricate themselves from the world of the living. It struck me that the invention of photography had turned all of the unsuspecting people in those pictures into ghosts. Their physical bodies had turned to dust years before, but their monochrome images continued to live among us, unidentified and untethered, flickering in the light of twirling fan blades.

Part of me wanted to adopt one of them, to make a place for him or her in my family tree. But none of these ghosts looked the least bit Jewish, so it would have been an awkward fit. Eventually the question was moot, because the store went out of business not long after it had opened.

I sometimes wonder where those photos are now, and whether their subjects have found a well-earned place of refuge. Even if they have, their place has been taken by the thousands — or more likely millions — of photographic ghosts that have been released into the netherworld since then.

When I went through my mother’s house after her death, I found a closet stacked from bottom to top with boxes of old family photos. I rescued a couple of boxes’ worth, but the rest stayed in the closet, waiting to be gathered by the company we’d hired to do the final cleaning out. Although I couldn’t bring myself to toss the photos into a dumpster, I do hope they’re decaying in a landfill somewhere, and not floating anonymously through the world, waiting for somebody to adopt them.

Read Me 1 comment

Change of Address

The first class I attended in the spring of my sophomore year at Princeton was for a course called Philosophy 201, Introduction to Logic. Because this course was required for philosophy majors, the lecture hall was packed. The professor, who had taught this course many times before, mounted the podium and looked out at the crowd of students. “I don’t know what you’re all doing here!” he said. “If you were logical, you would have elected one person to come and take notes and share them with the rest of you.”

He was joking, of course. But his comment opened my eyes to the strangeness of the way we were being educated: The professor draws on his knowledge of a topic to prepare a lecture (or, in this case, dusts off a canned lecture he’d already prepared years before). Referring to his notes, he recites this lecture to a room full of students who listen to his words and summarize them in a new set of notes. The students then go back to their dorm rooms and, by reviewing their notes, try to reconstruct the original body of knowledge that the professor had encapsulated in a lecture.

Not only does this process appear crazily inefficient; it also is virtually guaranteed to distort the message, as in a game of telephone. The idea that I, as a student, would walk away with the same understanding that the professor had when he prepared the lecture seemed improbable at best. We do know that writing things down with a pen and paper reinforces learning, but we have no way of knowing whether what the student is writing is accurate, or whether notes that seem clear while listening to the lecture will make equal sense when the student reviews them later on.

And yet, the custom of lecturing in the classroom lives on. Technically, it would be more efficient for a professor to write down what he or she wants to communicate (as most of them have, in articles and books), and have students read the written material. Students might even be required to copy out particularly important passages by hand, as they often were in centuries past. But we all know instinctively that such a process wouldn’t work.

Let’s acknowledge the obvious objection that a teacher who communicated solely through writing would disadvantage those students whose primary learning modality is auditory. (This issue wouldn’t even have come up when I was at Princeton, since the concept of learning modalities hadn’t yet been developed in the 1970s.) Regardless, I think the importance of lecturing goes much deeper than that.

The ritual of having a respected person get up and speak in a dedicated space has its own significance, apart from what the person says. It invites attention. It lends weight and importance to the message, and flavors it with the history and personality of the speaker, in a way that written material does not. It allows the speaker’s delivery to be influenced by audience response, whether overt (through laughter or applause) or tacit (through body language or even the atmosphere in the room), thereby creating a feedback loop. Even when the speaker writes on the blackboard or whiteboard, the words have an immediacy that they don’t have in a printed book. These elements contribute to learning beyond what language itself can communicate.

These thoughts come to mind because it’s the time of year when the president of the United States delivers the annual State of the Union address. I’ve rarely bothered to watch the live event — it’s enough for me to read the press accounts afterwards of what the president has said. The delivery of the address is just a formality, since the script has been so carefully engineered that any vestige of spontaneity is lost, and it’s been distributed to the press even before the president gets up to speak. I never saw the point of watching the president’s mouth move as he recites the scrolling words on the teleprompter.

But it occurs to me now that the way the speech is staged — in the august halls of Congress, with the most powerful figures in the federal government present and all of the media watching — is what gives the address significance beyond the written words that constitute it. Even if I don’t watch the speech itself, it’s still the gravity of the occasion of its delivery that makes the words feel important when I read them later in the news reports.

It’s astonishing how different a lecture or a speech is from, say, a series of tweets, even if the content is the same.

Read Me 3 comments

Humor Me

I’ve written before about how conversation is the glue that holds our society together, but for some of us, it’s a difficult glue to manufacture. Every time I open my mouth, I’m appalled at what comes out of it: something I think I know but that I really don’t know, something I profess to feel but that I really don’t feel (because I have no idea how to translate real feelings into words), or something that may be accurate but is inappropriate to the situation. Ideally, I wouldn’t say any of these things if I had time to think about them first, but conversation doesn’t allow a lot of space for preprocessing. On occasions when I do have time to think about what I say before I say it, I usually conclude that I don’t have anything to say at all.

For these reasons, my usual conversational strategy is to ask a lot of questions, so that the other person can do most of the talking. Most people are all too happy to talk about themselves. But that sort of conversation can start to feel lopsided, so eventually the other person might respond with some questions about me. That’s a problem, because then I have to answer the questions. On the other hand, if they don’t ask anything about me, I feel insulted — so it’s a problem either way. You can see why I might be reluctant to engage in social situations.

(By the way, a sincere question to the people who read this: Are you happy with the things you hear coming out of your mouth? Or does the act of talking come so naturally to you that the question doesn’t arise?)

One way around this dilemma is humor. If someone is charming or funny or a good storyteller, I’m happy to spend time with them because there’s no need for me to hold up my end of the conversation. Whatever hurt I might feel about their lack of curiosity is made up for by the fact that they’re willing to entertain me so delightfully. For my part, if I can say something that’s genuinely witty, I don’t have to worry about whether it’s true or whether it expresses what I really think or feel. If I can make it amusing, I’m rewarded with the sense of engagement that comes with laughter.

I’ve always envied people who are naturally funny, who can say just the right thing at the right time, and do it in such a relaxed manner that nobody interprets it as trying to tell a joke. Debra and I are able to make each other laugh all the time, but I seem not to have that ability with anyone to whom I haven’t been married for 35 years.

When you’re a teacher standing in front of a room full of students, there’s always the temptation to try to be funny. I’m good at being clever, but it’s a big leap from cleverness to comedy. In my course on building websites, I’ve often said that labeling a link “Click here for info” is like labeling a light switch “Click here for light.” It’s a good way to make the point that “click here” adds nothing to a web page, but it’s not going to elicit laughter.

By contrast, there was a time when, in describing the difficulties of being a freelancer, I said, “I’ve been a contractor and I’ve been a client, and I can tell you from experience that all clients are idiots.” Everyone got a good chuckle out of that. But when I’ve repeated the same thing in other classes — which I’ve done way too many times — the response has always been blank stares. (Or worse, reproachful looks that translate to “Why would you say something so mean-spirited?”) Humor works best when it’s spontaneous, and the problem with spontaneity is that it can only happen once.

The one saving grace when a joke falls flat is that there is always one student who will shoot me a sympathetic glance, as if to say, “That was a really terrible joke, but thank you for trying!” That person usually ends up being my favorite student of the semester.

My attempts at classroom humor give me all the more respect for professional comedians, who are able to take well-worn material and make it funny every single night. I appreciate political humor by people like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, but they fall more into the cleverness category — my response is usually admiration rather than out-and-out laughter. Performers who can make me laugh out loud are in a different category entirely. I remember years ago, when Don Rickles was in his prime, watching him do a set on the Tonight show and laughing helplessly even though I was the only person in the room. Until then, I would never have thought that was possible. There are comedians such as Greg Proops or Paula Poundstone who, when I attend their shows, can make me laugh so hard that I can’t breathe. That’s not just an amazing skill; it’s a public service.

Read Me 2 comments

Hat Check

One spring day when I was in my early 20s, I decided that I needed to get a hat. I asked a female coworker — someone I knew to have good taste in clothing — what sort of hat she thought would look good on me.

“Mark,” she said with great sincerity, “you don’t have enough style to wear a hat.”

I can’t pretend that her remark didn’t hurt, but I suppose she was right. I’ve never been known for my fashion sense. Not only have I dressed the same way for my entire adult life — khakis or jeans, a button-down shirt, and a cotton sweater — but I hardly ever notice what other people are wearing (unless they happen to look exceptionally good or exceptionally bad). When I saw a headline the other day that said something like, “High-waisted jeans are out; low-rise jeans are coming back,” what I took away was that there apparently are different flavors of jeans. (I’d always thought jeans were just jeans.)

What struck me about the hat comment, though, was that the style of wearing a hat was evidently more important than the usefulness of the hat. Of course, appearance does matter — if I’m going to wear a hat, I want it to be one that looks good on me — but that consideration is secondary. It seems obvious that the primary consideration should be that the hat will do what I need it to do (which, in this case, was to protect me from the sun).

What feels obvious to me, however, appears not to be as obvious to everyone else. People who wear hats indoors (a behavior that I’ve found inexplicably common among jazz musicians), or people who turn their baseball caps around so that the sunshade is in the back, seem not to be particularly concerned about the purpose of a hat. Then there are the many people (mostly women, but some men as well — think Frank Sinatra) for whom being stylish requires wearing a hat on an angle. Take Lauren Bacall, in the 1940s photo at the top of this post, whose severely tilted beret leaves half of her head exposed to the elements for no good reason.

For an even more extreme example, consider this portrait of the entertainer Josephine Baker, taken in the 1930s (above, to the right of Lauren). The thing she’s wearing on her head does nothing to shield her from sun or rain, or to keep her warm, or to stop her hair from getting mussed (in fact, she probably had to use a dozen hairpins to make it stay on her hair at all). And yet, for lack of a more descriptive word, I suppose we’d still have to call it a “hat.”

Again, I have nothing against fashion. We humans have a hunger for novelty, and continually changing styles help to satisfy that hunger. What baffles me, though, is style at the expense of practicality.

There’s probably no better example of that tendency than women (it is almost entirely women) who have long, painted fingernails. If you know me, you know that I have trouble with the idea of painting body parts in general — I think it looks silly. But since a reliable source (OK, Wikipedia) tells me that women have been painting their nails since 3,000 BC, I have to accept that mine is a minority opinion, and that most people find colored nails to be genuinely attractive. That’s fine; putting pigment on one’s nails doesn’t hurt anybody.

Why, though, do nails have to be long? I’m always mystified about why so many women make everyday tasks — typing, buttoning, opening a can of soda, playing a stringed instrument — more difficult for themselves, when nobody is forcing them to do so. Not only do long nails make fingers less able to do the things that fingers are supposed to do; it also makes the nails themselves less able to do the things that they are supposed to do. When my goddaughter once asked me for help in opening a sealed package, I said, “You’re the one with the long fingernails, so you can do it more easily than I can.”

“Oh, no,” she said, “these nails are purely decorative. I can’t do anything with them.” She explained that her artificial nails were so tightly glued on that if she put too much pressure on them, they would yank her real nails right out of their beds.

The phrase “form follows function,” which was a guiding principle for 20th-century architecture, has somewhat fallen out of vogue. It’s become permissible for architects to add ornamentation to buildings even when it doesn’t serve any practical purpose. However, I don’t know of any serious architect who would design decorative elements that diminish the usefulness of a building. I wonder why that principle doesn’t also apply to hats, fingernails, and other elements of our daily lives.

Read Me 4 comments

Death-Defying

A few years ago, I died in a dream.

Back when I was growing up, that was considered to be impossible. The common wisdom was that if you died in a dream, you’d never wake up — dream death equaled real death. (It never occurred to me at the time that there was no way to verify that claim empirically.) Sure enough, for most of my life, I could dream of almost dying, but never of actually crossing the threshold.

In real life, I’ve had several experiences of narrowly avoiding death, and so have many people I’ve talked to. Given how common that experience seems to be, it’s amazing how many of us are still alive.

My most vivid memory of not dying comes from a family trip to Washington, DC when I was eleven years old. It was my first experience of traveling far from home, and I was in a constant state of excitement. (This was back before the federal government had taken on its unshakeable aura of sleaze, when seeing the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial for the first time could be genuinely awe-inspiring.) As we strolled past several blocks of gleaming government buildings, I could barely contain my energy. There was a series of low, white retaining walls that separated the buildings’ sloping lawns from the sidewalk, and I jumped onto each one and strode along it balance-beam style, with my arms out to the sides.

At one point I came to a wall that was just like the others, except that it had a squat metal railing down the middle. I jumped up on it and tried to keep up the pace, but the railing made it difficult to get my footing. As I glanced briefly to my right, I discovered why this wall was different from the others: We were on a highway overpass, with six lanes of traffic racing below, and I was balancing on its very edge.

I gasped and immediately jumped to my left, down onto the sidewalk. My parents, still walking, had no idea that anything had happened. But that glimpse of the highway below me — still burned into my memory today — remained horrifying. I realized how close I had just come to catastrophe.

I didn’t find out on that day what it felt like to die, and assumed that I would never find out until the moment actually came. But then, not too long ago, I had this dream.

In my dream, rather than balancing on the edge of an overpass, I was lying in bed, dozing. There were other people in the room, quietly moving about. Suddenly everything froze — time itself seemed to stop. Although no omniscient voice told me so, I immediately understood that my life was about to end. I’d been granted this pause so that I could adjust to the idea and prepare myself. The pause would last for as long as I needed it to.

When I felt that I was ready, I shifted in the bed. That motion was enough to end the pause and start time flowing again. Surprisingly quickly, I (my consciousness?) left my body and started hurtling away. I started to cry out, but the voice wasn’t coming from “me”; it was coming from my body, which was rapidly vanishing into the distance. I was simultaneously frightened and exhilarated, watching the world I’d known shrink down to a pinpoint and then disappear.

I wish I could say that this is where the dream ended. In the absence of any actual experience, if I ever ask myself what dying is like, this scenario seems as real and believable as any. The preparatory pause certainly seems like something that a benevolent universe would bestow.

Unfortunately, the dream concluded on an unexpectedly sour note. There “I” was, disembodied, surrounded by blackness, alone in an empty universe. I immediately knew that this couldn’t be real. If I were truly dead, there would be no “me” left to have this experience — either my consciousness would come to an end, or it would merge into the rest of existence and become part of a whole. Clearly, this couldn’t really be death; someone must be playing a trick on me.

Faced with this disappointing realization, I did the logical thing: I woke up. I still like to say that I died in this dream, thus refuting my childhood belief that one can’t; but it will be quite some time (let us hope) before I know for sure.

Read Me 2 comments