OK, I have not been neglecting the Cafe, but BBW is up and running! My intentions to wait until January (tomorrow) to start the new blog were foiled when it became clear that she would not wait (in case anyone out there has ever heard a writer talk about characters leading them in certain directions, this new blog kind of declared herself and has taken me for quite a ride so far). Anyway, I am here to share a bit before I go off the ring in the New Year with friends.
2010 was definitely a roller coaster, but what year isn't? Sadly, this year could not end fast enough for me for reasons that I cannot fully express except to say that someone hurt me and it has yet to dissipate, despite the cheery face I have paraded around since the offending incident.
I am upset and angry, because I am the one who is suffering from this person's actions. I am not sure that she cares about my feelings (not quite sure that she can), but it still hurts. What she did was cruel and mean-spirited and even if time heals all wounds, there has not been enough time between the incident and today to make this go away.
So I resolved to write about it, and then leave it all here on the page in a symbolic act of leaving it behind in 2010. Why here on the blog? Because I expect there will come a point in time when I will want to look back to see how far I have come in dealing with my pain.
On the BBW blog, I said that I had a series of revelations and the first one was specifically written for this situation--I will bloom where I am planted. Right now it happens to be in a giant pile of sh&*, but that is supposedly an excellent fertilizer. Thus, no matter how stinky and nasty the behavior directed at me becomes, I will bloom anyway.
I do not know what 2011 holds. Lord knows I am hoping for better days. I pray for the person who hurt me because she truly needs prayer. I also need prayer because I have no idea what I am facing, but since I believe that God is bigger than my problem, I am not going to worry. I am a conqueror!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
From a Colored Girl with thoughts on "for colored girls"
(This has been waiting for me to finally edit and post.)
I finally saw the movie and my review is...meh. I prefer the play.
A few years ago, my local PBS station aired a televised adaptation in the 1980s that starred Lynne Whitfield and Alfre Woodard, and I at that time, I lamented that there were few, if any, playwrights as bold as Ntozake Shange. I might have even cited Mr. Perry as the best example of what was being offered--and how it was not even in the same league in terms of complexity, sophistication and intent. I saw this stage adaptation as a child and in reflecting on my childhood impressions of it, and the mature themes were so over my head that I should not have had such positive and lasting memories of it. But I did. And I am so happy that I had those memories going in to see Perry's film version (alongside the positive impressions of having read the poem in college.)
I was disappointed by the thin narrative that was created as the vehicle for presenting this work. While I liked the idea of the women all living in the same apartment building or having overlapping interactions with each other in the same block, I was not convinced that these lives would have interacted so easily in 2010 as they did in the 1970s. In the original work, part of the excitement was the awareness of self and the awakening of black women on the tail end of the women's movement as relevant themes. But when you fast forward 35+ years to the future and try to tell the same story in our time, a lot gets lost in translation.
In this film, the woman in orange becomes the older sister to the woman in purple and their mother is a deranged woman in white. The woman in brown works as the executive assistant to the woman in red who blows off the woman in green when she makes a charity call. The woman in blue is a social worker who visits the women in brown to check in on her children; the woman in yellow is a dance instructor who teaches the woman in purple. The woman in gray (?) is the apartment manager in the building where orange and brown live on the same floor as neighbors. The woman in green stops by this apartment building to check in on her man who lives downstairs, while the woman in yellow walks by this same building everyday on her way to her dance studio.
And beyond that, there is little that truly binds these women to each other. These are superficial relationships, which certainly are plausible, but in our modern times, superficial means that we barely see each other on the street, let alone care enough to notice. This thin thread that supposedly connects these women is problematic for a film that depends on some type of interaction among its characters to make any sense. Not that it is totally improbable, but the thinness of their connections reveals itself as the film unfolds. Why is the woman in orange estranged from her younger sister in purple? And why would she send her naive younger sister to another deranged woman in white for help (portrayed by Macy Gray with such intensity that it was easily one of the most haunting performances)? And in 2010, there is a such thing as Macy Gray's woman in white? And why would the woman in red be perceptive enough to notice her husband's wandering eye but not so much as to notice the abuse inflicted on the woman in brown, her assistant? And the woman in blue was the link to all of them? Really?
The narrative structure was not the only problem with this film. I listened to a review that suggested that Perry inserted himself into this film in several not so subtle ways, and I have to agree. Each character came straight from the Tyler Perry canon: the moral center (Madea) was the woman in gray; the troubled woman in need of Jesus was the woman in brown; the women in white were the embodiments of bad choices/consequences/karma; the righteous victims of circumstance, the women in blue and yellow; the fallen women were the two sisters in orange and purple; and then the been-there but-still-trying-to-get-it-right was the woman in green. Oh, and the bitch was the woman in red. And the righteous blue-collar brother was there too (dressed in navy blue), as was the professional man who creeps on the side (dressed in gray)...
While I could find flaws in each of the women, I have to focus my attention on the woman in red, portrayed by a very stiff Janet Jackson (the weakest link of the ensemble cast). Not only was it the most unoriginal character in the film (because she was simply the black version of Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada"), but she was so out of place that she appeared to be in another movie. Am I the only person who found her totally unnecessary? (Others have criticized Thandie Newton's performance as screechy, and well, I have to agree. But it worked for me...)
Finally, the most disappointing aspect of this film was the way in which Ntozake Shange, the genius who gave us this beautiful piece of work, was marginalized. To string all of this together, her poetry was largely discarded, which might have been necessary in order to make room for Perry's narrative, but the result is a film that retains only the outline of the original choreopoem. My favorite monologues were cut short or poorly edited to fit into the allotted scene ("Toussaint" being the most egregious cut of all). And when the characters do recite from the original piece, it doesn't work. Imagine a typical scene in any other Tyler Perry movie, then have one of the characters turn to the camera to recite a soliloquy from Shakespeare and you will get my point.
Well, having said all of that, I give Tyler Perry a lot of credit for tackling this work. I do not believe anyone else would have the balls to attempt such a drastic re-staging of this work, especially since there are so few women of color directing films these days. Perry is a savvy businessman who knows that he needs to expand his audience, so by taking on a sacred feminist work like "colored girls", he pretty much knew that this would pay off. Sure, he has taken a lot of heat for what is perceived to be his hated of black men, this play has never been about the men who wreak havoc on the lives of the women...this is about the women who have allowed these men into their lives. Even if Perry had not directed this, a black female director would have received the same condemnation.
However, Perry is guilty of moralizing where the point was not to make moral assumptions about the characters. Shange's intent was not to impose judgment on these women, but to highlight the choices that these women made in their own individual pursuits of happiness. In his update, Perry punishes each woman for her moral failings--infidelity, infertility, rape, murder, terminal illness, physical deformity, mental depravity, psychosis...i.e., the wages of sin.
So, back to my original suggestions: read the original play, watch the PBS adaptation, and then watch this film and compare and contrast the three. What you will discover is that Perry paid a respectful homage to a work that he clearly admired, but unfortunately, did not successfully adapt for 2010. It is not a terrible movie, but it not great either.
I finally saw the movie and my review is...meh. I prefer the play.
A few years ago, my local PBS station aired a televised adaptation in the 1980s that starred Lynne Whitfield and Alfre Woodard, and I at that time, I lamented that there were few, if any, playwrights as bold as Ntozake Shange. I might have even cited Mr. Perry as the best example of what was being offered--and how it was not even in the same league in terms of complexity, sophistication and intent. I saw this stage adaptation as a child and in reflecting on my childhood impressions of it, and the mature themes were so over my head that I should not have had such positive and lasting memories of it. But I did. And I am so happy that I had those memories going in to see Perry's film version (alongside the positive impressions of having read the poem in college.)
I was disappointed by the thin narrative that was created as the vehicle for presenting this work. While I liked the idea of the women all living in the same apartment building or having overlapping interactions with each other in the same block, I was not convinced that these lives would have interacted so easily in 2010 as they did in the 1970s. In the original work, part of the excitement was the awareness of self and the awakening of black women on the tail end of the women's movement as relevant themes. But when you fast forward 35+ years to the future and try to tell the same story in our time, a lot gets lost in translation.
In this film, the woman in orange becomes the older sister to the woman in purple and their mother is a deranged woman in white. The woman in brown works as the executive assistant to the woman in red who blows off the woman in green when she makes a charity call. The woman in blue is a social worker who visits the women in brown to check in on her children; the woman in yellow is a dance instructor who teaches the woman in purple. The woman in gray (?) is the apartment manager in the building where orange and brown live on the same floor as neighbors. The woman in green stops by this apartment building to check in on her man who lives downstairs, while the woman in yellow walks by this same building everyday on her way to her dance studio.
And beyond that, there is little that truly binds these women to each other. These are superficial relationships, which certainly are plausible, but in our modern times, superficial means that we barely see each other on the street, let alone care enough to notice. This thin thread that supposedly connects these women is problematic for a film that depends on some type of interaction among its characters to make any sense. Not that it is totally improbable, but the thinness of their connections reveals itself as the film unfolds. Why is the woman in orange estranged from her younger sister in purple? And why would she send her naive younger sister to another deranged woman in white for help (portrayed by Macy Gray with such intensity that it was easily one of the most haunting performances)? And in 2010, there is a such thing as Macy Gray's woman in white? And why would the woman in red be perceptive enough to notice her husband's wandering eye but not so much as to notice the abuse inflicted on the woman in brown, her assistant? And the woman in blue was the link to all of them? Really?
The narrative structure was not the only problem with this film. I listened to a review that suggested that Perry inserted himself into this film in several not so subtle ways, and I have to agree. Each character came straight from the Tyler Perry canon: the moral center (Madea) was the woman in gray; the troubled woman in need of Jesus was the woman in brown; the women in white were the embodiments of bad choices/consequences/karma; the righteous victims of circumstance, the women in blue and yellow; the fallen women were the two sisters in orange and purple; and then the been-there but-still-trying-to-get-it-right was the woman in green. Oh, and the bitch was the woman in red. And the righteous blue-collar brother was there too (dressed in navy blue), as was the professional man who creeps on the side (dressed in gray)...
While I could find flaws in each of the women, I have to focus my attention on the woman in red, portrayed by a very stiff Janet Jackson (the weakest link of the ensemble cast). Not only was it the most unoriginal character in the film (because she was simply the black version of Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada"), but she was so out of place that she appeared to be in another movie. Am I the only person who found her totally unnecessary? (Others have criticized Thandie Newton's performance as screechy, and well, I have to agree. But it worked for me...)
Finally, the most disappointing aspect of this film was the way in which Ntozake Shange, the genius who gave us this beautiful piece of work, was marginalized. To string all of this together, her poetry was largely discarded, which might have been necessary in order to make room for Perry's narrative, but the result is a film that retains only the outline of the original choreopoem. My favorite monologues were cut short or poorly edited to fit into the allotted scene ("Toussaint" being the most egregious cut of all). And when the characters do recite from the original piece, it doesn't work. Imagine a typical scene in any other Tyler Perry movie, then have one of the characters turn to the camera to recite a soliloquy from Shakespeare and you will get my point.
Well, having said all of that, I give Tyler Perry a lot of credit for tackling this work. I do not believe anyone else would have the balls to attempt such a drastic re-staging of this work, especially since there are so few women of color directing films these days. Perry is a savvy businessman who knows that he needs to expand his audience, so by taking on a sacred feminist work like "colored girls", he pretty much knew that this would pay off. Sure, he has taken a lot of heat for what is perceived to be his hated of black men, this play has never been about the men who wreak havoc on the lives of the women...this is about the women who have allowed these men into their lives. Even if Perry had not directed this, a black female director would have received the same condemnation.
However, Perry is guilty of moralizing where the point was not to make moral assumptions about the characters. Shange's intent was not to impose judgment on these women, but to highlight the choices that these women made in their own individual pursuits of happiness. In his update, Perry punishes each woman for her moral failings--infidelity, infertility, rape, murder, terminal illness, physical deformity, mental depravity, psychosis...i.e., the wages of sin.
So, back to my original suggestions: read the original play, watch the PBS adaptation, and then watch this film and compare and contrast the three. What you will discover is that Perry paid a respectful homage to a work that he clearly admired, but unfortunately, did not successfully adapt for 2010. It is not a terrible movie, but it not great either.
Jumping the Gun...a bit
OK, so the new blog is alreay live because I just could not WAIT to write something! That reminds me a bit of what it was like when I started the Cafe five years ago...Wow, just realized that it has been that long!
(By the way, the fuel for the evening is some Spanish white wine).
Other than announcing that the other blog is live, I am please to announce that the Holiday Newsletter is also done. The husband wants to review it and offer some input, but this baby is down for the count! Woohoo!
Now, I have conditionally suggested that I would host Christmas dinner at my house, which is crazy because there is abso-smurfly no way it will be ready by December 24. Cleaning the living room will take until Friday, so if I were to even think about setting up a tree, clearing off the dining room table and then perhaps cleaning my bathroom to accommodate my family, that would take more time than is available on the calendar.
And now I have soured to the idea...don't want nobody in my house. Hell, I don't want to be here (another story for another time).
If this were to be written for the BBW blog, I would need to explain why my house is a mess. Quite simply because I have gotten used to the clutter and I don't feel like dealing with it. If you want more, then check out BBW in a few days. I'll explain how my house got this way and how the only hope left is an intervention by Niecy Nash and her TV show.
Well, in addition to the new blog, I have a Twitter account and an incomplete Facebook page. Follow me @busyblackwoman.
(By the way, the fuel for the evening is some Spanish white wine).
Other than announcing that the other blog is live, I am please to announce that the Holiday Newsletter is also done. The husband wants to review it and offer some input, but this baby is down for the count! Woohoo!
Now, I have conditionally suggested that I would host Christmas dinner at my house, which is crazy because there is abso-smurfly no way it will be ready by December 24. Cleaning the living room will take until Friday, so if I were to even think about setting up a tree, clearing off the dining room table and then perhaps cleaning my bathroom to accommodate my family, that would take more time than is available on the calendar.
And now I have soured to the idea...don't want nobody in my house. Hell, I don't want to be here (another story for another time).
If this were to be written for the BBW blog, I would need to explain why my house is a mess. Quite simply because I have gotten used to the clutter and I don't feel like dealing with it. If you want more, then check out BBW in a few days. I'll explain how my house got this way and how the only hope left is an intervention by Niecy Nash and her TV show.
Well, in addition to the new blog, I have a Twitter account and an incomplete Facebook page. Follow me @busyblackwoman.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The New Adventure
So I plan to start a new blog in January called "Busy Black Woman". It will be the one that I promote and the one that I hope will mark the transition to a new phase in my life.
First, I need to say that my intention is not to abandon the Cafe. It was here that I got used to the idea of writing on a regular (or semi-regular) basis. It was here that I realized that I have a voice and that there are people out there who are interested in hearing it. It was here where I often said too much...but learned that unfiltered honesty can be both a fault and a virtue. It was because of this endeavor that I realized why I want to stake out new territory.
Beginning in January, there actually will not be any significant changes to this blog...but a few topics that I would normally discuss here will move over to the new space. I will continue with this blog as my personal diary of sorts, but I suspect that more of my time and effort will go towards the new blog. It will come with a few more bells and whistles and I will actually make the effort to build a following there. Of course, if people stumble upon the Cafe and like what they see, that would be nice.
I was telling a friend about my new venture the other day and during the course of our conversation, we spoke about destiny. She mentioned how she felt that she was destined to do something more substantial than what she was currently doing, and it occurred to me that most of us feel the same way. No one is truly where they want to be, but part of the beauty of the journey is everything we learn along the way. I shared with her what I thought was one of my many false starts in wanting to become a wedding and special events planner. A decade ago, I read every website, bridal magazine, various books, and even attended a networking seminar with every intention of starting a business as a wedding consultant. Things did not quite work out as I had intended and the only wedding I have ever planned was my own. But from that experience, I learned how to conceptualize major events, which has proven to be an invaluable skill for me in other aspects of my life.
Writing this blog has been very much like my adventures in wedding planning. The exercise of writing has benefited me in more ways than I care to admit. No, I will not be a journalist and maybe not even a great American novelist. But I will be able to apply what I have learned here to the next blog. And even if that fails to achieve my lofty expectations, there may be something else I learn in the process.
Ciao :)
First, I need to say that my intention is not to abandon the Cafe. It was here that I got used to the idea of writing on a regular (or semi-regular) basis. It was here that I realized that I have a voice and that there are people out there who are interested in hearing it. It was here where I often said too much...but learned that unfiltered honesty can be both a fault and a virtue. It was because of this endeavor that I realized why I want to stake out new territory.
Beginning in January, there actually will not be any significant changes to this blog...but a few topics that I would normally discuss here will move over to the new space. I will continue with this blog as my personal diary of sorts, but I suspect that more of my time and effort will go towards the new blog. It will come with a few more bells and whistles and I will actually make the effort to build a following there. Of course, if people stumble upon the Cafe and like what they see, that would be nice.
I was telling a friend about my new venture the other day and during the course of our conversation, we spoke about destiny. She mentioned how she felt that she was destined to do something more substantial than what she was currently doing, and it occurred to me that most of us feel the same way. No one is truly where they want to be, but part of the beauty of the journey is everything we learn along the way. I shared with her what I thought was one of my many false starts in wanting to become a wedding and special events planner. A decade ago, I read every website, bridal magazine, various books, and even attended a networking seminar with every intention of starting a business as a wedding consultant. Things did not quite work out as I had intended and the only wedding I have ever planned was my own. But from that experience, I learned how to conceptualize major events, which has proven to be an invaluable skill for me in other aspects of my life.
Writing this blog has been very much like my adventures in wedding planning. The exercise of writing has benefited me in more ways than I care to admit. No, I will not be a journalist and maybe not even a great American novelist. But I will be able to apply what I have learned here to the next blog. And even if that fails to achieve my lofty expectations, there may be something else I learn in the process.
Ciao :)
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Have a Little Faith
As an admitted political junkie of the liberal persuasion, the last few weeks have been terrible for me. The Democrats lost the majority in the House which means Nancy Pelosi has to hand over her gavel to John Boehner in a few weeks. Despite the success of health care reform, too many other legislative priorities have not gone anywhere and for the next two years it is pretty clear that the status quo will remain. Charlie Rangel was censured for financial improprieties by a hyper-partisan body bent on shaming him (I'm not suggesting that he did not deserve admonishment but this might have been overkill). And President Obama is being advised by people who feted him in the streets of DC just two years ago to hang it up in two years.
And on top of all of this, freaking BRAVO took "West Wing" off in favor of airing more lame reality shows! DAYUM!
The most recent disappointment comes in the form of the tax deal that was agreed to by the White House that would extend tax cuts for everyone for another two years. Some other concessions were made to ensure that unemployment benefits continue for those who would have lost them and there appears to be a Social Security reprieve of sorts, but this overall, this kind of sucks. The President can claim that he acted in the best interests of the Nation, and I honestly believe him. And perhaps the GOP can make the same claim (although they, I don't believe). But our national deficit, which has supposedly the reason why the country voted to change course last month, is going to increase, so I fail to see how this deal was anything less than Faustian.
But that is the unabashed partisan Ayanna talking. I hate this and I think the President should have resisted the urge to negotiate with people who will just as soon hold hearings about the authenticity of his Hawaiian birth certificate in the same breath as they applaud themselves for being so bipartisan...
The Ayanna who is striving to be more patient believes that there is a plan underway. President Obama is not an idiot. He may take a few losses, but he will get up and stay in the fight. I have to believe that this man is astute enough to recognize that if long term change is what he was elected to deliver, then that must mean some short term same-old same-old politics as usual.
As I mentioned to the husand this morning, this is the same GOP that impeached President Clinton after he struck a deal with them to balance the budget and to reform welfare. So the current POTUS is smart enough to recognize that these same people are going to smile in his face and lie to their constituents about how much they care when the truth is that they only care about remaining in power. And if your opponent only cares about winning at all costs, then you sometimes have to let them...
I remember feeling this way when George W. Bush won reelection in 2004. It was devastating, but soon enough he proved that he was nothing Great about this Decider...he was in over his head. In their lust for absolute power, the GOP propped up a man whose legacy will include two mangled war efforts, massive national debt, the destruction of a major American city by a natural disaster, two recessions, the near collapse of the auto, housing and banking industries; yet he believes that his worst Presidential moment was being called a racist by Kanye West.
So my faith may be a little shaken, but if I took to heart everything that the President said throughout the campaign, that yes we can, then I need to be prepared to take a few hits. No victory worth winning is easy, and that includes those battles that are not worth the fight. I have faith that things will work out in the end because it was faith that brought us to this point in the first place.
And on top of all of this, freaking BRAVO took "West Wing" off in favor of airing more lame reality shows! DAYUM!
The most recent disappointment comes in the form of the tax deal that was agreed to by the White House that would extend tax cuts for everyone for another two years. Some other concessions were made to ensure that unemployment benefits continue for those who would have lost them and there appears to be a Social Security reprieve of sorts, but this overall, this kind of sucks. The President can claim that he acted in the best interests of the Nation, and I honestly believe him. And perhaps the GOP can make the same claim (although they, I don't believe). But our national deficit, which has supposedly the reason why the country voted to change course last month, is going to increase, so I fail to see how this deal was anything less than Faustian.
But that is the unabashed partisan Ayanna talking. I hate this and I think the President should have resisted the urge to negotiate with people who will just as soon hold hearings about the authenticity of his Hawaiian birth certificate in the same breath as they applaud themselves for being so bipartisan...
The Ayanna who is striving to be more patient believes that there is a plan underway. President Obama is not an idiot. He may take a few losses, but he will get up and stay in the fight. I have to believe that this man is astute enough to recognize that if long term change is what he was elected to deliver, then that must mean some short term same-old same-old politics as usual.
As I mentioned to the husand this morning, this is the same GOP that impeached President Clinton after he struck a deal with them to balance the budget and to reform welfare. So the current POTUS is smart enough to recognize that these same people are going to smile in his face and lie to their constituents about how much they care when the truth is that they only care about remaining in power. And if your opponent only cares about winning at all costs, then you sometimes have to let them...
I remember feeling this way when George W. Bush won reelection in 2004. It was devastating, but soon enough he proved that he was nothing Great about this Decider...he was in over his head. In their lust for absolute power, the GOP propped up a man whose legacy will include two mangled war efforts, massive national debt, the destruction of a major American city by a natural disaster, two recessions, the near collapse of the auto, housing and banking industries; yet he believes that his worst Presidential moment was being called a racist by Kanye West.
So my faith may be a little shaken, but if I took to heart everything that the President said throughout the campaign, that yes we can, then I need to be prepared to take a few hits. No victory worth winning is easy, and that includes those battles that are not worth the fight. I have faith that things will work out in the end because it was faith that brought us to this point in the first place.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Through the Storms of Life
I am beyond stunned...it was just announced yesterday that Elizabeth Edwards had weeks to live. Turns out it was mere hours...
Life is so uncertain. It is so random. It is cruel; yet also wonderful!
I did not know Mrs. Edwards and I was never a fan of her husband (thought he had about as much substance as a marshmallow puff). Still I admired her courage. Who else could have the decency to accept the fact that she was dying and have the fortitude to maintain her composure, all while watching your life implode around you? Instead of beating the living hell out of the mistress and her philandering husband, she wrote a book, became a health care advocate, joined a think tank and kept it moving.
As I go through my own storms, I often lament my situation and ask "why me". It is human to wonder why bad things happen when you perceive yourself to be a decent person. Then I read stories like Mrs. Edwards' and I wonder if I could face the world with the same strength that she did. How many days of her life did she sit and wonder "why me": When her son was killed? When she aged and gained weight while the husband remained boyish and handsome? When she underwent fertility to have two more children? When the Democrats lost the 2004 election? When she was first diagnosed with breast cancer? When the husband dropped out of the 2008 election? When she learned that her cancer had returned and was incurable? When she found out about the mistress? When she learned there was also a love child? When her husband lied about the child's paternity? When the mistress was photographed in her underwear and refered to herself as the husband's soulmate? When she lost her hair? While she vomitted through chemo treatments? When she posted that farewell Facebook message?
When the Good Lord decided to end her earthly suffering, I bet she asked why again...hopefully He told her that she had borne everything else with such grace that it was time for her to get some rest.
My heart-felt sympathy goes out to her entire family, friends and especially her estranged husband. He must be suffering the worst of this because he will forever bear the shame of his actions. His wife may have forgiven him, but no one else will let him forget his caddish behavior. I also feel a little bad for the mistress...she will always live in Elizabeth's shadow and nothing she will ever do will help her escape it.
What I hope will come of Elizabeth's transition? That people look internally to push a little harder to endure life's challenges. Too many of us give up when things get rough or become immobilized by fear. Fear and adversity are what make us strong. So Elizabeth Edwards should not be memorialized as someone who lost her battles--the Lord simply decided to stop the fight. RIP.
Life is so uncertain. It is so random. It is cruel; yet also wonderful!
I did not know Mrs. Edwards and I was never a fan of her husband (thought he had about as much substance as a marshmallow puff). Still I admired her courage. Who else could have the decency to accept the fact that she was dying and have the fortitude to maintain her composure, all while watching your life implode around you? Instead of beating the living hell out of the mistress and her philandering husband, she wrote a book, became a health care advocate, joined a think tank and kept it moving.
As I go through my own storms, I often lament my situation and ask "why me". It is human to wonder why bad things happen when you perceive yourself to be a decent person. Then I read stories like Mrs. Edwards' and I wonder if I could face the world with the same strength that she did. How many days of her life did she sit and wonder "why me": When her son was killed? When she aged and gained weight while the husband remained boyish and handsome? When she underwent fertility to have two more children? When the Democrats lost the 2004 election? When she was first diagnosed with breast cancer? When the husband dropped out of the 2008 election? When she learned that her cancer had returned and was incurable? When she found out about the mistress? When she learned there was also a love child? When her husband lied about the child's paternity? When the mistress was photographed in her underwear and refered to herself as the husband's soulmate? When she lost her hair? While she vomitted through chemo treatments? When she posted that farewell Facebook message?
When the Good Lord decided to end her earthly suffering, I bet she asked why again...hopefully He told her that she had borne everything else with such grace that it was time for her to get some rest.
My heart-felt sympathy goes out to her entire family, friends and especially her estranged husband. He must be suffering the worst of this because he will forever bear the shame of his actions. His wife may have forgiven him, but no one else will let him forget his caddish behavior. I also feel a little bad for the mistress...she will always live in Elizabeth's shadow and nothing she will ever do will help her escape it.
What I hope will come of Elizabeth's transition? That people look internally to push a little harder to endure life's challenges. Too many of us give up when things get rough or become immobilized by fear. Fear and adversity are what make us strong. So Elizabeth Edwards should not be memorialized as someone who lost her battles--the Lord simply decided to stop the fight. RIP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)