A collection of essays, outdoor adventure stories, ruminations, wordplay, parental angst, and blatant omphaloskepsis, generated in all seasons and for many reasons at 64.8 degrees north latitude

Sunday, May 14, 2023

Gegiedes

 


GEGIEDES

A ten-minute play

by Nancy Fresco

 

 

Characters

Dr. Rachel Marbank, English professor and Shakespeare scholar (female, 30s-50s)

Emily Youngblood, Master’s student in English Literature (female, early 20s)

Gegiedes (male, 30-50s – approximately the same age as Rachel)

 

Setting

A faculty office in a college somewhere in the US, present day

 

Notes

The set can be minimal, with a desk or small table, office chair, and additional chair suggesting the office space.

Costuming is basic: slightly frumpy for Rachel and unobtrusive for Emily.  Gegiedes should wear a tunic or toga in the style of ancient Greece, preferably with sandals. 

Characters can be of any race or physical ability, and genders and names can be changed at the discretion of the director. 


 

[LIGHTS UP. RACHEL is sitting at her desk, stage right, reading and marking a stack of paperwork as if grading papers.  She looks tired and over-worked. GEGIEDES enters unseen by RACHEL, stage left. She does not hear him as he speaks.]

GEGIEDES
Two academics, both alike in dignity,
In ivory tower, where we lay our scene,
From ancient tryst find new-fledged amity,
Where civil rules kept civil minds too clean.
From forth the dusty tomes of academe
A pair of star-eyed lovers reappears
Whose new adventures soon will make it seem
The joy of youth’s untrammeled by the years
The sweat-marked passage of these scholars’ love,
Although they may be of your parents' age,
Will, thanks to tenure, soon have naught to prove.
‘Twill be but ten minutes traffic on our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

 

[GEGIEDES exits stage left as we hear the sound of someone knocking at the door stage right.]

RACHEL
[Looking up and sighing at the interruption] Come in.

[EMILY enters, tentatively.  She is carrying a folder full of papers.  RACHEL smiles and gestures her toward a chair.]

Good morning, Emily – it’s Emily, right? [EMILY nods] You said you wanted to discuss a potential Master’s thesis topic with me?  I should warn you that I really can’t take on much right now, in terms of advising duties.

EMILY
Yes, I – well, thank you so much for taking the time, Dr. Marbank. I’ll be brief. I know that your work includes an examination of the social context of the humor in Shakespeare’s plays… so I thought…[trails off uncertainly]

RACHEL
[With a slight laugh] Oh, that goes back a good few years – but yes, I did co-author a couple of papers with Nick when we were… [Pause, as if in happy nostalgic memory] … that is, when I was a student.

EMILY
Yes, “The Role of the Clown: Iconoclastic Boundary-Crossing in Shakespearean Histories” -- with [looks at the top paper in her folder] Nikolas Papadopoulos.  But he’s not here anymore...

RACHEL
Ah.  No, Nick left long ago. We… lost touch.  He was… a foreign exchange student… brilliant, quirky, so creative, always laughing… we were so very young... [Pause, clears throat]  There was also “The Comic Muse as—”

EMILY
[Eagerly interrupting]  “— as the Voice of the Commoner in Shakespeare’s Works.”  Yes.  I’ve read that, too.

RACHEL
[Pleased] Well, it’s nice to know that another generation is appreciating the Bard. 

EMILY
Yes!  I’m particularly interested in how his works were understood and interpreted by people in the Globe Theatre.  The original audiences.  And, um, how that’s different from now. 

RACHEL
[Patiently] Which aspect of that difference?

EMILY
Like, specifically, we take the plays more seriously nowadays, because we don’t include Gegiedes [pronounced guh GUY uh deez].

RACHEL
Wait… who?

[Gegiedes enters stage left, unseen by RACHEL and EMILY.  He carries a lightweight chair.  He strolls to a spot about 15 feet from them, slightly upstage, and seats himself in a posture imitating that of RACHEL.  As she speaks and moves, he exaggeratedly mimics her mannerisms and motions.]

EMILY
Gegiedes. 

RACHEL
[Perplexed] Nick and I never…. That is, I’ve read Shakespeare’s complete works more than once, and I don’t recall and character by the name of…

EMILY
Gegiedes.  Well… yeah, he’s not in the Complete Works.

RACHEL
I’ve also read lesser known quartos.  Contested versions.  I’m afraid I still don’t...

EMILY
Yeah.  Um.  He’s not in those.  [Pause. RACHEL checks her watch, and EMILY shifts uncomfortably.]  But I’ve found references to him in primary sources! [Fumbles in her folder, pulls out a paper]. See, here, from Abraham Wright’s Notebook, he called Hamlet [reads] “An indifferent play, but for the wit of Gegiedes.”

RACHEL
[Obviously startled] That’s not what I remember from Wright. [Takes paper from EMILY, peers at it.]  But who – who is this Gegiedes?”

EMILY
Well… Wright didn’t say.  Just that he was funny and smart, I guess?  But I was curious, so I started looking.  And… see, here.  [Pulls out another paper]. Gabriel Harvey scribbled in a margin of one of his books, [reads] “The younger sort take much delight in Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis; but his Lucrece and his tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, have it in them to please the wiser sort”. 

RACHEL
Oh, yes, I remember how amused Nick was by Harvey’s –

EMILY
[Interrupting] Then under that, he wrote, “Gegiedes”. 

RACHEL
What?

EMILY
And underlined it.  Twice.

RACHEL
[Thoroughly engaged now, pushing aside her previous stack of papers and taking another paper from EMILY.]  How did I never notice… But this one [waving a paper], this is one of Simon Forman’s well-known accounts.  And I don’t see…

EMILY
[Leaning over the document and pointing] There, see that?

RACHEL
I don’t… Oh!  It’s… a gamma?  A Greek gamma!  I… don’t speak much Greek.  I learned a little, from Nick.  I wish I’d learned more.

EMILY
Gamma.  Like, an initial. 

RACHEL
Gamma for Gegiedes. 

EMILY
Yeah.  And, see, it’s all over his notes, if you look. But sometimes it’s uppercase and sometimes lowercase, and either one could pass for just an extra squiggle, you know?  Because… Greek letters?  And the spelling was weird – I mean, non-standard -- back then, anyhow.

RACHEL
[Eagerly rifling through pages] Yes, I see!

[RACHEL and EMILY lean together over EMILY’s papers, immersed in reading.  GEGIEDES stands and strolls a few steps forward, still unseen by them.]

GEGIEDES
Once old desire did in its death-bed lie,
And new affection gaped to be its heir;
That fleeting “fair” that caught a wand’ring eye
With Rachel matched again -- seems now not fair.
So once beguiled, returning, loves again,
Bewitched now not by shallow charms and looks,
But to his love drawn nigh by wit and brain
To steal love's sweets amid a stack of books.
Being thought unreal, he lacks clear schemes
To breathe such vows as lovers use to swear;
And she perhaps still loves, yet has no dreams
To meet her once-beloved anywhere:
But passion lends them power, time, means, to meet
Thus tempering reality with heat.

[Gegiedes strolls back to his seat. He watches Rachel with great interest, no longer mocking her movements, but listening intently and reacting –nodding, smiling, seeming to cheer her on.]

EMILY
So… I wondered if maybe Gegiedes was an unnamed clown?  And you wrote about the clowns…

RACHEL
Almost all the Bard’s plays have some kind of fool, of course, but he’s usually named – Dogberry, Costard...  All the characters Nick and I loved so much…

EMILY
But none of them are named Gegiedes.

RACHEL
He’s just “clown” in Othello, though.  Oh, and in Titus Andronicus, too.  Ugh, humor doesn’t work well in that one.  And he’s just “Fool” in King Lear.

EMILY
What about the character called Chorus?

RACHEL
Hmm… that’s an idea.  That was a concept borrowed from the Greek tradition… although the chorus wasn’t comic.  Shakespeare used a chorus in five of his plays: Romeo and Juliet, Troilus and Cressida, Pericles, and Henry IV, parts 1 and 2.

EMILY
I always felt like that Chorus character was weird in Romeo and Juliet.  I mean, when I first saw it, when I was a kid.  Like, who is he?  And where does he go for the whole play?  He gives a summary of the story at the beginning, then he shows up for one more sonnet and then…

RACHEL
Yes, and then buggers off and never reappears again. Gone. Chorus abandonment. No Greek closure.  Very unsatisfying… 

[Gegiedes looks guilty and stricken.  He sinks his head into his hands, as if berating himself.]

…but then, Romeo and Juliet is hugely overrated as a romance, in my opinion.

EMILY
That’s what I’ve always thought!  But it seemed kind of unsophisticated to admit that I like the comedies better…

RACHEL
Maybe sophistication is overrated.  [She smiles] Nick and I had a hell of a lot of fun, exploring the comedies.

                                                                                      [Gegiedes perks up and looks hopeful.]

RACHEL
The name Gegiedes… I wonder… [She pulls out her phone and taps the screen as she talks].  I really don’t remember much of the Greek Nick taught me, but Google Translate… Huh.  [She pauses, taps the screen, looks surprised, taps the screen again.]  Well, depending on the spelling and accents or lack thereof, it seems like Gegiedes means “sir” or “priest”.  Or possibly “old man…”

                                                                                      [Gegiedes looks mock-offended]

Or even “old woman” or “grandmother”

[Gegiedes shrugs and throws up his hands, as if saying sure, whatever.]

… but, no, that accent would change the pronunciation.  So… maybe “sir” is closest.  Just… some guy.  Maybe it’s more a generic title than a name.  A placeholder.

EMILY
So… Gegiedes could be the clown, the chorus, the priest… just some kind of narrator person?  But… why is he never listed directly, or named in any of the scripts?

RACHEL
[Pondering as she talks] Well… maybe Gegiedes was a running joke between Shakespeare, his Players, and the audiences in the Globe?  Maybe he was understood to be whichever character spoke directly to the audience, and wasn’t afraid to mock the other characters, the narrative, the playwright himself…

EMILY
A hilariously snarky commentator?

RACHEL
Reminding everyone not to take life too seriously all the time.  [Smiling] Nick was so good at that.

EMILY
Right!  In your paper – the one about being iconoclastic – you and Nick, I mean Professor Papadopoulos…

RACHEL
I have no idea whether he ever became a professor.

[Gegiedes straightens up proudly, mimes putting a mortarboard on his head.]

EMILY
The two of you wrote about how the clown’s role is to tell subversive truths.  To speak truth to power. 

RACHEL
This is why Shakespeare is timeless.

EMILY
To laugh at all the rich pompous idiots who think they’re right because everyone else is too afraid to say they’re not.

RACHEL
See?  Timeless.  It’s like Shakespeare knew about the tenure review process.

EMILY
[Laughing] To mock tradition-for-the-sake-of-tradition?

RACHEL
And formality that undermines humanity, and ego that wrecks spontaneity, and middle-aged staidness that forgets the joyous frivolity of youth. All of that, in a sexy Greek toga.

EMILY
[Laughing harder] Shakespeare thought togas were sexy?

RACHEL
Who knows?  Hell, why not?  Shakespeare made sexual jokes out of everything – swords, cups, you name it.  But maybe… well, as far as we can tell, Shakespeare wasn’t fully in control of Gegiedes.  He wasn’t named.  He wasn’t written in.  And… maybe that was the point.

EMILY
What do you mean?

RACHEL
Well… all these audience members who loved Gegiedes [she gestures to EMILY’s folder of papers] …maybe they weren’t all seeing the same Gegiedes.  Or, not seeing him in quite the same way.

EMILY
Like… he was ad-libbing?

RACHEL
The funniest people tend to do that a lot.

EMILY
One of the Players? 

RACHEL
Sure.  Or several of them.  Or all of them.  Who doesn’t have an inner Gegiedes, just waiting to come out?

EMILY
We all have an inner snarky voice?

RACHEL
Providing cogent, witty, iconoclastic commentary on everything that is ridiculous in life, and everything that is charming, and everything that we are afraid to say, and afraid to see, and afraid to admit. 

EMILY
And our inner voice is personified by a Greek dude wandering around in a toga?

RACHEL
Indubitably. [Laughs]  No, really, I guess the point might be that our inner voice could be anyone – like that vague translation of “Gegiedes”.  The sage, the elder, the holy man, the fool.  It can be personified in a character, or ad-libbed by an actor who wants to goad and tweak the playwright when he’s taking himself too seriously.  Maybe even an audience member can be Gegiedes.

EMILY
Shakespeare, Rocky Horror style?

RACHEL
People yelled and threw vegetables.  So, sure, it’s possible they also jumped up and joined the show.  But… maybe once audiences have accepted all those permutations of Gegiedes, then he’s always there, even when he’s not.  The eternal and ever-present Gegiedes.

EMILY
Like, just in people’s heads?

RACHEL
Say you’re watching Romeo and Juliet.  It’s the party scene near the beginning.  What is Gegiedes saying?

EMILY
“Wow, Romeo, you little twit, you absolutely don’t know the difference between love and hormones.”

RACHEL
Exactly!  And what does Gegiedes have to say to Lord and Lady Capulet?

EMILY
“Okay, so you obviously ducked out of all responsibility and let your kid be raised by this kind-hearted but slightly crazy nurse.  That might work out okay if you weren’t also obsessive egotists wrapped up in politics and petty feuds.”

RACHEL
Ha, great.  And what would you say to the Friar, later on?

EMILY
“Really, you think this is a good idea?  Marrying these kids?  Has celibacy addled you? This whole scenario isn’t a romance, it’s a treatise on bad parenting.”

RACHEL
[Impressed] Wow, you have quite the inner Gegiedes. 

EMILY
[Modest] Well, I got a lot of that from the papers that you and Dr. Papadopoulos wrote.

RACHEL
As I said, I have no idea whether Nick’s a…

EMILY
[Interrupting]  About that… I maybe haven’t been totally honest about all this.

[There is a pause.  Emily is gathering her thoughts.  Rachel looks at her in confusion.  Meanwhile, Gegiedes jumps up, grabbing his chair, and hurries offstage.]

EMILY
I mean, all the part about hoping to work with you as an advisor for my Master’s thesis, that’s all true.  I was desperately digging around for a topic, reading all the publications from all the faculty members in the English department, and I loved those papers you wrote.  I emailed you right away, last month, but I didn’t hear back…

RACHEL
Ugh, so sorry.  Email gets away from me…

EMILY
Oh, it’s okay.  I kept going anyhow, taking a deep dive into original sources, like I said.  And I found Gegiedes, and was really excited.  I hadn’t heard from you, and was going to email again, but then I saw that your co-author had a Greek name, and I thought, well, Greek, gamma, Gegiedes – maybe he’d be interested?  Maybe he’d know something?  Maybe I could try emailing him.  So I did.

RACHEL
Nick?!  But… how?

EMILY
[Shrugging]  Google?

RACHEL
But Papadopoulos is literally the most common name in Greece…

EMILY
I just assumed he’d be Dr. Papadopoulos, and that he’d still be working on Shakespearean stuff in some way.  It… wasn’t hard.

RACHEL
[Chagrinned] No.  No, I guess it wouldn’t have been hard.

EMILY
Anyhow, he wrote back right away.  He was really excited about Gegiedes, and had a lot of the same ideas as the ones you just came up with.  He… asked a lot about you, too.  I didn’t have much to tell him, of course.

RACHEL
Of course.  [Pause] But, you have his email address… I wonder if…

                                                                                      [There is a knock at the office door.]

RACHEL
[Perplexed and slightly irritated to be interrupted] Yes? Come in?

[Gegiedes enters.  He is now dressed in ordinary casual clothes, e.g. jeans and a T-shirt, but he is still wearing his classic Greek sandals.  He pauses, uncertain and hesitant.  He and Rachel look at one another for a long beat.]

RACHEL
Nick?!

EMILY
[Performing introductions with mock formality] Dr. Marbank, Dr. Papadopoulos.  Dr. Papadopoulos, Dr. Marbank.

RACHEL
Nick.

[RACHEL slowly rises from her chair.  She and GEGIEDES continue to gaze at one another.  He moves forward toward her slowly, still uncertain, and stops about a dozen feet away.]

GEGIEDES
“If we shadows have offended…”

RACHEL
[Laughing, joyful] “…say but this, and all is mended!”

[RACHEL and GEGIEDES run to one another and embrace warmly.  Then then fall back to arms’ length, holding both of each others’ hands.  They slowly spin one another, laughing. They each let go of one hand, keeping the others clasped, and start toward the exit together, holding hands, heads close, whispering and laughing together.]

RACHEL
[Over her shoulder, to Emily] Have you considered expanding your thesis ideas into a PhD?  I think you’ve got a lot of great material.

[Still murmuring and laughing, RACHEL and GEGIEDES exit.  Emily moves from her chair to the seat at the desk previously occupied by Rachel.  She puts her feet up on the desk, leaning back comfortably, stretching.  Smiling, she picks up her folder of materials and gets to work.]

 

                                                                                                         

 

                                                                                     

 

 

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

First person plural


 “You really need get better with your use of pronouns, Dad.”

Given that I was not the target of the teens’ lecture on grammatical usage – specifically, singular “they” for non-binary individuals -- I was happy to snicker from the couch.  My own pronoun-fluency might be shaky and my linguistic knowledge embarrassingly sparse, old-fashioned, and European/colonial, but for now, at least, they (third person plural) were correcting him (third person singular) rather than me (first person singular).  

We know about this, Dad.  Listen to us.  In our classes…

We/us/our. These are not contentious words, but in the context of pronouns I found myself noticing my kids’ casual use of the first-person plural.  As twins, despite their differences and arguments, they are often “we”.  Way back, I fretted that this might be a problem, but I’ve long since stopped worrying that they won’t forge highly distinct identities.  So why does their “we” still occasionally make me pause?

The first-person plural sometimes catches my attention when friends use it, too. We’re heading down to Denali for the weekend. We have tickets for the show. I notice it most when it’s used to describe not just shared actions, but also shared states of mind. We love that book!  We always laugh when that happens.  We’re planning.  We’re hoping.  We can’t wait! 

Does “we” confuse me?  Does it make me jealous, or anxious, or wistful, or lonely?  Do I use it less than other people do?  Existentially, is there an ideal level of “we” in everyone’s life?  Does it differ from person to person, and place to place?  How does “we” fit into a culture, and a language?

I’ve heard the argument that the way we view the world is limited by what words exist in our language.  This seems overly simplistic; English doesn’t have words for “hygge” or “iktsuarpok” or “greng-jai”*, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand those concepts, or haven’t experienced those feelings.  I just need more words to say these things.  And yet, I’d agree that the words that a language offers – or doesn’t -- reflect something about the assumptions, the biases, the blind spots, and the strengths of a culture.  How, then, have English pronouns affected my worldview?  And what does the whole global Babel have to offer in the realm of pronouns? 

I know that many languages – unlike English -- offer a wealth of ways in which to show varying levels of formality, respect, and relatedness.  I’m relived that mine doesn’t; I’m not fond of formalities, and I’m sure I’d make egregious social errors.  I’m likewise glad that we’re not like the French – and many others – who insist on assigning random genders to objects.  The petunia, he is flowering!  The mustache, she is curly!  The vagina, he is… wait, what?  And the prostate is female.  Okay, cool.  I guess the French already understand gender fluidity?  Or not? 

The Duolingo owl-mascot was mocking my ignorance. With a combination of genuine linguistic curiosity and blatant procrastination, I started Googling, and took a deep pronoun dive. 

English, as it turns out, is even more lacking than I thought it was. 

I already knew, as alluded to by the teen admonitions above, that English’s third-person options are problematic. He, she… Why use gendered pronouns at all? Sometimes a person’s gender is neutral, and sometimes it is unknown. It’s rarely salient.  Being constantly reminded of gender and forced to reference it in every sentence is annoying. Logically, we could pare down third-person pronouns to “it” and “they”, but “it” is considered so offensive when used for people that we struggle when admiring someone’s infant, or even their dog.  Due to our “it” aversion, we long ago started using singular “they” for a person of unknown gender, as in, “What if you had a really weird English teacher, and they forced you to read blog posts about grammar?”  I don’t want to dehumanize anyone, so I’ll roll with this -- and I’ll try to do so smoothly enough to prove that I’m not an old fart.

I also already knew that our second-person pronouns are insufficient.  I like simplicity and equality, but English is downright spartan here.  We need a plural “you”. Would you like to come over for supper?  Does this mean my whole family is invited?  Or just me?  Can I ask for clarification without seeming pushy? What if I offer to bring a pie?  Southerners use “y’all” and some New Yorkers resort to “yous”.  I’m more New York than Southern, notwithstanding the homemade pecan pie I’m bringing, so I’m voting “yous”.  What do yous think of this plan?

That’s two strikes against English for third-person and second-person issues… but I’d never considered that our first-person pronouns are also limiting.  This is where we get back to “we” – and my weird feelings about it. 

As it turns out, the reason why “we” sometimes feels exclusive rather than inclusive is due to something called. . . wait for it. . . “clusivity”.  Clusivity addresses the question of whether the speaker is referring to people who are part of the conversation, or to people who aren’t: does “we” mean “me and you(s)” or “me and he/she/it/them”? 

Apparently many languages – Mandarin, Lakota, Vietnamese, Maori, Punjabi, Hawaiian, Cree, Fula, and dozens of others spread across the world – have different words for “we that includes the person being spoken to”, and “we that does not”.  This distinction is lacking not only in English, but in every other western European language – although it’s present in American Sign Language.

Obviously, it’s not impossible to disambiguate.  As with “hygge”, it just takes more words, an understanding of normal social rules, and maybe some pie.  Still, clusivity fascinates me, because it seems so closely tied to a sense of belonging, to community, to the difference between individual and group thinking, to partnerships, friendships, marriages, kinship, barriers and boundaries. Where am I in the Venn diagrams that helpfully illustrate the Wikipedia page on clusivity? 

The more I think about it, the more the two meanings of “we” seem radically different, conceptually and emotionally.  If my kids use “we” to mean just the two of them – “We’ll do it later!” that’s very different from the “we” that also includes me – Can we go to the library this weekend?  If a friend uses “we” to mean the two of us – We could grab some Thai food for lunch – that’s not at all the same as the “we” that includes only my friend and some default other person who is definitely not me – We always play cribbage on Fridays.  We love that movie!  We’re planning an exciting trip to a sunny far-off land with way more pronouns than America.  One type of “we” makes me feel connected, and one type… not so much.  Inclusive “we”, exclusive “we”.  Why did I ever think they were the same word? 

Well, because my language decided that for me.  Duh.

Is “duh” really a word?  Do other languages have a word for “duh”?

Deep in my nerdy linguistic investigation, I told the twins about what I’d read. You know how you were talking about pronouns?  There’s this concept called clusivity…

As it turned out, my knowledge of pronouns was just as laughably deficient as their dad’s.  We already know all about that, Mom. We had a long discussion about whether to have one pronoun or two for “we”, when we were inventing our own language.

Duh. Of course they did.  That’s so last year.  Actually, that was almost three years ago, but who’s counting?  I wandered away, carrying my wounded pride wrapped up in my kids’ exclusive “we”.

But a few days later, curious, I circled back.  What pronouns, I inquired, did they ultimately decide upon, back when they were inventing that language? 

The answer, it turned out, was that they went for simplicity.  They settled on just six – singular and plural for first, second, and third person. 

I felt pleased that my opinions matched theirs when it came to ditching genders and adding something akin to “yous”.  My internal logic was sound and up-to-date!  Hip, even!  As for their choice regarding the lack of separate words for inclusive and exclusive “we”, I’m ambivalent.  I still haven’t decided how I’d parse that, if I had any power whatsoever over linguistics.  I still haven’t decided whether the distinction is meaningful and influential, or just a semantic blip.  I don’t know whether my culture’s focus on individualism has biased our language, and whether that in turn steers the way we think about being part of a pair, a partnership, a group, a community, a “we”.  I’m still not sure whether “we, but definitely not including you” would feel better or worse, conversationally and emotionally, if we had a word for that.

In examining my own clusivity, I realize that although I’m a sister, a spouse, a mother, and a friend, and have been part of two different nuclear families, I’ve never had an automatic “exclusive we” -- a plural version of myself that I drop casually into conversation.  Of course, I frequently use both types of “we”-- We’re collaborating on a paper.  We’re going skiing.  We made chana masala and naan -- but always with pre-stated names or other semantic clues, not as a default.  I rarely if ever profess exclusive-we emotional states: we think, we hope, we dream, we love.  Is this cultural?  Personal?  Something about my upbringing?  Is such isolationism more common in speakers of languages with limited clusivity options?  I don’t know.  True, I’m usually glad to have autonomy, neural privacy, and first-person-singularity. I’ve been alone in my head for half a century, and I’m used to it. But sometimes I long for a Vulcan mind-meld.  Sometimes I miss the phantom twin I never had.  Sometimes I want another word for “we”.

On the bright side, we -- the twins and I -- had an excellent conversation.  I felt… included.  I also felt educated by my teenagers, which can only be a good thing.

The kids are alright.

And me?  I really need to get better with my use of pronouns.

 

* Hygge (Danish): a quality of coziness and comfortable conviviality that engenders a feeling of contentment or well-being.

Iktsuarpok (Inuktitut): the feeling of anticipation while waiting for someone to arrive, often leading to intermittently going outside to check for them.

Greng-jai (Thai): being aware of other people’s feelings and showing politeness, respect and consideration, particularly in a manner that helps others save face and avoids inconveniencing them.


 

Sunday, December 25, 2022

Assembly Instructions (2022)

 

Warning!  Avertissement!
Follow all instructions carefully.  Year must be securely attached to the moorings provided (see December 2021 and January 2023).   Failure to secure 2022 will nullify the enclosed warranty.

Before you begin:

Prepare adequate workspace for assembly of 2022.  Some components may expand to fill more than the expected area.

Check contents:

  •  Primary components: Nancy, Jay, Lizzy, Molly (Note: Contents should include two high school sophomores.  These components are self-actualized under most conditions).
  •  Secondary components: Shiloh, Eddy, and Sinbad. (Note: tagging and labeling secondary components is recommended.  Do not use paint or Sharpie.)

Supplementary and auxiliary components (not included) will be needed for some steps.

Gather all necessary tools.  You will need:

·       Optimism (Phillips, flat-head, torx, and hex optimism will all be needed).

·       Patience (use coarse, medium, and fine-grit patience in order to ensure a smooth finish).

·       Sense of humor (gallon-size or larger).

·       Fortitude (heavy-duty C-clamps can be used in addition to fortitude, as needed).

·       Love (Note: epoxy should not be used as a replacement).

·       Reading glasses. 

Step 1: January.

Figure 1

a.       Open 2022 carefully, being careful not to mislay any small parts such as early-morning meetings, permission slips, dental appointments, or emails from the director of your workplace.  Contents may be cold and dark; this is normal. 

b.       Be sure to avoid residual COVID.  

c.       When in doubt, check your climate change models.  (Figure 1. Note: csv files are now available.)

d.       Set aside travel plans; you will need these in later steps.

Step 2: February.

a.       Actually, you need those travel plans right now.  Assemble them quickly. 

b.       Insert your hand into another hand.  It will be frail. 

c.       Hold gently. 

d.       Keep holding. 

e.       Hold until it’s time to let go.

f.        Parts will be irretrievably broken during this step. 

g.       Oddly enough, although you will never be able to persuade your heart that this is normal, this is normal. 

h.       Insert family, friendship, warmth, and memories. 

i.         Repeat step 2h as necessary.

Step 3: March.

a.       Sort priorities. 
Figure 2


b.       Fold life back into schedule. 

c.       Assemble all human and canine components, four snow bikes, sleeping bags, clothing, assorted gear, and an enormous amount of food (Figure 2).

d.       Circle White Mountains clockwise.  Do not pedal continuously.  Be sure to enjoy.

Step 4: April

a.       Refer back to climate change models.

b.       Prepare supplementary bark beetle sub-model (Note: results may be concerning).

Step 5: May

a.       Turn 50.  (Note: this type of turning should not be accomplished with screwdriver).

b.       For components turning 16 rather than 50: commence daily counts of hatchling swallows, apply AP exams, and finish school year. (Note: natural finish is preferred to polyurethane).

c.       Check to see if all the snow has melted. 

d.       If results of step 5c are positive, go camping. 

e.       If results are negative, go camping anyhow.

Step 6: June

a.       As applicable, continue counting beetles and/or swallows. 
Figure 3


b.       Add squirrel. (Figure 3)

c.       Find rock climber among components; set her aside in Hatcher’s Pass for a week.

d.       Liberal application of Shakespeare will be necessary in June and July.  Sharpen acting skills.

Step 7: July

a.       Firmly affix acting skills to wall (see Figure 4).
Figure 4

b.       Firmly affix walls. (Note – 7a and 7b are two distinct tasks; only the latter should involve nails, hammers, and screw guns, although both involve a certain amount of paint and suspension of disbelief.  See Figure 5).
Figure 5

c.       If cast as part of a teenage string trio of fairy muses (Figure 6), sharpen viola-playing skills. (Note: This type of casting does not involve cement). During this step, it’s also very important not to slam your finger in a doo…   Oh.  Keep playing.)

Step 8: August

Figure 6

a.       Insert two adults, three teenagers, two dogs, and associated gear in truck. (Note: this step incorporates auxiliary component V.  This may be a tight fit, but greasing components is not recommended).

b.       Head for the hills. (Note: In this case, “hills” are primarily the Wrangell Mountains, Figure 7)
Figure 7


c.       Update M & L components to 11th grade mode.  Dust lightly with Calculus. (Note: instructions also available in German and Russian).

d.       Sand, polish, and lightly varnish teaching skills; apply to a batch of UAF students.
Figure 8


e.       Adjust squirrel as needed (Figure 8)

Step 9: September

Figure 9
a.       Measure 26.2 miles of trail.  Apply components N, L, and M (plus supplementary component V from Step 8.
b.       Continue to calibrate large auxiliary components (Figure 9)
 
c.       Gently release squirrel.  Loosening nuts may help. (Figure 10)

Figure 10
Step 10: October

a.       Complete academic quarter.  Apply grades.  Components will have a lustrous finish.

b.       Temporarily transfer all primary components and several auxiliary components to Tolovana; immerse in hot water until softened.

Step 11: November

a.       Recalibrate expectations by actually receiving federal grant money. (Note: consult paperwork to determine what you said you’d do).

b.       Suspend component L from wall (Note: this is normal, but distinct from both step 7a and step 7b. – Figure 11
Figure 11

Step 12: December

a.       Add finishing touches to your 2022. 

b.       Prepare points for secure attachment to 2023. (Note: failure to attach 2023 voids mail-in rebate).

c.       Repeat step 2h as necessary.

d.       Spread a thick layer of durable good cheer (high-gloss or matte, as preferred).

Congratulations!  Your 2022 is now complete.  A wonderful holiday season and a happy new year to all.

 

Don't forget to hold hands.