Back to the Future

This post has nothing to do with Robert Zemeckis' movie from the 1980s but I could not resist using the name of the movie in the title as it compresses the core of this post. Ever since I watched Amanda Foreman's historical documentary series The Ascent of a Woman I have acknowledged that history is not a linear route towards a better world for all. For example in the perspective of the history of women, women's rights have gone to both directions, back and forth. At times things go better and in some place, time or ideology to worse direction. Sure by saying better or worse is a matter of the values and world view. 

Revolution, progress and reformation. What kind of meaning these words get is dependent on the personal view, ideology and life experiences. Progress can sometimes be a ticket back to the history were current achievements don't exist. This is the main theme that came to my mind when reading the first ten books to the new reading challenge, 100 books in a year, that I took this year. The boos I have read are various in their themes, characters and happenings but this thought began to evolve on my head after reading Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963). Friedan's work is a feminist classic that addresses the problem when women are bound to their homes and excluded from other fields of society. Women had been active in society in the beginning of the 1900s but in the late 1930s there became a thought that women belong to home, housekeeping, taking care of the needs of their husbands and children. When before women were active in the universities and academic life as well as in their careers, now it was thought that it s more characteristic for women to be at the home environment. 

It was a total brainwash that went though United States and had serious consequences. It was not question about a woman's choice to be a housewife anymore but a way of thinking that directed all women to make this decision because it was thought to be in woman's nature to feel most satisfied when outside the career and academic world. Women became bored in their homes as housework didn't satisfy their ambitions and needs. Yet the whole society began to believe in this so called truth and even studies supported this fact. The education in the colleges was modified to fit the needs of this society where women were at home. Lectures focused on issues that were related to women's future role as housewives. Otherwise with too much knowledge and ambition it would have been difficult to adapt to the given role. When before women had been studying the same issues as men now it was thought that women can't comprehend nor find useful the academic, theoretical and political concepts. Magazines that were directed to women changed the subjects of their articles towards practical information about beauty, home and raising children. To defend oneself against boredom and lack of meaning in life housekeeping was turned into practice that demanded time, set of various skills and specialized products. 

Women began to get married earlier than before and neglected the need for studying. They didn't have the part in their lives when they would have pondered their own identity and grown in to their selves. Women had been active many fields of society in the 1920s and 1930s. Now they were home. And all this happened just some decades ago from the time we live now, 2019. It was backed with theories, studies and societal discussions and in the end people were made to really believe in a society where men had careers, ambitions and lives outside their homes and women acted solely in the home environment. There was no question whether it was good for society and it's members. I saw a trailer of the new movie On the Basis of Sex that is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and comes to Finnish cinemas on March. In the trailer there is a man who works as a carer at home but law doesn't acknowledge that men could work as carers. It always makes one think who then benefits of the systems that are unequal if it makes harm for the people living in the system. What is the mechanism that gives birth to these constructions that end up destroying lives and dreams with restrictions. 

Azar Nafisi describes her own and her friends experiences during the revolution and war in the 1980s and 1990s Iran. In her memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran (2003) she opens the feelings they have to go through when things she had taken for granted were took from her and society she was a member of changed and began to exclude her and people like her. After studying in the United States for several years she returns to her homeland to teach at the University of Tehran. She loves her work as a professor of literature and academic world she is a part of. It is eye opening when Nafisi writes that there were no division between the so called West and Middle East, in both people lived in freedom, lifestyle was similar and both men and women had similar rights. She didn't see those worlds as separate or far from each other. In her memoir she says how she couldn't have thought that universities in Iran could be closed or that all women could be forced to wear scarves, but after few months both unimaginable things became part of her reality. The process seems rapid and vast and makes one really see that unthinkable can happen. 

Nafisi's work as professor became difficult because of more restrictions and surveillance. Her specialty is English literature and books she discussed on her lectures were seen to be against the moral  and representing western values. Finding the books was not an easy task either as book shops that sold foreign literature were closed. Who then made all this happen, for who it served? In her youth Nafisi wanted revolution and change too. There were rights she took for granted and wanted progress. Then at one point progress got different forms and people began to adjust. Topics in the university lectures changed to fit in the current norm. The changes were small but when one came on top of the other the society and it's understanding of right and wrong began to change. 

In one situation Nafisi talks with Mr. Bahri who can't understand why she makes such a big issue about the scarf that he refers as a piece of cloth. In his opinion the revolution and it's outcome is greater and more important than the detail that all women have to wear scarves. Nafisi then questions that is it really a piece of cloth? She sees it's meaning for those who live in faith and thinks that it would be wrong that people who don't share that faith would be forced to wear it. One has to be careful when something is seen as given. Things are not that simple and there are turning points that reveal the true meaning. What Mr. Bahri called a piece of cloth had become a symbol of power and it was separated from it's original meaning as part of one's personal faith. Even though Nafisi takes part to the resistance in the end she has to wear scarf because of the regulations and what might follow if she would break those. She also has to leave her work at the university because she is not ready to adapt the new rules. In her much loved homeland she became an outsider, she lost her profession, the safety of her everyday life and her body. When she decides to leave Iran she takes small objects that remind her of the reality of her home country because she wants to remember what exists in that reality when she is mentally and physically far from it. 

Sometimes it is said that things go backwards and return to something that existed in history. I think it is not possible. Instead of that, progress can take us to a place where something we thought was only possible in history becomes reality in our time. We think that on top of what we already have we just keep getting more, that we can't lose. When we visit in the world of history we tend to see it as underdeveloped compared to what we have. This creates blindness to current state of progress and where it can take us. 

Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen tells about the life of the sex workers in Finland in the beginning of the 1800s (Musta-Maija ja Kirppu-Kaisa. Seksityöläiset 1800-luvun alun Suomessa, 2018). Vainio-Korhonen uses the real names of these women in her book to tells their whole stories without the curtain of shame or modesty that might actually judge these people. Practicing sex work in that time was not judged in a way we might think. Sex work was one part of  these women's lives. It didn't label a person and it was possible to find relationship, get married, have family, friends and another work at the same time. Sex work was not criminal until 1900s and after that women's lives and their possibilities became more narrow and sex work was a strong stigma. Alcoholism, experiences of abuse and poverty were connected to sex work in some peoples lives but not always. Official authority made STD checks for women and men that were suspected to have these diseases and sex workers were among them. Otherwise the surveillance was directed to loose lifestyle. Loose lifestyle meaning drinking in public, swearing, homelessness, lack of job or family to take care of, was punishable. What then was the course of happenings that led to the stigma in 1900s? The attitudes towards female sexuality and sexuality in general changed in the Victorian era. Before in the 1700s and in the beginning of the 1800s it had been seen important that both men and women enjoy sex because it was thought to be essential part of fertilization. New knowledge about the subject showed that woman can get pregnant without enjoying sex and attitudes towards female sexuality changed. Also in Victorian era women became more bound to home and to a role of a mother. Self-control and modesty became the goals. Sex work was far from this new ideal. 

So we have visited in the beginning of 1800s Finland, 1940-1960s United States and 1980s-1990s Iran. When I listed the books I have read in January I came to think the first book on the list. Svetlana Aleksijevitsh Seconhand Time: The Last of the Soviets (Vremja second hand, 2013) that focuses on the essence of the Soviet era, role of the ideology in peoples lives and time that followed the Soviet Union. The book focuses on same themes as I found from the other works, change, progress and how differently we experience it. Aleksijevitsh has interviewed people who have lived in the Soviet Union. They tell how life was, people talked politics in their kitchens, read books and dreamed of the better world. People don't try to hide the ugly part of the Soviet Union, persecutions and violence practiced against people. People reported their friends, neighbors and relatives to the authorities. One would think that when Soviet Union fall down it would have been fulfillment of dreams. But the ideology and shared dream was strong. For some capitalism offered all they wanted, possibility to make business and collect money. But the other part still believed the utopia of a better world and that even though horrible things had happened the ideology was bigger and things could be repaired and the land of dreams could become true. 

Sometimes we glimpse on the future when we travel back in time. We can focus on what went wrong and what lead to the current state. It might be difficult to see the errors clearly because it is the summary of our own actions and current values and ideologies. As in this time we both act in our own place as well as drift with the feeling that we have no real power. It is challenging to estimate afterwards if we were part of the reason or just mere victims. Encouraging it is that good things that were possible back in time can become possible again. It makes us humble when we see that generations before us might have known something great to exist that we have then lost, Back to the Future.

Books I have read to 100 books in a year challenge so far are:

1. Svetlana Aleksijevitsh: Neuvostoihmisen loppu. Kun nykyhetkestä tuli second handia. (Vremja second hand)

2. Carolin Emcke: Halu (Wie wir begehren)

3. Betty Friedan: Naisellisuuden harhat (The Feminine Mystique)

4. Max Porter: Grief is the thing with feathers

5. Shahad Al Rawi: The Baghdad Clock

6. Yaa Gyasi: Matkalla kotiin (Homegoing)

7. Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen: Musta-Maija ja Kirppu-Kaisa. Seksityöläiset 1800-luvun alun Suomessa.

8. Jennifer Egan: Manhattan Beach.

9. Olli Jalonen: Taivaanpallo

10. Azar Nafisi: Lolita Teheranissa. Kirjalliset muistelmat. (Reading Lolita in Tehran. A Memoir in Books)

This year I am doing the reading challenge posts to my blog in a different way than last year. Instead of even trying to write about all 100 books that I am intending to read in 2019 I thought that a post after every ten books would be great way to share reading experiences and discuss about the topics. I will try to post all books separately to my Instagram and write few words. Then after ten books I sketch a theme that came to my mind from the ten books at hand. I will share the complete list of reads on my blog at the same post. Time doesn't permit to spend so much time  to this one thing as 100 book posts would demand. In this challenge, compared to the 52 books in a year, reading takes more hours every evening. I have to say that I have enjoyed every hour spent on books and reading has become a way of life that I could not give up. There is
an hour or two every day that I have been able to pick a book and concentrate in to it's world and this has made my life even  more fulfilling and I feel I am learning daily something new whether it is a novel, collection of poetry or non fiction that I am going through.

Do you have thoughts or reading experiences you would like to share under the back to the future theme? Please leave a comment to this post or Instagram and lets discuss!

Complete List of Reads: Total 62 Books

Criticism is not the only way to write about literature and reading experiences. When I began my journey with 52 books reading challenge I decided, that I am not going to play a literary critic. I wanted to concentrate on the thoughts the books provoked and positive notions that I picked on the book while reading. Every single one of these books had something to give for a reader and I had a privilege to read great literature through 2018. There is a place for criticism too in the world and I believe writers and creatives can get that from other sources. Criticism and cynicism are a quick way to look smart and well read. To concentrate on praising is often connected with naivete and lack of knowledge. To praise is to show that you as a reader actually enjoyed what you read no matter how others took the book. In a way you become fragile, someone can take out the carpet by showing how the work you enjoyed is in fact unreal or cliche and what you thought is wonderful and touching becomes shameful. But who is to say what is authentic and worth experiencing? It might just be that what the author is writing is a new opening that only few can sense. Maybe it is not the experience of majority and that is why the work gets the badge of unreal.

It is known that there are gatekeepers in the cultural world, not every work gets published and the reason might not be in the quality but the resonance with the current pattern of speech and acting. Books can challenge and change our thinking if we don't grow a thick cover between us and the world. Through reading these books I have moved forward in my life and found new ways of thinking. Even the books I didn't cherish that much taught me something. It is worth pondering why a certain work doesn't speak to you. In this pile of 62 books (I went over the goal with 10 books) there were works that people seemed to enjoy a lot according to social media. But I myself struggled to read the same appraised works. Not because they were not any good, but because my own background and current situation. This is something to acknowledge personally. Then there were works that took a place in my heart and spoke directly on issues that have been going on in my own mind. The situations described were familiar and thoughts relatable or the author gave something to chew and process forward, a new way of thinking and seeing. It is old fashioned to think that there is a number of books that work for all, classics that everyone everywhere would enjoy and find important. Sure some works last time better, but we can't know which ones.

What happens next year has an influence on how we see the past works. A book that has laid forgotten might have a new relevance. Some classics shone brighter than others in 2018. Our lives are not the same and the books we need to read are not the same either. During a stressful period of time there is a need to read a book that gives an escape. Then one day we need a challenge and turn into that over complicated book that opens up in a a new clear way like never before. Book I love today might be a book that I can't understand after ten years. That is why I needed to focus on writing about what the books had to give to me in 2018. The conclusions tell about this year, discussions we have had and my personal life at the moment. Instead of lifting up books that everyone should read, personal reading experiences might lead us to the tracks of finding literature that has meaning to us in our life's. Like minded bookstagrammers have given me plenty of excellent recommendations. Books form families over periods of time, discussions we people can't have together because we are separated by time and distance.

I read this thought provoking article from the New York Review of Books by Tim Sparks. Is Literary Glory Worth Chasing? (27.10.2018). Sparks introduces Giacomo Leopardi's thoughts about what affects on the critique the work gets in it's time and in which terms it is possible to earn appreciation for your work. Check the article from here: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/27/is-literary-glory-worth-chasing/

Below you can find the complete list of books I read in my free time this year. These are not in the same order I read these because I had to edit the list from various lists, books that I blogged about, books that I only introduced on Instagram and books I just read and wrote to my notebook. 2018 was a wonderful year what comes to reading and finding new favorite authors. It was also exciting to find paths from book to another and read both new releases and old classics I had never heard before. I am positive that 2019 will be equally wonderful, my must read lists guarantee that there will be no empty moments coming.

1. Lidia Yuknavitch: The Book of Joan

2. Carmen Maria Machado: Her Body and Other Parties

3. Franz Kafka: Kootut kertomukset (complete short stories)

4. Cheryl Strayed: Wild. From Lost to Found on The Pacific Crest Trail (Villi vaellus)

5. Truman Capote: In Cold Blood (Kylmäverisesti)

6. Françoise Sagan: Bonjour Tristesse (Tervetuloa ikävä)

7. Leo Tolstoy: Anna Karenina

8. Alice Walker: The Color Purple (Häivähdys purppuraa)

9. Susan Sontag: Stories

10. Albert Camus: L'étranger (Sivullinen)

11. Donna Tartt: The Secret History

12. Saara Turunen: Sivuhenkilö

13. Leena Parkkinen: Säädyllinen ainesosa

14. Sylvia Plath: The Bell Jar (Lasikellon alla)

15. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451

16. Julian Barnes: The Only Story

17. Anna Gavalda: Fendre l´armure (Lohikäärmetatutointi ja muita pintanaarmuja)

18. Leena Krohn: Kadotus

19. Peter Kimani: Dance of the Jakaranda

20. Sara Stridsberg: Drömfakulteten (Unelmien tiedekunta) and Valeria Solanas: SCUM 21. Manifesto (SCUM manifesti)

22. Anton Chekhov's Short Stories

23. Tove Jansson: Dockskåpet (Nukkekaappi)

24. Tove Jansson: Sommarboken (Kesäkirja)

25. Karen Blixen: Den afrikanske farm (Eurooppalaisena Afrikassa)

26.- 28. Anton Chekhov: Sakhalin Island (Sahalin)

29. F. Scott Fitzgerald: The Great Gatsby (Kultahattu)

30. Michael Ondaatje: The English Patient (Englantilainen potilas)

31. Anil's Ghost (Anilin haamu)

32. Sara Stridsberg: Beckomberga. Ode till min familj (Niin raskas on rakkaus)

33. Tuula Karjalainen: Tove Jansson. Tee työtä ja rakasta.

34. Violette Leduc: La Bâtarde (Äpärä)

35. Rupert Thomson: Never Anyone But You

36. Lauren Elkin: Flâneuse. Women Walk the City in Paris, New York, Tokyo, Venice and London.

37. Jean Rhys: After Leaving Mr Mackenzie (Herra Mckenzien jälkeen)

38. Nefertiti Malaty: Ei äitimateriaalia

39. Hannu Rajaniemi: Summerland (Kesämaa)

40. Eeva Turunen: Neiti U muistelee niin sanottua ihmissuhdehistoriaansa

41. Martha Gellhorn: The Face of War

42. Truman Capote: Breakfast at Tiffany's (Aamiainen Tiffanyllä)

43. Ossi Nyman: Röyhkeys

44. Anne Garréta: Sphinx (Sfinksi)

45. John Steinbeck: Of Mice and Men (Hiiriä ja ihmisiä)

46. Elif Shafak: Three Daughters of Eve (Eevan kolme tytärtä)

47. Jenny Offil: Dept. of Speculation (Syvien pohdintojen jaosto)

48. Danielle Lazarin: Back Talk. Stories.

49. Anilda Ibrahimo: Rosso come una sposa (Punainen morsian)

50. Henriika Tavi: Tellervo

51. Tara Westover: Educated (Opintiellä)

52. Roland Barthes: La chambre claire (Valoisa huone)

53. Susan Sontag. On Photography (Valokuvauksesta)

54. Silvia Hosseini: Pölyn ylistys

55. Sapfo: Iltatähti, häälaulu

56. Eeva Lennon: Eeva Lennon, Lontoo

57. Anna Kortelainen: Hyvä Sara! Sara Hildénin kolme elämää

58. Sisko Savonlahti: Ehkä tänä kesänä kaikki muuttuu

59. Pentti Holappa. Ystävän muotokuva

60. Mirkka Lappalainen: Pohjoisen noidat. Oikeus ja totuus 1600-luvun Ruotsissa ja Suomessa

61. Audre Lorde: Your Silence Will Not Protect You

62. Marja Tuominen and Mervi Löfgren (edit.): Lappi palaa sodasta. Mielen hiljainen jälleenrakennus

How To Write About Pain And Horror

Martha Gellhorn (8.11.1908-15.2.1998) eye witnessed several wars around the world from the 1936 war in Spain to the invasion in Panama 1990. Her reports draw a picture of a correspondent who did't go numb even after seeing sow much. She had empathy for all the victims of the war from civilians to those forced to take part to the combats. Her style of writing goes close to those she met in the most inhuman conditions. She visits their houses, listens to their stories and lives with them in the moments of loss. In her reports that were published in that time's newspapers Gellhorn wrote what she saw. These reports have been published as a collection called The Face of War that she has, sadly, been forced to update to new editions with new wars she witnessed. Gellhorn's reports tell about the mental climate of the time and open the thoughts that people had at the moment. She is not on the background playing objective. She makes herself visible and shows her thoughts that reflect the time.

The reports make it sound like she aimed her writing to those who are far from war in the comfort of their own houses in countries where war is mere a memory or somewhere geographically far.  She ponders how it is even possible for those people to understand or feel through what they read. She doesn't criticize that much people's decisions in the war as she criticizes those who are reading her work as distant spectators of war. She sees it dangerous that only a limited number of people are taking part to the discussion leaving so called specialists to decide the truths of war. She criticizes how happenings are explained in a light that makes it look like one part of war suffers more than the other when in reality there are losses of lives in both sides and the whole activity of war should be questioned. In this questioning we all have our duty to understand and ask again and again if the war is worth it. Sure there are specialists who have put time and effort to understand the situation and it's backgrounds and because of that their views are to be listened with care. But we who are reading the news have the responsibility to stop and ponder what we are told instead of passing the information as something we can leave to a narrow number of people to comprehend. Caring about what is happening to our fellow humans and empathy belongs to us all. History shows that even trusted governments can be wrong.

Gellhorn pays attention to messages that create an atmosphere of fear and prejudice between people and countries. It is someone's benefit that we are made to fear one another when actually in the end we are all the same and what we should fear is propaganda we don't acknowledge as such but take as researched and well based information. Gellhorn writes about the war of words. She tells about the propaganda and how war is written and made reality by words that create fear and hatred. It is unnatural to feel such extreme hatred against a person you actually know nothing about. How then people are made to attack against each other if not with propaganda. By words the enemy is painted and people are made to believe in an image that doesn't really exist. Then this picture is put to real world and the results are reality, human lives lost and pain one can't imagine possible.

Gellhorn writes about pains and horrors that people are confronting in unstable and unjust circumstances. She writes directly about death, violence and mental threats people are forced to go trough. She tells the stories that are told to her in front lines, hospitals and among civilians who end up as targets of war. She writes about the emotional landscape of war, how people manage or don't manage in the middle of chaos. Her writings reveal the everyday life in the years of war, constant threats and silent hunger. Gellhorn is not writing about honor or patriotic duty she is writing about the war that she sees and actions that exist around her. It is sad though how people who receive these reports whether written, photographed or filmed become to feel powerless, numb and in the end uncaring. More and more pictures and messages are needed to get us care and understand what is happening. At the same time we need to know about the pain of others so we are not ignorant. Those who are in war want to tell to their fellow humans what is happening because the horrors should not exist, someone should hear the message.

But then again, between our entertainment there are news highlights that show people, our kind, who are suffering. And from those pictures we go quite rapidly back to our entertainment and it feels wrong. Those people give their face to the horror yet our capacity to receive any emotion has become weaker. Or has it always been so weak, like in a peaceful environment we can't understand the opposite? Is it wrong to bring us more visual materials of the horrors around the world if we feel no duty to properly see it? Have news become entertainment that give small emotions to experience when brushing teeth before bedtime? What would be a respectful way to tell the stories of the victims? Gellhorn gives space to individuals. She tells the facts and environment where things happen. Then she gives room for the story that the victim has to tell. There is certain power in a single human person telling their story, because that person could be anyone, anywhere, you or me. A war gets a face, someone who went though what we see in the big picture that is more difficult to comprehend.

Those who are set in the scene to be eyes of others and report what is happening have a responsible role to play. They have to see and hear and write, not strengthen the image created by propagandists. Gellhorn underlines that press has to be free and get to the roots of happenings. In the case of invasion of Panama she tells how her work was restricted and she didn't get to do her work. She says that governments learned about what happened in the war of Vietnam, how TV and press made people to see the reality behind the facade and the attitude towards the war changed. According to Gellhorn in Panama war correspondents access was restricted so they would only have the government accepted message to write about. She then asks if people are satisfied with the ignorance they are left and whether they are interested about the reality at all. The whole mechanism of ignorance and propaganda supports the arms industry and makes sense to the use of huge amounts of money to the weapons when there would be so much better destinations to put it.

Martha Gellhorn: The Face of War. The first edition was published in 1959, I read the 2016 edition.

Floating in the Consciousness

Of all the books I have read so far this one has the most beautiful, original and poetic language. Eeva Turunen uses words one doesn't hear that often. This book made me remember how magical Finnish language can be if the author has the gift to use it on it's full potential. Turunen's Neiti U muistelee niin sanottua ihmissuhdehistoriaansa (2018) has not yet been translated to other languages, so this treat is now only for those who can read Finnish. I wonder what a challenge it would be to try to translate this because one of the main elements of this work is in the language and it's nuances. But they translate poetry so it must be possible.

The book also plays with genres and it can be read at least in two ways, as a collection of short stories, dialogues and poems that tell the histories of different characters or as a novel that describes different angles of the person's life. The main characters have a lot in common what comes to their personalities. Their way of seeing the world is similar and it makes sense that actually all the stories tell about the relationships, career and life in general of the same person. The characters are referred as miss U, miss K, miss N or their names are not told. This made me ponder the idea that maybe the characters are written anonymous, like in a manner which someone would really tell about their relationships; Well I won't tell their names lets refer them as A and B, OK? Personal issues are often told with a mist of anonymity so it won't feel too revealing to tell what has been going on in mind.

The relationships described are mainly between women, love affairs, crushes and friendships. It is refreshing to read women's experiences that are not to do about relationships with men or raising children. Turunen also breaks the  conventional roles by writing characters that surprise, their choices and ways of seeing the world are not as one might first assume. For example in some stories the gender is not so obvious or necessary in a main character's mind but when they reflect other people's actions toward them it reveals how those people are assuming and behaving according to their interpretations. 

The stories are stream of consciousness in the most fluent way. The reader gets to the waves of consciousness and gets a glimpse of what is currently on the mind of the main character. In the opening story two women are travelling in Island and the other one, miss N predicts that the volcano might erupt soon. In her mind she does all kinds of neurotic arrangements in case it happens. She seems to be aware that her mind is going to paths that are not logical anymore and tries to hide the purchases she has done in case the emergency hits. In another story an architect is not getting sleep at night and begins to reflect her latest commission. She is in the  beginning of her career and goes through what possibly went wrong because she was not chosen to complete the design of the building. The thoughts circling in her mind are very relatable; should I have laughed in that situation to bond better with the customer, was my way of expressing myself unclear and did the work done correlate to what the customer was looking after and so forth. All these annoying details that make it impossible to be proud of one's own work. To add to the pile of anxiousness she begins to imagine how her ex-girlfriend is living a dream life with her new woman. It is so real to go though the whole life and it's mistakes and could bes in the late hours of the day when sleep is not arriving.

I think it shows in the style of this book that the author is an architect and a play writer. At parts there is something similar with a play manuscript. The situations are described in a minimalistic way, A says, B says, A thinks etc. For a visual person it gives more than thick and fully charged writing. The style gives air to picture the situation, where the people are standing and what they are doing. The picture formed to one's head gives more about the whole context of the happenings that could be written with more words. In one of the stories the main character tells about her worries to the property manager in a letter. Instead of the letter being static it is in constant move as the main character goes though her home, what can be found there and who she meets in the yards and corridors. The letter contains her life and the past events which open the situations and why she has so much time to ponder and write to a complete stranger she has made her friend.

The luxury of time is common to all characters in these stories. They have time to look back and go through every detail in their past relationships, they have time look where they are at the moment and what is around them. There are cotton swabs in door wreath, the flowers are nastily packed to revealing transparent foil and neighbors move in their balconies. Also there is something similar in their lifestyles. Work or other interests in the cultural field are visible. Past relationships are haunting their life at the moment or low self-esteem is affecting to the current affair. Their life sounds real and something we can feel through our own experiences. Even though we would be doing great and we would have a work we enjoy and well functioning relationship, still there is some insecure place that gives warnings and puts us to reflect what we have done wrong. It happens every now and then in all situations where we communicate with each other. Because most of us want to show themselves in good light and treat other people in a manner they deserve. 

What I particularly liked about this book was that the main characters are quite ordinary, trying to make it in their life whether single or in a relationship, with a job or without. They are lost after a girlfriend has left or waiting the woman of dreams come out of the DIY cardboard teleport. They are looking for appreciation in work life. I think almost all have gone though moments like that, absent minded wandering in the apartment and streets waiting for something wonderful to happen. I am not sure if that reflective and neurotic spirit ever stops haunting even though the teleport would blink. 

One Option

To stay voluntarily childless is one of the options one can choose in life. Yet it is still a choice that raises lots of opinions even these days. People might doubt your capability to make the decision by saying you don't know what you are losing or that you will most surely change your mind. A voluntarily childless person confronts more prejudices than a person who has chosen to want children. Those two decisions are not seen as equal and the decision not to want children is combined with things like selfishness and career oriented lifestyle. It is seen self-centered to be happy just the way you are in your life without children.

I have experienced many kinds of attitudes towards being childless. In some situations I have felt outsider and it has been impossible to address that as a problem. Because the solution to my problem would be to have/want children of my own and then become a member of the group.  It is like there is no need or duty to consider people who don't have children, they can be left outside because it is their own fault. In any other case it would be bullying but what comes to being childless by choice it is seen as personal decision that has consequences. If you don't make children you choose the path of an outlaw, someone outside the society of good people. There is one sort of women's culture that gets it's roots from motherhood. Motherhood and womanhood are seen as synonyms. In that discourse experience of motherhood is something that combines all women no matter how heterogeneous the group is in other ways there is this one subject that is common. Building of a group starts with addressing how we  women know... and then continues with some experience that is connected to having children and raising them. Once I was in a situation that it was Mothers Day and I was given a rose just because all women are mothers and raising children together even if they don't have children of their own. It was one of the most awkward situations I have been in. It is thought that if you don't have children you still have the motherhood in you because you are a woman. If you say out loud that you don't feel like it you can be left outside alone.

There is also the concept of societal motherhood and woman's role as a mother in society who nurtures, guides and takes care of other people. By combining motherhood to womanhood some characters are forced to women and taken out of someone else who would feel those more natural. For example to see all women as nurturers is harmful towards people who do feel like women but struggle in filling this norm and start to question if they have some way failed. These norms are changing but are still present in today's society. It has not been one or two times in my life that I have been asked to nurse someones children or even take a small job in nursing children. This thought that I would be good with children cannot rise from anything else than the fact that I am a woman. It is thought that it comes natural to take care of someone's children and that I would actually enjoy spending my free time with children. It has also been argued that I should practice nursing children so I know when I have my own.

This leads to the great non-fiction book about voluntarily childlessness. Because all that I just told from my own experience is something quite many women who address themselves as voluntarily childless have gone though. Nefertiti Malaty's Ei äitimateriaalia (2018), could be translated as Not mother material, was a liberating read. It lists quotes one will hear as a voluntarily childless and tells about the prejudices and attitudes people still have. It also goes to society's level showing the politics that push women to procreate in the name of the nation's well being. It is liberating to know the power structures that make one doubt their own decisions. It is accepted to say to a woman that you will change your mind, you don't know what you are missing if you don't make kinds and motherhood is one the greatest things in life. These might be true for someone but it doesn't make it right to force feed these to people who have thoroughly pondered the subject and have courage to say out aloud what they know is true to them. One is allowed to say that you will regret if you don't make kinds but how would it be if someone would say to a person who has kinds that you will regret that decision. It is tragic if a person makes children just in case not to have regrets afterwards. It means that childlessness is pictured as a lifestyle choice that lacks some greater purpose. One optional part of human life shouldn't get such a big role.

The pressure is huge and it comes from all around the society. It becomes difficult to hear your own voice. Children are seen as a fulfillment of a well lived life and as a continuum of human life and well functioning nation. New taxpayers they state. It is selfish women who ruin this vision. It is not true though. The best part of this book are the narratives of women and non-binary who talk openly and honestly about their life and the prejudices they have confronted. Most if not all of them are active in some organization that makes societal work. They have also dedication to voluntary work. This doesn't mean that there is some debt to pay for the society if you don't make children. The point is that the archetype of a childless person as selfish and self-centered is far from reality. These interesting and inspiring people I read about have many things they are passionate about and those interests take time. I have noticed this in my life. There are so many activities, new things to study and learn, so many causes to work for, that I don't see where I could find time to be a mother.

The book opened how people have noticed they don't want to have kids. Some have known their whole life and some have realized as an adult that Hey, it is not compulsory to have children if you don't want to! I know the later. One day the notion came to me. I had felt sort of hurry all the time in life. There was a certain pattern to run though. I studied fast to move to work life and to be productive. As a student I had the thoughts that what if life doesn't go according to this given pattern? What if I am not married at the age of 30 and mother at the age of 31? Fertility was running out of me and time to settle and have children began to end.Will I be left alone and outside, I asked. The pressure was huge and put me down daily. Then one bright day few years ago I finally understood that having children is not for all and it is not compulsory. I realized it might not be for me at all. Instead of time running out I had all the time in life! For some not having children feels final as for some to have children feels too final. Our experiences and ways to see our live's are not similar. The world around us tels us a story, story where people find love and settle and make kinds. In that world it might be challenging to make this invention that it is not meant for all. There are options that are equally right. It is perfectly OK to look for relationship without the pressure to become a parent after few years together. Those are two separate things. A great relationship and being loved are not awards of motherhood.

Malaty's book presents one option among many. It doesn't claim that staying childless is the only way in life. Neither does it criticize those who decide to make children. The book doesn't defend the decision to stay childless. Because there is nothing to defend. If more people decide to be voluntarily childless it is not a threat to anybody or anything. World has enough people already and those who choose are free to have children. People who don't want children of their own are not against children or hate them. In the book some even had their career in working with children and youth. Being child free can be the best and happiest option for some and that decision should be respected. Cartoon artist Kaisa and author Monika  are telling about their interests and that they would't have time to be mothers as a part of that all. It is heavy that people without children and singles get so much negative attention, advice and confront pure discrimination in both hobby and work groups as well as in the society. As Malaty writes no one drives the cause of the childless and singles in the politics. We are part of the community too and we work for common good from our own place. Old fashioned norms shouldn't justify discrimination and make it right to pressure people act against what they feel they are.

I would recommend this book for voluntarily childless as an empowering read that gives support in the decision. This is also good read for those who want to know their options. Instead of painting a dark picture of life without children it shows how happy and fulfilling life can be when you make the decision that is right for you. It would be equally great if people who have children could read this book too and see the other side of the subject.

Nefertiti Malaty: Ei äitimateriaalia. 2018. Aito Reuna Kustanne. The book is in Finnish.

New Skin

She gets a little money from somewhere, goes and spends it to a new outfit. It is more than retail therapy in order to feel good. She buys a new armor to survive a next humiliation. Because the humiliations never end, she spent her last money to that outfit and is forced to contact old acquaintances and ask for money to cover her basic needs.

36/52 Jean Rhys: After Leaving Mr Mackenzie (1930). It is somewhere around 1920s and Julia lives from day to day. She has left Mr Mackenzie half an year ago and lives in a hotel getting weekly money envelopes from her past lover. She is loose from the world and blurs her mind with alcohol. She is careless and doesn't see a chance to take the lead of her own life. What comes to her basic income she has relied on men the past decades.

Men see a woman sitting in a bar as a possibility to have a jolly evening. Julia doesn't invite them but they come anyways and expect that she offers light and enjoyable company. Mr Horsfield seeks Julia's company even though she is not that keen to be entertaining. He is disappointed when it reveals that Julia is depressed and not that kind of company he wished for. Though he has no reason and right to demand Julia to be different he is in belief that his presence will change the atmosphere. That a woman who is alone comes happy and pleased when she gets male attention. Before they leave the bar Julia says her clothes are shabby and she is not herself. She is absent and fears she might lose her mind. Despite this Horsfield thinks he can make the situation turn into something different. And later in the novel he sees that Julia takes advantage of him by asking support. It is a thought provoking contrast what they speak together and what they think in their own minds. Horsfield acts as he wants to help and seeks a company of a woman who is going through a hard time. Yet at the same time he moralizes Julia's behavior, how she takes advantage without giving him anything back. Maybe it is about communication, we wish things had a different meaning so we could get what we want.

The way she makes decisions is an opposite of leading her own life. Whether she goes to London or stays in Paris is decided by a car horn that makes a sound before she counts to three. She is not actually thinking her options and reasons to go to London. The decision is random and that effects to her whole stay in the city. Her sister and mother haven't expected her and her sister is not that keen to take her back into her life. Sister Norah and Julia have completely different lifestyles. In those two characters Rhys writes about pros and cons of both women's decisions. A reader can empathize both sides and live through the pain they have had in their life. Julia is homeless wanderer, who has had many relationships and also chances to see the world. Yet she remembers how her younger sister Norah got more attention from their mother. Norah has been taking care of their mother. People respect her and her sacrifice. That respect has become a prison of duty and honor. The kind words make her stand from day to day but also keep her stuck. Reassuring support she gets makes her loose the grip on her life. When she begins to doubt her decisions and thinks about other options she stays in her place because it is save. She gets a panic about how time has gone and repeats to herself that she is still young.

As an opposite Julia sees in the men's eyes that she is old and worn out. Uncle Griffits evaluates Julia and makes a judgement that she is not young anymore. He makes it sound like that not being young anymore makes her someone to feel pity. It is a fine line how long you can assure yourself that you are still young and decisions what to make of your life are in front of you. Pushing the panic away is a mechanism that makes one push necessary decisions to the future. The way Rhys writes about time and opportunities passing is melancholic, true and powerful. She doesn't tell which one is the right way to choose but reveals how difficult it is to stay awake in one's own life. As if she says don't sleep too long or sleep through your whole life without caring.

Julia is sensitive and when she walks though the streets of Paris and London she looks in the minds of people. She cares what people think about her and is afraid that she seems idiotic. She is relatively young, 36, but in the phase of her life when she begins to think of her age and how it shows. Julia doesn't take strength from the life experiences she has had. She is vulnerable to the eyes of others. Maybe people don't even pay attention to her. I wonder how much we pay attention to how people look at us in the streets. Sometimes subconsciously we brush our hair with our hand to make ourselves more presentable.

In the end Julia is not a victim. She knows how to make a new skin and continue forward. She has no wish to disappear even though in other ways she is careless. She knows how to use men who push into her company to her own advantage. She turns upside town the setting where men want to use her to their own amusement. In the end she is not someone to be helped but someone who helps herself no matter how humiliating the circumstances are at times. She ponders how amazing things there may be waiting for her, happiness, facial massage. I loved her wry humor that connects to the advertisements we see in our Instagram feed. Happiness and facial massage seen as as equal sources of fulfillment in woman's life.  A new tampon that makes us jump bungee jumps.

Walk and Take the Urban Space

Wondering and wandering go hand in hand. Walking gives mental space to concentrate and go through issues that have jammed inside one's head. When in movement it feels like even the things that are stuck and without an answer begin to move and get a new order. For many creative processes walking is an essential part. One comes up with an idea but a good long walk enables the thinking go to the second level. The idea being processed gets a new and even better form. In hard times walking can be one of the few activities one can do. It is possible to adjust the pace and just keep moving no matter how slowly but still going somewhere. Maybe not going to a physical place but towards a solution and some outcome that leads forward. Walking can help to notice the steps that take closer to one's dreams. It is concrete action that makes one see action in issues that are hard to define.

35/52 Lauren Elkin's Flâneuse. Women Walk the City in Paris, New York, Tokyo, Venice and London (2016) is about walking in urban space and it's many meanings. It asks to whom the urban space belongs, who can walk there and who can wander observing passers by. It ponders how urban cities open to the female walker. It inspires to go and explore the cities around the world by walking.

Elkin is accompanied by women from different eras of time. Women who have both been keen to walk and knew their city with it's every detail. At the same time when Elkin walks with inspiring writers like Virginia Woolf, Jean Rhys and Martha Gellhorn, she goes through their work and alleys they took. She takes the same paths and reflects the same issues they either brought up in their work or had in their personal life. If you love book, film and art recommendations this book will offer you many. There is so many interesting works to enjoy from films by Agnes Varda to novels by George Sand. Not to mention countless cites Elkin makes through the book raising a dream to become as well sophisticated as she is. I have always been deeply inspired by people who are able to move from level to another in cultural and societal discussions, how they can drop a name or two, cite some recent research, quote in French or Latin, talk about what is happening in popular culture today and draw lines of connection between this all.

Urban space has not always been available for women and even these days we ask ourselves if we can go out in certain parts of the city or walk around save in certain hours. City offers lots to explore but also threats. Even nowadays a woman can't walk alone in some places, either because it is not save or because it is not approved by society. When we walk we are not moved by others we move ourselves, take the space ourselves and explore it with our own terms. We can choose to take different route instead of being driven to given places and answers. Virginia Woolf moved with her sister Vanessa to Bloomsbury. From save and predictable Kensington to an area that didn't hold the best of reputation. What Bloomsbury gave her was freedom to walk and think. With fellow artists she could develop ideas and choose whole new ways of organizing her world. Some spaces still stayed closed for women. In A Room of One's Own women are not allowed to go to the university campus lawn and library. But Virginia is well aware of this injustice, she is a feminist who goes to test the limits of her time and writes to us all if there are faults in the current thinking.

Elkin defines flâneuse and seeks to show that women too can walk and observe. We might think why not, sure women too can observe and walk in urban space as they like. What has hold against this is that women are the one's to be observed and seen and thus it is impossible to observe, be part of the mass if you stand out. Man is the norm in urban space and men can fade themselves to the background. That is how the thought of flâneur is based, that men can hide themselves and become observers. In times when women were not that common sight on streets, cafes and bars they have raised more curiosity. But there were curious and adventurous women in history too, flâneuses, who took the space. Sometimes in disguise, like George Sand, most often without, taking the observing gaze directed to them and gazing their observers back.

Walking and going are protests per se but it is also good to notice that manifests are also partly about walking in public space. At the same time when one walks they tell why they walk. Apart from flâneuse in manifest the point is to be seen and to be present to the public eye. Elkin tells her story how she first tried to stay away from manifests and keep a low profile but eventually by accident got into one and learned how it feels to be in a group. She sees the meaning of the manifest not as opposing those in power but as a way to show fellow citizens that these kind of opinions exist. It might be that the presence of opinion encourages those who observe to re-evaluate their thinking.

When we travel we want places to open to us and invite us in. Even if we seek something different to what we are used to we still hope that the different works with the same core principles. Elkin tells about her experiences in Tokyo. She gets a possibility to live in Tokyo when her boyfriend gets a job in the city. When she gets there she begins to feel that the city is not as inviting as the other cities where she has made her home in. Tokyo craves time to get to know how it functions. Streets are marked in a different way and products on store don't look familiar. Tokyo wants the explorer to stay longer before it shows it's character.

Is to wander to be without any attachments or vice versa? Maybe the essence of flâneur is to be able to go to the shared urban space and explore it and get to know people with whom you share the space with. One can have a camp in the world or several camps from where they go to their walks. Walks can head to nearby streets or around the world. Point is to own the outside space with others instead of being bound inside the four walls. For Elkin Paris is her home in the world even though she has lived in various cities. Paris is where she begins her journeys and where she wants back. For author and war correspondent Martha Gellhorn it was restricting to own a house and be bound to certain place. She was in her bets element when she got to see the world, observe what she saw and report to those in their homes what happened in war zones. It is everyone's own balance between wandering and being in one place. Also the distance of these wanderings is something we can choose. Do we need to go another side of the world or is it enough to see how life goes in neighbor suburb.

Story Behind The Photographs

34/52 Rupert Thomson: Never Anyone But You (2018) Never Anyone But You tells the life story of Suzanne Malherbe and Lucie Schwob also known as Marcel Moore and Claude Cahun. The artist couple met each other in 1909 and the novel follows their life for several decades. During that time they went through both First and Second World War as well as the free and fascinating time that Paris lived between the wars. Marcel Moore was a visual artist and Claude Cahun author who wrote novels, articles and other texts. Cahun also posed in self-portraits that she took together with Marcel. In those portraits Cahun studies gender identity by using different costumes, poses and roles.

 Might contain spoilers! The story is told from Marcel's perspective and the photographs they take together are essential part of the novel's structure. I felt that the time sort of stopped when they began to make arrangements for a photo shooting. In the old times people thought that the camera steals the soul. Their self-portraits are still available for us to see and Thomson pays attention to the moment and the surroundings where the couple created their works. Those moments are not quick and spontaneous. The photographs are designed and finished. The idea seems to come from Claude who chooses the clothes, makeup and role she wants to present. Marcel is the one who shoots the photographs. The photos show different sides of Claude. She examines herself in those moments when she is in front of the camera. Some photos take part to political discussions and societal issues.

For Marcel Claude is the center point of her life. Claude is demanding personality who brings in the drama. Through their life together she has many suicide attempts and she is always between life and death. She refuses to eat and makes her body a work she molds according to her artistic ambitions. When Marcel tries to take photographs without Claude she sees how empty the pictures are. The art they make together is the core of her life and Claude is the only subject she has in her work. She ponders:

"My subject has been taken from me. 

My love had been taken from me. 

Or perhaps that was my subject."

The novel makes you think how easy it is to vanish from the scene of history. They both did creative work and belonged to the artistic societies. They were part of the surrealist movement and in the same circles with them was for example Salvador Dalí. The time between wars was liberal and experimental. They had parties and interesting artistic projects. The contrast between peace time and war is enormous. They are forced to move from Paris to Jersey to be save. The societies are broken and can't be fixed. After the war not everyone is present. People have been scattered around this world and beyond. Some of the artists they knew continue their career. But Marcel and Claude have vanished and their work forgotten. How history is written is not objective and the overall spirit of each time decides who is remembered and who is forgotten. They might have been ahead of their time. The time between wars was a short glimpse to the future and in that bubble they bloomed. After the second world war came a conservative boost. Traditions and old norms became the surviving mechanism from the war that had been incomprehensible in it's cruelty.

Marcel and Claude inspire us when they create a resistance movement against the Nazi ideology. In Jersey they see German soldiers and become aware that some of them think differently and don't share the ideology. They see a possibility to influence on those soldier's attitudes towards the cruelties and war. Their dedication to the pacifist campaign is so huge that the German who question them find it difficult to comprehend that is all crafted by two elderly women instead of a whole group of people. In the campaign they use the tools given to them, their Art. In this project as well as in their other personal choices they are not afraid of risks. That is what makes their work and life visionary. If they did only what was safe there would't be anything we can learn about. Their life would be part of the ordinary canon and part of the history book narrative; A mass of events that form a bigger picture and where individuals with visionary thoughts and acts are not forming the way we think but we are assured to continue on believing what we have been taught is true and right.

Then again even though the history can make us vanish we do not leave the world without a mark. There must be a trace we leave. The generations to come might get interested and find new value on art that once didn't get acknowledged the way it should have been. In a new surroundings and atmosphere the art made decades before gets new meanings and speaks differently. In today's world when the understanding of the diversity of gender has become broader Claude's examinations about her identity visualize what she feels inside. When looking at the photos it is interesting to notice how one person can be many. How she wants to be seen defines who we see in the picture. And it essential notion in the novel too. When they take photographs Claude decides what there will be in the picture. She takes a pose, arranges her hair and asks Marcel to wait for the moment when she is ready. Claude is on both sides of the camera.

Thomson's novel is perfect read for these dark Autumn evenings. It is romantic story of a couple whose love lasted for a whole lifetime. It describes Paris between wars, inspiring new movements and possibilities. It makes us see our potential on fighting against destroying and harmful ideologies that seem to be overpowering and invincible. It is also interesting to go and see the actual self-portraits that are described in the novel, one can find their photographs with a simple search using their names.

Uncensored Self-Portrait

33/52 Violette Leduc: La Bâtarde (1964) What would subscribe best Violette Leduc's novel La Bâtarde is uncensored self-portrait. She hits the spot in 2018 when myths and taboos about womanhood are broken with honest new works of art and social media discussions. Leduc writes down all things that hold a meaning in her life and does it with brutal honesty. She doesn't leave out even the ugliest parts, something that a writer is allowed to do when making an interpretation of their life. It seems she wants to reveal herself without caring too much about the opinion of the public. The novel is personal and goes to private moments that no one would see or hear about if she didn't choose to tell. As we know from the discussion we get to take a part today, it is liberating to see realistic images on what it is to be a human.  

Leduc's descriptions about her romantic relationships are very passionate and full of life. When she pictures her first love with Isabelle she lingers in their desire and sexual tension. She tells about a relationship that has very poor possibilities to survive. After she lets go of Isabelle she meets Hermine. In a relationship with her she is a bit cold and uncaring. At first it seems like she is just placing Isabelle with someone she doesn't care. Violette doesn't stop Hermine for overworking and giving all the money she gets for Violette's clothes and restaurant dinners.  Leduc writes thoroughly what is in her mind, the feelings she is having and what is happening in her body. Her straight forward style makes the novel interesting to read right from the beginning. In a modern way she shows the most deepest ponderings as they are. She concentrates on details and achieves authenticity leaving out common and referential notions. Instead of introducing broader concepts she tells directly what those mean to her and what kind of appearances they get in her life.

Through the book Violette struggles with her looks. She sees herself ugly and brings up comments she has gotten from others that would make her notion look accurate. Somehow when I read the novel it was out of context in her life that she brings up her looks and it made me think if she brings it up just because of vanity. She has interesting life, friends in cultural circles, lovers, possibilities and encouragement in her career. Yet she talks about her looks like it was a thing to stop her from achieving something. Maybe it is her own aesthetic that she is not pleased with herself and she would like to look different. There might even be a deeper contradiction what is in the mirror and what she feels she is.  It is also true that random ill meaning comments press us down for years. Yet it might also be that she has time to analyze her own looks and develop a problem, namely her nose that needs to be fixed. The struggle she has with her identity and how to express herself is easier to comprehend. She lets Hermine to spend money and dress her like a doll with pretty clothes. She enjoys her new clothes and the look Hermine has created for her. But same time she has a need to express her masculine side too, a thing that Hermine doesn't approve. 

When Leduc writes about wartime she describes her love for money. It is said that in the most difficult times our true nature reveals. Violette is living in the countryside where there are possibilities to buy food outside the food card limitations. Because she has rich acquaintances in Paris she sees an opportunity to earn money in black market. She creates a circle of professionals who deliver her food and she sells it to people who can afford to buy it at any price. As she puts it it is in her nature that she loves beautiful objects. She becomes more greedy in her business and there is no Robin Hood in her. She makes money and keeps it herself. When she analyses afterwards the decisions she has made she doesn't explain or try to make things look better. She admits her own greediness. She even states that she would have eaten her own shit to get more money. There were situations when she could have done something good for others with her money, for example a poor boy is starving in front of her eyes and she had a possibility to help. She also looks from her window how her neighbors are taken away without an expression of sadness. She is in the flow of doing great herself and becomes blind. The years to come are harsh and remind cruelly about the past moments and it becomes impossible to understand one's own behavior. Maybe she has a bad consciousness, who knows, and that is why she wants to write it all down as a confession. Still I felt Leduc is not making an atonement she just reveals how things were and what she went through those times. And we can't know what kind of person the main character of the novel has become afterwards, we just know the past ans a glimpse of the present moment. 

What inspired me to read this novel was Martin Provost's film Violette that tells about how she became a writer and her one sided love towards her mentor Simone de Beuvoir. The title of this post is uncensored self portrait because the relationship she describes between Isabelle and Violette has also been written in her previous book, Thérèse et Isabelle, a novel that was partly censored at the time of publication in 1954.  This novel was not censored and what comes to her direct style she herself doesn't censor the issues she brings up.

Community

31/52 Sara Stridsberg: Beckomberga. Ode till min familj (2014), I read this in Finnish Niin raskas on rakkaus. I thought I would be able to read this book so that it doesn't affect my moods but I couldn't. The subject is quite heavy and brings up themes that need processing. This is a novel told on a perspective of a young girl whose father is an alcoholic with suicidal behavior. Because of this father Jimmy has to go to the mental hospital where his daughter goes to see him. In the hospital daughter gets to know various people living in there. The hospital is not described as a dark place, quite the contrary. Beckomberga hospital is a home for people who can't or don't want to live like the so called normal people. Together they are doing fine and the hospital is a community where everyone has their own place.

Some of the people living in the hospital have done horrible acts but they are not labeled by that. They are all actually average people who have just had a turning point that has lead them to this moment and to the hospital. Daughter Jackie is open to know the people and finds them interesting. Maybe she sees that the line between a person who is ill and who is sane is not that clear. She is also going on a difficult phase as a teenager whose father is not someone she can trust to be a parent. At times she goes to a role of a patient wanting to be part of the community of Beckomberga. She also ponders if she is like her father and will end up trying suicide. The novel questions what is it that makes some people to want to end their days and others to grip on life.

I have read Sara Stridsberg's Drömfakulteten, a book about Valeria Solanas (I wrote about the book some months ago here!), and I think she knows how to tell about the dark side of the human mind and describe people who are left as outsiders in the world. World is tough in way when it casts out people who don't seem fitting to the norm. A man Ove has lived most of his life in Beckomberga and it was horrible to read how he describes his future outside the place. When other people are rushing from place to place and have their relationships he feels he will be left alone on the streets and no one will notice him. Is it fear that isolates people to the margins? Do so called normal people have a fear that someone will show them their abnormal and dark side? And is that why they don't want to see what is outside their comfort zone? When in reality the division might not even exist. We will all have struggles in life in one form or another. It is actually easier to live acknowledging this possibility and accepting own dark and ill side. Often times the factors that put us to margins are quite minor, something in our character might exclude us from a group of others. It might be a decision of a single person, a group leader, who decides that someone is not seen as fitting for the company of the group.

Stridsberg writes about loneliness and pain that is caused when a person is left out. That is why the home for the misfits is so welcoming to the people who live in there. We all need friends and family who take us as we are. I felt the pain of the characters Stridsberg introduces to us. It is the most horrible feeling to be alone in the world when no one cares about you. There has been lot of talk about loneliness and what it causes to people. I simply hate it when the reason for loneliness is seen as the fault of the person suffering from it. That they are not trying enough or that there is something wrong with the person who doesn't find company. The fact is that quite mean and horrible people have friends and wonderful people are left alone. Life doesn't make a fair share. It is good for those who have friends and social networks to see it as their own accomplishment. What comes to people in general there are those who are ill and those who are too ill to see how ill they are. No one is 100% sane and healthy. I haven't yet met a person who would have been in perfect balance. What has been incomprehensible to me is why we can't be together and why on Earth it is so difficult to have open groups that would not close doors? And what causes emotional blindness to see those who need to be invited to the company?

Sure not all characters of this book are lonely. Some of them just don't want to participate in this world but desire to be carried elsewhere. They would have families and people who wait for them to come back but they can't or they don't want to. I liked how open the approach in this novel was and how the habitants and their actions were not described as anything special. That made the novel light to read in a way. It makes one accept what life brings and not to be afraid of dark moments. In the beginning I said that the book affected to my moods. And it was because of the loneliness and externality is describes. It is not scary to be different, we are all different, but it is scary to be left alone because of some character we have.

Compared to Drömfakulteten this novel was not as heavy and dark read. I would love to read more from Sara Stridsberg. Only these two novels have been translated to Finnish so next I will have to try reading in Swedish.