Author: Jeannine Ouellette

  • The Death and Life of American Imagination

    In February 1953, a violent North Sea storm crashed through the Dutch levee system, killing 1,835 people and leaving a hundred thousand others homeless. In the aftermath, the country responded by building the Delta Works, the world’s most sophisticated system of flood defenses. According to John McQuaid, a reporter for Mother Jones on assignment in the Netherlands, the system is “engineered to a safety standard 100 times more stringent than the current goal (not yet achieved) for New Orleans’ most heavily populated areas. Even Dutch pasturelands have more protection than the Big Easy.” As one government engineer told McQuaid, conceiving and building the Delta Works “was like putting a man on the moon.”

    That was half a century ago. Why the disparity between what the Dutch could accomplish then, and what the U.S. (the country that did put a man on the moon) has conceived to protect New Orleans, one of its most historic and treasured cities, and the surrounding region? You can call it foresight, or innovation, but beyond that, what the Dutch response required—and where we appear to be failing in our response to the aftermath of Katrina—was tremendous imagination.

    Imagination is an intangible, unlimited, and free resource. It is not, at least for the purposes of this discussion, the same as fantasy, where universal laws cease to apply, where elephants might speak Latin or humans travel back in time. Nor is imagination reserved for artistic pursuits, though imagination is the core of creativity. Applying imagination to problem-solving requires the ability to come up with an idea, and to break that idea down into the steps that will bring it to fruition. It also requires an alchemical mix of will, vision, discipline, and action, not to mention stubborn perseverance in the face of frustration or opposition.

    A prime example of this use of imagination would be George Hotz, the seventeen-year-old who spent all summer cracking Apple’s iPhone; he broke the lock that tied the phone to AT&T’s wireless network and freed it for use on other carriers’ networks, even overseas ones. Hotz spent five hundred hours with four online collaborators, and was motivated by the challenge and by “fun.”

    Presently, imagination of this sort is very much in demand. One wake-up call to the erosion of imagination in American culture came in 2004, when “failure of imagination” was cited in the 9/11 commission report as the primary reason U.S. officials misjudged the threat of the 2001 terrorist attacks. Maybe government officials couldn’t imagine terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center, but plenty of others could and did—and not just those who actually carried out the long-planned and highly complex attack. The ability to prevent terrorist attacks depends on leaders who are as imaginative as those who would carry them out.

    While imagination is one key to national security, it’s also crucial to economic security. In 2004, executives at leading technology companies like Dell, Cypress Semiconductor, and IBM spoke to Lee Todd, president of the University of Kentucky, about creating sustainable jobs for the U.S. in the years to come. All said the same thing, according to Todd: Imagination and creativity represent the future of the U.S. economy. On a broader level, the World Economic Forum chose “The Creative Imperative” as the theme for its 2006 conference in Davos, Switzerland. Writers like Daniel Pink, author of A Whole New Mind, point to the new “imagination economy” as a trend that’s just taking off. He sees it in quite simple terms: “People have to be able to do something that can’t be outsourced,” Pink told me. “Something that’s hard to automate and that delivers on the growing demand for nonmaterial things like stories and design. Typically these are things we associate with the right side of the brain, with artistic and empathetic and playful sorts of abilities.”

    Government leaders in education are joining the chorus, too. “American education’s single-minded focus on science, technology, engineering, and math (‘STEM’ subjects) is admirable but misguided,” wrote two former assistant U.S. secretaries of education in the August 12 issue of The Wall Street Journal Online. What makes America competitive in a shrinking global economy, they claimed, is “our people’s creativity, versatility, imagination, restlessness, energy, ambition, and problem-solving prowess.” As they summed it up, true success—economic, civic, cultural, domestic, military—depends on a broadly educated populace with “flowers and leaves as well as stems.”

  • Third Time’s a Charm

    Contrary to recent media reports, local artist and performer Faith Farrell is not the self-proclaimed Spam Queen. “I don’t know where that came from,” Farrell told me. “My friends were the ones who started calling me the Spam Queen. I would never be presumptuous enough to proclaim myself the queen of anything.”

    Farrell is technically the 2006 Great American Spam Champion, a title earned in the aftermath of her first-place prize in the Spam cooking competition at last year’s Minnesota Sate Fair. Since then, there have been articles, interviews, a parade appearance as Miss Spamerica, and even an invitation, a few weeks back, to appear on David Letterman (alas, she got bumped at the last minute, but hopes to return). “So I’m the grand champ, I guess,” she said. “And I do a lot of performing things, but really I’m more of a visual artist. I don’t know what I am. I’m still trying to figure that out.”

    Ostensibly, Farrell is a forty-year-old artist living in Northeast Minneapolis, with an informal specialty in meats, mostly processed. Every Saturday night, Farrell performs in “Meat Raffle” at the downtown Grumpy’s, “a meat raffle and game show and variety show all in one,” where she does crafts demonstrations using meat. “Last week I did a ring-bologna tiara, also using some hot dogs. Tubular Meat Tiara is what I should call it, now that I think about it.” She also plays in local bars as part of a two-woman band called Lady Hard-On. “The majority of our songs are meat-related,” she noted, regarding the name. “We sing about all different types of sausages and meat products. I don’t know when it started, this meat thing of mine. It could be that my first high school job, working at a deli, provided those formative building blocks of my meat love.”

    Spam entered the picture four years ago, when Farrell and friends toured Hormel Foods’s Spam Museum. That was where she discovered the State Fair cooking contests. “Every year, I enter the crop art contest at the State Fair, and I always try to get something into the Fine Arts building. But I had never done a recipe.”

    Her first creation, “a Mediterranean pizza thing with apricot jam, feta cheese, kalamata olives, and, of course, Spam” did not impress the contest judges. “Flavors don’t go together,” they wrote. “Unappealing.”

    The next year, she concocted Spamadillo, a recipe based on the Spanish picadillo, a stew in a base of tomato and hot peppers with cinnamon, onions, and dried cherries, served with rice and fresh cilantro. Friends sampled different versions and recorded their impressions on scorecards that Farrell recreated from those she’d received from Fair judges the year before. She lost again, but her overall score was better, especially for appearance. The judges said it was a beautiful arrangement. But they thought the flavors were too overpowering. “I realized that I may have inadvertently hidden the flavor of Spam,” Farrell admitted.

    The light switched on: Winning recipes offered comfort and simplicity. “A lot of elbow macaroni and mayonnaise,” Farrell said. “Exotic ingredients would be, like, soy sauce. This made me consider what the contest was really about.” She imagined the most comforting food she knew, and then figured out how to create Thanksgiving leftovers in one dish. A little cranberry sauce, some Turkey Spam, a handful of sage, a dollop of mashed potatoes, Durkee fried onions, and cream cheese. Wrap it up in a Pillsbury Crescent Roll and bake: You’ve got yourself some Spamsgiving Day Delight. (The complete recipe can be found at Spam.com.)

    “One of the appeals of Spam is that it’s so easy. I think I was getting a little too fancy,” Farrell said. Her instincts were spot-on: her Spamsgiving Day Delight took first place at the 2006 State Fair. She was thrilled, initially — and then bowled over when she got a call the following February saying she had won the national contest. “I thought it was a prank. I said, ‘Oh my gosh, shut up.’”

    “We really enjoy Faith’s enthusiasm,” said Cyndi Harles of the Blue Ribbon Group, which has handled the Spam contest since 1990. And Faith is the first Minnesotan to win the national grand prize in the Spam contest, which, Harles pointed out, is Blue Ribbon’s longest running and most popular contest at state fairs all over the country, with upwards of a thousand entries each year. Farrell won a $3,000 cash prize for her recipe, which was judged by cooks in the Hormel Foods test kitchens on its taste, originality, and presentation.

    The only downside to being Spam’s grand champ is that Farrell is banned from competing in the Spam contest at this year’s State Fair. But, she says, “I saw this new competition, ‘Frying With Canola Oil,’ where you deep-fry something on a stick. And I thought, hey, I can enter that and still sneak in the Spam.” She’ll also continue her tradition of entering the crop art competition with an image of a vintage Spam can. “It’s very time consuming doing this, bean by bean.”

    Possibly most thrilling, though, is having earned the privilege to be an official judge for this year’s Spam contest. As last year’s first-place winner, she’ll now fill out scorecards on other people’s processed-meat dream dishes. “It’s a huge honor,” she said. “I wonder if they’ll have palate cleansers between each course.”

  • "The Sanctity of Marriage"

    "If I see that tie one more time, I’ll shoot myself.” My husband Jon was browsing through photos from our recent wedding, lamenting his last-minute decision to rent a tux rather than buy a suit. “Look at that,” he groaned. “Did I somehow not notice it was made of pressed plastic?” I laughed, but lightly, or he’d think I was laughing at him instead of with him. It’s a fine line, but finer still was the one we crossed by deciding to marry at all. When we stood near the stony shore of Lake Superior, the bees of late summer humming in the organza billows of my dress, promising to love, protect, and forgive each other forever, we’d already been living together for three years.

    In that time, we’d gradually transitioned from sharing a bed and a bathroom to merging our identities in other areas—bank accounts, credit cards, phone service, and, in what was a major late-fee liability for both of us, video rental. Which kid was whose (three from his previous marriage and three from mine) also demanded frequent clarification in the early days, when bloodlines ran deep and fast, and threatened to drag us all down to the slimy bottom and bury us there like rocks. While the kids by turns rearranged and refused to rearrange their bedrooms, their schedules, and their loyalties, Jon and I twisted ourselves like pretzels in our fervor to prove to our children that living together might not be such an unthinkable fate. As it happened, our contortions failed to convince our wary children. Only with time did our newly patched-together family begin to take, eventually leaving us free to contemplate the possibility of marriage.

    When finally we produced an actual wedding invitation, many people were confused. Jon’s eighty-six-year-old mom, who had stopped asking about our plans after the so-called “engagement” dragged into its third year, responded with happy shock: “For heaven’s sake,” she said. “I kind of thought you’d gone off and done it already.” Most others had figured the same thing—that we’d snuck down to city hall and signed some papers without fanfare, or that we (specifically, I) had decided to conscientiously object to the patriarchy, eschew marriage on principal, and cohabit forever.

    For years, then, before we snaked through the queues in the Hennepin County Government Center (to encounter what was, given our ages, a surprisingly snappish premarital counseling lecture from the blue-haired lady handling marriage licenses that day), we enjoyed and bemoaned every normal facet of married life, plus a few abnormal ones. Our eventual wedding day was less a beginning of something new than a ritual that affirmed the stable relationship we’d been establishing for years. The threshold over which we stepped was strictly metaphorical. Except, of course, we were legalizing our union.

    Now that my dress is back from the cleaners, and the sealed marriage certificate has arrived back from the county, I wonder. Does this piece of what appears to be recycled printer paper, solemnly signed by us and three friends (including one who performed the ceremony, because we belong to no church), change anything beyond our ability to add each other to insurance policies or unplug life support someday? Is marriage as sacred as it’s cracked up to be? In fact, is it sacred at all, if you said “forever” once but took it back and divorced after ten or fifteen years?

    Not if you ask those who blame no-fault divorce for the demise of the family. They say that when one spouse holds the power to walk away at will, marriage is downgraded from a lifelong commitment to one that lasts as long as either spouse “feels like it.” And it’s true that while reading wedding books for guidance in developing our own ceremony, Jon and I couldn’t help but notice how some of the newfangled vows—“as long as our love shall last,” or “while our marriage serves the greatest good”—seemed a little less ambitious than the old saw, “till death do us part.” Ultimately we couldn’t stand the notion of watering down a promise defined by its lifelong nature. We boldly vowed “forever” even though by doing so we underscored how short we both fell on that once already.

    We worried about creating a ceremony that on the one hand wouldn’t insult our own (or our children’s) sense of historical truth and authenticity, and on the other wouldn’t dilute or qualify our vows to the point of irrelevance. We were participating firsthand in a massive cultural discourse on the meaning of modern marriage, and we were neither first nor alone in our concerns.

    Worrying about the meaning of marriage is a preoccupation dating back thousands of years. Mutability in the rules and mores of marriage is also age-old. As an institution, marriage has always existed in a state of flux. But the cultural colloquy—what it means, why people do it, and who should be allowed the privilege—has probably never reached quite the pitch it has now. Policy debates, from the controversy about gay marriage to “marriage promotion” programs aimed at low-income families, have pushed marriage onto a battleground. And as impassioned warriors clash over who should be allowed access to the “sacred institution” of marriage, others watch with detachment and ask quietly whether the whole concept of marriage has fallen into a state less dramatic than collapse, but ultimately more deadly—obsolescence. Today’s most brutal fights erupt in the matter of same-sex marriage. But battles about who should be allowed to marry have always been vicious. The last major public outcry on marriage-partner selection only just died down.

    Newlyweds Richard and Mildred Loving were sound asleep in the bedroom of their Caroline County, Virginia, home in 1958 when police officers armed with blinding flashlights woke them up and arrested them. The problem? Richard was white and Mildred was black. The Lovings were charged with violating the ban on marriage for interracial couples. Bans on interracial marriage were still common in 1958—just a single generation ago. The Lovings pleaded guilty to a felony and faced up to five years in prison. Instead they got a one-year jail sentence, suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return together for twenty-five years. The Lovings took up residence in Washington, D.C., and appealed their case. Nearly a decade after their arrest, the United States Supreme Court ruled that “racial hygiene” laws in Virginia and fifteen other states unconstitutionally sought to interfere with a person’s right to marry the partner of her or his choice.

    Many states claimed that laws against interracial marriage protected “the natural order of things.” But the Supreme Court declared that the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans as one of our vital personal rights, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” wrote the court in the Loving decision, “requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

    In the first half of the twentieth century, forty U.S. states forbade the marriage of a white person to a person of color. Many states enacted bans after 1912, when Representative Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to Congress, Roddenbery stated, “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict.”

    By the 1940s, only two of the forty states with anti-miscegeny laws had repealed them. According to the religious doctrine underlying these prohibitions, marriages between whites and people of color were immoral and against God’s natural order. The trial judge in the Loving case justified his ruling—and his state’s ban on interracial marriages—with the sort of God-speak often invoked today against same-sex marriages: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Others claimed that allowing “interracial marriages” would corrupt the sanctity of marriage and dilute and weaken the institution overall. This all sounds eerily familiar.

    Meanwhile, the question of gay marriage has also existed since antiquity. In testimony during the Canadian court case that led to that country’s recognition of same-sex marriages in 2003, one historian pointed out that, although gay marriages did exist in ancient Rome, they were exceptional and not well regarded. What he didn’t mention was that when the Romans—who had no problem with homosexuality—argued against gay marriage, it was on the basis that no “real man” would ever willingly subordinate himself in the way required of a Roman wife.

    The same-sex marriage debate in the U.S. began edging its way into the political fray in 1991, when three gay couples from Hawaii sued that state for the right to legally marry. On May 5, 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling supporting the idea that it is discriminatory to deny gay men and lesbians the right to marry partners of their choice. Conservative response was swift in the form of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress and was signed into law in 1996 by the lovable philanderer himself, President Bill Clinton. The act defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

    Defenders of traditional marriage say the Defense of Marriage Act is not enough. President Bush has backed efforts to amend the Constitution in defense against gay marriage, explaining,“There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.” The federal marriage amendment died in Congress last year, but last November, a newly named Federal Marriage Protection Amendment passed five to four in a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. If it survives the debating and voting of the full committee, it will proceed to the Senate for more of the same.

    “But, if and when a federal marriage amendment is ratified, marriage advocates may be surprised to discover that passing marriage protection laws may not be enough to save an institution in free-fall,” said Daniel Allott, a policy analyst for American Values, an organization dedicated to “uniting American people around the vision of our Founding Fathers.” Allott’s views appeared in a Houston Chronicle op-ed article on November 10, one day after the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment made it out of subcommittee. Two days earlier, Texas had become the nineteenth state to pass a constitutional amendment “preserving” marriage as between one man and one woman. The headline of Allott’s story asked, “Traditional Marriage Under Fire: Who’s Really to Blame?”

    That, according to Allott, would be me. He observed that despite a steady decline in marriage rates (nearly fifty percent over the past three decades, and twenty percent since 1995), “people have not given up living together.” Unmarried cohabitation has increased 1,200 percent since 1960, and “people are living as committed sexual partners in shared households without getting married.” These people, said Allott, are responsible for undermining support for traditional marriage. These people have damaged marriage enough, he said, to make room for debate about same-sex unions in the first place.

    “Clearly, the key players in the battle over marriage are not politicians, judges, or homosexual activists,” he wrote, “but rather the millions of heterosexual couples who have thumbed their noses at marriage and abandoned the institution. While same-sex nuptials would certainly trigger further marital demise, they are also a response to, and strong indication of, just how critically weakened the institution has become.”

    If, as some people say, the institution of marriage is practically dead, does it matter who is or is not allowed to partake in it? Massachusetts caused such a ruckus by granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages in 2004 that by the end of 2005, nineteen states had passed constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. Vermont, on the other hand, has long sidestepped the issue by granting gay couples in civil unions all the legal rights of marriage except for the word “marriage.” Which brings me back to that sheet of recycled paper, and the question of whether or how much it changes anything. Is it the status of marriage—the legal and social benefits it confers—or the ritual of marriage that makes a difference, if in fact a difference exists? According to a website called ReligiousTolerance.org, there are more than one thousand rights, obligations, and privileges that the federal government automatically grants to all married couples. This surprises me. I haven’t, since my recent wedding, felt quite as showered by privileges as that statistic promises. I think Jon and I felt sanctified at our wedding—holy, special, privileged, protected—but we didn’t consciously consider whether marriage as a social institution was strong or weak. I doubt whether many betrothed couples, straight or gay, scrutinize their decision to marry in this light.

    None of these have been rhetorical or abstract questions for me. Jon and I were ambivalent about marriage, and comfortable with an alternative arrangement. We felt perfectly well accepted as a couple, married or not. Not surprising, according to British demographer Kathleen Kiernan. She theorizes that Europe and North America both are moving through a four-stage process that culminates with cohabitation being essentially equal in status to marriage. Sweden has reached stage four, with more babies born each year to cohabiting couples than to married ones, and with cohabiting parents no longer feeling compelled to marry even after the birth of a second child. The U.S. is thought to be in the beginning of stage three, where cohabitation is a socially acceptable alternative to marriage, but where most couples bearing children together eventually marry.

    So Allott and his entourage are right: People are shacking up like never before. In the U.S., they’re also living alone in greater numbers than ever, which is further testament to the changing patterns in how we live, and should probably warrant more concern than whether or not the people who are pairing up are gay, straight, married, or not. After all, consider Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Love and companionship are third in line for urgency, just after the most basic elements needed for physiological survival and safety. Human beings may be driven, biologically, to procreate, but a drive isn’t the same as a need, and what’s needed for survival of the species doesn’t always mirror what’s needed for survival of the individual. In fact, procreation doesn’t even make it onto Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Emotionally based relationships, on the other hand, are essential to human health and well-being. Love relationships take many forms, but marital love is arguably the most intimate and of the highest order.

    Jon and I could have taken legal steps to designate one another as next of kin, or we could have drawn up some other legal agreement to protect ourselves against the ravages of a future break-up. Yet those practical considerations weren’t really our main priorities when we talked about getting married. What we wanted was to participate in the tradition itself and to confirm our commitment in a universally recognized way. The wedding rite, in both civil and religious contexts, is, at its core, a celebration and a pact that hinges on a spoken promise in the presence of witnesses. For us, marriage represented a ritual and a state of being. We wanted to file taxes jointly, to be allowed to speak to each other’s account representatives on the telephone, and to be included as second drivers on rental car agreements without paying extra. We wanted to use the words “married” and “husband” and “wife” without the awkwardness and unease of feeling dishonest. Most of all, we wanted to make a promise to each other and, I suppose, to God, and to know that it was witnessed by others. And we wanted to be held fully accountable to this promise legally, socially, and spiritually.

    Sociologist Frank Furstenburg, speaking not of today’s extravagant wedding industry, but of the institution of marriage itself, has said, “It’s as if marriage has become a luxury item, available only to those with the means to bring it off. Living together or single-parenthood has become the budget way to start a family.” Plenty of people are going the “budget” route. A majority of couples now live together before marrying, and an increasing number of them have no plans to wed in the future. As for parenthood, more women than ever before consider single parenthood a viable route to motherhood in the absence of a suitable marriage partner, and one- third of all adoptions in the U.S. in 2001 were by single women. Statistics like these suggest that under certain circumstances, various alternatives to marriage carry less risk overall than does marriage itself.

    Meanwhile, the married household has lost serious ground as the normative model. In the 1950s, married couples made up eighty percent of all households, compared to fifty-one percent at the turn of the millennium. Many see marriage not as the rite of passage to adulthood that it once was, but as a stage of life that one should enter only after the hurdles to achieving stability—relationally and financially—have been overcome.

    I wonder how it affects people and their relationships to be denied the recognition of legal marriage. Yes, cohabitation has gained widespread social acceptance in the U.S. and elsewhere, but it does not fully parallel the benefits available through marriage. As historian Stephanie Coontz describes in her new book, Marriage, A History, “Arrangements other than marriage are still treated as makeshift or temporary, no matter how long they last. There is no consensus on what rules apply to these relationships. We don’t even know what to call them. The relationship between a cohabiting couple, whether heterosexual or same sex, is unacknowledged by law and may be ignored by friends and relatives of each partner. Marriage, in contrast, gives people a positive vocabulary and public image that set a high standard for the couple’s behavior and for the respect that outsiders ought to give their relationship.” True, many gay activists argue precisely the opposite point: They want no part of these retrograde social institutions, and view them as a form of selling out their movement.

    Catherine Newman, in her essay, “I Do. Not.,” from the anthology The Bitch in the House, cites the Defense of Marriage Act as one of the handful of reasons she herself has chosen to take a political stand against marriage. Instead, she chooses to cohabit with her longtime partner and father of her child: “Because I’d feel like a real A-hole if I put on a beaded cream bodice and vowed myself away in front of all our gay friends—smiling and polite in their dark silk shirts or gossiping wickedly about our choice of canapés—who cannot themselves marry.”

    I understand Newman’s position and commend it. But when I was twenty, I could not have taken the same stand. Eschewing or undermining marriage—my own or the institution—was the last thing I wanted to do.

    I came of age with the sorts of hearts-and-flowers ideas that send people’s eyes rolling back in their heads. I believed in destiny and soul mates and commitment and suffering for the greater good—and to a large extent, I still do, just with a lot more caution and humility. I certainly valued marriage as a sacred institution, and when I got married, it was going to be happy, healthy, and forever.

    But how does a social institution really affect a person’s daily life? How does it influence the decisions and internal struggles, the emotional reality, of one young woman on the cusp of her life as a wife and a mother? My attitudes, like most people’s, were rooted in personal history, which in my case involved my mother’s two divorces. I was too young to remember my dad leaving, so over time I integrated my sister’s mythologized memory: our dad’s legs and his shoes standing beside the marred yellow banister of our open staircase, his stiff suitcase, a pat on the head. Then he was gone. My future children would never possess such a scarring snapshot. For them, everything would be perfect. My childhood didn’t make me bitter, it made me something riskier: idealistic.

    Idealism led me to the altar at age twenty-one. Then, as soon as I descended the church steps, it began picking and tugging at my marriage. I could vaguely see this happening all along, as my real life very gradually unraveled beside the standard of perfection I measured it against. Some marriages withstand the stresses to which ours succumbed—youth, children born fast and many, and financial instability. God knows I wished to join their ranks. It wasn’t for lack of effort or love that my marriage failed—it was for lack of other necessary things, like knowing who I actually was. Barring that, a little forgiveness might have helped. I couldn’t forgive his mistakes, not because they hurt me (though they did) but because they so threatened my image of ideal marriage. Even less could I forgive my own, because back then such a compromise seemed akin to the death of idealism itself. Meanwhile, our mutual unmet needs stockpiled. On the eve of our twelfth anniversary, I lit the match and my ex-husband poured the gasoline. Then we both stood back to gape as the resulting inferno scorched and melted the contents of our shared life until the whole fiery thing collapsed on us and our children. Who can describe that kind of pain? Not me. I was frankly surprised to survive it.

    But I did. Now, I’m a “key player” in the battle over marriage. Along with everyone else I know, married or not, divorced or not. We are all participating in an unprecedented, massive cultural redefinition of marriage, simply by living in this time and place. Ironically, the expectations people have about marriage have never been higher. Thus the institution is both more fragile and more fulfilling than ever before.

    When I first got married in 1989, I did so smack in the middle of a thirty-year period in which marriage was undergoing more change than it had in the previous three thousand years. In Marriage, A History, Stephanie Coontz retraces the evolution of marriage from the beginnings of recorded history through today. According to Coontz, the divorce revolution of the sixties and seventies combined with a host of other factors (the decline of the traditional male-breadwinner marriage; new sexual mores; increased tolerance for out-of-wedlock births; and rising aspirations for self-fulfillment, to name a few) in the eighties and nineties “to create ‘the perfect storm’ in family life and marriage formation. And nothing in its path escaped unscathed.”

    These are not the conclusions Coontz—a respected and widely published family researcher—expected to draw when she began her scholarly research. As hinted at by the title of her first book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, Coontz actually set to work on Marriage with the intention of debunking the idea that the institution was undergoing some sort of unprecedented crisis. “After all, for thousands of years people have been proclaiming a crisis in marriage and pointing backward to better days. The ancient Greeks complained bitterly about the declining morals of wives. The Romans bemoaned their high divorce rates, which they contrasted with an earlier era of family stability. The European settlers in America began lamenting the decline of the family and the disobedience of women and children almost as soon as they stepped off the boats . . . . Furthermore, many of the things that people think are unprecedented in family life today are not actually new. Almost every marital and sexual arrangement we have seen in recent years, however startling it may appear, has been tried somewhere before. There have been societies and times when nonmarrried sex and out-of-wedlock births were more common and widely accepted than they are today. Stepfamilies were much more common in the past, the result of high death rates and frequent remarriages. Even divorce rates have been higher in some regions and periods than they are in Europe and North America today. And same-sex marriage, though rare, has been sanctioned in some cultures under certain conditions.”

    Despite all this, Coontz’s research still took her by surprise. As she consulted with colleagues around the world, she gradually determined that the current rearrangements in both married and single life are in fact without historical precedent. But the seed for all this tumult wasn’t the oft-blamed sexual revolution, says Coontz. The trouble got started much, much earlier, in the late eighteenth century, in the form of an idea so radical it immediately began destabilizing marriage on a cultural and individual level: That people should be free to choose a marriage partner based, first and foremost, on love.

    Before love entered into it, marriage had been seen by societies around the globe as primarily a vital economic and political institution. Some cultures considered love a potential side effect to marriage, and others frowned on its presence in marriage altogether. But either way, it was deemed highly unacceptable for marriage “to be left entirely to the free choice of the two individuals involved, especially if they were going to base their decision on something as unreasoning and transitory as love.” If people went around marrying for love, they were going to demand to leave their marriages when love failed. The same notion that could make marriage such an extraordinary relationship could also render it optional and fragile.

    For thousands of years, the aim of marriage had been to establish beneficial kinship bonds and to pool or transfer resources for maximum economic and political advantage. Then suddenly, Europeans and Americans started expecting and even demanding emotional and sexual fulfillment from their marriages. Crises were bound to erupt.

    But this attitudinal shift alone, however cataclysmic, could not have brought us to where we are today. Coontz points to four key factors that made the difference: First, changes in the 1920s blurred boundaries between male and female spheres, and introduced the notion that sexual satisfaction was important for women as well as men. Second, urbanization increased anonymity and made it tougher to control individual behavior and punish nonconformity. Third, advances in birth control and abolishment of “illegitimacy” as a legal designation weakened the sway that pregnancy and childbearing held over marital choices. Finally, the legal autonomy and economic self-sufficiency achieved by women in the seventies and eighties opened up many alternatives to traditional marriage for both sexes.

    In a breathtakingly short time, society’s ability to push people into marriage or keep them there disintegrated. Writes Coontz: “People no longer needed to marry in order to construct successful lives or long-lasting sexual relationships. With that, thousands of years of tradition came to an end.”

    I’m really happy to be married to Jon. Over the years, we’ve built a relationship that strengthens us both, and our new marriage does feel like a sort of shroud of protection. I’m not sure if we could have sustained a marriage had we not spent so much time preparing for it. With our nuptials only a few months old, it’s a little soon to be making proclamations about our marriage’s longevity. I definitely don’t think we would have sustained a marriage to each other in our twenties, just as we weren’t able to sustain our marriages to our first partners. For lots of complicated reasons, we are both people who needed the buffering of time and experience to gain the self-knowledge and skills that marriage requires.

    I think, knowing all that I now do, that I would have felt heartbroken to be denied all this by those who might decree, as Daniel Allott does, that marriage is undermined by people who divorce and cohabit. I’m not saying that Allott is entirely wrong. In fact, he’s not. Marriage as a required construct of modern social life is undermined by those who divorce and cohabit. But marriage as a free and conscious choice is not. Unlike Allott, I no longer assume that marriage is required in modern social life. Love’s inclusion in the equation has complicated matters and weakened marriage as an institution, but it has also elevated the potential of marriage to be something it never was before—a path to fulfillment and spiritual growth.

    At our wedding, Jon’s nineteen-year-old daughter sang with two of our friends. It was a gorgeous Iron and Wine tune, sweet and melancholy, with lyrics full of love and awe: One of us will die inside these arms/Eyes wide open/Naked as we came. I cried as Britta sang, because it hasn’t always been easy and yet there she was, there we were, Jon and me.

  • The Life-Giving Secret of Bees

    The long, pointed whisker stands out sharply from the undulating mass of curious bees beneath the Plexiglas. Next emerges a lonely ear. And finally the whole, unmistakable outline of the tiny skull: a common field mouse. It is completely lacquered in something dark, sticky, and resinous. Just three days earlier, this little skull—not much bigger than a quarter—rested in the rather undignified open-air coffin of a petri dish atop the desk of Marla Spivak, a University of Minnesota entomologist and a national leader in honeybee research. Spivak—trim, suntanned, short-haired, and outdoorsy in a way more revealing of her work in the hives than in the hallowed halls—discovered the mummified skull in one of her bee colonies on the St. Paul campus about a year ago. She fished it out for a closer look.

    An experienced beekeeper would recognize right away what had happened: A mouse had gotten into the hive, and it was killed. But rather than letting the intruder fester and breed bacteria and potential disease, the bees covered the corpse with something called propolis.

    Propolis, or bee glue, is resin that bees collect from the leaf buds and bark of some trees. Though relatively unfamiliar in the United States in all but a handful of co-op grocery stores, apothecaries, and health-food shops, it has been used in folk medicine since antiquity. Propolis has long been credited with healing powers by people throughout Eastern Europe and parts of South America, where it is widely used for a host of minor health and skin ailments. In those areas, propolis products are as commonly available as are echinacea and chamomile in the United States.


    But the mouse mummy captured Spivak’s imagination. “It was just so weird, I couldn’t stand to get rid of it,” she told me. So this bizarrely hygienic partial cadaver remained, perfectly preserved, through five seasons in Spivak’s Hodson Hall office. There, it bore distant and unlikely witness to the thrilling frenzy that ensued when, over the course of last year, an interdisciplinary team of university researchers, working with Dr. Phil Peterson of the medical school, synthesized and wrote up their remarkably promising findings from dozens of lab trials testing propolis against HIV. “Actually, it all started about five years ago,” said Spivak, “when Dr. Genya Gekker, who was working with Phil Peterson on lab trials with various substances against HIV, came down with a cold.”

    Gekker, originally from Lvov in the Ukraine, grew up using propolis to fend off life’s bothersome viral miseries. And she might have picked up a propolis-based remedy from the Wedge, or from Present Moment Books and Herbs in South Minneapolis. But instead, she went to the Minneapolis farmers’ market looking for raw propolis. There, she visited Bob Dressen, owner of Cannon Bee Honey and Supply, who was selling his wares, including propolis.

    “For several years we would have requests for propolis from Russian immigrants,” Dressen told me. “Finally, I brought some to the market packed in two-ounce plastic bags and I thought, Now I’m ready for them.” Dressen says he doesn’t normally have raw propolis on the display table. “We do have capsules displayed and ready for sale, but the raw propolis isn’t that appealing. We do sell it when it is asked for. The raw propolis I sell comes off of the hives’ bottom boards, which I clean in the spring. Other propolis I gather is from the scrapings of hive bodies, and this is sent to processors to be made into other propolis products like chewing gum and toothpaste.”

    With a little alcohol, Gekker extracted a tincture from Dressen’s raw propolis, and began treating her cold. And that’s when the unbidden thought struck: We’ve never tried propolis on HIV. Gekker set up the trial, and it worked. Propolis killed HIV.

    “The testing went on for about three years. It was difficult work,” said Phil Peterson, who heads the university’s Division of Infections Diseases and International Medicine, and co-directs the Center for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Translational Research. As a clinical investigator, Peterson has been especially interested in infections of the brain. “And HIV attacks the microglia of the brain—that’s where the virus grows when it gets in the brain cells. Its other main targets are T-lymphocytes, specialized white blood cells that effect immunity. And we found, lo and behold, that when you put this propolis in a cell culture system, it has potent activity against the virus in both microglia and T-lymphocyte cell cultures.”

    Spivak supplied the propolis samples for the many lab trials that followed Gekker’s first serendipitous test. Every propolis sample the team tried (sourced from three sites in Minnesota, three in Brazil, and one in China) killed HIV in lab cultures. Even better, the propolis also appeared to at least partially inhibit HIV’s ability to enter cells—an elusive and sought after property in potential HIV treatments.

    Perhaps best of all, propolis is a cheap, natural substance. “We know that of the forty million or so people affected by this virus, ninety percent of them are living in the developing world, where they can’t afford retroviral drugs at ten thousand dollars a year,” said Peterson. “Propolis, by comparison, is available for pennies. And it’s been used with relative safety for medicinal purposes for five thousand years, since Biblical times at least, all over the earth. We know it has activity against many bacteria, fungi, viruses—it’s a warehouse of antimicrobial activity. Because of propolis, a beehive is one of the most sterile places on earth. I have much greater respect for bees than I ever did,” he said. “They’re very clever beasts.”

    Gekker and Peterson, with some input from Spivak, wrote up the results of the HIV-propolis study last year, and it will be published this fall in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology. But a propolis-based HIV therapy is a long way down a steep and twisting road. Cheap and natural propolis from the co-op cooler is more like a prototype, or a proof of concept. Science needs more detailed evidence.

    “There are major obstacles,” said Peterson. “Propolis is very potent in regard to its anti-HIV activity, but would I recommend that people take it for HIV? No. Because you have to see that it works in humans. You have to see whether, when taken orally, it’s absorbed and works against the virus in a live person. And in order to do that, you have to address safety, and this batch-to-batch issue. With the FDA, batch variability is not going to be tolerated. Think of the challenge with propolis, when the bees collect it from all these different trees. There are at least three hundred compounds in propolis, and maybe as many as a thousand. So we haven’t really pursued it, because we’re not set up to identify the needle in the haystack.”

    Peterson was referring to the arduous process of identifying and isolating the active HIV-inhibiting component or components in propolis. “Right now, we don’t have the right people to pursue it. I’m not a separation chemist or a medicinal chemist. Over in the school of agriculture they have a lot of terrific scientists, but no one with the particular skills we need for this task. You could say the project is on hold. We’re in a position right now where we’re trying to figure out the best strategy to take.”

    With any luck, the journal article will spur some fresh excitement. “My hunch is that other people are going to take an interest. Certainly there’s been work with propolis itself, looking at the various aspects of it, especially in the field of ethnopharmacology. But I’m sitting here in the Center for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Translational Research, and, as the name implies, our goal is to translate this stuff into the humans who suffer these diseases. Our mandate is to pursue answers to the questions.”

    At the current pace, it will be years before someone who is HIV-positive might walk into the pharmacy and fill a prescription for a new drug based on this team’s pioneering propolis research—if it gets that far at all.

    Meanwhile, as the gears of medical research grind laboriously onward, Spivak is turning her attention back to the source—the bees. She’s focusing on the function of propolis in the colony. What exactly is this mysterious substance, anyway? How does a bee locate a source of propolis? How does that bee recruit other bees in the colony to collect more of it? If it can kill HIV in human cells, what good might it do for the bees themselves? Such questions take on considerable weight in light of the well-publicized scourges that have afflicted U.S. honeybees for the last several decades. Few people realize that our honeybee population has dropped by half since 1950. Lately, it’s the Varroa mite—a vicious beast about the size of a grain of sand—that’s been wreaking havoc on commercial beekeepers’ stock. In the past few years, these mites have gained resistance to the only two effective conventional chemical treatments. Spivak estimated that losses in the winter and spring of 2005 slashed the number of honeybees in Minnesota by up to a third.

    The national picture is similarly dismal, and “dismal” is not too strong a word considering that honeybees are responsible for the pollination of about one-third of all U.S. food crops. The main thrust of Spivak’s work is to preserve the honeybee population by breeding honeybees that can fend for themselves. “I think it’s sad that these bees have become so utterly dependent on humans to administer various forms of chemical management.,” she said. “They’ve lost the skills they need to fight for their own survival.” Since 1993, Spivak and her assistant, Gary Reuter, have been painstakingly breeding queen bees to propagate a new strain of bees with the genetic instincts to protect themselves. They carefully select and breed queens who demonstrate the “hygienic” genetic traits that will promote survival. It’s simpler than it sounds. Basically, a bee with the right hygienic tendencies will literally sniff out and eradicate (by eating or hauling out of the hive) diseased and mite-infested brood in larval cells before the colony suffers major damage. Spivak’s program is no quick fix—but over time, her specially bred bees have been proving their merit in a variety of working apiaries.

    Now Spivak wonders if or how propolis might be used to further her honeybee cause. Could manipulating propolis somehow help fight deadly bee infections and parasites? Spivak finds early signs encouraging, especially when checking into variations in propolis from other hives. For instance, she found that one tropical propolis sample was as effective as a conventional antibiotic in lab trials against American foulbrood (the most dreaded bee disease of all, until Varroa mites were inadvertently introduced into the U.S. in 1987). “Our local propolis didn’t work,” Spivak said, booting up the computer in her cool, cinder-block Hodson Hall office. “But this tropical stuff did. Here, this is the tropical sample next to the antibiotic.” On the monitor are images of two petri dishes, each with an essentially clear circle surrounded by dots of defeated bacteria; the tropical propolis attacked the bacteria as aggressively as the chemical pharmaceutical.

    Would propolis exist if not for bees? Scientists aren’t sure. That’s because it’s not clear whether propolis is unadulterated resin simply collected and stored by bees, or whether the bees somehow transform it—perhaps via glandular secretions—during or after the gathering process. “We have so many questions,” said Spivak. “We know the bees use propolis to seal cracks in the hives, and for other purposes—like embalming invaders—but there’s a lot we don’t understand. And it’s challenging, because propolis is not like nectar or pollen, which the bees are collecting all the time. Propolis is different. They don’t collect very much of it, and not all of them are that interested in it.” She sighed.

    “This is behavioral research. If you want to observe bee behavior with propolis, then you have to induce them to collect it repeatedly and reliably to get sufficient data, right? And how do you do that?” Spivak explained that the matter of observing propolis collection for behavioral research is entirely different from collecting propolis for human health studies. To collect clean, pure propolis for human use, commercial plastic traps are used in full-size colonies. But these traps simply don’t work well in small observation hives. “That’s the question I was wrestling with when a visiting beekeeper from Mexico said, ‘Put a cadaver in the hive. The bees will embalm it in propolis.’ Of course! I thought immediately of my mouse skull, which was already embalmed, but I thought, ‘Why not? Maybe they’ll keep working on it.’ ” Spivak asked a graduate student to return the mouse skull to an observation hive on a scorching Thursday morning in late July, just as she finalized her presentations and loaded her car for the drive to the summer meeting of the Minnesota Honey Producers Association in Fergus Falls.

    Three days later, on a sweltering Sunday morning, Spivak was back at the bee lab, checking to see how the bees were reacting to Thursday’s uninvited guest. Specifically, she wanted to see if they were adding more propolis. This colony lives in a hive inside an observation shed near the bee lab on the U of M’s St. Paul campus. Spivak and I crowded together into the shed—about the size of an outhouse but blessedly air-conditioned—looking for the skull. A few bees zigzagged around us. “Don’t worry about them,” she said, pressing in to get a closer look inside the colony. Suddenly she pointed. “There it is. That’s the whisker, right up there.” Her finger rested on the upper left corner of the Plexiglas plate. “Hey, look, they’re really interested in this guy,” she said. The bees appeared to be concerned about the mummified mouse head—which was at first hard to see amid the bees, but which became obvious once Spivak identified the resin-coated whisker. Several worker bees crawl over and around the skull again and again. “I don’t think they like it,” said Spivak. “Hey, wow, look at that!” She pointed again. “They’ve added more propolis to the ear. And look here: The whole bottom part is attached now to the frame. It’s stuck down with propolis.

    “Well, that’s cool,” she said, laughing. “That’s very cool.”

    Chances are, if you see a honeybee in your garden today, it’s because some beekeeper within a mile of your home is keeping that bee alive with chemicals. The once-thriving feral bee population in the United States was composed entirely of descendents of the first honeybees—the ones that went native after escaping from hives hauled over by colonists in the 1600s. But feral bees were pretty much wiped out in the 1990s by Varroa mites. “There essentially are no feral honeybees left in the United States,” said Spivak. “There’s some talk of a comeback, but it’s hard to know where that will go.”

    When it first arrived, the docile European honeybee, Apis mellifera, adapted well and thrived in North America. Escaped swarms took off as far as the Great Plains, often outpacing colonists on the trek westward. Feral honeybees couldn’t cross the Rockies, but by the 1850s they were shipped into California. So ubiquitous was the honeybee that the Native Americans called it “the white man’s fly.” Many of the farm crops that now depend on honeybees for pollination have also been imported since colonial times. Today, pollinating insects are responsible for every third bite of the food we commonly eat—including apples, blueberries, broccoli, cauliflower, cherries, cucumbers, melons, pears, pumpkins, soybeans, squash, and cranberries. Indirectly, pollinators affect the dairy industry, too, since alfalfa and clover—both insect-pollinated—are important components of dairy cattle feed.

    Insect pollination begins, as does most of life, with hunger. As the bees forage among flowers, gathering food in the form of nectar and pollen, they spread the pollen (which, like propolis, they carry on their back legs) from one flower to another, thus promoting cross-pollination and increasing production of fruit and seed.

    Maybe early colonial beekeepers recognized and appreciated the good luck of this inadvertent pollination all along, or maybe they didn’t, but at some point, people caught on and started placing beehives purposefully in fruit orchards and gardens. From there, the management of honeybees slowly evolved to what it is today: a specialized commercial activity that still produces most of its revenue through honey sales—worth an estimated 250 million dollars annually—but deriving an increasing proportion of income from contracted pollination services. As the general bee population declines, pollination services may face even greater demands, especially in California, where hundreds of thousands of acres of almond trees greatly depend on honeybees for pollination.

    All this pollination means a lot of bee migration, which is actually nothing new. The earliest beekeepers in ancient Egypt followed the blooming flowers by floating their clay-covered wicker hives down the Nile on reed boats. (They also used propolis to embalm the bodies of the pharaohs, a trick they presumably learned from the bees.) In the U.S., many beekeepers migrate their bees—and frequently their families—thousands of miles across several large-scale migration routes in pursuit of both nectar and pollination work.

    The coordination of beekeepers, farmers, and consumers through pollination, crop management, and honey sales is no less strange and complex than the bee dance itself, and it offers a fascinating glimpse into the delicate partnership between biological science and market process.

    To a common city slicker, Sundberg Apiaries looks just like any other farm. There’s a house, some fields and outbuildings, a swampy undeveloped area, and a large pole shed with a few semitrailers parked beside it. There is also a patch of lawn with an impressive collection of antique cars. You wouldn’t guess it was a bee farm by driving by, unless you slowed down to read the faded blue metal sign hanging from a slender post on the roadside.

    Situated in Fergus Falls, three hours northwest of the Twin Cities on Interstate 94, Sundberg is a large commercial beekeeping business, managing seven thousand hives. The main honey house is across the road from an expansive cornfield. In the third week of July, these wind-pollinated cornstalks stand high and shimmer in the heat, providing a picturesque backdrop for the bumper-to-bumper cars and pickups flanking Sundberg’s long dirt driveway.

    Tonight is the barbecue social for the hundred or so members of the Minnesota Honey Producers Association who are gathered in Fergus Falls for their three-day summer convention. Twice each year, this group comes together so members can connect with others involved in this unusual work. Formal presentations are held in town at the Best Western, where throughout the convention Spivak has been networking with the beekeepers who’ll attend her slide-show presentation tomorrow morning. The association donates ten to twelve thousand dollars annually to Spivak’s research program. Spivak, in turn, donates twenty inseminated “Minnesota hygienic” queens from her breeding program to the association. Spivak’s queens, with their desirable genetic traits, have the influence to change behavior in the hive. On the open market, they’d sell for two hundred and fifty dollars apiece. Here at the convention, they are auctioned off for cash, which is funneled straight back into association’s general funds. Eventually, it funnels out again in the form of the association’s annual grant toward Spivak’s research. In essence, Spivak’s queens are given freely to the beekeepers in return for the financial support the university has received from the Minnesota Honey Producers for decades. “I started donating the queens in 1997,” Spivak said, “when the beekeepers asked what they were getting for their research dollars. Somehow, I knew the right answer wasn’t ‘research.’ ”

    But donating the queens also furthers Spivak’s work, since it enables her to propagate and monitor her selectively bred bees in working apiaries. Generally, that has gone well. Dave Ellingson and Darrel Rufer are two outspoken beekeepers who’ve been working with Spivak’s bees for years. Neither Ellingson nor Rufer suffered large-scale losses during this last devastating spring season. “It’s been mostly good,” said Spivak about her queens in the commercial apiaries, “though not always. There have been some disasters.” That kind of straight talk has, after twelve years, earned Spivak the beekeepers’ respect. “It’s taken time,” she admitted. “They weren’t sure at first that I could do this.”

    Spivak says the afternoon’s roundtable discussion on pollination at the Best Western was especially good. But after this year’s tough hits, there’s a certain din of commiseration in the buffet line as the beekeepers inch up to the Elmer’s Texas Bar-B-Q and au gratin potatoes. Spivak lets the rush die down while she guides me through the Sundberg honey house for an abbreviated tutorial on the extraction process.

    Everything here is a little sticky. Evenly spaced along the inner wall of the large room are vintage posters splattered with countless years’ worth of all things bee. Faint line drawings of various beekeeping tasks are explained in brief captions such as “Weighing packaged bees for shipping and shaking swarm into hive.”

    “Wow,” said one beekeeper passing through Sundberg’s extraction room with a cold beer. “This equipment is getting ancient.” What would a more modern system look like? “Basically the same, just newer,” said Spivak. Both the process and the equipment used for honey extraction are remarkably simple, and largely unchanged since the first wave of mechanization. In simple terms, the frames of honeycomb are freed of their wax seals, then loaded into a cylindrical chamber and spun at high speeds until the honey is extracted by centrifugal force. The honeycomb remains intact for reuse in the hives, and the extracted honey is sold to commercial food producers across the country for use in cereals, baked goods, barbecue sauces, and, of course, jarred honey. At one time, all honey was packed by the same beekeepers who produced it. But in the years since World War II, specialization has set in, and most bee farms no longer package their own honey. Darrel Rufer’s bee business experimented with packaging in the eighties, and, as he put it, “That just wasn’t my deal.”

    “Darrel is a character,” Spivak confided. “He’s colorful and outspoken. That’s why I like to have him using the hygienic bees in his apiaries. If he thinks it’s working, he’s going to spread the word and he’s going to be heard.”

    Broad and darkly tanned with gray hair and a mustache, Rufer was dressed in a leather vest thickly decorated with Victory Bikes insignias. His father kept bees not far from Fergus Falls, in Tintah, Minnesota. “The best bee country in the world used to be right here, in the Red River Valley,” he told me. Once carpeted with clover and alfalfa, Rufer’s childhood stomping grounds are now heavily planted with other crops—corn, soybeans, barley, and potatoes—meaning less clover and less bee pasture. These days, his main focus is not honey or pollination, but selling bees to other apiaries. “We sell queens all over the country,” he said. “They’re daughters of Dr. Spivak’s artificially inseminated queens, and they have the traits we’re looking for. Dr. Spivak and I have been testing her stock in my apiaries for three years now. The goal is to use less chemicals, softer chemicals.” He stopped short and looked toward the horizon. “Beekeeping,” he concluded, “was a lot easier in the past.”

    So it was. And as a result, beekeeping as a way of life has dropped off substantially since the 1950s. At first, the shift was fueled by the transition to an industrial economy and the loss of land to subdivisions and highways. But in recent years, price competition from imports teamed up with the spread of disease and parasites in a double whammy that’s driving a lot of U.S. beekeepers out of business. Between 1976 and 1990, the estimated number of commercial beekeepers in the U.S. dropped by almost half, from 212,000 to 125,000. And things have only gone downhill from there.

    Bonnie Woodworth, a petite blond woman with a perfect manicure, presides over the North Dakota Beekeeper Association. Bonnie married into beekeeping in 1972, and since then she’s seen all manner of unbelievable change in the bee business. “It used to be so easy,” she said. “You had feed, labor, and trucking. Now we spend more on medication than on feed. Just keeping your bees alive is an insurmountable task. If you let your guard down for one minute, something will take you out.” Bonnie has watched the number of new beekeepers entering the field dwindle and disappear. “It’s too hard a life, it’s back-breaking work, and then there’s the moving back and forth . . . as far as the money, well, there is none. It’s just not there.”

    Woodworth said the bee business she owns with her husband practically went broke last year due to Varroa.” We lost more than half our bees and had a bad honey crop,” she said. “It was disastrous, just disastrous.” Furthermore, Bonnie is truly saddened by the onslaught of imports and imitations sidling up next to the real honey on grocery shelves. “It’s threatening the whole industry,” she said, handing me an article on the imitations. “It’s so fraudulent. Everyone loves using the name ‘honey,’ but the actual ingredient is corn syrup instead. Do Honey Nut Cheerios have any honey in them? Very little.”

    With her very next breath, Bonnie renewed her pluck as if, by sheer force of will, she might reinvigorate an entire dying way of life. “Beekeepers are tough,” she said. “Life hasn’t been easy, but it was never boring. It takes a lot to get a beekeeper to quit.”

    That’s true. Beekeepers, not surprisingly, tend to maintain a certain “getting stung’s just part of the job” mentality. But is there an eventual breaking point? What would happen to the honey market, to the pollination of crops, to the propolis research—what would happen to it all if the last of the beekeepers quit tomorrow, and the colonies all flew free?

    “About eighty percent of the current bee population would die off fairly quickly,” said Spivak, “if beekeepers stopped chemical treatments cold turkey. But the survivors—those ten or twenty percent left behind—would propagate a whole new, tougher breed of bees with the traits they need to take care of themselves.”

    Essentially, that’s what happened in Brazil and most of South America when Varroa struck, primarily because the beekeepers there couldn’t afford chemical interventions. “Now their bees are resistant,” said Spivak as she rummaged through the bee suits, searching for one my size. She handed me a wide-brimmed, veiled hat. “Let’s adjust that,” she said. “I think it’s a bit loose.” She snugs it in a notch and we’re set to visit the hives. “You won’t be able to write with the gloves,” she warned. “But you need to take them anyway, because it’s really important that you’re comfortable. Just don’t put them on unless you need to.”

    The sun was white hot in a clear sky as we entered the apiary through the chain-link gates that enclose it. A few paces away was the university’s soccer practice field, which explained the number of cars parked along the apiary fence. “They have no idea what’s sitting right here,” said Spivak. “Few people do. But we like it that way.”

    Spivak has a smoker (it looks like the Tin Man’s oil can) to calm the bees before she opens up hives—which are actually wooden boxes painted in pastel pink, blue, green, yellow, and white to help the color-driven bees find their way back home. “We probably wouldn’t really need the smoke,” Spivak said, and I wonder aloud whether this is because the bees are in a good mood today. “These bees are always in a good mood,” she said. This morning she was checking in on some artificially inseminated queens she recently introduced to her colonies, and some from stock sent by a friend in Vermont. “He doesn’t use any chemicals, not to be organic per se, but for his own reasons. He’s sort of an oddity.” She fished around on the frame with her bare hands, oblivious to the bees crawling between her fingers. “There she is—see, she’s marked. Blue 51,” Spivak said, releasing the inseminated queen with the blue numbered tag on her back from her containment cell. “Come on, sweetie,” she cooed. “She looks great. I can tell the bees like her. She’s looking for something to eat right away, so she’s fine.”

    In one colony after the next, Spivak checked on the queens. “Blue 52 is doing well,” she said. In fact, all but one of the queens had been accepted by the workers. “Uh oh,” she said, sifting through another colony. “That’s a shame. I don’t see any eggs. I don’t think she’s here. We’ll have to go to the queen bank and make a withdrawal.” All around us, bees were flying and buzzing. One landed on the veil right in front of my eye, and stayed there for a good while. When Spivak shook the frames, there was an angry roar to which she was seemingly oblivious. Getting stung, she said, is a given. But it’s not as bad when you’re used to it, because you know exactly how much it’s going to hurt, and for how long.

    This must be true, or people wouldn’t keep bees. There are many reasons beekeeping is in decline, but stings are not one of them. “Oh, I know they say beekeeping is a dying art,” said Spivak, “and times are tough. But I’ll tell you what I think. Beekeeping will never disappear, for one simple reason: Some people are drawn to bees. There’s this peculiar relationship that exists between bees and certain individuals. It’s primal and ancient. There are rock paintings of the interaction between humans and bees in Europe, Africa, and Asia from 8000 to 2000 B.C. That’s how far back this goes. What’s the likelihood that’s going to change—now or ever?”

    Spivak has seen all she needs to out here; the heat is too thick for dawdling. But she’ll be back soon. She is, after all, pulled by the bees, with whom she undoubtedly shares the enigmatic bond she so passionately describes.

  • Some Are Reading

    Sometimes I get sick and tired of writing. Especially when I’m facing a slew of deadlines. So I lie on the couch feeling sorry for myself. Or, if can keep my wits about me, I bury myself under the covers in my attic bedroom with a good book. If I were a society woman of times past, I could “take to my bed” without shame. But as it is, this habit remains a perplexing but enjoyable non-solution to an overabundant work life.

    Or is it? Mightn’t I put those hours to good, productive use just in time for the idle days of summer by whipping up a recommended reading list based on my “research”? It’ll be like inviting you to my place for iced tea, where then you could enjoy the one reflexive activity I find irresistible when I walk into a friend’s house for the first time—snooping the bookshelves. Or the extensive vinyl record collection, like the one I was recently amazed by at a co-worker’s party. When I asked for some Cat Stevens, he said, “Name the album.” When someone else wanted Billy Bragg, he was right on it. And his indulgence of an especially emphatic request for Neil Diamond drove only two guests to leave early.

    My music collection would tell you mostly that I am lame and stuck with the Indigo Girls in their prime. But my books, even just those of the last twelve months, might add up to something. First, there’s the Essential Rumi and Rumi: the Book of Love, plus True Love by Thich Nhat Hanh, a slim volume you can easily polish off in a sitting, but which, like Rumi, merits innumerable re-reads. In fact, there are twenty books in my “current” stack that have the word “love” somewhere in the title, not counting Breathing Together, Richard Kehl’s collection of quotes on the mystery of love.(Cut me some slack. I already told you I was planning a wedding this summer!) Once you got past the love books piled on my shelves and end tables, you might ask why so many books on kids and parenting, but then you’d remember that I have six kids, teach fifth grade, and used to edit a parenting magazine. You’d skim past all the writing and teaching books (though I have to say that Damn! Why Didn’t I Write That? has been both useful and inspiring), and then you’d start trying to find the ones that could tell you something you didn’t already know.

    And that’s when you’d see Lionel Shriver’s We Need to Talk About Kevin. This harrowing novel of motherhood gone horrifically awry is indescribable and magnificent, although there are days I wish I had never laid eyes on it. Even now, a year since I first read it, it haunts me. Particularly the last chapter, when the author dares to allow the graphically unthinkable to happen to a child who reminded me too much of my own sunny and pure youngest. The book is a carefully constructed suspense story, despite the fact that you know from the beginning that Kevin eventually commits a school massacre; therefore, I won’t give anything further away. Suffice it to say that while many writers have attempted to explain what might drive a teenager to kill, Shriver’s book cuts to the imaginary chase unlike any other. The writing is as intense as it is intelligent, as the story unfolds from the perspective of Eva, the well-educated and extremely articulate mother of an “unsavory son.” Dubbed an “underground feminist hit,” this complex and wrenching novel rivals or surpasses Map of the World for its unflinching dissection of the darkest familial—and in this case, cultural—tragedies.

    After you let Shriver beat you to a pulp, refresh yourself with The Giant’s House by Elizabeth McCracken, who is a plainspoken genius. This eccentric tale of a 1950s romance between a spinster librarian on Cape Cod and a boy afflicted with giantism was superb and stunning.

    As for my own summer reading, I just started The Cloister Walk by Kathleen Norris, a book that my former mother-in-law passed along because it reminded her of me, and I have to find out why. Next, I’ll turn to a newish Anne Tyler, The Amateur Marriage, because even though I know it’ll be a downer, I’ve read and admired all her other books, and apparently, I love sad things. Finally, I’m looking forward to Ann Patchett’s Truth and Beauty, a memoir of her friendship with the late Lucy Grealy, whose Autobiography of a Face was the first and most unforgettable memoir I have ever read. Upcoming deadlines? No problem. I’m fully prepared to procrastinate.

  • Flower Power

    Max didn’t mean to kill those toads. Still, years later, their demise remains one of my son’s most painful childhood memories. Max was three years old, and the morning was cool and dewy, but toasting up as the sun climbed. In capturing the toads, Max was dexterous, but also humane. He understood that they needed more than the hot tin floor of a Folgers can. He pulled up fistfuls of grass and gathered sticks and leaves to carpet the metal. He also filled a mayonnaise lid with water to make a tiny toad swimming pool. Things would have worked out fine had he not chosen the unprotected south side of the house as the place to forget his two captives for several hours. By the time Max opened the can, the toads were half baked by the beating sun.

    Max was devastated, crying disconsolately over his carelessness. But agony can be instructive. I think it did him more good than harm to experience, early on, such an intimate and solitary exchange with the raw and sometimes cruel forces of nature. To glimpse the stubborn machinations of life and death. Every child should be so lucky.
    Unfortunately, every child is not. Long afternoons in the great outdoors, sometimes strung out to sundown, have grown alarmingly uncommon for modern kids. With TV, Nintendo, and an ever-expanding array of “structured activities,” children are spending less time in unsupervised outdoor play than ever before—with potentially disastrous results.

    Scheduled bursts of physical activity, it turns out, are no substitute for direct and ongoing experience in nature. The childhood obesity epidemic has peaked right alongside an unprecedented surge in children’s participation in organized sports. Clearly, playing freely outside affords both physical and mental benefits that Little League does not: prolonged exposure to the sun and its feel-good vitamins, and to bacteria, which experts now say is necessary for a healthy immune system. Child advocacy experts are even beginning to wonder how simple interactions with nature—climbing trees, wading through creeks, making mud pies, building forts—might foster overall health and happiness.

    In his new book, Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv calls the waning connection between children and nature a crisis in the making. Louv points out that time outdoors can provide a respite from the everyday pressures that lead to childhood depression. And in The Human Relationship with Nature, author Peter Kahn recounts the findings of more than one hundred studies confirming nature’s stress-reducing benefits. Moreover, these benefits, unlike so many of life’s other perks, bestow themselves most generously on those with the greatest need. “The protective impact of nearby nature is strongest for the most vulnerable children—those experiencing the highest levels of stressful life events,” says one environmental analysis researcher from Cornell, cited by Louv in his book. In other words, nature offers a potent balm to kids struggling with divorce, relocation, poverty, illness, or loss. One alternative is drugs: Twice as many American children take antidepressants today as five years ago.

    So kids need to play outside. What simple and welcome news this should be to harried parents everywhere. Why, then, is it not happening? Seventy percent of today’s American mothers played outdoors every day during their childhoods, one recent study found, but just thirty-one percent of their children do. And while more than half of the moms stayed outside for three or more hours at a time when they were children, only twenty-two percent of their own children spend that kind of time out under the sun.

    The reasons for the decline, it seems, are complex. Among the forces that have eroded our children’s time for outside play are homework (up twenty percent between 1981 and 1997), organized sports (up twenty-seven percent during that same period), and a flood of enticing indoor entertainments. Many books have been devoted to the deleterious effects of overprogramming our kids, but it turns out that another, less tangible force is a far more stubborn roadblock between kids and nature: fear.
    “Fear of traffic, of crime, of stranger-danger—and of nature itself,” writes Louv, separates developing children from an unstructured exposure to nature and its life-giving benefits. The radius of space around the home in which children are allowed to roam on their own has shrunk to about a ninth of what it was in 1970. And while increased automobile traffic has undoubtedly restricted children’s range, Louv’s unscientific hunch (and my own) is that in the past twenty-five years, a “generalized, unfocused fear” has come to outrank traffic as the primary reason for penning kids in. This diffuse fear, which Louv calls the Bogeyman Syndrome, is fueled by the media, especially the nightly news, which creates a powerful “crime script” in the public’s mind.

    Louv devotes an entire chapter to excessive fear and its consequences—which include, frighteningly enough, the permanent transformation of a person and modification of her behavior. Fear can change the very structure of the brain. But with all the best intentions, we bequeath this sense of fear—of strangers, germs, insects, physical pain—to our children. So instead of buying bicycles and badminton sets, we build indoor fortresses. We outfit our homes with year-round climate control and a tempting stash of electronic goodies. As one fourth-grader in Louv’s book explains, “I like to play indoors ’cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are.”

    In Last Child in the Woods, Louv urges parents to set aside their fears and send kids back into the woods—or the yard or an empty lot, whatever’s realistic. The benefits far outweigh the dangers. As it stands, the average eight-year-old can more readily identify fast-food mascots and Pikachu, Metapod, and Jigglypuff (characters from the Japanese game Pokemon) than he can several quite common inhabitants of the natural world, such as otters, beetles, and oak trees.

    Sending kids out to play does mean forfeiting a measure of control. But unsupervised play in wild places, no matter how small or ordinary, may be as fundamental to children’s health as food, water, and love. What they need most could be as simple as more time outside, with all its smells, tastes, splinters, and even accidents. More places to roughhouse and catch toads, without being told what they can and can’t touch. More opportunities to hone their characters, to discover possibilities and limitations. Just kids and nature. Nothing fancy.

    Part of what makes Louv’s book so engaging is his skillful use of profiles and anecdotes. In one chapter, he refers to D.H. Lawrence, who once wrote of his own “awakening to nature’s sensory gift” in Taos, New Mexico. For Lawrence, this gift was an antidote to the “know-it-all” state of mind he recognized in himself and the culture at large, a mentality fostered by a globe that people now “trot round … as easily as they trot round … Central Park.” Lawrence wisely observed that our grandfathers, who never went anywhere, had more actual experience of the natural world than we have. He described our jaded affect this way: “We, bowling along in a rickshaw in Ceylon, say to ourselves: ‘It’s very much what you’d expect.’”
    Direct experience in nature, on the other hand, should fill us with genuine wonder and awe, and make us feel appropriately small, thus placing us in a much-needed context with the larger world. To reap the benefits of nature, Lawrence wrote that one must get beneath the “transparent mucous-paper in which the world like a bon-bon is wrapped so carefully that we can never get at it.” Underneath that wrapping is everything we don’t know and are afraid of knowing.

    Grand excursions to science museums, botanical gardens, and zoos, or even campgrounds and scenic wilderness areas, do help kids experience the breadth and depth of the natural world. But they don’t automatically invite the daily communion with nature that feeds the body and soul. Louv and Kellert both maintain that the kid-nature connection occurs most readily via mundane, up-close explorations of whatever patches of land are at hand. That’s because these interactions are spontaneous and unplanned and tend to occur in casual settings described by ecologist Robert Pyle as “places where kids … [are] free to climb trees, muck about, catch things, and get wet.”
    It’s difficult to know the long-term implications of kids watching endless hours of TV, rather than ant hills and blades of grass. Hard information is so scant, in fact, that Stephen Kellert, author of the forthcoming book Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human Nature Connection, felt compelled to disclaim his chapter on nature and childhood development. “Given the relative lack of available research,” he wrote, “this chapter’s conclusions will be preliminary and tentative.”

    One problem is a lack of money available to study the way children use woods, fields, vacant lots, and other unstructured natural sites. There is more financial incentive and commercial interest in having our children spellbound by cartoon characters and computer games. Yet even in the absence of statistics, the issue seems fairly clear-cut. Common sense tells us that kids need the outdoors.

    What will happen if we produce a generation of adults afflicted with what Richard Louv has cleverly diagnosed “Nature Deficit Disorder”? Americans born between 1946 and 1964, says Louv, may constitute the last generation to share an intimate, familial bond with nature. That shift, Louv says, portends more than a threat to our future ability to appreciate or protect nature. It threatens our very humanity.
    Mucking about is not just good old-fashioned fun. As Kellert eloquently points out in Building for Life, “… a child’s experience in nature can elicit far less pleasant feelings, such as uncertainty, anxiety, pain, and fear.” And all of it, even the stomach-turning shock of two dead toads in a coffee can, contributes to maturity, morality, and self-development. The naturalist Franklin Burroughs nailed it when he said—to a group of conservationists, interestingly enough—“better to let kids be a hazard to nature, and let nature be a hazard to them.”

  • Apathy vs. Action

    America-bashing is so in vogue. Teenagers, especially, are vulnerable to this general sense of “how bad we are,” based on a couple of tragic elections and a war of lies. I’m brokenhearted over these things, too, but the “how bad we are” mantra grows wearisome when it comes from what is, according to a recent study by the Representative Democracy in America Project, the most apathetic generation of American youth on record.

    Here’s what I tell the kids in my life: Stop whining about how bad “we” are in between trips to the mall and viewings of Austin Powers, and do something. I have a friend who serves soup once a week at a homeless shelter, and the best thing about it is that she sits down and eats with the women she serves. A couple of families I know stick to one car by biking nearly everywhere, year round. And I’ve grown genuinely attached to the “peace people” who stand, rain or shine, at the east end of the Franklin Avenue Bridge.

    Another old friend was born in Zaire and raised in France. Years ago, when I was homeschooling my kids, she tutored them in French. She now has her own son, who is two. Just recently she told me how grateful she is to be raising him here, because in her very worldly experience, this is the place that offers the most possibility. Maybe I can relate, because a sense of possibility is something I fought for and won.

    When I was ten and my mom got divorced for the second time, we hit the skids pretty bad. We had to take in a series of boarders to make ends meet. Strange were the folks who sought rooms for rent in the home of a single mom in Casper, Wyoming, in the late seventies. Mark kept porn magazines under his bed and bacon crackers in his closet. Karen was actually living in sin with her boyfriend, and using her room at our house as a place to store clothes so her parents wouldn’t know. Diane had two little kids of her own and was fundamentally Christian in the worst sense of the word. She ended up storming out within a couple of weeks without paying rent (but she did teach my sister how to make a terrific grilled-cheese-and-tomato sandwich).

    Meanwhile, I had a knack for seeking out friends who, by contrast, only made my own situation seem more extreme. Norah lived on the edge of downtown in a Victorian home so large and rambling that I sometimes got lost in it. There was a whole room on the third floor for her gigantic dollhouse, and a widow’s walk on the roof where we’d hang out and write poetry. Norah’s dad was a partner in his own law firm. On weekends, I’d join the family for trips up Casper Mountain to the construction site of their enormous A-frame “cabin.”

    Renee’s family owned the largest car dealership in town. We would walk from school over to her family’s stately brick colonial for lunch, and her mom would send us upstairs to play while she cooked us a hot meal. When our toasted peanut butter sandwiches were ready, she’d buzz us on the house’s intercom system.

    Holly was probably the friend I loved best of all. Her dad was in oil and her mom drove a wood-paneled station wagon. They were Mormon, so their house was overrun with kids and toys and general hubbub. Still, Holly enjoyed her own room with a waterbed in a house ample enough to include a living room and a family room, a piano room, and an enormous fenced yard. I spent some of my happiest childhood nights sleeping side by side with Holly, afloat on her bed after a day of warmth and fun.

    As I scrutinized these other lives, I realized two things: One, I wanted my life to look like theirs someday, and two, I wanted to be a writer. I was hell-bent on jumping over the tracks, and beyond that, I was willing to work my ass off to do it. So I did, and while I’ve never gotten lost in my house and I don’t have a mountaintop A-frame, neither does my life look like the one that boarder Mark waltzed into with his bacon crackers. I’ve even had enough left over to join the Sierra Club, give to the food shelf, and lend a bit of support to my favorite candidates. Maybe I could have done this anywhere–after all, in England, J.K. Rowling got rich and famous by writing Harry Potter in cafes while she nursed coffee paid for with welfare checks. But that’s just what I love about writing–which is the very thing I appreciate about this country: possibility. As I tell the kids, you gotta grab it and run.

  • Wear, Tear, Repair

    The doctor stared over her glasses and leaned closer. She caressed the stumps where Blueberry’s arm and leg had once been. This grandmotherly surgeon, Clare Erickson, might be our region’s most prominent dollologist, and at this moment she was clearly weighing Blueberry’s prospects. “Do you know what a morgue is?” she said to Lillie.

    Lillie stared back at Dr. Clare, entranced. And afraid. “No,” she said.

    “A morgue is where they keep dead bodies,” said the doctor. “When my husband died in the hospital, I went to see his body, and then they took him to the morgue, down in the basement of the hospital. They kept him there until they moved him for the funeral.”

    “Umm, hmm,” said Lillie politely. Sophie and Max, Lillie’s older sister and brother, looked stunned.

    “We have a morgue here, where we keep parts of dolls,” Dr. Clare continued. “But this baby, she’s a bit on the pale side.” She turned to me. “We’ll take a look, though, and if we have any matching parts, she can have them for the cost of attachment.”

    Antie Clare’s Doll Hospital has been operating in North St. Paul for thirty years. Here, in this strange suburb in the shadow of a huge snowman statue, nine doll doctors and nurses work on up to three hundred doll patients at any given time. Dr. Clare herself has been doctoring dolls since 1968, the year I was born. This feels meaningful, since today the primary patient we’ve brought in is not Blueberry, though her puppy-related injuries are admittedly ghastly, but Jealous, my childhood doll, who is also now mothered by Lillie. Since almost all of the hospital’s customers are adults, Lillie’s presence as an actual child with a sick doll was enough to warrant having her baby rushed ahead of the others, a gesture that surprised and impressed me.

    The problems with Jealous date back to the years she spent in Sophie’s care, which involved frequent bathing with lots of soap. She developed a range of water-related maladies: missing eyelashes, a split down her plastic abdomen, and–worst of all–irreversibly matted hair that emits a mildly disturbing odor. It was also during the Sophie years that the doll acquired her unfortunate name. (Hyper, Jealous’s sister, has since gone missing.) Blueberry (also named by Sophie, who was stubbornly resistant to conventional naming practices) tagged along with Jealous today only as an afterthought, since her ancestry cannot be traced back further than the toy bin at the Goodwill. Sad to say, this means she doesn’t quite merit the cost of any reconstruction beyond bandaging. But free limbs from the morgue are certainly an unanticipated bonus.

    According to the doctor, it’s going to cost less to replace Jealous’s eyes than to repair the lashes. “Anyway,” Dr. Clare said as she pointed to the light blue cornea, “you see how there’s rust in there, and that cloudiness is actually mold.” She explained each procedure directly to Lillie, with the patience of an experienced practitioner. “We can’t fix this hair, so we’re going to shave her head bald and attach a whole new wig. You’re going to like it,” she said. Next, she removed the bandages from Jealous’s torso. “Who did this surgery?”

    We all froze, as if somebody was going to be in big trouble. Sophie bravely owned up to her handiwork.

    “With work like this, you should be helping at the doll hospital,” said the doctor. She told Lillie that instead of fixing the abdominal crack, she’d fit Jealous with a whole new torso (a steal at five dollars, not counting the limb-reattachment labor).

    The paperwork was complete, and it was time to officially check in Jealous and Blueberry. First, of course, they had to be brought up to date on their measles shots, which Lillie and Max administered with relish. The naked, vaccinated dolls had to be placed under a quilt in the crib in the corner of the shop, right beneath the high shelves with rows and rows of headless doll bodies. Nearby sat a wise and watchful Mrs. Beasley, worth a whopping one hundred and fifty dollars–but still humble on account of her drastic homeliness.

    I was aware as we left that it’s probably tragic to spend money–let’s just say it was barely more than a hundred dollars–on a worthless doll. But maybe it’s more tragic the way everything in our lives has become disposable. I can’t say where the truth lies and I don’t even want to. But either way, I cannot deny what an odd comfort it is, knowing the doll hospital still exists, after all these years.

  • Paradise Reconsidered

    Even Jon, who sees everything, wasn’t expecting to see the drowned man rolling in the waves. We were sweetly exhausted from sun and saltwater on the first day of our vacation when Jon took me by the elbow. “Look there,” he said. “Is that a person?” Jon’s uncanny tendency to see everything used to stun me. Right in the middle of some urgent conversation about, say, losing his job, he’d grab me and say, with genuine awe, “Look, in the mud. It’s the first crocus!” I’m ashamed of how little those crocuses mattered to me then. It took me a long time to learn to care about the things Jon sees. But this, this couldn’t possibly be what Jon thought.

    We were on Flamenco Beach on Isla Culebra. This tiny island lies eighteen miles off the coast of Puerto Rico and is loved for its undeveloped raw beauty, especially the pristine coral reefs and empty beaches. We and our five kids had arrived by way of a twin-engine plane the size of a Volvo. Later, after we’d survived being buffeted about in the wind between the slopes of two small mountains while more or less nose-diving toward the runway, we learned that Culebra is considered one of the trickiest landings in the Caribbean. But at the time it was more exhilarating than scary. After all, isn’t this why we leave home at all: to jolt ourselves back to our senses, to lose our breath so that we can find it again?

    Our cabin was one of twelve situated on a nature preserve along Tamarindo, one of the island’s most beautiful reefs. We’d been traveling more than twenty-four hours by the time we arrived, and it was all Jon and I could do to navigate the “road” back to town for food and supplies before darkness fell. We soon sank helplessly into the sort of sleep so heavy it cannot be disturbed by children breathing in your face or sudden loud noises or bright lights or even by the damp, tropical chill that creeps into a cabin in the middle of the night. Sleep so deep that you might awake in the blackness before dawn and have no idea where you are.

    That next morning we went to Flamenco Beach, a quintessentially perfect horseshoe of white sugar sand and surreal turquoise water, nestled between rounded mountains. What it lacks in terms of shell-seeking opportunities, it more than makes up for in honest-to-God, paradisiacal loveliness. But the waves were rough that day. Twelve-foot swells had stirred up in the Atlantic, and even normally gentle beaches like Flamenco were seeing strong surf and currents. After a good hour of watery pummeling, we were winded and tired.

    And that’s when Jon saw him. He was a larger man, middle-aged and barrel-chested, wearing a white T-shirt and a snorkel mask. Jon was already running into the water, and I ran the other way, calling to another man for help. Together, they dragged him in and tried their best to save him. Jon’s thirteen-year-old son stood solemnly on the periphery. Clearly, he was seeing the responsibilities of his own future as his father bent over the limp body, struggling to push water out, to push air in, to bring color back, to bring life back.

    A gray-haired woman drifted away from the small crowd, crying. She was the drowned man’s wife, seemingly alone in her terror, so Jon’s sixteen-year-old daughter took her into her arms, and the other children and I sat with her and listened. Alternating between Spanish and English, she told us why her husband may have had a heart attack, why he could not die. “He already had four heart surgeries,” she told us. “He will see his grandson on Saturday! Forty-four years we are married! What will I do without my husband?” She was afraid that her husband was already dead. “Please, send up your prayers to Jesus,” she begged. Finally, the ambulance arrived, and the man, whose color was returning but who would not survive, was lifted onto a stretcher.

    Bystanders tried to hustle the drowned man’s wife into the waiting ambulance. But she could not leave the beach without her shells. She had collected a small pile—white clams and broken bits of conch and sea glass—on the corner of her towel; they scattered when someone had tried to help by gathering her belongings. She dropped to her knees, protesting through her tears, and we all scrambled to pick her tiny seashells out of the sand and press them safely into her hands. Then she hurried onto the path, away from the beach and through the stand of fig trees toward her husband.

  • The Last Resort

    Real-life emergency rooms are nothing like television. For one thing, there’s the pace. If you filmed a one-hour real-time show in an actual emergency room, the scene might never change. Last month, while I was finally leaving the ER with a freshly diagnosed “honkin’ kidney infection on its way to the bloodstream,” I heard the triage nurse tell a newly arrived patient that the wait was at least six hours. Six hours? Might as well go home, take two aspirin, and come back in the morning.

    Of course, I picked a popular night to drop by. During my five hours of waiting—and I did ask twice for Tylenol—I watched at least three ambulances arrive, and shared the company of about twenty other urgently ill folks. Twenty sick people, several hours, one well-sprinkled unisex bathroom, and a honkin’ kidney infection. Self-pity knows no bounds.

    Not everyone was outright sick; some were healthy but broken. Like the drunken guys who’d torn each other’s faces apart in a bloody fight. No anesthetic was needed for the sewing up; the massive amounts of alcohol did the trick nicely.

    Three other visitors were resting in wheelchairs with their injured legs propped up. One was a college student accompanied by two girlfriends; their cheerful complaining about classes and professors was oddly soothing. They even did some homework until exhaustion and David Letterman overcame them. (Speaking of Letterman, when did his hair turn white? He’s getting old—like everyone else. Emergency waiting rooms are so morose!)

    When Otto, a super-friendly male nurse, finally shouted my name, I was instantly revived. Otto! My hero! You’re a wonderful nurse! You’re working under such hard conditions! You’re so concerned about my ailment! You’re asking a few too many weird questions about my bowel movements!

    The doctor, on the other hand, was refreshingly focused on the only thing I cared about by now, which was to ingest a powerful antibiotic immediately. Normally, I have wonderful success with herbal remedies. This time, as soon as I began to feel a bit “off,” I started the cranberry extract-and-blueberries routine, and when that didn’t nip it, I turned to uva ursi, grapefruit seed extract, and oil of oregano. All the while I was thinking I was getting ahead of the curve, until I realized I wasn’t. So I resorted to some remedies that were as unpleasant as they sound: eating entire cans of asparagus; drinking large glasses of water mixed alternately with baking soda and cream of tartar; and, finally, a supposed wonder cure called D-mannose. I was waiting all day for the D-mannose to kick in, when, around eight in the evening, my entire lower back seized with so much pain I couldn’t stand up. And just like that, I decided that if I didn’t get some antibiotics right then, I would keel over and die. Since Jon had been urging me to see a doctor all week, he had the car started before I finished saying, “Let’s go.”
    For the next two days, I stayed in bed and slept. I didn’t read. I didn’t think. I didn’t even brush my teeth. I just swallowed pills and drifted—in between visits from my children, who, once they were convinced I’d be fine, quickly abandoned concern for my kidneys in favor of the zanier fun to be had with words they consider private and gross, like “bladder” and “urinary.”

    Through the mayhem, Lillie, my nine-year-old, was especially doting. She made up little songs to help me feel better. She dressed up in a smock and prairie bonnet as her version of a makeshift nurse’s uniform, took my temperature often, and read aloud to me from Little Women. She brought me water and juice and a Mickey Mouse pancake that she and her brother made from scratch. She also kept me posted on the news from school, since she attends the same school at which I teach—which can be awkward. “I told Mr. Lawton that you have a kidney infection,” she said. “He said that sounds serious.”

    “It’s okay,” I told her. “I’m starting to feel better.”

    “I told Mr. Lucas you had an infection, too. A private infection.”

    “You told him what?”

    “That you had a private infection.”

    I resisted the urge to scream. “Why did you tell him that?” I asked.

    “Well, we were standing in the office, and there were a lot of people listening. So I didn’t want to say kidney, or bladder. I just told him it was very private.” She paused. “And that you couldn’t pee.”

    “Wow,” I said.

    “Just joking!” she said, laughing her bonnet off. When she recovered from the hilarity, she skipped down the stairs, composing another song as she went. “Mom,” she called from the landing, “what rhymes with bladder?” Life, in all its glory, was back on track.