Monday, April 5, 2010

Seeing is believing in Amelia Earhart's world

What if everything was crucially different. What if the city you once lived in had changed, signposts were there but they were obscured by all the rest. The Empire State and Chrysler building dwarfed; and of course that's just the beginning. Automobiles are no longer a luxury, they're a necessity. In this city, buses have replaced trams. Planes crisscross the sky. Air travel is exactly as you'd imagined it, it's become routine. What would you ultimately make of this, if you were supremely logical?

Amelia is logical and pragmatic. She sees change all around her, there are two impulses pulling at her. One is to be herself in every possible way, but the other is to be part of all this. And to explain how she's arrived at this odd juncture. Who am I? It's a question we all ask ourselves. She asks it over and over again. This novel is about identity, and hers is fluid. Because she's getting a second chance and she means to enjoy it.

There's much to enjoy, and much more to be floored by. Think of going up to the top of the twin towers and looking out . . . a bittersweet image for those of us living here. I did it in those shaking elevators. I sat in Windows on the World and took in the view. There are so many things I love/loved about the city. In 1980 there was a lot more grit and a lot less glam. She gets to wander my city and try to make herself part of it in her own way . . . that part I won't tell. How a supremely logical mind tricks itself. Because hey, we've all tricked ourselves into believing things. Why not Amelia?

13 comments:

  1. Her problem is that of a tourist or visitor on an extended stay in a foreign land -- she has to learn the language and culture and the local customs so as to get along and not commit any bloopers. Even the visitor who decides to stay and "go native" still has to decide how to preserve the aspects of his identity he wants to keep. Can you think of any values she held which might present a challenge to hold on to in 1980?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I sure can, stay posted. But what came to me yesterday which was amusing and yet so obvious was the way we accept therapy as a solution for our problems, people talk about everything and anything, she was intensely private. That becomes the crux of her difficulty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AE in therapy! I'm laughing out loud!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, now that I think about it, the notion of psychological therapy wouldn't be too foreign to her. I'm half-remembering something she confided to her college friend Louise deSchweinitz about consulting a doctor for some difficulty that sounded more emotional than physical. I can look that up tonight if you think it's germane.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting, Louise is a central figure in my book as well. I don't think she'd be opposed to the concept but think of how therapy has changed.
    When she was introduced to it, it was Freudian. And I mean Freudian as in you talked, they listened, god knows what they did. She's not going to be seeing that sort of shrink. . .very much the opposite. You know, the sort of shrink who turns everything you say back into a question you have to answer but really, really don't want to . . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, she might at least be more open to modern therapy once she discovers it's shed the sexist assumptions of Freudianism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah, that's a thought, but do I get that far. Nothing like Freud, the snake, the train, the endless silence from the therapist . . . what on earth was he/she thinking? What a concept and yet the guy was a genius, having gone where no hysterical male had gone before.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I like the "hysterical male" bit. But I don't understand the references to snakes and trains. Colleen, I'm surprised you haven't commented yet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Snakes and trains, that's a reference to Freud's dream theories, whether true or not I think many people believe he thought snakes or trains in dreams were code for male sexuality . . .

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi- Interesting post and comments, and I'm a little late jumping in, still recovering from Easter travels and the kids spring breaks from school. I love the question, "Who am I?". As you say it's a question we all ask ourselves. Lately for me the question "Who am I?" seems to bring up mostly silence, an inner silence in which I sense who I am without saying a word. Whatever I am seems mysterious, and too indefinable to cork into a jar of words.
    Reading these posts about therapy makes me look at therapy freshly for a moment, and maybe the revolutionary thing about therapy is just saying what's really going on inside of us, all the thoughts and feelings that perhaps humanity in general had tended not to say out loud, even in close relationships, for fear of looking stupid or being rejected. The good thing about therapy is it's a place to be honest with ourselves and with the therapist to the best of our ability and to say what's really on our mind and what's troubling us. It's a space for what has been hidden to become unhidden, and somehow in that openness blockages may become unblocked and the psyche can flow of its own accord towards greater well-being. Each person has innate wisdom and therapy is one possible venue for accessing that wisdom.
    Of course there are tons of disasters in therapy and I don't think anyone really understands therapy all that well. I think there is a general tendency among mental health professionals to pretend to ourselves and each other and our clients that we know more than we really do. There's a nice blogspot by a psychiatrist that's called "No Happy Pill" with the byline, "I don't have all the answers." I find that admission refreshing!- and rare among us shrinks.
    Anyway I'm straying far in my "free associations"- and I'm not sure what AE would think of our modern culture of therapy...I've enjoyed reading this discussion though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Colleen, I mentioned modern therapy having shed the sexist assumptions of Freudianism (see above)... but was that true as far back as 1980?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi - I'm not sure if the sexist assumptions of Freudianism had diminished as of the 1980's- my sense is that yes, the sexism was toned down by then to some extent. I didn't begin psychiatric residency until the 90's, and I feel there was definitely still some sexism in the whole psychoanalytic mind frame. I have a vivid memory of the venerable Otto Kernberg himself speaking in our auditorium at the Menninger Clinic and presenting a case and saying again and again, "And she wanted to suck his penis, and she wanted to suck his penis." We all sat there very stone-faced, but I thought, "This is just sorta bizarre." It seems so many of the case studies and patient's analyzed where I trained were women. It almost seems like women have somehow been the repository for the bulk of human emotions- for men's emotions as well as our own. Somehow women have been the "dumping ground" for the feared energy of emotions, and then we're called crazy for being too emotional. Please pardon my rambling, it's getting late and I'm punch-drunk with tiredness. Interesting questions...I imagine Amelia would feel some satisfaction that women have more equality in the 80's, and she herself is a trailblazer that helped bring this transformation about.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Now we know what Otto Kernberg fantasizes about. ;)

    ReplyDelete