Patheos (& Other) Peeps: Christian Piatt on Fatherhood, Anxiety, and Love That Longs for Expression

Every Friday, I feature something written by one of my fellow bloggers at Patheos, a web portal devoted to religion and spirituality, or by another blogger/writer whose work I admire. This week I am discussing Christian Piatt’s new memoir as part of a book club discussion hosted by Patheos.

Our recent trip south for my mother-in-law’s funeral reinforced something I know all too well but prefer to ignore most of the time: My children’s genetic legacy includes a fair amount of darkness. Substance abuse. Depression.  Suicide.

I do not say this to trash my husband’s family. On the contrary, our time in North Carolina for Ruby’s funeral was a testament to both her survival through 88 years of hard living, and to the beautiful, intelligent, hard-working children, grandchildren, and extended family who gathered to remember her.

But there are a few too many holes in the family tree to overlook the probability that buried somewhere in the genes that my husband passed on to our children are some poorly understood propensities toward self-destructive behavior.

We have coped with a fair amount of physical illness, my own and my oldest daughter’s, as she and I have navigated life with fragile bones that snap and shatter far too easily. I have said that I hate OI (osteogenesis imperfecta, our shared genetic bone disorder). And I do. I hate it. I used to hate it for what it has done to me and my body. Now I hate it even more for what it has done to my beautiful daughter—to her body, but even more so, to her spirit.

Having witnessed the spirit-crushing effects of a physical malady, I am certain that witnessing one of my children being tormented by a mental or psychological disorder—the sort of thing that is all about crushing one’s spirit—would be harder than caring for them through physical illness.

This realization is bizarre to me, given that when Daniel and I chose to make our genetic legacy a factor in our childbearing decisions, we focused solely on my genetic legacy—the one that makes bones break. As I wrote in No Easy Choice:

The ability to match certain problems to certain genes tempts us to forget that all human lives are subject to risks, known and unknown. My family history and Daniel’s are great examples. My OI mutation was easy to target because it was known, it had predictable effects, and the physical ramifications of passing the mutation on were clear: Our child would break lots of bones. Daniel, coming from a family with a significant history of substance abuse and depression, as well as diabetes, brought plenty of genetic risk to our childbearing, but we didn’t focus on those risks because, compared with OI, they are less understood, less precise, and less likely to affect our children when they are young.

We focused on my genetic legacy because we could. But our children remain vulnerable even though their risk of inheriting my OI has come and gone. And the soul sicknesses that could afflict them are, to me, far more frightening than physical maladies that have clear causes and treatments.

I have been thinking about all of this—the irony of focusing our childbearing angst on fragile bones when there were worse things to worry about—because I recently read fellow Patheos blogger Christian Piatt’s memoir, PregMANcy: A Dad, a Little Dude, and a Due Date (Chalice Press, 2012). Childbearing angst is precisely what Piatt’s book is all about. Specifically, it chronicles his journey through his wife’s pregnancy with their second child, illuminating the worries and changes that dads-to-be go through while their wives are pregnant.

This is a book about young parents with young children making childbearing decisions. Even though I also wrote a book about having a second child, I struggled a bit to relate to Piatt’s story. Now that I have a middle schooler and an upcoming birthday that practically screams, “MIDDLE AGE!” I no longer qualify as a “young” parent. The subjects on which Piatt focuses in PregMANcy—worries about how another baby will affect family relationships and checkbook balances, precocious witticisms from his then four-year-old son, the many types of bodily fluids that permeate a young family’s days—are central to a life that I am no longer living.

I’m pretty sure that I am not Piatt’s target audience for this book. Given the subject matter; Piatt’s facial hair, trendy glasses, and combined profession of writer and dabbling singer/songwriter; and his penchant for sprinkling mild profanities into his prose, I’m assuming the prime intended audience is young hipster dads deeply involved in early fatherhood. My husband, although he sported a goatee for a couple of years, has a very nice pair of glasses, and is a very involved dad, is definitely not a young hipster dad. He’s a librarian, first of all. Whatever the definition of “hipster” is, I’m thinking “not a librarian” must appear somewhere on the list. And he beat me to my upcoming middle age-ish birthday by two months.

All that to say, reading PregMANcy was a bit like reading a travel narrative about a place I visited a long time ago. I recognized the scenery, I recalled bits of the journey with both nostalgia and relief, but my reading lacked the visceral connection and anticipation of reading something about a place that I’m in right now, or plan to visit imminently.

That is, except in those few places where Piatt went a little deeper, and a little darker.

In a chapter called, “Spawn of Crazy,” he contemplates the foolish decision to have kids when one has “at least four consecutive generations of nuts.” In Piatt’s case, those “nuts” took the form of suicides, alcoholism, and his experience of being institutionalized as a teenager, followed by a “dark night of the soul,” in which he heard voices and lost weeks of his life in a fog of psychotropic drugs and booze.

I wanted to know more about this part of Piatt’s story, this grappling with the darkness we pass on, along with brown eyes or curly hair or a penchant for math. Not out of some voyeuristic desire to gape at another family’s skeletons, but because I am learning that this is the stuff that continues to haunt and challenge us as parents, long after we stop worrying about birth plans and sibling rivalry and sleep deprivation and how to get baby puke and toddler poop out of the carpets.

How do we forgive ourselves for bringing our children into a world that can wound them so severely? How do we work alongside them to build a path to life and health and light, knowing that they can, at any time, choose to take a different path altogether? How do we love them, knowing that we cannot possibly keep their hearts from breaking, we can only nurture hearts strong enough to keep on beating despite the scars, and wise enough to know they can’t put themselves back together without help?

These are the parenthood anxieties we don’t ever outgrow. So why do we do it? Why say “yes” to that second (third, fourth….) baby? As Piatt says,

“We don’t have kids because we’re guaranteed the results we want. We have them because the love contained within us longs to be expressed.”

And then we worry.

 

P.S. Christian also blogs for Patheos; loyal readers might recognize the name, as I’ve linked to his stuff before. He has a funny weekly post on bizarre church signs. Check out his blog here.


Welcome to the “Best Thing Blog Hop”

Blogging provides writers like me with lots of opportunities—to publish and reach audiences without going through lengthy (and often demoralizing!) editorial selection processes, to market books, to test new ideas that might later become a full-fledged article or book.

But the blogosphere can be a difficult and frustrating workplace as well, for lots of reasons. As I mentioned in my post several weeks ago about the “tyranny of the news hook,” I sometimes grieve how disposable my blog posts can be. On the one hand, they stick around forever (someone Googling my name can easily read posts from several years ago). On the other hand, the fast-paced, fly-by-night nature of Internet content means that even a great blog post is quickly eclipsed by newer content.

Most of the time, that’s fine. It’s the nature of the beast. But when I or someone whose work I read regularly posts a really terrific blog post, one with insight, originality, and staying power, I mourn how quickly it vanishes from the spotlight.

So today, I’m pleased to host the “Best Thing Blog Hop.” I and several of my writer colleagues have each chosen a blog post we think reflects our best work, and are reposting the piece (or a link to it). My own “best thing” is here (in a separate post)—something I wrote at Easter time two years ago. It is one of those rare pieces that simply emerged from my keyboard almost effortlessly, and nearly whole. When I originally posted it (on one of my now-defunct blogs), it got about 10 times more hits than anything I had ever written.

Here is a list of the others participating in the Blog Hop. Please take a few minutes to click through to read several of these pieces from some of my favorite writers, colleagues, and people. I will be adding to the list throughout the day today, as I receive links from the participating bloggers, so please check back! (If you click on a link and get an error message, it is likely because that blogger’s post is not yet live. Please try again in a little while. These are some of the technical concerns that I’m working out; if I do this again I’ll have the process down pat!)

The “Best Thing” Bloggers

Amy Julia Becker (Best Thing: “Arms Like My Grandmother”) — Amy Julia blogs for Patheos on faith, family, and disability, and is the author of the award-winning A Good and Perfect Gift. Learn more about her and her writing at amyjuliabecker.com.

Jennifer Grant (Best Thing: “Ooh La La Over Lady Gaga”) — Jennifer is a journalist and freelance writer with particular interests in parenting, family life, and international health and development. She is the author of two memoirs, Love You More and the soon-to-be-released MOMumental: Adventures in the Messy Art of Raising a Family.

Alison Hodgson (Best Thing: “A Terribly Good Friday”) — Alison is the expert on the etiquette of perilous times. (If you’re not sure what that means, stay tuned. I’m going to link to some of Alison’s recent posts later this week.) She lives in Michigan with her husband Paul, their three children and two good dogs. Follow her on Twitter and visit her blog Older Than Jesus.

Karen Swallow Prior, Ph.D. (Best Thing: “Want to Follow God? Go to Sleep!) — Karen is associate professor of English and Chair of the English and modern languages department at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Karen is a member of the Faith Advisory Council of the Human Society of the United States. She blogs regularly at Christianity Today’s women’s blog, Her.meneutics and is a member of the Redbud Writers Guild. Her work has also appeared at Think Christian and Relevant.

Jana Riess (Best Thing: “My Snarkiest Review”) — Jana is author of the funny and highly praised memoir Flunking Sainthood, and blogs for Religion News Service. She also happens to be my most excellent book editor. Visit her RNS blog.

Margot Starbuck (Best Thing: “A New Message at the Strip Club-Church Showdown”) — Margot is a communicator who is itchy to live out the kingdom Jesus ushered in.  She’s planted in Durham, North Carolina with her husband Peter, their three children, and a faith community she cherishes. Visit her web site at margotstarbuck.com.

Rachel Stone (Best Thing: Her story of being in a German town when several old WWII bombs went off.) — Rachel blogs about food, family, faith and how these intersect with justice and joy. Visit her blog at Eat with Joy.

Michelle Van Loon (Best Thing: An essay on “what it means to be put on the proverbial shelf after a time of active ministry.”) — Michelle uses her words to blog about spiritual ragamuffins, rebels, and refugees to show how God uses our mess and his grace to transform us. Visit her web site at michellevanloon.com.

…and of course, me!

The Tyranny of the News Hook

Here’s one of many hard lessons I’ve learned as a writer publishing primarily online: You can pen a gorgeous piece about some timeless topic—parenting or faith or health or grief. And if your piece doesn’t have a news hook—if it doesn’t mention some hot topic in the news up front and then go on to make some point about said news item—many (most?) editors aren’t interested.

I get it. It’s a loud, nonstop world out there, information flying at us like bugs toward a windshield. People need a reason to stop stalking ex-loves on Facebook or playing Angry Birds long enough to read 800 words or so, and maybe ponder them for, oh, two or three minutes. The news hook gives them a reason.

But I’m fed up with the news hook.

In case you haven’t noticed, reproductive issues have been in the news a lot recently: Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen, Roman Catholic bishops and contraception, Rick Santorum and prenatal testing, vaginal ultrasounds and abortion and rape.

Readers and friends have filled my inbox and Facebook page with links to articles on these stories and more. And I have read many of them, often because I’m interested but often because I feel like I should. This is my topic—one of them anyway. And I should care about the latest news. Furthermore, conventional writing wisdom says I should be on the lookout for precious nuggets of information that I can use as news hooks for my own posts and articles.

But I have become more and more reluctant to click through to read the words on the other end of all those links. And even more reluctant to use any of these stories as news hooks.

As blogger after blogger, journalist after journalist, writer after writer has weighed in on abortion and rape and prenatal testing and contraception, I have become less and less convinced of the value of news hooks. I have begun to wonder if the relentless seeking after the perfect hook is making the blogosphere less relevant and useful, and more noisy and contentious.

First, news hooks often just give writers an excuse to write the same-old same-old. When I see that Writer X, whose work I am familiar with, is writing about Issue Y, I can often guess without reading more than the headline what he or she is going to say. Instead of providing fodder for new conversations and spurring writers to say something fresh and original, news hooks often end up being a handy tool for writers to once again make their (our) favorite arguments. The result? Warring bands of articles blaring familiar positions on hot-button issues, contributing to a cultural discourse that is more focused on coming up with clever zingers that like-minded folk can tweet to their followers than on conversation and consensus.

Using a news hook to reiterate one’s opinion is not necessarily a terrible thing. While my faithful blog readers and friends can probably guess how I’ll respond to some news story, there are millions of readers who have no idea who I am or what I might say. For those readers, my same-old same-old take on Issue Y might be fresh and new. They will gain new perspective, and I’ll gain a new reader.

But I see how easily the day’s news becomes something we use to further our own agendas. We begin to see the events of the nation and the world primarily through our own self-serving lenses. That can’t be a good thing.

Second, relying on news hooks makes our writing disposable. The fly-by-night nature of the blogosphere is the blessing and bane of being a writer today. With so many sites seeking nonstop new content, writers have unprecedented access to an audience. Anyone with writing talent, thick skin, tenacity, and a willingness to work really hard has the opportunity to get their work published. When some topic becomes a hot news hook, editors are on the lookout for experts in that topic.

The down side of this constant content-seeking is that our writing has a very short shelf life. Once the news story passes into oblivion, so does whatever we wrote about it. Sure, it may continue to get occasional hits from someone Googling the topic, or when a similar news story surfaces. But by and large, a blog post, even on a major news site, is ancient history within a week or two.

Again, this is not necessarily a terrible thing. It’s the environment within which journalists have always worked. But it also means that we writers have little incentive to produce something timeless, in the way that a novel or poetry or a killer nonfiction essay can be timeless. It makes us more like carpenters, cobbling together a bunch of words to create something utilitarian, rather than artists, using words to make sense of this crazy world, to spur change in ourselves and others, to give comfort or challenge or inspiration.

I don’t mind being a carpenter most of the time. For many writers, carpentry is what pays the bills. But I’m striving to be an artist too. I’d like to write stuff that isn’t disposable.

And when it comes to other people’s writing, I’d much rather read a work of art than something they banged together, using their stock tools and materials, in response to a news hook. Art moves me. Art changes me. Art makes me say to people, “Did you read this?! This is amazing.” Art sticks with me.

Even in the rapid-fire, news-oriented blogosphere, writers can produce art. I occasionally fish around in my files or on Google for a blog post I read several years ago, and find that it still makes my heart clench and my eyes tear. A few of my own posts are, I think, worthy of repetition, timeless in their own way. (My “Best Thing Blog Hop” arose out of a desire to give other bloggers an opportunity to share something really great and potentially timeless that they wrote.)

The news hook isn’t going anywhere. But if we writers want to move and change and challenge and inspire people (and more practically, if we want people to really read and ponder and revisit what we churn out day after day), we need to go beyond the news hook to write about grief and joy, justice and mercy, love and loss—the timeless things that remain after the day’s news is history. And maybe avoid responding to the latest big news story unless we have something truly original to say that will nudge both us and our readers out of complacently repeating the same old arguments and toward actual conversation. Maybe even change.