Revisiting Lance ...
My friend Victor/Tim posted this comment on the Lance Armstrong entry, and I thought I'd share:
"I have to admit though that his "relationship" with Sheryl Crow is more than a little bit off-putting. The wife of his children wasn't prepared for his stardom? Where do I get to dump my inconveniences? Was the wife not as imageable for an image-ready fan base and marketing strategy? It is hell to live in 2005 when one has to trot out all these ugly, cynical thoughts or be subject to potential manipulation by an unseen force."
Have to say, I think he's right in a way. Lance Armstrong's first wife shepherds him through an excruciatingly painful, exhausting and emotionally draining illness and numerous time-suck Tour de France training cycles and wins, and it's Sheryl Crow who stands at the podium on his final celebration, being thanked for all her support. Seems to me she gets to enjoy the fruits of the first wife's labor; she only had to endure two training cycles, and a Lance who has the ability to look back on his triumphs, not agitate for them to happen sometime in the near future.
I know what it's like to agitate about accomplishments; I still do. I worry I'll stagnate. I worry I'll slide back. I worry I'll never write a piece of fiction again. I worry I'll never get a big, juicy assignment. But like I told Victor/Tim, it's all in the framing. I can "frame" my present circumstance as confoundingly hectic and a near-impossible place for anything but "work writing" to be done. I can position it like a treadmill going nowhere. Or I can move my lens and reframe what's in front of me so it's an arresting snapshot, taken from a surprising angle, maybe, and definitely worth hanging on some wall.
It's been said: Happiness is wanting what you've got.
(By the way, may I point out that it took a guy -- Victor/Tim -- to point out the injustice in Lance Armstrong's Sheryl-Crow-ized personal life. Good for you, V/T.)
"I have to admit though that his "relationship" with Sheryl Crow is more than a little bit off-putting. The wife of his children wasn't prepared for his stardom? Where do I get to dump my inconveniences? Was the wife not as imageable for an image-ready fan base and marketing strategy? It is hell to live in 2005 when one has to trot out all these ugly, cynical thoughts or be subject to potential manipulation by an unseen force."
Have to say, I think he's right in a way. Lance Armstrong's first wife shepherds him through an excruciatingly painful, exhausting and emotionally draining illness and numerous time-suck Tour de France training cycles and wins, and it's Sheryl Crow who stands at the podium on his final celebration, being thanked for all her support. Seems to me she gets to enjoy the fruits of the first wife's labor; she only had to endure two training cycles, and a Lance who has the ability to look back on his triumphs, not agitate for them to happen sometime in the near future.
I know what it's like to agitate about accomplishments; I still do. I worry I'll stagnate. I worry I'll slide back. I worry I'll never write a piece of fiction again. I worry I'll never get a big, juicy assignment. But like I told Victor/Tim, it's all in the framing. I can "frame" my present circumstance as confoundingly hectic and a near-impossible place for anything but "work writing" to be done. I can position it like a treadmill going nowhere. Or I can move my lens and reframe what's in front of me so it's an arresting snapshot, taken from a surprising angle, maybe, and definitely worth hanging on some wall.
It's been said: Happiness is wanting what you've got.
(By the way, may I point out that it took a guy -- Victor/Tim -- to point out the injustice in Lance Armstrong's Sheryl-Crow-ized personal life. Good for you, V/T.)
posted by Jho at 9:39 PM
2 Comments:
Reframing? Are you to those of us who need personal emotional help the same way George Lakoff is to the Democratic Party?
Or I can move my lens and reframe what's in front of me so it's an arresting snapshot, taken from a surprising angle, maybe, and definitely worth hanging on some wall.
I have so little experience with what you are talking about that I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying.
Are you saying don't screw with your life by expecting anything from it?
Settling for what you have sounds like the mantra that the suburban housewife must keep telling herself. I've seen a lot of those suburban mothers. A lot of them turn out fat . . . and depressed (nearly 75% by TIME's account.
Perhaps above you are talking about an out-of-body experience where one can look down on one's life and appreciate the intricate, byzantine twists and turns it takes. I've never been able to escape the feeling when I'm out-of-body that I'm perched on top of the toilet bowl.
I guess I can try to go on living in the moment (as long as this moment has been paid for . . . by your local Electrical Workers Union #106).
Ah, my lights. my lights, my wits . . . they are abandoning me.
What's wrong with being a suburban housewife? Nothing. However, being a largely stay-at-home dad, I know how difficult it can be to overcome the feeling of what you are doing isn't worthwhile. Many other stay-at-home parents do too (as reflected by the quote I stated in previous comment). I read that statistic as evidence that despite one knowing (reframing) that one is doing something worthwhile, it is hard to overcome the feeling of worthlessness and its resultant depression. Especially, if you're male. Believe me.
I envy those who easily reframe and have the new frame stick. I just think it's easier said than done. Or perhaps I have not had the spiritual training (I freely admit that I am yet still a Padawan Jedi.)
Jhoanna was telling me this the other day when, as spiritual advisor, she was trying to lift my spirits. I was skeptical because even though one reframes (like George Lakoff is doing with the Democratic Party) there are still underlying societal structures that are in place which reinforce the status quo. In lieu of something happening which shakes up those underlying structures, the same infuences are pervasive. Reframing does not change that fact (at least, not very quickly).
Post a Comment
<< Home