Purposely Professional: Building a Professor Look AKA The Grey Lady

So I struggled all semester with not looking professional enough for my job. I keep telling anyone who would listen that HBCUs are FANCY, all caps, and I felt from the first faculty meeting that I didn't fit. Like I was seriously concerned about it, but as the semester got going I had a lot of things to juggle in my first semester, so it went to the bottom of the pile.

I've never done well with this- I failed Girl Shit in Life, theatre just required me to wear black and comfortable boots and high school teaching really just slacks and clothing where your bits were covered. They were usually more concerned with you actually showing up every day than anything else. At the beginning of the semester (like the first week) a student made fun of my clothes, and while you'd think 43 and decades of teaching high school would make me immune, it didn't. In fact my clothes and shoes were made fun of just about all semester. I laughed it off, and didn't respond, but man, it hurt. Some of the comments were just calling my stuff ugly. Others were more gendered, specific, and made me really uncomfortable, like telling me I was dressed like a lesbian which is a whole other thing.

As posts on Twitter the last few weeks have reminded me, a female professor's clothing and look is a common focus on student evaluations. I don't have mine yet, so I don't know if it came up, but I know I heard comments about my appearance all semester long, and it was these that made me want to dress different, better, yes to match what other female faculty and staff were wearing but too, to stop hearing about it.

At the end of the semester, as I had some time to breathe, I did a little better, but still, something I need to work on in the spring. And again, students commented here- when I wore make up, when I dressed "better." Honestly? The positive comments bugged me as much as the negative ones because women should not be judged by their appearance. What I'm wearing has zero impact on how I engage students, teach scholarship, present readings. Yet I can guarantee that my male colleagues aren't dealing with this crap. But, as much as I don't like the unfair system it is the reality.

I joked the other week on Twitter that my fashion sense really was locked in 25 years ago with Buffy Summers and Piper Halliwell. I mean think about it- simple pieces, comfortable for fighting and moving in, a bit of fancy here and there, but nice looking and practical. You could do worse.






My building complicates professional dress a bit- my office will be comfortable, but classrooms are 90, 100 degrees- on warm days the heat is blasting, on cold days the AC. It's different room to room, and no way to predict what it will be on any given day, so no way to dress for it, so it's a bit of an issue.

I'm thinking layering is a good answer, even if I have to take off the jacket or cardigan, I can at least START the class looking professional. But still, I had to figure out a balance between professional clothes I can teach in and survive the day in. So I started thinking and doing some reading and experimenting.

I still hate hair in my face, unfortunately it still looks awful at this length pulled back, but there's not a lot I can do about that.

I can wear make up for work, but I'm not wearing foundation or blush or lipstick (I always put it on crooked). OR mascara that won't survive eastern North Carolina rain.

My clothes seem like the place for the biggest improvements.

My minimalism extends to everything except my t-shirt collection, so I spent some time over break revisiting minimalism in general, but my wardrobe in particular. I don't have a lot of stuff, I upgraded my shoes/boots for work, things that were comfy for standing all day (1 set of Rockport boots and 2 pairs of Danskos) because it seemed like shoes were one way to look fancier, but there's no way you're ever getting me in 4" heels.

So that was done. But then I started to think, what else could I do? In revisiting some of my minimalism blogs and articles I liked many mentioned some version of a pared down wardrobe, and many mentioned choosing a color scheme for it so that everything went with everything.

This got me thinking. And I think this was in the back of my mind when I picked out my glasses, because these are the ones I picked- I liked the lightness of the material, the plastic means no nose thingies to get stuck in my hair, and the grey/clear frames.



So I started to think, what if I chose a single color for the majority of my work clothes? It would help everything look pulled together, it would all match, even if the shades were different, and grey as a base color would go with everything in my existing closet.

Also, it totally means I can embrace my Grey Lady, Gandalf vibe.



So this was partly a purge, going through my closet and getting rid of things I haven't worn in months, and given the heat/AC at work, won't. I dumped a few blazers I don't wear, same with vests, and a few shirts and cardigans. I've gotten a lot better about buying things that go together, but did do some panic buying in August for the new job, and whether they're scratchy, uncomfortable, or just meh, some things did not work out and I've never worn them. If I haven't worn then in 6 months I'm not going to, and someone else might like them so they go.

I also went through socks, which somehow always creeps up and gets out of control like there are freaking Gremlins in my sock basket. There are 7 days in a week, so I need 7 pairs of sweat socks for walking Nehi/running, and 5 for work days, warm and cold weather. No matter how you do math that is not a gazillion socks, so away they go. Plus, I got funny, sarcastic socks for Christmas and needed to follow my "one in, one out" rule. I usually get rid of way more than I ever buy to replace. So, once I cleared everything out, I looked at what I had and thought about what pieces I could add that would fit with what I was going for.

Here's what I went with:

• Another pair of grey Docker's
• A pair of grey jeans
• Button down grey shirt, one collared, one priest collar
• A couple of fancy-ish grey t-shirts (to wear under blazer or cardigan)
• A grey tunic top

I already had a grey blazer and a great comfy grey cardigan, so I just need to focus on wearing them more. The bonus of paring down is also that the things you DO have get more rotation. I also have a grey multi sweater and a light feeling, dark grey sweater. A lot of my wardrobe is blue, or black, or white- I tend to like solid colors, simple things, so all this will fit. My plan is to use the grey as a foundation- so each day one base grey piece. It should pull everything together, and has the bonus of being a signature look, in a way my compulsive, choose comfort over anything else, way.

I made a collage for some ideas, so the stuff below is roughly what I'm aiming for. I only teach Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and Fridays are spirit days, so I figure fancy-er on Monday and Wednesday (read button down shirts and blazers) and Mister Rogers more accessible (cardigans and tees) on Tuesday and Thursday when I just have office hours and meetings. Plus on those days I'm hoping to bike to work, so that works too.



Add my grey infinity scarf, making an effort with earrings and make up, and I think it will be the balance between my work being fancy and me being comfortable.

I have my Carhartt grey, nice backpack and a grey bag-bag, so that's set.

We'll see.

I will say that even though it's just a couple of things I bought I am excited about it all, and I could not tell you the last time I was ever excited about girl-shit.

I can tell you now, because I'm teaching a lot of the same students in the spring that I had in the fall that I am going to hear about my clothes come January. I guess I just hope that maybe they mention it once and leave me alone, because I really do hate it, it really does make me feel awful, because I KNOW it's something I don't do well in, and it is so personal. Plus, I think this professional look is something I can stick with, so I won't have to make any changes, so maybe if this is just how I look from now on it won't be something worth mentioning.

Call for Papers: (Don’t) Look Back: Our Nostalgia for Horror and Slasher Films

Call for Papers:
(Don’t) Look Back: Our Nostalgia for Horror and Slasher Films
Editors: Karrȧ Shimabukuro and Wickham Clayton

On first consideration it may not seem like “nostalgia” and horror and slasher films have any clear connections. Usually nostalgia is applied to events and experiences that have a pleasant connotation, even if these pleasant feelings are a result of a rose-tinted view of the past. While nostalgia can refer to personal feelings as well as larger communal or cultural memory and pleasure, there is also an implied action to it- that someone is seeking to reclaim, or revisit a specific time period or place for an explicit reason. Applying this understanding to remakes, revisions, reimaginings helps us understand what the purpose of these reworked creations are, the work they’re doing, and how they build on and expand on an already understood and accepted set of narratives, tropes, characters, and beliefs.
Since the national and global trauma of 9/11 we have seen dozens of remakes, reboots, revisions, and reimaginings of horror and slasher films from the 1970s and 80s. Each work seeks to capture some element of the original- the simple understanding of good and evil, the audience reaction to scares, an aesthetic homage, the commercial popularity. If we shift our perspective to view these films through the lens of nostalgia, we can see that many of these narratives are grounded in trauma, the performance of it, the aftermath, how people survive and later work through it. Whether it is a movie, mini-series, television show, or video game, these remakes can be organized according to several subtopics that perform different work within the media and reflect different fears, anxieties, and desires of a specific historical and cultural moment, although the argument could be made that some texts belong in a variety of categories, and there is noticeable overlap.
Movies such as Carrie (2013) , Prom Night (2008), The Fog (2005), Piranha (2010), and Piranha 3DD (2012), My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009), Friday the 13th (2009), Predators (2010), The Predator (2018), and Fright Night (2011) as well as the television show Ash vs. Evil Dead (2015-2018) all seek to recapture the pleasant memories either of the creator upon their first exposure, or the often initial teenage experience of the audience. It’s also worth noting remakes that seek to capture this feeling and audience reception but fail as is the case with Pet Semetary (2019) and Prometheus (2012) and Alien: Covenant (2017) or remakes of films that were considered cult classics, or lacked the recognition of many of these titles such as Sorority Row (2009). While many of these movies have trauma as their inciting incident, or backstory, films such as The Hills Have Eyes (2006), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), Amityville Horror (2005), and The Thing (2011), explicitly deal with trauma in their narratives. A large number of remakes seek to correct or revise perceived errors, erasures, or missteps in the original source material. Certainly this is true in The Shining (1997 mini-series), The Stand (1994 and in production 2020), The Last House on the Left (2009), Straw Dogs (2011), Suspiria (2018), and Nightmare on Elm Street (2010). Some texts like The Haunting of Hill House (2018-present) begin as a revision but ultimately go deeper, seeking to uncover a narrative within the source material. With the explosion of streaming services, alternative storytelling, and multimedia narratives, we’re seeing more and more adaptations that use horror or slasher narratives as their foundation but create their own stories from them. Bates Motel (2013-2017), The Exorcist (2016-2018), Doctor Sleep (2019), Castle Rock (2018-present), The Conjuring (2013), and Hannibal (2013-2015) all fit this category.
This edited collection would seek contributions that view these and other texts through this lens of nostalgia, how these remakes, reboots, revisions, and reimagings are the vehicle for the anxieties and concerns of a particular moment, and what work they are doing. We’re particularly interested in contributions that analyze texts that interact with the source material in new and interesting ways, deconstruct tropes and styles innate to these genres, as well as the application of adaptation and fan studies to these works. The editors are accepting proposals for chapters focusing on nostalgia in horror after 9/11. Topics for contributions, focused through a lens of nostalgia, can address, but are not limited to:
-Case studies that relate to nostalgia as:
-Theoretical approaches to understanding horror and trauma
-Understanding socio-political and economic cultural contexts
-Pleasures of horror nostalgia post- 9/11
-Slashers, subtexts, and tonal intensification
-Paranormal embodiments of contemporary fears

Proposals should be submitted by 31 March 2020 to Karrá Shimabukuro khkshimabukuro@gmail.com and Wickham Clayton wickscripts@hotmail.com. First drafts due 31 December 2020. We welcome questions and expressions of interest at any stage.

Your Christmas Elf is a Devil: Elves, Fairies, Demons, and Krampus

This tweet went around a few weeks ago, and I giggled and passed it along.

But as much as it did make me laugh, I can't seen to get it out of my head. Then yesterday I saw a thread of (inaccurate) tweets that made me come back to this idea.

In the 1995 movie The Prophecy, Thomas Dagget, the errant priest turned cop says:
Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, He sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?

I always think the same of elves. Elves are not good people, they are not cute, they are not sweet, they will not clean your house (that's brownies).

Santa is first identified as "a right jolly old elf" in Clement Clark Moore's 1823 "A Visit from St. Nicholas" poem. Yet his portrayal as an elf is a departure from other elf descriptions and actions dating all the way back to Old English and Old Norse. The dark implications of Santa as elf are often purposely ignored or erased from portrayals and meanings. Quite a few Old English texts are elf-charms, medicinal solutions to how not to die from poisoned elf-darts. The term in Old English is ælf and álfr in Old Norse. The origin of elves is nebulous, but their associations are not. In Old Norse and Old English poetry, they are connected to the Aesir and Vanir gods and often associated with dwarves, giants, and other supernatural creatures. They are not human, and in texts where they appear their actions and powers are often described as unnatural, uncanny even. Even after Christianity became the norm, elves were still an accepted and common figure, and while they could be capricious, occasionally acting on whims that benefited humans, for the most part they are not good, moral figures. As befits their original appearances, they often acted in ways that made sense only to them, serving their own interests. Different texts offered different descriptions and motivations but they were fairly consistently described as not-human, visually recognizable as such, and therefore not "us" and therefore not to be trusted. In the opening of Beowulf, they are named as one of many races of monsters, "unspeakable offspring" that are released and awakened, set loose. They are creatures of evil, denied and who deny God's presence and authority. They are associated with Grendel, tainted with the sin of Cain, murder. 

https://www.heorot.dk/beowulf-rede-text.html

Several Old English texts associate the devil with darkness, where the darkness is understood as the physical manifestation of his sin, the fact that he was unholy, unlit by God's light.Genesis A and B connect the devil to the dark, the cloud, and the smoke: “seomodon swearte,” “geseah deorc gesweorc,” “semian sinnihte,” “sweart under roderum” and “sweartean helle.” Christ and Satan also makes this association, “swarte and sunfulle,” “blace hworfon/scinnan forscepene,” “dimme and deorce,” and “swearte.” Juliana also uses darkness as a physical and spiritual descriptor for the devil, “sweartra synna” and “þegnas of þystrum” (Caedmon, and George Philip Krapp. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition Volume I The Junius manuscript . (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931)). Grendel is associated with perpetual darkness “sinnihte” and covered in mist, “mistige moras.” Christ and Satan also connects this darkness with the concept of miserable or evil spirits “atole gastas” (Caedmon, and George Philip Krapp. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition Volume I The Junius manuscript . (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931) and “werige gastas” (R.D Fulk, Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles. Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. (Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. 2008).  Guthlac A describes the devil as “se werga gǣst,” (George Philip Krapp and Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records: A Collective Edition Volume III The Exeter Book. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931) the cursed spirit. Juliana refers to the devil she encounters as an “unclǣne gǣst.” (Krapp and Dobbie, The Exeter Book). Beowulf describes Grendel as the dark spirit, “se grimma gǣst” and a cursed spirit, “wergan gǣstes” (R.D Fulk et al, Klaeber’s Beowulf ). Elves appear in a variety of genres, and cover a variety of topics, appearing in many Old English manuscripts.

While these descriptions concur on the darkness of evil, both literal and metaphorical, the animal characteristics of the devil, and of elves, appear at roughly the same time. A detail of 66r of The Eadwine Psalter (c. 1155-60) shows demons attacking a psalmist. The figures have dark caps, wings, tails, and pointed ears. Both Alaric Hall and Karen Jolly's work understand these figures as elves.

The Harley 37 (1st half of the 11th century) shows a similar figure and activity just left of center. These figures have no caps, but we can see their wings, and their colored bodies distinguish them visually from the rest of the scene. Not only are the poses similar, but the arrows in the human figures evoke the descriptions of elf-shot, and elf-darts.

Viljoen argues that Beowulf and the other texts in the codex “were part of the so-called “popular culture.” Liuzza argues that representations of the devil, and how he is used in these texts is key to “understanding the worldview of Anglo-Saxon Christians.”  If we take each of these scholars’ work as a whole we can argue that the presentation of the devil in these texts is part of Anglo-Saxon popular beliefs and culture, and we can see the connections between elves and devils, both functioning as folkloric figures, vehicles for the anxieties, desires, and fears of a time.

Alexander Makhov's work argues that the visual rhetoric of the devil, his darkness, his animal nature, is both a reflection of the devil's sinful nature and a warning to everyone else that he is unnatural, against God, shunned. In Continental European devils we see this in the misplacement of eyes and faces on joints, chicken arms or legs placed in odd positions, exaggerated joints, colors, animal traits seemingly randomly tacked on. The English devil is dark in color, with wings, horns, pointed ears, claws, and often a tail.

The Guthlac Roll (c.1000) illustrates the trials and tribulations of Saint Guthlac, whose story is told in the Old English Guthlac A and Guthlac B. The devils torment Guthlac, and try to lure him away from God's light and defend their own land that Guthlac now occupies. Here we see devils who are dark, animal in nature, with pointed ears, tails, horns, and claws. 

We can also read these presentations as anti-Semitic for the caricature of the devils noses. Jews were frequently demonized, literally and visually, in the beginning of the medieval period, for both association with demons, and presented as demonic figures themselves.

We see this same type of figure in the Upper margin of the Exchequer Receipt Roll, Hilary and Easter Terms, 1233.

These visually different representations indicate the purpose of these figures whether or not they are elves or devils. The visual rhetoric of the animalistic, dark, different figure emphasizes his political purpose, marking him as different, not ‘us.’ The English could then define themselves in opposition, they were English because they were not that, with that standing in for whoever the enemy of the time was, bad leaders, politicians, rebels.

The popular belief of devils as dark, and visually different continues throughout the medieval period, most notable on stage. In mystery plays there are two sources for the appearances of devils onstage; their own dialogue descriptions and the REED which details the costumes and props used by devil characters in these plays. “One of the reasons devils endured on stage was that the material base of culture changed very little throughout the time they were popular” (Cox 5). 

Onstage devil characters in their black costumes, hoods, and masks performed their visual difference. In addition to this they also described themselves in contrast to what they used to be – angels not devils, light not dark, which also emphasized their visual difference not just from us but from their former selves. In both we see an emphasis on darkness and visual difference. Medieval popular drama marked the devil as visually different by presenting him as dark, in contrast not only to paler, human skin, but also as representative of dark as in denied of God’s light. Records of Early English Drama note a large number of characters identified as devils, Sathan, Lucifer, and demon (e.g REED Coventry 185, 254, 259). 

The devil is not just identifiable by his color, his darkness, but also by a specific visual difference. The 1433 record of the Mercers’ Pageant for the Feast of Corpus Christi described the devils as having “deulles faces,” associated with the hell mouth their costumes are described as being in “garmentes for iij deuels” (REED York 55) implying that the devils’ costumes and masks/faces are visually different from the other characters. Later 1526 records support this describing “dewell cottes” and “dewell heddes” under the Mercer pageant (REED York 241) implying a visual difference from the costumes ofother actors/characters but also stressing that human characters wore no masks.. The Cambridge records from 1546-7 lists “devils cote deathes cote/blak slops” (REED Cambridge 146) indicating that it was not just the mask but the color black that marked devils. We see this with Belyal the black in The Castle of Perseverance (15^th c.) and forward to Peg’s demonic gentleman dressed all in black in The Late Lancashire Witches (1634).

Devil characters also used blackface to mark themselves as visually different connecting common understandings of devils, evil, darkness, and race. The 1546-7 Cambridge inventory has the Spanish clothed in black like the devils and we can make the logical association that this is meant to demonize the Spanish (REED Cambridge 147). Onstage as in the physical descriptions in popular literature multiple types of enemies re associated with the devil through looks. The hood (cottes) also connects devils to the Death figure (For a comprehensive examination of the iconography of the hood see Alison Kinney’s excellent 2016 publication Hood.)

This visual rhetoric continues throughout the early modern period, the best examples seen on pamphlets that used the image of a dark devil indicated the demonic nature of the person, or group, demonized within the pamphlet. During the English Civil Wars Royalists demonized Republicans and vice versa. London was frequently described as Hell, a consequence of letting demonic influences gain power in England.

The medieval period tended not to demonize fairies, instead they were folkloric figures like brownies, gnomes, and others who were described as more mischievous than demonic figures . 

"In 1584 the demonologist Reginald Scot wrotethat fear of witches had superseded the fear of fairies." In Demonologie (1597) James I dedicates an entire chapter to fairies, both dismissing them as myth and "illusions createdby the devil." Darren Oldridge "argues that English Protestants associated fairies with Satan, but this did not necessarily imply that fairies were reclassified as demons. Rather, they were embedded in a complex of beliefs that connected them with falsehood, Catholicism, and the invisible wiles of the Devil."

In addition to their visual appearance, elves and devils are also linked for their actions and purpose. Elves and devils are both know for using tricks, guile, artifice, in their interactions with humans. Old English texts such as Elene and Juliana as well as later works such as The Shewings of Julian Norwich and The Book of Margery Kempe, describe devils tormenting pure, saintly women, and accomplishing things through fraud, guile, and deceit. A common trope in medieval literature is a shapeshifting figure, fairy or demon, who seduces a young woman.

Elves and devils are generally understood and described only as male, while in the early modern period male fairy figures like Robin Goodfellow are given more authority, but there are female fairies. There is something to be made of the fact that the vehicle for our fears, anxieties, and concerns are male. By the time female fairies appear they have moved past their demonic connections and have been reconstructed as more whimsical nature spirits.

So what to make of Santa Claus defined as an elf? Should we fear his supernatural status? His ability to break into our homes through locks, and past safety measures? Should we wonder what happens if he uses his time travel or flight for ill-use? Are the elves that work under him a happy union or collective or are we sponsoring enslavement? While these may seem like silly questions, it is worth stopping to interrogate the assumptions and beliefs we have about him, what that says about us and our historical and cultural moment. He's often described as having, or being associated with, Christmas magic, and certainly his accomplishments are supernatural in nature. But how and why in 2019 is this not a thing that gives us pause? Millions of people around the world, regardless of religion or ethnicity or culture accept at least the idea, the belief, in a large, white male elf with magical and supernatural powers, as a key figure to the winter holiday season.

In order to understand his characterization as an elf, we need to consider his function and origin and reorient our perspective a bit. Santa Claus is a revision of St. Nicholas, and "Nicholas rose to prominence among the saints because he was the patron of so many groups. By about 1200, explained University of Manitoba historian Gerry Bowler, author of Santa Claus: A Biography, he became known as a patron of children and magical gift bringer because of two great stories from his life."

Phyllis Siefker's Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men: The Origins and Evolution of Saint Nicholas, Spanning 50,000 Years is a wonderful look at the figure in context.

http://victorian-era.org/clement-clarke-moore.html/clement-clarke-moore-the-night-before-christmas

https://www.depaulatrading.com/blogs/news/the-legend-of-krampus-youll-wish-you-got-coal

Just as the negative connotations of Santa as elf have been erased, so too has the connection between Santa and Krampus. In recent years, the figure of Krampus has seen a popular revival. He is often described as the anti-Santa, the one who punishes bad children while Santa rewards the good. While part of his popularity can be attributed to the fun idea of horror at Christmas, I think his reappearance and popularity goes deeper.These are not two separate figures but two figures who serve similar purposes. They represent balance and justice, they work together, not apart. One cannot exist without the other. On the calendar it is actually Krampus who visits first with Krampusnacht on 5 December and St. Nicholas' Day on 6 December. The wicked are punished, the good who are left are then rewarded. Yet this pairing has always been artificial. The origins of St. Nicholas, tracing his trajectory is easy but Krampus' origins are harder to pin down than his elf, fairy, devil brethren. "In fact, Krampus' roots have nothing to do with Christmas. Instead, they date back to pre-Germanic paganism in the region." Google "Krampus" and you will encounter a lot of "legend argues..." and "Norse mythology says..." The truth is messier. Folklore is messy. It is the beliefs and stories of a culture, so much of its nature is oral and it can be decades, centuries before oral stories are set down in the written record, where it becomes easier to trace a character or trope. 

But in folklore we also tend to not privilege written over oral narratives, focusing instead on beliefs, variations of tropes, and importance. Keeping this in mind, let's return to how Krampus' origins are most often presented:

Krampus, whose name is derived from the German word krampen, meaning claw, is said to be the son of Hel in Norse mythology. The legendary beast also shares characteristics with other scary, demonic creatures in Greek mythology, including satyrs and fauns.

The key elements that are repeated again and again, no matter the geography or culture of the narrative, is that Krampus is dark and animal in appearance. He is associated with Hel, the goddess of the underworld in the Poetic Edda. Some legends say he is her son. In Norse mythology the underworld is found in the North, full of ice, snow, and cold.

Again we have the ideas of balance and justice. Unlike Christian portrayals of Hell, Norse mythology does not portray the afterlife as punishment per se, but as a natural coda to life on Earth. It is just what comes after, a large geographic place that contains multitudes- heroes go to Valhalla, sefarers who die at sea may go "to the underwater abode of the giantess Ran." When Snorri Sturluson, a Christian historian writing in the thirteenth century" writes down many of these tales, he does shade the underworld as a less than neutral place, describing it more as a reward- Valhalla, and punishment-Hel, system.

We do know that we can start to trace Krampus roughly 1500 years ago, with his association with Santa. We do know that his revival in the last few years can be read as a need, a desire, for balance, a sense of justice. In a world where abusers still make money, are set free, face little to any consequences for their behavior-Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes,  C.K. Louis, Chris Hardwick, Johnny Depp (sadly the list goes on and on) it's not hard to understand why the presentation that there are clear consequences for evil behaviors, where men are punished, dealt with, face justice, would appeal to audiences.

Each of these figures, elves, fairies, and demons/devils are used throughout literature to represent specific issues. They are used to represent people we fear, or threats we construct.  Their appearance is a visual warning of the danger they represent. As the world seems to make less and less sense, both the idea that there is a system of justice, where the bad guy is easily identifiable, it is perhaps unsurprising that we collectively want a figure that we know is evil and a threat from first sight, who will mete out justice to those who deserve it. A sense of clarity in opposition to false information and gaslighting is a welcome presentation.

But I also think that the reverse is true. We can read erasing Santa's elvish, darker nature, discarding the elements deemed undesirable for selling millions of dollars of plastic crap, as a reflection of what we collectively see wrong int he world around us. Santa is no longer St. Nick who gives to those who are in need, or even Father Christmas, who rewards the good. Now he is a whitewashed (literally) figure who is used to market and reinforce the ever-growing need for more things, bigger things, more expensive things. The figure has become divorced from the meaning and instead has been re-inscribed with a different purpose, like some horrible golem. Rather than act for the good of others, a model of charity and gift-giving, he is now the figure who cons you into buying into a capitalistic fantasy.

How I Frakked Up About Hard Deadlines

Google "no late work" and the image results are pretty much exactly what you'd expect.

I cringe at most of these. They are cruel, they are arbitrary. They also seem really unnecessary.

But today I realized (too late) that hard deadlines no matter what form, are exactly the same. 

First, some background: This semester all my classes did grade conferences. All my classes had 75% of their grade as class activities. Come, participate and you're guaranteed a passing "C." These activities were formative, graded on completion rather than mastery of skills. 25% of their grade were summative assignments, major writing assignments. They could revise for a higher grade, and the last month of the semester I allowed them to make up any missing class activities by attending campus events and doing a short write up. There was a hard deadline for making up missing work or submitting revised work- two weeks before the end of the semester.

I can tell you that my logic for this was based on grading contracts- come and do your best and you'll pass, that allowing to make up and revise work helps them, that a hard deadline would enable them to clear the decks so to speak and focus on their writing portfolio.

But I realized a couple of big things, and I realized them in staggering order.

First, I realized that my no attendance, no penalty for late work policies, which I have to enable students to be adults and prioritize what they needed, enabled them to do just that, especially at the end of the semester, so they did. Like John Warner I initially wondered, "why don't you want to come to MY class..."

Then I realized that I was taking this personally, that my class was functioning exactly the way it was supposed to. 

Second, I realized as students attended campus events to make up zeroes for missed class assignments that I had a flaw in the system and an inspiration. A lot of students commented that they liked that this made them go to events, which they enjoyed, but would not normally have gone to. So I made a profile of a campus resource a major writing assignment for composition. The flaw was that I intended the class activities to act as a grading contract, encouraging them to come to class. But then I paradoxically gave zeroes for missed days, which seemed to counter my no attendance policy/no penalty approach, and then countered myself AGAIN by not letting students make these up, because they were "in class" activities, and then, because apparently I'm rubbish, countered myself AGAIN by letting them make them up with campus activity write ups at the end of the semester.

I'm exhausted just writing that. I can't imagine what my students felt, although not a single one mentioned this in their cover letters.

Also, this was all in my syllabus, so I'm "covered" I guess, but I'm confessing now, that was a bunch of BS. I got hung up on letter of the law and lost the forest for the trees (and apparently mixed my metaphors).

IF I wanted students to come to class because it was interesting, and they learned things BUT ALSO be able to prioritize what they needed to then, I could not grade in any way class activities they had to be present for. So, next semester upper level classes grade conference at midterms and finals and composition classes only have three major writing assignments and their writing portfolio, each counting 25%. I'm still going to do the class activities. I'll still ask them to turn things in so I can see where they are. I'm just not going to grade them. I'm going to use them, they just won't go into the gradebook. Here is where I feel the need to point out that well-intentioned, up on the research, teachers can still screw up royally because we're countering decades of how we taught and were taught. It's not an excuse. But I hope it conveys how different a lot of things would be if we taught grading and assessment in a very different way from the beginning.

The hard deadlines though is where I really frakked up, and I'll tell you why- if a student did the work why would I not grade it?

I had a few of students who came in today, for most their final exam period for my class, and they ran the spectrum (came to class, were passing, haven't seen in weeks, failing a lot, could not remember their name it'd been so long since I'd seen them, etc.), who with a sheaf of papers in hand asked if I would take their work.

And I said no. 

I explained that there had been a hard deadline to turn in missing or revised work, that the deadline as 25 November, that this was announced repeatedly in class and on Blackboard, and that this deadline was passed.

And suddenly I'm the principal in Dangerous Minds who turns the kid away because he didn't knock. And I feel like a piece of shit.

I can rationalize that this was the policy, it was announced, it was emphasized, it would not be fair to bend rules for today's students when so many others met deadline. I can rationalize that if I haven't seen them since October their work probably would not have been passing, that there's a bit of truth to seat time. I can tell you my logic behind this decision- that it would enable me time to grade all the make up work so going into the last day of class they'd have their accurate grade, that it would enable them to focus on finals.

But, and let me say this very clearly, this was wrong. *I* was wrong.


I did grade conferences, there is no work to grade. I do not have a pile of 150 essays to get through. I have no rubrics to circle. I've been sitting in my office looking at Baby Not-Yoda gifs and writing blog posts. Part of the rationale, that I know I'm not alone in, is the "but what if no one did any work on time and everyone waited until the last minute?"

First, this will never happen. They're juggling lots of classes and other responsibilities, they won't do this to themselves.
Second, if it did, in some bizarro world, then there would just be a really long line down the hallway as folks waited to grade conference.
That's it, that's the nightmare scenario.  A queue.

And the fear of that, that inconsequential thing, caused me to be a jerk.

It would have cost me nothing to sit down with those three students today, grade conference with them, talk to them. While in each case it would probably not have been enough to raise a 30 or 40 to a passing 75, they would have been heard. They would have been listened to. Maybe that moment would be enough to get them to reflect, come back, do better. I was petty and there is no good reason for it. Another student asked to make up a class activity and I said no for the same reason. This was unkind.

No student disappears from a class for no reason. The first few weeks I always email checking in, but honestly, if they don't answer, three weeks of emails is usually when I stop. And now I feel like shit because who gives up on a student?

Any rationalization is the kind of gate-keeping bullshit ego trip I hate, and could have sworn I didn't suffer from. It's ego to lecture them about deadlines. They know. It's ego to say no instead of asking, how are you, what's going on? It's ego to think I'm in the right and they're not. It is ego to somehow think I'm teaching them a lesson about responsibility, or coming to class, or reading the syllabus. To take it personally that they didn't come to my class, touch base with me, talk to me, let me know what was going on.

I was that dick professor.

So next semester I've taken my hard deadlines away. 
Instead my composition syllabus says:

When you turn in your major writing assignments you’ll meet with me to discuss it.  I will ask you what grade you think you deserve and why based on what we, as a class, determined the assignment should include.

• For these grade conferences you should have a copy (hard or electronic) of your assignment and be prepared to answer that question, using support/evidence from your assignment
• I suggest you take notes on the feedback you receive, next steps, ways to improve

• There is no penalty for late work, and you can grade conference any missing work until the final exam day and time
• Once the schedule grade conference day for each major writing assignment has passed I put in Fs for missing work so your grade is always up to date and accurate, so you can make your own academic choices and prioritize work
• Deadline to grade conference any missing or revised work is the scheduled final exam time
• You must earn a “C” (75%) in Composition to receive

But my intent does not negate the impact on those students.

So I can only realize what a colossal frak up this all was, reflect, admit I was wrong, and design a better way for next time.

I think it's important to be public and open about these things.

I also think we really, REALLY need to start teaching teachers a different and better way.

Goodbye, Christmas

The last few years,  being completely on my own, has made Christmas complicated for me. For one, when it's just me and Nehi I find introverted self just happy to have time off with no people and sweatpants.

The last few years as I've pared down, done more with less, I've applied this minimalism outlook to the holidays. I do not spend thousands on things. I try to be mindful. It helps that I have friends and family that I don't really ever know what to get them so it's been easy to send them New Mexican food- spices, dips, soups as gifts. I also stopped having a tree for a while. At the time the idea of spending money on- what? just seemed ridiculous.

Too, a lot of this is all tied up with my Mom. Despite not being a practicing Christian, Christmas was her holiday. It started as soon as you saw Santa at the end of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. The tree went up the next day and was decorated. Dozens, and dozens, and DOZENS of cookies got made. Presents filled the space under the tree. The Christmas movie marathon was 24 hours a day. For my Mom, Christmas was magical. And she was often unwilling to let go of her magical time with the tree often staying up well past it being a fire hazard- past the twelve days, deep into January, one year I seem to recall it still being up on my birthday on February 3rd.

Mom was a dreamer, and while she never articulated this, I think the reason the season was magical to her, appealed to her so much was because it had the potential to make people better.

She believed in the lesson of It's a Wonderful Life, that if given the chance people would rally, do what's right, give to others, be better.
For her, whose life was hard, and never lived up to what she dreamt for herself, the magic of the season was the magic of possibility.

After she died, I had a really hard time with Christmas. The first year after I recreated everything she had done. No one but me seemed to care, or even notice. The couple of years after I tried, but my heart wasn't in it. Then I was out in Albuquerque, on my own, and I honestly didn't see the point. One year I decorated, but was so over it all that the tree came down Christmas morning and I packed everything away.

Last year I think I pulled out a few decorations and bought a wreath but that was it. I pulled way back. I also stopped feeling like I had to keep up with some ridiculously god-like power of getting the perfect gift, spending enough money to prove- hell, I don't know. I went simple. One book, one thing I knew people would like, one fun thing, food for extended family.

This year I am in my own house, so it seemed silly and somehow wrong NOT to decorate. I had both the space and time to pull everything out and look at it, toss junk I'd been carting around for years, more carefully store some things, pull out what I wanted. 

I listened to Christmas music while I did it and it was fun.

Last night I looked at Nehi, with her wagging tail hitting the lower branches and knocking the ornaments, and wondered what the hell I was doing.

There was no family gathering to decorate the tree. No ceremony, no celebration the way there was with Mom. In fact all the decorating was a fairly robotic unpacking and just putting things out. There was no satisfaction, no magic, no love in any of it. I enjoyed choosing presents for people this year- big food baskets for the extended, some fun things for godparents, and more immediate family. Presents for a friend were not a surprise but exactly what she wanted, so happiness on that one.

I looked at the ornaments on the tree, many of which are as old as I am, others that trace our childhood, ones made in class, handmade creations of Popsicle sticks and hardened (rotted?) gingerbread. There's the little dragon Mom got me my first Christmas after college. The Glinda the Good Witch. The Star Wars themed ornaments from a couple years ago Dad got me.

And all of a sudden sitting on the couch, staring at all this I was crushed, weighed down, overcome by the past, by the idea that there was nothing alive about any of those things. They were a simulcrum of things past, holding only distant echoes of whatever experience, or emotions they once were. I wondered why I had put the ornaments out. I looked at the minimal decorations I had put out and suddenly decided I did not want to do Christmas anymore.

• St. Nicholas was a Christian bishop that cared for the needy. His saint's day is 6 December, the day after Krampusnacht yet that day, and the season surrounding it is not about giving to the needy. It has become a "keeping up with the Joneses," "push people down over that year's hot toy" capitalistic hellscape. People may pay lip service to caring for those less fortunate, but they don't actually do anything. Thanksgiving and Christmas are big days for volunteering at food pantries, and many get in those last tax deductable donations before the new year, but how many people who claim to be Christians are carrying their faith, the message of their religion, into the world, and providing a model? Certainly the hypocrites who are fine with kids in cages have no problem unironically putting up their creche. I know the racist down the street who complains about "those Mexicans" was the first in our neighborhood to put out her Christmas decorations.

• The popular culture image of Santa, his duties, and his reindeer, have their origins an 1823 poem. It is here that he is identified as an elf, and has elves that work from him, borrowing from the Nisse and Tomte tradition. The image of Father Christmas in England and Santa in North America comes mostly from the cartoonist Thomas Nast whose 1881 illustration, Merry Old Santa, featured a plump man in a red-suit, with a pipe and a rosy complexion, although the image below appeared in 1868 and was not about the needy or giving but marketing. 

Coca-Cola did not invent this image of Santa but their version certainly became the most recognizable one moving forward.

But as Eddie Izzard says- what's all this got to do with the birth of Jesus Christ in a manger?

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

When I moved here I went to drop off my parish paperwork, and then go to Mass. Instead I went home. I had interviewed at a religious school and one of the biggest questions I had was whether or not my morals would allow me to teach at a place that foundationally told many students that their presence was a sin, that they were abominations. The people were nice, and I really liked them, but this question haunted me. Ultimately they chose someone else so I was saved my moral choice. But this is why I stopped going to Mass. I loved the comfort, the history, the weight, of the Catholic Church but I could no longer stand in front of students and in any way justify being a part of an institution that had done so much wrong and judged my students so horribly.

So, if we take the "Christ out of Christmas" which Christians in the culture wars SWEAR is the agenda, versus the Supreme Court which declared Christmas trees were secular, what does that leave us with?

When I was growing up as atheist/agnostic (Mom taught me about Santa, but not Jesus, and we never went to church) I always felt ostracized by the seeming-decoder ring aspect of Christianity, the quizzes, the scorn, the constant feeling that I was an outsider, and out of place not just because I did not go to church three times a week and Vacation Bible School, but also because I was fairly loud, even as a child, about the fact that we should NOT have daily prayer in public school, that there shouldn't be Christmas trees, or religious carols, in a public school setting (yeah, I was REAL popular). Even when I converted to Catholicism in college, I never thought these things belonged in a public school or university setting because I would never want a student to feel like I once did. My faith was my faith, but it was private.

So, I circle back to thinking maybe my mom had it right. I think it comes back to wanting to believe people can be better, for needing some magic in the world, and wanting to believe in the power of redemption. Maybe it's simply Seasonal Affective Disorder and we all need a little light this time of year. 

But what does that mean? In A Christmas Carol, and all its revisions, like Scrooged, a closed off old man is shown the error of his ways, repents, and dedicates his life to doing better. Someone on Twitter the other day wondered why there was no Scrooge-type movie starring Donald Trump, and the answer is simple, there is no hope for his redemption, he does not want it, he does not think he needs it. He is proud of what he has done, and who he is. He'd probably ask the ghosts to prove citizenship and then tweet his complaints about them breaking into his penthouse.

Perhaps a better example of what the season can be is the 2000 movie The Family Man starring Nicholas Cage and Téa Leoni. Jack is not a bad man, well, not really. He is not cruel, he does not fire people, or scream, ruin their lives. He is a businessman, in true Wall Street style, who is focused on having and displaying that he has the best life can offer. He makes people work on Christmas, but believes the deal they'll score is the best gift. While it's tangentially a Scrooge revision, there are some notable differences. Cash, as played by Don Cheadle, offers Jack a "glimpse" of what his life could have been if he'd just made a single different choice. There are no ghosts and the "glimpse" lasts past Valentine's Day so the plot is more Sliding Doors than A Christmas Carol as Jack is allowed to live out the life he would have had if he had not left his college sweetheart. Christmas may be what enables the magic but it is not the center of the story.

The center of the story is the love between Jack and Kate. The life they have, the happiness, the joy. Yes, it is not the life Jack had, or imagined he wanted (I mean, it DOES take place in Jersey...just kidding!) It is a life of budgets, and getting by, but it's not poverty, and the life he has with Kate and their two children is a good one.

In fact the only real fight Jack and Kate have in the glimpse is about him complaining what their life could have been versus what it is and Kate's response is, "You know, it's sad to hear that your life is such a disappointment." She is perfectly happy with their life, and the Jack she knows, not the one who is having his "glimpse," is too.

In this way the movie pushes against easy comparisons to It's a Wonderful Life. Jack does learn his lesson. He does grow. He realizes that what could make him happy in life is not material goods. George Bailey does not learn anything. Out of everything he sees, what makes him decide this world without him cannot abide is that Mary is fine without him- single and working, but apparently fine.

Twitter has a lot of fun with the fact that the "fate worse than anything" that George sees is Mary being single and a librarian (sounds heavenly to me).

Growing up, long before NBC made it a thing, this was the movie we watched on Christmas Eve. Mom loved it, again because I think it reinforced her idea of redemption and magic and the survival of the human spirit. I grew up thinking the community coming together was not only magical but just how communities should be. I knew Potter was evil, not just for stealing the money, but because he ONLY seemed interested in money, putting greed over people as a default not an exception. But as I grew up, the magic of the movie did not hold up.

First, there's George Bailey, who's pretty much a douchebag to everyone in his life. He makes his choices, he chooses family and community, but then makes everyone around him pay for these choices. He's short with his children, abusive to his wife Mary, and resentful of his brother not paying his own family dues. George Bailey is selfish and unkind. The movie wants the audience to see him as a victim, but as I grew up I saw in him a hundred people I knew who were miserable in their own lives because of their own choices, and then turned around and made every single person around them miserable, as though everyone had to be dragged down with them. George does not pull his own weight in his family, he claims martyr status and then leaves the work of the family and home to Mary. He is not a good father or a good husband. Yet after placing everyone's future's in jeopardy, he is not just saved, he is rewarded, literally presented as the savior of the town without whom all would be lost, and he gets money on top of all this, his sins and behaviors seemingly forgotten by all.

As an adult too much of the movie doesn't hold up. The lessons fray when held up to the light. 

A lot of the magical movies my mother loved are the same. Holiday Inn has that horrific blackface scene and features a love triangle with fairly manipulative men viewing the woman as a trophy. It still bugs me that Scrooge faces no consequences for all the damage he's done. One Magic Christmas seems a little too cruel to teach the lesson of Christmas, although Harry Dean Stanton's Gideon makes me cry. Santa Claus the Movie seems ridiculous, and like someone lost a pitch bet. Kevin McCallister is annoying as shit. I used to love the Grinch, and the Whovilles (Mom always called it roast beast) but too many live action movie money grabs have made even the Whos down in Whoville lose their luster. The claymation crew- Santa, Rudolph, Frost, with each iteration seem less than, and honestly Elf co-opting all of it tarnished them as well.

Nowadays, I just don't watch them. Each viewing seemed to strip them of their magic in my memories more and more so I decided to let them cling to what glitter is still left and pack them away. Scrooged seems safe, as does National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Gremlins, Die Hard, these seem safe. You cannot take Charlie Brown's Christmas Special and the magical music of the Vince Guaraldi Trio away from me (but Imma gonna ignore the very troublesome religious play in the middle of a public school with no adult supervision). I did used to like when television shows I watched did Christmas themed shows but now they're all on break from November to February, so no more of that.

When I was in high school there was a counselor, who went onto be a teacher, who wore a Christmas sweater, earrings, and necklace and bracelet every day from when we got back from Thanksgiving until we were out for winter break (which by the way, everyone called Christmas break). It always made me smile, and when I taught high school I scoured Goodwill after the holidays and shopped online for funny, often pop-culture related gear. Soon I too had a sweater for every day (although I skipped the accessorizing). The students seems to think it was funny and it made an often hard time of the semester easier, or brighter maybe.

But this year, as I railed against there being a Christmas tree up in a public institution with no other religions representations to be seen, I started to rethink my holiday wear. Yes, many of them were penguins, and polar bears, and dogs in sleighs, all clearly secular winter themed subjects. But there is the Gremlins one, the AT Walker on Hoth, both of which are secular, kinda? Hoth definitely is. And then there's my favorite Nakatomi Christmas Party 1988 sweatshirt. Secular- maybe? The cat sweater that says Merry Meowmas, definitely not. The Island of Misfit Toys tee with "Misfits" written like the band? Not sure what argument I'd make there. Again, happy to make people smile, but I wouldn't any student to see me, what I'm wearing, and think for any reason that I would not be accepting of them, listen to them, value them, teach them. So I'm thinking next year I'll just make students' days bright finals week by offering them chocolate (wait, are red, green, and silver Hershey's kisses non-denominational?)

So if I don't want the holiday wear, the historic ornaments, the commercialism, the movies, my deep thought last night was, why do I even celebrate Christmas?

Peer pressure.

It's everywhere.

Think I get shit for telling people I don't celebrate Thanksgiving? Try telling them that about Christmas. The onslaught begins even before Thanksgiving, in Lowe's the Christmas displays were up alongside the pumpkins and Halloween decorations.

Americans have erased other holiday traditions and religious holidays from the winter calendar and the popular imagination, Eight Crazy Nights not withstanding. Asking for parity is almost always greeted with accusations of you starting a "War on Christmas" and "Hating Santa" and something-something culture wars.

So I wondered, having listed all the things I just can't make myself do anymore, what exactly DO I want to do?

Rumor has it we have Martin Luther to thank for indoor trees, and ignoring the religious context, I love the idea that "Walking toward his home one winter evening, composing a sermon, he was awed by the brilliance of stars twinkling amidst evergreens. To recapture the scene for his family, he erected a tree in the main room and wired its branches with lighted candles." 

I do think that offering brightness of light during the darkest of seasons is a good thing. So I'll keep my blue and white snowflake outdoor lights. 

And I do love the way the house smells with balsam wreaths and a balsam tree. But I think my tree lights will be white. I think the ornaments with the weighed down history and narratives will get put away, for good, in their boxes (although as the single, childless keeper of the history through tchotchkes and knick-knacks I do often wonder who I'm keeping all these things safe for).

I think keeping with the theme of a light in darkness I'll decorate with white and silver and gold stars, and snowflakes, and suns, and reindeer.

I think I'll put Mom's Grinch music box but no longer put up her stocking.

I think I'll put out the candle holders that look like something from Krypton.

I think I'll give to charities of underrepresented groups, both for myself, and buy gifts from these creators for presents.

I think I'll make more of an effort to support small businesses, not big conglomerates as I make consumer decisions.

I think I'll be mindful of what would bring light to friends and family in dark days, and what is mindful and impactful, as I consider presents.

I think I will not send Christmas cards, but maybe send a select few winter-themed cards to catch some people, true friends, up on what I'm doing, and because real mail is magic.

I think practically I'll decorate during Genocide Break because we're off, and take it all down before I go back to work.

I think I will try to believe in redemption, that every day is a chance to make things better, and try to be the best person I can be, today, this season, and every day.

I think there are worst ways to go.