7:52
When I started studying for the LSAT for the second time, in 2000, the first question I encountered on the logical reasoning section was about a bumble bee. I bumbled (pun intended a little bit — it’s the bourbon typing) the question because I overthought it. I imagined contingencies that the question refused to countenance. I saw multiplicities, unintended consequences, and none of the answers was on my side. Eventually I learned to simplify, to stay within the boundaries of the question, and I got a perfect score on the LSAT. That was the last time I was perfect.
I’m also a disaster at personality assessments and magazine quizzes. Do they mean always? More often than not? On Tuesdays when I’m not busy? With beloved friends or strangers? When I was young or now? But now I’m particularly anxious, so maybe they mean when I’m not anxious. Except, aren’t I always anxious? But how anxious?
This is my oblique approach to the question that I can’t answer: What do you do for fun? Variation: What is “play” for you? Please ask me something else. But, no, the authors of Designing Your Life won’t budge. They want me to evaluate myself on play:
“activity that is done just for the pure sake of doing it. It can include organized activity or productive endeavors, but only if they are done for fun and not merit…. Play is all about joy… Play is any activity that brings you joy when you do it. When an activity is done to win, to advance, to achieve — even if it’s ‘fun’ to do so–it’s not play… The question here is what brings you job purely in the doing.”
Can I have another question, please? The authors also ask me to evaluate myself on health, work, and love. You’d think I’d stumble on love but in fact I’m rock solid. I have lots more love in my life, or I recognize lots more love in my life, than I did a year ago. I’m also much clearer on what is and isn’t love. I don’t have all the varieties of love I want, but I understand the question. Work has a complicated answer, but again I understand the question. Health, I’m also solid, even on mental and spiritual dimensions. I’m lagging spiritually, as always, but I know what it means.
Fun. Play. What are those things? I find fun and play in the other things I do. I find joy in the instrumental things, like cooking to feed myself and walking to work and walking to synagogue with Milo. And thank God, because I am not sure I do anything at all that is not instrumental. I read. I read Louise Penny and other mysteries, not just excellent improving books (although I AM very literary. I just choose otherwise sometimes. Often. When I’m stressed I read mysteries. I have read mysteries almost exclusively for the last three years. Or five. ) I deeply enjoy yoga, but there is an edge of advancement and improvement. I try to go for slow, aimless walks, but I find myself speeding up, my heart pounding, taking the hills. And that’s fun, but would I do it if it weren’t good for me? Cooking, but I get sad when it turns out badly, so that’s clearly instrumental. Blogging? It’s not joy as much as it is unpicking tightly, wrongly woven stitches. Sighing and starting again at the beginning. I aim to knit. It seems soothing. Is soothing instrumental? It doesn’t sound like joy.
And yet, I want to believe, ALL evidence to the contrary, that I am a fun person. Cruel men have told me otherwise, when I decline to do what they want me to do: “You’re no fun.” I have a lot of joy in my life, even more in the last year when what I thought was my life was falling apart all around me like a building imploding in a summer blockbuster. Milo and I make each other laugh till we can’t speak, and we go on and on and on.
Is this a gendered question? Can women in families ever detach from instrumentalism? I’m about to find out, aren’t I, as Milo chooses to spend most of his time in the only home he’s ever known, which is not where I will live. Creating my new apartment is fun, and instrumental because a person needs tables and chairs and rugs.
I can see coming to understand this question. The previous question that used to stump me, stop me cold, cause tears of frustration was, “What do you *want* to do?” What I wanted to do was a good job. What I wanted to do was please, appease, get an A, exceed the standard, be praised and therefore loved. Wasn’t that enough? What do you want me to do, oh questioner? Tell me and turn me loose and we’ll both be happy. I am better now at this question. I know the answer more often than not, and I know when to ask it. It tugs at me when I pick up the improving book (Jennifer Egan’s Manhattan Beach. I don’t think I trust her after Visit From the Goon Squad. She didn’t answer the essential question, “how did they get from A to B?” I could have forgiven her in the name of experimental fiction, but then she put it in the mouth of one of her characters, which seemed like a cruel wink. She knew what she was doing and she knew it was mean. I don’t like mean girls. But Manhattan Beach is supposed to be straight up traditional narrative. Still…. I also have Homegoing, which I really wanted to read when it first came out. But it still seems improving-ish. So I read the second Joe Ide IQ novel, which was less wonderful than the first. And not very literary. But that former professor of mine can go jump in a lake. I read Hopscotch for his class, which was not fun at all.) It reminds me, per Mara Glatzel (she’s quite good, and quite woo-woo), that I should eat before I unload the dishwasher, go to the bathroom before I finish the email, get some water even when I’m late to the meeting.
What will that even be like, not to pay the debt to my family in the form of laundry and dishes and housework before I leave the house to go to yoga on Sunday?
I texted this question to three beloved friends. Two have responded and they don’t really know either. So I’m leaning towards it being a gendered thing.
8:31