Procrastination by way of genealogy

My hobby recently, in an effort to both avoid writing my paper for PSU and distract myself from the hell that is waiting to hear back on my PhD apps, has been genealogy.*

Genealogy is one of those rare hobbies that even other genealogists simply do not want to hear about. No matter how fascinating your family history is,** or how many of those family members were alive in recent memory, it's simply not interesting to anyone other than yourself.*** Even other genealogists in the family start to glaze over after 10 minutes. My grandmother will go on for hours about the family, and even though it's my family too, I quickly start wondering exactly why anyone cares.****

I've discovered why: it's addictive. You may nod in agreement, but I don't think you understand. I've barely been at work on my tree for a month, and I've already added 1,800 people who are somehow related to me.

1,800.

Clearly, genealogy is the best procrastination device ever created.

Part of the attraction is that my grandmothers (yes, both of them - I really didn't stand a chance) had already done a fair bit of genealogical work. On my mother's side (the less obsessive side of the family), this mostly took the form of the back of shopping lists scribbled with names and dates taken from gravestones, along with a couple cheat-sheets created by my mother. (wait, Duffy was whose mother? So who are the O'Learys, then?) On the obsessive side of the family, I had access to 6 stapled reams of paper detailing each ancestry line back either to 17th century Massachusetts or to the 19th century immigration from Ireland (usually the latter). Both these things were useful for laying the groundwork, and after that, ancestry dot com was happy to provide me with census listings and birth certificates and the like.

I found my grandparents' marriage license. How cool is that? They'd probably rather I didn't, as it was only 6 months before my mother was born. Oops.

What I find most fascinating, however, are the glimpses of average life from the 19th and early 20th century. My great-great grandmother married to save herself from the almshouse - which is where her mother spent 50 years, because neither of her two children were ever settled enough to take her in. I wondered why she didn't get a divorce when her husband left her in 1900. But how could she have, with 12 children at home, and her mother waiting in the poor house? Her sister married three times for the same reason - but even that wasn't enough, for after her death, her own daughter ended up in the almshouse as well.

My god-knows-how-many great grandmother, Mary, stated in 1900 that she was a mother of 13, but only 4 were living. All but one survived infancy. Two died before they reached 13. One died in the Civil War. Three died around 1880, between the ages of 14 and 18 - presumably from the same disease. One died at 41, and one died in prison.

Granted, Mary lived to be 80, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that she outlived so many children. But it really is quite sobering.

Oops, sorry - I think I just did what I complained about at the start of the post. (are you glazing over yet?)***** But there's the point: genealogy isn't necessarily interesting. History, at least as far as I'm (and probably you're) concerned, is. But history, especially modern American history, tends to, by necessity, gloss over the majority of people. While I was the curator of the now-defunct colony museum, I researched and exhibited about the wealthy, famous artists who lived there. The ordinary, working class people, however, only showed up when they did something notable for the "important" people - when they were their housekeepers, or their models, or their mistresses.

The flip-side is the attention that we now pay to the lowest in society: the immigrant girls working in the mills; the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire; the slums. With such extremes, it's easy to forget that there was a middle ground, especially in the rural areas where there weren't factories or wealthy artists.

Out of all 1800 people that I've found in my tree, only one young woman ever worked in a mill. Only one was an artist. Most were farmers, laborers, furniture makers, lumberjacks. Most did absolutely nothing of note, whether that be producing artwork or fighting for humane working conditions.

It's nice to be reminded of that once in a while. History is written by the victors, but it's made up of the millions of people of little-to-no note.

Maybe that's why genealogy is so dull: it's just the ordinary people, without the historic struggle or the glamour. Some days, though, I think I'd rather talk about the woman who watched 9 of her children die than the artist who produced triumphal monuments, using his mistress as the model.

* You can add "avoid writing a new blog post" to the list. It's been 5 months since my last post, but I'm going to pretend it hasn't been nearly that long. Blame Twitter for my prolonged absence.

** Do you know how many Mehitables are in my family? More than 5, and that's already more than 5 too many.

*** Worse than Mehitable, if you can imagine such a thing, is Mindwell. Seriously, who names their kid that? It practically guarantees she won't mind well, if only to spite you.

**** I'm not sure about Brainard as a name, either. Brainard's almost as popular in my family tree as Glen(n), which is rather nicer - but I'd actually recommend the former, as all the Glen(n)s in my family took off and left their wives and children. Seriously - Glen(n) doesn't have a good track record among the Vaulting ancestors.

***** Patrick, on the other hand, is a lovely name, but with 2 Patrick Duffys, 3 Patrick Costellos, a Patrick Byrne, a Patrick O'Leary and a Patrick Magee in my family history, I'm going to recommend against.

Medieval Art History at Kalamazoo, or the lack thereof

The most wonderful time of the year is fast approaching. That's right, just over three weeks until Kalamazoo, the most epic of medieval gatherings, and the best excuse we've found to abuse the open bar and make fools of ourselves in front of our colleagues.

Vellum and I will be gleefully attending this year, as Kalamazoo virgins. Do be kind. After the fun that was Leeds last year, how could we say no? (especially as a hop across the pond to Leeds this year isn't happening) Vellum will actually be co-presenting a paper, so direct your serious conversation toward him; I'm just there for the open bar, and possibly to stalk Terry Jones.

So, in the spirit of getting the festivities underway, let's talk shop. At present, there are 614 sessions, spread across 12 time slots, with god knows how many papers being presented therein. Woefully few of these deal with medieval art or architecture. This, naturally, distresses me. And so you get another rant.

The problem with Medieval Art History is that it's the awkward cousin of both Art History and Medieval Studies. He's nice enough, and kind of cute, but he stares too much, your parents make you dance with him at the 7th grade dance (which totally ruins your life for at least a week), he laughs too loudly, and he tries to get you to join his dorky RPG games, in front of ALL your friends.

Or at least, he was - until you ran into him at your sister's wedding 15 years later, and he's hot, funny, and a consultant for historical movies - when he's not cooking at the trendy Korean place downtown. But you've lost your chance to have a cool friend, because while he's perfectly friendly, and laughs at your jokes, you can tell he remembers all those times when you ignored him on the bus and made fun of him in front of the entire gym class. And so you sit with your champagne, wishing you'd figured out how cool he was going to be before he got there, so you could hang out with someone more fun than your unemployed roommate.

That's Medieval Art History, and it's going to be ultra-cool in a few years. But for now, everyone's sitting around and ignoring it, smiling politely when it pops up with new evidence for Anglo-Saxon material culture, and the earliest written vernacular Italian, and rolling their eyes after it's bustled off to follow up on its new ideas. "It's very interesting," everyone says, nodding politely, before going back to analyzing the use of weaponry in Beowolf.

And this would be fine, except Art History is exactly the same, except more patronising. You know, Medieval Art History just hasn't figured it out yet, and it's so inferior to Renaissance or Baroque, and why does it keep popping up at our parties? It's so badly put together, and the colors are so wrong, and they don't even know who painted it - how can we be supportive? It's not really even Art History at all, it's almost like.... History. Ugh.

So Medieval Art History keeps bouncing back and forth, offering up a new interpretation of the Annunciation iconography, or maybe something on the use of color in Gospel illuminations? Or... wait, Art History, you'll love this: a new name for the artist who carved the brusque sculptures on the façade of St-Trophime! Right, because you love names, right? The artists? Right? Um, well, Medieval History, you'll really be interested in what the portal sculptures at Chartres say about the 12th century understanding of the Creation! Theology?

*sigh*

So listen up: in ten years, Medieval Art History is going to be the coolest guy at the party, so you'd better get your ass in gear and befriend him now, before he's too cool to need your friendship. Ok?

All right, seriously: it certainly feels like this sometimes. I'm still quite surprised at how few art history sessions there are at Kalamazoo. The ICMA is sponsoring 5 sessions, and that's the bulk of what's happening. There are a few more on architecture, and a few assorted papers dealing with space and identity - but that's really about it. Part of the problem is that noted art historians are working outside their area, doing that interdisciplinary thing that's so popular these days. But no one seems to be picking up the slack in the art and architecture area.

Fortunately, this problem is one that's easily solved. Vellum and I are planning on proposing a couple of sessions for next year, at least one of which will be art historical in nature. But I think Kalamazoo is indicative of a greater problem in the field of Medieval Studies. I think the field of Art History is right to be wary of Medieval Art, because there are such profound differences between Art History Since 1500 and Art History Before 1500. I have trouble classifying myself as an Art Historian because I have no interest in a particular artist's talents or weaknesses, his/her use of color, the quality of his/her technique, or the general aesthetic value of the work. It's hard to care about any of that when you work with 12th century artworks, where the color is all but gone, the artist is entirely unknown - and probably didn't consider himself an artist, but rather, a stonemason - and you're lucky to simply know what technique was used, never mind how well it was used. As far as scholarship goes, I have little in common with a Renaissance Art Historian, never mind an Impressionist one. So I don't blame the rest of the field of Art History for being wary of medievalists. I do, however, blame the rest of the Medieval Studies field for steering clear. I haven't figured out why this is the case yet, but I'll be sure to let you know if I do.

There, now the rant is really over. Expect another Kalamazoo post. I promise a survey of the entertaining typos one might find in this year's programme.


-Vaulting



(photo courtesy of Sexy People and Johnny's willingness to put his childhood photos online for all to mock. We salute you, sir.)

Supporting the Nielsen surveys

I don't watch a lot of TV. Blame it on too many years without a means of viewing cable (sophomore year of undergrad: ecstatic to find BBC News on the rabbit ears), or too much relocation (junior year: TV is not as much fun when everyone is speaking Italian), or just plain old too-high expectations. Regardless, my TV watching consists of occasional Mythbusters, downloaded episodes of Doctor Who, and once in a while, a nostalgic episode of The X-Files.

So imagine my dismay and ironic amusement at finding a postcard in the mail, informing me that I would be contributing to that great surveying body, the Nielsen Ratings. Apparently, I will receive a substantial package in several days, which will ask me about my TV viewing habits. My initial plan was simply to respond to every question with Pushing Daisies (recently cancelled).

Favorite TV show? Pushing Daisies.
Programmes you regularly tune in to? Pushing Daisies.
Typical viewing time? Pushing Daisies.

Etc.

(please note, this is mostly out of a righteous sense of vindication for fans of the late television show: I only ever watched a couple episodes. I did, however, enjoy those episodes).

But then it occurred to me that perhaps I should be a little more responsible. After all, I actually give thought to my programming choices; not everyone does. Isn't it about time that someone called out The History Channel's bizarre, conspiracy-riddled programming? Or praised the Sci-Fi channel's continuous rotation of Star Trek reruns? Or begged for the end of evening soap operas? (Brothers and Sisters, Grey's Anatomy, etc. etc. and, alas, etc.) So I took the opportunity to sit down in front of the TV tonight to gain some insight into the current offerings.

And actually put in the effort to switch away from M*A*S*H reruns. I do enjoy M*A*S*H.

My SO and I ended up watching two hours of Top Gear, which I'm not sure qualifies (Nielsen probably has a very good idea of who's watching BBC America, and it's probably people just like me: i.e. not likely to benefit advertising campaigns). But we finished off the evening with some good quality American entertainment- and a pilot episode, nonetheless! So here you have my opinions on Castle, ABC's latest crime/thriller/Law and Order wannabe.

Castle (to give you a quick premise) is about a murder/thriller author (who is not at all like Stephen King, in any way, shape, or form, and clearly his name has nothing to do with Stephen King, either) who finds himself dragged into a murder investigation, headed by a gorgeous and witty but brainy and not made-up detective. He hangs about, looking for inspiration, and helps to break the case. There's lots of unresolved sexual tension, because he's a playboy and she's Brainy, so clearly not interested in him.

Perhaps you can guess where my criticism is going.

I enjoyed the episode; it was entertaining, Nathan Fillion is a riot, and even though I have no idea who Stana Katic is, I quite liked her, as well. However.

However.

This is a crime show. There are two main characters. Notice which one the series is named after. Ok, fair enough: he's the interesting bit, the bit that separates it from Law and Order and all its many copies. But the entire show is just another case of two leads, the interesting/quirky man and the straight-laced woman. Can't we have a quirky woman? Instead, we have the professional detective who obviously has issues because she's in charge of a bunch of men, and doesn't seem to have a social life, and doesn't like flirty men. OMG, she had a TRAGIC PAST, clearly! And she doesn't wear make-up! And she's a control-freak! Clearly, she needs saving.

I'm hoping this isn't actually the case, but things certainly seem to be pointing in that direction. All this evidence that we are not, in fact, in a post-sexist society is balanced out, however, by the wit in the show. The round-table of the crime authors (including the real life Stephen Cannell and James Patterson) was hilarious, as was the reveal at the conclusion of the hold-up-at-gunpoint: The safety was on.

So I'll give it another shot. I don't like to dismiss things outright simply because they are still caught in our male-dominated world. So I'll give the show kudos for a strong female lead who refuses to take shit, usually with a sidelong grin. But I'm certainly not impressed. Regardless, this will give me good fodder for the Nielsen survey: at least I can say I've watched some contemporary programming that didn't involve blowing up cars, dynamite, outhouses or alien planets.*

-Vaulting



*In order, those are Top Gear, Mythbusters, M*A*S*H and Doctor Who. Though scant, my TV habits at least cover a broad spectrum of genres.