Book group, and musings about adult parts

Book group was last night. The book was "Geek Love" by Katherine Dunn. My thought upon finishing reading it was, "I can't believe I read the whole thing." The "geek" in the title refers to carnival geeks, who bite the heads off of chickens. It goes downhill from there. I (Cleo) and other parts who slogged through reading it didn't enjoy the book at all. It's creepy and depressing, without much to say for it as something to spend one's time doing.

But I read it, because I know that the smart one likes to go to book group, and wouldn't be as happy there if I/we/she hadn't read the book. That's how the division of labor goes with intellectual or academic things: whoever is around gets through the reading, one way or another, and the smart one shows up to talk about things at the last minute. I never really know how it happens, but even with a book where I would swear that I had just run my eyes over the pages, not taking in a word, I turn out to have intelligent things to say, and can discuss it as though I spent a lot of time thinking about it. Plus, the smart one is pretty extroverted, in the limited sense that she really enjoys talking to people about academic things. So it's a bit of fun for her.

She realized, right at the start of group, that "Geek Love" was also a reference to "Greek Love," and if you view the book as a Greek tragedy, it's actually very interesting (that is, if you're interested in Greek tragedy, which I am not). The smart one really enjoyed the discussion, and had a lot of good things to say.

The other thing about book group, and this is a little scary, is that I've been invited (and agreed, heaven help me!) to lead book group in May. I have to choose the book and everything. On the one hand, I'm not worried about it, since I like to talk, and the people who come are very ready to discuss things, and they're engaged, and it's something I know I (as in, the smart one) is very good at doing. On the other hand, I'm really worried about choosing a book. What if people don't like it? What if I choose something really stupid for a book group? Do I choose a book that's a "usual" book group choice, or do I risk getting people irritated by choosing some genre fiction that I know I like and have wanted to discuss like this?

I mean, it's silly for me to worry. No joke, the smart one once taught a class where we had a deep intellectual discussion about Henry Huggins, a children's book by Beverly Cleary. Tied it into the cold war and everything. If I can do that, then any book with any intentional allusions will be fine!


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I've been thinking about how my adult parts work lately. It seems a little odd to me that I'd need to have as many as I do. On the one hand, I can see where it makes sense, at least with some parts.

The mama was created so I could be good at taking care of my younger siblings and home-making type things, and like it, and not feel utterly overwhelmed. So she does pretty much all of that stuff, and it's actually soothing and calming for her, rather than the aggravation or overwhelmed-ness that other parts feel.

The analyst showed up, I think, when I was about 14, so that I could cope with the knowledge that I really needed therapy "when I grow up" and look at everything directly, but very unemotionally. So, for instance, she's the one who can calmly and un-upsetly give the basics when I'm first talking to a therapist. And she can explain things, and give me a sense that, so long as I understand why someone is doing something, I can cope with it (like my family persistently using the n-word in "joking" reference to me).

But then, why is the analyst separate from the smart one? I guess in part, because the smart one needed to have absolutely no awareness of what it was like at home. When I am in the middle of a class, I can behave as though the only thing in the world for me is the intellectual topics at hand, and they are utterly separate from the emotionally fraught things that might be connected with them. And, unlike me, the smart one is confident that admitting she doesn't understand something is a sign of intelligence. It works for her, but she only deals with academics anyhow. Plus, she's incredibly intelligent.

Or why am I, Cleo (formerly "Queen of Denial"), separate from the smart one? Maybe because the smart one really, truly, completely needed to be no more than vaguely aware of how things were at home? Or because I am kind of in the middle, and behaved at school as though nothing was wrong at home, but also behaved at home as though.... my job was to hide things from everyone to keep us safe. To not write in a journal, or talk to people, or anything. To act like everything was under control and I knew what I was doing, and I needed no more help than what I specifically asked for (and I only asked for things I knew I could get). So I guess that's why I'm separate from the smart one.

I don't exactly know why the hip chyck is separate from any of the other adult parts. I know how she's different, but not why. She's more active and activist. I guess the main difference between her and the analyst is that she's focused way more outward than inward. She's more confident. She has more fun. And she's way more social, which is a very useful thing to have access to. Plus a few other things she does better than the other adult parts.

Not sure where I was going with this, but it's part of what I've been thinking about.