From This Vantage Point

During the ten weeks that my dad was sick, whenever I heard someone use the phrase "at least" in reference to my dad's illness, my gut burned with fury.  I didn't want any at-leasts, or rather I didn't want to have to have any.  I wanted my family to go back to the way it was, and, as I tearfully texted my husband late in the night after we brought Dad home from the Brain Tumor Clinic at Duke, I wanted my dad back.  It seems selfish and childish to me now, but I was in a state of shock and disbelief that that changes that had occurred in such a relatively short period of time had happened.  The doctors at Duke had promised us that the treatment Dad had gotten just after his appointment there was like "magic;" they told us that within 24 hours of getting the medicine we would notice an improvement.  Instead, though, probably due to the toll the stress of the trip had taken on him, he seemed worse.  To me, there certainly didn't seem to be any at-leasts in the picture at the time.

Dad, competing in a half-Ironman triathlon just weeks before his diagnosis

The at-leasts poured in from seemingly everywhere while he was sick and for awhile after he went on ahead; I realized even on my worst days of rage and despair that everyone who said those words did so in an effort to help: "at least he had his family around him the whole time he was sick;" "at least he had good insurance;" "at least you got to spend those extra weeks with him;" and then, the hardest to swallow, "at least you were with him when he died."  We even got a few at-leasts that weren't true ("at least he didn't suffer" being the most blaring untruth).  People were just trying to help, I told myself then and in the months that followed.  I knew it was true; I just hated that I was suddenly on the receiving end of such a phrase. Just having part of what I had or should have had didn't seem good enough.

The flag at half-mast at the cemetery on the day of dad's burial

Over the past six months or so, though, I've been thinking more about those at-leasts, and I've started to see them a little bit differently.  Don't get me wrong: I still long for the whole; it's just that I'm starting to see the value in the in between.

I think the change has come from my reading about the struggles of others - their challenges, illnesses, and grief mostly - and seeing that the people who seem to come out ok (that is, those who don't end up with a completely bitter outlook on life, one that seems so damn disrespectful to the people in their lives including, in the stories of grief, the person for whom they are grieving) are the ones who lean at least a little bit into the at-leasts.  

My dad wasn't a big believer in thinking about Worst Case Scenario; although he like to plan ahead, he frequently said that he thought worrying was a waste of time.  I'm actually not sure what he thought about at-leasts, if he thought about them at all.  I know he was a positive thinker, though, and I can see now that at-leasts fit into to that way of thinking, which is further evidence that it's not a bad idea for me to reconsider my view on that point of reference.

From this vantage point on the road of grief, I can see the value of at-leasts.  Saying "at least" in reference to one's own troubles is a way of keeping perspective; it's a way of reminding ourselves that, while we are powerless to change certain situations and to stop certain things from going wrong, we have a choice in how we view things, even (and maybe especially) in the midst of tragedy and hardship.

And so I have changed my opinion on at-leasts: I believe in the goodness of at-leasts and of positive attitudes; I believe that each of us has the power to take tough circumstances and bad breaks and find the good in those situations.  And that, more than anything, is what gets me through the day now.

The Days In Between

I often wonder why it is that there are certain things about a person that aren’t often fully realized or recognized until after that person’s physical presence is gone.  Do we not see those things because we aren’t paying close enough attention?  Do we not take the time to consider the value of our interaction with and of the lessons learned from that person?  Do we see it on some level and just not think about it, articulate it, or appreciate it until we see that that’s all there is?  Is our view - or our awareness - shaped by loss, or experience, or both?

Thinking about all of that starts me thinking about the concept of rippling and about the intangible things that a person can leave behind, often without even realizing he is doing it.

I woke up with a raging headache and thought about my maternal grandfather; I remembered how he used to rub my forehead and the area around my eyes tirelessly when I was with him and had a headache.  Every time I put sheets on a bed, I think about my maternal grandmother: she always put the flat sheet on top in a face-down position so that the “good side” showed when she pulled the top of it over the edge of the bedspread and folded it over.  I think about my paternal grandfather whenever I see a man joyfully playing with young children; he was the king of the piggy back rides when my sisters and I were little.  And I think about my paternal grandmother when I notice that the bottle of Heinz ketchup is almost empty; I often follow her example of making something out of almost nothing and use her recipe to use that last little bit of ketchup to make BBQ sauce for chicken for my family.

And then there’s my dad, a man who taught me so much, most of which he did inadvertently.  Many of those lessons have become seasoned with the shift of my perspective over the years; all of them are more valued by me than I can adequately explain.  Some come from big events and big days in our lives, but most of them come from the in-between kind of days when we were just hanging out or just going about our everyday business.

I recently came across a video clip showing the different ways that people reacted to a man whom they thought was homeless:

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE CLIP

The whole piece is framed around the idea that the people who reacted in a kind, compassionate manner were extraordinary – or even heroic.  Watching the clip, though, I thought about what my dad would say about the people and the situation shown: Why wouldn’t a person be friendly and try to help the homeless man? he’d say.  In his eyes and, because of him, in mine, the people who came to the aid of the man aren’t heroes and they aren’t extraordinary – the things they did to help the guy are normal and ordinary parts of human compassion.  Those in the film who aren’t kind are the ones outside the norm; they are the ones who are remarkable, just not in a good way.

There are so many other lessons embedded in me from interaction with those in my past, and I am appreciative of every one of them.  In return for all that has been given to me, I will continue to strive to pass on these lessons to others around me, on the difficult days, on the great days, and on the days in between.

200th Entry!

This blog entry marks the 200th note published since this site was started in May of 2011.

In that time, there have been over 15,000 visits to the blog, by people from all over the world.  I think it's fascinating to look at blog statistics and to realize the power of the Internet:

It is so heartwarming to see how Dad's story is carrying on and how his life and his perspective continue to impact people, rippling outward to individuals who didn't know him and to many who don't know me, and the support and the comments that I have received as a result of this blog have meant so much to me, more than I can adequately convey.  In the world of grief, one thing that helps to hold us up is camaraderie, and I will always remember that which has been bestowed onto me and my family.

I've learned a lot from the emotions and the thought processes that go into writing for this blog and from the comments that have come from others who seem to somehow "get it."  Because of the blog, I've gotten feedback from several people whom I knew only casually or whom I knew in a completely different context over the past couple of years, and I've gotten to know several people in a different way than I did before.  

Through this process, I've also realized the value of words.  Words are important, and they can be healing or hurtful, depending on how they are put together and on how they are spoken and how they are heard.  Since my dad's death, I have grown to detest some commonly used wording and to prefer some wording over others for certain things.  As I've mentioned, I hate the term "new normal;" it seems better to me to say "new routine" or "moving forward" instead because I don't think I'll ever see not having my dad here with me as "normal."  As is evident in the majority of the 199 other blog entries, I prefer the term "going on ahead" to "died" or "passed away;" the former just sounds so harsh and so final to me, and the latter sounds so passive, as if he didn't try with all his might to stay here in this world with us for as long as he possibly could.  I don't like to think about dying as a person's losing a battle; I think it's better to say he ended his battle instead of saying he lost his battle with cancer.  The latest perspective in wording that has come to my attention is a question that is often asked of people who are coping with serious illness or those who are grieving: "How are you?"  What I have come to see as more fitting phrasing is "How are you today?" That seems to open the door for a more honest conversation instead of just having the response be "I'm fine" when so often that just isn't true.  It's semantics, I know, but somehow it's become one of the things that I pay much more attention to these days, as part of my current perspective.

One thing that I used to say as a child that I wanted to "be" when I grew up is a writer; as a teenager, I told that to my dad a few times, and each time he said he didn't think it was likely that I would "make a good living" that way.  (It was very important to him that my sisters and I each found a career that would give us job stability and that would allow us to support ourselves.)  I guess it's kind of ironic then that through his illness and through the grief that followed after he went on ahead I have somehow found my way back to writing, and, if he were here today, I would tell him that I am using writing as a way to make a good living, maybe not for profit but for perspective and for therapeutic purposes.

In closing, I'd like to share a quote about grief that I came across in Dean Koontz's book Odd Hours:

Grief can destroy you -- or focus you.  You can decide a relationship was all for nothing if it had to end in death, and you alone.  Or you can realize that every moment of it had more meaning than you dared to recognize at the time, so much meaning it scared you, so you just lived, just took for granted the love and laughter of each day, and didn't allow yourself to consider the sacredness of it.  But when it's over and you're alone, you begin to see it wasn't just a movie and dinner together, not just scrubbing a floor or washing dishes together or worrying over a high electric bill.  It was everything, it was the why of life, every event and precious moment of it.  The answer to the mystery of existence is the love you shared sometimes so imperfectly, and when the loss wakes you to the deeper beauty of it, to the sanctity of it, you can't get off your knees for a long time; you're driven to your knees not by the weight of the loss but by the gratitude for what preceeded the loss.  And the ache is always there, but one day not the emptiness, because to nurture the emptiness, to take solace in it, is to disrespect the gift of life.