Give it Up...

[fajrdrako]

I read a nicely-written book: Give It Up: My Year of Learning to Live Better with Less by Mary Carlomagno. It caught my eye because I love her name - it's the Italian translation of "Charlemagne" - and because I'm into themes of simplicity. Uncluttering metaphorically as well as literally.

It was, in fact, a delightful read. But... useless. The theme: Mary Carlomagno gave up one thing each month for a year. It wasn't cumulative: she gave up smoking, for example, for a month, and then went back to smoking. It was like giving things up for Lent, which is what inspired her - not giving things up permanently.

Then look at the things she gave up. I couldn't give up any of them, I don't think - and if I did, who would notice the difference? She gave up alcohol, newspapers, shopping, dining out, taxis, cell phones and television. I don't have alcohol more than a couple of times per year. I seldom read newspapers, especially since they have become sensationalist entertainment. I shop when I must, but not often. Certainly not every month, unless we're talking about groceries, which she wasn't. Taxis? I can't recall the last time I took a taxi - probably during my last trip to Stratford. I walk. I take the bus. I go places with friends in their cars. I only take taxis when travelling. I don't have a cell phone. It isn't any kind of virtue here - I'm just not into those things. That leaves television - and I wouldn't want to be without my fannish favourites; don't have time to watch much else anyway. Eating out? My favourite and most extravagant pleasure! But I like to think I don't do it in an extravagant way.

But I could give up eating out for a month. Giving up comic books? That would be a real challenge, and I don't plan on trying it. But she doesn't talk about that. I suppose I could give up libraries, or visiting friends, or (shudder) reading and writing Livejournal - but I can't think of any reason I should! Just to prove I could? I love these things, and I do them because I love them. I think that's a terrific reason to do them.

All in all, her choices of 'what to give up' reflected a lifestyle and tastes very unlike mine, and a general sense of life in New York that seems pleasantly foreign to me, like reading about Nick and Nora Charles, or Dorothy Parker.

Despite all this, it was fun to read Mary Carlomagno's commentary on life and the things she does. There's a friendly reflectiveness to it all. Very readable.

Comments

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I don't know how much I could give up and not just end up sitting on my sofa, staring at the wall :D

Smoking yes - and am trying. And that will be forever when I do.

We don't subscribe to newspapers/magazines - but I read online. And seeing as it's an election year coming up, I won't be stopping. MUST HAVE POLITICAL NEWS.

Internet? Not gonna happen :D (especially since hubby and I both work via it)

Cell Phone? It's my *main* phone - and I get about 2 calls/week, make about 3 :D

Eating out? We've already pared down to about 3 times/month, one of those being before fishclub meeting when we meet up w/ friends.

We've simplified our lives hugely over the years, to our benefit. But what's left is the stuff we ENJOY, ya know?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes. I think each and every person has to find his or her own balance in life, and I think a lot of people (myself pretty much included) have too much clutter in their lives - doing things they don't need to do out of habit rather than desire.

But I don't see any value in giving up pleasures for the sake of just giving up pleasures, and - except for smoking - these are not bad things in themselves. It isn't bad to keep up with the news (or do crossword puzzles) with newspapers - and as an old student of print journalism, I'd hate to see print journalism disappear, however much I may complain about the cheapening of its news with superficiality and ephemerality. (My, aren't I into the hifalutin' words tonight!)

And aren't cell phones - mostly - good things?

There are things I want to cut out of my life, and I'm thinking about them as I plan my New Year's Resolutions - something I always do with great care and glee. Things like procrastination, stress, anger, fear, laziness, indecision, being overextended and over-busy. I think I have my material pleasures pretty much where I want them - manageable and valuable to me. I hope that doesn't sound smug.

And yes, I sometimes have more library books checked out than I can manage, but it's difficult to think of reading as something I should cut down on! On the contrary, I want more time to read. Wouldn't that be nice?

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

We buy books, because we re-read. (boy, do we re-read!) But we don't buy unless we're pretty darned sure we'll like it - and any we DON'T keep go to half-price shop.

Cell phone? though I don't use it much, I very much want to have it when I'm driving Dallas roads alone at night.

I could work on eliminating procrastination - however? I have found that I do my best work when it's RIGHT BEFORE THE DEADLINE. I'm 45 - I know my working habits by now :D

I miss having a Sunday newspaper, but do NOT miss the huge amounts of JUNK that were bundled with it - adverts, etc. SO MUCH! (and the dogs think it's fun to tear it up)

Simplicity is good, but if you've already achieved a happy level of it, doing more is just obsessive :D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

We buy books, because we re-read. (boy, do we re-read!)

Yes! Rereading is an exquisite pleasure all its own. Some books deserve it. Others demand it. And what a wonderful thing that is.

Yes, right before deadline is a good time for anything. Inspiration kicks in because of that extra jolt of panic. I remember once as an undergraduate writing an essay on Louis Riel and submitting it several days early. I was proud at the time, but then got it back - my lowest mark of the year. I should have waited till deadline.

I like to save obsession for things that are worth obsessing over.

[duncanmac.livejournal.com]

On the contrary, I want more time to read ...

Believe me, I feel the same way when it comes to reading!

As far as my current job is concerned, I am tired of the 3-4-hour daily commute. But buying a car probably will not help very much, especially at this time of year -- I have seen too many traffic jams. The best solution will be to move. I don't see that happening until I can afford to pay at least double what I am paying now; that won't happen till I have the current debt monkey off my back. If my job disappears before then ... the move will be proved unnecessary, won't it?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I share your worries about debts and time. I wish I had more rays of hope to offer either of us! I find that having an iPod helps with the commuting when I'm stuck on the bus - have you tried audio-books? Next best thing to reading. Well, almost. I don't get quite the same satisfaction from it, but it's a different kind of pleasure in itself.

[tudorpot.livejournal.com]

I haven't watched tv since July, don't miss it much, but will start again for Masterpiece theatre Austen series. I pick up day old newspapers for the fire- occasionally read a section but follow the news online with BBC and CBC feeds. My cell phone is just for travel safety. I have to have a car due to location and work. I'm not giving up books, bubble baths and good food. Nor will I give up luxurious bedding and fluffy pillows or my dishwasher.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I haven't watched tv since July

IMHO there's not a lot worth watching, though I did enjoy Life and I'm glad to have seen it. And of course I watch certain favourite fannish shows over and over just for the joy of it. Not so much TV watching as DVD watching. I sometimes feel foolish for spending money I can ill afford on the TV cable (digital yet) but it's "bundled" with my Internet access - without which life would barely be worth living!

(I joke of course. But still.)

I read newspapers at work - Tom brings one in daily. I am usually interested but not impressed. Really, the more I try not to hear the news, the more it seems omnipresent - I know all the details of war in Afghanistan and Britney Spear's custody case whether I want to or not. It's like the weather, it's just there.

Come to think of it, almost all the news that I actually seek out and pay attention to is on CBC radio.

Dishwasher - yes! It seems like an unnecessary luxury but it's made quite a difference in my standard of living. I know I should be all Zen about it and made dishwashing by hand into an art, but I've never mastered the trick. I've tried!

[tudorpot.livejournal.com]

There is a perverse attitude that dishwashers are 'extravagant' while in reality they use less water and as a result less electricity than handwashing. They also are far more hygienic. And then there is the whole saving of human labour. I put pans and bowls in as well as dishes and glasses. Living alone it goes on two to three times a week.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

in reality they use less water and as a result less electricity than handwashing.

Yes. They save both time and aggravation, and as you say, are more hygienic. Wonderful things.

I live alone and use it more often than two or three times a week - well, I suppose it depends on the week - but I often cook for other people too. And it's wonderful. It really is.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

You make me wonder - is there a new Austen series coming on Masterpiece Theatre that I should be on the alert for?

Love your Oscar Wilde icon!

[tudorpot.livejournal.com]

PBS will broadcast screen adaptations of all six of Jane
Austen's novels on Masterpiece Theatre starting January 13.

They will show the BBC (Colin Firth) version of Pride and Prejudice and the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma, but the other adaptations are new. They also will air an original program based on Austen's life.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

PBS will broadcast screen adaptations of all six of Jane Austen's novels on Masterpiece Theatre starting January 13.

Hooray!

They will show the BBC (Colin Firth) version of Pride and Prejudice

Hmm. Not my favourite, but it has its good points.

the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma

Yay! I've never seen this. And I shamelessly adore Kate Beckinsale.

the other adaptations are new.

And if Persuasion is among them, I am a happy camper.

They also will air an original program based on Austen's life.

Interesting!

Thanks for the tip. I will be prepared to tape starting Jan. 13.

Not that I really consider myself a Jane Austen fan, you understand. But... I guess not entirely a non-fan either.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Have you seen Kate in Cold Comfort Farm? Rufus is in it, too, but wears far too many clothes.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes. Loved that one. And I agree about Rufus.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Yes. Loved that one. And I agree about Rufus.

We were re-watching it the other night, and it was definitely the case that the 1995 version was less sexy than the 1968 one. The scene with the dialogue about women being like spiders was quite chastely done (I think Roo was even wearing a waistcoat!), compared with the 1968 version, in which Peter was trying to drape himself half-naked around our stoical heroine…

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I don't even remember the dialogue about women being like spiders. Obviously I need to see the movie again!

(And given it's cast, nobody needs to twist my arm too much on that one. Hmm. I wonder if the library has a copy.)

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I have a copy, anyway, and can send once I get back home.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I love technology!

[wijsgeer.livejournal.com]

Doesn't it depend on the purpose you have for eliminating products/habits? Personaly the motivation of being less of environmental burden. That is a reason I've eaten strictly vegetarian for years (now I do eat meat on occasions). But sometimes you can go to far. Your good and considered reason can get caught up with depressed feelings of guilt. So did I live for a winter without heating, because I tought I wasn't worth it thinking of all the people who lived in colder areas without heating. When I was home I sat in a corner with several sweaters and and a blanket around me. I believe no that I was going to far.
An other, very pragmatical reason I live frugal, is that I just have little money. My two big extravanceses are my internet connection and my garden. Oh and my gym. But sport is good for you isn't it? It is certainly on of the things in my depression-management and I have decided that I should not cut down on that. Oh, an other extravagance, I go for drinks (1 or 2) once a week. I don't go out (music or lectures for free).
I do have a cellphone (but prepaid, so I only pay for the calls I make, no subscription fees) but no TV.

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

You've put your finger on it: it's the motivation. When I cut down on spending on particular things, it's because there are better things to do with the money. If I reduce the amount of television I watch (NO WAY am I going to give up "Doctor Who" and "Torchwood") it's because there are better things to do with my time, like practising folk fiddle. Or sorting out the house. I too have a prepaid mobile at the moment and wouldn't be without it, because when I haven't had one I have from time to time been stranded in the rain, with heavy shopping and a mile walk home. I don't cut down on heating (one gas fire in one room) because otherwise I get too many colds. I don't cut down on meat because if I do I get anaemic and if I take iron supplements I get constipated

*fantasises about offering to Ms Carlomagno to swap lives for six months and then see what she says*

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

it's because there are better things to do with the money.

Very true.

NO WAY am I going to give up "Doctor Who" and "Torchwood"

Absolutely! I don't watch TV casually; I watch it to be sociable with friends, or because it's a fannish activity - something I want to talk about and write stories about - and sometimes (but rarely) out of curiosity. I think a lot of people think of television as a time waster, but it's only a time waster if you use it that way.

Swapping lives with Mary Carlomagno is a great idea. I could see if I could cope with New York, and if she could cope with Ottawa. (I bet she'd still take taxis!)

Actually I'd just like to trade names with her. Do you think I could just steal her name, like Captain Jack Harkness?

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

I don't see why you shouldn't nick her name.

As for swapping lives: if she found herself in Dukinfield (try finding it on Multimap. Hint: you'll get there faster if you go to the UK map and type the name in) she certainly would take taxis. I really don't see her traipsing up hills in the rain or waiting for buses that sometimes com.e late and sometimes don't come at all

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

And I really don't know what she'd make of my "energy efficient house" aka classic Northern two-up-two-down!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I really don't know what she'd make of my "energy efficient house" aka classic Northern two-up-two-down!

Oh - I love those!

My apartment is not exactly a model of simplicity but I'm working on it. Most of the clutter is books. My comic books are not cluttered at all, they are very neatly and mostly-invisibly arranged, but keeping many thousands of comic books in a small apartment is an interesting exercise in logistics. Especially since I want the place to appear uncluttered.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I don't see why you shouldn't nick her name.

Me neither. It's a great pseudonym.

buses that sometimes come late and sometimes don't come at all

Isn't that all buses everywhere?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Doesn't it depend on the purpose you have for eliminating products/habits?

Whether it's worth doing, you mean? Yes. At its most superficial, I think it's an interesting exercise in perception. Carlomagno did it to get a theme for a book.

Personaly the motivation of being less of environmental burden.

Which I approve and applaud. But as you say, you've been vegetarian for years - I'm not sure being vegetarian for a month would do a lot to help the environment. On the other hand, it would be good for me to try it, just to see how I felt. I really do beleive that being vegetarian is better for my health (and the environment too). As well as being conducive to doing yoga better.

Yes, it sounds to me as if living without heat is going too far. There are those who can do it even in Ottawa - though how they'd survive the days of -40C I'm not sure.

Having little money (and debt) is part of the reason I'm frugal. I like to think that even if I had a lot of money (nice thought) I'd spend it on things that enhanced my life, and were necessary and important. In other words, I wouldn't live much differently than I do now. I'd tell myself not to buy more books than I have time to read.

I agree that exercise is important, and doing things that prevent depression are important.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm... like the idea, but much of what she gives up is what I've already given up... and the idea of giving it up for just a month is kind of pointless, money-saving-wise!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes. Giving things up for a month seems like an empty exercise to me - you aren't really putting in the emotional sacrifice because, whatever the item, you know you'll have it back in a month. It doesn't really help the health (like giving up smoking forever would), or save much money, or even time. It does, however, make a nice hook for a book in which you muse over various aspects of urban life.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Which is pointless unless you make actual sacrifices, as opposed to vacationing in a different lifestyle. *squinchy face*

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

vacationing in a different lifestyle

That's a good way of putting it. Yes. I prefer, at least in theory, to live the lifestyle I want and then not worry about it.

[halfspokenwords.livejournal.com]

I can see some small merit in picking things to give up for a month "just to see if I can do it" or as a prelude to a permanent reduction, but otherwise it does seem to be rather pointless. Giving up things for the sake of giving them up briefly, and not as part as some larger change, is... superficial. (Well, except that I suspect she saved a fair amount of money that year. But again, that's motivation.)

I agree with you, too, about her choices. Unless she was concerned about money, they don't mesh with my life and my concerns. Except smoking and maybe eating out, none of them really apply to health, which is a motivation I could understand. (I've recently started a health-centric 'lifestyle change'.) If instead of giving things up, she started things-- like exercising, eating less processed food, going green, even giving old clothes to goodwill before she bought new-- that too I could understand.

But hers? I don't smoke. I don't drink (again, for health concerns). I don't have a TV. I don't go out, I don't see movies in theaters... For the rest, I practice moderation. I eat out once a month, if that. If I read the news, it's online. I buy clothes in small amounts once or maybe twice a year. I only take taxis when safety is a concern, or rarely for time constraints. My parents bought me my cell phone because again, it's a safety concern-- I am young woman who splits her time between a large city and a college campus which has had a string of rapes recently. I don't have a landline, but I still don't give out my cell number socially because I have no interest in having it cemented to my ear all the time.

Now, I do have my little excesses. I weigh them carefully. I do buy books, but I am getting an MA in literature, so that's required. I go to plays maybe five or six times a year, but why should I give up one of the few things I love? The Internet, I guess, is a big one-- it's included in my rent, so money isn't a concern, but I could probably spend less time on it. But it's social, and I need to have that somewhere. And besides, I don't need to give it up to know that when I want to, I can turn off the computer and read a book or take a walk or find my roommate and ask her about her day.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I suspect that in Carlomagno's case, saving money was a good side effect, but not a primary cause. I'm sure she saved money by 'not eating out' but I'm not sure she saved time.

Good luck with your health-enhancing 'lifestyle change' - I'm doing that, too! Let's hope it works for both of us.

Yes, starting things makes sense. That's one of the reasons I love a new year - a chance for a symbolic fresh start. Not that one can't start changes any time, but I do like to do them at least on the first of the month, if not a new year - it seems like more of an event. An important event. And then when, a few days or weeks later, you're tempted to stray, you can tell yourself, "No, you don't want to blow it, you've been successful so far this year" - sometimes that's enough to put evil temptation at bay.

Moderation is good. I'm all for hedonistic excess, but not for its own sake. - spread it too thin and it loses meaning, just becomes self-indulgence and then nothing is so much fun.

I don't think doing without books would be a good thing. Really!

I probably should spend less time online, too. But that seems a mild sin. And really, no sin at all, when I'm having fun with it. I have yet to convince myself that it's more of a time-waster to read a story online than to read a published book in my comfy chair on the other side of the room. Reading is reading.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in the "renunciation is good" kick. There's a holier-than-thou spiritual arrogance, masquerading as 'humility' (which I regard as a very dubious virtue), that tends to go with it. Besides, some of us are too bloody poor to have any kind of enjoyable life at all if we renounced the pleasures we have. Besides, why give up anything you enjoy if it isn't actively dangerous? It's back to that whole nasty ascetic mentality that things that are enjoyable are somehow 'bad'/'sinful', and mortifying the flesh is 'good'. It's warping.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

ome of us are too bloody poor to have any kind of enjoyable life at all if we renounced the pleasures we have

That is so very true. Each pleasure is precious. Why lose what we don't have to? Especially when they aren't bad for us.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Asceticism is one of the more dubious legacies of religious 'magic thinking': "If I give up nice stuff here on earth, I will get even better rewards in heaven/not have to reincarnate/whatever". This life can be pretty unpleasant anyway: why make it more so?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, some pleasures are bad for us: eating too muchof the wrong stuff makes us fat and gives us heart attacks, smoking gives us cancer, jumping out of airplanes can cause death, hard drugs cause addiction, and so on. For those who find those things pleasurable. I don't, but that's luck, not virute. Otherwise - well, pesonally, I've always thought Lent was dumb: and I'm always amazed when people actually observe it.

On the other hand, I have experienced a sort of breakthrough feeling when sometimes making a life-change (that can involve giving something) feels extremely good. A food to which you have a sensitivity, for example, so suddenly your health improves. Or just... decluttering has been a great pleasure to me.

But that isn't quite the same. That isn't cutting out pleasures. That's cutting out 'unnecessary stuff'.

Perhaps the trick is in knowing the difference.

[filkferengi]

It's not just things; it's the memories/baggage attached to them. Remember when Lois talked about re-decorating her bedroom, making it look like a grown-up's room, getting rid of the furniture she'd had since she was 13?

De-cluttering can be emotional, too. For example, I've simplified the holiday rituals enormously: I send fewer cards to folks I care about more, gift more simply, & wrap much less elaborately. It's just one way of cutting down on stress, which is also good for your health.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

At some point, cutting down on stress is not just advisable, it's necessary.