|
||||||||||||||||||||
At work and play in Manhattan: 1945-46After my college graduation early in June 1945, I returned to the North to live by myself—not with my family or kinfolk, not in a dormitory, but on my own for the first time. A few weeks after my 20th birthday in mid-May and a few days after settling in Manhattan, I entered summer classes at Columbia University to begin graduate work in Psychology.campus on West End Avenue in an apartment for students. Every large room was converted to a bedroom, and five tenants took turns in the kitchen and the bathroom. I studied very seriously, and basked in the reflected glory of my professors: many were the authors of the textbooks assigned in our courses, including History of Psychology, Ex I found a room to rent near the perimental Psychology and Abnormal Psychology. Since I wanted to pay for my own schooling at last, that Fall I went to work full time, continuing at Columbia by taking night classes. To be closer to my father’s apartment, I moved to a different rented room downtown in Greenwich Village. Fortunately I really liked the work I found as an Editorial Assistant at Railway Age, a magazine that still serves the railroading establishment nationwide. Subscribers were the corporate officers and staffs of railway companies. My tasks were clerical much of the time, but for each weekly issue I composed formulaic articles about personnel changes: appointments, promotions, retirements and deaths. I wrote my short articles using press releases from the railroads, just shortening the text and arranging the data to fit the formats set up by Railway Age. No creativity was required or possible. I wondered why they hired an English Major for such rote work. Yet for the year I spent at it, my job never became dull to me, and my co-workers were fun. Many were women close to my age with plans to move on to marriage or to better careers. One of them was a 23-year-old war-widow. We enjoyed our lunches together and went to plays or movies some weekends. I grew close enough to two co-workers to visit their homes on holidays. One introduced me to her friend Fritz, an engineering student at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He became my steady date on weekends when he could leave his campus. How much of my work and play did I share with Mrs. Lilienthal? Probably not a lot. Yet, since she cared so much about dancing, I must have told her how Fritz took me to hear the big bands of those times, in ballrooms where we could watch the jitter-bugging, and get out on the floor ourselves for slow dances. Mainly, Ruth asked about my classes and teachers, and still wanted news of my mother or father. When I dated, my father and my stepmother met the young men who took me out. They always came to my parents’ apartment at the Chelsea Hotel on West 23rd street to pick me up. My parents were uneasy about my joining a male caller in the hallway downstairs from my room, and so was I. At that age, 20 and then 21, I felt no strain at all to live three lives—student, office worker, and Manhattan gad-about. My delight in the city was boundless. Clichéd or not, I never tired of the bright lights, of people-watching as spectacle, the bustle of street life, and the endless variety of places to go. Even while l was there, I could feel nostalgia for New York. I revisited scenes l had loved as a high school girl, the parks of every borough, the aquarium and the planetarium and the museums I knew in Manhattan and Brooklyn. My sense of the city’s past came not just from books, but also from my father’s lore. He grew up in brownstone Brooklyn before World War I. His favorite stories described sailing from the Sheepshead Bay Yacht Club and venturing up to the Bronx to look over the Biograph studios where some early movies were made. The girls who charmed him in his youth had not yet bobbed their hair or tasted liquor. (He was 22 in 1920.) He recalled prohibition with its speakeasies, and enjoying silent movies. He ido
lized Mary Pickford and was shocked by the scandals of a few lesser actors. He introduced me to many of the songs and plays and books of the 1920’s. Bye Bye Blackbird was a favorite tune, for example. The jolliest of many books he owned and loaned was Archy and Mehitabel, a collection of newspaper columns by Don Marquis. My father had read the earliest ones in the New York Sun as they came off the press, years before I was born. Marquis satirized timeless human foibles through the lives of fable-like animals caught up in Jazz-age antics. Archy, a philosophical cockroach, composes vers libre tales about such critters as Mehitabel, an alley cat, and Warty Bliggins, a frog with delusions of grandeur. Some of Mehitabel’s sayings have lasted me a lifetime, especially There’s a dance in the old dame yet. Summer 1946While I lived in that rented room in Greenwich Village with no phone, my friends could reach me only at work. So Mrs. Lilienthal writes me at 30 Church Street, the headquarters of the publisher of Railway Age and other trade magazines. By midsummer I had worked there for 10 months, and merited a holiday. Dear Carolyn among The Files
Then discussing books we both had read, she agrees with me that The Snake Pit was very well written, indeed. Mary Jane Ward wrote this best-selling novel; it is a partly fictionalized memoir of her psychiatric treatment at Rockland State Hospital, NY. We of course could not then know that I would work there a year later. But Ruth sharply disagrees about the value of a book I had recently given her.
This memoir by Agnes Newton Keith describes her life in Borneo as the wife of a British official during the 1930’s. For me, it offered a vicarious journey to an exotic island. The author depicts her family at home in Sandakan as well as her jungle excursions. I enjoyed her wit and her vivid descriptions of that faraway world. But Ruth perceived racism in Keith’s attitudes towards her four servants and other local people. Most readers at that time, including me, failed to notice the patterns of white privilege that Keith took for granted. With no uneasiness she makes fun of the quirks of the “natives,” including those she depended on. At end of this letter Ruth shows that she’s annoyed about abuses of power in the USA, saying Thunderation on Bilbo, Rankin, Taft and their kin. Those senators (two of them Southerners) were then leading conservatives; they expressed, and tried to legislate, their views on race and class---views that Ruth abhorred. In August, when next she writes, she sends a postcard from Jeffersonville, NY, starting with a nod of recognition for my summer graduate classes, Dear Miss Hodgson of Simmons and Columbia. Then she recommends a novel that quite pointedly dramatizes the dangers of prejudices, whether in the form of bigotry or of thoughtless conformity to customs that demean and exclude certain groups. Do you and Daddy please read Margaret Halsey’s Some of my Best Friends Are Soldiers. Her effort at consciousness-raising includes my father because of his right-leaning political views. He wanted government to favor business and worried about laws to bolster civil rights. Halsey’s story dramatizes incidents at a wartime canteen. Some of her leading characters find ways to change policies of segregation and snobbery; others come to recognize that they’ve been thinking in harmful stereotypes, and they reform. About her vacation, she sounds pleased, yet not entirely: We are staying in a house that was built in 1864—We bathe in brook and lake—We eat cows and chickens—We long for Times Square. (8/22/46) Ernest MeyersThat fall I resigned from Railway Age so as to complete my MA at Columbia by taking a final semester of full-time classes. In the Psychology Library in Havemeyer Hall I kept running into a new graduate student, Ernest Meyers. He was a Navy veteran of WWII finally mustered out many months after the Japanese surrender. Neither of us had settled on a specialty, although I veered towards psychometrics and he soon focused on experimental psychology. As the fall semester went on we became more enthralled with each other. At school we both especially admired the same professor, Fred S. Keller. Dr. Keller was the first person on campus to hear our news when we became engaged in January 1947. My parents and Ernest’s weren’t surprised; they had followed some of the progress of our courtship, and approved. Their differing religious backgrounds caused no problems for us. The Meyers were proudly Jewish in heritage, but not in practice. My parents, Methodist and Baptist, were open-hearted about faiths, although less so about race.
Off campus we celebrated our engagement with our friends. Soon I presented Ernest to Mrs. Lilienthal; their meeting was cordial, just as I expected. She was interested in our plans, and Ernest’s past, asking him about his college—Rutgers—and his years as a naval officer. They were quite at ease with each other, joking, even teasing me about my youth; at 21 I couldn’t claim worldliness, especially compared to a 27-year-old veteran of four years in the Pacific. Yet I recall one awkward matter that she brought up. In her forthright way she suggested that whenever we wanted to become parents, we might influence the sex of the baby-to-be by adding certain chemicals to a douche used quickly after intercourse, either an acid or an alkaline rinse. One chemical would favor the success of sperm with female chromosomes; the other would favor sperm with male chromosomes. I couldn’t imagine trying such an experiment. Surely love-making ought not to become a laboratory process! I tried to hide my embarrassment, and recalled how I posed as sophisticated years ago at Hunter when Mrs. Lilienthal discussed sexual matters in her class. I squirmed then and I still squirmed, all the while trying to seem at ease. In another year, the Kinsey report on male sexuality, published in January 1948, would stir many Americans, especially our classmates at Columbia, to speculate about private histories more openly. PSYCHOLOGISTS TOGETHER 1947-1957Ernest Meyers and I married in April 1947, during Spring Break. For our honeymoon we flew to Cuba. In those times visitors were welcome and we were treated very well. Ernest’s overseas experiences, four wartime years in the Pacific, had shown him other countries, but not in festive ease. For me, exploring a foreign place, even for just those few days in Havana, gloriously fulfilled my dreams of travel. Ruth enjoyed my excitement, of course. She let me ramble on about the people there and the places we saw. During the summer of l947, Ernest advanced his teaching and technical skills by doing research on human engineering; he assisted in experiments to redesign the control panel of the Link trainer so that future pilots could use it with greater ease and efficiency. We moved from our one–room place in Spanish Harlem to much more comfortable quarters on Long Island. I found a job nearby doing clerical work for a construction company.
In the Fall of 1947 we again moved , this time to Shanks Village, a huge community of converted barracks near Orangeburg, NY. Our neighbors were other graduate students, commuting to Manhattan, 25 miles southeast. We stayed there for over a year as Ernest progressed through his Ph.D. courses. I became an Intern at Rockland State Hospital, near our housing in Shanks Village, glad to be working in my field, psychometrics. I administered tests for intelligence or for personality traits. My tasks were particularly poignant because I dealt with children and adolescents who had been hospitalized for psychiatric care. When I told Ruth about some of their dismal case histories, she too felt how especially sad it was to realize that the very young could become so terribly disturbed.
Newly hired faculty and graduate students lived there, gradually moving out across the next few years as they could find affordable standard housing. We got to know the other three couples in our building and four each in the two parallel buildings, as well as others elsewhere in Shawneetown, people we had met through shared interests. A few had one or two children. Most neighbors were young. Within a few months, early in 1949, I was writing to Ruth about the various people we were getting to know, the ways of Kentuckians generally, and much that I was learning about academic hierarchies and the pecking order among faculty wives. And I told her our private, personal news—I was pregnant! Answering my February letter in March, she salutes me sweetly and replies at length:
About the baby, Ruth asks for the due date and gives advice on choosing a name, or rather two names:
We had indeed chosen names for a boy and a girl, long before. A girl would be named Ruth, of course. A boy would be named Lawrence, honoring D.H. Lawrence, one of our favorite authors, one whose last name appealed to us as a son’s first name. Our reading tastes were eclectic, ranging from Marcus Aurelius to Jules Romain to Thomas Wolfe. At our request, Linda always included a renewal of our subscription to The New Yorker among her Christmas gifts. Half of Ruth’s letter deals with a trip we hoped to make to New York during our Spring Break.
Later in March Ruth writes to set a time for us to get together while I’m in the city. She also bemoans a current political trend:
Across many months of 1949 we were out of touch. When I wrote Ruth about Richard’s birth he was already two months old. Why wasn’t he named Lawrence? We changed our minds because he was born on October 2, the birthday of his uncle Richard, Ernest’s younger brother. Blood can be stronger than books. Replying on December 18th, Ruth brings me up to date with her news. First she tells how she spent her summer vacation—initially in pain, but later in delight, traveling by sea to the tropics:
Traveling on a very small freighter, a ship that had all sorts of pitches and rolls and lists, Ruth dared not throw up for fear of disturbing what she calls her deep embroidery. She blesses Dramamine:
After reminding me of some facts about their destination, Ruth characterizes another passenger as a privileged colonizer.
Ruth delights in all that she sees. She names the cities where they stopped before and after moving through the Panama Canal, which she found more impressive than she had foreseen. From Buenaventura on the Pacific, they went by train inland for six hours to Cali, the city she enjoyed most.
Her anecdotes about food and films are amusing rather than enthusiastic:
Two other passengers took the full tour with Ruth and Charles, both unmarried women who taught at high schools in the northeast. Ruth draws a thumbnail sketch of the older one as age 50, world traveler, New Englander, Roosevelt-hater, teacher of history; the other is age 35, emotionally conservative, intellectually liberal, teacher of English and Social studies. She adds that Poor Charles had to ferry about 3 school teachers! But he was noble, even gallant. The staff and officers of the freighter are memorable as well:
This letter runs very long, five 8 1/2 x 11 handwritten pages. Four of those pages are devoted to the trip, and the rest of the letter takes up a miscellany of the topics we typically write about, like books and jokes and current activities. At the end of her travelogue, Ruth makes an explicit turn to other matters.
I read it soon, finding that it evoked memories of Mrs. Lilienthal as I had first known her at the Hunter Annex in 1939, urging her students to read books about scientific discoveries. Morton‘s “magnificent achievement” is a grim tale of Dr. Semmelweiss’s persistence while his evidence is denied and rejected over and over again. Finally, years later, after innumerable needless deaths of new mothers, the medical establishment at last recognizes that those who assist mothers giving birth must keep clean. As Dr. Semmelweiss insisted, doctors do need to wash their hands before every delivery. Remarking that she enjoyed a joke I had sent her, Ruth offers one in exchange:
Then she seems anything but jolly as she speaks of her current activities. Her duties at Hunter are too burdensome, too discouraging. Her regimes of studying voice and body control offer some ease, yet some stress; she quotes Chaucer: the lyfe so short, the craft so longe to lerne. Yet she has framed this letter with happy replies to my belated news of our baby’s birth:
And she signs off the letter with a wish for Richard and his parents: may he be happy with you and you with him. I must have replied immediately to those delightful tales of travel, and to other parts of that long letter. Within two weeks Ruth sent me a tiny greeting card saying that she was pleased with me and felt that I seemed well settled:
I look forward to seeing you in New York next summer. Affectionately, Yes, since early 1947 I had been settling into university worlds as well as into marriage and motherhood. Settled may not be the best description; I bustled about doing family projects (sewing, photography) and campus projects (departmental events for both Psychology and English) and taking part in cultural and civic groups. Since Ruth finds my untroubled letter brain-coddling, and thinks of conflicts and tears as typical parts of my correspondence, I must conclude that I kept her in the role of mother confessor. She rightly credits my psychologist-husband with some success at steadying my mood swings. Ernest and I wanted more children, at least one more rather soon. We had convinced ourselves that closely-spaced children would feel and show less sibling rivalry; untested as parents, we expected to find ways around predictable pitfalls. However, that dream of painless parenting turned out to resemble Ruth’s description of academic life: rich with illusions and delusions of peace. When we went to New York in August l950 I was again pregnant. Our daughter Babette was born in March 1951. And why wasn’t she named Ruth? Because Ernest’s cousin, younger than he, Babette Stiefel, died of polio during the summer of 1950; we wanted to honor her memory. The surprise I planned for Ruth, naming a daughter after her, was put off for a later child. At least I had never told her of our intention, so she wasn’t aware of the change. For our few weeks in Manhattan, Ernest and I sublet an apartment near Columbia so that he could meet with his dissertation committee and get approval for his projected experiment of using positive reinforcement to investigate verbal behavior. Most days I took Richard in his stroller to parks on the upper west side overlooking the Hudson. My mother-in-law and my friends, including Ruth, came to visit us and to play with the toddler—a relaxing season. Ruth and I must have matched our calendars to arrange times to meet, perhaps by phone. No letters remain from 1950 and 1951. I kept mailing plenty of pictures of the children to everyone I knew; I had learned to enlarge black-and-white prints, working with trays on my kitchen sink and using a borrowed enlarger, at night, with blankets tacked over the window. I was so poorly skilled that my homemade prints eventually faded to sepia and gray. Luckily, I saved the small prints that the photoshop produced from the negatives. The year 1951 was the busiest of my life, up to then. The previous Fall I began transcribing the text of Ernest’s hour-long sessions with his subjects. His Columbia professors had approved his experimental design for measuring how positive reinforcement could shape verbal behavior. Simply put, his research would demonstrate whether speech patterns changed when reinforced by subtle rewards, eliciting new patterns even though the speakers remain unaware of altering in their word usages. The results would show the workings of subliminal reinforcement. After Babette was born in March 1951, I typed the recorded sessions while I tended two babies, one an infant in diapers and the other 18 months older, in training pants. Ernest took the laundry to the washateria and did the grocery shopping. The children enchanted us, and unwittingly taught us ways to cope with them during their unenchanting hours. Dr. Spock’s guidebook also came in handy. Indeed a boon for the perplexed and frustrated Across the academic year 1951-52, Ernest completed his data-gathering. I joined a pottery group, and mailed Ruth a hand-made gift. She replies with an analysis of the little clay image. June 7, 1952
That great work was shaped like a half-sized mask. Perhaps its demonic features did rise from my id, but I designed them to suggest primitive masks worn by shamans to scare away evil spirits. The green-glazed Thing-um-bob she has kept from years ago was a pendant with a swirling design, meant to be worn on a leather cord. She also thanks me for the latest batch of snapshots, saying that they made her much more comfortable than the threatening artwork. She finds it amusing that both children resemble only Ernest. Linda must have praised something I wrote, so that Ruth again urges me to make serious efforts:
She suggests that I read a book she found brilliant: Philip Wylie’s Opus 48, then declares that she prefers non-fiction; in particular she praises an author whose writings stir her to speculate about the psychology of sexuality.
I couldn’t respond to that enthusiasm for the views and claims of Wilhelm Reich. At Columbia our professors dismissed his work as mistaken, even ludicrous. Ruth’s other news is partly distressing and partly pleasant. At Hunter the new principal is male, a disturbing change, and she fears that other policies she dislikes may come to HCHS—introducing the core curriculum, maybe even coeducation. She names three former teachers who have died. For lighter notes she includes phrases and sentences from nine entrance exams, amusingly awkward, for example: "to pudder in the kitchen," "Wreckless teenagers," "when you are 13 like I am, yhou are in a turnabout," and "Rain befell our little town." By contrast, her nephew’s twists of phrase refresh her: “Friendmanship is hard to get” and “don’t you remember? It was a old, old time.” During this summer she plans to leave the city only on weekends, which she doesn’t regret, because she’s eager not to miss her dance classes. In closing, Ruth mentions a gift for our one-year-old: Dear Ma, please use the enclosed scrap of greenery to buy Babette a lollipop and a cookie. Perhaps Ruth’s nostalgia for Hunter in the old days, including my time there, led her to call me Miss Alabama at the beginning of this letter, or perhaps she alludes to my Alabama schooling. A few months later, calling me Dear Chile, and herself docile, could she be teasing me about my teenage demands for her attention?
Ruth always thinks of our travels with the children as requiring fortitude, but we took them lightly. That October Richard became three years old, and Babette one and one half. For us to pack and go did feel like an adventure, and the young ‘uns enjoyed it too. Ruth remarks about pictures from Summer 1952, but my favorites that year were made later one evening just after marking the children’s heights at those ages. To turn posing into a game, we called for actions. They obliged, responding to instructions to “make faces” and then “smile.” In my letter of November 1953, I included a hasty essay that I carbon-copied to circulate among my correspondents. For more than four single-spaced typed pages I wrote a breathless account of a literary visitor. We managed to meet the novelist Joyce Cary, whose books enthralled me, especially his trilogy including “The Horse’s Mouth.” For three pages I told my correspondents what I recalled from his talk at a Saturday luncheon, and then I reported his conversations that night at a party with the English faculty. On Sunday morning he came to an impromptu breakfast at our house, the jolliest and most informal event of his short stay in Lexington. My last few paragraphs tell how we spent the rest of that day with Cary.
When Ruth responds, she begins by naming six aspects of my life:
Amusingly, when she comments on what I’ve said about some movies shown on campus, she lists every single one she has seen as special.
Ruth Although Ruth does not mention her holiday plans, she and Charles joined her brother’s family that year, as I learned when the Ashers sent me their Christmas pictures from 1953.
During the academic year 1953-54, Ernest and I moved from our barracks quarters to a large old house near the airport. We could afford it because we shared with another young couple. Only in that spacious setting could we have managed our gathering for Cary; he commented that the occasion reminded him of genial gatherings in Richardson’s novels. And only there did we have room to invite the Lilienthals to visit. In 1954, we moved again, renting a house on Rose Street, at the eastern border of the University of Kentucky campus. It was in easy walking distance to the library, the Psychology Department, both campus theaters, and the basketball coliseum, the last for Ernest’s sake. And we were very close to the stadium, and football games. I went there only to take the kids to see the fireworks every fourth of July.
Ruth’s next letter deals mainly with plans for the coming summer. Why does she call me ebullient? Probably because I had written her joyously about our return to town, as well as the prospect of getting to New York. July 11, 1954
Daily thought–murder! For Ruth to admire that advice from Wilhelm Reich and find it psychologically healing startled me as much as my witch-doctor mask had startled her. In her fantasies, who were the victims of these imaginary killings? I can only guess they were politicians of the kind she despised—Thunderation on them—and perhaps administrators who changed educational policies for the worse. During the summer of 1954 we met in August, possibly at the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, near the Lilienthal’s apartment on President Street. But perhaps not—Babette at 3 1/2 was small for long subway rides, although Richard, nearly 5, was tireless. Ruth sends a note to me at my mother-in-law’s apartment to reach us just before we return to Kentucky.
Calling herself Ancient One at age 45 seems strange, and the water image even stranger. Is that some sort of a spillover? The only letter I have found from 1955 refers to a pattern in our correspondence. Every year I tried to write her before her birthday on December 5th, or to phone. Ruth often noticed my birthday, May 16th, if not on time then in June after her school was out. December 28, 1955 My Favorite Southern Child,
Ruth seems to treat her 47th birthday as if it were her 74th. She defines age 40 as the turning point from the joys of celebration to the sorrows of lost time. What made her uneasy about aging and mortality? Next she bemoans educational setbacks, starting with the new national policy of adding “under God’ to the pledge of allegiance, followed by a long list of unreasonable . . . suffocating demands at Hunter: continuous doubt, committee filing, evaluations, confusion. What offends her most is a new program to drill seniors, excluding the less promising ones, for advanced placement in college.
Thus she emphatically despises what she next calls the self-deception of those who insist that such so-called advancement can be achieved without lessening enrichment. Ruth sees this as a conflict between GOOD and GOOD, and prefers the old good, enrichment. Still in a mood of questioning cultural trends, Ruth speaks of her interest in Erich Fromm’s best seller.
After seven years in Kentucky, six of them busily mothering, I told Ruth about my notions for further graduate study. Thanks to Ernest’s GI Bill benefits, we bought a house in Gardenside, a newly developing suburb near the James Lane Allen Elementary School. Both children would later enroll there, freeing me for many hours daily. Ruth suggests a solution to my restless floundering over what-next-to-do.
Twice a week, while Ernest graded papers, I went out in the evenings to take part in activities I enjoyed: making pottery and attending a writing group. The short stories I drafted were far too inept to submit for publication, despite Ruth’s faith in me. Across another year, 1955, I remained indecisive but not unoccupied. Besides my hobbies, I took part in activist groups like the ACLU and NAACP. Social protests would in time evolve beyond petitions about inequities, like those made by our committees, toward sit-ins and actions on the streets and in parks, restaurants, and city halls. Our yearly August trips eastward let us pass through Manhattan on our way to summer rentals we shared with Ernest’s brother’s family. Our sets of children combined neatly; Phyllis and Dick’s three interspersed well with ours: Janet was born before Richard, Tommy within days of Babette, and Nancy two years after. In the next letter I can find from Ruth she asks about my summer silence. Now I wonder where we did go in August 1956, why we by-passed Manhattan, and what kept me too busy to send our news to Ruth. I can’t recall, and don’t know whether I was irritated by a cancelled holiday, as she suspects. 12/27/56
Affectionately, She credits me with more serenity than I felt about jostling around Lexington at four addresses across the years 1948 to 1955. But finally we were living in our own house and expected to stay there. Such moves were not unusual for newly married couples in our postwar decade. In Spring 1957, I was still exploring ways to return to work. Ernest and I had formed plans not just for my career but also for our family’s future. The University of Kentucky’s nepotism policy forbade the hiring of spouses to work in the same department. So I set aside my thoughts of going on for a Ph.D. in Psychology. We wanted two more children, but only later, when we could readily afford them. We projected our 7- and 6-year-olds into our imagined future. In another seven years, by the spring of 1963, they would be 14 and 13, and we foresaw them baby-sitting for younger siblings. Doting parenthood trumped psychological common sense. How could we forget the turbulence of adolescence? We should have known better from books, or observation, or memories of our own growing pains. Ernest had acted out his teenage rebellion so dramatically that he was sent away to school. I tried to keep my chaos inward, but struggled with insomnia and surges of despair, all the turmoil that I told only to Mrs. Lilienthal early in the 1940's. Still we envisioned our adorable youngsters maturing into compliant teenagers, eager to please us and to dote on their infant siblings. My stirrings to return to some career called for immediate action. We both agreed that the best work for me would be teaching high school English. My focus would be literary, book-centered, and in my summers I would be free to share the children’s months out of school. In the spring of 1957 I applied to the University of Kentucky School of Education for classes to earn an M.A. and a teaching certificate. But when I was told that my M.A. degree in Psychology from Columbia University would not be accepted as a substitute for their three-hour required elementary psychology class, I changed my mind. I applied instead to enter the M.A. program in the Department of English, across campus in the School of Arts and Letters. There my courses would be literary rather than pedagogical. And I could teach at an advanced level. After being accepted by the English Department, I began my first classes in May. Two months later, on July 20, 1957, my husband suffered a heart attack. It came suddenly, with no previous symptoms, and he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Index -- Next: Diverging Paths |
||||||||||||||||||||