Neurodivorce, Italian Style
Here from time to time over the remainder of this year and, after a pause, next, I’ll be recounting the story of a divorce. There is a narrator, rather narrators, and characters: men, women, lawyers, judges, brothers, wives, prostitutes, managers, politicians, villains, heroes… the usual. In each of those people, each of those posts, there are other stories within. Not merely sub-plots or anecdotes but… conditions. Smaller stories, as it were, that reappear, influencing or even determining outcomes later on.
The posts won’t be placed in one full chronological order at first, instead they’ll center on 8 people, each on a kind of trial. The 8 accounts are preceded by opening, and followed by closing, arguments, 10 chapters in all. After each person covering a chunk of the overall story is presented, a second part of each chapter is a sort of rebuttal, a defense. In form. In function…they’re more like articulations: how each person became what they are, their personal and family histories, motivations, ecc., how their minds maybe function or dysfunction resulting in their behavior, of whatever they did and do. It’s the juicy part, for me anyway.
I didn’t think, when I decided that eventually were I still around I’d tell the mostly irritating tale, that it would also be a case of homicide or instigation of the same. It may be though: the jury, you, will make that call, depending on what story you create. Sometimes it’s very easy to influence a person… in difficulty. Which may be the why that pushing fear and anxiety onto others is becoming so widespread. It’s an effective way to separate people from their own identities, regional, communal, familial, emotive, even individual. A division of you from yourself. Once divided…conquest is easier, even risk-less. Everyone knows that. Divide. And conquest.
In the main story… there’s a ton of injustice (always present in the world we make but lately more so.) And corruption, sexism, madness, economically influential people, some famous people, some famous stories, (famous or notorious people in the real world, though mostly Italian.)
I’d prefer not having to tell this story at all, as mentioned a mostly unhappy one, filled with the most rotten of our species doing the most rotten of things. If I could have molded one or two somehow into… at least fun villains, like, say, Freddy Kruger, you know, give them enough of one kind of aspect, maybe determination or intelligence or… anything, enough to make them interesting. But after researching various examples… you don’t get that much. Just bad people doing bad things and trying to convise the rest of the world that, well, we’re all bad. Bbut we’re not, in general. Only a few. For the most part that kind of person remains the kind of individual (or institution, depending,) filled with hate and fear, heavily motivated to disperse that fear and hate on the rest of the world in one way or another. I’d prefer happier characters, and people, fun to be with, that add a little beauty or wonder to the world.
Still, it’s a story that asked to be told, screamed it almost, all the more considering the news of late around the world (predatory, misogynist US supreme court appointments; anti-abortion laws in Italy; fanatical, religious fathers and husbands murdering wives and daughters, and so on.) The villains within aren’t contained to this story but are examples of the same who have damaged and continue to damage the real world. And they will continue to – unless the rest of us change, refuse to be divided from ourselves, from each other, from our common sense of justice, (thick and rhetorical as it sounds,) and see those villains for that: self-referring parasites. Cancer. There is no dialoging with such. They have to be revealed, isolated, and removed.
The pages in this blog, eventually book, won’t right all the wrongs done to and by the same characters in this tale. Then again. In the least, it sets some records straight. Maybe from there it’ll do more. And maybe a little more. And maybe a little more….
After the opening arguments, the first witness on trial is a deceased executive. We’ll call him Mike for now. He came from an unpleasant place, not socio-economic but developmental. One of those personal family histories necessary to address in order to make sense, give cause, as to why some behave as they do. Still, it’s no excuse for destructive behavior. Many come from worse, including me. But it can be a contributing reason and maybe even a determinate one as to the timing and causes of of many choices and, in Mike’s case, his death. From there the story moves to his widow, then his ex-wife and so on.
Each of those three people demonstrated quite different responses to severe adversity as they grew. Timing is often more than important. Each found themselves forced into premature affect, forced to respond to stress without enough space to avoid or escape it, at different stages in their lives: Mike in late childhood, his widow in adolescence, his ex-wife in late adolescence. Decisions internally made then would determine much of the way they would view themselves and the world for the rest of their lives, in the first two distorting or perverting the possibility of any future fulfilling relationships, solidifying into permanence the hate and fear they carried and pushing them to narrow the world paranoically – and look for others to harm in one form or another. I’ve digressed.
Ladies and gentlemen, you, the jury: look here….