심화영어독해 중간 — David 정리본

¶1In 1988, when my family declared its desire to emigrate, our homeland imposed a brutal discouragement: No person could leave with more than several hundred dollars’ worth of possessions on hand. (What would you take? My mother tried to bring her wedding ring, but it was seized at customs.)

¶2In the Soviet Union, we were secretly wealthy, but we arrived in Brooklyn as paupers. We patrolled curbsides, washed floors for $3 an hour and reused paper towels. I was 10 years old, and I helped how I could. It’s an old story for immigrant kids: You learn English faster than the adults, becoming their ambassador in this new world. You argue with Nynex over the 10-cent discrepancy on the telephone bill and with the grocery clerk over how the potatoes are rung up; joy is when you manage to ease the anxiety on the faces of people who, until now, were the ones you looked to for reassurance and calm. You wish you were old enough to earn real money instead.

¶3I don’t remember how 24 Pepsi-Colas ended up in our fridge. I can’t imagine the adults springing for such an indulgence. There must have been a sale. Then again, our first Pepsi, in transit to America, had been dizzying — that aristocratically minimalist little can, with its sine wave of a logo, was finally in my hands. How lightheaded I was after gulping the bubbles too quickly. (But memory misleads: It was my first Pepsi, the indulgence sprung only for me.)

¶4Around this time I learned that American supermarkets gave back 5 cents for every returned empty. (Some states, like Michigan, its very name like a granite monument, gave you 10 cents.) I decided I would return those cans and give the money to my parents. My secret — a surprise. The problem: No one else in the family would touch them. The indulgence remained for the child.

¶5That week, I drank Pepsi. After school, with dinner, before bed. When I woke up bleary and jangled, was it from the soda or my anticipation of returning them to Super Duper, the market on 20th Avenue? (We were at once confused and delighted by its name, so exquisitely frivolous compared with the Soviet anonymity of “Grocery Store.”) I came to hate Pepsi. No matter how much I drank, there seemed to be more. Surreptitiously, I poured one down the drain. But the longed-for day came. Twenty-four empties.

¶6On Saturday afternoon, with my parents out and my grandmother resting, I washed each can as if it were a newborn — water, soap, swish, repeat. I didn’t know how stringent the checking at the supermarket would be, so I would give the inspectors no excuse to turn me away. I washed, dried (Mom’s hair dryer) and restacked the cans as if I were handling diamonds. But when I wedged my nose into a couple of the openings, I couldn’t help catching a whiff of the Ivory soap that — fool! — I had used; it was the cheapest, and it smelled that way too. Now Super Duper would never accept them!

¶7The apartment ticking with a sunny weekend afternoon’s silence, I crept into my parents’ bedroom, where, on a lacquered bureau, my mother kept her one indulgence: a bottle of Climat perfume from Paris. I tiptoed back into the hallway to make sure Grandmother was still sleeping. Then I sprayed the Climat 24 times into 24 washed-and-blow-dried Pepsi cans.

¶8My heart beat so fast when I stole out of the apartment, Grandmother snoring lightly, that I don’t remember the walk to the supermarket. I do remember the lines — the Italian mothers of Bensonhurst were shopping for the week. But the kid among them got his turn. I gazed at the cashier with helplessness and pre-emptive resentment. Please, I thought. Please. She rang up my cans with all the ceremony of, well, a bottle return and handed me a dollar and four nickels. I don’t think she looked at me once. I stood there, vibrating slightly.

¶9It would be some time before I learned that the bottle deposit is factored into the original cost of the bottle. I was merely reimbursing my parents for something already due to them. But that afternoon, returning from the store, my feet didn’t feel the pavement. At home, Grandmother was waking to a missing 10-year-old; somewhere in the neighborhood, the other adults were going curbside to curbside to check for loot; and I was running toward them with their ransom burning a fire in my pocket.

¶1The morning of June 27th was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green. The people of the village began to gather in the square, between the post office and the bank, around ten o'clock; in some towns there were so many people that the lottery took two days and had to be started on June 26th, but in this village, where there were only about three hundred people, the whole lottery took less than two hours, so it could begin at ten o'clock in the morning and still be through in time to allow the villagers to get home for noon dinner.

¶2The children assembled first, of course. School was recently over for the summer, and the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on most of them; they tended to gather together quietly for a while before they broke into boisterous play, and their talk was still of the classroom and the teacher, of books and reprimands. Bobby Martin had already stuffed his pockets full of stones, and the other boys soon followed his example, selecting the smoothest and roundest stones; Bobby and Harry Jones and Dickie Delacroix―the villagers pronounced this name "Dellacroy"―eventually made a great pile of stones in one corner of the square and guarded it against the raids of the other boys. The girls stood aside, talking among themselves, looking over their shoulders at boys, and the very small children rolled in the dust or clung to the hands of their older brothers or sisters.

¶3Soon the men began to gather, surveying their own children, speaking of planting and rain, tractors and taxes. They stood together, away from the pile of stones in the corner, and their jokes were quiet and they smiled rather than laughed. The women, wearing faded house dresses and sweaters, came shortly after their menfolk. They greeted one another and exchanged bits of gossip as they went to join their husbands. Soon the women, standing by their husbands, began to call to their children, and the children came reluctantly, having to be called four or five times. Bobby Martin ducked under his mother's grasping hand and ran, laughing, back to the pile of stones. His father spoke up sharply, and Bobby came quickly and took his place between his father and his oldest brother.

¶4The lottery was conducted―as were the square dances, the teen club, the Halloween program―by Mr. Summers, who had time and energy to devote to civic activities. He was a round-faced, jovial man and he ran the coal business, and people were sorry for him, because he had no children and his wife was a scold. When he arrived in the square, carrying the black wooden box, there was a murmur of conversation among the villagers, and he waved and called, "Little late today, folks." The postmaster, Mr. Graves, followed him, carrying a three-legged stool, and the stool was put in the center of the square and Mr. Summers set the black box down on it. The villagers kept their distance, leaving a space between themselves and the stool, and when Mr. Summers said, "Some of you fellows want to give me a hand?" there was a hesitation before two men, Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter, came forward to hold the box steady on the stool while Mr. Summers stirred up the papers inside it.

¶5The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born. Mr. Summers spoke frequently to the villagers about making a new box, but no one liked to upset even as much tradition as was represented by the black box. There was a story that the present box had been made with some pieces of the box that had preceded it, the one that had been constructed when the first people settled down to make a village here. Every year, after the lottery, Mr. Summers began talking again about a new box, but every year the subject was allowed to fade off without anything's being done. The black box grew shabbier each year: by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color, and in some places faded or stained.

¶6Mr. Martin and his oldest son, Baxter, held the black box securely on the stool until Mr. Summers had stirred the papers thoroughly with his hand. Because so much of the ritual had been forgotten or discarded, Mr. Summers had been successful in having slips of paper substituted for the chips of wood that had been used for generations. Chips of wood, Mr. Summers had argued, had been all very well when the village was tiny, but now that the population was more than three hundred and likely to keep on growing, it was necessary to use something that would fit more easily into the black box. The night before the lottery, Mr. Summers and Mr. Graves made up the slips of paper and put them in the box, and it was then taken to the safe of Mr. Summers' coal company and locked up until Mr. Summers was ready to take it to the square next morning. The rest of the year, the box was put away, sometimes one place, sometimes another; it had spent one year in Mr. Graves's barn and another year underfoot in the post office, and sometimes it was set on a shelf in the Martin grocery and left there.

¶7There was a great deal of fussing to be done before Mr. Summers declared the lottery open. There were the lists to make up―of heads of families, heads of households in each family. members of each household in each family. There was the proper swearing-in of Mr. Summers by the postmaster, as the official of the lottery; at one time, some people remembered, there had been a recital of some sort, performed by the official of the lottery, a perfunctory, tuneless chant that had been rattled off duly each year; some people believed that the official of the lottery used to stand just so when he said or sang it, others believed that he was supposed to walk among the people, but years and years ago this part of the ritual had been allowed to lapse. There had been, also, a ritual salute, which the official of the lottery had had to use in addressing each person who came up to draw from the box, but this also had changed with time, until now it was felt necessary only for the official to speak to each person approaching. Mr. Summers was very good at all this; in his clean white shirt and blue jeans, with one hand resting carelessly on the black box, he seemed very proper and important as he talked interminably to Mr. Graves and the Martins.

¶8Just as Mr. Summers finally left off talking and turned to the assembled villagers, Mrs. Hutchinson came hurriedly along the path to the square, her sweater thrown over her shoulders, and slid into place in the back of the crowd. "Clean forgot what day it was," she said to Mrs. Delacroix, who stood next to her, and they both laughed softly. "Thought my old man was out back stacking wood," Mrs. Hutchinson went on, "and then I looked out the window and the kids was gone, and then I remembered it was the twenty-seventh and came a- running." She dried her hands on her apron, and Mrs. Delacroix said, "You're in time, though. They're still talking away up there."

¶9Mrs. Hutchinson craned her neck to see through the crowd and found her husband and children standing near the front. She tapped Mrs. Delacroix on the arm as a farewell and began to make her way through the crowd. The people separated good-humoredly to let her through: two or three people said, in voices just loud enough to be heard across the crowd, "Here comes your, Missus, Hutchinson," and "Bill, she made it after all." Mrs. Hutchinson reached her husband, and Mr. Summers, who had been waiting, said cheerfully. "Thought we were going to have to get on without you, Tessie." Mrs. Hutchinson said, grinning, "Wouldn't have me leave m'dishes in the sink, now, would you, Joe?," and soft laughter ran through the crowd as the people stirred back into position after Mrs. Hutchinson's arrival.

¶10"Well, now." Mr. Summers said soberly, "guess we better get started, get this over with, so's we can go back to work. Anybody ain't here?" "Dunbar." several people said.

¶11"Dunbar. Dunbar." Mr. Summers consulted his list. "Clyde Dunbar." he said. "That's right. He's broke his leg, hasn't he? Who's drawing for him?"

¶12"Me, I guess," a woman said. and Mr. Summers turned to look at her. "Wife draws for her husband." Mr. Summers said. "Don't you have a grown boy to do it for you, Janey?" Although Mr. Summers and everyone else in the village knew the answer perfectly well, it was the business of the official of the lottery to ask such questions formally. Mr. Summers waited with an expression of polite interest while Mrs. Dunbar answered.

¶13"Horace's not but sixteen yet." Mrs. Dunbar said regretfully. "Guess I gotta fill in for the old man this year."

¶14"Right," Mr. Summers said. He made a note on the list he was holding. Then he asked, "Watson boy drawing this year?"

¶15A tall boy in the crowd raised his hand. "Here," he said. "I'm drawing for my mother and me." He blinked his eyes nervously and ducked his head as several voices in the crowd said things like "Good fellow, Jack." and "Glad to see your mother's got a man to do it."

¶16"Well," Mr. Summers said, "guess that's everyone. Old Man Warner make it?"

¶17"Here," a voice said and Mr. Summers nodded.

¶18A sudden hush fell on the crowd as Mr. Summers cleared his throat and looked at the list. "All ready?" he called. "Now, I'll read the names―heads of families first―and the men come up and take a paper out of the box. Keep the paper folded in your hand without looking at it until everyone has had a turn. Everything clear?"

¶19The people had done it so many times that they only half listened to the directions: most of them were quiet, wetting their lips, not looking around. Then Mr. Summers raised one hand high and said, "Adams." A man disengaged himself from the crowd and came forward. "Hi, Steve," Mr. Summers said. and Mr. Adams said, "Hi, Joe," They grinned at one another humorlessly and nervously. Then Mr. Adams reached into the black box and took out a folded paper. He held it firmly by one corner as he turned and went hastily back to his place in the crowd, where he stood a little apart from his family, not looking down at his hand.

¶20"Allen," Mr. Summers said. "Anderson.... Bentham."

¶21"Seems like there's no time at all between lotteries any more," Mrs. Delacroix said to Mrs. Graves in the back row.

¶22"Seems like we got through with the last one only last week."

¶23"Time sure goes fast,― Mrs. Graves said.

¶24"Clark.... Delacroix"

¶25"There goes my old man," Mrs. Delacroix said. She held her breath while her husband went forward.

¶26"Dunbar," Mr. Summers said, and Mrs. Dunbar went steadily to the box while one of the women said, "Go on. Janey," and another said, "There she goes."

¶27"We're next." Mrs. Graves said. She watched while Mr. Graves came around from the side of the box, greeted Mr. Summers gravely and selected a slip of paper from the box. By now, all through the crowd there were men holding the small folded papers in their large hands, turning them over and over nervously. Mrs. Dunbar and her two sons stood together, Mrs. Dunbar holding the slip of paper.

¶28"Harburt.... Hutchinson."

¶29"Get up there, Bill," Mrs. Hutchinson said, and the people near her laughed.

¶30"Jones."

¶31"They do say," Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, "that over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery."

¶32Old Man Warner snorted. "Pack of crazy fools," he said. "Listening to the young folks, nothing's good enough for them. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live that way for a while. Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.' First thing you know, we'd all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There's always been a lottery," he added petulantly. "Bad enough to see young Joe Summers up there joking with everybody."

¶33"Some places have already quit lotteries." Mrs. Adams said.

¶34"Nothing but trouble in that," Old Man Warner said stoutly. "Pack of young fools."

¶35"Martin." And Bobby Martin watched his father go forward. "Overdyke.... Percy."

¶36"I wish they'd hurry," Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son. "I wish they'd hurry."

¶37"They're almost through," her son said.

¶38"You get ready to run tell Dad," Mrs. Dunbar said.

¶39Mr. Summers called his own name and then stepped forward precisely and selected a slip from the box. Then he called, "Warner."

¶40"Seventy-seventh year I been in the lottery," Old Man Warner said as he went through the crowd. "Seventy- seventh time."

¶41"Watson" The tall boy came awkwardly through the crowd. Someone said, "Don't be nervous, Jack," and Mr. Summers said, "Take your time, son."

¶42"Zanini."

¶43After that, there was a long pause, a breathless pause, until Mr. Summers. holding his slip of paper in the air, said, "All right, fellows." For a minute, no one moved, and then all the slips of paper were opened. Suddenly, all the women began to speak at once, saying, "Who is it?," "Who's got it?," "Is it the Dunbars?," "Is it the Watsons?" Then the voices began to say, "It's Hutchinson. It's Bill," "Bill Hutchinson's got it."

¶44"Go tell your father," Mrs. Dunbar said to her older son.

¶45People began to look around to see the Hutchinsons. Bill Hutchinson was standing quiet, staring down at the paper in his hand. Suddenly. Tessie Hutchinson shouted to Mr. Summers. "You didn't give him time enough to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn't fair!"

¶46"Be a good sport, Tessie." Mrs. Delacroix called, and Mrs. Graves said, "All of us took the same chance."

¶47"Shut up, Tessie," Bill Hutchinson said.

¶48"Well, everyone," Mr. Summers said, "that was done pretty fast, and now we've got to be hurrying a little more to get done in time." He consulted his next list. "Bill," he said, "you draw for the Hutchinson family. You got any other households in the Hutchinsons?"

¶49"There's Don and Eva," Mrs. Hutchinson yelled. "Make them take their chance!"

¶50"Daughters draw with their husbands' families, Tessie," Mr. Summers said gently. "You know that as well as anyone else."

¶51"It wasn't fair," Tessie said.

¶52"I guess not, Joe." Bill Hutchinson said regretfully. "My daughter draws with her husband's family; that's only fair. And I've got no other family except the kids."

¶53"Then, as far as drawing for families is concerned, it's you," Mr. Summers said in explanation, "and as far as drawing for households is concerned, that's you, too. Right?"

¶54"Right," Bill Hutchinson said.

¶55"How many kids, Bill?" Mr. Summers asked formally.

¶56"Three," Bill Hutchinson said.

¶57"There's Bill Jr., and Nancy, and little Dave. And Tessie and me." "All right, then," Mr. Summers said. "Harry, you got their tickets back?"

¶58Mr. Graves nodded and held up the slips of paper. "Put them in the box, then," Mr. Summers directed. "Take Bill's and put it in."

¶59"I think we ought to start over," Mrs. Hutchinson said, as quietly as she could. "I tell you it wasn't fair. You didn't give him time enough to choose. Everybody saw that."

¶60Mr. Graves had selected the five slips and put them in the box. and he dropped all the papers but those onto the ground. where the breeze caught them and lifted them off.

¶61"Listen, everybody," Mrs. Hutchinson was saying to the people around her.

¶62"Ready, Bill?" Mr. Summers asked. and Bill Hutchinson, with one quick glance around at his wife and children, nodded.

¶63"Remember," Mr. Summers said, "take the slips and keep them folded until each person has taken one. Harry, you help little Dave." Mr. Graves took the hand of the little boy, who came willingly with him up to the box. "Take a paper out of the box, Davy." Mr. Summers said. Davy put his hand into the box and laughed. "Take just one paper." Mr. Summers said. "Harry, you hold it for him." Mr. Graves took the child's hand and removed the folded paper from the tight fist and held it while little Dave stood next to him and looked up at him wonderingly.

¶64"Nancy next," Mr. Summers said. Nancy was twelve, and her school friends breathed heavily as she went forward switching her skirt, and took a slip daintily from the box. "Bill Jr.," Mr. Summers said, and Billy, his face red and his feet overlarge, near knocked the box over as he got a paper out. "Tessie," Mr. Summers said. She hesitated for a minute, looking around defiantly, and then set her lips and went up to the box. She snatched a paper out and held it behind her.

¶65"Bill," Mr. Summers said, and Bill Hutchinson reached into the box and felt around, bringing his hand out at last with the slip of paper in it.

¶66The crowd was quiet. A girl whispered, "I hope it's not Nancy," and the sound of the whisper reached the edges of the crowd.

¶67"It's not the way it used to be." Old Man Warner said clearly. "People ain't the way they used to be."

¶68"All right," Mr. Summers said. "Open the papers. Harry, you open little Dave's."

¶69Mr. Graves opened the slip of paper and there was a general sigh through the crowd as he held it up and everyone could see that it was blank. Nancy and Bill. Jr. opened theirs at the same time, and both beamed and laughed, turning around to the crowd and holding their slips of paper above their heads.

¶70"Tessie," Mr. Summers said. There was a pause, and then Mr. Summers looked at Bill Hutchinson, and Bill unfolded his paper and showed it. It was blank. "It's Tessie," Mr. Summers said, and his voice was hushed. "Show us her paper. Bill."

¶71Bill Hutchinson went over to his wife and forced the slip of paper out of her hand. It had a black spot on it, the black spot Mr. Summers had made the night before with the heavy pencil in the coal company office. Bill Hutchinson held it up, and there was a stir in the crowd.

¶72"All right, folks." Mr. Summers said, "let's finish quickly."

¶73Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual and lost the original black box, they still remembered to use stones. The pile of stones the boys had made earlier was ready; there were stones on the ground with the blowing scraps of paper that had come out of the box. Mrs. Delacroix selected a stone so large she had to pick it up with both hands and turned to Mrs. Dunbar. "Come on," she said. "Hurry up."

¶74Mrs. Dunbar had small stones in both hands, and she said, gasping for breath. "I can't run at all. You'll have to go ahead and I'll catch up with you."

¶75The children had stones already, and someone gave little Davy Hutchinson few pebbles.

¶76Tessie Hutchinson was in the center of a cleared space by now, and she held her hands out desperately as the villagers moved in on her. "It isn't fair," she said. A stone hit her on the side of the head. Old Man Warner was saying, "Come on, come on, everyone." Steve Adams was in the front of the crowd of villagers, with Mrs. Graves beside him.

¶77"It isn't fair, it isn't right," Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.

¶KWhen I mentioned to the Klebolds that I thought they spoke with an extraordinary clarity about their situation, in contrast to some of the other people I had interviewed for this chapter, Tom said, "We are able to be open and honest about those things because our son is dead. His story is complete. We can't hope for him to do something else, something better. You can tell a story a whole lot better when you know its ending." A few years after we first met, Sue said to me, "Way back when, we almost got a house in California, and our offer was turned down, and this house in Littleton came up, we made a low offer, and we were so thrilled when it was accepted. At the time we said how lucky we were that the house in California hadn't worked out. But if it had, Columbine wouldn't have happened. When it first happened, I used to wish that I had never had children, that I had never married. If Tom and I hadn't crossed paths at Ohio State, Dylan wouldn't have existed and this terrible thing wouldn't have happened. But over time, I've come to feel that, for myself, I am glad I had kids and glad I had the kids I did, because the love for them-even at the price of this pain-has been the single greatest joy of my life. When I say that, I am speaking of my own pain, and not of the pain of other people. But I accept my own pain; life is full of suffering, and this is mine. I know it would have been better for the world if Dylan had never been born. But I believe it would not have been better for me."

¶1once said, “There is no such thing as a baby—meaning that if you set out to describe a baby, you will find you are describing a baby and someone. A baby cannot exist alone but is essentially part of a relationship.” Insofar as our children resemble us, they are our most precious admirers, and insofar as they differ, they can be our most vehement detractors. From the beginning, we tempt them into imitation of us and long for what may be life’s most profound compliment: their choosing to live according to our own system of values. Though many of us take pride in how different we are from our parents, we are endlessly sad at how different our children are from us. Because of the transmission of identity from one generation to the next, most children share at least some traits with their parents. These are vertical identities. Attributes and values are passed down from parent to child across the generations not only through strands of DNA, but also through shared cultural norms. Ethnicity, for example, is a vertical identity. Children of color are in general born to parents of color; the genetic fact of skin pigmentation is transmitted across generations along with a self-image as a person of color, even though that self-image may be subject to generational flux. Language is usually vertical, since most people who speak Greek raise their children to speak Greek, too, even if they inflect it differently or speak another language much of the time. Religion is moderately vertical: Catholic parents will tend to bring up Catholic children, though the children may turn irreligious or convert to another faith. Nationality is vertical, except for immigrants. Blondness and myopia are often transmitted from parent to child, but in most cases do not form a significant basis for identity—blondness because it is fairly insignificant, and myopia because it is easily corrected.

¶2Often, however, someone has an inherent or acquired trait that is foreign to his or her parents and must therefore acquire identity from a peer group. This is a horizontal identity. Such horizontal identities may reflect recessive genes, random mutations, prenatal influences, or values and preferences that a child does not share with his progenitors. Being gay is a horizontal identity; most gay kids are born to straight parents, and while their sexuality is not determined by their peers, they learn gay identity by observing and participating in a subculture outside the family. Physical disability tends to be horizontal, as does genius. Psychopathy, too, is often horizontal; most criminals are not raised by mobsters and must invent their own treachery. So are conditions such as autism and intellectual disability. A child conceived in rape is born into emotional challenges that his own mother cannot know, even though they spring from her trauma.

¶3In 1993, I was assigned to investigate Deaf culture for the New York Times. My assumption about deafness was that it was a deficit and nothing more. Over the months that followed, I found myself drawn into the Deaf world. Most deaf children are born to hearing parents, and those parents frequently prioritize functioning in the hearing world, expending enormous energy on oral speech and lipreading. Doing so, they can neglect other areas of their children’s education. While some deaf people are good at lipreading and produce comprehensible speech, many do not have that skill, and years go by as they sit endlessly with audiologists and speech pathologists instead of learning history and mathematics and philosophy. Many stumble upon Deaf identity in adolescence, and it comes as a great liberation. They move into a world that validates Sign as a language and discover themselves. Some hearing parents accept this powerful new development; others struggle against it.

¶4The whole situation felt arrestingly familiar to me because I am gay. Gay people usually grow up under the purview of straight parents who feel that their children would be better off straight and sometimes torment them by pressing them to conform. Those gay people often discover gay identity in adolescence or afterward, finding great relief there. When I started writing about the deaf, the cochlear implant, which can provide some facsimile of hearing, was a recent innovation. It had been hailed by its progenitors as a miraculous cure for a terrible defect and was deplored by the Deaf community as a genocidal attack on a vibrant community. Both sides have since moderated their rhetoric, but the issue is complicated by the fact that cochlear implants are most effective when they are surgically implanted early—in infants, ideally— so the decision is often made by parents before the child can possibly have or express an informed opinion. Watching the debate, I knew that my own parents would gamely have consented to a parallel early procedure to ensure that I would be straight, had one existed. I do not doubt that the advent of such a thing even now could wipe out most of gay culture. I am saddened by the idea of such a threat, and yet as my understanding of Deaf culture deepened, I realized that the attitudes I had found benighted in my parents resembled my own likely response to producing a deaf child. My first impulse would have been to do whatever I could to fix the abnormality.

¶5Then a friend had a daughter who was a dwarf. She wondered whether she should bring up her daughter to consider herself just like everyone else, only shorter; whether she should make sure her daughter had dwarf role models; or whether she should investigate surgical limb-lengthening. As she narrated her bafflement, I saw a familiar pattern. I had been startled to note my common ground with the Deaf, and now I was identifying with a dwarf; I wondered who else was out there waiting to join our gladsome throng. I thought that if gayness, an identity, could grow out of homosexuality, an illness, and Deafness, an identity, could grow out of deafness, an illness, and if dwarfism as an identity could emerge from an apparent disability, then there must be many other categories in this awkward interstitial territory. It was a radicalizing insight. Having always imagined myself in a fairly slim minority, I suddenly saw that I was in a vast company. Difference unites us. While each of these experiences can isolate those who are affected, together they compose an aggregate of millions whose struggles connect them profoundly. The exceptional is ubiquitous; to be entirely typical is the rare and lonely state.

¶6As my parents had misapprehended who I was, so other parents must be constantly misapprehending their own children. Many parents experience their child’s horizontal identity as an affront. A child’s marked difference from the rest of the family demands knowledge, competence, and actions that a typical mother and father are unqualified to supply, at least initially. The child is expressly different from most of his or her peers as well, and therefore broadly less understood or accepted. Abusive fathers visit less abuse on children who resemble them physically; if you are born to a bully, pray that you bear his features. Whereas families tend to reinforce vertical identities from earliest childhood, many will oppose horizontal ones. Vertical identities are usually respected as identities; horizontal ones are often treated as flaws.

¶7One could argue that black people face many disadvantages in the United States today, but there is little research into how gene expression could be altered to make the next generation of children born to black parents come out with straight, flaxen hair and creamy complexions. In modern America, it is sometimes hard to be Asian or Jewish or female, yet no one suggests that Asians, Jews, or women would be foolish not to become white Christian men if they could. Many vertical identities make people uncomfortable, and yet we do not attempt to homogenize them. The disadvantages of being gay are arguably no greater than those of such vertical identities, but most parents have long sought to turn their gay children straight. Anomalous bodies are usually more frightening to people who witness them than to people who have them, yet parents rush to normalize physical exceptionalism, often at great psychic cost to themselves and their children. Labeling a child’s mind as diseased—whether with autism, intellectual disabilities, or transgenderism—may reflect the discomfort that mind gives parents more than any discomfort it causes their child. Much gets corrected that might better have been left alone.

¶8Defective is an adjective that has long been deemed too freighted for liberal discourse, but the medical terms that have supplanted it—illness, syndrome, condition—can be almost equally pejorative in their discreet way. We often use illness to disparage a way of being, and identity to validate that same way of being. This is a false dichotomy. In physics, the Copenhagen interpretation defines energy/matter as behaving sometimes like a wave and sometimes like a particle, which suggests that it is both, and posits that it is our human limitation to be unable to see both at the same time. The Nobel Prize–winning physicist Paul Dirac identified how light appears to be a particle if we ask a particle-like question, and a wave if we ask a wavelike question. A similar duality obtains in this matter of self. Many conditions are both illness and identity, but we can see one only when we obscure the other. Identity politics refutes the idea of illness, while medicine shortchanges identity. Both are diminished by this narrowness.

¶9Physicists gain certain insights from understanding energy as a wave, and other insights from understanding it as a particle, and use quantum mechanics to reconcile the information they have gleaned. Similarly, we have to examine illness and identity, understand that observation will usually happen in one domain or the other, and come up with a syncretic mechanics. We need a vocabulary in which the two concepts are not opposites, but compatible aspects of a condition. The problem is to change how we assess the value of individuals and of lives, to reach for a more ecumenical take on healthy. Ludwig Wittgenstein said, “All I know is what I have words for.” The absence of words is the absence of intimacy; these experiences are starved for language.

¶10The children I describe here have horizontal conditions that are alien to their parents. They are deaf or dwarfs; they have Down syndrome, autism, schizophrenia, or multiple severe disabilities; they are prodigies; they are people conceived in rape or who commit crimes; they are transgender. The timeworn adage says that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, meaning that a child resembles his or her parents; these children are apples that have fallen elsewhere—some a couple of orchards away, some on the other side of the world. Yet myriad families learn to tolerate, accept, and finally celebrate children who are not what they originally had in mind. This transformative process is often eased and sometimes confounded by identity politics and medical progress— both of which have infiltrated households to a degree that would have been inconceivable even twenty years ago.

¶11All offspring are startling to their parents; these most dramatic situations are merely variations on a common theme. Much as we learn the properties of a medication by studying its effect at extremely high doses, or look at the viability of a construction material by exposing it to unearthly supertemperatures, so we can understand the universal phenomenon of difference within families by looking at these extreme cases. Having exceptional children exaggerates parental tendencies; those who would be bad parents become awful parents, but those who would be good parents often become extraordinary. I take the anti-Tolstoyan view that the unhappy families who reject their variant children have much in common, while the happy ones who strive to accept them are happy in a multitude of ways.

¶12Because prospective parents have ever-increasing options to choose against having children with horizontal challenges, the experiences of those who have such children are critical to our larger understanding of difference. Parents’ early responses to and interactions with a child determine how that child comes to view himself. These parents are also profoundly changed by their experiences. If you have a child with a disability, you are forever the parent of a disabled child; it is one of the primary facts about you, fundamental to the way other people perceive and decipher you. Such parents tend to view aberrance as illness until habituation and love enable them to cope with their odd new reality— often by introducing the language of identity. Intimacy with difference fosters its accommodation.

¶13Broadcasting these parents’ learned happiness is vital to sustaining identities that are now vulnerable to eradication. Their stories point a way for all of us to expand our definitions of the human family. It’s important to know how autistic people feel about autism, or dwarfs about dwarfism. Self-acceptance is part of the ideal, but without familial and societal acceptance, it cannot ameliorate the relentless injustices to which many horizontal identity groups are subject and will not bring about adequate reform. We live in xenophobic times, when legislation with majority support abrogates the rights of women, LGBT people, illegal immigrants, and the poor. Despite this crisis in empathy, compassion thrives at home, and most of the parents I have profiled love across the divide. Understanding how they came to think well of their own children may give the rest of us motive and insight to do the same. To look deep into your child’s eyes and see in him both yourself and something utterly strange, and then to develop a zealous attachment to every aspect of him, is to achieve parenthood’s self-regarding, yet unselfish, abandon. It is astonishing how often such mutuality has been realized—how frequently parents who had supposed that they couldn’t care for an exceptional child discover that they can. The parental predisposition to love prevails in the most harrowing of circumstances. There is more imagination in the world than one might think.

¶14existence at all.” They received compensation for the cost of care, and damages for parental pain and suffering.

¶15Although wrongful-life cases address an ontological question about what kind of life is worth living, this is hardly what prompts them. Being disabled entails colossal expense, and most parents who launch wrongful-life suits do so in an attempt to guarantee care for their children. In an ugly twist, mothers and fathers must discharge the obligations of responsible parenting by stating in legal documents that they wish their children had never been born.

¶16Some people can bear a great deal of pain and still experience great happiness, while others are made unrelentingly miserable by less acute pain. There’s no way to know how much pain any particular baby can cope with, and by the time the parents form accurate perceptions of this, social prohibitions, legal strictures, and hospital policies make it exceedingly difficult to discontinue treatment. Even among self-aware adults, many people with apparently barren existences cling to life, while others with enviable situations kill themselves.

¶17Over ten years, I interviewed more than three hundred families for this book, some briefly and some in depth, producing nearly forty thousand pages of interview transcripts. I interviewed but did not write about irreligious parents of fundamentalist children; parents of children with dyslexia and other learning disabilities; parents of obese children and of addicted children; parents of giants with Marfan syndrome, of limbless children with phocomelia syndrome, and of adult “thalidomide babies”; parents of premature babies; parents of depressed and bipolar children, of children with AIDS or cancer. I talked to parents who had adopted disabled children or children of a different race from another country. I talked to parents of intersex children who couldn’t decide in what gender to raise them. I talked to the parents of supermodels, of bullies, and of the blind.

¶18It would have been easier to write a book about five conditions. I wanted, however, to explore the spectrum of difference, to show that raising a child of extraordinary abilities is in some ways like raising a child of reduced capacities, to show that a child’s traumatic origin (rape) or traumatic acts (crime) can have surprising parallels to the condition of his mind (autistic, schizophrenic, prodigious) or of his body (dwarfism, deafness). Each of the ten categories I explored poses a unique but related set of questions, which together describe the spectrum of issues faced by parents of children with horizontal identities. I found excellent scholarship on each of my individual topics, and some on the smaller collective topics (general books on disability, on retardation, on genius), but nothing addressing this overarching issue of illness and identity.

¶19Each of these chapters poses a particular set of questions, and taken together, they indicate a spectrum of issues faced by parents of children with horizontal identities, and by those children themselves. The six chapters that follow this one deal with categories long classified as illnesses, while the four that follow those describe categories that appear to be more socially constructed. I have relied primarily on American and British interview subjects, but investigated one non-Western context in which what we perceive as an aberrant illness is commonplace—by studying congenital deafness in a village in northern Bali—and one non-Western context in which what we perceive as an aberrant identity is commonplace—by interviewing Rwandan women who conceived children in rape during the 1994 genocide.

¶20Though I have gathered statistics, I have relied primarily on anecdotes because numbers imply trends, while stories acknowledge chaos. If you talk to a family, you have to process conflicting narratives, trying to reconcile the genuine beliefs—or canny manipulations—of various parties. I worked on a psychodynamic model according to which people’s interactions with me in the microcosm of journalistic neutrality indicated how they interact with the world. Throughout, I refer to members of the families I interviewed by first name. I do this not to create a gloss of intimacy, as self-help books often try to do, but because various members of families share last names, and this is the least cumbersome way to keep track of my subjects.

¶21I had to learn a great deal to be able to hear these men and women and children. On my first day at my first dwarf convention, I went over to help an adolescent girl who was sobbing. “This is what I look like,” she blurted between gasps, and it seemed she was half laughing. “These people look like me.” Her mother, who was standing nearby, said, “You don’t know what this means to my daughter. But it also means a lot to me, to meet these other parents who will know what I’m talking about.” She assumed I, too, must be a parent of a child with dwarfism; when she learned that I was not, she chuckled, “For a few days, now, you can be the freakish one.” Many of the worlds I visited were animated by such a fierce sense of community that I experienced pangs of jealousy. I would not wish to trivialize the difficulty of these identities, but I knew about that going in. The revelation was all the joy.

¶22While denying the anger and tedium of parenting can be crushing, dwelling on it is also a mistake. Many of the people I interviewed said that they would never exchange their experiences for any other life— sound thinking, given that exchange is unavailable. Cleaving to our own lives, with all their challenges and limitations and particularities, is vital. And that should not be exclusively a horizontal principle; that should be handed down from generation to generation with the silver spoons and the folktales from the old country. The British critic Nigel Andrews once wrote, “If something or someone doesn’t work, it’s in a state of grace, progress, and evolution. It will attract love and empathy. If it does work, it has merely completed its job and is probably dead.”

¶23Having a severely challenging child intensifies life. The lows are almost always very low; the highs are sometimes very high. It takes an act of will to grow from loss: the disruption provides the opportunity for growth, not the growth itself. Constant high levels of stress may age parents of profoundly disabled children, making them crankier and more vulnerable, yet some cultivate a deep and abiding resilience. It turns out they have grown more skilled at handling other life stresses. Even as the downside wears you thin, the upside keeps on giving. The more difficult the problem, the more profound these positives may be. One study explains, “Mothers reporting higher levels of caregiving demands for their child with intellectual disability also reported more personal growth and maturity.” The Canadian scholar Dick Sobsey, himself the father of a disabled child, and his colleague Kate Scorgie write, “Parents of children with relatively mild disabilities may be more likely to adjust or accommodate by making minor or superficial changes. Conversely, parents of children with more severe disabilities may find it more difficult or impossible to go on with their lives as before and, as a result, may be more likely to undergo transformations.” Positive transformations are achieved when initial disequilibrium, which is traumatic and brief, gives way to psychic reorganization, which is gradual and enduring. It would appear to be true that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

¶24Those men and women who believe that parenting a disabled child has given them knowledge or hope they wouldn’t otherwise have had find worth in their lives, and those parents who don’t see such possibilities often can’t. Those who believe their suffering has been valuable love more readily than those who see no meaning in their pain. Suffering does not necessarily imply love, but love implies suffering, and what changes with these children and their extraordinary situations is the shape of suffering—and in consequence, the shape of love, forced into a more difficult form. It doesn’t really matter whether the meaning is there; it matters only whether it is perceived. Delusions of physical health may be delusions; someone who has congestive heart failure will probably die from it whether he believes that he has it or not. Delusions of mental health are more robust. If you believe that your experiences have vitalized you, then they have; vitality is an interior state, and experiencing it is its own truth. In one study, mothers who construed advantages from having premature babies experienced less psychological pain and were more responsive to their children’s needs, while those who saw no advantages in the experience had children who were doing less well at age two. A study that looked at children with various complications at birth found, simply, “The children of mothers who had tried harder to find meaning had a better developmental outcome.”

¶25The world is made more interesting by having every sort of person in it. That is a social vision. We should alleviate the suffering of each individual to the outer limits of our abilities. That is a humanist vision with medical overtones. Some think that without suffering the world would be boring; some, that without their own suffering the world would be boring. Life is enriched by difficulty; love is made more acute when it requires exertion. I used to think that the nature of the challenge was extremely important. In my last book, I wrote about how at some level I loved my depression because it had tested my mettle and made me into who I am. I now think I could have had the same enrichment from having a child with Down syndrome, or having cancer. It is not suffering that is precious, but the concentric pearlescence with which we contain it. The raw grit of anguish will never be in short supply. There is enough of it in the happiest life to serve these instructive purposes and there always will be. We are more sympathetic to Holocaust survivors than to malcontent children of privilege, but we all have our darkness, and the trick is making something exalted of it. We say that our struggles have ennobled us, but we don’t know who we would have been without them. We might have been equally wonderful; our best qualities might be inherent rather than circumstantial. Nonetheless, most people look back even on unhappiness with nostalgia. I once accompanied a Russian artist to visit his elderly mother in Moscow. When we arrived at her apartment, we found her watching a Soviet propaganda movie from the 1940s on TV. I said to her, “Nadezhda Konstantinova, you were sent to the Gulag in that exact time, on the basis of that exact philosophy. And now you sit around watching that for entertainment?” She smiled and shrugged her shoulders. “But it was my youth,” she said.

¶26The question I was most frequently asked about this project was which of these conditions was the worst. From my own perspective, some conditions seem tolerable; some, desirable; others, terribly difficult. Bias varies, and other people revel in ways of being that I find frightening. I understand, therefore, why my own way of being frightens some people. Difference and disability seem to invite people to step back and judge. Parents judge what lives are worth living, and worth their living with; activists judge them for doing so; legal scholars judge who should make such judgments; doctors judge which lives to save; politicians judge how much accommodation people with special needs deserve; insurance companies judge how much lives are worth. Negative judgments are not confined to people who perceive themselves to be in the mainstream. Almost everyone I interviewed was to some degree put off by the chapters in this book other than his or her own. Deaf people didn’t want to be compared to people with schizophrenia; some parents of schizophrenics were creeped out by dwarfs; criminals couldn’t abide the idea that they had anything in common with transgender people. The prodigies and their families objected to being in a book with the severely disabled, and some children of rape felt that their emotional struggle was trivialized when they were compared to gay activists. People with autism often pointed out that Down syndrome entailed a categorically lower intelligence than theirs.

¶27The compulsion to build such hierarchies persists even among these people, all of whom have been harmed by them. Halfway through my writing of this, a mother who had spoken to me freely about her transgender teenager’s autism agreed that I could refer to him as male; she had originally asked me to avoid the issue of his gender because the prejudice against trans people and potential for hostile scrutiny terrified her. As I got to the end of the writing, a woman I’d known well as the mother of a transman admitted that her son was on the autism spectrum; she had not mentioned this previously because she thought the stigma was too significant. There is no consensus on what can be talked about and what needs to be hidden. Tobin Siebers makes a moving case for horizontal solidarity by pointing out that our disdain for people who cannot care for themselves is rooted in a false proposition. He argues that inclusion of disabled people “exposes the widespread dependence of people and nations on one another, dispelling the dangerous myth that individuals or nations exist naturally in a state of autonomy and that those individuals or nations that fall into dependence are somehow inferior to others.”

¶28The beautiful mosaic of multiculturalism was a needed antidote to the melting pot of assimilationism. Now it’s time for the little principalities to find their collective strength. Intersectionality is the theory that various kinds of oppression feed one another—that you cannot, for example, eliminate sexism without addressing racism. Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, told me how galling it was to him, growing up in a white town, when he and his adoptive brother were taunted for being black—and how much more distressing it was when some of the people who didn’t patronize them for their race went after his brother for being gay. “If we tolerate prejudice toward any group, we tolerate it toward all groups,” he said. “I couldn’t have relationships that were conditional on excluding my brother—or anyone else. We are all in one fight, and our freedom is all the same freedom.”

¶29In 2011, gay marriage became legal in New York State after several Republicans in the state Senate agreed to support it. One of them, Roy J. McDonald, said that he had changed his stance on gay marriage because he had two autistic grandchildren, which had caused him “to rethink several issues.” Jared Spurbeck, an autistic adult, thought his own quirks were “a sign of sinfulness” when he was growing up in the Mormon faith; when he started reading about gay Mormons, he found their experience much the same as his. “I couldn’t ignore the parallels between autism and homosexuality. Once I’d accepted the one, I couldn’t not accept the other.”

¶30I encountered activists of every stripe while I did this research and admired them even when I occasionally found their rhetoric expedient. The changes they sought seemed, individually, restricted to their particular province and experience, but as a group, they represent a rethinking of humanity. Most parents who become activists do so because they want to spur social change, but that impulse is never unalloyed. Some find it a relief because it gets them out of the house and away from their child without their having to feel guilty about it. Some use activism to distract themselves from grief; parents often laud what they rue most about their children to defend against despair. But just as belief can result in action, action can result in belief. You can gradually fall in love with your child, and by extension with that child’s disabilities, and by further extension with all the world’s brave disadvantages. Many of the activists I met were determined to help other people because they couldn’t help themselves. Activism successfully displaced their pain. By teaching their learned optimism or strength to parents reeling from a recent diagnosis, they fortified it in their own families.

¶31I understand this strategy firsthand, because writing this book addressed a sadness within me and—somewhat to my surprise—has largely cured it. The best way to get through these horizontalities is to find coherence, and in the wake of these stories, I recast my own narrative. I have a horizontal experience of being gay and a vertical one of the family that produced me, and the fact that they are not fully integrated no longer seems to undermine either. Some impulse toward anger at my parents evaporated, leaving only trace residue. In absorbing stories of strangers’ clemency, I realized that I had demanded that my parents accept me but had resisted accepting them. Once I did, I was glad to have their ubiquitous company. The playwright Doug Wright once said that family inflicts the deepest wounds, then salves them the most tenderly. When I realized there was no refuge from my parents’ meddling, I learned to value it over loneliness and call it love. I started my research aggrieved; I ended it forbearing. I set off to understand myself and ended up understanding my parents. Unhappiness is a constant grudging, and in these pages, happiness served as a spur to amnesty. Their love always forgave me; mine came to forgive them, too. I know that who I was appalled my mother and concerned my father, and I used to be furious at them for not embracing this horizontal part of me, for not embracing the early evidence of it. Writing has been a lesson in absolution, because I have seen the valiance love takes. Acceptance was always easier for my father than it was for my mother, but that was not particular to me; he accepts himself more readily than she did herself. In her own mind, she always fell short; in my father’s own mind, he is victorious. The interior daring of becoming myself was my mother’s gift to me, while the outer audacity to express that self came from my father.

¶32I wish I’d been accepted sooner and better. When I was younger, not being accepted made me enraged, but now, I am not inclined to dismantle my history. If you banish the dragons, you banish the heroes —and we become attached to the heroic strain in our personal history. We choose our own lives. It is not simply that we decide on the behaviors that construct our experience; when given our druthers, we elect to be ourselves. Most of us would like to be more successful or more beautiful or wealthier, and most people endure episodes of low self-esteem or even self-hatred. We despair a hundred times a day. But we retain the startling evolutionary imperative of affection for the fact of ourselves, and with that splinter of grandiosity we redeem our flaws.

¶33These parents have, by and large, chosen to love their children, and many of them have chosen to value their own lives, even though they carry what much of the world considers an intolerable burden. Children with horizontal identities alter your self painfully; they also illuminate it. They are receptacles for rage and joy—even for salvation. When we love them, we achieve above all else the rapture of privileging what exists over what we have merely imagined.

¶34A follower of the Dalai Lama who had been imprisoned by the Chinese for decades was asked if he had ever been afraid in jail, and he said his fear was that he would lose compassion for his captors. Parents often think that they’ve captured something small and vulnerable, but the parents I’ve profiled have been captured, locked up with their children’s madness or genius or deformity, and the quest is never to lose compassion. A Buddhist scholar once explained to me that most Westerners mistakenly think that nirvana is what you arrive at when your suffering is over and only an eternity of happiness stretches ahead. But such bliss would always be shadowed by the sorrow of the past and would therefore be imperfect. Nirvana occurs when you not only look forward to rapture, but also gaze back into the times of anguish and find in them the seeds of your joy. You may not have felt that happiness at the time, but in retrospect it is incontrovertible.

¶35For some parents of children with horizontal identities, acceptance reaches its apogee when parents conclude that while they supposed that they were pinioned by a great and catastrophic loss of hope, they were in fact falling in love with someone they didn’t yet know enough to want. As such parents look back, they see how every stage of loving their child has enriched them in ways they never would have conceived, ways that are incalculably precious. Rumi said that the light enters you at the bandaged place. This book’s conundrum is that most of the families described here have ended up grateful for experiences they would have done anything to avoid.