Baby Names & Divorce

I recently read a short story that initially spelled itself out to be about the epidemic of babies and divorce. It was “Covered Bridges” by Barbara Kingsolver. What it really was though, was an easy-going way of describing a way married couples discuss making a family. For those that haven’t read it, I promise to try and not spoil anything.

family, for example, everyone has a skin tone of a caramel frappe from McDonalds, or darker. Except me. I, alone, happened to be presented with genes from a great-great Irish woman. Born with skin bright as a half-moon, hair that mirrors a Cavaliers jersey, and many freckles, I was a spectacle that wasn’t expected. But, I did say “up until recently” because, there’s this new hot topic in the science world, “Designer Babies.” The name might be more colloquial than I remember, but the idea is what you expect. Babies that can be designed by doctors, for a high price of course. You can make your baby have green eyes, even if no such gene existed in the family (I will try to find my old notes on this topic to provide the academic references). But, there is a movie, Gattaca, which shares a similar experience to designing babies. The whole idea of designing a baby was really to reduce its risk of health concerns. Like, for health risks that are passed down vertically, doctors could make sure that the baby born did not have that gene, or, it would simply be a carrier. Creatively recreating procreation.

But, in that story, two abilities of married couples – create a baby, destroy the marriage. Up until recently, creating a baby was chance. There wasn’t a sure shot of what you’d get. My

At the same time, divorce could act as the opposite of creation: destruction. A traditional family is made up of parents and children. A divorce will destroy the traditional family, but, potentially actualy create, the single-parent family. I guess, from destruction a new creation will come about; a phoenix and recycling are two examples.

But, there was also this other story, “The Woman Who Lost Her Names” by Nessa Rapoport. Names were created to identify. They have to do with identity. Back in the day, ok, back in high school, I remember we read The Great Gatsby, a novel that spawned several film adaptations where each one did not live up to the themes presented in the book, where the idea of identity is ubiquitous. The title character changes his name, his persona, becoming almost a completely different person. In the short story, opposed to Gatsby changing his name, Sarah’s name was consistently changed for her. It’s almost like she was not in control of who she was supposed to be. The people who called her different names, always had a good excuse to do so, except when her parents called her “Sarele.” Either it was easier, or she couldn’t have the same name as someone else, or she needed to be a living memoir. She would lose them as the title suggests – but the title really comes from her cousin’s quick anecdote about losing his name to fame. In some cases, a name given to her was recreated; Sarele, Josephine. It’s like they were playing around with her life and different names, with really not much care or consideration to how she would feel about it.

Me being an upcoming writer, I already have a few personas I’ve written under, and they have different names. If you follow me on Twitter, you already know two of those names. But, to make sense of all this. What I should have weaved in more explicitly, is that, we create who we are. We, as humans, have that ability to draw our appearances, determine our insides, and write our labels that we wish to be called. Figuratively, and literally.