Context
I have a large amount of t-shirts. Since this is a wearable collection, I rotate them on a regular basis and usually wear whatever comes to the top of the pile. Today's selection was a shirt depicting Suicide Squid, the mascot for an old Usenet group named rec.arts.comics. You can find a picture of the shirt in question, plus a faux description of the character, here.
Commentary
Over the years I've become more aware of the sensitivities of others, so I've discarded some of my t-shirts that, while funny, could also be construed as insulting. Therefore, when I looked at the Suicide Squid this morning, with its depiction of seven methods of self-annihilation (It would be eight, but one of his tentacles is holding a knife while slitting the wrist[?] of another.), I thought about whether he should join his departed friends. After all, I can hear the reaction in my mind: "Suicide isn't funny!"
Actually, that's wrong. Anything, viewed from the proper perspective, is funny. In my opinion, you only have to look at a picture of an octopus sticking a knife in a toaster (C'mon, have you clicked on the link up in the Context yet?) to know that. Furthermore, although I take the pain that precedes a suicide attempt very seriously, I think poking some fun at the act itself might be beneficial.
It seems to me that one of the reasons some vulnerable populations like teenagers consider suicide is because it is serious. They think, "This, finally, is the thing that will make me worthy of people's attention." The movie Heathers, which takes on the unenviable task of making both suicide and homicide funny, shows this in a scene where a high school loser gets excoriated for trying to commit suicide, an activity which is apparently reserved for the cool kids.
Even Freddy Mercury took his potshots at the "that'll show 'em" aspect of suicide. He wrote a song for Queen that seemed like an effective deterrent to me when I was a teenager because it said this in a jaunty uptempo rhythm:
Don't try suicide; nobody's worth it.
Don't try suicide; nobody cares.
Don't try suicide; you're just gonna hate it.
Don't try suicide; nobody gives a damn!
In the end, that's why we make fun of dark subjects; it takes away a little bit of their power, their mystique. If wearing a t-shirt with a squid reading Kafka in order to off himself (Seriously, go look at the link!) reduces the allure of suicide even a little bit, my work is done.
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
10/27/2012
11/10/2010
I saw a description of groupings
Context
I read Andrew Sullivan's article about the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on The Atlantic's website today. In it, he mentions that although we have three major political groups in the United States (Republicans, Democrats and Independents), we also have three cultural one (idealogues, pragmatists, and the totally indifferent).
Commentary
At first I thought I liked the idea of cultural groupings as opposed to political ones because I don't really fit comfortably into a Republican, Democratic, or Independent box. I mean, I usually self-identify as Independent, but as Inigo Montoya would say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
"Independent" for me does not imply "centrist," but rather "left of Democratic." I often vote Democrat, but I'll be danged if I'll call myself one! And if I'm completely honest, I have to say I'm sometimes to the right of the average Democrat as well, especially when it comes to intellectual freedom.
On the other hand, I don't really belong exclusively to an idealistic, pragmatic or indifferent culture either. I'm generally pragmatic, but when it comes to certain bedrock principles (peace, integrity, equality, simplicity), I can be just as dogmatic as the next person. And there are some political issues I'm not interested in. Local elections in Shreveport often revolve around code enforcement. I try to care, but I really don't.
No, I think what attracts me to the cultural groupings described by Sullivan is not that they describe me better, but that they seem to allow for a lot more flexibility in our political dialogue. Maybe I'm being all too pragmatic, but doesn't it seem like things would go better if we could just acknowledge these different characteristics in each other?
Try this on for size: "Oh, that's an issue that's of deep personal concern to you and my treating it clinically is not helpful. Go ahead and tell me about your passion and I'll listen because I care about you as a person."
Or maybe: "I can see you're not as vested in this problem as I am, so I won't waste time for both of us trying to bring you over to my side."
Even: "No, I wouldn't dream of calling you a RINO because your interests are different from mine. That would be rude."
What did you see today?
I read Andrew Sullivan's article about the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on The Atlantic's website today. In it, he mentions that although we have three major political groups in the United States (Republicans, Democrats and Independents), we also have three cultural one (idealogues, pragmatists, and the totally indifferent).
Commentary
At first I thought I liked the idea of cultural groupings as opposed to political ones because I don't really fit comfortably into a Republican, Democratic, or Independent box. I mean, I usually self-identify as Independent, but as Inigo Montoya would say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
"Independent" for me does not imply "centrist," but rather "left of Democratic." I often vote Democrat, but I'll be danged if I'll call myself one! And if I'm completely honest, I have to say I'm sometimes to the right of the average Democrat as well, especially when it comes to intellectual freedom.
On the other hand, I don't really belong exclusively to an idealistic, pragmatic or indifferent culture either. I'm generally pragmatic, but when it comes to certain bedrock principles (peace, integrity, equality, simplicity), I can be just as dogmatic as the next person. And there are some political issues I'm not interested in. Local elections in Shreveport often revolve around code enforcement. I try to care, but I really don't.
No, I think what attracts me to the cultural groupings described by Sullivan is not that they describe me better, but that they seem to allow for a lot more flexibility in our political dialogue. Maybe I'm being all too pragmatic, but doesn't it seem like things would go better if we could just acknowledge these different characteristics in each other?
Try this on for size: "Oh, that's an issue that's of deep personal concern to you and my treating it clinically is not helpful. Go ahead and tell me about your passion and I'll listen because I care about you as a person."
Or maybe: "I can see you're not as vested in this problem as I am, so I won't waste time for both of us trying to bring you over to my side."
Even: "No, I wouldn't dream of calling you a RINO because your interests are different from mine. That would be rude."
What did you see today?
11/28/2009
I heard a plea for help
Context
At my Quaker meeting we usually have a program before our meeting for worship. The program today was about handling emotions like anger and sadness while still remaining faithful to the testimony on integrity. During our discussion, one regular attender spoke about someone he knows whose life is in turmoil because she refuses to forgive her father for mistreating her. He asked if we had a suggestion for something to say that wouldn't cause her to turn on him and I said that nothing could ensure the desired response.
Commentary
I hope I wasn't too harsh with my co-religionist. My concern was that he might be seeking a magic bullet here and I wanted to discourage him in that endeavor.
I blame writers. Frequently in works of fiction on page, stage and screen, someone says something that ends all argument and sets everyone listening on the right track (I'm particularly annoyed when this happens to be the loudest voice on a TV show, but I digress). So we might come to believe that there are words that will have this effect in real life as well, but in my experience they are far fewer and further between.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to be like a writer in choosing words carefully. I rehearse stuff all the time. In fact, this is about the third different narrative style I had considered for today's blog entry. If you would think one of the other two might have been better, oh well!
It's another aspect of fiction writing that may be getting in the way, though. Writers not only get to choose what their characters say, they get to choose how other characters react to it. I think the question posited in this Salon interview is nonsensical: "Do you think novelists are responsible for what their characters think?" If we're not responsible for the products of our own minds, we're in serious trouble!
In real life though, we cannot possibly control how people respond to us. I've been known to use the phrase "appropriate response," but realistically the question has to be, "appropriate according to what criteria?" I find I can't even predict my own response to stimuli with any regularity; a comment I would just let slide under some circumstances becomes an unpardonable transgression under others.
So am I saying my friend from the meeting should just avoid talking to this woman about forgiveness, since he can't predict her reaction? No. I just think he should pay attention to another aspect of real life that is different than fiction: the length of it. I think one of the reasons fiction writers use these "magic bullet" lines is because they need to wrap up a plot in a finite amount of time. We are under no such constraints. We can talk to a person about forgiveness and even if they yell at us, even if they add us to their list of unforgivens, we still may have an impact long down the road.
I believe this is why the Bible calls us to faithfulness, not necessarily effectiveness. Or at least, not effectiveness that we can easily measure. Time and again in God's Word, prophets are praised for bringing a message, whether it appears to be working or not. And some of the effect isn't known even during that prophet's lifetime. It comes when I read the message and learn something. Talk about an unanticipated response!
What did you hear today?
At my Quaker meeting we usually have a program before our meeting for worship. The program today was about handling emotions like anger and sadness while still remaining faithful to the testimony on integrity. During our discussion, one regular attender spoke about someone he knows whose life is in turmoil because she refuses to forgive her father for mistreating her. He asked if we had a suggestion for something to say that wouldn't cause her to turn on him and I said that nothing could ensure the desired response.
Commentary
I hope I wasn't too harsh with my co-religionist. My concern was that he might be seeking a magic bullet here and I wanted to discourage him in that endeavor.
I blame writers. Frequently in works of fiction on page, stage and screen, someone says something that ends all argument and sets everyone listening on the right track (I'm particularly annoyed when this happens to be the loudest voice on a TV show, but I digress). So we might come to believe that there are words that will have this effect in real life as well, but in my experience they are far fewer and further between.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to be like a writer in choosing words carefully. I rehearse stuff all the time. In fact, this is about the third different narrative style I had considered for today's blog entry. If you would think one of the other two might have been better, oh well!
It's another aspect of fiction writing that may be getting in the way, though. Writers not only get to choose what their characters say, they get to choose how other characters react to it. I think the question posited in this Salon interview is nonsensical: "Do you think novelists are responsible for what their characters think?" If we're not responsible for the products of our own minds, we're in serious trouble!
In real life though, we cannot possibly control how people respond to us. I've been known to use the phrase "appropriate response," but realistically the question has to be, "appropriate according to what criteria?" I find I can't even predict my own response to stimuli with any regularity; a comment I would just let slide under some circumstances becomes an unpardonable transgression under others.
So am I saying my friend from the meeting should just avoid talking to this woman about forgiveness, since he can't predict her reaction? No. I just think he should pay attention to another aspect of real life that is different than fiction: the length of it. I think one of the reasons fiction writers use these "magic bullet" lines is because they need to wrap up a plot in a finite amount of time. We are under no such constraints. We can talk to a person about forgiveness and even if they yell at us, even if they add us to their list of unforgivens, we still may have an impact long down the road.
I believe this is why the Bible calls us to faithfulness, not necessarily effectiveness. Or at least, not effectiveness that we can easily measure. Time and again in God's Word, prophets are praised for bringing a message, whether it appears to be working or not. And some of the effect isn't known even during that prophet's lifetime. It comes when I read the message and learn something. Talk about an unanticipated response!
What did you hear today?
12/24/2008
I saw a story I'd written
Context
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.
Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.
Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.
Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."
Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.
What did you see today?
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.
Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.
Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.
Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."
Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.
What did you see today?
1/11/2008
I saw a Katherine Heigl quote
Context
I was looking at the cover of the January 2008 Vanity Fair today, and it apparently had an interview with Katherine Heigl inside. I didn’t read the interview, but there was a pull quote on the cover saying, in effect, that Ms. Heigl thought the part she played in Knocked Up was a little “sexist,” because she was humorless and uptight. I haven’t seen Knocked Up, nor have I read the script.
Commentary
I’m not quite sure what Ms. Heigl means by her character being “sexist.” The character might have had some unattractive traits, but in order to be “sexist,” she would have to hold specific prejudices against either men or women and that’s not what the rest of the quote seems to imply.
I’m not just playing with semantics here. I think we often make the mistake of thinking that creating a stereotypical fiction character, i.e. one that embodies some of the prejudices people hold, is sexist. It may be inappropriate, lazy or stupid, but it’s not sexist.
Sexism (or ageism or racism or sexual orientationism) is the process of generalizing, of saying that certain characteristics are true of everyone who belongs to a given group. Writing a character a certain way only implies that one member of the group holds them. And realistically, it’s just as silly to write as if there are no humorless uptight women as it is to say all of them are.
It is possible to write a sexist character in the way the Heigl quote seems to imply. If the script said, “like all women, the character is humorless and uptight,” that would be sexism. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any self-respecting actress would have taken the part if they’d read something like that.
What did you see today?
I was looking at the cover of the January 2008 Vanity Fair today, and it apparently had an interview with Katherine Heigl inside. I didn’t read the interview, but there was a pull quote on the cover saying, in effect, that Ms. Heigl thought the part she played in Knocked Up was a little “sexist,” because she was humorless and uptight. I haven’t seen Knocked Up, nor have I read the script.
Commentary
I’m not quite sure what Ms. Heigl means by her character being “sexist.” The character might have had some unattractive traits, but in order to be “sexist,” she would have to hold specific prejudices against either men or women and that’s not what the rest of the quote seems to imply.
I’m not just playing with semantics here. I think we often make the mistake of thinking that creating a stereotypical fiction character, i.e. one that embodies some of the prejudices people hold, is sexist. It may be inappropriate, lazy or stupid, but it’s not sexist.
Sexism (or ageism or racism or sexual orientationism) is the process of generalizing, of saying that certain characteristics are true of everyone who belongs to a given group. Writing a character a certain way only implies that one member of the group holds them. And realistically, it’s just as silly to write as if there are no humorless uptight women as it is to say all of them are.
It is possible to write a sexist character in the way the Heigl quote seems to imply. If the script said, “like all women, the character is humorless and uptight,” that would be sexism. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any self-respecting actress would have taken the part if they’d read something like that.
What did you see today?
11/26/2007
I saw a website about the writers' strike
Context
As a big fan of filmed entertainment, I've been paying a lot of attention to the WGA West strike. I get a lot of my information from whedonesque.com, because of both my admiration for Joss Whedon himself and my respect for this particular fan community. Whedonesque, in its turn, led me to fans4writers.com, which details actions fans can take to support the striking writers.
Commentary
I am wildly ambivalent about unions. On one hand, I recognize that the right to collective bargaining is an important weapon against poverty, injustice and oppression. On the other hand, I don't like closed shops and resented the fact that when I worked as a public school teacher in Texas I was forced to join the teachers’ union. I guess I feel like in a perfect world individuals would make up their own minds about appropriate working conditions and not take jobs that didn’t fulfill them. However, I am nowhere near naive enough to believe this is a perfect world.
Contributing to my confused stance is my recognition that in 21st century America, well-established labor unions can actually benefit employers who think in the long term. They prevent disruptive wildcat strikes and allow enterprises to use standardized contracts for classes of workers, rather than negotiating new terms for each new hire.
So how does this affect my feelings about the writers’ strike? Well, for one thing I’ll say that this seems like one of those circumstances where studios and entertainment corporations ought to be overjoyed to be able to negotiate with one entity, rather than having to work out a payment scheme with each of the thousands of writers they employ. Moreover, because I love writing and writers, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t get a reasonable percentage of the profits created by their efforts, regardless of the medium.
The upshot is although I’m wildly ambivalent about unions, I’m foursquare behind the WGA West on this particular action. So I’ll be taking some of the actions proposed by fans4writers.com. No visits to promotional websites and no downloading of filmed entertainment until the strike is resolved. Possibly even a phone call or two to network executives.
What did you see today?
As a big fan of filmed entertainment, I've been paying a lot of attention to the WGA West strike. I get a lot of my information from whedonesque.com, because of both my admiration for Joss Whedon himself and my respect for this particular fan community. Whedonesque, in its turn, led me to fans4writers.com, which details actions fans can take to support the striking writers.
Commentary
I am wildly ambivalent about unions. On one hand, I recognize that the right to collective bargaining is an important weapon against poverty, injustice and oppression. On the other hand, I don't like closed shops and resented the fact that when I worked as a public school teacher in Texas I was forced to join the teachers’ union. I guess I feel like in a perfect world individuals would make up their own minds about appropriate working conditions and not take jobs that didn’t fulfill them. However, I am nowhere near naive enough to believe this is a perfect world.
Contributing to my confused stance is my recognition that in 21st century America, well-established labor unions can actually benefit employers who think in the long term. They prevent disruptive wildcat strikes and allow enterprises to use standardized contracts for classes of workers, rather than negotiating new terms for each new hire.
So how does this affect my feelings about the writers’ strike? Well, for one thing I’ll say that this seems like one of those circumstances where studios and entertainment corporations ought to be overjoyed to be able to negotiate with one entity, rather than having to work out a payment scheme with each of the thousands of writers they employ. Moreover, because I love writing and writers, I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t get a reasonable percentage of the profits created by their efforts, regardless of the medium.
The upshot is although I’m wildly ambivalent about unions, I’m foursquare behind the WGA West on this particular action. So I’ll be taking some of the actions proposed by fans4writers.com. No visits to promotional websites and no downloading of filmed entertainment until the strike is resolved. Possibly even a phone call or two to network executives.
What did you see today?
4/13/2007
I saw a list of best-reviewed sports movies
Context
Rotten Tomatoes is a website that compiles movie reviews and gives each film a score base on the number of negative and positive reviews. Lately they have taken to compiling Best and Worst lists including the recently-published Top Sports Movies.
Commentary
This Rotten Tomates feature appealed to me immediately because I like both sports and movies. However, I was puzzled by the fact that even though these were the best-reviewed sports movies, the critics took great pains to point out on several of them that the plot was not very original. I find this a bizarre standard to use for any kind of storytelling. I believe movies are made and books are written to illustrate universal human truths and frankly, there's a limited number of those to go around. I think it's particularly unfair to judge sports movies this way because most sports movies have the exact same plot: underdog overcomes enormous odds and triumphs. It's why we go see a sports movie, for crying out loud!
I think the critics are looking for originality in the wrong place: what makes a great sports movie is using that same timeworn plot and still creating an unexpected reaction in the viewer. For example, I love the movie Remember the Titans. One of the reasons is because I find the Denzel Washington character is admirable, but not particularly likable. I'm not used to thinking the hero of a piece is kind of a jerk, and this is a pretty brave choice in a film that contains exactly one bankable star. Or take Field of Dreams. Every time I sit down to watch that movie, it looks like it's about baseball, and yet I end up thinking about something besides baseball when it's over. Now any movie that gets my brain moving gets a plus in my book, but Field of Dreams usually makes me consider something different every single time!
My favorite sports movie, beating out Remember the Titans by just a hair, is Major League. OK, silly slapstick comedy, same old sports movie plot, where's the surprise reaction there? Just this: every time I see the formerly-isolated "Wild Thing" come on the field to the adulation of thousands, I cry. Buckets. You want to know what's worse? I've seen this movie five or six times and I still cry every single time. I know what's coming, I can probably quote a great deal of the surrounding dialogue to you, and I still react. That's movie magic!
So the moral of the story is, it's not what you show your moviegoing audience that matters (sorry ILM!), it's how you help them see it differently. Hmm, is there a recurring blog theme in there somewhere?
What did you see today?
Rotten Tomatoes is a website that compiles movie reviews and gives each film a score base on the number of negative and positive reviews. Lately they have taken to compiling Best and Worst lists including the recently-published Top Sports Movies.
Commentary
This Rotten Tomates feature appealed to me immediately because I like both sports and movies. However, I was puzzled by the fact that even though these were the best-reviewed sports movies, the critics took great pains to point out on several of them that the plot was not very original. I find this a bizarre standard to use for any kind of storytelling. I believe movies are made and books are written to illustrate universal human truths and frankly, there's a limited number of those to go around. I think it's particularly unfair to judge sports movies this way because most sports movies have the exact same plot: underdog overcomes enormous odds and triumphs. It's why we go see a sports movie, for crying out loud!
I think the critics are looking for originality in the wrong place: what makes a great sports movie is using that same timeworn plot and still creating an unexpected reaction in the viewer. For example, I love the movie Remember the Titans. One of the reasons is because I find the Denzel Washington character is admirable, but not particularly likable. I'm not used to thinking the hero of a piece is kind of a jerk, and this is a pretty brave choice in a film that contains exactly one bankable star. Or take Field of Dreams. Every time I sit down to watch that movie, it looks like it's about baseball, and yet I end up thinking about something besides baseball when it's over. Now any movie that gets my brain moving gets a plus in my book, but Field of Dreams usually makes me consider something different every single time!
My favorite sports movie, beating out Remember the Titans by just a hair, is Major League. OK, silly slapstick comedy, same old sports movie plot, where's the surprise reaction there? Just this: every time I see the formerly-isolated "Wild Thing" come on the field to the adulation of thousands, I cry. Buckets. You want to know what's worse? I've seen this movie five or six times and I still cry every single time. I know what's coming, I can probably quote a great deal of the surrounding dialogue to you, and I still react. That's movie magic!
So the moral of the story is, it's not what you show your moviegoing audience that matters (sorry ILM!), it's how you help them see it differently. Hmm, is there a recurring blog theme in there somewhere?
What did you see today?
10/03/2006
I saw an e-mail about death
Context
I belong to an e-mail list called Fiction-L, which covers reader’s advisory issues. A discussion of “books so good you read them over and over again” led to an exchange between a colleague and me regarding Charlotte’s Web. Some snippets follow:
Colleague - People who don't cry at the end of Charlotte's Web worry me. They are the same people who don't cry when Bambi's mother dies.
Me - Them's fighting words, [name omitted]! Charlotte dies in the natural course of nature, which is a little sad, but in more of a "sighing" than "crying" way. Bambi's mother is brutally murdered by stupid human beings! I not only cry; I tend to leave the room so I can pound my fists on something!
Colleague - They're both tragedies--since when is the loss of a friend to natural death any less painful than one to murder? In either case they are gone, and they aren't coming back. Death is no less final for being natural.
Commentary
I was surprised that my reaction to death was so different from my colleague’s, so I’m trying to figure out where the difference comes from. Is it because I don’t believe death is “final” for anyone? Yes, I’m not only a Christian, with the Pauline view of our demise, but a person who thinks that All Dogs go to Heaven. It scarcely seems worth calling it “heaven” if there won’t be critters there.
That can’t be the only reason for the way I feel though, because then I would have the mirror image of my colleague’s opinion: murder is an equal cause for celebration as succumbing to natural causes.
So why are the circumstances surrounding death important? I think it’s because I also hold the “other” Christian viewpoint on mortality: that it infects all of creation because of human sin. We were made the stewards of Earth, so everything on it suffers the same fate we do. So let’s recap: it’s our fault that animals die in the first place, and in Bambi’s mother’s case, we hasten the process along by setting fire to her habitat.
I think the last piece of the puzzle is this: I’m much more likely to cry about things that make me angry than those that make me sad.
What did you see today?
I belong to an e-mail list called Fiction-L, which covers reader’s advisory issues. A discussion of “books so good you read them over and over again” led to an exchange between a colleague and me regarding Charlotte’s Web. Some snippets follow:
Colleague - People who don't cry at the end of Charlotte's Web worry me. They are the same people who don't cry when Bambi's mother dies.
Me - Them's fighting words, [name omitted]! Charlotte dies in the natural course of nature, which is a little sad, but in more of a "sighing" than "crying" way. Bambi's mother is brutally murdered by stupid human beings! I not only cry; I tend to leave the room so I can pound my fists on something!
Colleague - They're both tragedies--since when is the loss of a friend to natural death any less painful than one to murder? In either case they are gone, and they aren't coming back. Death is no less final for being natural.
Commentary
I was surprised that my reaction to death was so different from my colleague’s, so I’m trying to figure out where the difference comes from. Is it because I don’t believe death is “final” for anyone? Yes, I’m not only a Christian, with the Pauline view of our demise, but a person who thinks that All Dogs go to Heaven. It scarcely seems worth calling it “heaven” if there won’t be critters there.
That can’t be the only reason for the way I feel though, because then I would have the mirror image of my colleague’s opinion: murder is an equal cause for celebration as succumbing to natural causes.
So why are the circumstances surrounding death important? I think it’s because I also hold the “other” Christian viewpoint on mortality: that it infects all of creation because of human sin. We were made the stewards of Earth, so everything on it suffers the same fate we do. So let’s recap: it’s our fault that animals die in the first place, and in Bambi’s mother’s case, we hasten the process along by setting fire to her habitat.
I think the last piece of the puzzle is this: I’m much more likely to cry about things that make me angry than those that make me sad.
What did you see today?
5/29/2006
I saw a movie hero
Context
I saw X-Men 3: The Last Stand yesterday and Mission Impossible 3 today. The first X-men movie is among my all-time favorites, and I think Mission Impossible gets better each episode. Spoilers for both movies abound in the commentary below, so if you haven’t seen either of them and you’re interested in them, you might want to give this entry a bye.
Commentary
I didn’t care much for the latest X-men movie. It wasn’t a total wash, but I had a lot of problems with it. On the other hand, I loved Mission Impossible 3. I think some of my reactions to both movies hinge on what I think of as the “hat theory of heroism and villainy.” The ideas in this theory are not new, but I think the hat colors might be.
Anyway, I think of movies as having two types of villains, black hat and navy blue hat. Black hat villains are just plain evil. They have no redeeming qualities; you know exactly where they’re coming from; they’re bad people and they do bad things. Navy blue hat villains don’t necessarily look like villains at first blush. They sometimes talk a good game, or they have some lofty principle in mind, but after a while you realize that hat is actually pretty black after all. I tend to prefer navy blue villains, although I can admire the acting craft behind a good black one.
The X-Men series of movies has a pretty good navy blue hat villain in Magneto. You can almost believe those crocodile tears he sheds over having to hurt people in pursuit of his noble cause. But in the end, he’s just rotten. That principle remained in place in the The Last Stand, and I liked that. Mission Impossible 3 had an outstanding black hat villain and a somewhat unconvincing navy blue one. Oh well, nothing’s perfect.
Heroes also have two potential hat colors, white and dingy. Your white hat hero believes in something and fights for whatever that thing is without compromise. In fact, he’s pretty anal about it. Your dingy hat hero is usually on the right side of the movie conflict and ends up doing good things, but not because he has any particular lofty ideal in mind. He spends the majority of the time looking out for himself, and if pressed, a small circle of friends.
I think a lot of the best movies have one of each type of hero. For example, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker has the white hat, and Han Solo (who really did shoot first, no matter how much George Lucas tries to change “history”) has the dingy hat. In the original Battlestar Galactica series, Apollo wears the white hat, while Starbuck wears the dingy. If you’re around my age, I think you can tell a lot about yourself by which of those characters you prefer. I’m a white hat lover myself.
X-Men 3 started off with a white hat and a dingy one, then killed off the white hat in the first few minutes of the film. And no, it wasn’t Professor Xavier. So the film pretty much lost me early. Mission Impossible 3 was much more straightforward: one hero, very white hat, good triumphs over evil in the end.
If it seems odd that I prefer my villains somewhat shaded and my heroes straightforward, perhaps I can muddy the waters even further by saying that I like my villains to be realistic and my heroes to be true. Realistically, I believe (and I think I have plenty of evidence on my side) that people don’t think of themselves as villainous. They put on that navy blue hat and say, “I did what was necessary for the greater good.” “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” Or my personal favorite, “the ends justify the means.” Not to put too big a burden on my entertainment, but I appreciate seeing this kind of villainy because I think it helps me recognize it better in real life.
On the other hand, I don’t want heroes to reflect what I see every day. I want them to show me there’s something transcendent to strive for. In Christian terms, reality tells me that this world is mired in sin. The ultimate truth, however, is that good always triumphs over evil, and never needs to compromise in order to do so.
What did you see today?
I saw X-Men 3: The Last Stand yesterday and Mission Impossible 3 today. The first X-men movie is among my all-time favorites, and I think Mission Impossible gets better each episode. Spoilers for both movies abound in the commentary below, so if you haven’t seen either of them and you’re interested in them, you might want to give this entry a bye.
Commentary
I didn’t care much for the latest X-men movie. It wasn’t a total wash, but I had a lot of problems with it. On the other hand, I loved Mission Impossible 3. I think some of my reactions to both movies hinge on what I think of as the “hat theory of heroism and villainy.” The ideas in this theory are not new, but I think the hat colors might be.
Anyway, I think of movies as having two types of villains, black hat and navy blue hat. Black hat villains are just plain evil. They have no redeeming qualities; you know exactly where they’re coming from; they’re bad people and they do bad things. Navy blue hat villains don’t necessarily look like villains at first blush. They sometimes talk a good game, or they have some lofty principle in mind, but after a while you realize that hat is actually pretty black after all. I tend to prefer navy blue villains, although I can admire the acting craft behind a good black one.
The X-Men series of movies has a pretty good navy blue hat villain in Magneto. You can almost believe those crocodile tears he sheds over having to hurt people in pursuit of his noble cause. But in the end, he’s just rotten. That principle remained in place in the The Last Stand, and I liked that. Mission Impossible 3 had an outstanding black hat villain and a somewhat unconvincing navy blue one. Oh well, nothing’s perfect.
Heroes also have two potential hat colors, white and dingy. Your white hat hero believes in something and fights for whatever that thing is without compromise. In fact, he’s pretty anal about it. Your dingy hat hero is usually on the right side of the movie conflict and ends up doing good things, but not because he has any particular lofty ideal in mind. He spends the majority of the time looking out for himself, and if pressed, a small circle of friends.
I think a lot of the best movies have one of each type of hero. For example, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Luke Skywalker has the white hat, and Han Solo (who really did shoot first, no matter how much George Lucas tries to change “history”) has the dingy hat. In the original Battlestar Galactica series, Apollo wears the white hat, while Starbuck wears the dingy. If you’re around my age, I think you can tell a lot about yourself by which of those characters you prefer. I’m a white hat lover myself.
X-Men 3 started off with a white hat and a dingy one, then killed off the white hat in the first few minutes of the film. And no, it wasn’t Professor Xavier. So the film pretty much lost me early. Mission Impossible 3 was much more straightforward: one hero, very white hat, good triumphs over evil in the end.
If it seems odd that I prefer my villains somewhat shaded and my heroes straightforward, perhaps I can muddy the waters even further by saying that I like my villains to be realistic and my heroes to be true. Realistically, I believe (and I think I have plenty of evidence on my side) that people don’t think of themselves as villainous. They put on that navy blue hat and say, “I did what was necessary for the greater good.” “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” Or my personal favorite, “the ends justify the means.” Not to put too big a burden on my entertainment, but I appreciate seeing this kind of villainy because I think it helps me recognize it better in real life.
On the other hand, I don’t want heroes to reflect what I see every day. I want them to show me there’s something transcendent to strive for. In Christian terms, reality tells me that this world is mired in sin. The ultimate truth, however, is that good always triumphs over evil, and never needs to compromise in order to do so.
What did you see today?
5/10/2006
I saw a book about political correctness
Context
Michael Smerconish, a talk-radio host in the Philadelphia area, has written a book titled Muzzled. Shreve Memorial Library owns this book, but it hasn’t been cataloged yet. I read the inside cover and some of the introduction and it appears to be about how “political correctness” is keeping us from expressing important truths. I plan to take a look at the rest of the book when it’s available for check out. I won’t commit to actually reading it, because I’m very picky about what I read.
Commentary
I understand some anti-political correctness sentiment. For example, I don’t think “we might get sued” is a good basis for decision-making. “We might get sued and lose, because what we’re contemplating is illegal” is fine, but frankly, anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s like deciding to not do something because “someone might get angry.” OK, but would they be justified in getting angry? There’s no percentage in indulging crybabies; they can get mad no matter what you do.
Also, I tend to favor equality of opportunity, not equality. I think some people do things better than others. Dolly Parton once said something to the effect of, “I couldn’t jump around like a ballerina. I’d black both my eyes!” There’s nothing wrong with keeping Dolly Parton out of the Metropolitan Ballet. She has other gifts.
On the other hand, I’m often leery of the term “political correctness.” Practices that are labeled as such are often those I was taught to call “niceness,” “sensitivity,” and “convincing the neighbors you were not reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia.” No offense intended to those of you who *were* reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia ;-). The First Amendment says, “you can express yourself, worship, and assemble any way you want.” Good breeding says you shouldn’t even want to insult, belittle or exclude people unnecessarily. So if you’re saying, “I don’t want to have be politically correct,” but you really mean, “I want free license to be rude,” I have no sympathy for you.
For this reason, I’m curious about the use of the title “Muzzled” for this book, rather than “Gagged” or “Silenced.” When my dog is at her vet’s office, she only gets muzzled after she’s raised her lip a time or two and proved she’s not fit for polite company. Is our society being muzzled for the same reason? Have we decided to legislate good manners because no one can practice self-control? If so, I’m pretty sure it’s not working. Have you ever listened to talk radio?
What did you see today?
Michael Smerconish, a talk-radio host in the Philadelphia area, has written a book titled Muzzled. Shreve Memorial Library owns this book, but it hasn’t been cataloged yet. I read the inside cover and some of the introduction and it appears to be about how “political correctness” is keeping us from expressing important truths. I plan to take a look at the rest of the book when it’s available for check out. I won’t commit to actually reading it, because I’m very picky about what I read.
Commentary
I understand some anti-political correctness sentiment. For example, I don’t think “we might get sued” is a good basis for decision-making. “We might get sued and lose, because what we’re contemplating is illegal” is fine, but frankly, anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s like deciding to not do something because “someone might get angry.” OK, but would they be justified in getting angry? There’s no percentage in indulging crybabies; they can get mad no matter what you do.
Also, I tend to favor equality of opportunity, not equality. I think some people do things better than others. Dolly Parton once said something to the effect of, “I couldn’t jump around like a ballerina. I’d black both my eyes!” There’s nothing wrong with keeping Dolly Parton out of the Metropolitan Ballet. She has other gifts.
On the other hand, I’m often leery of the term “political correctness.” Practices that are labeled as such are often those I was taught to call “niceness,” “sensitivity,” and “convincing the neighbors you were not reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia.” No offense intended to those of you who *were* reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia ;-). The First Amendment says, “you can express yourself, worship, and assemble any way you want.” Good breeding says you shouldn’t even want to insult, belittle or exclude people unnecessarily. So if you’re saying, “I don’t want to have be politically correct,” but you really mean, “I want free license to be rude,” I have no sympathy for you.
For this reason, I’m curious about the use of the title “Muzzled” for this book, rather than “Gagged” or “Silenced.” When my dog is at her vet’s office, she only gets muzzled after she’s raised her lip a time or two and proved she’s not fit for polite company. Is our society being muzzled for the same reason? Have we decided to legislate good manners because no one can practice self-control? If so, I’m pretty sure it’s not working. Have you ever listened to talk radio?
What did you see today?
4/20/2006
I saw my sin
Context
Shreve Memorial Library, where I work, held a Staff Development Day yesterday. One of our speakers came to talk with us about the Fish! Philosophy. Fish! has four basic components: play, be there, make their day, and choose your attitude. After I’d been back at work for a little over an hour today, I had a conversation with a coworker that caused me to mentally convert “choose your attitude” into “slam their attitude.” A little while after that, I recognized how wrong, wrong, wrong that was.
Commentary
It is my perception, correct or not, that I have a more sensitive conscience than other people. My sins are like Cole Sear's dead people; I see them all the time. This is one of those traits that some people think must make me unhappy. On the contrary, I consider my conscience a huge blessing from God for a couple of reasons:
1) I’m really, really aware of other people’s sins, too, as you can tell by my comment about this morning. I’m already pretty insufferable about it; imagine if I didn’t see the log in my own eye.
2) I cannot be a Christian without it. People have many different definitions of Christianity, but mine, which probably owes a great deal to my upbringing in the Lutheran Church, is this: it’s the religion that exists because people sin and they need to be saved from it.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the person who saves me from my sin. Having a tender conscience reminds me of my sin and so, perhaps somewhat ironically, reminds me of everything Jesus has done for me. So every time I see myself sinning, I see Jesus. Yay! St. Paul has something to say about whether we should continue sinning so grace can abound, but that’s a topic for another time.
What did you see today?
Shreve Memorial Library, where I work, held a Staff Development Day yesterday. One of our speakers came to talk with us about the Fish! Philosophy. Fish! has four basic components: play, be there, make their day, and choose your attitude. After I’d been back at work for a little over an hour today, I had a conversation with a coworker that caused me to mentally convert “choose your attitude” into “slam their attitude.” A little while after that, I recognized how wrong, wrong, wrong that was.
Commentary
It is my perception, correct or not, that I have a more sensitive conscience than other people. My sins are like Cole Sear's dead people; I see them all the time. This is one of those traits that some people think must make me unhappy. On the contrary, I consider my conscience a huge blessing from God for a couple of reasons:
1) I’m really, really aware of other people’s sins, too, as you can tell by my comment about this morning. I’m already pretty insufferable about it; imagine if I didn’t see the log in my own eye.
2) I cannot be a Christian without it. People have many different definitions of Christianity, but mine, which probably owes a great deal to my upbringing in the Lutheran Church, is this: it’s the religion that exists because people sin and they need to be saved from it.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the person who saves me from my sin. Having a tender conscience reminds me of my sin and so, perhaps somewhat ironically, reminds me of everything Jesus has done for me. So every time I see myself sinning, I see Jesus. Yay! St. Paul has something to say about whether we should continue sinning so grace can abound, but that’s a topic for another time.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)