Michael Jackson’s This Is It
I’ve been mulling over this one for almost twenty hours at this point, and I’m still not sure what I want to say except I know that I want to say something. How’s that for a paradox? The short answer: go see it. If you like Michael Jackson definitely go see it; if you have any appreciation for music at all go see it. If you’re dead inside it might not do anything for you.
I’ve loved Michael Jackson, literally, my whole life. He was my first cassette tape (Janet was my second) and I still want to bounce up and down in my chair like a four year old when I watch him sing “Smooth Criminal” or “The Way You Make Me Feel.” Aside from the performance aspects, though (which were amazing) it is so interesting to watch MJ and Kenny Ortega put that show together.
One of my on-going battles in life is to explain to people why material must change for different mediums; a book must change when made into a movie and vice versa. Songs should change when performed live. Each experience makes different demands of the reader/viewer/listener and attempting to meet those demands with the same material is an incredibly difficult thing to do. LOTR, for example, had to cut some things out and add some things in (and before you jump my crap understand I don’t agree with all of the changes) in order for that story to not only entertain on screen, but to feel like LOTR.
Watching Michael Jackson craft a concert was, quite frankly, like watching genius at work. It was just stupid brilliant. Not only does he recognize that the songs must be the same songs that his fans expect and know, but he uses video, dance, and sound to craft a performance not simply a concert. This means that as an audience member you are watching a show, not just a singer sing his songs. I generally hate going to concerts because I find them boring. I don’t derive any fulfillment from watching someone stand still and sing their songs; I can listen to the c.d. anytime I want. MJ, however, was creating theater which is something very different; that concert would not only have impressed but entertained. It looked to very much resemble musical theater.
Someone a while ago asked me why Michael Jackson was such a genius; what was so special about him? He had a whole lot of crazy, and I throw that in so anyone wondering where I stand on the issue understands I’m not unaware. But he was an amazing singer, dancer, and musician--he was just crazy talented. He wrote songs that are, at times, almost too funky to bear. You only wish I was making that up. He was one of the first performers to dance while he sang; we take it for granted now when we watch young pop stars that there will be good dancing to go with the singing, but MJ was one of the first to promote that. And he consistently melded music and technology in incredibly impressive marriages.
On a personal level, watching this film is really, really hard if you gave up a music career at some point in your life. From the age of eleven on I didn’t think about doing anything with my life other than music; even as I went to school for an English degree my life revolved around drums. I didn’t want to go through all the audition anxiety and try to make a go of it professionally either in percussion or piano, but I don’t think I realized at the time that I was really giving it up. On some level I think I thought I could still have it on the side.
Watching this film, though, and listening to the dancers talk about pursuing their dream of dancing because of Michael Jackson I was reminded of that single minded resolve I once had to play drums no matter what. Everything took a backseat. Hell, I even went back to school to become an English teacher because of band camp--figure that one out. But while I don’t feel bad about my decision to pursue English instead of music, and I know I could pick up a community band gig wherever I land, it isn’t the same. Watching these guys prepare for the tour I very vividly remembered just how not the same it was. I was in band because I liked to entertain people. I practice because it’s fun to make the audience feel that thrill when you lay down something particularly sweet. It would have been really, really fun to work on a tour like that and This Is It is too raw and honest not to make anyone with memories like mine not miss it...a lot. So be prepared for that.
That’s my plug for this movie.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
How to Survive a Demon Attack
I went and saw Paranormal Activity last night. I won’t ruin it for you, but it’s worth mentioning that I slept by sheer force of will last night—not because I felt safe and sound in my bed. In honor of this ridiculously frightening movie, therefore, I thought I would share a new top ten list in hopes that these following words of wisdom might one day save someone.
Top Ten Ways to Survive a Demon Attack
10. Don’t Play with a Ouija Board
It’s a bad idea. You know it’s a bad idea. All of us, no matter how cynical, still giggle a little at the idea of the Ouija board. And you want to know why? Because it’s a bad idea.
9. Don’t be a Hero
When shit gets real don’t try to take care of it yourself. There are any number of trained personnel with the experience, mental fortitude, and Jedi ways prepared to take out the demon. If you’re made uncomfortable by the “demonologist” who looks like a guy named Frank still living in his mom’s basement playing WOW then call a shaman. If you don’t know any Native Americans go hunt yourself down a priest. If you’re uncomfortable with Catholics call your nearest Latter-Day Saints ward. And if all of that doesn’t work go back to Frank. Even if he is a loon he’ll probably stand a better chance against the demon than you will.
8. Do Not Antagonize USE’s (Unknown Spiritual Entities)
You don’t know what this thing is. It could be the ghost of Fluffy the neighbor’s goldfish or it could a demon looking to possess and impregnate your girlfriend before killing you. When your immortal soul is at risk do you really want to call the thing out? There’s a time for trash talk—card games, sporting events, really intense games of croquet—and there’s a time for recognizing that volume does not equal bad-assery. Specifically the USE doesn’t care how loud you shout at it; it doesn’t care what threats you make. You want to know why? Because it will just kill you in your sleep by making the roof fall on you or push you down the stairs or have someone you love turn into a flesh-eating demon zombie like creature. You can’t fight what you can’t see, sense, or touch and probably you can’t do any of those things if you’re dumb enough to antagonize the USE.
7. Buy Yourself Some Sage or Make Really Good Friends with Someone That Has Some
The USE is not some drunk guy at a bar. Yelling at it, threatening it, and generally mocking it is ineffective (see #8). What you need is something that will at least slow the thing down. I recommend sage, but a safer bet is really to just find yourself a Jedi Knight and let them do the dirty work (see #9).
6. Don’t Play with a Ouija Board
It’s important. I like to accentuate this point.
5. If It’s Connected to the House…LEAVE
Poltergeist taught us this one, and I feel The Grudge really drove the point home. Once a tree eats your son, weird shadows form in corners and kill your mother, and/or general mayhem ensues don’t question why it happened. Don’t worry about being crazy. Don’t go to sleep that night in your bed. If a lion attacked you would you lay back down in its den? I think not. Go to the hotel. Do not pass go. Do not gather your belongings. You can figure out whether you’re crazy or not when trinkets aren’t flying at your head.
4. If It’s Connected to Someone Decide Just How Much You Love Them
This one’s a bit trickier. If said demon has decided it wants to make the sweet demony-love to your girlfriend you have a decision to make. How much do you really love her? Cause wherever she goes, it goes, and you can live out the rest of your days in peace and happiness. Of course, if you actually care about the person this situation gets more tricky. I refer you to #’s 10-6
3. Turn the God Forsaken Lights On
Why hang out in the dark? If things are bad enough the lights won’t help, but at least you’ll see what’s coming at you (maybe). Regardless, monsters in the dark are scarier than monsters in the light. Don’t wander around your house with a flashlight, candlelight or any other version of light that be definition makes a Care Bear look like a serial killer. Turn on the light. It’s not hard to do. Trust me, you’ll thank me for this one.
2. Do Not Rely on Your Internet Research to Save the Day
This one goes along with #9 and #7. When mugged do you consult the internet for a proper response? Do you search the web instead of attending a self-defense class? Then why, in the name of all that is other-worldly, would you rely on the internet to save you from a demon?! WHY?! Because a demon’s not real? Has someone’s head spun all the way around? Has a child tried to kill you? Has a tree tried to eat you? Has strange slime appeared in inexplicable places? Do priests, preachers, shamans, and psychics go running out of your house without even saying goodbye? If you answered yes to any of these things then you deserve what you get if you break this rule (or any of the others really).
1. DO NOT PLAY WITH A OUIJA BOARD
I just feel like I can’t emphasize this one enough. Let me explain why by analogy. Once when I was young, but not so young I didn’t know better, I watched my brother clean out the window wells by first lighting the leaves on fire and then pouring gasoline on it. From the can. His plan was good in theory; burn the leaves and suck up the ashes with the shopvac. However, two very important factors were forgotten—1) the window well was right next to the house and 2) pouring gasoline on the fire directly from the can may blow you up. For the record I knew it was a bad idea (honest). If you have a USE, using a Ouija board seems like a great idea in theory. You can talk to it; you can find out what it wants. You can politely ask it to leave. You can get a thrill. But as in most things, theory and practicality are almost entirely divorced. Do you want to know why you can talk to it? Because you threw the door wide open and had it over for afternoon tea. Now the thing, from Fluffy the dead goldfish to the blood-thirsty demon lusting after your girlfriend can wander around your house freely with nothing between its machinations and your very fragile mind.
All I’m saying is when your house burns down, your significant other tries to kill you, or you mysteriously fall down the stairs breaking your neck don’t say I didn’t tell you so.
So these are my 10 simple steps to avoiding Death by Demon. If you follow them you’ll survive (most likely) and if you don’t at least you can go down knowing you died smart and (most likely) didn’t lose your immortal soul.
I went and saw Paranormal Activity last night. I won’t ruin it for you, but it’s worth mentioning that I slept by sheer force of will last night—not because I felt safe and sound in my bed. In honor of this ridiculously frightening movie, therefore, I thought I would share a new top ten list in hopes that these following words of wisdom might one day save someone.
Top Ten Ways to Survive a Demon Attack
10. Don’t Play with a Ouija Board
It’s a bad idea. You know it’s a bad idea. All of us, no matter how cynical, still giggle a little at the idea of the Ouija board. And you want to know why? Because it’s a bad idea.
9. Don’t be a Hero
When shit gets real don’t try to take care of it yourself. There are any number of trained personnel with the experience, mental fortitude, and Jedi ways prepared to take out the demon. If you’re made uncomfortable by the “demonologist” who looks like a guy named Frank still living in his mom’s basement playing WOW then call a shaman. If you don’t know any Native Americans go hunt yourself down a priest. If you’re uncomfortable with Catholics call your nearest Latter-Day Saints ward. And if all of that doesn’t work go back to Frank. Even if he is a loon he’ll probably stand a better chance against the demon than you will.
8. Do Not Antagonize USE’s (Unknown Spiritual Entities)
You don’t know what this thing is. It could be the ghost of Fluffy the neighbor’s goldfish or it could a demon looking to possess and impregnate your girlfriend before killing you. When your immortal soul is at risk do you really want to call the thing out? There’s a time for trash talk—card games, sporting events, really intense games of croquet—and there’s a time for recognizing that volume does not equal bad-assery. Specifically the USE doesn’t care how loud you shout at it; it doesn’t care what threats you make. You want to know why? Because it will just kill you in your sleep by making the roof fall on you or push you down the stairs or have someone you love turn into a flesh-eating demon zombie like creature. You can’t fight what you can’t see, sense, or touch and probably you can’t do any of those things if you’re dumb enough to antagonize the USE.
7. Buy Yourself Some Sage or Make Really Good Friends with Someone That Has Some
The USE is not some drunk guy at a bar. Yelling at it, threatening it, and generally mocking it is ineffective (see #8). What you need is something that will at least slow the thing down. I recommend sage, but a safer bet is really to just find yourself a Jedi Knight and let them do the dirty work (see #9).
6. Don’t Play with a Ouija Board
It’s important. I like to accentuate this point.
5. If It’s Connected to the House…LEAVE
Poltergeist taught us this one, and I feel The Grudge really drove the point home. Once a tree eats your son, weird shadows form in corners and kill your mother, and/or general mayhem ensues don’t question why it happened. Don’t worry about being crazy. Don’t go to sleep that night in your bed. If a lion attacked you would you lay back down in its den? I think not. Go to the hotel. Do not pass go. Do not gather your belongings. You can figure out whether you’re crazy or not when trinkets aren’t flying at your head.
4. If It’s Connected to Someone Decide Just How Much You Love Them
This one’s a bit trickier. If said demon has decided it wants to make the sweet demony-love to your girlfriend you have a decision to make. How much do you really love her? Cause wherever she goes, it goes, and you can live out the rest of your days in peace and happiness. Of course, if you actually care about the person this situation gets more tricky. I refer you to #’s 10-6
3. Turn the God Forsaken Lights On
Why hang out in the dark? If things are bad enough the lights won’t help, but at least you’ll see what’s coming at you (maybe). Regardless, monsters in the dark are scarier than monsters in the light. Don’t wander around your house with a flashlight, candlelight or any other version of light that be definition makes a Care Bear look like a serial killer. Turn on the light. It’s not hard to do. Trust me, you’ll thank me for this one.
2. Do Not Rely on Your Internet Research to Save the Day
This one goes along with #9 and #7. When mugged do you consult the internet for a proper response? Do you search the web instead of attending a self-defense class? Then why, in the name of all that is other-worldly, would you rely on the internet to save you from a demon?! WHY?! Because a demon’s not real? Has someone’s head spun all the way around? Has a child tried to kill you? Has a tree tried to eat you? Has strange slime appeared in inexplicable places? Do priests, preachers, shamans, and psychics go running out of your house without even saying goodbye? If you answered yes to any of these things then you deserve what you get if you break this rule (or any of the others really).
1. DO NOT PLAY WITH A OUIJA BOARD
I just feel like I can’t emphasize this one enough. Let me explain why by analogy. Once when I was young, but not so young I didn’t know better, I watched my brother clean out the window wells by first lighting the leaves on fire and then pouring gasoline on it. From the can. His plan was good in theory; burn the leaves and suck up the ashes with the shopvac. However, two very important factors were forgotten—1) the window well was right next to the house and 2) pouring gasoline on the fire directly from the can may blow you up. For the record I knew it was a bad idea (honest). If you have a USE, using a Ouija board seems like a great idea in theory. You can talk to it; you can find out what it wants. You can politely ask it to leave. You can get a thrill. But as in most things, theory and practicality are almost entirely divorced. Do you want to know why you can talk to it? Because you threw the door wide open and had it over for afternoon tea. Now the thing, from Fluffy the dead goldfish to the blood-thirsty demon lusting after your girlfriend can wander around your house freely with nothing between its machinations and your very fragile mind.
All I’m saying is when your house burns down, your significant other tries to kill you, or you mysteriously fall down the stairs breaking your neck don’t say I didn’t tell you so.
So these are my 10 simple steps to avoiding Death by Demon. If you follow them you’ll survive (most likely) and if you don’t at least you can go down knowing you died smart and (most likely) didn’t lose your immortal soul.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Let’s Talk About Tao
Let’s talk about Tao baby
Let’s talk about you and me
Let’s talk about all is one and all the same that all may be
Let’s talk about Tao.
I know. Sometimes I hate me too, but these songs just come to me and I’m helpless in the grip of the muse.
So I had to teach Taoism! And I had no idea what the differences between Taoism, Zen Buddhism, and Hinduism really are! So I bought a book. Cause that’s how I roll.
The book I bought was What is Tao? by Alan Watts and it is brilliant. I’ve read Alan Watts before, specifically The Book, and I found his description and laying out of Tao to be as accessible, careful, thorough, and educational as his life philosophies. Not to mention I’ve discovered that I have some serious love for Tao (and I’m guessing Zen too, but I haven’t got there yet).
But it’s a weird thing contemplating my existence as a post-modern Taoist. Why do you ask? What a fantastic question, I’m so glad you did. As a post-modernist I believe that language defines reality and, to a very large part as explicated before, knowledge is created simultaneously with language. For a Taoist words have value because they have meaning and society values words but Zhuangzi does not because he does not value what society values. American translation: once you discover The Way you won’t need language anymore because you’ll have evolved past it. You won’t need to understand or define things; you’ll just know them.
Obviously this business about “just knowing” goes against the grain for me. I’m all about knowledge and language being intertwined and what we know stemming very precisely from what we can create. (Again, language here is almost any form of communication--“there is no outside the text” as everyone’s second favorite Frenchman would say.) But it is that process of taking an emotion, an inkling, an intuition, a premonition, an electrical impulse in your brain and consciously making sense of it that, in my previous and possibly current opinion, allows for self-awareness, critical thought, and obtainment of knowledge.
The real question then is not who is right--according to this mind boggling philosophy I have stumbled into we can both be right as neither of us are actually RIGHT--but whether the possibility exists outside of my comprehension. What we have here is something a bit like death; there is no way to conceive of it as we have nothing in our consciousness or experience that is anything like it. Anything like it. We can make similes, therefore, death is like sleep, or state what is, we will know without language, but we don’t actually have any real knowledge of what that means. We can’t. It’s sort of like consciously and carefully contemplating the size of the universe and then imagining it getting bigger; your mind shorts out after awhile.
Now some are thinking “I can imagine knowing something without language” but I’m going to say “No. You can’t.” I’m saying that specifically because from our earliest memories we have moved past the pre-language state and so our minds are formed around creating meaning, a.k.a. language; furthermore, what is being discussed here, and I would put my not inconsiderable close reading skills behind this statement as evidence, is an evolution past language not a return to the infancy. Granted, simultaneously I would be simplistic and infantile in the perception of others, but if I did attain The Way their perception of me offers no real clue to what I actually am.
Mind boggling. So here I am, getting’ down with my post-modern self contemplating the origins of knowledge, the role of language, and what whatever comes next might feel like. Lucky for me I got some Memphis BBQ in the fridge--when considering The Way it is good to know the way to the BBQ restaurant. I’m just sayin’.
Let’s talk about Tao baby
Let’s talk about you and me
Let’s talk about all is one and all the same that all may be
Let’s talk about Tao.
I know. Sometimes I hate me too, but these songs just come to me and I’m helpless in the grip of the muse.
So I had to teach Taoism! And I had no idea what the differences between Taoism, Zen Buddhism, and Hinduism really are! So I bought a book. Cause that’s how I roll.
The book I bought was What is Tao? by Alan Watts and it is brilliant. I’ve read Alan Watts before, specifically The Book, and I found his description and laying out of Tao to be as accessible, careful, thorough, and educational as his life philosophies. Not to mention I’ve discovered that I have some serious love for Tao (and I’m guessing Zen too, but I haven’t got there yet).
But it’s a weird thing contemplating my existence as a post-modern Taoist. Why do you ask? What a fantastic question, I’m so glad you did. As a post-modernist I believe that language defines reality and, to a very large part as explicated before, knowledge is created simultaneously with language. For a Taoist words have value because they have meaning and society values words but Zhuangzi does not because he does not value what society values. American translation: once you discover The Way you won’t need language anymore because you’ll have evolved past it. You won’t need to understand or define things; you’ll just know them.
Obviously this business about “just knowing” goes against the grain for me. I’m all about knowledge and language being intertwined and what we know stemming very precisely from what we can create. (Again, language here is almost any form of communication--“there is no outside the text” as everyone’s second favorite Frenchman would say.) But it is that process of taking an emotion, an inkling, an intuition, a premonition, an electrical impulse in your brain and consciously making sense of it that, in my previous and possibly current opinion, allows for self-awareness, critical thought, and obtainment of knowledge.
The real question then is not who is right--according to this mind boggling philosophy I have stumbled into we can both be right as neither of us are actually RIGHT--but whether the possibility exists outside of my comprehension. What we have here is something a bit like death; there is no way to conceive of it as we have nothing in our consciousness or experience that is anything like it. Anything like it. We can make similes, therefore, death is like sleep, or state what is, we will know without language, but we don’t actually have any real knowledge of what that means. We can’t. It’s sort of like consciously and carefully contemplating the size of the universe and then imagining it getting bigger; your mind shorts out after awhile.
Now some are thinking “I can imagine knowing something without language” but I’m going to say “No. You can’t.” I’m saying that specifically because from our earliest memories we have moved past the pre-language state and so our minds are formed around creating meaning, a.k.a. language; furthermore, what is being discussed here, and I would put my not inconsiderable close reading skills behind this statement as evidence, is an evolution past language not a return to the infancy. Granted, simultaneously I would be simplistic and infantile in the perception of others, but if I did attain The Way their perception of me offers no real clue to what I actually am.
Mind boggling. So here I am, getting’ down with my post-modern self contemplating the origins of knowledge, the role of language, and what whatever comes next might feel like. Lucky for me I got some Memphis BBQ in the fridge--when considering The Way it is good to know the way to the BBQ restaurant. I’m just sayin’.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
New Rhetoric, Feminism, and Why I Don’t Care That I Care
I am going to take my final written test tomorrow for my comprehensive exams. I’ll let you know how I feel about it once I know that I’ve passed. In my reading for my tests, though, I found myself revisiting some composition theory and writings on rhetoric in an attempt to refresh my memory and prepare myself. What I found there was tiring, exhilarating, and reminded me why I loved comp theory so very, very, much.
Let me ‘splain. No, that will take too long; let me sum up:
I do not believe in transcendent truth or knowledge as it exists outside of language. Don’t confuse truth with knowledge in that previous sentence. I do believe the world (and universe) operates according to set of laws and that it will do so regardless of my awareness or explication of those laws. I do not, however, believe that I can speak or know those laws without language. Hence, knowledge does not exist outside of language. Truth I define as different from fact; the Earth (to the best of our human knowledge) revolves around the Sun and that is, therefore, a fact. It exists without any intervention by humans. That it is always wrong to hit a baby would be an example of transcendent truth; a truth is an abstract concept existing purely within the realm of human social constructions. I might agree that it is always wrong to hit a baby, but what if that baby was buried in Pet Cemetery and is now trying to kill you? That is why I don’t believe in transcendent truth.
Before we continue anyone who disagrees with my truth/knowledge construction should understand I am not proposing this construction as proper for everyone, but explicating what I believe. You can argue with it, therefore, (and I invite you to do so) but remember you are arguing with my world view from your world view, not disproving the conclusions I am about to reveal having come from said world view. We all still together?
Building from this there are a few main reasons I chose to communicate ideology that matters to me. 1) To explain why I believe what I believe and allow people to know me. My goals in these sorts of situation are not persuade but to share--a completely different urging. The hoped for outcome when I chose to explicate what I believe is for dialogue; I say I believe in X and someone else says “why is that?” or “I’m not sure I agree” and we talk about it. Perhaps we argue. Perhaps we throw things. But we dialogue about who believes what and why. 2) To debate with someone why I feel their particular ideology is flawed or to point out an error in some belief or conclusion they have reached. It should be known that in this case I am still interested in dialogue; regardless of whether persuasion happens, and I must be honest and admit that I hope it does, my goal is to share my conclusions about the subject and provide a different lens--not simply to convince.
The reason that I focus more on dialogue and less on convincing someone I’m right is because--going back to knowledge existing within language--I only feel someone knows what I know, critically and thoughtfully agrees with me, if they possess the language to encompass that knowledge as well. That means we must first dialogue before persuasion can happen; if agreement is accepted immediately nothing new has happened. A poorly understood idea has been exchanged for another poorly understood idea.
So, how does all of this fit in with feminism and why I don’t care that I care so much about feminism?
First, when I talk to people about gender issues (note the use of the word gender there please) I don’t want them to feel guilty, feel angry, or follow me blindly. When I talk about how women still connect their moral worth with their virginity, or wonder why it is all of my female friends feel intimidated to argue passionately with my male friends, or contemplate the implications of always being accused jokingly (except not) of being an irrational, emotional, over-zealous feminist--I want other people, hopefully those I’m talking to, to understand that none of that is okay. It might not be life threatening; it might not even be life shaking, but it’s not okay. In order for such a realization to happen the point must be for us to converse or share in dialogue, not persuade or convince.
Now despite the problems with allowing someone, anyone, to see that I care about gender issues, I do it anyway. Usually only in particular situations, but that I chose any situation outside of an enclosed gynocracy to do so could be considered silly by some and poor arguing by others. In particular there are those that would argue I am only causing myself more pain instead of empowerment by focusing on these issues. There are others that accuse me of losing the argument from the moment I show emotion (and there are probably at least three of you saying to yourself right now, “Crap--is this about me?” And it is, but there have been many, many more than only you three and there will be many, many more so don’t feel special or pointed out).
My response is this: based on the aforementioned premise that knowledge is only available through language I state that language about ideology is never impersonal for me. Therefore, I have to care. I can’t not care. If I don’t care then I don’t care about myself, my world, or all the myriad of factors that have created me. To not care is to pretend that every time I’ve felt inadequate because I wasn’t woman enough and every time I felt inadequate because I wasn’t man enough didn’t happen. It did happen. I got over it, but it happened. Part of the reason I got over it, too, is because I acknowledged that it happened, examined it, and created new knowledge, through language, about what it meant that it happened and what it was going to mean for me. I wouldn’t have gotten over it if I hadn’t cared; I would have repressed it. That’s not true for everyone, but it is true for me, and, judging by the wealth of literature available, it is true for a great many other people as well.
Secondly, if, as soon as I show emotion, someone judges me, stereotypes me, or stops listening to me, then they are not in a place to dialogue and our conversation becomes pointless. They don’t want to hear what I have to say, they want to argue, debate, or tear down. With a situation such as this I am not interested in any of those three things. That I’m passionate demonstrates that it matters, and that it matters should demonstrate that the person conversing with me should care. If my passion, emotion, “female irrationality,” etc. serves instead as a marker that I am vulnerable, weak, or irrational then I am attempting to converse with someone who is incapable of recognizing inherent gender stereotypes in their ideology. And that’s okay; they don’t have to recognize them, but it doesn’t mean that I’m going to dialogue with them. If I “convince” them of anything, it will only be that I’m a “cool” girl, or “just one of the boys,” but still somehow removed from all the other “crazy females” they’ve known. That’s not what I want to do. I don’t want to be the exceptional female. I just want to be me, and I am just a female in the same way that I am just a human being.
I want the ways in which I’m exceptional to have nothing to do with how I am not like a group that has been defined based on notions of power relations. I do not want to be exceptional in spite of my race, gender, or upbringing, and I don’t want to be exceptional because of those things. I want those things to be aspects that have shaped my world view and the lenses through which I have seen things others without those lenses have not. If I have to deny how I feel and what I am in order to persuade, then I am no longer arguing what I believe.
I care about the things that I feel shape and affect the world. I’m not limited by that, and I’m not ashamed of that.
This would be one of my truths, though not transcendental by any means.
I am going to take my final written test tomorrow for my comprehensive exams. I’ll let you know how I feel about it once I know that I’ve passed. In my reading for my tests, though, I found myself revisiting some composition theory and writings on rhetoric in an attempt to refresh my memory and prepare myself. What I found there was tiring, exhilarating, and reminded me why I loved comp theory so very, very, much.
Let me ‘splain. No, that will take too long; let me sum up:
I do not believe in transcendent truth or knowledge as it exists outside of language. Don’t confuse truth with knowledge in that previous sentence. I do believe the world (and universe) operates according to set of laws and that it will do so regardless of my awareness or explication of those laws. I do not, however, believe that I can speak or know those laws without language. Hence, knowledge does not exist outside of language. Truth I define as different from fact; the Earth (to the best of our human knowledge) revolves around the Sun and that is, therefore, a fact. It exists without any intervention by humans. That it is always wrong to hit a baby would be an example of transcendent truth; a truth is an abstract concept existing purely within the realm of human social constructions. I might agree that it is always wrong to hit a baby, but what if that baby was buried in Pet Cemetery and is now trying to kill you? That is why I don’t believe in transcendent truth.
Before we continue anyone who disagrees with my truth/knowledge construction should understand I am not proposing this construction as proper for everyone, but explicating what I believe. You can argue with it, therefore, (and I invite you to do so) but remember you are arguing with my world view from your world view, not disproving the conclusions I am about to reveal having come from said world view. We all still together?
Building from this there are a few main reasons I chose to communicate ideology that matters to me. 1) To explain why I believe what I believe and allow people to know me. My goals in these sorts of situation are not persuade but to share--a completely different urging. The hoped for outcome when I chose to explicate what I believe is for dialogue; I say I believe in X and someone else says “why is that?” or “I’m not sure I agree” and we talk about it. Perhaps we argue. Perhaps we throw things. But we dialogue about who believes what and why. 2) To debate with someone why I feel their particular ideology is flawed or to point out an error in some belief or conclusion they have reached. It should be known that in this case I am still interested in dialogue; regardless of whether persuasion happens, and I must be honest and admit that I hope it does, my goal is to share my conclusions about the subject and provide a different lens--not simply to convince.
The reason that I focus more on dialogue and less on convincing someone I’m right is because--going back to knowledge existing within language--I only feel someone knows what I know, critically and thoughtfully agrees with me, if they possess the language to encompass that knowledge as well. That means we must first dialogue before persuasion can happen; if agreement is accepted immediately nothing new has happened. A poorly understood idea has been exchanged for another poorly understood idea.
So, how does all of this fit in with feminism and why I don’t care that I care so much about feminism?
First, when I talk to people about gender issues (note the use of the word gender there please) I don’t want them to feel guilty, feel angry, or follow me blindly. When I talk about how women still connect their moral worth with their virginity, or wonder why it is all of my female friends feel intimidated to argue passionately with my male friends, or contemplate the implications of always being accused jokingly (except not) of being an irrational, emotional, over-zealous feminist--I want other people, hopefully those I’m talking to, to understand that none of that is okay. It might not be life threatening; it might not even be life shaking, but it’s not okay. In order for such a realization to happen the point must be for us to converse or share in dialogue, not persuade or convince.
Now despite the problems with allowing someone, anyone, to see that I care about gender issues, I do it anyway. Usually only in particular situations, but that I chose any situation outside of an enclosed gynocracy to do so could be considered silly by some and poor arguing by others. In particular there are those that would argue I am only causing myself more pain instead of empowerment by focusing on these issues. There are others that accuse me of losing the argument from the moment I show emotion (and there are probably at least three of you saying to yourself right now, “Crap--is this about me?” And it is, but there have been many, many more than only you three and there will be many, many more so don’t feel special or pointed out).
My response is this: based on the aforementioned premise that knowledge is only available through language I state that language about ideology is never impersonal for me. Therefore, I have to care. I can’t not care. If I don’t care then I don’t care about myself, my world, or all the myriad of factors that have created me. To not care is to pretend that every time I’ve felt inadequate because I wasn’t woman enough and every time I felt inadequate because I wasn’t man enough didn’t happen. It did happen. I got over it, but it happened. Part of the reason I got over it, too, is because I acknowledged that it happened, examined it, and created new knowledge, through language, about what it meant that it happened and what it was going to mean for me. I wouldn’t have gotten over it if I hadn’t cared; I would have repressed it. That’s not true for everyone, but it is true for me, and, judging by the wealth of literature available, it is true for a great many other people as well.
Secondly, if, as soon as I show emotion, someone judges me, stereotypes me, or stops listening to me, then they are not in a place to dialogue and our conversation becomes pointless. They don’t want to hear what I have to say, they want to argue, debate, or tear down. With a situation such as this I am not interested in any of those three things. That I’m passionate demonstrates that it matters, and that it matters should demonstrate that the person conversing with me should care. If my passion, emotion, “female irrationality,” etc. serves instead as a marker that I am vulnerable, weak, or irrational then I am attempting to converse with someone who is incapable of recognizing inherent gender stereotypes in their ideology. And that’s okay; they don’t have to recognize them, but it doesn’t mean that I’m going to dialogue with them. If I “convince” them of anything, it will only be that I’m a “cool” girl, or “just one of the boys,” but still somehow removed from all the other “crazy females” they’ve known. That’s not what I want to do. I don’t want to be the exceptional female. I just want to be me, and I am just a female in the same way that I am just a human being.
I want the ways in which I’m exceptional to have nothing to do with how I am not like a group that has been defined based on notions of power relations. I do not want to be exceptional in spite of my race, gender, or upbringing, and I don’t want to be exceptional because of those things. I want those things to be aspects that have shaped my world view and the lenses through which I have seen things others without those lenses have not. If I have to deny how I feel and what I am in order to persuade, then I am no longer arguing what I believe.
I care about the things that I feel shape and affect the world. I’m not limited by that, and I’m not ashamed of that.
This would be one of my truths, though not transcendental by any means.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Yes, I’m Talking About Fat People...Again
Slate’s latest article “Let Them Drink Water!” by Daniel Engber (found here http://www.slate.com/id/2228713/pagenum/all/#p2) deserves some consideration. My goal in life is not to fight the good fight for fat people even though it seems my posts are unequally weighted (ha) in that direction, but I still feel strongly that awareness must be raised.
I suppose my over-arching question is this: what are our goals as a society and what sort of society do we want to be?
That was two questions but whatever. If we consider ourselves a democracy where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the primary goal for each citizen then legislating pleasure is a dangerous and tricky business. If we consider ourselves a democracy (or a theocracy or something else entirely) where support of government, productivity, and socially approved lifestyle is the primary goal for each citizen then legislating pleasure is a necessity. Before we go any further it should be understood that if you feel the second set of goals is preferable to the first then you are not in support of a free society.
That might seem like a ridiculous statement, and no doubt many would take offense at their support of freedom being questioned, but saying you believe in freedom and actually believing in freedom are two different things. Never mind that the first is significantly easier than the second. Furthermore, true freedom is impossible outside of anarchy. The reason for this is that once you agree not only to live with other human beings, but to allow your behaviors to be policed by a ruling group for the good of all you have given up some freedom. It isn’t a big deal; certainly I’m happy that we have a society that functions (fairly well) and allows for many freedoms. This agreement to cohabitate is not slavery or tyranny or anything so melodramatic as that, but it is an agreement to allow some personal rights to be restricted in favor of public harmony. Examples of this range from the mundane to the extreme: you are not allowed to sunbathe naked on your front lawn where others might see you, and you are not allowed to assault someone else because they irritate you. I don’t consider myself less free because of this, but I feel “freedom” can still be applied to my situation specifically because I am allowed to pursue my own endeavors, education, and pleasure so long as it remains within the private sphere dictated by our social agreement. We don’t (or shouldn’t) arrest people for engaging in consensual adult sex acts--even if we personally feel they are perverse. We don’t (or shouldn’t) keep people from pursuing whatever philosophy/religion appeals to them, even if that philosophy/religion worships classically defined notions of evil.
But if our goals as a society are the support of government, productivity, and socially approved lifestyle then it is no longer an issue of giving up some freedom in the public sphere in order to pursue the individuality that appeals to each citizen, and it becomes a society based on conforming. To borrow from Marx we really do become cogs in the machine. If a citizen is not allowed to be unhealthy because it restricts their labor producing capabilities than that citizen becomes not a human being, but a laborer. If a citizen is punished for illogical, unhealthy, or unwise pursuits that are bad decisions for their longevity, even their happiness, then we aren’t allowing liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And this is the problem with being a society that seeks to promote citizens who pursue liberty and happiness.
Because of the nature of the social agreement, not all happiness can be pursued. Some of it must be restricted or denied because it hurts others and/or society. Child pornography is an extreme, but apt example. When one moves away from the extremes, however, the lines become less clear. Is an unhealthy lifestyle an acceptable pursuit? At what point does a citizen fail to contribute acceptably and at what point does that failure constitute being a leech on society? The question of when society should or should not support non-contributing citizens is a chapter in itself and I will not consider that here.
The problem, I feel, lies in how we define “harm to society and others.” What constitutes a harmful act? This is not an easy question. Many have and will argue effectively that a non-contributing member of society, or simply a less-contributing member of society, is causing harm. Many have and will argue effectively that a citizen cannot and must not be evaluated based on their societal contribution. To do so is to commodify them, which in turn dehumanizes them.
To connect this to the article, therefore, is to say that fat people and smokers cost their healthcare providers more money on average than thin people and non smokers. This cost lessens the overall profit of these businesses, which in turn requires the businesses to raise their rates in order to maintain and increase their profit. This raise affects those not costing healthcare providers money and so the lifestyle of some affects the lifestyle of all. Furthermore, because these few have health problems they are also not providing an effective labor force which lessens the productivity of the economy as a whole thereby lowering whatever nebulous achievements society imagines could be had if productivity were at a maximum.
This is a very compelling argument. It as also an argument that leans away from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because at its base it argues non productive citizens and unhealthy citizens are harming society because they cost it money. That’s the sticking point. Once you argue that harm is connected to monetary value, citizens are no longer human beings. We can choose to be a society like that; we can choose as citizens to accept our role not as human beings exploring their humanity, but as laborers seeking as much personal profit as possible. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about that choice. But it is a choice that should be made intentionally, not because of a conflation of morality and money.
Now, can a society that pursues liberty and happiness also encourage its citizens to be healthy? I don’t see why not. I don’t even see why we can’t tax pleasurable activities; we tax property and income as part of the social agreement, why shouldn’t we tax pleasure? But to specifically tax one pleasure specifically taxes one group, and that is not encouragement but discrimination. If we can all imagine that we don’t want a society based on monetary achievement and we do, in fact, want to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, then the choice to tax tobacco but not movies, junk food but not sport’s tickets creates a value-laden hierarchy where particular lifestyles are seen as better than others. Once something is seen as better it is simultaneously seen as more right. Once something is seen as more right it is seen as more moral.
This is why people view smokers not as a group of people that choose pleasure over health, but as immoral questionable folks who are less intelligent, less interesting, and less “good” than others. This is why people view fat people not as a group of people who are large for all sorts of reasons ranging from laziness to economic status, to genetics and instead think of them as inhuman caricatures. Choosing a lifestyle that isn’t wise isn’t a personal choice, therefore, but something akin to substance abuse. Everyone understands that you aren’t strong enough, bright enough, or moral enough to be what you should be, and they really hope that someday, you’ll find it in yourself to become a better person who can better interact with those around her. As a fat person your unattractiveness, both due to your size and your apparent unhealthiness, implies a mental and physical slovenliness that is a personal and moral affront to everyone.
That is what happens when you target one group specifically and tax them not because it makes good economic sense, but because you want to punish them for how they live. Especially when promises are made that the punishment will stop at exactly the same time their lifestyle changes. At exactly the same time they change.
I’m not opposed to taxing pleasure; I think we should legalize drugs and tax them. I think we should tax tobacco. I think we should tax professional sport’s tickets. People will pay for tickets with the same enthusiasm that they buy cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food. It’s a pleasure they feel is worth the cost. That’s why taxing them makes such good sense. What I’m opposed to is using taxes to support a morality that is imposed on citizens with a monetary agenda, and full awareness that such a morality can never be fulfilled.
There will always be people who are less than whatever standard is set. A utopia of healthy, thin, productive citizens is a ridiculous dream that can never be reached--no matter whether it should be reached or not. Once fat people are effectively turned into a minority like smokers another group will be targeted and another “unwise” pleasure will be attacked. This is because society needs conflict to fuel the economy. Whatever group is demonized, people will spend money to get out of that group and to keep themselves from falling into that group. And my dream, an educated self-aware populous that chooses to be what it is knowingly and with acceptance of that choice is a utopia as well. I am aware of that.
But along with the people holding up signs that say President Obama is a “communist, socialist, anarchist” (which doesn’t work as those three things don’t exist in harmony with each other) there are people that consistently fail to realize what a morality based on commodity really is.
As a fat person I don’t want to be discriminated against. As a human being I don’t want to be a commodity. For me, it’s just that simple.
Slate’s latest article “Let Them Drink Water!” by Daniel Engber (found here http://www.slate.com/id/2228713/pagenum/all/#p2) deserves some consideration. My goal in life is not to fight the good fight for fat people even though it seems my posts are unequally weighted (ha) in that direction, but I still feel strongly that awareness must be raised.
I suppose my over-arching question is this: what are our goals as a society and what sort of society do we want to be?
That was two questions but whatever. If we consider ourselves a democracy where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the primary goal for each citizen then legislating pleasure is a dangerous and tricky business. If we consider ourselves a democracy (or a theocracy or something else entirely) where support of government, productivity, and socially approved lifestyle is the primary goal for each citizen then legislating pleasure is a necessity. Before we go any further it should be understood that if you feel the second set of goals is preferable to the first then you are not in support of a free society.
That might seem like a ridiculous statement, and no doubt many would take offense at their support of freedom being questioned, but saying you believe in freedom and actually believing in freedom are two different things. Never mind that the first is significantly easier than the second. Furthermore, true freedom is impossible outside of anarchy. The reason for this is that once you agree not only to live with other human beings, but to allow your behaviors to be policed by a ruling group for the good of all you have given up some freedom. It isn’t a big deal; certainly I’m happy that we have a society that functions (fairly well) and allows for many freedoms. This agreement to cohabitate is not slavery or tyranny or anything so melodramatic as that, but it is an agreement to allow some personal rights to be restricted in favor of public harmony. Examples of this range from the mundane to the extreme: you are not allowed to sunbathe naked on your front lawn where others might see you, and you are not allowed to assault someone else because they irritate you. I don’t consider myself less free because of this, but I feel “freedom” can still be applied to my situation specifically because I am allowed to pursue my own endeavors, education, and pleasure so long as it remains within the private sphere dictated by our social agreement. We don’t (or shouldn’t) arrest people for engaging in consensual adult sex acts--even if we personally feel they are perverse. We don’t (or shouldn’t) keep people from pursuing whatever philosophy/religion appeals to them, even if that philosophy/religion worships classically defined notions of evil.
But if our goals as a society are the support of government, productivity, and socially approved lifestyle then it is no longer an issue of giving up some freedom in the public sphere in order to pursue the individuality that appeals to each citizen, and it becomes a society based on conforming. To borrow from Marx we really do become cogs in the machine. If a citizen is not allowed to be unhealthy because it restricts their labor producing capabilities than that citizen becomes not a human being, but a laborer. If a citizen is punished for illogical, unhealthy, or unwise pursuits that are bad decisions for their longevity, even their happiness, then we aren’t allowing liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And this is the problem with being a society that seeks to promote citizens who pursue liberty and happiness.
Because of the nature of the social agreement, not all happiness can be pursued. Some of it must be restricted or denied because it hurts others and/or society. Child pornography is an extreme, but apt example. When one moves away from the extremes, however, the lines become less clear. Is an unhealthy lifestyle an acceptable pursuit? At what point does a citizen fail to contribute acceptably and at what point does that failure constitute being a leech on society? The question of when society should or should not support non-contributing citizens is a chapter in itself and I will not consider that here.
The problem, I feel, lies in how we define “harm to society and others.” What constitutes a harmful act? This is not an easy question. Many have and will argue effectively that a non-contributing member of society, or simply a less-contributing member of society, is causing harm. Many have and will argue effectively that a citizen cannot and must not be evaluated based on their societal contribution. To do so is to commodify them, which in turn dehumanizes them.
To connect this to the article, therefore, is to say that fat people and smokers cost their healthcare providers more money on average than thin people and non smokers. This cost lessens the overall profit of these businesses, which in turn requires the businesses to raise their rates in order to maintain and increase their profit. This raise affects those not costing healthcare providers money and so the lifestyle of some affects the lifestyle of all. Furthermore, because these few have health problems they are also not providing an effective labor force which lessens the productivity of the economy as a whole thereby lowering whatever nebulous achievements society imagines could be had if productivity were at a maximum.
This is a very compelling argument. It as also an argument that leans away from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because at its base it argues non productive citizens and unhealthy citizens are harming society because they cost it money. That’s the sticking point. Once you argue that harm is connected to monetary value, citizens are no longer human beings. We can choose to be a society like that; we can choose as citizens to accept our role not as human beings exploring their humanity, but as laborers seeking as much personal profit as possible. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about that choice. But it is a choice that should be made intentionally, not because of a conflation of morality and money.
Now, can a society that pursues liberty and happiness also encourage its citizens to be healthy? I don’t see why not. I don’t even see why we can’t tax pleasurable activities; we tax property and income as part of the social agreement, why shouldn’t we tax pleasure? But to specifically tax one pleasure specifically taxes one group, and that is not encouragement but discrimination. If we can all imagine that we don’t want a society based on monetary achievement and we do, in fact, want to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, then the choice to tax tobacco but not movies, junk food but not sport’s tickets creates a value-laden hierarchy where particular lifestyles are seen as better than others. Once something is seen as better it is simultaneously seen as more right. Once something is seen as more right it is seen as more moral.
This is why people view smokers not as a group of people that choose pleasure over health, but as immoral questionable folks who are less intelligent, less interesting, and less “good” than others. This is why people view fat people not as a group of people who are large for all sorts of reasons ranging from laziness to economic status, to genetics and instead think of them as inhuman caricatures. Choosing a lifestyle that isn’t wise isn’t a personal choice, therefore, but something akin to substance abuse. Everyone understands that you aren’t strong enough, bright enough, or moral enough to be what you should be, and they really hope that someday, you’ll find it in yourself to become a better person who can better interact with those around her. As a fat person your unattractiveness, both due to your size and your apparent unhealthiness, implies a mental and physical slovenliness that is a personal and moral affront to everyone.
That is what happens when you target one group specifically and tax them not because it makes good economic sense, but because you want to punish them for how they live. Especially when promises are made that the punishment will stop at exactly the same time their lifestyle changes. At exactly the same time they change.
I’m not opposed to taxing pleasure; I think we should legalize drugs and tax them. I think we should tax tobacco. I think we should tax professional sport’s tickets. People will pay for tickets with the same enthusiasm that they buy cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food. It’s a pleasure they feel is worth the cost. That’s why taxing them makes such good sense. What I’m opposed to is using taxes to support a morality that is imposed on citizens with a monetary agenda, and full awareness that such a morality can never be fulfilled.
There will always be people who are less than whatever standard is set. A utopia of healthy, thin, productive citizens is a ridiculous dream that can never be reached--no matter whether it should be reached or not. Once fat people are effectively turned into a minority like smokers another group will be targeted and another “unwise” pleasure will be attacked. This is because society needs conflict to fuel the economy. Whatever group is demonized, people will spend money to get out of that group and to keep themselves from falling into that group. And my dream, an educated self-aware populous that chooses to be what it is knowingly and with acceptance of that choice is a utopia as well. I am aware of that.
But along with the people holding up signs that say President Obama is a “communist, socialist, anarchist” (which doesn’t work as those three things don’t exist in harmony with each other) there are people that consistently fail to realize what a morality based on commodity really is.
As a fat person I don’t want to be discriminated against. As a human being I don’t want to be a commodity. For me, it’s just that simple.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Samwise the Brave--I finally understand.
I just completed my yearly watching of The Lord of the Rings, and for the first time in my life--in all the times I have read the books, watched the movies, talked about the story, and thought about the story--I have finally had genuine sympathy and empathy for Sam Gamgee.
In the course of my life I have always loved Merry and Pippin; they’re fun. I carry deep passion for Aragorn (that one doesn’t even need to be explained). And Gimli and Legolas are the two cool kids you wish will be your friends. Gandalf obviously needs no explanation. But Frodo and Sam have never seriously captured my interest. I understood it was hard for Frodo and Sam to make it to Mount Doom; more than hard, it was a quest with such little chance of success that their completion of it defies any true understanding. But watching Lord of the Rings this time around it struck me how hard, how unimaginably hard, it must have been for Sam.
Frodo is effectively a substance abuser; the longer he carries the ring the more his mind is no longer his own. He lashes out at those around them, doesn’t take care of himself, and sinks deeper and deeper into a world where no one can follow. Frodo could not have made it without Sam because he would have crumpled under the ring. I think anyone who attempted the quest on their own would have. Sam’s job, therefore, is not only to accompany Frodo and help him but to carry him, literally and figuratively, all the way. Sam must bear the burden of the journey and the burden of Frodo. Yes, Sam doesn’t have to worry about the ring working on his mind, but he is alone, hated, and abused in turns. Gollum, another necessary figure doesn’t make anything easier. And to watch his best friend turn to Gollum over him, and to be able to understand it (perhaps) objectively but never emotionally.
And Sam can’t walk away. No matter what Frodo does to him. No matter what Frodo makes him do. No matter what Frodo requires of him. Sam is the pack mule, the load bearer. There is nothing glorious or archetypically heroic about Sam Gamgee; he isn’t the most interesting or charismatic or funny. But he’s strong and staid and to have made that journey with Frodo and Gollum, to have stood by Frodo all that way and to bear no resentment and no ill will when it was all done--I don’t think I have ever appreciated what sort of strength that would take.
We don’t glorify that sort of strength in our society; I’m not sure I know of a society that does. We look up to the Aragorns and revere the Gandalfs. We have people who bluster and preen and imagine themselves Legolases or Gimlis, but no one sets out to be Sam. Sam isn’t glamorous. And on the surface of it, why would you want to be Sam? He wants nothing more than to live a quiet life; he wouldn’t adventure if it weren’t thrust upon him, and he certainly doesn’t want to keep adventuring when it’s over. But as I’ve contemplated what makes a hero I think there is an aspect of immovable strength combined with simplistic decency that should be considered. Most people are neither naturally good enough nor naive enough to be Sam, and more than that most people could not survive bearing the load Sam does. But despite his lack of glory he is a truly impressive character.
Perhaps even among LOTR lovers my ode to Sam seems a bit much. But I share it anyway because even with all of my imagined philosophizing about any number of things I still miss the most obvious things sometimes. How could I live my whole life with LOTR and never once until just now, fully understand--emotionally and objectively--how impressive Samwise the Brave truly is? What does it mean for my own philosophies if they now metamorph to include an idea of heroism that is neither exciting nor glorious, but unimaginably difficult, tedious, and necessary?
I remember a professor said once that we return to stories over and over in our lives because each time we revisit them we might find they mean something different. He was right.
I just completed my yearly watching of The Lord of the Rings, and for the first time in my life--in all the times I have read the books, watched the movies, talked about the story, and thought about the story--I have finally had genuine sympathy and empathy for Sam Gamgee.
In the course of my life I have always loved Merry and Pippin; they’re fun. I carry deep passion for Aragorn (that one doesn’t even need to be explained). And Gimli and Legolas are the two cool kids you wish will be your friends. Gandalf obviously needs no explanation. But Frodo and Sam have never seriously captured my interest. I understood it was hard for Frodo and Sam to make it to Mount Doom; more than hard, it was a quest with such little chance of success that their completion of it defies any true understanding. But watching Lord of the Rings this time around it struck me how hard, how unimaginably hard, it must have been for Sam.
Frodo is effectively a substance abuser; the longer he carries the ring the more his mind is no longer his own. He lashes out at those around them, doesn’t take care of himself, and sinks deeper and deeper into a world where no one can follow. Frodo could not have made it without Sam because he would have crumpled under the ring. I think anyone who attempted the quest on their own would have. Sam’s job, therefore, is not only to accompany Frodo and help him but to carry him, literally and figuratively, all the way. Sam must bear the burden of the journey and the burden of Frodo. Yes, Sam doesn’t have to worry about the ring working on his mind, but he is alone, hated, and abused in turns. Gollum, another necessary figure doesn’t make anything easier. And to watch his best friend turn to Gollum over him, and to be able to understand it (perhaps) objectively but never emotionally.
And Sam can’t walk away. No matter what Frodo does to him. No matter what Frodo makes him do. No matter what Frodo requires of him. Sam is the pack mule, the load bearer. There is nothing glorious or archetypically heroic about Sam Gamgee; he isn’t the most interesting or charismatic or funny. But he’s strong and staid and to have made that journey with Frodo and Gollum, to have stood by Frodo all that way and to bear no resentment and no ill will when it was all done--I don’t think I have ever appreciated what sort of strength that would take.
We don’t glorify that sort of strength in our society; I’m not sure I know of a society that does. We look up to the Aragorns and revere the Gandalfs. We have people who bluster and preen and imagine themselves Legolases or Gimlis, but no one sets out to be Sam. Sam isn’t glamorous. And on the surface of it, why would you want to be Sam? He wants nothing more than to live a quiet life; he wouldn’t adventure if it weren’t thrust upon him, and he certainly doesn’t want to keep adventuring when it’s over. But as I’ve contemplated what makes a hero I think there is an aspect of immovable strength combined with simplistic decency that should be considered. Most people are neither naturally good enough nor naive enough to be Sam, and more than that most people could not survive bearing the load Sam does. But despite his lack of glory he is a truly impressive character.
Perhaps even among LOTR lovers my ode to Sam seems a bit much. But I share it anyway because even with all of my imagined philosophizing about any number of things I still miss the most obvious things sometimes. How could I live my whole life with LOTR and never once until just now, fully understand--emotionally and objectively--how impressive Samwise the Brave truly is? What does it mean for my own philosophies if they now metamorph to include an idea of heroism that is neither exciting nor glorious, but unimaginably difficult, tedious, and necessary?
I remember a professor said once that we return to stories over and over in our lives because each time we revisit them we might find they mean something different. He was right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
