Hi. Yeah. I've been gone for a while. I am back, though. I caught this on The Colbert Report on Monday, and I have been thinking about it ever since. This is brilliant stuff.
Oh, and see you tomorrow.
June 28, 2013
March 28, 2013
Jimmy Kimmel Did This Thing -
And I think it is wonderful. Yes, I know. I probably wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was wonderful. I also think this is very sociologically important to watch. Can you spot judge someone and decide if they are pro- or anti-gay marriage. I know that being anti-gay marriage is not the same as homophobic (even when it feels like it might be), but this is exactly the kind of "safe/not safe" debate that most members of the GLBT public have always faced. How do you know how it will be received. There's funny bits in here too, of course. It's late night TV and it has to be funny. It is also a pretty smart thing.
March 27, 2013
Rethinking Frankenstein
I've been reading Frankenstein. It's made me think a little bit too much. While it isn't a web site I visited, it could be. Either way, this is what is on my brain.
Like many of you, I was asked to read Frankenstein in high school and again in college. It had been so long, however, that I felt like I’d never read it. I jumped in assuming that as I went along, it would start to feel familiar. Maybe the book changed on me, or I read a different version. I found myself really enjoying the language this time! I read and reread parts of it because I liked the way it sounded in my head. I don’t remember that from the first time. Or the second, come to think of it.
One of the times I read Frankenstein, I was told that this story was about science gone too far. I believed it. It made sense to me when I heard it. I imagine I have notes about it somewhere. It’s probably mostly true. The subtitle of “the Modern Prometheus” would certainly lend credence. I know that Prometheus was the trickster who created man from clay and stole fire from the Gods. I remember his story had themes about consequences of trying to over-reach your station in life. Victor certainly would be very much like that trickster. I was told it; I believed it; I took notes. Veni, vidi, noti. Or something like that. I thought I had the real and only truth about this book. Maybe the book changed on me here, too because, this time as I read, I could not stop seeing the story as an angry letter to God.
Have you read Mary Shelley’s biography? Shelley’s mother died when she was 11 days old, by the time she was finished writing Frankenstein in 1817, she had also begun to live in exile and in debt with a married lover, suffered the loss of a premature child and weathered the suicide of both her half sister and the wife of her lover (It’s complicated.). She was not yet 19. Less than that would have broken many. Don’t get me wrong; she’s got a right to be ticked off.
At 18, with so much trauma and drama shaping her world, she set out to write a ghost story that ended up being an indictment on the relationship and responsibly of a creator to the created. With her own life a model of pain and rejection and turmoil, what vision could she use for the Creator? Shelley creates, in Victor Frankenstein, a Creator who is weak, vindictive, doubtful, malevolent, maudlin, given to fits of depression and rage. He’s a terrible God figure! What, then, should the Creation be?
In Victor’s eyes, he has created a monster. But is he? Why is Shelley’s monster so articulate? If she was simply telling a scary story, the result of Victor’s work could be the mute, grunting green man of movie lore. Instead, he waxes “I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king, if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous." This isn't exactly the machination of an evil demon fiend. in fact, this passage could read like a kind of prayer from a forsaken creation. This Creation is doomed in his own way, like Prometheus, to live a life of constant, renewed pain and isolation from the god/creator that could have opted to love and forgive him.
For his part as Creator, Frankenstein spends his days feeling wretched, guilty and depressed. He feels a sense of responsibility for his creation, but only in so far as he believes it falls to him to destroy it. Utterly selfish to the core, it never occurs to him that his Creation would have anything like a soul or feelings. When he finally meets his Creation again, he finally thinks that he might be responsible in another way. “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” At last, Victor agrees to help the poor creature, and then recants and destroys all signs of progress. He gives his creation a chance at hope and happiness and then takes it away. As creators go, Victor is a pretty mean specimen. He can be seen here as the vengeful Zeus. Enraged that the Creation would dare ask to have a chance at the same happiness and companionship that Victor would have in Elizabeth, he dooms him to continued torment.
I think that I missed this reading of Frankenstein so long ago because I got caught up in the layers of voices. Walton is telling his sister Frankenstein’s story, who is telling the story of the Creation. I have to wonder if this story of a story of a story is another way to heighten the theme of this broken Garden of Eden. This third removed lens gets us away from the blasphemy. It also offers Victor Frankenstein a shot at redemption as the failed Creator. We get to see that Victor dies for us; to save us from the evil of his creation. The creature, too, gets his wish when Frankenstein finally becomes the constant companion and watchful eye that only a Creator can be. In the end, is the absence of his God figure that causes the Creation to despair and ultimately choose to kill himself.
It’s interesting. I've never thought about it this way. Maybe I should pull at it a bit more. There’s probably a reasonable paper in here somewhere. If I am ever asked to write one again, I could be ready. I will have the notes.
Like many of you, I was asked to read Frankenstein in high school and again in college. It had been so long, however, that I felt like I’d never read it. I jumped in assuming that as I went along, it would start to feel familiar. Maybe the book changed on me, or I read a different version. I found myself really enjoying the language this time! I read and reread parts of it because I liked the way it sounded in my head. I don’t remember that from the first time. Or the second, come to think of it.
One of the times I read Frankenstein, I was told that this story was about science gone too far. I believed it. It made sense to me when I heard it. I imagine I have notes about it somewhere. It’s probably mostly true. The subtitle of “the Modern Prometheus” would certainly lend credence. I know that Prometheus was the trickster who created man from clay and stole fire from the Gods. I remember his story had themes about consequences of trying to over-reach your station in life. Victor certainly would be very much like that trickster. I was told it; I believed it; I took notes. Veni, vidi, noti. Or something like that. I thought I had the real and only truth about this book. Maybe the book changed on me here, too because, this time as I read, I could not stop seeing the story as an angry letter to God.
Have you read Mary Shelley’s biography? Shelley’s mother died when she was 11 days old, by the time she was finished writing Frankenstein in 1817, she had also begun to live in exile and in debt with a married lover, suffered the loss of a premature child and weathered the suicide of both her half sister and the wife of her lover (It’s complicated.). She was not yet 19. Less than that would have broken many. Don’t get me wrong; she’s got a right to be ticked off.
At 18, with so much trauma and drama shaping her world, she set out to write a ghost story that ended up being an indictment on the relationship and responsibly of a creator to the created. With her own life a model of pain and rejection and turmoil, what vision could she use for the Creator? Shelley creates, in Victor Frankenstein, a Creator who is weak, vindictive, doubtful, malevolent, maudlin, given to fits of depression and rage. He’s a terrible God figure! What, then, should the Creation be?
In Victor’s eyes, he has created a monster. But is he? Why is Shelley’s monster so articulate? If she was simply telling a scary story, the result of Victor’s work could be the mute, grunting green man of movie lore. Instead, he waxes “I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king, if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous." This isn't exactly the machination of an evil demon fiend. in fact, this passage could read like a kind of prayer from a forsaken creation. This Creation is doomed in his own way, like Prometheus, to live a life of constant, renewed pain and isolation from the god/creator that could have opted to love and forgive him.
For his part as Creator, Frankenstein spends his days feeling wretched, guilty and depressed. He feels a sense of responsibility for his creation, but only in so far as he believes it falls to him to destroy it. Utterly selfish to the core, it never occurs to him that his Creation would have anything like a soul or feelings. When he finally meets his Creation again, he finally thinks that he might be responsible in another way. “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” At last, Victor agrees to help the poor creature, and then recants and destroys all signs of progress. He gives his creation a chance at hope and happiness and then takes it away. As creators go, Victor is a pretty mean specimen. He can be seen here as the vengeful Zeus. Enraged that the Creation would dare ask to have a chance at the same happiness and companionship that Victor would have in Elizabeth, he dooms him to continued torment.
I think that I missed this reading of Frankenstein so long ago because I got caught up in the layers of voices. Walton is telling his sister Frankenstein’s story, who is telling the story of the Creation. I have to wonder if this story of a story of a story is another way to heighten the theme of this broken Garden of Eden. This third removed lens gets us away from the blasphemy. It also offers Victor Frankenstein a shot at redemption as the failed Creator. We get to see that Victor dies for us; to save us from the evil of his creation. The creature, too, gets his wish when Frankenstein finally becomes the constant companion and watchful eye that only a Creator can be. In the end, is the absence of his God figure that causes the Creation to despair and ultimately choose to kill himself.
It’s interesting. I've never thought about it this way. Maybe I should pull at it a bit more. There’s probably a reasonable paper in here somewhere. If I am ever asked to write one again, I could be ready. I will have the notes.
March 25, 2013
Fingers crossed
Over the next two days, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on two appeals to state and federal laws restricting gay marriages. The first case will appear before the court on Tuesday, March 26th. The first case will be about the ongoing battle in California around Proposition 8. The over riding question here will be about equal protection and the 14th Amendment.
In a separate argument on Wednesday, the Court will tackle the federal Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA. This 1996 law defined marriage as between a man and a women, and therefore barred gay and lesbian couples from any of the federal benefits and privileges of marriage.
The Supreme Court doesn't like to rule too far away from public opinion on topics such as these. I guess it is good news, in that case, that just today a CNN poll was released that says that the demographic of support is shifting. The cause? A lot more people know someone who is gay, and the world didn't end.
"The number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has risen by almost the same amount in that time - from 40% in 2007 to 53% today - strongly suggesting that the rise in support for gay marriage is due in part to the rising number of Americans who have become aware that someone close to them is gay,"
Whatever the reason for the shift, I can only hope that the Supreme Court will understand that the failure to recognize millions of loving and committed relationships as marriages simply because of sexual orientation is a pure and complete act of discrimination.
I will have my fingers crossed.
Except when I am typing.
I plan to follow the business of the Court this week with bated breath. And then, of course, dear reader, you will have to read my thoughts.
March 21, 2013
February 26, 2013
February 22, 2013
In Memory
I want to talk about domestic violence. I want to talk about it because I feel like no one is talking about it enough. But I also don't know what "enough" looks like.
What I have to say is messy. There will be information that could be a trigger topic for some people. If this is you, just watch this video and come back for my normal trigger-free writing on Monday. If you aren't going to have a trauma trigger based on today's topic, you should still watch the video; but wait until after, so that you can restore your faith in humanity and beautiful things.
There. Wasn't that beautiful?
I am thinking about domestic violence because of the most recent news out of South Africa about Oscar Pristorius. If you don't know the name, I will give you a bit of history, and you can learn more about his story here. Pristorius made history in the 2012 Olympics by being the first disabled athlete to compete in the able-bodied London games. His story is very compelling. A birth defect left him in prosthetics since toddler-hood. He is considered a national hero in South Africa. His nickname is "The Blade Runner," because of the appearance of this running prosthetics. As inspring as his history may be, on Valentine's Day he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his gated community home. He was granted bail today. Family and supporters cheered in the court room as the magistrate announced his decision. He swears it was an accident, although there have been some claims that there were issues with violence in their short relationship.
I don't know what happened. I wasn't in that room.
Family and friends claim that it seemed like Pristorius and Steenkamp were happy. Goodness knows that both of these young people were in the prime of their lives and beautiful. So, these two beautiful people, we say, can't possibly be living with this secret. I mean, every relationship has it's ups and downs. This is just was all a terrible mistake. It can't possibly be true.
And maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. Maybe, we just like the idea that this was something that was never supposed to happen to a happy, non-violent couple. People like Pristorius are heroes and heroes don't hurt anyone.
I don't know what happened. I wasn't in that room.
What I do know, is what we want to be true when it comes to domestic and relationship violence rarely is. There is no such things as a typical abuser. Chances are very good that if you were waiting in line behind an abuser at the Starbucks, you would still feel safe. You wouldn't think, "this guy is gonna hit me." The abuse, when it does occur, is behind closed doors. It happens in secret. It is not an accident. It doesn't happen because of stress or because the victim was in any way provoking. No one deserves it. No one is to blame but the perpetrator. The events happen in secret, and to anyone of any age, race, gender, or socio-economic level. Even beautiful and successful people can be abused. Most If Ms. Steenkamp was being abused, it is unlikely that she would have told anyone. At the heart of domestic violence is a dis-balance of power.
Yeah, dis-balance isn't a "real" word and I am supposed to use "unbalanced." Stick with me. I am using disbalance because, while the prefix "dis-" and "un-" both mean "not," "dis-" takes its origin from the Latin meaning for reversing. An unbalanced system can be righted, a disbalanced system exists to reverse the balance and can't be righted.
There is no mechanism by which a domestic violence situation can be either right, or righted. Some people who are in violent relationships manage to leave their abusers. Some don't. More than a fair share of them end much like Ms. Steenkamp's story. Someone in custody, someone dead, and with everyone wondering happening what happened in that room.
If you need helping leaving, check out these resources:
Love is Respect
A How-To Guide
What I have to say is messy. There will be information that could be a trigger topic for some people. If this is you, just watch this video and come back for my normal trigger-free writing on Monday. If you aren't going to have a trauma trigger based on today's topic, you should still watch the video; but wait until after, so that you can restore your faith in humanity and beautiful things.
There. Wasn't that beautiful?
I am thinking about domestic violence because of the most recent news out of South Africa about Oscar Pristorius. If you don't know the name, I will give you a bit of history, and you can learn more about his story here. Pristorius made history in the 2012 Olympics by being the first disabled athlete to compete in the able-bodied London games. His story is very compelling. A birth defect left him in prosthetics since toddler-hood. He is considered a national hero in South Africa. His nickname is "The Blade Runner," because of the appearance of this running prosthetics. As inspring as his history may be, on Valentine's Day he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his gated community home. He was granted bail today. Family and supporters cheered in the court room as the magistrate announced his decision. He swears it was an accident, although there have been some claims that there were issues with violence in their short relationship.
I don't know what happened. I wasn't in that room.
Family and friends claim that it seemed like Pristorius and Steenkamp were happy. Goodness knows that both of these young people were in the prime of their lives and beautiful. So, these two beautiful people, we say, can't possibly be living with this secret. I mean, every relationship has it's ups and downs. This is just was all a terrible mistake. It can't possibly be true.
And maybe it is. And maybe it isn't. Maybe, we just like the idea that this was something that was never supposed to happen to a happy, non-violent couple. People like Pristorius are heroes and heroes don't hurt anyone.
I don't know what happened. I wasn't in that room.
What I do know, is what we want to be true when it comes to domestic and relationship violence rarely is. There is no such things as a typical abuser. Chances are very good that if you were waiting in line behind an abuser at the Starbucks, you would still feel safe. You wouldn't think, "this guy is gonna hit me." The abuse, when it does occur, is behind closed doors. It happens in secret. It is not an accident. It doesn't happen because of stress or because the victim was in any way provoking. No one deserves it. No one is to blame but the perpetrator. The events happen in secret, and to anyone of any age, race, gender, or socio-economic level. Even beautiful and successful people can be abused. Most If Ms. Steenkamp was being abused, it is unlikely that she would have told anyone. At the heart of domestic violence is a dis-balance of power.
Yeah, dis-balance isn't a "real" word and I am supposed to use "unbalanced." Stick with me. I am using disbalance because, while the prefix "dis-" and "un-" both mean "not," "dis-" takes its origin from the Latin meaning for reversing. An unbalanced system can be righted, a disbalanced system exists to reverse the balance and can't be righted.
There is no mechanism by which a domestic violence situation can be either right, or righted. Some people who are in violent relationships manage to leave their abusers. Some don't. More than a fair share of them end much like Ms. Steenkamp's story. Someone in custody, someone dead, and with everyone wondering happening what happened in that room.
If you need helping leaving, check out these resources:
Love is Respect
A How-To Guide
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)