Take a moment and think back on the last important decision you made.
What sort of things went into making that decision? What were the determining factors? How did you ultimately come to your decision? Did you weigh the pros and cons of each option? Did you think of how your choices would affect your future? Or did you just go with your "gut"?
Looking at what society tells us about making choices, we find two very distinct and very opposite philosophies on decision making. There's the "grow up" school of thought and there's the "follow your heart" school of thought. Both of which are fairly self explanatory though I'm going to be expounding on them anyways for those who might not be in the know.
The "grow up" idea is that life is a tough place full of difficult decisions where sometimes you're not faced with a good or bad set of options. It's either bad...or equally bad in other ways. This is the world where you come to realize that your elementary school dreams of becoming a astronaut or a super hero are a little beyond your reach. When curing cancer or exploring the world takes a backseat to paying the rent and buying groceries.
Then there's the "follow your heart" way of thinking. This idea is romanticized relentlessly in today's pop culture media and seems to have come up in direct conflict with the previous idea. Most times, when you see this idea either in books or in movies, it is set alongside the "grow up" model of thinking as a way of showing that it's "better". We see some poor, miserable mook forced to work in some job he hates in the hopes that he'll eventually ascend the corporate ladder to something marginally less miserable. Then, in comes this happy, free, ray of sunshine who has chosen to do what their heart decides and so they're happy. The mook sees the error of his ways, casts off his shackles and dances off with his brethren.
Now, there's a bit of a problem with this idealized notion of happiness? It's not real.
There's a saying that goes "Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life." I certainly agree with that statement. However, if you spend all your time only seeking out that perfect job you'll also never work a day in your life. These movies and books rarely point out the fact that these "happy" people are often forced to depend on the state to support them while they continually try to "find themselves". If they aren't leeching off the state, they're leeching off of friends and family.
There's nothing wrong with having a dream or a goal that you want to strive for. You should simply be willing to take the steps to get to that goal and be able to support yourself in the meantime. Just because you start in that crappy job doesn't mean you have to stay in it forever. Like with most things in life, the best decision isn't one extreme or another, but moderation.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Our Roots
With Thanksgiving less than a week away, many minds and hearts are turned towards our families, the people who are related to us by blood. Personally, my family is very important to me, though I'm not very showy about it (I'll try to call more often). Our families are the first people we are able to interact with, to socialize and bond with. They are our first teachers, our first disciplinarians, and our first friends. But family is a lot more than that. Families are traditions and customs. Things passed from generation to generation, even if the meaning is lost. Family is our roots. There are many people who will say that certain traits or attributes are "in our blood." Sure, in our scientific age, we can simply call this "genetics" but where's the magic in that?
There's a passage of dialogue in Robertson Davies' "The Rebel Angels" which talks about people using this analogy of "roots" and what makes us who we are.
No splendid crown without the strong root that works in the dark, drawing its nourishment among the rocks, the soil, hidden waters, and all the little, burrowing things. A man is like that; his splendors and his fruits are to be seen, to win him love and admiration. But what about the root?
Have you ever seen a bulldozer clearing land? It advances upon a great tree and shoves and pushes inexorably until the tree is down and thrust out of the way, and all of that effort is accompanied by a screaming and wrenching sound from the tree as the great roots are torn from the ground. It is a particularly distressing kind of death. And when the tree is upturned, the root proves to be as big as the crown.
What is the root of man? All sorts of things that nourish his visible part, but the deepest root of all, the tap-root, is that child he once was...That is the root that goes deepest because it is reaching downward towards the ancestors.
The imagery of a tree being forcefully, and violently, torn from the ground encapsulates what it can mean for a person to try and tear themselves away from their history. Many people feel some kinship to their past, be it culturally, racially, or even spiritually. Attempting to abandon that connection, or being unable to express that part of ourselves can be a trying and painful time.
Even when placed in a situation or place where they are away from their kin, people strive to hold onto the values of their roots. In the immigrant tradition of the United States, when people from other countries integrated into our culture, they still very often held to their own traditional beliefs too. In doing this, they also sought to be around people who shared those customs, resulting in ethnic neighborhoods like Chinatowns and Little Italies all across the country.
So, when you're sitting down to the turkey and dressing or whatever you have when celebrating Thanksgiving this year, ask around and learn a bit more about what makes you who you are. Ask about your history. Your roots.
There's a passage of dialogue in Robertson Davies' "The Rebel Angels" which talks about people using this analogy of "roots" and what makes us who we are.
No splendid crown without the strong root that works in the dark, drawing its nourishment among the rocks, the soil, hidden waters, and all the little, burrowing things. A man is like that; his splendors and his fruits are to be seen, to win him love and admiration. But what about the root?
Have you ever seen a bulldozer clearing land? It advances upon a great tree and shoves and pushes inexorably until the tree is down and thrust out of the way, and all of that effort is accompanied by a screaming and wrenching sound from the tree as the great roots are torn from the ground. It is a particularly distressing kind of death. And when the tree is upturned, the root proves to be as big as the crown.
What is the root of man? All sorts of things that nourish his visible part, but the deepest root of all, the tap-root, is that child he once was...That is the root that goes deepest because it is reaching downward towards the ancestors.
The imagery of a tree being forcefully, and violently, torn from the ground encapsulates what it can mean for a person to try and tear themselves away from their history. Many people feel some kinship to their past, be it culturally, racially, or even spiritually. Attempting to abandon that connection, or being unable to express that part of ourselves can be a trying and painful time.
Even when placed in a situation or place where they are away from their kin, people strive to hold onto the values of their roots. In the immigrant tradition of the United States, when people from other countries integrated into our culture, they still very often held to their own traditional beliefs too. In doing this, they also sought to be around people who shared those customs, resulting in ethnic neighborhoods like Chinatowns and Little Italies all across the country.
So, when you're sitting down to the turkey and dressing or whatever you have when celebrating Thanksgiving this year, ask around and learn a bit more about what makes you who you are. Ask about your history. Your roots.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Virginity - Crown or Curse?
Yeah, it was only a matter of time before sex came up as a topic in one of these posts. And, to anyone who has had sex, nothing can be as shaping of a person's sex life as their first time.
But there's a bit of a dilemma here. A conflict of interest, if you will. Even today, if you're a young woman, you're often told to wait to have sex while young men are told that it's alright to have sex and are even encouraged to have sex. The operative word in the previous statement is "often" because it's no longer ALWAYS the case. Parenting has gone from a case of "do's" or "do not's" and turned into a resigned "be safe". Where did this come from? When did it start? Has virginity become more of a liability than a asset? In today's highly sexualized society, it seems that virginity carries a strange stigma. In fact, stating that you are a virgin beyond your twenties conjures up images of people who are socially inept and/or emotionally stunted. Why wouldn't someone have sex unless there were something stopping them? At least, that appears to be the mindset of society today.
Amusingly, this kind of attitude isn't new. In fact, the Shakespearean character Parolles gives a rather well made argument for giving up one's virginity as soon as possible...
It is not politic in the commonwealth of nature to preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational increase, and there was never virgin got till virginity was first lost. That you were made of is metal to make virgins. Virginity by being once lost may be ten times found; by being ever kept is ever lost. 'Tis too cold a companion. Away with it! 'Tis against the rule of nature. To speak on the part of virginity is to accuse your mothers, which is most infallible disobedience. He that hangs himself is a virgin; virginity murders itself, and should be buried in highways out of all sanctified limit, as a desperate offendress against nature. Virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese, consumes itself to the very paring, and so dies with feeding his own stomach. Besides, virginity is peevish, proud, idle, made of self-love, which is the most inhibited sin in the canon. Keep it not; you cannot choose but lose by it. Out with it! Within ten year it will make itself ten, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse. Away with it! 'Tis a commodity will lose the gloss with lying: the longer kept, the less worth. Off with it while 'tis vendible; answer the time of request. Virginity, like an old courtier, wears her cap out of fashion, richly suited, but unsuitable, just like the brooch and the toothpick, which wear not now. Your date is better in your pie and your porridge than in your cheek; and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it looks ill, it eats drily.
Now...what exactly is Parolles arguing? For all the high language, he is simply saying that, to stay a virgin isn't natural. That animals in nature don't maintain their virginities and so humans shouldn't either. He also says that virginity, like any commodity, will become less attractive as time passes. That a person who holds onto their virginity too long will eventually be unable to find someone who wants it. That seems to be very much the case today. Especially with movies and television, it seems like every other title focuses around finding someone to have sex with or the aftermath of having sex with the wrong person...usually fixed by having sex with the right person.
While not an extremely recent film, one that exemplifies this idea the best is The Forty Year Old Virgin. Just the title alone has the reader wondering what could be "wrong" with someone for them to be a virgin at forty years old. Of course, the film pretty much takes those previously stated "virgin stereotypes" by making the title character socially awkward with low self esteem. And, it's only in his pursuit of sex does he manage to become a more well rounded person...although his friends (who have all already had sex) have their lives more or less turn to crap due to their bad decisions.
Of course, virginity has never really been a badge of honor for men. Even across cultures, it's always been women who are expected to remain celibate before marriage. In some ways, this new view of sexuality has grown as a form of empowerment to some women. Rather than clinging to their "purity" as a sign of self worth, they discard it in exchange for a "freer" sexual lifestyle.
Funny how after all that, I haven't actually answered the title question. What's your take on it? Has virginity lost its importance? Is it a hinderance or is it no longer even an issue?
But there's a bit of a dilemma here. A conflict of interest, if you will. Even today, if you're a young woman, you're often told to wait to have sex while young men are told that it's alright to have sex and are even encouraged to have sex. The operative word in the previous statement is "often" because it's no longer ALWAYS the case. Parenting has gone from a case of "do's" or "do not's" and turned into a resigned "be safe". Where did this come from? When did it start? Has virginity become more of a liability than a asset? In today's highly sexualized society, it seems that virginity carries a strange stigma. In fact, stating that you are a virgin beyond your twenties conjures up images of people who are socially inept and/or emotionally stunted. Why wouldn't someone have sex unless there were something stopping them? At least, that appears to be the mindset of society today.
Amusingly, this kind of attitude isn't new. In fact, the Shakespearean character Parolles gives a rather well made argument for giving up one's virginity as soon as possible...
It is not politic in the commonwealth of nature to preserve virginity. Loss of virginity is rational increase, and there was never virgin got till virginity was first lost. That you were made of is metal to make virgins. Virginity by being once lost may be ten times found; by being ever kept is ever lost. 'Tis too cold a companion. Away with it! 'Tis against the rule of nature. To speak on the part of virginity is to accuse your mothers, which is most infallible disobedience. He that hangs himself is a virgin; virginity murders itself, and should be buried in highways out of all sanctified limit, as a desperate offendress against nature. Virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese, consumes itself to the very paring, and so dies with feeding his own stomach. Besides, virginity is peevish, proud, idle, made of self-love, which is the most inhibited sin in the canon. Keep it not; you cannot choose but lose by it. Out with it! Within ten year it will make itself ten, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse. Away with it! 'Tis a commodity will lose the gloss with lying: the longer kept, the less worth. Off with it while 'tis vendible; answer the time of request. Virginity, like an old courtier, wears her cap out of fashion, richly suited, but unsuitable, just like the brooch and the toothpick, which wear not now. Your date is better in your pie and your porridge than in your cheek; and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it looks ill, it eats drily.
Now...what exactly is Parolles arguing? For all the high language, he is simply saying that, to stay a virgin isn't natural. That animals in nature don't maintain their virginities and so humans shouldn't either. He also says that virginity, like any commodity, will become less attractive as time passes. That a person who holds onto their virginity too long will eventually be unable to find someone who wants it. That seems to be very much the case today. Especially with movies and television, it seems like every other title focuses around finding someone to have sex with or the aftermath of having sex with the wrong person...usually fixed by having sex with the right person.
While not an extremely recent film, one that exemplifies this idea the best is The Forty Year Old Virgin. Just the title alone has the reader wondering what could be "wrong" with someone for them to be a virgin at forty years old. Of course, the film pretty much takes those previously stated "virgin stereotypes" by making the title character socially awkward with low self esteem. And, it's only in his pursuit of sex does he manage to become a more well rounded person...although his friends (who have all already had sex) have their lives more or less turn to crap due to their bad decisions.
Of course, virginity has never really been a badge of honor for men. Even across cultures, it's always been women who are expected to remain celibate before marriage. In some ways, this new view of sexuality has grown as a form of empowerment to some women. Rather than clinging to their "purity" as a sign of self worth, they discard it in exchange for a "freer" sexual lifestyle.
Funny how after all that, I haven't actually answered the title question. What's your take on it? Has virginity lost its importance? Is it a hinderance or is it no longer even an issue?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Slight Shift In Direction
So, I've had this blog for just over a month and already find myself shifting focus somewhat. Not sure if that's a sign of personal growth (which is a good thing) or a sign that I'm easily distracted (not quite so good). Since literature is often the way writers hold a mirror up to the world and reflect back to us some of the things we may (or may not) be aware of, I'm going to be using that same method to point out things in today's society/culture/world that we may not have noticed or simply taken for granted.
And we can hope that I don't change my mind again in another month.
And we can hope that I don't change my mind again in another month.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Princess Evolution
So, earlier this week, I stumbled across another blog where a person was stating a rather strong opinion about Disney's "The Princess and The Frog". It's not really important what that view was but part of the argument acted as a springboard to a much broader topic in general. Part of the other blogger's post pointed out that the male lead of the film (Prince Naveen) was a lazy, unskilled, playboy. Having seen the film myself I can say...that's a very accurate depiction of the character. At least through the first three quarters of the film. But, as the film progresses, you find the character adapt and evolve through his interactions with the main female character, Tiana.
Now, as I was thinking about this, I began to wonder about the previous "Disney princess" films and make comparisons. The results were rather interesting. In several ways, "The Princess and The Frog" was in the minority as far as character development through the story and character interactions.
First, lets take a moment to consider previous Disney princesses and their respective "princes". In order of first appearance, the princesses are...
Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Pocahontas
Mulan
Tiana
In the case of the first three (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora), the characters have about as much depth as a rain puddle. But, then again, they aren't really supposed to have depth. They're characters from stories that are meant to be told over the course of several minutes. They walk around and do things and that's essentially it. Their love interests are equally stiff and even to truly call them "love interests" is a stretch. All three see their mates only a few times and know immediately that they're meant to be (technically, Aurora sees hers three times). Again, I understand that these are children's fairytales so realism is relegated to the back of the bus on this one.
Ah, Disney's "Golden Age". Computer generated graphics were the newest thing and Disney couldn't go wrong cranking out one classic after another. Here is where things take a bit of a shift. Rather than just taking old stories and making them last an hour, Disney begins actually breathing some semblance of realism into its characters. Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, Pocahontas, and Mulan fall into this category and each one of these characters that the previous three did not. Attitude (to varying degrees). All five of them are somewhat outsiders in their respective worlds. Ariel and Belle are both dreamers longing for worlds that are denies to them either by gender or biology (merfolk aren't very graceful on land). Pocahontas and Jasmine are both royalty in their culture though find themselves reticent to marry those most "suited" to them by status or class. Mulan seems to be unable to fit within the restricting constraints of femininity imposed by a patriarchal Chinese culture. So, now you have these female leads who are rocking the boat a bit, giving audiences a more identifiable personality to relate to. The men in these films, however, seem to be a step behind. Prince Eric (Little Mermaid) is essentially a handsome face who doesn't want to settle down until he sees a hot redhead and instantly wants to tie the knot. Sounds like a lot of marriage stories in Vegas. Aladdin is another character who doesn't really change much. He's a nice, but poor, guy who carries around the "Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover" sign well enough but that's it. He sees a hot girl and wants a hot girl and basically does whatever he can to get her including lying about who he is and how much money he has to impress her. Damn, are we STILL talking about Vegas? The Beast is the first male lead in one of these films that actually shows signs of development. At the beginning of the story, he's a jerk on his best days. He knows that he has to find a woman to love him and yet he still holds Belle against her will and actually throws her in his dungeon (hey, no one said the guy was bright). In fact, it's at the suggestion of another character, that he gives her an actual room to live in. Over time, though, he learns how to actually treat another human being. The pivotal moment comes when Belle learns that her father has become lost in the forest. The Beast knows that, if he lets her leave, she may never come back but he has grown so much as a character that he willingly lets her leave, even if it means forgoing becoming human. In Pocahontas, we have kind of a "watered down" attempt at character development in the case of John Smith. Here's a guy who has apparently made a life (and quite the reputation) for himself going to new worlds and helping to subjugate the natives. However, one eyeful of a long-haired Native American in a mini-skirt in front of a waterfall (oh, and a musical number) is enough to change what is no doubt YEARS of personal experience. What, did the last village not sing on key or something?? Finally, in this group, is Mulan's beau Li Shang. His entire purpose is to train his army and to lead that army. When Mulan appears to be a hindrance to this task, he can't stand her. When she appears to be a worthwhile soldier, he respects her. When it's revealed she's a woman, he turns away from her. When she comes up with a way to save the Emperor, he respects her. It seems like his mood is dependent on what is appropriate for the story. He couldn't respect the fact that she went through all that training with the other men AND saved his life, but manages to do so right at the end? I'm not sure if that's character development or the story using him as a puppet.
Jump ahead just over a decade and we have Disney's newest entry into the princess lineup. This film is filled with several noteable firsts worth mentioning. Most obvious, this is the first African-American princess in the Disney lineup. Also, this is the first Disney princess film where the action takes place in an "American" setting (It wasn't America in Pocahontas so that doesn't count). Tiana, the story's princess, is a young woman who has a hellacious work ethic all driven by a dream to open up a restaurant. Unfortunately, this all consuming desire leaves her with nothing that might resemble an actual life. This is where Tiana stands apart from other Disney princesses. She actually has a FLAW! Not a quirk. Not something that just makes her unique but an actual character flaw. The film is just as much about Tiana overcoming this flaw as it is about finding "true love" (Disney's princess staple). That brings us back to Naveen. As I said before, at the start of the film he's a good-for-nothing, philandering lady's man who wants nothing more than to maintain that lifestyle on someone else's dime. In fact, his prime motivation at the start of the film is to find a rich woman and marry her (damn, we're back in Vegas!). However, just like Tiana, Naveen changes over the course of the movie and comes to realize that money doesn't equal happiness. So, not only do we have the male and female leads growing as characters, but we have another interesting development shown before only in Beauty and the Beast. The characters DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER at the start of the film. In fact, they're complete opposites to one another. Admittedly, that sounds more like the premise to a romantic comedy but I actually LIKE this movie so I won't insult it in that way. Still, the fact that these two characters start at odds with one another and, through shared experiences, come to understand and relate to one another shows a definite growth in Disney's ability to tell a story. Another way this film is in the minority is that the hero...isn't all that heroic. In the other films, the hero usually has some kind of showdown with the villain. In this film, it's Tiana who must confront the villain at the end of the film and ultimately defeats him. The only other place this really happens is in Mulan.
So, whether Disney simply decided to make the characters more well rounded or their style has evolved to this point, I think that they've come a long way from where all it took to snag a princess was royal breathing and making sure you didn't have halitosis before kissing her.
Now, as I was thinking about this, I began to wonder about the previous "Disney princess" films and make comparisons. The results were rather interesting. In several ways, "The Princess and The Frog" was in the minority as far as character development through the story and character interactions.
First, lets take a moment to consider previous Disney princesses and their respective "princes". In order of first appearance, the princesses are...
Snow White
Cinderella
Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)
Ariel
Belle
Jasmine
Pocahontas
Mulan
Tiana
In the case of the first three (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora), the characters have about as much depth as a rain puddle. But, then again, they aren't really supposed to have depth. They're characters from stories that are meant to be told over the course of several minutes. They walk around and do things and that's essentially it. Their love interests are equally stiff and even to truly call them "love interests" is a stretch. All three see their mates only a few times and know immediately that they're meant to be (technically, Aurora sees hers three times). Again, I understand that these are children's fairytales so realism is relegated to the back of the bus on this one.
Ah, Disney's "Golden Age". Computer generated graphics were the newest thing and Disney couldn't go wrong cranking out one classic after another. Here is where things take a bit of a shift. Rather than just taking old stories and making them last an hour, Disney begins actually breathing some semblance of realism into its characters. Ariel, Jasmine, Belle, Pocahontas, and Mulan fall into this category and each one of these characters that the previous three did not. Attitude (to varying degrees). All five of them are somewhat outsiders in their respective worlds. Ariel and Belle are both dreamers longing for worlds that are denies to them either by gender or biology (merfolk aren't very graceful on land). Pocahontas and Jasmine are both royalty in their culture though find themselves reticent to marry those most "suited" to them by status or class. Mulan seems to be unable to fit within the restricting constraints of femininity imposed by a patriarchal Chinese culture. So, now you have these female leads who are rocking the boat a bit, giving audiences a more identifiable personality to relate to. The men in these films, however, seem to be a step behind. Prince Eric (Little Mermaid) is essentially a handsome face who doesn't want to settle down until he sees a hot redhead and instantly wants to tie the knot. Sounds like a lot of marriage stories in Vegas. Aladdin is another character who doesn't really change much. He's a nice, but poor, guy who carries around the "Don't Judge A Book By It's Cover" sign well enough but that's it. He sees a hot girl and wants a hot girl and basically does whatever he can to get her including lying about who he is and how much money he has to impress her. Damn, are we STILL talking about Vegas? The Beast is the first male lead in one of these films that actually shows signs of development. At the beginning of the story, he's a jerk on his best days. He knows that he has to find a woman to love him and yet he still holds Belle against her will and actually throws her in his dungeon (hey, no one said the guy was bright). In fact, it's at the suggestion of another character, that he gives her an actual room to live in. Over time, though, he learns how to actually treat another human being. The pivotal moment comes when Belle learns that her father has become lost in the forest. The Beast knows that, if he lets her leave, she may never come back but he has grown so much as a character that he willingly lets her leave, even if it means forgoing becoming human. In Pocahontas, we have kind of a "watered down" attempt at character development in the case of John Smith. Here's a guy who has apparently made a life (and quite the reputation) for himself going to new worlds and helping to subjugate the natives. However, one eyeful of a long-haired Native American in a mini-skirt in front of a waterfall (oh, and a musical number) is enough to change what is no doubt YEARS of personal experience. What, did the last village not sing on key or something?? Finally, in this group, is Mulan's beau Li Shang. His entire purpose is to train his army and to lead that army. When Mulan appears to be a hindrance to this task, he can't stand her. When she appears to be a worthwhile soldier, he respects her. When it's revealed she's a woman, he turns away from her. When she comes up with a way to save the Emperor, he respects her. It seems like his mood is dependent on what is appropriate for the story. He couldn't respect the fact that she went through all that training with the other men AND saved his life, but manages to do so right at the end? I'm not sure if that's character development or the story using him as a puppet.
Jump ahead just over a decade and we have Disney's newest entry into the princess lineup. This film is filled with several noteable firsts worth mentioning. Most obvious, this is the first African-American princess in the Disney lineup. Also, this is the first Disney princess film where the action takes place in an "American" setting (It wasn't America in Pocahontas so that doesn't count). Tiana, the story's princess, is a young woman who has a hellacious work ethic all driven by a dream to open up a restaurant. Unfortunately, this all consuming desire leaves her with nothing that might resemble an actual life. This is where Tiana stands apart from other Disney princesses. She actually has a FLAW! Not a quirk. Not something that just makes her unique but an actual character flaw. The film is just as much about Tiana overcoming this flaw as it is about finding "true love" (Disney's princess staple). That brings us back to Naveen. As I said before, at the start of the film he's a good-for-nothing, philandering lady's man who wants nothing more than to maintain that lifestyle on someone else's dime. In fact, his prime motivation at the start of the film is to find a rich woman and marry her (damn, we're back in Vegas!). However, just like Tiana, Naveen changes over the course of the movie and comes to realize that money doesn't equal happiness. So, not only do we have the male and female leads growing as characters, but we have another interesting development shown before only in Beauty and the Beast. The characters DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER at the start of the film. In fact, they're complete opposites to one another. Admittedly, that sounds more like the premise to a romantic comedy but I actually LIKE this movie so I won't insult it in that way. Still, the fact that these two characters start at odds with one another and, through shared experiences, come to understand and relate to one another shows a definite growth in Disney's ability to tell a story. Another way this film is in the minority is that the hero...isn't all that heroic. In the other films, the hero usually has some kind of showdown with the villain. In this film, it's Tiana who must confront the villain at the end of the film and ultimately defeats him. The only other place this really happens is in Mulan.
So, whether Disney simply decided to make the characters more well rounded or their style has evolved to this point, I think that they've come a long way from where all it took to snag a princess was royal breathing and making sure you didn't have halitosis before kissing her.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Girl Power = Oxymoron? Images of Women in Art and Media
When we look at the various forms of media in existence today (radio, television, internet etc.), it's often hard to distinguish whether media and art reflect society...or whether society has begun to mimic art. Sometimes, we find ourselves with very conflicting views when we stop and really study the images we're bombarded with on a day to day basis. Women in particular seem to be getting a heavy dose of this so called "contradiction" of images and it seems that many of these images can be traced to the different archetypal schema pointed out by Carl Jung, a follower, and later detractor, of Sigmund Freud.
First, there is Woman: The Mother. This is the caring, loving figure that we often associate with our own mothers though it doesn't necessarily have to be someone's mother. In fact, this figure doesn't even have to be related to you. Any female who is selfless and nurturing in her behavior falls into this archetype.
Second, there is Woman: The Temptress. This is the woman who is fully aware of her sexuality and sensuality and makes use of it as a tool or even as a weapon. Contradictory to the Mother, the Temptress is completely selfish and only out to fulfill her own desires and wishes by using others. A Temptress does not have to actually engage in sexual activities to become a Temptress. Often the promise or allusion to the potential is enough to gain what she needs.
Finally, is Woman: The Warrior. This aspect has always existed though really took off during the Women's Lib movement after the 1950s. The idea of women as fierce, assertive and aggressive in pursuit of their goals. While the Temptress used her gender as a weapon, the Warrior often marginalizes her gender if not ignoring it completely. In fact, any assistance might even be viewed as perceiving her as weak, which the Warrior cannot accept.
Now, the question becomes, "Which of these views is most accurate? Which is least?" or "Can you accurately use just one to describe a woman, or is each woman a combination of the three?"
Since I'm interested in getting a bit of feedback on this one, this post is going to be a little shorter. I want to hear what you guys who actually read this thing think. Are there any images of women that I missed? What are your feelings on the earlier questions? Do you think I'm totally off in left field?
I wanna know!
First, there is Woman: The Mother. This is the caring, loving figure that we often associate with our own mothers though it doesn't necessarily have to be someone's mother. In fact, this figure doesn't even have to be related to you. Any female who is selfless and nurturing in her behavior falls into this archetype.
Second, there is Woman: The Temptress. This is the woman who is fully aware of her sexuality and sensuality and makes use of it as a tool or even as a weapon. Contradictory to the Mother, the Temptress is completely selfish and only out to fulfill her own desires and wishes by using others. A Temptress does not have to actually engage in sexual activities to become a Temptress. Often the promise or allusion to the potential is enough to gain what she needs.
Finally, is Woman: The Warrior. This aspect has always existed though really took off during the Women's Lib movement after the 1950s. The idea of women as fierce, assertive and aggressive in pursuit of their goals. While the Temptress used her gender as a weapon, the Warrior often marginalizes her gender if not ignoring it completely. In fact, any assistance might even be viewed as perceiving her as weak, which the Warrior cannot accept.
Now, the question becomes, "Which of these views is most accurate? Which is least?" or "Can you accurately use just one to describe a woman, or is each woman a combination of the three?"
Since I'm interested in getting a bit of feedback on this one, this post is going to be a little shorter. I want to hear what you guys who actually read this thing think. Are there any images of women that I missed? What are your feelings on the earlier questions? Do you think I'm totally off in left field?
I wanna know!
Friday, October 22, 2010
Just The Nature Of Things
As I was walking to my car from class one evening, I stopped a moment and looked at a tree that was nearby. I've no idea the species, but it was a small tree, maybe fifteen feet tall at the highest though it's lowest limbs were well within reach. The leaves were an eclectic mix of autumn browns, reds, and golds which slowly fell one after another, even more as a light breeze moved through the branches. I swear, I was expecting a Hallmark poem to scroll up in front of my eyes. It seems that even in today's fast paced, technologically driven world nature still has the ability to take our breath away. So it's no wonder that nature has often played a role in literature, though that role has changed with the different modes of thought which have come and gone. A rather interesting, and admittedly sometimes depressing, view is that of the Naturalistic writer.
Stephen Crane, a poet of the late 19th/early 20th century, wrote a short poem which has become a famous (perhaps infamous) quote...
A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
That short poem, a mere two sentences, encapsulates one of the tenets of Naturalistic writing. Nature as an unsympathetic, uncaring entity. Naturalism has its roots in Realism which, as the name suggests, is a style of writing where the author attempts to be as true to real life as possible. In this respect, Naturalist and Realist writer's works often have their protagonists describing their feelings of injustice and the unfairness of life which is very much the case.
Another work by Stephen Crane that is often read to illustrate his Naturalistic style is a short story entitled "The Open Boat". In this story, four men are stranded in a small boat after their ship has sunk: the narrator, a reporter; the captain, who has been injured; the cook, who is most optimistic of the group; and finally the oiler, who we learn is named Billie. Eventually, after much rowing, the four men come within sight of shore and decide their only hope is to swim for it as the choppy seas make it impossible for the boat to make the journey. Billie, the most physically fit of the group, pulls ahead while the other three flounder as best they can using bits of the boat to stay afloat. In the end, the captain, cook, and narrator all arrive on shore alive. Ironically, Billie is the one who doesn't survive as he's seen laying face down motionless in the surf. This final scene is Crane's way of showing the utter indifference of nature. Billie was the strongest and most "fit" of the four and yet he is the one who ultimately dies. Hardly a fair ending, though that's entirely his point. There is no place for being fair in nature.
Another Naturalist writer takes a slightly different approach. Jack London, another favorite of mine, takes the Naturalistic approach and combines it with the views of Darwin. While nature is still unsympathetic to the trials of an individual's life, nature also subscribes to a certain code. Survival of the fittest. London's novel Call of the Wild is a staple of many middle and high school reading lists and illustrates London's Naturalistic style. The setting of the novel is the rugged frontier of Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush. Buck, a large, pampered house dog of mixed breeding is sold by his family's gardener and shipped north to serve as a sled dog. Right away, his lessons of nature are harsh and unforgiving. Buck learns that a man with a club is something to be feared and obeyed and that to obey means survival. Buck watches as other dogs like him refuse to submit and are ultimately killed. This is where the novel differs stylistically from a Romantic novel. In a Romantic novel, the author would emphasis the nobility and spirit of the dogs which refused to be broken, lifting up their deaths as something to aspire towards and idealize. Instead, we see Buck watching and thinking how foolish those dogs are. Now that they're dead, what do they matter? Their deaths didn't matter. Other dogs will still be beaten, some will submit and others will die. Better to submit and live than to die. Survival is paramount in a Darwinistic world. Throughout the novel, we see Buck as he learns the ways of life out in the wild. As part of a sled dog team, there is a dynamic pack hierarchy which Buck must navigate and eventually ascends to pack dominance. Eventually, Buck comes under the care of a man named Thornton. Unlike his previous owners, Thornton treats Buck kindly and the pair form a bond making them almost equals. This even camaraderie between man and animal is seen as the ideal relationship where man and beast (man and nature) both coexist for the other's benefit. But remember that thing I said about nature not being fair? Well, unfortunately, Buck and Thornton don't get a happily ever after...not together anyways. While Buck is out hunting, a band of natives attacks the cabin and kills Thornton. With his owner dead, Buck is no longer tied to humanity and surrenders completely to his animal instincts.
Today, people would describe Realistic and Naturalistic writing as being "gritty" when all it really does is simply portray life as it is. Sometimes hard, sometimes cruel, and sometimes unfair. Of course, just as there are bad things in nature, there are just as many good things. For every life that ends, another life begins. Life may not be fair, but it's neither cruel nor malicious either. It's what we choose to focus on that affects our outlook. So, next time you're outside, stop. Take a look around. Inhale. Exhale. And know that life is good.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)