Thanks to a couple late night marathon reading sessions (and Emma's three hour! nap today), I just finished my first "for me" book since the baby entered our lives --The Lovely Bonesby Alice Sebold.
Great read! I had heard of it before, and I guess it made a huge splash in the book world a couple years ago -- but I only bought it last week for $2 at the SSO book sale.
I had this great review post of it planned after I finished the last page -- but it's lost now. Let's just say it's one of those books that completely immerses you in its world, where you want to quickly finish it in order to find out what happens ... but you also want to linger, in order to make the experience of reading last as long as possible. I can only think of a few books I've encountered where I literally miss the characters after I'm finished reading -- this is one of them.
My favorite quote:
These were the lovely bones that had grown around my absence: the connections -- sometimes tenuous, sometimes made at great cost, but often magnificent -- that happened after I was gone. And I began to see things in a way that let me hold the world without me in it. The events that my death wrought were merely the bones of a body that would become whole at some unpredictable time in the future. The price of what I came to see as this miraculous body had been my life.
[The last book that I felt this way about was Gilead, by Marianne Robinson -- another book I'd recommend. That book was a bit wiser in its reflection, but that could because the narrator of that book is an old man looking back on his life. The Lovely Bones has a young girl as a narrator -- which makes the book just as poignant, but in a different way.]
[[I just saw on Wikipedia that there is a film in development for The Lovely Bones. My heart skipped a beat as I saw who is steering its production -- none other than Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh. I know that they'll do a respectful adaptation of this amazing read.]]
Watch this video to see what the American Family Association (big-time fundie politico group in the States) has to say about it:
"The Day They Kicked God Out of the Schools"
Where to begin when you see such claims as these?
[necessary digression: This is where my studies in rhetoric come in handy. What we have here is a prime example of the use of a rhetorical device, the enthymeme. The enthymeme is an argument structure that invites audience participation, in that one of the premises of the argument is purposefully omitted, inviting the audience to "fill in the blank" by inserting what is missing.
The best way to explain this rhetorical device is by giving an example. So, here's a joke -- have you heard the one about Randolph the brown-nosed reindeer? He flies behind Rudolph, but can't stop as fast. (thanks to my supervisor for this gem!)
Get it? If you do, then you've just participated in an enthymeme. Other good examples of enthymemes are found in advertising. Nike's slogan "Just do it" is vague (and enthymematic) enough to invite the consumer to insert whatever is relevant to "do" as a result of buying this product.
An enthymeme is the result of a participatory process in which the hearer actually helps to convince herself of the argument, since the link between the premise and conclusion is left unstated. Because the generalization on which an enthymeme depends is embedded, it is not available for examination, and may even pass unnoticed by a reader as she “fills in the blanks” from her own common sense.
It is the audience involvement that makes an enthymeme such a persuasive tool – if speakers were to expressly explain each step of their argument, it would not be as engaging as having the audience contribute to the argument themselves. The effectiveness of the enthymeme demonstrates that rhetoric can be the most powerful when its operations are not completely in view.]
So, back to the video atrocity above -- what enthymemes are at work in this video? Or, as my supervisor would ask, what do you have to believe in order for this video to make sense?
As Jerry and I watched this video, here is some of the rhetoric we saw at work:
When the student asks where God is in these school tragedies, God's reply is "I am not allowed in schools." First of all, what is meant by the "not allowed" portion of his answer? Just because explicit biblical teaching (and proselytizing) -- ie., Christian dogma -- is not allowed in a public school setting, does it remove God's presence from the school?
Later the video laments the removal of reading the Bible in school, with its lessons of "thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, [and] love your neighbor as yourself" -- Oddly enough, the video chooses to only state widely accepted lessons (not expressly Christian) from the Bible. Not mentioned are the passages that advocate or endorse murder, slavery, sexism, or genocide.
Oh, and what about the part where the video blames Dr. Spock's recommendation to not spank children -- and the recent turn against corporal punishment in schools -- by linking the diminishment in these activities to the violent shootings? Does this mean we are meant to physically abuse children in order to prevent these atrocities from occurring? (I have yet to understand how punitive morality is practical OR ethical)
Then there's the sarcastic statement: "Some of our top elected officials said, 'It doesn't matter what we do in private, as long as we do our jobs'" -- I am fascinated that these people are more hung up over a blow job in the Oval Office than a president who has involved our country in a war under false pretenses! Let's see, which should we as acountry be more angry over -- marital infidelity or thousands of soldiers and civilians dead?
Ultimately, the video asserts that the shootings at VA Tech were caused by our culture's supposed relativistic morality. What does this video implicitly advocate to prevent this type of evil from occurring again? A nostalgic return to an authoritative, explicitly religious morality. Otherwise, we ourselves are to blame for this type of ominous tragedy.
It is unbelievable what mentality this video represents.
At approximately 5:00 pm today (April 20, 2007), Campus Safety received a report of 6' tall, dark-haired male, dressed in a light shirt and camouflage pants, walking through campus possibly armed with a gun.
Saskatoon Police are on the scene, sweeping the campus. Members of the campus community are advised to leave immediately or remain behind locked doors.
Further developments will be shared with the campus community as soon as possible.
Campus Safety advises that everyone be alert of suspicious persons or activities and report anything unusual to 966-5555 immediately.
I live across the street from school -- after the events in VA this week, this is scary.
EDIT: As of 7:45pm, no additional sightings. The police cleared the area. Funny how much more sensitive we get to these warnings when tragedies strike elsewhere in the world.
Earlier this week I booked tickets to fly home at the same time as the 2007 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences [Canada's largest academic conference]. This year, the Congress will be held at the U of S, right across the street from me, and I'll be in another country.
D'oh!
I've only been looking forward to the conference for a couple of years now, especially since it's being hosted in my home town!
Figures, seeing as most of my days are filled with a whole lot of nothin' -- but when I finally plan something, it's during a special event. Oh well.
[I am, however, looking forward to 3 weeks with my family! I'll be visiting both Virginia and New York this May-June.]
That, and I got a recent paperback Oxford Dictionary for $4 -- along with a whole bag-full of (cheap!) finds. The best part of this booksale is they're continually bringing out new books to restock the shelves. Jerry and I plan to go back, later next week!
I haven't let myself think too much about the VA Tech shootings of this week. The school itself is only just down the road from my parents' place, and the fact that it took place in a university -- in an engineering building -- well, I suppose it just hits a little too close to home. One of the reporters commented that university buildings are vulnerable to these types of attacks, if only because of the public access to their buildings. As someone who works in a university, these attacks are sobering, to say the least.
It's interesting how so many people are working so hard to try and make sense of what all happened -- as if any real sense could be made from such a horrific act. I've listened to (and semi-participated in) a lot of talk of theodices lately. Why is there such a drive to either summarily explain the roots of evil or vainly try to find some type of ultimate solution to it? Where does this tendency stem from -- is it rooted in religious motivations or is it just a simple desire to explain that which is really inexplicable?
And not to diminish at all what is going on in Virginia, but how many people -- civilians, students, children, families, etc -- are killed as collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan every day as a result of suicide bombers and other violence due to this war? How easy is it for us to hear that another 20 or 30 people died in a mosque attack, and then change the channel?
I am, incidentally, Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that totally functionless capacity.
We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, "Isaac is up in heaven now." It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored.
And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, "Kurt is up in heaven now." That's my favorite joke.
from A Man Without a Country (2005)
I think a rereading of Slaughterhouse Five is in order.
Check out the 22 different scenes -- ranging from Reservoir Peeps, The "Peepsons", and "Mommie Peepest: No more wire hangers!" (my personal favorite: Soylent Green is Peeps!)
[not to be outdone, there's also a "She's my Peep. No, She's Mine: The Anna Nicole Smith Peep-Daddy Trial"]
It's Easter, which means it's time to break out the Peeps. My mom is sending us a package in the mail, and she's already assured me that she's included a couple boxes for me.
Until I'm able to enjoy the artifical color marshmallow-y goodness, I suppose I'll sate myself with some Peep Haiku.
Sugar coma gleams in the beady waxen eyes nothing can dissolve
It's a cliche so common that I can't seem to find its etymology (at least, not after a cursory search on the almighty Google). Usually whenever it's evoked, "the ties that bind" is said in a positive context. These ties are ones that bind separate strands together, resulting in a stronger unit. These ties are ones that both unite and protect -- and the cliche usually evokes the strength of familial relationships.
This weekend is the first big holiday weekend of the new year -- Easter. All over, people are gathering together to eat the Easter ham, search for proverbial eggs, and eat a few too many chocolate bunny heads (or better yet, marshmallow Peeps!).
Yet this weekend I won't be with any of my family. My immediate family is a couple thousand miles away, and I also won't be seeing my local extended family, for a variety of reasons -- both said and unsaid. Which got me rethinking that cliche: the ties that bind.
Maybe it doesn't evoke such positive images after all. Binding can be a painful, suffocating, or even crushing process. For example, take the ancient process of foot binding in China. From the wiki entry:
A mother or grandmother wrapped her daughter's or granddaughter's feet when the child was around 5-7 years old. The toes were doubled under the soles, and deep cuts might be made in the soles to make this easier. As the process proceeded, the girl experienced severe pain. Her heels developed extremely hard callouses because she walked on her heels, unable to put weight on her doubled-under toes. After years of this process, the bones would heal in the position of the binding and the girl would no longer feel pain. There were contests by parents to obtain the daughters with the smallest feet. The smaller the feet, the more beautiful a girl was, and the more likely she would be chosen as a bride of a desirable husband.
Here, the "ties that bind" were literally paralyzing. A Chinese girl had to force her foot into an unnatural and painful shape, in order to be found appealing (and be accepted) into her society.
It required years of painful accommodation, with the end result being a complete loss of independence -- since she was unable to successfully walk away from the society who bound her feet in the first place. Bound feet caused a woman to be unbalanced in her stance, literally forcing her to totter around with feet the size of a child's (in some cases, 3 inches long!).
In a figurative way, I can see how the metaphor of foot binding relates to the place where I am at with some members of my "family." I'm also expected to fulfill a certain role, whether or not it is the natural shape of who I am. In order to be found appealing (and be accepted) into this circle, I need to unquestioningly cut off the circulation of my individuality and force myself into the binding role that's preestablished for me.
I'm expected to give up my autonomy, in order to be perceived as a better wife/mother/daughter/person/[fill in the blank]. And because I refuse to stifle myself into this cultural mold, I'm rejected as something lesser. There's no discussion about it, no requirement for me to defend my position or to reestablish my place -- the result remains the same, rejection.
So what do I do? Do I mourn my place in this restrictive society, or do I venture outside its bounds, seeking more liberating environments? Personally, I want any binding ties I have to be ones that empower me and my family -- not ties that are meant to stifle and decay growth.
And so, I find my ties -- in places other than those I expected. I find them in adopted family members, who embrace my big ugly feet in all of their size 9 glory -- and don't expect me to be anything other than myself. I find ties in those family members that do reach out. I find ties in friends who support and encourage me to grow.
Two guys in NYC had a bet to see who could come up with the worst 5 songs on a mix tape. The loser would have to play all 10 songs on a huge boom box, while walking around downtown New York. The result is hilarious:
The songs chosen:
Conga, Gloria Estefan Kiss Me, Sixpence None the Richer Summer Girls, LFO ("New kids on the block had a bunch of hits/Chinese food makes me sick") Butterfly, Crazy Town I Don't Want to Wait, Paula Cole
It is so funny to see this guy blast those songs from the radio, and then watch the reactions of everyone else to him.
Taking my cue from this blog (where I originally saw the video), I wonder what songs I could put on my worst mix tape? (which is the exact opposite of what I usually do -- I normally struggle to make sure all the songs "fit")
Of course, if I wanted to be really embarrassed, I could just blast Saskatoon radio stations' normal playlists in downtown NYC -- they're that bad. There are songs played on these local "contemporary" stations that the rest of the Western world hasn't heard in 20+ years.
But my choices -- hmmm -- here's a running list, off the top of my head:
After the Rain, Nelson Red Red Wine, UB40 The Logical Song, Supertramp Barbie Girl, Aqua Whenever, Wherever, Shakira Sunshine on my Shoulders, John Denver Please Don't Go Girl -- New Kids on the Block Informer, Snow Truly Madly Deeply, Savage Garden Heal the World, Michael Jackson Pour Some Sugar on Me, Def Leppard Wannabe, Spice Girls Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Will Smith
I won't tell you how many of those songs I know all the words to, or may have owned the CD to (at one point in my life). The point is to put together the worst possible compilation on one CD.
What other songs could (not) go together on the world's worst mix tape?
... a "God debate" between two best-selling authors: one, a pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life (Rick Warren), and the other, a PhD student in Neuroscience and author of The End of Faith (Sam Harris).
Two especially telling excerpts:
Sam, what are the secular sources of an acceptable moral code? HARRIS: Well, I don't think that the religious books are the source. We go to the Bible and we are the judge of what is good. We see the golden rule as the great distillation of ethical impulses, but the golden rule is not unique to the Bible or to Jesus; you see it in many, many cultures—and you see some form of it among nonhuman primates.
I'm not at all a moral relativist. I think it's quite common among religious people to believe that atheism entails moral relativism. I think there is an absolute right and wrong. I think honor killing, for example, is unambiguously wrong—you can use the word evil. A society that kills women and girls for sexual indiscretion, even the indiscretion of being raped, is a society that has killed compassion, that has failed to teach men to value women and has eradicated empathy. Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses, and we can even teach the golden rule without lying to ourselves or our children about the origin of certain books or the virgin birth of certain people.
[and]
WARREN: I believe that history split into A.D. and B.C. because of the Resurrection. And the Resurrection is not only the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the hope of the world: it says there's more to this life than just here and now. That doesn't mean that I do less, it means that this life is a test, it's a trust and it's a temporary assignment. If death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic.
I never understand the argument that Warren is referring to, above -- should people be primarily motivated to do good out of fear of some punitive measure to come in an afterlife judgement? Isn't it more noble to do good for the sake of doing good?
While Warren may have had the edge on the "folksy" appeal in the interview, I found his answers cliche and unsatisfying. If you were to ask me who I thought "won" the debate -- I'd have to say Harris, hands down.
