Page 143 of Megillat Esther shows one kid questioning the order of events in the story of Esther (told by the rabbi). The rabbi is sputtering as he tries to come up with an acceptable answer. Having been raised Jewish (and attending over 40 bar/bat mitzvahs in my life... and gone to Jewish summer camp... and Jewish youth groups...) I think it's fair to say that I've met at least a few rabbis over the years. The rabbi in this scene made me giggle because he seemed so real. I know it's a generalization of character, but allow me to show you some dialogue:
Child 1: That's not what you said happened!!
Child 2: (a few lines down) Yeah!! My brother Nicanor says that the real reason that we...
Rabbi (cutting him off): Therefore they called these days... Uh... Purim, b-because of the name PUR. And... Uh... Therefore, upon seeing the word from these letters... When they saw them and... Uh... when they arrived they... Um... They received and... And the Judeans established upon themselves and upon their descendants and upon all who joined them to never fail in keeping these two days at the appointed time each and every year.
It made me laugh a little because Rabbis are all about stories. Sometimes the stories don't make complete sense, but it's all about the moral. The end of the story always has some kind of message (sometimes it flows through the entire story), and that's usually the point. Except when there is no point, which is sometimes...
In these cases, though, the rabbis are not about the technicalities in the stories, it's just the fact that some Jews won a war, ate, got drunk, and partied around this time. And that's why we celebrate [insert any Jewish holiday here].
** note: To be honest, Torah years might be like dog years. A guy living to a hundred and twenty without modern medicine? I don't know... What I'm saying is, for all I know, maybe we celebrate the holidays at the wrong times of year according to the "actual" Torah calendar. It's all Hebrew to me...
Saturday, November 20, 2010
P.S. to the last post
Something I noticed that I completely forgot to add was that the words and the spacing of the people form a star of David in the center of the page. It's a symbol I really don't associate with war! I mean, I think of it as a symbol of Jewish pride and strength.
Also, there are only a couple people fighting saying, Wow, what did we DO?! There's even someone telling someone else not to steal things from the dead.
This scene really screams "lack of common courtesy" to me. I mean, I suppose all war does...
That's all. The end. For real.
Also, there are only a couple people fighting saying, Wow, what did we DO?! There's even someone telling someone else not to steal things from the dead.
This scene really screams "lack of common courtesy" to me. I mean, I suppose all war does...
That's all. The end. For real.
I love hippie music. I share with you.
Page 139 of Megillat Esther depicts a war taking place. Text in the center of the page states, "And the remainder of the Judeans which were in the states of the king assembled and stood for their lives. On the thirteenth day of Adar they killed those that hated them: 75,000 people. And on the fourteenth, they made a day of feast and happiness." There is no mention of feeling any remorse for taking thousands of human lives. It never says, "And the murderous Judeans wept for the sake of the sin they had committed," or anything like that.
I know that generally speaking, one does not mourn those he has killed himself, but there were so MANY people that I'm sure not every single ONE of them hated the Jews. There must have been some innocent people killed, too. How does that make the Jews any better than the Nazis killing people who were "unlike" themselves? Will it take us all having the same skin color due to generations upon generations of multicultural babies to realize that people are people and we should all respect and love each other?
In middle school my Judaica teacher said, "love your neighbor as yourself." It's like the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I so do not understand war over silly personal issues. If everyone killed everyone who did not like them, humans would be extinct.
Whatever happened to this wonderful method of thinking? It's so positive. We have coexist stickers, Threadless shirts "give peas a chance," all this "let's treat the environment better" stuff. Nothing wrong with that! BUT, why can't we start with, let's try not to kill each other over trifles? I just don't find it necessary.
Another one here: Very positive message.
The movie Love Actually is a fantastic illustration of little social successes in everyday life. What I mean by "social successes" is people exchanging positive energy. There's a scene of families reuniting in an airport. Hugging, kissing, smiling, talking... if we can kidnap little kids and teach them to be killing machines, why not teach them to be... um... "loving machines" isn't REALLY the term I want to use. Happy? Kids are happy. Affectionate? Do you know what I'm getting at? The anti-killing. The pro-coexisting, but more than "coexisting." More like, let's all be friends. I know it's idealistic and that EVERYONE can't be friends, but I also know that I've made a lot of friends in strange ways that would be considered "abnormal."
Here's a story:
I was going to eat dinner. I was alone; figured I'd find someone I knew at Blackhawk. I found a group of friends and stopped with my tray full of food to say hi. Everyone was finishing ice cream cones, so I said goodbye and headed towards a guy who I THOUGHT was someone I knew. He sat plainly in view of the table I'd just walked away from. As I approached the table for a closer look, I realize it was a stranger. I said, "Hi, um... I thought you were someone else, but... mind if I sit here anyway?" He was also alone and said okay. Now we're buds! We had a nice time. Yes, it's unconventional; but now we eat together all the time! We wave and smile at each other in passing. In the long run, my little world is ultimately happier.
I know that generally speaking, one does not mourn those he has killed himself, but there were so MANY people that I'm sure not every single ONE of them hated the Jews. There must have been some innocent people killed, too. How does that make the Jews any better than the Nazis killing people who were "unlike" themselves? Will it take us all having the same skin color due to generations upon generations of multicultural babies to realize that people are people and we should all respect and love each other?
In middle school my Judaica teacher said, "love your neighbor as yourself." It's like the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I so do not understand war over silly personal issues. If everyone killed everyone who did not like them, humans would be extinct.
Whatever happened to this wonderful method of thinking? It's so positive. We have coexist stickers, Threadless shirts "give peas a chance," all this "let's treat the environment better" stuff. Nothing wrong with that! BUT, why can't we start with, let's try not to kill each other over trifles? I just don't find it necessary.
Another one here: Very positive message.
The movie Love Actually is a fantastic illustration of little social successes in everyday life. What I mean by "social successes" is people exchanging positive energy. There's a scene of families reuniting in an airport. Hugging, kissing, smiling, talking... if we can kidnap little kids and teach them to be killing machines, why not teach them to be... um... "loving machines" isn't REALLY the term I want to use. Happy? Kids are happy. Affectionate? Do you know what I'm getting at? The anti-killing. The pro-coexisting, but more than "coexisting." More like, let's all be friends. I know it's idealistic and that EVERYONE can't be friends, but I also know that I've made a lot of friends in strange ways that would be considered "abnormal."
Here's a story:
I was going to eat dinner. I was alone; figured I'd find someone I knew at Blackhawk. I found a group of friends and stopped with my tray full of food to say hi. Everyone was finishing ice cream cones, so I said goodbye and headed towards a guy who I THOUGHT was someone I knew. He sat plainly in view of the table I'd just walked away from. As I approached the table for a closer look, I realize it was a stranger. I said, "Hi, um... I thought you were someone else, but... mind if I sit here anyway?" He was also alone and said okay. Now we're buds! We had a nice time. Yes, it's unconventional; but now we eat together all the time! We wave and smile at each other in passing. In the long run, my little world is ultimately happier.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
I forgot to comment on modern society and gender!
Woops.
Now we have many options; not just female or male. Maybe the artist took this into consideration while drawing the characters. It definitely could be related to the sexuality theme we see throughout this graphic novel (no pun intended). Uh... people accepting themselves, accepting others, changing the way they view themselves (or others. And others. It's kind of late.).
In the sex scenes in the first half of Esther, we never see anything really "naughty looking." I wouldn't call it pornographic by any means. I would, however, argue that the women do all the work, and sex in this context never is depicted as a two-way street. She does things to him while he lays back and enjoys. He never reciprocates the favor, as far as we know.
Maybe the artist is saying that leaders have many opportunities to be lazy. As far as I've seen in human nature, when someone has the power to command others, s/he uses it, and it appears easy to abuse without knowing. Maybe the king's power gets so out of control that it goes from, "You do X while I do Y" (collaborative chores, for example - part-part-whole) to, "You do X and Y [while I sleep]. [Or watch football.] [Or enjoy the benefits of my harem.]"
Thoughts? Am I crazy?
Now we have many options; not just female or male. Maybe the artist took this into consideration while drawing the characters. It definitely could be related to the sexuality theme we see throughout this graphic novel (no pun intended). Uh... people accepting themselves, accepting others, changing the way they view themselves (or others. And others. It's kind of late.).
In the sex scenes in the first half of Esther, we never see anything really "naughty looking." I wouldn't call it pornographic by any means. I would, however, argue that the women do all the work, and sex in this context never is depicted as a two-way street. She does things to him while he lays back and enjoys. He never reciprocates the favor, as far as we know.
Maybe the artist is saying that leaders have many opportunities to be lazy. As far as I've seen in human nature, when someone has the power to command others, s/he uses it, and it appears easy to abuse without knowing. Maybe the king's power gets so out of control that it goes from, "You do X while I do Y" (collaborative chores, for example - part-part-whole) to, "You do X and Y [while I sleep]. [Or watch football.] [Or enjoy the benefits of my harem.]"
Thoughts? Am I crazy?
Crazy world.
In Migillat Esther, the king has a harem and a wife. Of course, all those wives were a sign of prestige and wealth; many people cannot afford to feed and care for so many people. So many wives equals many monies.
Let's consider the modern housewife stereotype:
-She cooks breakfast
-She cleans up breakfast
-She gets the kids from point A to point B
-She drives home and makes lunch for her husband (who, in WI, in the meantime, of course, has been chugging Miller Lites all morning. -OR- He leaves for his 9-5 job. If I'm gonna make fun of anyone, may as well make fun of everyone.)
-She takes a minute or two to herself to shower?
-Maybe she eats breakfast herself...
What I'm getting at is that doing EVERYTHING is hard work! Why not split it up among many parties? The only thing I'm not a fan of, though, is that we don't seem to see the king doing a whole lot. There are many scenes of him in bed. He lies there while the pretty women (a new one each night)... erm... deliver pleasure, if you will. He never seems to get up and do any real, get-your-hands-dirty type work. Work work, ya know, let's go help those guys with my crops, let's help my wife do dishes.
These days, nobody has servants OR harems. Why did they get both then, and neither now?
Because society is a terrible, cruel, and, to be blunt, UNFAIR PLACE.
Also, because in American society, we marry the pretty people instead of the let's-work-together people.
One could argue that now we have fewer children due to modern birth control methods, so theoretically speaking, there is less to take care of. That said, we have less family and more house. More yard. More junk, more clutter, more clothes. Did I say more? You understand. There should be some adjustment in society to help people maintain all their STUFF and SPACE and CATS.
Now that we have the interwebs, there is a solution:
I just learned of this last year, and I think it's silly, so I will share. I guess one time my *insert relative here* was perusing craig's list and discovered that people can actually be hired to clean your house wearing little to no clothing (it comes with a "look but don't touch" clause). I was going to post a link to a job ad, because I thought it might bring amusement to some, but after a brief search, could not find one. But it's out there.
Crazy world.
Let's consider the modern housewife stereotype:
-She cooks breakfast
-She cleans up breakfast
-She gets the kids from point A to point B
-She drives home and makes lunch for her husband (who, in WI, in the meantime, of course, has been chugging Miller Lites all morning. -OR- He leaves for his 9-5 job. If I'm gonna make fun of anyone, may as well make fun of everyone.)
-She takes a minute or two to herself to shower?
-Maybe she eats breakfast herself...
What I'm getting at is that doing EVERYTHING is hard work! Why not split it up among many parties? The only thing I'm not a fan of, though, is that we don't seem to see the king doing a whole lot. There are many scenes of him in bed. He lies there while the pretty women (a new one each night)... erm... deliver pleasure, if you will. He never seems to get up and do any real, get-your-hands-dirty type work. Work work, ya know, let's go help those guys with my crops, let's help my wife do dishes.
These days, nobody has servants OR harems. Why did they get both then, and neither now?
Because society is a terrible, cruel, and, to be blunt, UNFAIR PLACE.
Also, because in American society, we marry the pretty people instead of the let's-work-together people.
One could argue that now we have fewer children due to modern birth control methods, so theoretically speaking, there is less to take care of. That said, we have less family and more house. More yard. More junk, more clutter, more clothes. Did I say more? You understand. There should be some adjustment in society to help people maintain all their STUFF and SPACE and CATS.
Now that we have the interwebs, there is a solution:
I just learned of this last year, and I think it's silly, so I will share. I guess one time my *insert relative here* was perusing craig's list and discovered that people can actually be hired to clean your house wearing little to no clothing (it comes with a "look but don't touch" clause). I was going to post a link to a job ad, because I thought it might bring amusement to some, but after a brief search, could not find one. But it's out there.
Crazy world.
Manly Men
Has anyone noticed that in Migillat Esther (first half) everybody looks feminine? Especially when the eunuchs show up -- they are slender and have long, voluptuous eyelashes... just the look [American} women strive for!
Upon reflection, I realized that the author may be making a social commentary on the interconnection that exists among all humans. When I was about five years old, I told my mom that babies are babies and they don't become boys or girls 'til later. That's what I thought! Babies didn't have a sex, they were little smelly crying things that eat mushed up food and get more attention than you (*note: I'm the oldest in my house). The author must be saying, "People are people."
It also could be the fact that these people tend to come from a similar climate, so their facial bone structures have adapted to the heat and sun. They have thick, dark hair to protect their scalps from harmful UV rays and to insulate their scalps; beautiful, black eyelashes to keep sand out of their eyes; angular noses to accommodate the dry air (big nose = big surface area of mucous membrane = better breathing and sinus function).
But then I thought -- wait, if babies are babies that turn into people who are people, then why don't all of them look like men?
Sadly, the best theory I can come up with is that women are much more attractive aesthetically speaking than men are. Big eyes, nice lips, a curvy figure... who thinks this is a bad thing?
Comments welcome.
Upon reflection, I realized that the author may be making a social commentary on the interconnection that exists among all humans. When I was about five years old, I told my mom that babies are babies and they don't become boys or girls 'til later. That's what I thought! Babies didn't have a sex, they were little smelly crying things that eat mushed up food and get more attention than you (*note: I'm the oldest in my house). The author must be saying, "People are people."
It also could be the fact that these people tend to come from a similar climate, so their facial bone structures have adapted to the heat and sun. They have thick, dark hair to protect their scalps from harmful UV rays and to insulate their scalps; beautiful, black eyelashes to keep sand out of their eyes; angular noses to accommodate the dry air (big nose = big surface area of mucous membrane = better breathing and sinus function).
But then I thought -- wait, if babies are babies that turn into people who are people, then why don't all of them look like men?
Sadly, the best theory I can come up with is that women are much more attractive aesthetically speaking than men are. Big eyes, nice lips, a curvy figure... who thinks this is a bad thing?
Comments welcome.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Addiction and PTSD: Go!
In Waltz with Bashir, one could argue that the filmmaker's creation of the film in the first place is an illustration of PTSD. Throughout the film, he incessantly interviews people, trying to differentiate what really happened from what he imagined and where he really was versus where he thought he was. In reference to his constant searching, his friend says, "You're obsessed. You're sick."
We also see other characters doing things to separate themselves from reality, like the guy who floats away on a... is she a mermaid? A mermaid-raft? It seems crazy to me that our bodies have the capability to do physical things to escape emotional burdens. Someone imagines his friends exploding on the boat while he floats peacefully on the nude blue giant.
A Scanner Darkly (ASD from here on out) deals with addiction. The opening scene shows *spoiler alert* symptoms of withdrawal as someone itches and showers bugs from his skin. The more he showers and scrubs, the more there seem to be. They come out of nowhere, and they don't quit! Soon afterwards, the bugs reappear and the guy calls a friend to tell him about it. The friend tells him to put the bugs in a jar. As in the war, this addict needs a way to separate reality from fantasy in his mind. He starts picking the bugs up and watching them crawl around, and I think he starts to feel a little better. Since the bugs are trapped in the jar, they can't all be on his person.
Another thing that really sticks out for me is that in war, people lose track of who they really are. Perfectly nice young men start using cars as if they're archery targets, but with their huge, military-grade guns. Hm, can I shoot THAT car in THIS window? Bang. Yup. There is absolutely NOTHING in their minds that says, Hey, what if there's a baby sleeping in that car? It become irrelevant. I don't understand the mentality at ALL. There's a scene that really upset me in Waltz: the soldiers see a car and shoot until everyone inside is dead. Turns out it was completely unnecessary. There was no threat to begin with. Is it killing out of habit?
In ASD, there is a guy giving a speech in a special suit that masks his identity completely. It hides his face, body... Even his voice. That's what it seems like people do when they're partaking in wars. It's like a long-term body mask. You keep your "real self" locked away for a while and let the "survival mode" take charge, not really worrying about the repercussions. When the guys who shot the car go and see its contents, no one appears to feel any remorse. I just don't get it.
We also see other characters doing things to separate themselves from reality, like the guy who floats away on a... is she a mermaid? A mermaid-raft? It seems crazy to me that our bodies have the capability to do physical things to escape emotional burdens. Someone imagines his friends exploding on the boat while he floats peacefully on the nude blue giant.
A Scanner Darkly (ASD from here on out) deals with addiction. The opening scene shows *spoiler alert* symptoms of withdrawal as someone itches and showers bugs from his skin. The more he showers and scrubs, the more there seem to be. They come out of nowhere, and they don't quit! Soon afterwards, the bugs reappear and the guy calls a friend to tell him about it. The friend tells him to put the bugs in a jar. As in the war, this addict needs a way to separate reality from fantasy in his mind. He starts picking the bugs up and watching them crawl around, and I think he starts to feel a little better. Since the bugs are trapped in the jar, they can't all be on his person.
Another thing that really sticks out for me is that in war, people lose track of who they really are. Perfectly nice young men start using cars as if they're archery targets, but with their huge, military-grade guns. Hm, can I shoot THAT car in THIS window? Bang. Yup. There is absolutely NOTHING in their minds that says, Hey, what if there's a baby sleeping in that car? It become irrelevant. I don't understand the mentality at ALL. There's a scene that really upset me in Waltz: the soldiers see a car and shoot until everyone inside is dead. Turns out it was completely unnecessary. There was no threat to begin with. Is it killing out of habit?
In ASD, there is a guy giving a speech in a special suit that masks his identity completely. It hides his face, body... Even his voice. That's what it seems like people do when they're partaking in wars. It's like a long-term body mask. You keep your "real self" locked away for a while and let the "survival mode" take charge, not really worrying about the repercussions. When the guys who shot the car go and see its contents, no one appears to feel any remorse. I just don't get it.
Sequel blog to Praise for Waltz with Bashir
As soon as I hit "publish post" I realized that I forgot something...
A Scanner Darkly is a really, really cool and interesting movie I watched for the first time in high school. Thank you Mike Koziol (this guy showed it to me). When we were reflecting on Waltz in class, it came up that stylistically speaking, there are some similarities with between these two works.
While watching both of these films, it is easy to forget that they are not live-action. On second thought, Scanner kiiiiinnnnnndddd of is. It's a weird thing to get used to visually, but the story and characters become so much more engrossing than the art itself (*for me, this did not apply in Waltz: I enjoyed the art AND the story the whole time) that it's also easy to lose yourself in the story. In a way, it became part of me as I watched it.
And the best thing is, it's available online! With no downloading or paying of money! Yay college! Here is the link to part 1, for anyone interested. Props to SidAndNancyHQ for making this!
Warning:
that opening shower scene made me squirm a little. But don't turn it off! It actually starts to make sense!
A Scanner Darkly is a really, really cool and interesting movie I watched for the first time in high school. Thank you Mike Koziol (this guy showed it to me). When we were reflecting on Waltz in class, it came up that stylistically speaking, there are some similarities with between these two works.
While watching both of these films, it is easy to forget that they are not live-action. On second thought, Scanner kiiiiinnnnnndddd of is. It's a weird thing to get used to visually, but the story and characters become so much more engrossing than the art itself (*for me, this did not apply in Waltz: I enjoyed the art AND the story the whole time) that it's also easy to lose yourself in the story. In a way, it became part of me as I watched it.
And the best thing is, it's available online! With no downloading or paying of money! Yay college! Here is the link to part 1, for anyone interested. Props to SidAndNancyHQ for making this!
Warning:
that opening shower scene made me squirm a little. But don't turn it off! It actually starts to make sense!
Praise for Waltz with Bashir
Waltz with Bashir is an exceptionally well made film in many respects.
First, it is artistically unique. I would say beautiful, but that's not quite the word. It's more... rugged. Rough with intention. The first scene is shocking and a little scary to audiences with no context. A big pack of blood-thirsty dogs with yellow teeth and gold eyes runs around destroying the grey city and everything in their way. The yellow, clouded sky reflects in black puddles as claws splash through them, all heading the same direction. Eventually we see that they're surrounding the window of a man whom they threaten. The coordination here brings audience focus to the key elements of the scene: dogs being tough, people fearing/avoiding said dogs, communal attitude of uncertainty and destruction. And what I mean by "coordination" is "color scheme." We see black, grey, and a few shades of yellow. Nothing is clean or pure. Nothing about this life is desirable. And then... it's a dream.
Second, the dialog and character development are absorbing and true to form. Every conversation is very human and reflects all that I know of Israeli culture. A line that caught my attention was, "A human mechanism prevents us from entering dark places." I did not note the exact context, but I think it had something to do with choosing the right path in life.
One character describes how he did not fare well as a soldier in the war, saying that he would sleep and hallucinate when afraid. The use of flashbacks is another remarkable aspect of this work: the character flashes back to being on the water with his fellow soldiers. He finishes vomiting over the side of the ship and falls asleep on the ground. Suddenly, he sees a pleasant-looking woman doing the backstroke, seeming bigger and bigger as she nears him. She stands up in the deep water and we realize she's a gorgeous, naked giant. Blue. She cradles him like a child and backstrokes away, the soldier laying face down on her stomach. He watches an explosion on board from the water (everything is blue/grey but the explosion is ORANGE!), and soon wakes up to find that none of it ever happened; everyone is fine.
On a completely different note, one of the interviewees was leading troops in the war. As a military strategy, he constantly wears patchouli oil; this way, everyone knows where he is by smell. How brilliant is that!? Details like this make the movie truly amazing.
I'd like to point out a few artistic details I noticed, also: Persian rugs, marble bathtubs (really looked like marble), brick walls completely covered in bricks (instead of brick patches and blank space common among many art styles), reflections on water in multiple situations, labels on consumer products like wine, and the shadow of a pretty metal grate or door (that we never actually see) washing over a man as he speaks.
The ending is very powerful. Debbie and H, if you are reading this and haven't seen Waltz with Bashir, I won't include spoilers. All I'll say is, depressing as it is, this movie is masterfully constructed and anyone who hasn't seen it should see it.
First, it is artistically unique. I would say beautiful, but that's not quite the word. It's more... rugged. Rough with intention. The first scene is shocking and a little scary to audiences with no context. A big pack of blood-thirsty dogs with yellow teeth and gold eyes runs around destroying the grey city and everything in their way. The yellow, clouded sky reflects in black puddles as claws splash through them, all heading the same direction. Eventually we see that they're surrounding the window of a man whom they threaten. The coordination here brings audience focus to the key elements of the scene: dogs being tough, people fearing/avoiding said dogs, communal attitude of uncertainty and destruction. And what I mean by "coordination" is "color scheme." We see black, grey, and a few shades of yellow. Nothing is clean or pure. Nothing about this life is desirable. And then... it's a dream.
Second, the dialog and character development are absorbing and true to form. Every conversation is very human and reflects all that I know of Israeli culture. A line that caught my attention was, "A human mechanism prevents us from entering dark places." I did not note the exact context, but I think it had something to do with choosing the right path in life.
One character describes how he did not fare well as a soldier in the war, saying that he would sleep and hallucinate when afraid. The use of flashbacks is another remarkable aspect of this work: the character flashes back to being on the water with his fellow soldiers. He finishes vomiting over the side of the ship and falls asleep on the ground. Suddenly, he sees a pleasant-looking woman doing the backstroke, seeming bigger and bigger as she nears him. She stands up in the deep water and we realize she's a gorgeous, naked giant. Blue. She cradles him like a child and backstrokes away, the soldier laying face down on her stomach. He watches an explosion on board from the water (everything is blue/grey but the explosion is ORANGE!), and soon wakes up to find that none of it ever happened; everyone is fine.
On a completely different note, one of the interviewees was leading troops in the war. As a military strategy, he constantly wears patchouli oil; this way, everyone knows where he is by smell. How brilliant is that!? Details like this make the movie truly amazing.
I'd like to point out a few artistic details I noticed, also: Persian rugs, marble bathtubs (really looked like marble), brick walls completely covered in bricks (instead of brick patches and blank space common among many art styles), reflections on water in multiple situations, labels on consumer products like wine, and the shadow of a pretty metal grate or door (that we never actually see) washing over a man as he speaks.
The ending is very powerful. Debbie and H, if you are reading this and haven't seen Waltz with Bashir, I won't include spoilers. All I'll say is, depressing as it is, this movie is masterfully constructed and anyone who hasn't seen it should see it.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
"It's easier to hate than forgive."
This line really caught my attention in Jobnik!. I agree with it 100% that it's easier to hate than forgive. Actually, I was just in Madison for Halloween and I'd say this situation applies:
My friend was dressed as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. He used painted tubing, basically creating a giant necklace of foam pasta with two brown styrofoam meatballs stuck into the tubing with toothpicks and a pair of huge googly eyes. For those who appreciated the reference, this costume elicited many squeals of delight, high-fives, and generally positive feedback.
We're happily walking along and, next thing we know, a scantily clad girl in short shorts and some skimpy excuse for a "top" said, "EXCUSE me," as she gripped a meatball and ran off into the crowd. It was not playful, friendly, or flirtatious; it seemed that she was trying to destroy annihilate the entire costume. What good would this do her?
Even though it wasn't MY costume, I was really p/o-ed! That was completely unnecessary, I thought, If she doesn't like Pastafarianism, she doesn't have to look at his costume. It's Madison - there were DEFINITELY plenty of other costumes to look at.
I told my friend I wanted to go find that girl and yell at her. "I can take her," I said, noting that she was smaller than me. "No," my friend said, "it's not that big a deal."
Why do people do random vicious things to strangers? It's such a waste of energy. Anyway, I spent probably five to ten minutes of my life thinking lashon harah about this girl. Rather than just moving on with the night and being happy there was still SOME costume left, I lost life time fantasizing about this young woman choking on a meatball over dinner. Or getting served yucky raw meatballs. Or... That's not the point. I'm doing it right now.
Anyway, I STILL haven't forgiven this girl I'll probably never see again! I'd say that it really IS easier to hate than forgive.
ps: I'm not usually this vengeful. It's one thing to respond, and completely another to attack. This attack on my buddy was uncalled for.
My friend was dressed as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. He used painted tubing, basically creating a giant necklace of foam pasta with two brown styrofoam meatballs stuck into the tubing with toothpicks and a pair of huge googly eyes. For those who appreciated the reference, this costume elicited many squeals of delight, high-fives, and generally positive feedback.
We're happily walking along and, next thing we know, a scantily clad girl in short shorts and some skimpy excuse for a "top" said, "EXCUSE me," as she gripped a meatball and ran off into the crowd. It was not playful, friendly, or flirtatious; it seemed that she was trying to destroy annihilate the entire costume. What good would this do her?
Even though it wasn't MY costume, I was really p/o-ed! That was completely unnecessary, I thought, If she doesn't like Pastafarianism, she doesn't have to look at his costume. It's Madison - there were DEFINITELY plenty of other costumes to look at.
I told my friend I wanted to go find that girl and yell at her. "I can take her," I said, noting that she was smaller than me. "No," my friend said, "it's not that big a deal."
Why do people do random vicious things to strangers? It's such a waste of energy. Anyway, I spent probably five to ten minutes of my life thinking lashon harah about this girl. Rather than just moving on with the night and being happy there was still SOME costume left, I lost life time fantasizing about this young woman choking on a meatball over dinner. Or getting served yucky raw meatballs. Or... That's not the point. I'm doing it right now.
Anyway, I STILL haven't forgiven this girl I'll probably never see again! I'd say that it really IS easier to hate than forgive.
ps: I'm not usually this vengeful. It's one thing to respond, and completely another to attack. This attack on my buddy was uncalled for.
Power of the Situation
In psychology there is something referred to as "power of the situation." It explains why people do things they normally would not under particular circumstances. A strong illustration occurred in the 1970s; it is called The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Some researchers put college males into a simulated jail, placing some as guards and others as prisoners. When prisoners did not behave according to the established standards, guards were to punish them. Ordinary young men turned into cruel bullies within a short time. It's pretty amazing - if you have the time, I'd suggest checking it out if you haven't already heard of it. Some guards would make prisoners do physical exercise as punishment, while others would abuse their power by embarrassing prisoners.
Power of the situation is also featured in Maus when a Holocaust victim helps the Nazis, acting as an officer, to save his own skin. I got the feeling he wasn't a bad person, he just was doing what it took to survive. In that particular camp with those particular officers, "what it took" involved putting down, punishing, or harming fellow victims. To be forced into the Holocaust, tortured and mistreated, and then to inflict that kind of abuse on others must have been at least as terrifying (if not more so) than being a victim with the majority. The guy who helped the Nazis was probably so scared he either blocked out the reality of what he was doing to his fellow humans, or disconnected from the situation completely, not even aware of the deeds he performed.
I bring up this concept because being in the Israeli army probably doesn't feel "normal" to anyone. In the beginning of Jobnik! our protagonist complains that she is bored and lonely in her office; however, she would not want someone around who could do her job better. Loneliness is a craving for social interaction and connection. Miriam sleeps with at least three different men during her service. My question is, did she do it because she really liked them, or was it the job she was assigned? If she worked in the kitchen or on a cleaning crew (with other people) instead of in an office (alone), would she still have had those affairs?
Some researchers put college males into a simulated jail, placing some as guards and others as prisoners. When prisoners did not behave according to the established standards, guards were to punish them. Ordinary young men turned into cruel bullies within a short time. It's pretty amazing - if you have the time, I'd suggest checking it out if you haven't already heard of it. Some guards would make prisoners do physical exercise as punishment, while others would abuse their power by embarrassing prisoners.
Power of the situation is also featured in Maus when a Holocaust victim helps the Nazis, acting as an officer, to save his own skin. I got the feeling he wasn't a bad person, he just was doing what it took to survive. In that particular camp with those particular officers, "what it took" involved putting down, punishing, or harming fellow victims. To be forced into the Holocaust, tortured and mistreated, and then to inflict that kind of abuse on others must have been at least as terrifying (if not more so) than being a victim with the majority. The guy who helped the Nazis was probably so scared he either blocked out the reality of what he was doing to his fellow humans, or disconnected from the situation completely, not even aware of the deeds he performed.
I bring up this concept because being in the Israeli army probably doesn't feel "normal" to anyone. In the beginning of Jobnik! our protagonist complains that she is bored and lonely in her office; however, she would not want someone around who could do her job better. Loneliness is a craving for social interaction and connection. Miriam sleeps with at least three different men during her service. My question is, did she do it because she really liked them, or was it the job she was assigned? If she worked in the kitchen or on a cleaning crew (with other people) instead of in an office (alone), would she still have had those affairs?
Friday, October 22, 2010
One more on The Rabbi's Cat
I noticed that the rabbi's relationship with the cat mirrors that of his relationship with his cousin. The rabbi is dominant over his cat; the cousin dominates over the rabbi.
Specifically, the rabbi drags the cat around as he pleases (see blog regarding imperfection) and makes the final decisions regarding the cat's interactions with his mistress (the rabbi's daughter). He chooses when the cat may see her and how he will act around her. You can hang out, but don't talk, the rabbi says. At first the cat says okay; eventually the two do whisper to each other.
The rabbi's cousin pushes the rabbi into certain "decisions." When the daughter wants to marry, the cousin is the one talking to her father. He says, let her marry, she's a great young lady! He's not a bad guy, it'll be okay. Dad says, no, she's my baby. Cousin says, say yes or I'll beat you up! Rabbi: okay. Fine.
Then the cousin proceeds - and don't just say yes. Be nice. It's a shame, because I noted a change of character in the daughter after her engagement. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but she seems more superficial. She worries about her dress and pressures her husband-to-be to buy her shoes. Is she just trying to "look more French," or is that just a cover?
Whatever it is, it made me think of the masks in the Maus series. Vladek wants to seem more Polish, wants to seem more German... so he just wears a mask. The beauty of cartoons is that we don't worry about where he acquired the mask. Did he make it out of things from the camps? No, it's just the way he talks or the subtle mannerisms that make, for example, an American an American.
My aunt and I were talking and she said that if we went to a foreign country people would spot us as Americans a mile away! I said, "What are you talking about?" And she said it's the way we walk, the confidence with which we approach strangers, our manner of talking -- that mark us as Americans.
Specifically, the rabbi drags the cat around as he pleases (see blog regarding imperfection) and makes the final decisions regarding the cat's interactions with his mistress (the rabbi's daughter). He chooses when the cat may see her and how he will act around her. You can hang out, but don't talk, the rabbi says. At first the cat says okay; eventually the two do whisper to each other.
The rabbi's cousin pushes the rabbi into certain "decisions." When the daughter wants to marry, the cousin is the one talking to her father. He says, let her marry, she's a great young lady! He's not a bad guy, it'll be okay. Dad says, no, she's my baby. Cousin says, say yes or I'll beat you up! Rabbi: okay. Fine.
Then the cousin proceeds - and don't just say yes. Be nice. It's a shame, because I noted a change of character in the daughter after her engagement. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but she seems more superficial. She worries about her dress and pressures her husband-to-be to buy her shoes. Is she just trying to "look more French," or is that just a cover?
Whatever it is, it made me think of the masks in the Maus series. Vladek wants to seem more Polish, wants to seem more German... so he just wears a mask. The beauty of cartoons is that we don't worry about where he acquired the mask. Did he make it out of things from the camps? No, it's just the way he talks or the subtle mannerisms that make, for example, an American an American.
My aunt and I were talking and she said that if we went to a foreign country people would spot us as Americans a mile away! I said, "What are you talking about?" And she said it's the way we walk, the confidence with which we approach strangers, our manner of talking -- that mark us as Americans.
Did you say, "tree climbing goats?"
Yes, yes I did.
I was reading The Rabbi's Cat and on page 68 there is a reference I did not understand. Being originally from Wisconsin, I've never seen this kind of thing before.
Here's a bit of context from page 68:
"[My master] doesn't even care about things that used to make us laugh. Like the goats climbing up the acacia trees to graze. Before, he would say, "Look, a goat tree. When they're ripe, the fruits will fall."
Is this a real thing? I started googling and soon I found out - it's real!
Look!
another link...
...and one more for you.
Does anyone else think this is crazy?
I was reading The Rabbi's Cat and on page 68 there is a reference I did not understand. Being originally from Wisconsin, I've never seen this kind of thing before.
Here's a bit of context from page 68:
"[My master] doesn't even care about things that used to make us laugh. Like the goats climbing up the acacia trees to graze. Before, he would say, "Look, a goat tree. When they're ripe, the fruits will fall."
Is this a real thing? I started googling and soon I found out - it's real!
Look!
another link...
...and one more for you.
Does anyone else think this is crazy?
Faulty Math? I like to think it works.
In Maus II Spiegelman appears. He is being interviewed about his work, slowly shrinking into a child. It's a very gradual transition; I suddenly went, Hey, that's a small kid in a big chair! He is overwhelmed by all the press and people. Acknowledging that the author had to select what panes to include and which ones not to include, it was neat to hear outside feedback from a character who is not associated with any of Artie's other family members OR the Holocaust. It also shows that even Spiegelman turns to others for words of wisdom. While he may be brilliant, he is still a mere mortal. He is not a perfect being.
We also see this in Spiegelman's interactions with his father on multiple occasions. We like Artie and sympathize with him, but he does not make himself seem flawless or godlike. His character is almost constantly smoking (I think he spills ash on the carpet once), he can be critical of his dad, and he tends to make his father feel like his son is pushing him away. A scene that made me giggle was when Mala left, and the father called Artie and his cousin to come and stay with him. He wants them to stay all summer, but they only plan to stay for a couple of days. Vladek unpacks all of Artie's clothes into the dresser, and he's always saying things like, (I'm paraphrasing, bear with me) "It's so great that you're spending the summer with me! We're going to have a great time together!" Artie always says that they're leaving soon, but it's an ongoing dispute.
The Rabbi's Cat similarly shows both good and "not ideal" facets of each persona. The Rabbi contradicts himself quite often when it comes to the issue of permitting his cat to have a bar mitzvah. He saya the cat has to be a good Jew, and then he continues to treat him like a cat. The rabbi decides that the cat will be a bad influence on his daughter, and that the cat will stay with him. The accompanying picture is the rabbi walking, holding the cat by the scruff of his neck and dragging him along (pg. 9). At first I thought of a woman carrying a clutch... then a hobo bag... then football players carrying a football. I wanted to give you a decent visual, and then I found this. I can't believe someone actually invented this! It seemed an appropriate comparison.
The cat and the rabbi go to the two-up rabbi, who is also imperfect. The two-up rabbi says at first that God made man in His image, and then that "God" is a word. The rabbi's rabbi thinks the cat ought to be drowned. On page 13, the cat says: "And I tell the rabbi's rabbi that I am God, who has taken the appearance of a cat in order to test him. I tell him that...he was as dogmatic and obtuse with me as some Christians are with Jews." He begs forgiveness, and the cat essentially goes, I'm just a cat. The fact that the rabbi would follow someone so gullible in the first place saddens me. Icing on the cake, a guy who wants to drown a cat. Drowning the cat is the same as the cat eating the parrot.
The cat says that God is a reassuring myth the two-up rabbi uses to assure himself he is not a lonely old man. The cat reminds him that people outlive cats, so the cat will never be alone. On page 19: "And I can tell that my master's a bit angry with me. He's your master and you love him and I just proved to you that he's not all-knowing. You're even realizing that, for all the deference you feel for him, this master is less intelligent than you are. So you have no master, but you don't want to admit that...because you don't want to end up old and alone and without anyone to turn to..." The way this graphic novel is written, the cat is a pretty developed character, as far as cats go. Like all cats, he has personality and a secret life. He watches and observes, stating bluntly what he sees. The cat figure here serves as a slap-in-the-face dose of reality, delivered whether or not solicited. He also has some attitude, and, of course, is not perfect himself.
The good thing is, though, that none of these characters ever claim to be perfect. Some might argue that the cat said he was God, and that God is perfect, but I'm arguing with the cat on this one: What God?
No existence = no flaws. No existence = no perfection. No existence = no existence.
On page
We also see this in Spiegelman's interactions with his father on multiple occasions. We like Artie and sympathize with him, but he does not make himself seem flawless or godlike. His character is almost constantly smoking (I think he spills ash on the carpet once), he can be critical of his dad, and he tends to make his father feel like his son is pushing him away. A scene that made me giggle was when Mala left, and the father called Artie and his cousin to come and stay with him. He wants them to stay all summer, but they only plan to stay for a couple of days. Vladek unpacks all of Artie's clothes into the dresser, and he's always saying things like, (I'm paraphrasing, bear with me) "It's so great that you're spending the summer with me! We're going to have a great time together!" Artie always says that they're leaving soon, but it's an ongoing dispute.
The Rabbi's Cat similarly shows both good and "not ideal" facets of each persona. The Rabbi contradicts himself quite often when it comes to the issue of permitting his cat to have a bar mitzvah. He saya the cat has to be a good Jew, and then he continues to treat him like a cat. The rabbi decides that the cat will be a bad influence on his daughter, and that the cat will stay with him. The accompanying picture is the rabbi walking, holding the cat by the scruff of his neck and dragging him along (pg. 9). At first I thought of a woman carrying a clutch... then a hobo bag... then football players carrying a football. I wanted to give you a decent visual, and then I found this. I can't believe someone actually invented this! It seemed an appropriate comparison.
The cat and the rabbi go to the two-up rabbi, who is also imperfect. The two-up rabbi says at first that God made man in His image, and then that "God" is a word. The rabbi's rabbi thinks the cat ought to be drowned. On page 13, the cat says: "And I tell the rabbi's rabbi that I am God, who has taken the appearance of a cat in order to test him. I tell him that...he was as dogmatic and obtuse with me as some Christians are with Jews." He begs forgiveness, and the cat essentially goes, I'm just a cat. The fact that the rabbi would follow someone so gullible in the first place saddens me. Icing on the cake, a guy who wants to drown a cat. Drowning the cat is the same as the cat eating the parrot.
The cat says that God is a reassuring myth the two-up rabbi uses to assure himself he is not a lonely old man. The cat reminds him that people outlive cats, so the cat will never be alone. On page 19: "And I can tell that my master's a bit angry with me. He's your master and you love him and I just proved to you that he's not all-knowing. You're even realizing that, for all the deference you feel for him, this master is less intelligent than you are. So you have no master, but you don't want to admit that...because you don't want to end up old and alone and without anyone to turn to..." The way this graphic novel is written, the cat is a pretty developed character, as far as cats go. Like all cats, he has personality and a secret life. He watches and observes, stating bluntly what he sees. The cat figure here serves as a slap-in-the-face dose of reality, delivered whether or not solicited. He also has some attitude, and, of course, is not perfect himself.
The good thing is, though, that none of these characters ever claim to be perfect. Some might argue that the cat said he was God, and that God is perfect, but I'm arguing with the cat on this one: What God?
No existence = no flaws. No existence = no perfection. No existence = no existence.
On page
Saturday, October 16, 2010
On kashrut
Hey, I just realized that in my previous post I mentioned that Poles are drawn as pigs in Maus II. According to the laws of kashrut, or keeping kosher, Jews are not supposed to eat any form of pig meat. No pulled pork sandwiches in summer, no bacon in the morning, no sliced deli ham for lunch...
Not all branches of Judaism require that its members keep kosher; as far as I've seen, it seems to be primarily Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Kashrut also says that Jews cannot eat shellfish, bottom-feeders (like catfish), and it has specifications as far as the killing of permitted animals. There is a more detailed description at this website.
Then there is the wordplay people use: That's not kosher! While it can be a joke, it can also be someone genuinely scolding someone else. Don't do that, it's not kosher! Or when playing a game, and someone breaks the rules, you can call them out with that expression.
What I'm getting at is, by portraying the Polish as pigs, is Spiegelman (the author, not the character) hinting at a personal dislike for either Polish people or Poland the country? Or, is he simply saying that Jews in the Holocaust somehow clashed with Poles in the Holocaust?
Not all branches of Judaism require that its members keep kosher; as far as I've seen, it seems to be primarily Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Kashrut also says that Jews cannot eat shellfish, bottom-feeders (like catfish), and it has specifications as far as the killing of permitted animals. There is a more detailed description at this website.
Then there is the wordplay people use: That's not kosher! While it can be a joke, it can also be someone genuinely scolding someone else. Don't do that, it's not kosher! Or when playing a game, and someone breaks the rules, you can call them out with that expression.
What I'm getting at is, by portraying the Polish as pigs, is Spiegelman (the author, not the character) hinting at a personal dislike for either Polish people or Poland the country? Or, is he simply saying that Jews in the Holocaust somehow clashed with Poles in the Holocaust?
Zac, you're going in my blog.
In Maus II an Israeli (a mouse) asks Spiegelman what animal he would use to depict Israelis.
Poles were pigs, Americans were dogs, Nazis were cats, Jews were mice, French were frogs, and so forth.
Spiegelman replies that he would use "a porcupine?"
This made me smile, because there is a stereotype of Israelis being like sabras. A sabra is prickly on the outside, but juicy and sweet on the inside. I've met at least a handful of Israelis myself, and I don't think this applies to all Israelis. While stereotypes are often based on truth, there are always some people who don't fit them... and some people who fit them perfectly.
Anyway, to use a porcupine is like a pun on the sabra stereotype.
Just now, my boyfriend's room mmate was eating Nerds candy and gave me the empty box, saying, "feed your imagination." It was EMPTY. What kind of guy is this? Hard to say.
"Do I look like a garbage?" I asked him. You know what he said? He said, "Well, I figured you're more... adept... at cleaning up messes." Implied: because you're a woman.
Frustrated, I continued blogging. This is perfect, I thought, I'm writing about stereotypes right now! What about spic and span men, though? There are definitely at least a couple guys that are much cleaner than me. Why are women so targeted in modern society? Better yet, why have women been targeted throughout history?
Poles were pigs, Americans were dogs, Nazis were cats, Jews were mice, French were frogs, and so forth.
Spiegelman replies that he would use "a porcupine?"
This made me smile, because there is a stereotype of Israelis being like sabras. A sabra is prickly on the outside, but juicy and sweet on the inside. I've met at least a handful of Israelis myself, and I don't think this applies to all Israelis. While stereotypes are often based on truth, there are always some people who don't fit them... and some people who fit them perfectly.
Anyway, to use a porcupine is like a pun on the sabra stereotype.
Just now, my boyfriend's room mmate was eating Nerds candy and gave me the empty box, saying, "feed your imagination." It was EMPTY. What kind of guy is this? Hard to say.
"Do I look like a garbage?" I asked him. You know what he said? He said, "Well, I figured you're more... adept... at cleaning up messes." Implied: because you're a woman.
Frustrated, I continued blogging. This is perfect, I thought, I'm writing about stereotypes right now! What about spic and span men, though? There are definitely at least a couple guys that are much cleaner than me. Why are women so targeted in modern society? Better yet, why have women been targeted throughout history?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Vladek's character development
Maus II has been a very interesting read thus far.
Structurally speaking, it's well designed because although the story does contain some intense material, it is punctuated with Vladek "now."
Vladek "now" is a completely different person from Vladek "then," and it's neat to see how Vladek has changed over the course of time. We can see differences over the years, but the gradual character development is more subtle. For example, young Vladek uses the nasty situation as a networking opportunity to aid his survival. He meets all the right people, working in good conditions teaching English, fixing shoes, and working on roofs. As a result, he is paid in food and praise. He gets bread and sausage, extra soup... and as a hoarder, he always has and uses resources. Vladek charms some young women with chocolate from the Red Cross care packages. On the crowded train, he hooks a blanket to the ceiling which ultimately saves his life. He trades a gold watch, and even knows the trading equation of available goods.
One portion of bread equals three cigarettes; two hundred cigarettes equals one bottle of vodka. To get his wife transfered into a specific area, it will cost at least a bottle of vodka; and Vladek DOES achieve the transfer! He's a Holocaust hero!
Present-day Vladek saves EVERYTHING. He makes reference to a tea bag drying from this morning. He has a near-empty box of cereal he himself cannot consume due to his diet. There's an entire scene in which Vladek fulfills the "Jewish mother" stereotype. He says, Artie, Francoise, how about some cereal?
-No, thanks, pop, I'm not hungry.
-Francoise?
-No thanks.
-It's okay, I'll pack it up to go for you.
-DAD! We don't WANT it!
-How about some of this fruit cake?
-We're not hungry!
-Ok, honey, I'll pack it with the cereal!
The whole forcefeeding thing honestly roots from Jewish moms trying to fatten their daughters up for Jewish men to make sure they have plenty of nutrients and calories to raise A BUNCH OF JEWISH BABIES.
All the Jewish holidays eventually end in eating, drinking, and introducing relatives to friends. Yentl, meet Efrayim. Did you have enough wine? Yes? Well, have some more anyway. Then you can get together and MAKE JEWISH BABIES.
Are we seeing a theme here?
Structurally speaking, it's well designed because although the story does contain some intense material, it is punctuated with Vladek "now."
Vladek "now" is a completely different person from Vladek "then," and it's neat to see how Vladek has changed over the course of time. We can see differences over the years, but the gradual character development is more subtle. For example, young Vladek uses the nasty situation as a networking opportunity to aid his survival. He meets all the right people, working in good conditions teaching English, fixing shoes, and working on roofs. As a result, he is paid in food and praise. He gets bread and sausage, extra soup... and as a hoarder, he always has and uses resources. Vladek charms some young women with chocolate from the Red Cross care packages. On the crowded train, he hooks a blanket to the ceiling which ultimately saves his life. He trades a gold watch, and even knows the trading equation of available goods.
One portion of bread equals three cigarettes; two hundred cigarettes equals one bottle of vodka. To get his wife transfered into a specific area, it will cost at least a bottle of vodka; and Vladek DOES achieve the transfer! He's a Holocaust hero!
Present-day Vladek saves EVERYTHING. He makes reference to a tea bag drying from this morning. He has a near-empty box of cereal he himself cannot consume due to his diet. There's an entire scene in which Vladek fulfills the "Jewish mother" stereotype. He says, Artie, Francoise, how about some cereal?
-No, thanks, pop, I'm not hungry.
-Francoise?
-No thanks.
-It's okay, I'll pack it up to go for you.
-DAD! We don't WANT it!
-How about some of this fruit cake?
-We're not hungry!
-Ok, honey, I'll pack it with the cereal!
The whole forcefeeding thing honestly roots from Jewish moms trying to fatten their daughters up for Jewish men to make sure they have plenty of nutrients and calories to raise A BUNCH OF JEWISH BABIES.
All the Jewish holidays eventually end in eating, drinking, and introducing relatives to friends. Yentl, meet Efrayim. Did you have enough wine? Yes? Well, have some more anyway. Then you can get together and MAKE JEWISH BABIES.
Are we seeing a theme here?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
On leaving bad relationships
In Maus I Vladik checks his date's pill bottles to make sure she isn't crazy. During his second marriage neither party is truly satisfied. While Vladik always saves money, Mala, his wife, always spends money. When she asks for money or suggests, for example, that they hire a professional to fix the roof (rather than allowing her aging spouse to do it himself = bad idea), he complains that she spends too much money on unimportant things.
Throughout the graphic novel Vladik and Mala complain incessantly about each other to Vladik's son Artie. Eventually Artie says that maybe they ought to go to couple's therapy. Vladik says NO! and keeps complaining about his wife.
We (Americans) see a lot of this in sitcoms, books, movies... But growing up, I was under the impression that marriage is supposed to be fun. Stereotypes are often based on truth: something happens all the time, we make fun of it. It's human nature.
What I'm asking is, why do people with relationships that reflect that of Vladik and Mala stay together?
I have a few ideas, but input is never a bad thing.
Idea #1: Fear of being alone
People are afraid of being alone. Leaving someone is hard because it's, one, hard to lose somebody socially, but also because, two, there often is NOT a new partner right away. And even if there is, the new person is not the old one. When a break-up occurs, it's for a reason, so ideally the new partner is not the same as the old; but the heart still aches for the "original" partner, even if it was an unhealthy relationship.
Idea #2: Fear of change
Change is sometimes a scary thing. When a relationship is icky, eventually it becomes evident that something is off. Maybe the spark is gone. Maybe somebody is a hard core druggie. Whatever it may be, leaving routine can lead to a period of disorder. The new situation will OBVIOUSLY be DIFFERENT from the new situation. If they're lucky, it will be better; but no one knows until they try.
Idea #3: Environmental excuses
Environmental excuses, like financial security. If the man works but also is a not-nice person, and the woman is a housewife, perhaps she is reluctant to leave due to fear of the unknown. Will she ever find a job? Will it be a fun job? Will she win the lottery? Will she go broke buying lottery tickets?
Another environmental excuse is kids. "We're staying together for the kids." Yet another is political. If the president and his wife are unhappy and they break up, it will be all over the media. If they keep it out of the media and stay quiet, faking happiness for the public, they still have a private life. Is unhappiness in this situation worth the trade off?
Throughout the graphic novel Vladik and Mala complain incessantly about each other to Vladik's son Artie. Eventually Artie says that maybe they ought to go to couple's therapy. Vladik says NO! and keeps complaining about his wife.
We (Americans) see a lot of this in sitcoms, books, movies... But growing up, I was under the impression that marriage is supposed to be fun. Stereotypes are often based on truth: something happens all the time, we make fun of it. It's human nature.
What I'm asking is, why do people with relationships that reflect that of Vladik and Mala stay together?
I have a few ideas, but input is never a bad thing.
Idea #1: Fear of being alone
People are afraid of being alone. Leaving someone is hard because it's, one, hard to lose somebody socially, but also because, two, there often is NOT a new partner right away. And even if there is, the new person is not the old one. When a break-up occurs, it's for a reason, so ideally the new partner is not the same as the old; but the heart still aches for the "original" partner, even if it was an unhealthy relationship.
Idea #2: Fear of change
Change is sometimes a scary thing. When a relationship is icky, eventually it becomes evident that something is off. Maybe the spark is gone. Maybe somebody is a hard core druggie. Whatever it may be, leaving routine can lead to a period of disorder. The new situation will OBVIOUSLY be DIFFERENT from the new situation. If they're lucky, it will be better; but no one knows until they try.
Idea #3: Environmental excuses
Environmental excuses, like financial security. If the man works but also is a not-nice person, and the woman is a housewife, perhaps she is reluctant to leave due to fear of the unknown. Will she ever find a job? Will it be a fun job? Will she win the lottery? Will she go broke buying lottery tickets?
Another environmental excuse is kids. "We're staying together for the kids." Yet another is political. If the president and his wife are unhappy and they break up, it will be all over the media. If they keep it out of the media and stay quiet, faking happiness for the public, they still have a private life. Is unhappiness in this situation worth the trade off?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
"[Bryan] Singer explicitly draws parallels between the Holocausts survived... and chapters from U.S. history that resulted from mass hysteria and fear of groups allegedly posing a threat to the American way of life." -Lawrence Baron, X-Men as J Men
One interpretation- mass hysteria and fear lead to negative events. Baron cited the Holocaust, but I'd like to reference a few other instances.
Yes, the Holocaust works; Jews, gypsies, gay people, and other groups targeted by Hitler were "different" from people he grew up seeing. Hitler was German. He wanted to be an art student. Perhaps he found people with blond hair and blue eyes the most attractive and genuinely believed that he was doing a service to future generations in eliminating "unattractive" members of society (and non-German ones). Was this an early attempt at genetic engineering?
Did Hitler feel threatened by anyone who did not fit his mold? We were too scary, so he tried to kill us? It's amazing that a single person can have such influence over a group just by instilling fear.
The show The Twilight Zone uses fear to do some odd things. The neighbors are all meeting together. A new family has just moved in, and did not attend the meeting. The new family has an "unsightly" fence. Suddenly, no cars, phones, or electronics work. Of course, the new additions are suspect. Not eight minutes into the episode, one man says, "I'll get my gun." Later a guy says, "We should make a perimiter! ...Get weapons!" Someone responds, "We don't even know if we're under attack!" slowly, surely... everyone kills each other. Their house has power and a working car. Obviously, they must be terrorists. "Are you one of us? Or one of THEM?" A mob forms (with tiki torches and shovels and gasoline) and the group sets fire to the house! The episode ends: "it isn't enough for a sole voice of reason to exist. In this time of uncertainty we're so sure that villians lurk around every corner that we will create them ourselves if we can't find them. For while fear may keep us vigilant, it's also fear that tears us apart." I'd give you a link, but the show is so bad that I won't encourage you to watch it. Please don't go out of your way; it's twenty minutes of your life you won't get back.
The new neighbors never even had faces! They never came out of the house or talked to the group. Someone went in the house and talked to the newcomers. He returned with a positive report, which merited an angry response to the effect of, Why are you defending them? You must be a terrorist too!
This mob mentality, fear, and lack of all the facts makes bad things happen!
I want to discuss one final example. September 29, 2010 at Rutgers University some college students planted a hidden camera in Tyler Clementi's room. He was filmed having sex with another male; as a result, he committed suicide. My boyfriend's mom, Chris, was telling me about it, so I found a small news blurb on Google /blurb. What a cruel thing to do! Chris brought up a good point, though: If Tyler wasn't there, someone else would have been the target. She said bullying has nothing to do with the victim: it's about the bully.
So the question becomes: If somebody had killed Hitler before the Holocaust, would it still have happened? Are there infinite bullies and victims?
One interpretation- mass hysteria and fear lead to negative events. Baron cited the Holocaust, but I'd like to reference a few other instances.
Yes, the Holocaust works; Jews, gypsies, gay people, and other groups targeted by Hitler were "different" from people he grew up seeing. Hitler was German. He wanted to be an art student. Perhaps he found people with blond hair and blue eyes the most attractive and genuinely believed that he was doing a service to future generations in eliminating "unattractive" members of society (and non-German ones). Was this an early attempt at genetic engineering?
Did Hitler feel threatened by anyone who did not fit his mold? We were too scary, so he tried to kill us? It's amazing that a single person can have such influence over a group just by instilling fear.
The show The Twilight Zone uses fear to do some odd things. The neighbors are all meeting together. A new family has just moved in, and did not attend the meeting. The new family has an "unsightly" fence. Suddenly, no cars, phones, or electronics work. Of course, the new additions are suspect. Not eight minutes into the episode, one man says, "I'll get my gun." Later a guy says, "We should make a perimiter! ...Get weapons!" Someone responds, "We don't even know if we're under attack!" slowly, surely... everyone kills each other. Their house has power and a working car. Obviously, they must be terrorists. "Are you one of us? Or one of THEM?" A mob forms (with tiki torches and shovels and gasoline) and the group sets fire to the house! The episode ends: "it isn't enough for a sole voice of reason to exist. In this time of uncertainty we're so sure that villians lurk around every corner that we will create them ourselves if we can't find them. For while fear may keep us vigilant, it's also fear that tears us apart." I'd give you a link, but the show is so bad that I won't encourage you to watch it. Please don't go out of your way; it's twenty minutes of your life you won't get back.
The new neighbors never even had faces! They never came out of the house or talked to the group. Someone went in the house and talked to the newcomers. He returned with a positive report, which merited an angry response to the effect of, Why are you defending them? You must be a terrorist too!
This mob mentality, fear, and lack of all the facts makes bad things happen!
I want to discuss one final example. September 29, 2010 at Rutgers University some college students planted a hidden camera in Tyler Clementi's room. He was filmed having sex with another male; as a result, he committed suicide. My boyfriend's mom, Chris, was telling me about it, so I found a small news blurb on Google /blurb. What a cruel thing to do! Chris brought up a good point, though: If Tyler wasn't there, someone else would have been the target. She said bullying has nothing to do with the victim: it's about the bully.
So the question becomes: If somebody had killed Hitler before the Holocaust, would it still have happened? Are there infinite bullies and victims?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Sitting and talking with friends, someone said, "You'd have to be crazy to be elected!" Hey, a blog topic!
She's absolutely right; that's why crazy people ::coughsarahpalincough:: get into politics in the first place. On a religious note, the Jews chose God to control the crowd, and God chose the Jews to carry out 's* will. To be elected one must possess certain factors that appeal to enough people to be voted into a leadership position.
One of my favorite examples for everything: Hitler. Not only was Hitler charismatic, he was confident, loud, and had set standards regarding how the public ought to act and respond to him. He had a vision. A goal. He went out and tried to get what he wanted: a bunch of "perfect" blond-haired, blue-eyed German people making blond-haired, blue-eyed, straight, terrifyingly violent German babies.
Similarly, God chose the Jews, according to midrash (essentially Jewish folklore, say MEED-raash), after approaching various ethnic groups to be 's followers. The Jews agreed to monotheism (as opposed to polytheism). More detail in this link: rabbi citation
My mom and I were once talking about using God the concept as a means of maintaining social order. "God" is omniscient AND invisible (equals infinite power); watch what you say, everyone! The group leaders said, we know what God wants. If you don't obey, there will be TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES!
In the rabbi link, Rabbi Shraga Simmons says that God and the people chose each other; thus, not only are Jews crazy- so is God.
* "'s" is referring to the gender neutrality of God. "Invented pronouns" are a real thing that avoid using sex in referring to an individual. Because there are numerous disagreements about God's gender, I chose not to choose. Here are a couple links for those interested:
yay! a chart --> scroll down for an easy-to-read chart
second link --> (and here's one more for you... enjoy... or say, "huh?")
She's absolutely right; that's why crazy people ::coughsarahpalincough:: get into politics in the first place. On a religious note, the Jews chose God to control the crowd, and God chose the Jews to carry out 's* will. To be elected one must possess certain factors that appeal to enough people to be voted into a leadership position.
One of my favorite examples for everything: Hitler. Not only was Hitler charismatic, he was confident, loud, and had set standards regarding how the public ought to act and respond to him. He had a vision. A goal. He went out and tried to get what he wanted: a bunch of "perfect" blond-haired, blue-eyed German people making blond-haired, blue-eyed, straight, terrifyingly violent German babies.
Similarly, God chose the Jews, according to midrash (essentially Jewish folklore, say MEED-raash), after approaching various ethnic groups to be 's followers. The Jews agreed to monotheism (as opposed to polytheism). More detail in this link: rabbi citation
My mom and I were once talking about using God the concept as a means of maintaining social order. "God" is omniscient AND invisible (equals infinite power); watch what you say, everyone! The group leaders said, we know what God wants. If you don't obey, there will be TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES!
In the rabbi link, Rabbi Shraga Simmons says that God and the people chose each other; thus, not only are Jews crazy- so is God.
* "'s" is referring to the gender neutrality of God. "Invented pronouns" are a real thing that avoid using sex in referring to an individual. Because there are numerous disagreements about God's gender, I chose not to choose. Here are a couple links for those interested:
yay! a chart --> scroll down for an easy-to-read chart
second link --> (and here's one more for you... enjoy... or say, "huh?")
Saturday, September 25, 2010
On a lighter note...
As I was falling asleep last night I considered what it would be like to one day be me, and the next be an orange brick mass.
What's good? Brick turned out to be the best material in the fairytale of the Three Little Pigs; it was strong, durable, and wind resistant.
What's bad? There is the obvious issue of being the only person made of brick. It'd be understandable to feel kind of awkward. More importantly, there goes your sex life! Who wants to cuddle with a brick wall? Or a cinder block?
The Fantastic Four make a great team, but The Thing is isolated; none of the other heroes experienced a permanent cosmetic transformation. I wonder if the author intentionally isolated The Thing. In addition to being the only brick hero, he's also the only Jew, correct?
However, a Jew without the ability to procreate is contradictory; the Torah stresses the importance of having babies. It says, "Be fruitful and multiply."
What I'm saying is, The Thing needs a wife (Judaism states that sex occurs only after marriage). Perhaps we ought to expose more people to cosmic rays. If all else fails, we could always make a golem...
There's one here under the 'brass golem' heading... To be honest, I don't quite understand what it's all about.
Another website suggested wearing white robes, and sculpting using purified water, pure clay, pure intention...
I find the whole thing kind of odd. Besides the concept of creating a conscious entity without using... erm... conventional methods, we're not even doing it the Frankenstein way. At least the guy who made Frankenstein used something tangible-ish (electricity) to activate his "person." But just hoping it will work... God probably does not have "make golems work" at the top of his priority list. Who makes a golem based on an electronic recipe, anyway? Nothing earthier than a good golem... It seems more realistic to use historical methods. I wonder if the Pagan faith has any recipes?
What's good? Brick turned out to be the best material in the fairytale of the Three Little Pigs; it was strong, durable, and wind resistant.
What's bad? There is the obvious issue of being the only person made of brick. It'd be understandable to feel kind of awkward. More importantly, there goes your sex life! Who wants to cuddle with a brick wall? Or a cinder block?
The Fantastic Four make a great team, but The Thing is isolated; none of the other heroes experienced a permanent cosmetic transformation. I wonder if the author intentionally isolated The Thing. In addition to being the only brick hero, he's also the only Jew, correct?
However, a Jew without the ability to procreate is contradictory; the Torah stresses the importance of having babies. It says, "Be fruitful and multiply."
What I'm saying is, The Thing needs a wife (Judaism states that sex occurs only after marriage). Perhaps we ought to expose more people to cosmic rays. If all else fails, we could always make a golem...
There's one here under the 'brass golem' heading... To be honest, I don't quite understand what it's all about.
Another website suggested wearing white robes, and sculpting using purified water, pure clay, pure intention...
I find the whole thing kind of odd. Besides the concept of creating a conscious entity without using... erm... conventional methods, we're not even doing it the Frankenstein way. At least the guy who made Frankenstein used something tangible-ish (electricity) to activate his "person." But just hoping it will work... God probably does not have "make golems work" at the top of his priority list. Who makes a golem based on an electronic recipe, anyway? Nothing earthier than a good golem... It seems more realistic to use historical methods. I wonder if the Pagan faith has any recipes?
Here's the missing link
I forgot the link for the first article (the DVD breakdown). Here it is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-503195/British-children-targeted-terror-sing-DVD-suicide-bombers.html
Read something happy after
Last night I started blogging, and it was so terrible I went, I'll do it tomorrow...
It was saying that it's corny for teams to wear uniforms. And evil. Think of the Power Rangers. Think of the Powerpuff Girls. Think of Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles. It's unnatural for a bunch of creatures to look exactly the same. Clone army, anyone?
I even linked a video to youtube in which the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles get brainwashed into working for the Power Rangers, and as I pondered the powers of ninties technology, realized that there have been multiple occasions of brainwashing in history.
I first thought of children who become killing machines in Africa. But as I googled looking for it, I found other things instead. I was planning on linking these examples to Hitler's leadership tactics of forming his army in the Holocaust, but I've been perusing articles, each scarier than the last, for about twenty minutes now, and I want to talk about these instead.
This one is about a terrorist sing along DVD. It is designed to appeal to kids. In the video, a mother suicide bombs herself, and later her daughter wants to "follow in her footsteps."
I couldn't find the actual DVD on youtube, but here it's broken down scene by scene.
Another article deals with children who were kidnapped, trained, drugged... Then they kill people. It seems that since they are so young, their sense of right and wrong is stunted. Some of the kids start out as regular kids and eventually become monsters, trained not to feel. It's horrifying, but very interesting. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/02/12/child.soldiers/index.html
Lastly, brainwashing can take place in the home, too. Some kids (me) were brainwashed to do their homework and eat their veggies... Sadly, this isn't the case in this house. Marcus Wesson brainwashed his family into thinking he was God. They also didn't realize that being sexually abused and beaten was not a normal part of everyday life. And yes, he DOES get caught. It's unfortunate that we can't do much to help the victims. Check it out: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/marcus-wesson-mass-murder-surviving-family-speaks-abuse/story?id=11089648&page=1
It was saying that it's corny for teams to wear uniforms. And evil. Think of the Power Rangers. Think of the Powerpuff Girls. Think of Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles. It's unnatural for a bunch of creatures to look exactly the same. Clone army, anyone?
I even linked a video to youtube in which the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles get brainwashed into working for the Power Rangers, and as I pondered the powers of ninties technology, realized that there have been multiple occasions of brainwashing in history.
I first thought of children who become killing machines in Africa. But as I googled looking for it, I found other things instead. I was planning on linking these examples to Hitler's leadership tactics of forming his army in the Holocaust, but I've been perusing articles, each scarier than the last, for about twenty minutes now, and I want to talk about these instead.
This one is about a terrorist sing along DVD. It is designed to appeal to kids. In the video, a mother suicide bombs herself, and later her daughter wants to "follow in her footsteps."
I couldn't find the actual DVD on youtube, but here it's broken down scene by scene.
Another article deals with children who were kidnapped, trained, drugged... Then they kill people. It seems that since they are so young, their sense of right and wrong is stunted. Some of the kids start out as regular kids and eventually become monsters, trained not to feel. It's horrifying, but very interesting. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/02/12/child.soldiers/index.html
Lastly, brainwashing can take place in the home, too. Some kids (me) were brainwashed to do their homework and eat their veggies... Sadly, this isn't the case in this house. Marcus Wesson brainwashed his family into thinking he was God. They also didn't realize that being sexually abused and beaten was not a normal part of everyday life. And yes, he DOES get caught. It's unfortunate that we can't do much to help the victims. Check it out: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/marcus-wesson-mass-murder-surviving-family-speaks-abuse/story?id=11089648&page=1
Saturday, September 18, 2010
History: Doomed to repeat?
It's odd that after his daughter's death, Frimme Hersh, rather than sitting shiva and continuing to be Orthodox, does everything Judaism dictates he shouldn't. Usually when a Jewish family loses someone, they set a date and lots of people (friends, family, etc.) come over (ideally with food) and commemorate the person and comfort the family of the deceased. It's meant to serve as a distraction from the pain and an opportunity for people in the community to help out. For example, if some kids lost their mom, people in the neighborhood might make some soup and freeze it so that the children wouldn't have to cook while having to cope with not having their parent around.
Anyway, Frimme shaves his beard (that's a big deal for Orthodox Jews). He focuses on money. He has romantic affairs with a nonjewish woman. Perhaps he is saying, No! I reject this life! You (God) killed my daughter! Forget you! I'm starting over!
He goes from a happy, helpful guy to someone bitter and vengeful. He doesn't even get along with his girlfriend. He rejects his former self, angry at God and frustrated that life is not always good. The story continues, though, and his life does begin to look up. The author ends Frimme's life on a happy(ish) note- business was going well and he had just made a generous donation to the synagogue. It was ominous also,suggesting that the boy who finds the contract is doomed to be just like Frimme was; however, perhaps the intention was instead to steer him back on track (he was throwing rocks at some bullies when he found the stone with Frimme's contract).
Anyway, Frimme shaves his beard (that's a big deal for Orthodox Jews). He focuses on money. He has romantic affairs with a nonjewish woman. Perhaps he is saying, No! I reject this life! You (God) killed my daughter! Forget you! I'm starting over!
He goes from a happy, helpful guy to someone bitter and vengeful. He doesn't even get along with his girlfriend. He rejects his former self, angry at God and frustrated that life is not always good. The story continues, though, and his life does begin to look up. The author ends Frimme's life on a happy(ish) note- business was going well and he had just made a generous donation to the synagogue. It was ominous also,suggesting that the boy who finds the contract is doomed to be just like Frimme was; however, perhaps the intention was instead to steer him back on track (he was throwing rocks at some bullies when he found the stone with Frimme's contract).
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Stone in a storm
We recall that as a boy, Frimme established a contract with God. Let's examine the concept of God. In private Jewish grade school and middle school we learned that God created the heavens and the earth. God is everywhere. God is a stalker. God creeps on you like Santa creeps on little kids.
Later in life my Rabbi presented a new image with everything as water and God as waves. No clear line where tangible things end and God begins. The image stuck with me, continually rattling my brain... until my little sister mentioned a Flying Spaghetti Monster. What? She passed me The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson. You should check it out. It's very entertaining.
But if you don't, here's a recap: it approaches religion using only logic. Consider: perhaps there is a huge Flying Spaghetti Monster hovering above our planet, protecting us and controlling the universe. He keeps us from flying off the earth by caressing us with his noodly appendages. As he is invisible, we have no proof that he does not exist. Look and giggle!
Who has the coolest invisible friend? Nobody.
We -I- really have no idea what's out there.
So, contracts. Two parties mutually agree to a set of given rules. Does Frimme Hersh's invisible friend ever agree to Frimme's terms? We don't know, but Frimme's friend "God" at least motivates him to act kindly and compassionately towards others, and to project more positive than negative energy into the universe (for good karma).
Frimme Hersh writes a contract on a stone. Using it for moral support, he does his best to consistently be a good person. Frimme dies. Hmm... sounds like... life. Perhaps Frimme Hersh is simply... human.
Later in life my Rabbi presented a new image with everything as water and God as waves. No clear line where tangible things end and God begins. The image stuck with me, continually rattling my brain... until my little sister mentioned a Flying Spaghetti Monster. What? She passed me The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson. You should check it out. It's very entertaining.
But if you don't, here's a recap: it approaches religion using only logic. Consider: perhaps there is a huge Flying Spaghetti Monster hovering above our planet, protecting us and controlling the universe. He keeps us from flying off the earth by caressing us with his noodly appendages. As he is invisible, we have no proof that he does not exist. Look and giggle!
Who has the coolest invisible friend? Nobody.
We -I- really have no idea what's out there.
So, contracts. Two parties mutually agree to a set of given rules. Does Frimme Hersh's invisible friend ever agree to Frimme's terms? We don't know, but Frimme's friend "God" at least motivates him to act kindly and compassionately towards others, and to project more positive than negative energy into the universe (for good karma).
Frimme Hersh writes a contract on a stone. Using it for moral support, he does his best to consistently be a good person. Frimme dies. Hmm... sounds like... life. Perhaps Frimme Hersh is simply... human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)