I have had a very special place in my heart for vampires ever since I first read Dracula back when I was in third grade. I read it over the course of several weeks during the morning bus ride to school. I have very fond memories of trying to read via streetlight in the early morning hours. I guess there is a reason why I wear glasses today. If you are thinking that Dracula is not exactly suitable material for a third-grade son of a rabbi, well I turned out the way that did for a reason.
To say that I like vampires does not mean that I particularly care for books and films about vampires which are by and large dreadful. The question is what did Dracula do right that has not, by and large, been reproduced by others? Keep in mind that I am talking about the Bram Stoker novel not any of the dozens of films that it spawned. The conclusions that I reached a long time ago were as following.
1) Vampires need to be satanic creatures. Dracula is irredeemably evil. He seeks to drink the blood of as many people as possible (particularly if they are beautiful women), change them into vampires and make them his servants. He is of interest in that he serves as the evil incarnate against which the characters in the story must come face to face with. Any attempt to give vampires redeeming virtues defeats the purpose and reduces the story to a helpless muddle. This is one of the problems with Ann Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, Interview with a Vampire and its sequels. Her main vampires Louis, Lestat and Armand seem to sift their modes of thinking from one page to the next. What do they think about killing humans and under what circumstances? Because of this one fails to connect to the character and the books become nothing more than a bloody mush.
2) Vampires require rules and limitations. Dracula is incredibly powerful. Besides for the fact that he is physically capable of overpowering any human, he can turn himself into a bat or a wolf and even travel as mist. Above all he is immortal. He cannot be killed or even harmed except by very specific means. That being said, Dracula operates under some very severe limitations. He cannot go out in the day. Sunlight is one of the things that can kill him. He must sleep every day in a coffin filled with earth from his native country. His reflection does not appear in mirrors. He cannot enter the dwellings of the living unless he has first been invited in. He can be repelled by garlic, crosses and holy water. Daylight will turn him into dust and ashes, but he can also be killed by a wooden stake hammered through his heart. Pretty much every vampire story I know of at some point goes into a litany of how most of what is said about vampires is a myth and then proceeds to get rid of various things just listed. The important thing is not so much that vampires operate specifically by these rules but that they have firmly set rules in place that limit what they can do and make it possible for humans to hurt them. Having rules in place changes the nature of the conflict and makes it more of a chess match rather than a formal fight. Abraham Van Helsing and the rest of the group that goes after Dracula do not physically fight him; they out-think him. Rather than seek Dracula in a head to head confrontation they go after his hiding places and try to flush him out. Rather than seek them out, Dracula lurks in the shadows and tries to go after their loved ones.
3) Vampires should not take center stage but should rather lurk in the background. This may come as a shock to those who have not read the book, but Dracula is not the main focus of the story and has very little actual “screen time.” He appears at the beginning of the book when Jonathan Harker comes to Transylvania to finalize the details of Dracula’s purchases of various estates in England and his move there. For the rest of the book, starting from when Dracula comes to England, he only appears in brief glimpses. The story is about Jonathan Harker, his wife Mina, Van Helsing, Dr. John Seward and others who come to take on Dracula. The book is written as an epistolary novel, a style of writing that has died out in modern times. It consists of letters and journal entries written by the various humans in the story. This pushes Dracula into the background. Where he affects the story not as a physical presence but as the unseen darkness.
Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are excellent examples of how to handle vampires. While there is a lot that one can criticize these series for (they do not compare to Firefly), the vampires, in of themselves, work perfectly.
While keeping all that I have said in mind, I would like to introduce you to the Cullen family of Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight series. So far three books have been written, Twilight, New Moon and Eclipse with more on the way. According to the Cullens’ cover story, Dr. Carlisle Cullen and his wife Esme, despite the fact that they appear to be only in their late twenties are the parents of five teenage children due to the fact that they adopted Esme’s three orphaned nieces and nephews, Edward, Alice and Emmett plus another two children Jasper and Rosalie. The truth is that they are a group of vampires who live together. They move every few years to a different place, preferably somewhere that is overcast most of the year, in order to hide the fact that none of them age. To make matters even more interesting, the Cullens live within several miles of an Indian reservation, which contains a number of werewolves who live in an uneasy truce with the Cullens.
This group of seven vampires tramples all over the first two rules. They are, to use their own expression, “vegetarian” vampires. They do not attack humans but instead live off of animals. The vampires in this series are not limited by the traditional vampire limitations. They are able to operate in daylight; they just glow in the sun. They do not sleep in coffins and they are able to enter the homes of the living without permission. Nothing has been said about garlic or crosses but I assume that these things also do not apply.
Despite all this, I absolutely adore these characters and cannot praise these books highly enough. If you have great characters then you can overcome almost any problem in a book. Meyer, like J.K Rowling, has that special gift to be able to write books that, while they may not be brilliant in any technical or critical sense, have an incredible charm to them and produce characters that absolutely hook you in. I would be the first to admit that Twilight’s plot is not particularly original. This story of a teenage girl who falls in love with a guy who turns out to be a non-lethal vampire has been done before. One particular example that comes to mind is the Vampire Diaries series. These books are very similar to Twilight. Vampire Diaries even has a werewolf making an appearance. It makes a very useful comparison in that the Vampire Diaries serves to demonstrate how easily Twilight could have gone wrong in the hands of a less talented author.
Twilight manages to violate the above-mentioned rules in ways that work to its advantage. The Cullen family struggle with their desire to kill in ways that make them feel very real and very human. My favorite part in the series so far, and the part that best exemplifies what these books are about, is in the first book when Edward is talking to Bella Swan, a girl he has fallen madly in love with, in a meadow and telling her that he is absolutely in love with her but that he also has an overwhelming desire to kill her and that even at this moment he is not sure if he is going to let her walk away alive. Despite the fact that I think Meyer has made her vampires too powerful to the extent that they almost become godlike, the Cullens manage to put enough personality to themselves that it makes up for their power. Since Meyer puts such a focus on the Cullens acting as human beings she manages to keep them from turning into gods.
While Twilight does not follow my first two rules it does keep the third one, it keeps the focus on a human character. The main character in the story is Bella and the story is told from her perspective using a first-person narrative. Meyer is so willing to entrust the story to Bella that she is even willing to allow the Cullens to drop out of the narrative for long stretches of time, including the majority of the second book. Meyer uses Edward’s absence to bring in Jacob Black, one of the Indian reservation’s resident werewolves, as competition for Bella’s affections. Twilight is tongue in cheek storytelling at its best. Yes it has a sense of humor to it and it plays up the absurdity of the situation, girl loves nice charming boy who happens to be a vampire and while we are at it why not throw in a well-behaved werewolf, for all it is worth. But above all else, this is a powerful love story the likes of which I have not seen in anything written recently.
Despite the hoards of Romance novels out there, it seems that few books succeed as love stories. Twilight is a rare breed in that it is about true unrequited love in all its selfless, irrational, all redeeming glory. Edward and Bella are two people who are compelled by their encounter with each other to be together despite the fact that this is most likely not going to have a happy ending and they both know it. As the ancients understood love is a form of madness; it is a beautiful madness but still madness.
While these books are not explicitly religious I would see them as textbook examples of how religious fiction should be written. These books are not preachy nor are they pushing a message. That being said these books are built around some very distinctive religious values. One of the most central themes underlining Twilight is the moral struggle to overcome one's natural desire and the willingness to deny oneself one's own deepest desires. We can view the vampires of the Cullen family, despite their many flaws, as being righteous and even heroic because they fight to overcome their baser natives and do not take the obvious cope out that they simply are what they are. To appreciate how important this is, keep in mind that we as a society have spent more than a century, one, playing down and even flat out denying the value of self-control; two, we have even gone so far as to turn the abandonment of self-control into a virtue and have declared self-control as the vice. Moral self-control is closely connected to chastity. As with the issue of moral self-control, Meyer does not set out to preach chastity, but she ends up delivering a strongly pro-chastity message simply by taking chastity seriously as a value. We are dealing with a love story now spanning three books in which the two central characters have not slept together despite the fact that guy regularly spends the night with the girl in her bedroom. Edward, as a vampire, does not ever sleep so he is in the habit of spending the night with Bella watching her sleep. Meyer is a religious Mormon so I assume none of this is an accident.
In looking ahead to future books in the series, the big question is will Bella end up becoming a vampire and the eighth member of the Cullen family. The book seems to be heading in that direction. Meyer has placed a long list of problems confronting her characters all of which seem to have the one commonality that their obvious solution seems to be to turn Bella. This though is probably going to turn out to lead to worse problems. Having Bella turn seems to offer the most intriguing possibilities. I would love to see the Cullens dragging Bella off to Alaska for a few years and try to teach her how to function as a vampire. It would be Bella who would now be the one in danger of going haywire. This would also offer a new round of Alice attempting to give Bella’s life a total makeover.
Well, now that Potter is finished I guess I have found a new series of books to really obsess over.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Non-Cycle of Violence
One of the major components of the modern day Left's understanding of conflicts is the notion of the cycle of violence. Group A attacks group B because group B had attacked them. Group B responds to the attack by group A by retaliating against group A which leads group A to carry out another attack against Group B. Thus a never ending cycle of attacks and counterattacks comes into being.
The most obvious example of this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli army attacks a Palestinian target because the Palestinians carried out a terrorist attack against Israelis. This leads to the Palestinians carrying out further attacks in order to avenge the "martyrs" killed by Israel. This creates a situation in which the conflict can go on forever. Both sides see themselves as being justified in carrying out their attacks as they are simply responding to what the other side has done to them. Not only do they feel justified in continuing the conflict but it becomes a moral imperative to do so. To make peace would be to allow those killed by the other side to die unavenged. One owes it to the dead to keep fighting.
This viewpoint is attractive to those on the Left for two reasons. The first reason is that the notion of a cycle of violence fits into the official statements given by both sides. Israel claims that they are responding to Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinians claim that they are responding to Israel's attacks. So if we take both sides at their word then we would have to conclude that both sides are responding to the violent acts of the other side and hence there is a cycle of violence. By using the cycle of violence model one can create a coherent narrative that takes both sides into account and rises above the biases of both sides. This last point is crucial to understanding the second reason for why the cycle of violence model is attractive, which is that this model fits into the Left's world view and suggests some distinctively leftist solutions. While both sides, in the cycle of violence model, may view themselves as being morally justified, in the end such a war becomes an irrational act of revenge. As such the war becomes morally unjustifiable from both perspectives. What is needed are enlightened individuals on both sides, unburdened by the past, who can see past the petty prejudices of their own side to come together and reject the call for violence and instead embrace peace. In essence the cycle of violence is the product of the sins of conservativism and demonstrates the failure of conservative values. The only path to salvation and the only possible moral decision is to reject the traditional values of conservatism and instead embrace liberalism.
A lot has been written by conservatives attacking the application of the cycle of violence model to the situation in Israel. I see the cycle of violence model as being flawed in its very conception of how it sees conflict. The problem is that, as those on the Left would gladly acknowledge, it is irrational to engage in a conflict simply to avenge those who are already dead. The only reason why a country would go to war and continue to fight it is if they believed that they had something to gain by it. Whether a country actually has something to gain by fighting is a different question. My concern here is in dealing with the perspectives of leaders of countries and various groups. My operational assumption is that the leaders of America, Israel and also that of the Palestinians and Hamas are rational beings who would only fight if they had something to gain by it.
When Israel carries out an attack it does so because it believes that such an act is in its interest. Israel may hope to eliminate an enemy leader, it may hope to weaken the Palestinian ability to fight back or it may hope simply to intimidate. The Palestinians likewise have something to gain by carrying out terrorist attacks. Such actions can bring attention to their cause, it can help rally the Arab world or it can simply intimidate Israel into making concessions.
The trap here is that this notion of acting for ones benefit often gets lost in official statements. In today's world it is not enough to portray oneself as acting in accordance with ones interest one has to portray ones side's actions as a moral cause. Each side therefore portrays themselves as acting in self defense and responding to the attacks of the other. The myth of a cycle of violence is thus created by reading both sides' official statements at face value and taking them to their logical conclusions.
The irony of the situation is that it is modern day liberalism that has created this problem. It is modern day liberalism which has insisted that politics must be a tool for strictly moral ends as opposed to simple self interest. In the end the Left becomes the victim of believing its own propaganda.As much as the Left would like to deny it. War usually is a rational activity carried out by rational individuals in pursuit of rational goals.
The most obvious example of this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli army attacks a Palestinian target because the Palestinians carried out a terrorist attack against Israelis. This leads to the Palestinians carrying out further attacks in order to avenge the "martyrs" killed by Israel. This creates a situation in which the conflict can go on forever. Both sides see themselves as being justified in carrying out their attacks as they are simply responding to what the other side has done to them. Not only do they feel justified in continuing the conflict but it becomes a moral imperative to do so. To make peace would be to allow those killed by the other side to die unavenged. One owes it to the dead to keep fighting.
This viewpoint is attractive to those on the Left for two reasons. The first reason is that the notion of a cycle of violence fits into the official statements given by both sides. Israel claims that they are responding to Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinians claim that they are responding to Israel's attacks. So if we take both sides at their word then we would have to conclude that both sides are responding to the violent acts of the other side and hence there is a cycle of violence. By using the cycle of violence model one can create a coherent narrative that takes both sides into account and rises above the biases of both sides. This last point is crucial to understanding the second reason for why the cycle of violence model is attractive, which is that this model fits into the Left's world view and suggests some distinctively leftist solutions. While both sides, in the cycle of violence model, may view themselves as being morally justified, in the end such a war becomes an irrational act of revenge. As such the war becomes morally unjustifiable from both perspectives. What is needed are enlightened individuals on both sides, unburdened by the past, who can see past the petty prejudices of their own side to come together and reject the call for violence and instead embrace peace. In essence the cycle of violence is the product of the sins of conservativism and demonstrates the failure of conservative values. The only path to salvation and the only possible moral decision is to reject the traditional values of conservatism and instead embrace liberalism.
A lot has been written by conservatives attacking the application of the cycle of violence model to the situation in Israel. I see the cycle of violence model as being flawed in its very conception of how it sees conflict. The problem is that, as those on the Left would gladly acknowledge, it is irrational to engage in a conflict simply to avenge those who are already dead. The only reason why a country would go to war and continue to fight it is if they believed that they had something to gain by it. Whether a country actually has something to gain by fighting is a different question. My concern here is in dealing with the perspectives of leaders of countries and various groups. My operational assumption is that the leaders of America, Israel and also that of the Palestinians and Hamas are rational beings who would only fight if they had something to gain by it.
When Israel carries out an attack it does so because it believes that such an act is in its interest. Israel may hope to eliminate an enemy leader, it may hope to weaken the Palestinian ability to fight back or it may hope simply to intimidate. The Palestinians likewise have something to gain by carrying out terrorist attacks. Such actions can bring attention to their cause, it can help rally the Arab world or it can simply intimidate Israel into making concessions.
The trap here is that this notion of acting for ones benefit often gets lost in official statements. In today's world it is not enough to portray oneself as acting in accordance with ones interest one has to portray ones side's actions as a moral cause. Each side therefore portrays themselves as acting in self defense and responding to the attacks of the other. The myth of a cycle of violence is thus created by reading both sides' official statements at face value and taking them to their logical conclusions.
The irony of the situation is that it is modern day liberalism that has created this problem. It is modern day liberalism which has insisted that politics must be a tool for strictly moral ends as opposed to simple self interest. In the end the Left becomes the victim of believing its own propaganda.As much as the Left would like to deny it. War usually is a rational activity carried out by rational individuals in pursuit of rational goals.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Stardust: On Being True to a Book
I am a very big fan of Neil Gaiman's work in general. He is one of this most consistently interesting writers in fantasy. So I was looking forward to the film adaption of his novel Stardust. The story deals with a young man named Tristran Thorn who lives in the town of Wall on the border between England and Faerie. Tristran attempts to woo the love of his life, Victoria, by promising her that he would bring her a fallen star. With that in mind, he crosses over the wall into Faerie. As with any decent work of fantasy though, things are not what they seem. The fallen star is a girl named Yvaine. To add to everything, Tristran is not the only person interested in Yvaine. There is a witch out to cut out Yvaine's heart in order to restore the youth and powers of her and her sisters. The witch has been given the last bits of her and her sister's youth, which makes her young again. As the story goes on and she has to do more and more magic she ages. In addition to the witches, there are the princes of Stormhold, who are after Yvaine for a jewel she carries which they need in order to gain the throne of Stormhold.
The film is a lot of fun. Maybe not at the level of Lord of the Rings, but it definitely matches up to Narnia or any of the Harry Potter films. What I would like to talk about here is not so much the films but how it was adapted.
When reading Stardust it occurred to me that it would be a very difficult story to do as a film since there are a number of different story lines to deal with. Any film version would have to take some extreme liberties with the story. In particular, I took it as a given that any film would change the ending, which is unfortunate because its a really powerful ending and not one that you would expect. (Spoiler Alert) In the book, the witch finally catches up to Yvaine and Tristran at the Faerie side of the border to England. The witch has at this point used up all of her magic and is now left old and powerless. The witch says to Yvaine: I see you and know that it is you but I can no longer sense your heart. Yvaine responds that the reason perhaps why she can no longer sense her heart is because she has given it to Tristran. Yvaine then kisses the witch on the forehead and walks on leaving the witch defeated and forced to face the wraith of her sisters but still very much alive. On reading this I thought no Hollywood film would leave an ending like this alone. They are going to have to stick in a final fight with the witch and have Tristran and Yvaine kill her. Guess what that is exactly what the film does. Instead of the book's final confrontation, the film has the witch finally capture Yvaine at the wall and takes her back to her sisters so they can cut out her heart. Tristran tracks them down and we have a very predictable special effects showdown in which the witch and her sisters are finally killed.
What is so wrong with an ending that has less special effects and more heart to it?
The film is a lot of fun. Maybe not at the level of Lord of the Rings, but it definitely matches up to Narnia or any of the Harry Potter films. What I would like to talk about here is not so much the films but how it was adapted.
When reading Stardust it occurred to me that it would be a very difficult story to do as a film since there are a number of different story lines to deal with. Any film version would have to take some extreme liberties with the story. In particular, I took it as a given that any film would change the ending, which is unfortunate because its a really powerful ending and not one that you would expect. (Spoiler Alert) In the book, the witch finally catches up to Yvaine and Tristran at the Faerie side of the border to England. The witch has at this point used up all of her magic and is now left old and powerless. The witch says to Yvaine: I see you and know that it is you but I can no longer sense your heart. Yvaine responds that the reason perhaps why she can no longer sense her heart is because she has given it to Tristran. Yvaine then kisses the witch on the forehead and walks on leaving the witch defeated and forced to face the wraith of her sisters but still very much alive. On reading this I thought no Hollywood film would leave an ending like this alone. They are going to have to stick in a final fight with the witch and have Tristran and Yvaine kill her. Guess what that is exactly what the film does. Instead of the book's final confrontation, the film has the witch finally capture Yvaine at the wall and takes her back to her sisters so they can cut out her heart. Tristran tracks them down and we have a very predictable special effects showdown in which the witch and her sisters are finally killed.
What is so wrong with an ending that has less special effects and more heart to it?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Jewish Jews and Irish Catholics
It is a generally accepted fact that Judaism is both a culture and a religion. This, of course, raises a host of issues. Where does Judaism as a religion end and Judaism as a culture begin? Is Judaism a racist religion? (This is a more complicated issue then traditional apologetics would indicate.) What should be the attitude of religious Jews to those Jews who do not practice Judaism at all or not to the extent deemed suitable by the individual? Who is a Jew? In what sense should Israel be a Jewish state and who should be eligible for the law of return?
I would suggest that these issues have less to do with Judaism in of itself, as a religion or as a culture, and is more a matter of linguistics and the fact that we lack large scale examples of the Jewish religion being practiced in the absence of Jewish culture. We do not have different words for being Jewish (cultural) and being Jewish (religion). This creates an ambiguity every time one uses the word Jew. Furthermore, since we do not have many non-cultural Jews practicing Judaism (People who convert to the Jewish religion tend to take on Jewish culture as well.) we simply take it as a given that practicing Judaism means being culturally Jewish as well. This needlessly confuses the issue and creates problems where none should exist.
Take the Irish for example. The Irish are a distinct cultural group. They have their own country (Ireland), they have their own language (Gaelic), and they have added their fair share of artists, poets, musicians, revolutionaries, scientists and intellectuals to the cause of Civilization. The Irish have their own history of being persecuted both within their homeland, at the hands of the British, and in this country. Today there are millions of Irishmen who do not live in Ireland but live in the Irish "Diaspora" in such places as Boston, New York City and Chicago. In addition to Irish culture, there is an Irish religion, Catholicism. Catholicism plays an important role in Irish history and one can even talk about Irish-Catholicism as a distinct school of thought. An Irishman's approach to Catholicism is not the same as a Spaniard's or an Italian's approach to Catholicism. And many of these differences come out of the distinct Irish experience. For example, Irish Catholicism has traditionally lacked the hostility to nationalism found in other Catholic countries. On the contrary, Irish Catholicism has always been strongly nationalistic. The reason for this was that Irish nationalism was a Catholic movement fighting against the Protestant English. Nationalism in France, Spain, and Italy, in contrast, was a secular movement that fought against the Catholic Church.
While Catholicism plays an important role in Irish culture, being Irish is clearly distinct from being Catholic and even from being Irish Catholic. There are Irish Protestants, Irish Muslims, Irish Buddhists, Irish Jews, and Irish Atheists. No one is going to object to an Irish Catholic telling an Irish Buddhist that he is not an Irish Catholic. This is a fairly simple issue not because Irish Catholicism is so different from the Jewish religion, but because we are used to thinking of Catholicism as something distinct from being Irish. We use two different words to describe Irishmen and Catholics and we are used to thinking about Catholicism outside of the context of Irish culture. The vast majority of Catholics are not Irish.
Since the largest concentration of Irishmen live in Ireland, it is perfectly reasonable for one to look at Ireland as the Irish homeland. It is perfectly reasonable for the government of Ireland to see itself as the protector of Irish culture and of Irishmen throughout the world. If the Irish government chose to offer citizenship to all those of Irish descent and they included non-Catholic Irishmen or people who only had Irish fathers no one would say that the Irish government is threatening Catholicism. Ireland is a secular, democratic country that happens to be 90% Catholic and has the highest per capita rate of church attendance in the Western world. The government is not a Catholic theocracy and it does not exist to advance the cause of Catholicism. Irish Catholics are free to be as Catholic as they wish. They do not have to marry non-Catholics or let them into their churches. The government is free to advance the cause of Irish culture and none of this has to have anything to do with Catholicism.
I would suggest that these issues have less to do with Judaism in of itself, as a religion or as a culture, and is more a matter of linguistics and the fact that we lack large scale examples of the Jewish religion being practiced in the absence of Jewish culture. We do not have different words for being Jewish (cultural) and being Jewish (religion). This creates an ambiguity every time one uses the word Jew. Furthermore, since we do not have many non-cultural Jews practicing Judaism (People who convert to the Jewish religion tend to take on Jewish culture as well.) we simply take it as a given that practicing Judaism means being culturally Jewish as well. This needlessly confuses the issue and creates problems where none should exist.
Take the Irish for example. The Irish are a distinct cultural group. They have their own country (Ireland), they have their own language (Gaelic), and they have added their fair share of artists, poets, musicians, revolutionaries, scientists and intellectuals to the cause of Civilization. The Irish have their own history of being persecuted both within their homeland, at the hands of the British, and in this country. Today there are millions of Irishmen who do not live in Ireland but live in the Irish "Diaspora" in such places as Boston, New York City and Chicago. In addition to Irish culture, there is an Irish religion, Catholicism. Catholicism plays an important role in Irish history and one can even talk about Irish-Catholicism as a distinct school of thought. An Irishman's approach to Catholicism is not the same as a Spaniard's or an Italian's approach to Catholicism. And many of these differences come out of the distinct Irish experience. For example, Irish Catholicism has traditionally lacked the hostility to nationalism found in other Catholic countries. On the contrary, Irish Catholicism has always been strongly nationalistic. The reason for this was that Irish nationalism was a Catholic movement fighting against the Protestant English. Nationalism in France, Spain, and Italy, in contrast, was a secular movement that fought against the Catholic Church.
While Catholicism plays an important role in Irish culture, being Irish is clearly distinct from being Catholic and even from being Irish Catholic. There are Irish Protestants, Irish Muslims, Irish Buddhists, Irish Jews, and Irish Atheists. No one is going to object to an Irish Catholic telling an Irish Buddhist that he is not an Irish Catholic. This is a fairly simple issue not because Irish Catholicism is so different from the Jewish religion, but because we are used to thinking of Catholicism as something distinct from being Irish. We use two different words to describe Irishmen and Catholics and we are used to thinking about Catholicism outside of the context of Irish culture. The vast majority of Catholics are not Irish.
Since the largest concentration of Irishmen live in Ireland, it is perfectly reasonable for one to look at Ireland as the Irish homeland. It is perfectly reasonable for the government of Ireland to see itself as the protector of Irish culture and of Irishmen throughout the world. If the Irish government chose to offer citizenship to all those of Irish descent and they included non-Catholic Irishmen or people who only had Irish fathers no one would say that the Irish government is threatening Catholicism. Ireland is a secular, democratic country that happens to be 90% Catholic and has the highest per capita rate of church attendance in the Western world. The government is not a Catholic theocracy and it does not exist to advance the cause of Catholicism. Irish Catholics are free to be as Catholic as they wish. They do not have to marry non-Catholics or let them into their churches. The government is free to advance the cause of Irish culture and none of this has to have anything to do with Catholicism.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Camping for Haredi Christians
During Tisha B'Av afternoon, I watched a documentary titled Jesus Camp. It was about a Christian fundamentalist summer camp. It was a scary film. You get to see kids being indoctrinated to reject evolution, global warming, and Harry Potter. These kids were being trained to missionize their friends and neighbors. You could just see, and this was the film's main point, an army of future Republican foot soldiers ready to go out and fight to ban abortion, put prayer back in public schools, nominate conservative judges and make this a "Christian" country.
I admit that this film scared me and made me uncomfortable, which was is what this film was supposed to do. But here is the difficult issue. What was it about the people in the film that bothered me? Was it that they are trying to turn this country into a theocracy or was it that their beliefs were so opposed to mine?
An atheist friend of mine, a while back, made the argument that the university allowing a group of anti-abortion protesters onto the campus violated the first amendment since these protesters were clearly Christians. His thinking was that because these people opposed abortion for religious reasons they were attempting to overthrow the separation between Church and State. I countered that if we were to follow through with his thinking then it would be almost impossible for a religious person to take an active role in politics. Religion tends to affect how you handle just about any issue in your life. In my mind, there is a difference between making a law that bans abortion and a law that says that people must go to church on Sundays. Abortion in of itself has nothing to do with advancing the cause of religion. It is quite plausible for one to be an atheist and still believe that abortion is murder and it is plausible for one to be a theist and be pro-choice.
To go back to our Christian summer camp, is there a difference between Christians seeking to be politically active as Christians and Christians seeking to create a theocracy. I admit that the line between these two is blurry nevertheless I believe that it is very real.
Saying that these people are out to create a theocracy is the easy way out. It means that you can force them out of the political arena and everyone will be protected from their "wrong" ideas. You have to ask yourself what are these people doing to force people to believe like they do? Unlike the kids in Palestinian summer camps, these kids are not being trained to use firearms or to kill unbelievers. What is the worst that they can do to me? Walk over to me and ask me if I believe in Jesus. Maybe they will succeed in putting prayer back in public schools and outlawing abortion. I may oppose such things but such policies do not interfere with my ability to live as a Jew and raise my kids as Jews. Living in a free society means having to put up with people whose ideas make you uncomfortable.
I admit that this film scared me and made me uncomfortable, which was is what this film was supposed to do. But here is the difficult issue. What was it about the people in the film that bothered me? Was it that they are trying to turn this country into a theocracy or was it that their beliefs were so opposed to mine?
An atheist friend of mine, a while back, made the argument that the university allowing a group of anti-abortion protesters onto the campus violated the first amendment since these protesters were clearly Christians. His thinking was that because these people opposed abortion for religious reasons they were attempting to overthrow the separation between Church and State. I countered that if we were to follow through with his thinking then it would be almost impossible for a religious person to take an active role in politics. Religion tends to affect how you handle just about any issue in your life. In my mind, there is a difference between making a law that bans abortion and a law that says that people must go to church on Sundays. Abortion in of itself has nothing to do with advancing the cause of religion. It is quite plausible for one to be an atheist and still believe that abortion is murder and it is plausible for one to be a theist and be pro-choice.
To go back to our Christian summer camp, is there a difference between Christians seeking to be politically active as Christians and Christians seeking to create a theocracy. I admit that the line between these two is blurry nevertheless I believe that it is very real.
Saying that these people are out to create a theocracy is the easy way out. It means that you can force them out of the political arena and everyone will be protected from their "wrong" ideas. You have to ask yourself what are these people doing to force people to believe like they do? Unlike the kids in Palestinian summer camps, these kids are not being trained to use firearms or to kill unbelievers. What is the worst that they can do to me? Walk over to me and ask me if I believe in Jesus. Maybe they will succeed in putting prayer back in public schools and outlawing abortion. I may oppose such things but such policies do not interfere with my ability to live as a Jew and raise my kids as Jews. Living in a free society means having to put up with people whose ideas make you uncomfortable.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Mourning the Destruction of the Temple
The afternoon is ticking bye and, in a few hours, it will all be over. I have a difficult relationship with the fast of Tisha B’Av. We are mourning the destruction of the Temple but what do we wish to accomplish? Are we hoping to rebuild the Temple? I have not bothered to go watch the Chofetz Chaim video presentation as it is the same every year. If we work on our smirat ha-lashon and some other flavor of the week issue then this horrible golus will soon be over and we can go back to those good old days. This may sound heretical but I have no particular desire to restore the Temple and those good old days. For one thing, as anyone who has bothered to read the Bible, the book of Maccabees and Josephus knows, the Temple periods were a mess. So we have no good old days to go back to. Of course, Haredim have the advantage of being able to ignore the Bible, Jewish History along with any other inconvenient body of information.
It is funny how all the talk is focused on the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. We always hear how we have been in golus for two thousand years. But what about the First Temple? As someone who loves the work of Isaac Abarbanel, this is particularly disturbing. Abarbanel was constantly arguing that the important destruction was the First Temple and that the Second Temple was of little to no importance. As such, we have been in golus for over 2500 years. This was important to Abarbanel because he had to argue against Christians who claimed that the promise to redeem the Jews was fulfilled with the Second Temple. Our focus on the Second Temple makes no theological sense.
Above all that though is the fact that I have no interest in animal sacrifice. I cannot imagine getting any sort of spiritual fulfillment out of it. People in biblical times may have been able to appreciate animal sacrifices and felt closer to God by doing so. I find Tehillim, classical music, and Heschel to be spiritually fulfilling. Killing animals no. Imagine if next Thursday you were to come into shul and after the reading of the Torah they would bring in a bull, slaughter it, and sprinkle its blood over the bimah. I would have a much easier time imagining services with strippers dancing around a pole, a mosh pit, and kegs of beer making me feel closer to God. Maybe our idol-worshipping ancestors back in those “good old days” were on to something.
Truth is, as a Maimonidean, I am free to believe that sacrifice is a less than ideal way to serve God and that in the future we are going to get rid of it. Of course, this Maimonidean side to me makes it all the more difficult for me to stomach speeches about how Moshiach is going to solve all our problems and that everything is going to be wonderful. When Moshiach comes life is going to continue as normal with all the normal human problems. Call me cynical but I have complete faith in today’s Jewry to have all the necessary sinat hinam that made the Second Temple so much fun. If only God would give us a Temple. I just cannot wait.
I suspect that even the most rabid Haredim understand this. My proof is that we have not tried to rebuild the Temple. The notion that we need Moshiach to rebuild the Temple as a lie. If we could come to a halachic decision as to where the altar and the kodosh ha’kodoshim are supposed to be, found ourselves a red heifer and a pure kohen then we can rebuild the Temple tomorrow. The fact that the Temple Mount movement has failed to become mainstream within Orthodox Judaism shows us that most Orthodox Jews today have no real interest in bringing back a sacrificial cult. Jewish theology has restructured itself and moved on.
I am going to wake up tomorrow to study and do as many mitzvoth as I can. I am a soldier in Hashem’s army and I will do my duty. Let Hashem worry about Moshiach and the end of days.
It is funny how all the talk is focused on the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. We always hear how we have been in golus for two thousand years. But what about the First Temple? As someone who loves the work of Isaac Abarbanel, this is particularly disturbing. Abarbanel was constantly arguing that the important destruction was the First Temple and that the Second Temple was of little to no importance. As such, we have been in golus for over 2500 years. This was important to Abarbanel because he had to argue against Christians who claimed that the promise to redeem the Jews was fulfilled with the Second Temple. Our focus on the Second Temple makes no theological sense.
Above all that though is the fact that I have no interest in animal sacrifice. I cannot imagine getting any sort of spiritual fulfillment out of it. People in biblical times may have been able to appreciate animal sacrifices and felt closer to God by doing so. I find Tehillim, classical music, and Heschel to be spiritually fulfilling. Killing animals no. Imagine if next Thursday you were to come into shul and after the reading of the Torah they would bring in a bull, slaughter it, and sprinkle its blood over the bimah. I would have a much easier time imagining services with strippers dancing around a pole, a mosh pit, and kegs of beer making me feel closer to God. Maybe our idol-worshipping ancestors back in those “good old days” were on to something.
Truth is, as a Maimonidean, I am free to believe that sacrifice is a less than ideal way to serve God and that in the future we are going to get rid of it. Of course, this Maimonidean side to me makes it all the more difficult for me to stomach speeches about how Moshiach is going to solve all our problems and that everything is going to be wonderful. When Moshiach comes life is going to continue as normal with all the normal human problems. Call me cynical but I have complete faith in today’s Jewry to have all the necessary sinat hinam that made the Second Temple so much fun. If only God would give us a Temple. I just cannot wait.
I suspect that even the most rabid Haredim understand this. My proof is that we have not tried to rebuild the Temple. The notion that we need Moshiach to rebuild the Temple as a lie. If we could come to a halachic decision as to where the altar and the kodosh ha’kodoshim are supposed to be, found ourselves a red heifer and a pure kohen then we can rebuild the Temple tomorrow. The fact that the Temple Mount movement has failed to become mainstream within Orthodox Judaism shows us that most Orthodox Jews today have no real interest in bringing back a sacrificial cult. Jewish theology has restructured itself and moved on.
I am going to wake up tomorrow to study and do as many mitzvoth as I can. I am a soldier in Hashem’s army and I will do my duty. Let Hashem worry about Moshiach and the end of days.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
A Final Goodbye to Harry Potter
I finished reading Deathly Hallows and am now coming to terms with the fact that this is the end. I feel personally indebted to J. K. Rowling for all the good times she has given me over the years. I got into the series when I was sixteen back in January of 2000. I waited along with millions of others for the fourth book, Goblet of Fire. I endured three years waiting for Order of the Phoenix and another two years for the Half-Blood Prince. Now, after waiting seven and a half years, the story has been told and it has run its course. Voldemort has been defeated and the survivors (the bodies do pile up in this book) go on to build new lives for themselves. As a final chapter, Rowling sticks in an epilogue taking place nineteen years down the road in which some of our favorite, and not so favorite, surviving Hogwarts students are now parents themselves taking their children to King's Cross station 9 3/4 to catch the train to Hogwarts.
I could not think of a more definitive way to end the series, barring going Dr. Strangelove on people. (Speaking of Dr. Strangelove, I would imagine he would particularly approve of Wormtail's fate.) The world has moved on and it is now time for a new generation of children to experience Hogwarts. The story of Harry, Ron, and Hermione is finished. The only purpose to be served by writing more Harry Potter adventures would be for the author to make more money. Not that I have a problem with authors making money. Rowling deserves every penny she has earned. The problem is that writing for the bottom line is seldom going to put out books that authors and fans of a series can be proud of. Look at Brian Jacques' Redwall series. I truly wish that it ended after six books. Instead, Jacques has simply told the same stories over and over again pouring out pale imitations of his first books. (I do recommend his early books though.) While there is nothing further to do with Harry, the wizarding world is a rich one and I for one would love to still explore it if the story is right. I am not sure though what kind of story would work. It would be tempting to do prequels about James Potter at Hogwarts. The problem though is that we already know the story of James Potter and his friends. Furthermore, such stories would lack a Voldemort to keep some purpose to the stories. Without Voldemort the stories would simply be repeats of the first two Potter books; kids at school getting into and dodging trouble.
In truth, I was always much more interested in the wizarding world itself than I was with Harry. In a sense, my biggest disappointment of the final four books was that Rowling did not do more with Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. The story remained firmly about Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I suspect though that Rowling may have done the right thing. Part of the charm of unexplored horizons is that they remain unexplored as unrequited desires.
I would never claim that Harry Potter is the greatest series of books ever written. If one wishes to put them under a critical lens one can find plenty to attack. If you doubt me read Prof. Harold Bloom. That being said, I have never had so much fun reading a series of books as I have had with Potter. I do not even know why this is the case, it defies logical analysis. I suspect people will be debating this issue for decades. What made Potter so special? There are plenty of fantasy writers out there who on the surface would seem to be as talented or even more so than Rowling. Take authors like Garth Nix (Abhorsen Trilogy and Keys to the Kingdom) and Phillip Pullman (His Dark Materials) for example. They both deal with similar types of material to what you find in Rowling and, on technical grounds, one can make a pretty good case that they are stronger writers than her. Neither of them has sold 300 million copies. They have written some great books, which I enjoyed immensely, but neither of them ever grabbed me the way that Potter's universe did.
Goodbye Harry and Thank You, J. K. Rowling.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Yeshiva Hogwarts: Why Wizards are Really Haredim
The wizarding world of Harry Potter, incredibly enough, is a lot like the Haredi world. To the extent that if you are not paying close attention you might easily confuse the two.
1. Wizards and Haredim both live in isolated communities, rejecting the modern world around them. They do this despite the fact that they often live in close physical proximity to some of the major cultural centers of the surrounding society.
2. They have their own legal systems handling the full life cycle of issues to the extent that it is expected that one would go from birth to death without making any recourse to the legal system of the outside world.
3. These communities have their own newspapers which focus on what is going on in the community while ignoring the outside world around them.
4. These communities have well-developed entertainment industries, particularly in regards to music, so that members of these communities usually know little about the popular entertainment culture.
5. Both groups send their children to special schools that focus on subjects of interest to themselves but not people outside their communities.
6. Neither of their school systems have much use for math, science or literature. As a result graduates of these school systems do not have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
7. On a good day members of these communities dress as if they were living in the nineteenth century. Other times one would think they had gone all the way back to the Middle-Ages.
8. Most of the men sport long unkempt beards.
9. These are both very bookish cultures, particularly for large volumes of arcane knowledge.
10. Neither of these groups seems to have much use for movies and television. Radio seems to be the furthest they go.
This raises an interesting issue as to the nature of the wizarding world. We know why Haredim live as they do. They view the outside world as a cultural and theological menace to themselves and believe that the only way to preserve their way of life is to isolate themselves as much as possible. Why does the wizarding world isolate itself? Most wizards are unable to operate within the Muggle world. Even Arthur Weasley, who studies Muggles as a hobby, has trouble with basic things like handling money. We are told by Hagrid, back in the Philosopher’s Stone, that the Muggles needed to be kept unaware of the existence of the wizarding world because if people knew about magic they would constantly bother wizards to solve their problems for them instead of handling it themselves. This though does not explain why wizards, for the most part, do not live as Muggles. The wizarding world does not seem to have any special beliefs unique to themselves. They do not appear to have any formal religion. What purpose is served by them going off and living as their own society? This something that J.K Rowling has never explained.
1. Wizards and Haredim both live in isolated communities, rejecting the modern world around them. They do this despite the fact that they often live in close physical proximity to some of the major cultural centers of the surrounding society.
2. They have their own legal systems handling the full life cycle of issues to the extent that it is expected that one would go from birth to death without making any recourse to the legal system of the outside world.
3. These communities have their own newspapers which focus on what is going on in the community while ignoring the outside world around them.
4. These communities have well-developed entertainment industries, particularly in regards to music, so that members of these communities usually know little about the popular entertainment culture.
5. Both groups send their children to special schools that focus on subjects of interest to themselves but not people outside their communities.
6. Neither of their school systems have much use for math, science or literature. As a result graduates of these school systems do not have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
7. On a good day members of these communities dress as if they were living in the nineteenth century. Other times one would think they had gone all the way back to the Middle-Ages.
8. Most of the men sport long unkempt beards.
9. These are both very bookish cultures, particularly for large volumes of arcane knowledge.
10. Neither of these groups seems to have much use for movies and television. Radio seems to be the furthest they go.
This raises an interesting issue as to the nature of the wizarding world. We know why Haredim live as they do. They view the outside world as a cultural and theological menace to themselves and believe that the only way to preserve their way of life is to isolate themselves as much as possible. Why does the wizarding world isolate itself? Most wizards are unable to operate within the Muggle world. Even Arthur Weasley, who studies Muggles as a hobby, has trouble with basic things like handling money. We are told by Hagrid, back in the Philosopher’s Stone, that the Muggles needed to be kept unaware of the existence of the wizarding world because if people knew about magic they would constantly bother wizards to solve their problems for them instead of handling it themselves. This though does not explain why wizards, for the most part, do not live as Muggles. The wizarding world does not seem to have any special beliefs unique to themselves. They do not appear to have any formal religion. What purpose is served by them going off and living as their own society? This something that J.K Rowling has never explained.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Name of the Wind
I happen to be a very big fan of Orson Scott Card's books, particularly Ender's Game and the two series of books that it spawned. He regularly publishes reviews on various things of interest on his website http://www.hatrack.com/. I enjoy his take on things and take his recommendations very seriously and with very good cause. You can blame him for making me a Browncoat. He said that Firefly was the greatest piece of science-fiction ever to hit the screen and I took him up on it. It was also due to his recommendation that I read Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. Sure enough Jonathan Strange was every bit as good Card said it was. This brings us to Name of the Wind, part one of the perspective King Killer Trilogy, by Patrick Rothfuss. And again I can only echo Card in proclaiming this to be one of the best things to hit fantasy as of late. (Lets leave off the discussion of a certain book to be published July 21.)
Name of the Wind shares certain similarities to Jonathan Strange and I suspect they will appeal to the same crowd. They have very academic senses of humor. Academic, not in the prissy sense, but more in terms of satirizing academia. These are both very atypical works of fantasy in that in both of them the fantasy element almost becomes incidental. A reader could very easily forget that he is reading fantasy. (Jonathan Strange in fact won the Hugo Award for best science-fiction in 2005.) While both of these books deal with the study of magic, they approach magic from an almost science-fiction like perspective. These books are both, above anything else, centered around the creation of well drawn characters. In terms of character these books can hold their own with anything from any genre of literature. One cannot read these books and say that the genre of fantasy has no place as high literature.
Rothfuss is in a very selective league of sword and sorcery fantasy authors in that he has learned all the right lessons from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. This book is not about dark lords, major quests and apocalyptic battles or about wizards and dragons. (There is a dragon in the book but it is more of a dinosaur like creature than a mythological one.) Rothfuss though, probably better then anyone besides for Tolkien, offers that sense of unexplored horizons. The world of Name of the Wind has very rich mythology which Rothfuss only gives glimpses of.
As to what this story is about. I will not be able to do it proper justice and what I say will fail to properly capture the spirit of the book. It is the life story of Kvothe, a famous hero now living under an assumed name in a small village, being told to over a three day span to a chronicler who tracked Kvothe down. Name of the Wind is day one. It covers his childhood as a member of a traveling theater group, how he was orphaned and came to live on the streets and his teenage years studying magic at the university. (I know what you are thinking orphan boy who goes to study magic, sounds like Potter. This is a very different sort book from Potter. Kvothe is not Harry and the University is not Hogwarts.) So far this book has set up an incredible love story which I assume is going to end tragically. It has some great action and a wonderful sense of humor about itself. But above everything else I love these characters and I cannot wait to get more of them.
Since I will not have Potter to be waiting for in another few days its nice to know that I will have another book that I will have to count the days until publication for.
Name of the Wind shares certain similarities to Jonathan Strange and I suspect they will appeal to the same crowd. They have very academic senses of humor. Academic, not in the prissy sense, but more in terms of satirizing academia. These are both very atypical works of fantasy in that in both of them the fantasy element almost becomes incidental. A reader could very easily forget that he is reading fantasy. (Jonathan Strange in fact won the Hugo Award for best science-fiction in 2005.) While both of these books deal with the study of magic, they approach magic from an almost science-fiction like perspective. These books are both, above anything else, centered around the creation of well drawn characters. In terms of character these books can hold their own with anything from any genre of literature. One cannot read these books and say that the genre of fantasy has no place as high literature.
Rothfuss is in a very selective league of sword and sorcery fantasy authors in that he has learned all the right lessons from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. This book is not about dark lords, major quests and apocalyptic battles or about wizards and dragons. (There is a dragon in the book but it is more of a dinosaur like creature than a mythological one.) Rothfuss though, probably better then anyone besides for Tolkien, offers that sense of unexplored horizons. The world of Name of the Wind has very rich mythology which Rothfuss only gives glimpses of.
As to what this story is about. I will not be able to do it proper justice and what I say will fail to properly capture the spirit of the book. It is the life story of Kvothe, a famous hero now living under an assumed name in a small village, being told to over a three day span to a chronicler who tracked Kvothe down. Name of the Wind is day one. It covers his childhood as a member of a traveling theater group, how he was orphaned and came to live on the streets and his teenage years studying magic at the university. (I know what you are thinking orphan boy who goes to study magic, sounds like Potter. This is a very different sort book from Potter. Kvothe is not Harry and the University is not Hogwarts.) So far this book has set up an incredible love story which I assume is going to end tragically. It has some great action and a wonderful sense of humor about itself. But above everything else I love these characters and I cannot wait to get more of them.
Since I will not have Potter to be waiting for in another few days its nice to know that I will have another book that I will have to count the days until publication for.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Abarbanel on the Parsha: Maatos
In this week's parsha we read about (Numbers 31:1-13) the war with the Midianites over the fact that they sent their women to seduce the children of Israel and to get them to worship Baal Peor. The famous question about this episode is why did God not also command Moshe to fight against Moab for their role in the Baal Peor incident and for hiring Bilaam.
Abarbanel makes the argument that contrary to the plain meaning of the text, Moab was not involved with the Baal Peor incident. Baalak, the king of Moab, having seen that his efforts to have Bilaam curse the children of Israel had failed, went home in peace and decided not to engage in any further action against the Jewish people. Bilaam though decided to continue the campaign on his own and got the Midianites to go after the children of Israel. In order to protect themselves though, the Midianites pretended that they were Moabites.
For me the idea that Baalak abandoned his campaign against the children of Israel is interesting as it is an example of how we do not always have to battle our enemies to the death. Our enemies are not always Satanic beings determined to fight us to the end but are rational human beings willing to make peace if it is in their interest to do so. Then again though their are some enemies who hate us beyond reason and who will continue to fight us to either we are dead or they are.
Abarbanel makes the argument that contrary to the plain meaning of the text, Moab was not involved with the Baal Peor incident. Baalak, the king of Moab, having seen that his efforts to have Bilaam curse the children of Israel had failed, went home in peace and decided not to engage in any further action against the Jewish people. Bilaam though decided to continue the campaign on his own and got the Midianites to go after the children of Israel. In order to protect themselves though, the Midianites pretended that they were Moabites.
For me the idea that Baalak abandoned his campaign against the children of Israel is interesting as it is an example of how we do not always have to battle our enemies to the death. Our enemies are not always Satanic beings determined to fight us to the end but are rational human beings willing to make peace if it is in their interest to do so. Then again though their are some enemies who hate us beyond reason and who will continue to fight us to either we are dead or they are.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Harry Potter’s Army
I went to see Order of the Phoenix today. There are certain advantages to being friends with the Minister of Magic. You get to see certain movies two days before all the regular muggles. In addition, being friends with the Ministry and its agents, as this film amply demonstrates, is good for the continued health of your hands. So let me raise my hand in salute to Imelda Staunton for playing what is most probably the freakiest villainess in a pink cardigan. We must have order and one must respect those in authority particularly if they have nice little smiles and nice little tittering laughs. One of the main weaknesses of the previous films has been that they rested completely on the shoulders of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. This was a task that, particularly in the first two films, proved to be more then they could handle. (Though they certainly have improved with age.) This was particularly frustrating considering all the talent that was being left to rot in glorified cameo roles. This is the first film in the series in which one of the adults gets to really grab the limelight.
I was pleasantly surprised by Luna Lovegood. I had assumed that, considering the fact that we are dealing with an 870 page book condensed into a two hour film, she would be all but completely removed from the film. A true pity as I happen to love her character. Not only is Luna a major character in the film, with a role almost on par with Ron and Hermione, but they even created two scenes, not from the book, with Harry talking to Luna. Evanna Lynch, with her dreamy voice, captures the role perfectly. She is one kid to come out of Harry Potter so far whom I would really be interested in seeing in post-Potter roles. I would have also loved to have gotten more of Tonks, but that was not to be. Natalia Tena though does a good job with the little that she is given.
The fight at the ministry was brilliantly conceived. I was disappointed though by dual between Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort. The film does not have the statues coming to life to fight Voldemort. Another thing that annoyed me was Grawp. I did not really care too much for him in the books, but in the film he looks like the guy from MAD.
All in all this is the best of the films so far. Oh well ten days to go before Deathly Hollows and I sure am all Pottered up.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A Response to a Critic of my Aspie Posts II
I admit that I have very mixed feelings in regard to the issue of Aspie rights and tolerance toward Aspies. I feel like a Democrat who denounces Republican tax cuts but then insists on getting his refund. There is nothing unreasonable about this. You may believe that such tax cuts are a mistake and even an absolute disaster but if they are being given out then what is wrong with getting on line and demanding your share. I oppose multiculturalism and diversity at least how they are practiced by the left today. I believe in protecting people’s physical well being. I do not care if people’s feelings get hurt or if they do not feel validated by the rest of society. The very notion that people should be protected from the emotional trauma of being exposed to beliefs they oppose strikes me as a mortal threat to the free society. If race, skin color and sexual orientation really do not matter then they should not matter. If no one can suffer for these things then no one should benefit from them either. If society is allowed to give benefits to people for these things then they should also be allowed to discriminate against those same people. For me, a free society is one in which everyone can say offensive things to everyone else and everyone has to learn to be tolerant of everyone else.
Of course, once we are going to be playing the diversity game then I want to get every possible benefit. If the government, schools, and businesses are, in the name of diversity, going to give certain preferences to people because of their race, skin color or sexual orientation and do everything to make them feel validated then I want those same preferences and validation for the type of diversity I bring. I am an Aspie I have my own unique perspective, therefore, I should be given preferences and made to feel validated.
I am not some sort of Aspie radical. I do not believe that Aspies should be allowed to do whatever they want without any societal interference. Man is a political animal, we are not autonomous beings living on desert islands. This applies to Aspies and to everyone else. Many people may find Aspie behavior offensive and I am not saying they are wrong. Many people may find homosexual behavior to be offensive and I am not saying that they are wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. When you say that Aspies have to listen to what other people tell them how are you different than the people who say that homosexuals have to listen to what other people tell them.
On a side note. I admit that I often lack due diligence in regards to my grammar. Feel free to point out any mistakes that I make.
Of course, once we are going to be playing the diversity game then I want to get every possible benefit. If the government, schools, and businesses are, in the name of diversity, going to give certain preferences to people because of their race, skin color or sexual orientation and do everything to make them feel validated then I want those same preferences and validation for the type of diversity I bring. I am an Aspie I have my own unique perspective, therefore, I should be given preferences and made to feel validated.
I am not some sort of Aspie radical. I do not believe that Aspies should be allowed to do whatever they want without any societal interference. Man is a political animal, we are not autonomous beings living on desert islands. This applies to Aspies and to everyone else. Many people may find Aspie behavior offensive and I am not saying they are wrong. Many people may find homosexual behavior to be offensive and I am not saying that they are wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. When you say that Aspies have to listen to what other people tell them how are you different than the people who say that homosexuals have to listen to what other people tell them.
On a side note. I admit that I often lack due diligence in regards to my grammar. Feel free to point out any mistakes that I make.
Friday, July 6, 2007
A Response to a Critic of my Aspie Posts I
Your sense of humor is remarkable. The following is a quote from your tongue in cheek essay."Anyone who uses the term “Asperger Syndrome” should be viewed as a bigot. They are implying that my state of being is somehow less than completely human and are robbing me of my humanity. Any attempt on the part of the psychiatric community to “cure” us or make us less Aspie like should be viewed as Nazism. Furthermore, society should be made to be more tolerant of us Aspies. We should not have to act in a less Aspie fashion."
You have taken me out of context. What I tried to do with these two pieces on Asperger Syndrome was to take the same logic used by the Gay rights movement and apply it to “Aspie rights.” I believe that the arguments used presently by the Gay rights movement, particularly the notion that homosexuality is a state of being and that any opposition to a homosexual act is, therefore, a denial of being and therefore bigotry, to be fallacious. I have therefore offered a reductio ad absurdum argument against this belief.
I am a supporter of Gay rights simply on libertarian grounds. I believe in keeping the government out of people’s bedrooms. A person should be able to sleep with another consenting person without the government’s interference. (I suspect that I am far more consistent in this belief than most people on the cultural left, but this can be something for another time.) The limitation of the libertarian argument though is that it does not extend outside of the government into society. The same government which I want kept out of people sex lives I also want kept out of people’s religious taboos and their petty likes and dislikes. People have the right to follow religions that ban certain actions and they have the right to find certain types of behavior repellent. They may not have the right to enforce those beliefs on others, but, on the other hand, they have the freedom of association to choose to have or not have dealings with such people and they do not have to give them jobs.
People should be free to follow religions that say that homosexuality is a sinful act. They should be free to find homosexual behavior abhorrent. While I have no intention of allowing our government to be turned into an anti-homosexual theocracy, I have no intention of making social conservatives like homosexuals or give them jobs. If someone does not want to give a homosexual a job then that is his concern. By the same token, no one has to like Aspies or give them jobs. If you find me annoying then you are free to openly dislike me. If you so happen to be on the hiring committee at a university to which I seek employment feel free to reject me.
Ultimately I think we are in agreement that it is my obligation to adapt to society; society does not have to adapt to me. In the future, when I have to go in for a job interview I will do my best to make sure that my clothes do match and that my shirt is tucked in. All the years of my mother prodding have to be good for something.
More to follow …
You have taken me out of context. What I tried to do with these two pieces on Asperger Syndrome was to take the same logic used by the Gay rights movement and apply it to “Aspie rights.” I believe that the arguments used presently by the Gay rights movement, particularly the notion that homosexuality is a state of being and that any opposition to a homosexual act is, therefore, a denial of being and therefore bigotry, to be fallacious. I have therefore offered a reductio ad absurdum argument against this belief.
I am a supporter of Gay rights simply on libertarian grounds. I believe in keeping the government out of people’s bedrooms. A person should be able to sleep with another consenting person without the government’s interference. (I suspect that I am far more consistent in this belief than most people on the cultural left, but this can be something for another time.) The limitation of the libertarian argument though is that it does not extend outside of the government into society. The same government which I want kept out of people sex lives I also want kept out of people’s religious taboos and their petty likes and dislikes. People have the right to follow religions that ban certain actions and they have the right to find certain types of behavior repellent. They may not have the right to enforce those beliefs on others, but, on the other hand, they have the freedom of association to choose to have or not have dealings with such people and they do not have to give them jobs.
People should be free to follow religions that say that homosexuality is a sinful act. They should be free to find homosexual behavior abhorrent. While I have no intention of allowing our government to be turned into an anti-homosexual theocracy, I have no intention of making social conservatives like homosexuals or give them jobs. If someone does not want to give a homosexual a job then that is his concern. By the same token, no one has to like Aspies or give them jobs. If you find me annoying then you are free to openly dislike me. If you so happen to be on the hiring committee at a university to which I seek employment feel free to reject me.
Ultimately I think we are in agreement that it is my obligation to adapt to society; society does not have to adapt to me. In the future, when I have to go in for a job interview I will do my best to make sure that my clothes do match and that my shirt is tucked in. All the years of my mother prodding have to be good for something.
More to follow …
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)