Moving on from Asami Sato's dire situation, let's take a look at the general political situation in Republic City at the end of the first season of The Legend of Korra. Though the crisis with Amon has been resolved and Korra has claimed her place as the Avatar not just through providence but through deeds, the general situation in Republic City is still marked by a lot of uncertainty and problems that are likely to escalate unless they are handled deftly.
The main lens for this analysis is the bender/non-bender split, which incorporates problems surrounding technological development, political structure, and the risk of a wide-spread ressentiment for both sides. Before going deeper into the situation, it should be mentioned that obviously there are plenty of people and families who exist in the middle and have no problems with either group, but since this is a political analysis, such nuance will of course be completely ignored.
At the end of the first season, Korra and her friends have defeated Amon and the Equalists, while the rather fascistic Tarrlok is dead, leaving the governing council of Republic City in wise hands that do not approve of oppression of non-benders. So, to quote a dancing demon in Buffy: big smiles everyone. You beat the bad guy.
But if we look at the bender population, what have they learned through the conflict with the Equalists? That they are, for the first time, vulnerable to attack from non-benders. As we have seen throughout both The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, benders are a bit of a privileged class, being the go-to group for the military, law enforcement and rulers of different stature are often benders. Though well-organized groups of non-benders could have created a danger in the past using bows and sneak attacks, I daresay that the Equalists were the first group that had the methods and the means to defeat benders regularly, through the equalizing effect of technology. Thus, I would claim that the general bender population are in a state of greater uncertainty after the defeat of the Equalists than before they came onto the scene. The form this uncertainty will take in practice is of course up for debate. I would claim that, since it was revealed that the main non-bender in the Equalist organization (Amon himself being revealed as a bender) was the industrialist Hiroshi Sato and that technology was used with great effects against the bender-based police and military, the benders of Republic City will react negatively towards technology itself and start pushing to keep technology out of the hands of non-benders and restrict technological advancement to keep their privileged position.
The non-benders, on the other hand, had a lot of understandable resentment that obviously generated significant support for the Equalists under Amon, and the behaviour of the Republic City government in response to the Equalist threat most likely reinforced that resentment against discrimination of non-benders. The reveal that Amon was actually a bender himself probably reinforced resentment against benders as well, since it could lead them to think that benders consider them pawns in their own power games. At the same time, the Equalist success and use of technology will probably make more non-benders realise the potential of it. As we could see in the beginning of the series there are bender mobs running protection rackets against non-benders - the existence of the Equalist technology will thus most likely lead to the rise of non-bender businessmen banding together to protect themselves. If the Republic City government tries to restrict the electro-gloves and other offensive technology, that would probably mean that these group would be extra-legal in nature and, as such things go, create the foundation of a shadow economy and more deeply entrenched mafias such as the Cosa Nostra.
The advances of technology also means that there is less reason for the police and military occupations to be exclusive to benders, so non-benders would probably push for those to open up (with corresponding opposition by those wanting to keep bender privilege).
Taken together, this balance presents a formidable dilemma for the Republic City government. In our world, of course, we have plenty of examples to draw from where a previously protected and privileged class (the aristocracy) got threatened and overtaken by a rich merchant class (the bourgeoisie), but in the world of Avatar, there really is an innate difference between bender and non-bender, which might well lead to more problems.
We'll see how much of these problems actually show up in the series.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
The end of season one of The Legend of Korra and Asami
Or: what the hell did they just do to this poor character?
The Legend of Korra, for those who don't know, is the sequel series to Avatar: The Last Airbender, but with an older audience. It follows the adventures of the new avatar, Korra, in the steampunky Republic City. This post, however, focuses on the situation of Asami, one of Korra's friends who help her in the final battle. Asami's father, Hiroshi Sato, is one of the main villains of the series, who has been supplying Amon's forces with weapons and equipment under the guise of his industrial empire.
Sato is one of, if not the, wealthiest people in Republic City before the end of the first season, and Asami has grown up in privilege (though without her mother, whose death created the impetus for Sato's later villainy) and wealth. During the first season, she also gets together with Mako, who is a hot firebender.
At the end of the first season, however, Asami loses everything: her boyfriend leaves her for Korra, together with Korra and her friends, they arrest Asami's father, and the Equalists are defeated and with them all the equipment Sato's company has been supplying them with. I'll ignore the heartbreak here, because the series dwelt enough on that.
So where does that leave Asami? Her mother is dead and her father is in jail. The company that her father built from the ground up and which she was going to take over in the future will almost certainly be taken over by the Republic City authorities and sold off to pay for the destruction that the Equalists wrought. Her father's wealth, which has kept her in comfort until now, will most likely also be used to pay for damages, since he was personally involved in the Equalists' struggle. So that would leave her with no source of money and without a family, which is quite grim.
There are some possible bright spots, however; she might have received money in the past from her father, like in the form of a trust or in gifts that are thus legitimately her own (any money that she has been given recently might be taken from her on account of laws meant to prevent criminals from giving all their wealth to their families so it can't be seized). This would presumably include her car, all her clothes, and probably quite a lot of other sundry items. In addition, in the legal wrangling following the break-up of Sato's company and resources, it's possible that it will turn out that he owned other companies that were not involved in the Equalists' operation. Given Sato's immense personal wealth, it is possible that after the damages he owes are paid, he will still retain ownership of these companies (that is unless he is also found personally liable for the damages caused by his main company, in which case I don't see any way for him to pay all of that off), which would probably be left in the care of Asami. Not an easy position to be in, to be sure, but not quite as dire as having no family, no money, and no boyfriend (though still with a top-notch education and wicked car).
Personally, I would like to see Asami being left with a car shop and using it as the base to start rebuilding the Sato industrial empire. I know I won't get my wish, but I think that would be fun to see.
Now, you might wonder who would benefit from the break-up of the Sato empire, who will be in the perfect situation to accept new government contracts for rebuilding the city, and who will buy up Sato resources under their free market value - and of course it could only be the guy who always comes up on top:
I hope things will go better for Asami in the second season, I think she deserves it.
The Legend of Korra, for those who don't know, is the sequel series to Avatar: The Last Airbender, but with an older audience. It follows the adventures of the new avatar, Korra, in the steampunky Republic City. This post, however, focuses on the situation of Asami, one of Korra's friends who help her in the final battle. Asami's father, Hiroshi Sato, is one of the main villains of the series, who has been supplying Amon's forces with weapons and equipment under the guise of his industrial empire.
Sato is one of, if not the, wealthiest people in Republic City before the end of the first season, and Asami has grown up in privilege (though without her mother, whose death created the impetus for Sato's later villainy) and wealth. During the first season, she also gets together with Mako, who is a hot firebender.
At the end of the first season, however, Asami loses everything: her boyfriend leaves her for Korra, together with Korra and her friends, they arrest Asami's father, and the Equalists are defeated and with them all the equipment Sato's company has been supplying them with. I'll ignore the heartbreak here, because the series dwelt enough on that.
So where does that leave Asami? Her mother is dead and her father is in jail. The company that her father built from the ground up and which she was going to take over in the future will almost certainly be taken over by the Republic City authorities and sold off to pay for the destruction that the Equalists wrought. Her father's wealth, which has kept her in comfort until now, will most likely also be used to pay for damages, since he was personally involved in the Equalists' struggle. So that would leave her with no source of money and without a family, which is quite grim.
There are some possible bright spots, however; she might have received money in the past from her father, like in the form of a trust or in gifts that are thus legitimately her own (any money that she has been given recently might be taken from her on account of laws meant to prevent criminals from giving all their wealth to their families so it can't be seized). This would presumably include her car, all her clothes, and probably quite a lot of other sundry items. In addition, in the legal wrangling following the break-up of Sato's company and resources, it's possible that it will turn out that he owned other companies that were not involved in the Equalists' operation. Given Sato's immense personal wealth, it is possible that after the damages he owes are paid, he will still retain ownership of these companies (that is unless he is also found personally liable for the damages caused by his main company, in which case I don't see any way for him to pay all of that off), which would probably be left in the care of Asami. Not an easy position to be in, to be sure, but not quite as dire as having no family, no money, and no boyfriend (though still with a top-notch education and wicked car).
Personally, I would like to see Asami being left with a car shop and using it as the base to start rebuilding the Sato industrial empire. I know I won't get my wish, but I think that would be fun to see.
Now, you might wonder who would benefit from the break-up of the Sato empire, who will be in the perfect situation to accept new government contracts for rebuilding the city, and who will buy up Sato resources under their free market value - and of course it could only be the guy who always comes up on top:
I hope things will go better for Asami in the second season, I think she deserves it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
What I'm hopeful about regarding Girl Genius
Girl Genius (first comic) is a webcomic by Phil and Kaja Foglio, of various geek comic (and Magic art) fame. It's also one of my most beloved comics, being about a faux-18th/19th century where MAD SCIENCE rules Europa (and the rest of the world, but we haven't seen any of that), which contains a sunken Britannia, the Wulfenbach Empire keeping the peace with the iron fist and a whole lot of mad scientists (sparks) and other freaks of nature ("An abomination of science that CURDLES THE MILK OF ALL HONEST MEN!" "Well, aren't we all?" "Oh, I SAY, sir!"). But apart from all that, and the amazon princesses, pirate queens, dark secrets, darker secrets, and the mystery of Airman Higgs, what's important is that Agatha currently has 2 beaus. One is Gilgamesh Wulfenbach and the other is Tarvek Stormvoraus, rivals and both scions of mighty empires and/or secret conspiracies. As the links make clear, they both have their qualities, but Gil still remains the favourite.
However, what I hope for is that she'll end up with both. And not one after the other, both at the same time. Why am I hoping for polyamory here? Because it's not really the type of relationship that shows up a lot in even slightly mainstream fiction (and given the number of Hugos Girl Genius has received (three in a row, before taking themselves out of the running) it's... sort of mainstream?), and more importantly, there is a non-trivial chance that it will happen! Why would I expect it from the Foglios? One, the possibility has been acknowledged in the comic itself. Second, the characters aren't tearing their hair excessively about various entanglements (which makes sense since she's not actually in a relationship with either of them yet) which gives some hope that whatever relationship she will end up in will be a healthy one. Third, Phil Foglio wrote XXXenophile, which, as the name might hint at, is an erotic comic. More importantly, it's an erotic comic that is sex-positive, and includes pretty much any consensual relationship configuration you can think of.
In addition, since the characters are pretty much equals and respect each other (and the authors seem to respect them), it would most likely be a positive depiction of a polyamorous relationship between equal partners. And though a webcomic (it's also available in physical form) isn't the grandest of stages, every little step helps.
However, what I hope for is that she'll end up with both. And not one after the other, both at the same time. Why am I hoping for polyamory here? Because it's not really the type of relationship that shows up a lot in even slightly mainstream fiction (and given the number of Hugos Girl Genius has received (three in a row, before taking themselves out of the running) it's... sort of mainstream?), and more importantly, there is a non-trivial chance that it will happen! Why would I expect it from the Foglios? One, the possibility has been acknowledged in the comic itself. Second, the characters aren't tearing their hair excessively about various entanglements (which makes sense since she's not actually in a relationship with either of them yet) which gives some hope that whatever relationship she will end up in will be a healthy one. Third, Phil Foglio wrote XXXenophile, which, as the name might hint at, is an erotic comic. More importantly, it's an erotic comic that is sex-positive, and includes pretty much any consensual relationship configuration you can think of.
In addition, since the characters are pretty much equals and respect each other (and the authors seem to respect them), it would most likely be a positive depiction of a polyamorous relationship between equal partners. And though a webcomic (it's also available in physical form) isn't the grandest of stages, every little step helps.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
How to whiff on queer issues in video games - Persona 4 edition
Disclaimer: I have not actually played Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, but I have seen it played for 60-odd hours, which naturally included most of the story elements.
Persona 4 has the potential to be a wonderful game from a queer perspective, as it raises interesting questions about masculinity, femininity, homosexuality, and trans* issues. It's set in a high school and town in Japan and features a cast of eight main characters. The characters who are most interesting in light of these issues are Kanji Tatsumi and Naoto Shirogane. Kanji is a bad-ass who beats up bike gangs and gets hassled by cops because of his attitude. He also loves sewing and crafts and is the heir to a textile shop (the fact that he got bullied for his love of crafts is also one reason why he started acting as a tough guy). In the sequence where the characters enter the Shadow World created by Kanji's psyche (the main conceit of the game is that we have shadow versions of ourselves representing parts of us that we don't accept, but over the top and distorted), it's in the form of a "hot bathhouse" and the shadow version of him is an over-the-top and lisping lad-fancier. He was also seen before your team enters his Shadow World in conversation with a boy (actually Naoto) that gets him rather flustered. At the end of the Kanji quest, Kanji accepts "that part" of himself, which I think most people would interpret as him accepting his homosexuality.
The problem Kanji's storyline (apart from the over-the-top bathhouse imagery, but that could be ok) is that very little is said straight out, and not in the good way. It might just be a problem with the translation, to be sure, but I think the most common word when referring to Kanji possibly being gay is "strange" (the Japanese "hen"?) and homosexuality in general as "that thing". So the very thing is unspeakable to begin with, which doesn't really inspire confidence. This is aggravated by the other characters (especially Yosuke, but he is not rebutted by the others) pretty much making fun of him for being gay in a very heteronormative way, like at the School Culture Festival "date café" where it's suggested he should take the girls' side, and at the cross-dressing beauty pageant (which is soooooo funny), without actually saying straight out that he's gay. Being made fun of sets Kanji off, being a bit of a hothead, but it sets him off in the "I'm not gay and stop saying I am"-kind of way, because it starts being more and more clear that Kanji actually isn't. So for most of the game that includes Kanji, gay men are made fun of in a really trite manner and even when not made fun of outright, aggressively othered by both the other characters and Kanji himself, and the player is given little chance to rebut the idiocy.
The good part about Kanji's story is at least that he comes to terms with and starts taking greater pride in his love of crafts and creating wonderful stuffed animals and the like for the town's children, so at least standards of masculinity are questioned.
Now over to Naoto, who is at first presented as a boy (and a genius detective, bit of a Tintin thing going on), and is the one who makes Kanji flustered. In hir Shadow World, the part that zie needs to accept is the fact that zie is still a child on the one hand, and (big reveal!) that zie was born a girl on the other. After that reveal it's not entirely clear which way Naoto will go, as it also includes a line about accepting hir body the way it is (and implying that acting as a boy is because zie thought being a boy would make hir dream of becoming the best detective zie could be possible (which raises some interesting gender questions in itself). However, as the team goes back to school, Naoto still dresses as a boy and says that zie will go on much like zie had before. Now, however, the entire school is gossiping about how zie is actually a girl. The team proceeds to try to pair Naoto and Kanji together (which is ok), and making constant references to how Naoto is actually a girl, including the oh-so-sensitive "oh right, you're actually a girl, no wonder you got kidnapped and couldn't fight back" (never mind that bad boy Kanji got kidnapped far more easily) and comments about hir cuteness. At the School Culture Festival, there is also a "regular" (meaning, of course, one for girls) beauty pageant, where the girls of the team are signed up against their will, including Naoto, at which point I was in an apoplexy about the trans* and gay bullying going on in the game.
In Naoto's case, zie is still, at the point that I've so far seen of the game (about 4/5 in) a competent detective, but so far no mention of gender issues in conversations with hir. I sort of suspect that any lingering trans* issues will be erased as the game continues, though, and that the normative will be authoritatively restored to the school, thus utterly wasting some of the most interesting character setups in video games.
Persona 4 has the potential to be a wonderful game from a queer perspective, as it raises interesting questions about masculinity, femininity, homosexuality, and trans* issues. It's set in a high school and town in Japan and features a cast of eight main characters. The characters who are most interesting in light of these issues are Kanji Tatsumi and Naoto Shirogane. Kanji is a bad-ass who beats up bike gangs and gets hassled by cops because of his attitude. He also loves sewing and crafts and is the heir to a textile shop (the fact that he got bullied for his love of crafts is also one reason why he started acting as a tough guy). In the sequence where the characters enter the Shadow World created by Kanji's psyche (the main conceit of the game is that we have shadow versions of ourselves representing parts of us that we don't accept, but over the top and distorted), it's in the form of a "hot bathhouse" and the shadow version of him is an over-the-top and lisping lad-fancier. He was also seen before your team enters his Shadow World in conversation with a boy (actually Naoto) that gets him rather flustered. At the end of the Kanji quest, Kanji accepts "that part" of himself, which I think most people would interpret as him accepting his homosexuality.
The problem Kanji's storyline (apart from the over-the-top bathhouse imagery, but that could be ok) is that very little is said straight out, and not in the good way. It might just be a problem with the translation, to be sure, but I think the most common word when referring to Kanji possibly being gay is "strange" (the Japanese "hen"?) and homosexuality in general as "that thing". So the very thing is unspeakable to begin with, which doesn't really inspire confidence. This is aggravated by the other characters (especially Yosuke, but he is not rebutted by the others) pretty much making fun of him for being gay in a very heteronormative way, like at the School Culture Festival "date café" where it's suggested he should take the girls' side, and at the cross-dressing beauty pageant (which is soooooo funny), without actually saying straight out that he's gay. Being made fun of sets Kanji off, being a bit of a hothead, but it sets him off in the "I'm not gay and stop saying I am"-kind of way, because it starts being more and more clear that Kanji actually isn't. So for most of the game that includes Kanji, gay men are made fun of in a really trite manner and even when not made fun of outright, aggressively othered by both the other characters and Kanji himself, and the player is given little chance to rebut the idiocy.
The good part about Kanji's story is at least that he comes to terms with and starts taking greater pride in his love of crafts and creating wonderful stuffed animals and the like for the town's children, so at least standards of masculinity are questioned.
Now over to Naoto, who is at first presented as a boy (and a genius detective, bit of a Tintin thing going on), and is the one who makes Kanji flustered. In hir Shadow World, the part that zie needs to accept is the fact that zie is still a child on the one hand, and (big reveal!) that zie was born a girl on the other. After that reveal it's not entirely clear which way Naoto will go, as it also includes a line about accepting hir body the way it is (and implying that acting as a boy is because zie thought being a boy would make hir dream of becoming the best detective zie could be possible (which raises some interesting gender questions in itself). However, as the team goes back to school, Naoto still dresses as a boy and says that zie will go on much like zie had before. Now, however, the entire school is gossiping about how zie is actually a girl. The team proceeds to try to pair Naoto and Kanji together (which is ok), and making constant references to how Naoto is actually a girl, including the oh-so-sensitive "oh right, you're actually a girl, no wonder you got kidnapped and couldn't fight back" (never mind that bad boy Kanji got kidnapped far more easily) and comments about hir cuteness. At the School Culture Festival, there is also a "regular" (meaning, of course, one for girls) beauty pageant, where the girls of the team are signed up against their will, including Naoto, at which point I was in an apoplexy about the trans* and gay bullying going on in the game.
In Naoto's case, zie is still, at the point that I've so far seen of the game (about 4/5 in) a competent detective, but so far no mention of gender issues in conversations with hir. I sort of suspect that any lingering trans* issues will be erased as the game continues, though, and that the normative will be authoritatively restored to the school, thus utterly wasting some of the most interesting character setups in video games.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Rocky Horror Picture Show and transphobia
My apologies for any poor choice of words in this text, haven't read that many political texts about trans* issues recently.
This isn't a book review, but rather an issue that I started thinking of because of something a friend said, and I felt a compulsive need to defend something I like (because if I like it, it must also be good, right?).
Is The Rocky Horror Picture Show derogatory towards trans* people? With its flamboyantly evil Frank-n-Furter as the main character with its stereotypical glitzy look and hypersexuality, it's definitely plays to a specific stereotype, and one that has been played on in several mainstream depictions of trans* people. In addition, the movie features a brutal murder of that trans* person by supposed authority figures, and that only a few years after the Stonewall Riots had trans* people being beaten up by police in the event that is seen as a start of the queer movement as a whole. Finally, when looking at the narrative of the movie, Frank-n-Furter's role seems to mostly be there to provide a seduction for the strait-laced white middle class represented by Brad and Janet, thus affirming the role of queer as something that can provide a bit of "spice," rather than affirm queer as a viable option.
Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with labelling The Rocky Horror Picture Show as transphobic (though the murder scene gives me qualms). Though it is most likely the most wide-spread depiction of a trans* person, and that the depiction is so stereotypical and partly negative, that is not really the fault of the movie. If the movie had been cynically produced to cash in on that stereotype, perhaps with John Travolta playing the hammy trans* person, then I would agree that there is a problem with the movie specifically. Instead, I identify the problems surrounding the movie to have more to do with the movie industry and mainstream society; the movie industry for not showing enough queer people as a matter of course, and mainstream society for only embracing the chintzy seduction of Frank-n-Furter and ignoring any other trans* person in the media.
As it is, The Rocky Horror Picture Show was made in the 70s by a director, Richard O'Brien, who has subsequently come out as a trans* person, and who did it as a way to come to terms with his experiences at the time. Though it was funded by a large Hollywood producer, it was by no means a big-budget item and not (as far as I know) an idea to cash in on anti-trans* sentiment. Though we should definitely discuss what the movie means in context and its problematic role, I do not think that the fact that it presents a stereotypical (and evil) trans* person is enough to label it as transphobic. It is, after all, the result of the life experiences of a trans* man and, given its embrace by many, a movie that has meaning for the trans* and queer feelings of many. During the 1990s, there seemed to me to be a glut of movies with lesbian themes that were depressive as hell and ended with the protagonists getting killed - were the movies themselves the problem? I would say no, the problem is a culture where alternative expressions are not funded and ignored by the mainstream while the preferred depiction is put on a pedestal to the detriment of the rest.
Thus, in my opinion, we should certainly keep discussing The Rocky Horror Picture Show and its position and status in society, but to label the movie itself as anti-trans (by which I mean an expression of transphobia by mainstream society) would not be a good development - in particular, it seems to suggest that only a certain kind of trans* experience is fit to be interpreted through media.
This isn't a book review, but rather an issue that I started thinking of because of something a friend said, and I felt a compulsive need to defend something I like (because if I like it, it must also be good, right?).
Is The Rocky Horror Picture Show derogatory towards trans* people? With its flamboyantly evil Frank-n-Furter as the main character with its stereotypical glitzy look and hypersexuality, it's definitely plays to a specific stereotype, and one that has been played on in several mainstream depictions of trans* people. In addition, the movie features a brutal murder of that trans* person by supposed authority figures, and that only a few years after the Stonewall Riots had trans* people being beaten up by police in the event that is seen as a start of the queer movement as a whole. Finally, when looking at the narrative of the movie, Frank-n-Furter's role seems to mostly be there to provide a seduction for the strait-laced white middle class represented by Brad and Janet, thus affirming the role of queer as something that can provide a bit of "spice," rather than affirm queer as a viable option.
Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with labelling The Rocky Horror Picture Show as transphobic (though the murder scene gives me qualms). Though it is most likely the most wide-spread depiction of a trans* person, and that the depiction is so stereotypical and partly negative, that is not really the fault of the movie. If the movie had been cynically produced to cash in on that stereotype, perhaps with John Travolta playing the hammy trans* person, then I would agree that there is a problem with the movie specifically. Instead, I identify the problems surrounding the movie to have more to do with the movie industry and mainstream society; the movie industry for not showing enough queer people as a matter of course, and mainstream society for only embracing the chintzy seduction of Frank-n-Furter and ignoring any other trans* person in the media.
As it is, The Rocky Horror Picture Show was made in the 70s by a director, Richard O'Brien, who has subsequently come out as a trans* person, and who did it as a way to come to terms with his experiences at the time. Though it was funded by a large Hollywood producer, it was by no means a big-budget item and not (as far as I know) an idea to cash in on anti-trans* sentiment. Though we should definitely discuss what the movie means in context and its problematic role, I do not think that the fact that it presents a stereotypical (and evil) trans* person is enough to label it as transphobic. It is, after all, the result of the life experiences of a trans* man and, given its embrace by many, a movie that has meaning for the trans* and queer feelings of many. During the 1990s, there seemed to me to be a glut of movies with lesbian themes that were depressive as hell and ended with the protagonists getting killed - were the movies themselves the problem? I would say no, the problem is a culture where alternative expressions are not funded and ignored by the mainstream while the preferred depiction is put on a pedestal to the detriment of the rest.
Thus, in my opinion, we should certainly keep discussing The Rocky Horror Picture Show and its position and status in society, but to label the movie itself as anti-trans (by which I mean an expression of transphobia by mainstream society) would not be a good development - in particular, it seems to suggest that only a certain kind of trans* experience is fit to be interpreted through media.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Catcher in the Rye
by JD Salinger
That Holden Caulfield, he just kills me. And he's certainly no phony.
A mistake when reviewing a book is to wait a bit after reading it, since in my case, it means I've forgotten a lot of amusing turns of phrase. Things that kill him and how phony just about everything is sticks with you, though.
Thus, since I am prevented from wittily writing in a faux-Holden voice, I guess I must constrain myself to what I actually think.
The first thing that comes to mind after reading it is, sadly, "why the hell would you kill someone having this book in your pocket?" and then you're suddenly restricted to giving your opinion in some sort of opposition to someone else's interpretation. Very sad.
The Catcher in the Rye appeals to me greatly. It tells the story of Holden Caulfield, told by the same, as he moves through life the days after his latest expulsion, how he treats other people, exposes them as phonies and his denunciations of the world at large.
What makes it compelling is that it is written directly as Holden Caulfield. It doesn't veer away and doesn't offer alternative views except by the way he re-tells it. It's Holden's thoughts completely uncensored by anyone other than Holden himself.
And because of that, the rather poor vocabulary and repetition of phrases feel genuine rather than a mark of shoddy writing, which it would otherwise have felt like, because he really is SUCH a teenager.
Now, the default mode of a teenager is to be confused, at odds with society and a bit askew, but Holden really does take the cake. He is almost completely unsympathetic as a character, is completely wrong about pretty much everything he encounters, seems to have far more affectations than any of the phonies he encounters and is also rather paranoid. And the fact that we can read that out of an account given by the book's storyteller, while he simultaneously is obviously unaware of the fact that he's doing it makes the book enjoyable to me. Most likely because resentful young man is quite common on certain parts of the internet, and they're usually self-aggrandizing, so reading a book that in my mind rather deftly eviscerates such a person is rather rewarding. It might just be that I'm a very small person. And to balance that I would like to point out that I don't think the authour harbours any ill will towards Holden, and the book does end with him being caught before he leaps off the cliff he so headlessly rushes towards.
Another thing that comes to mind is that I can imagine that this is pretty much the perfect book for junior high or high school, considering it gives so many opportunities to analyse a person and his thought patterns and his relationship to other youths, adults, and society at large, opening up for debates on the book. That still doesn't get past the hurdle of making students 1) read and 2) opening their mouth in class, but maybe I'm a bit pessimistic.
So, in summary, it's a decent book, which has probably gotten way too much attention for the wrong things. It's not the book I would put in my coat pocket if I decided to do something extravagant, that's for sure.
That Holden Caulfield, he just kills me. And he's certainly no phony.
A mistake when reviewing a book is to wait a bit after reading it, since in my case, it means I've forgotten a lot of amusing turns of phrase. Things that kill him and how phony just about everything is sticks with you, though.
Thus, since I am prevented from wittily writing in a faux-Holden voice, I guess I must constrain myself to what I actually think.
The first thing that comes to mind after reading it is, sadly, "why the hell would you kill someone having this book in your pocket?" and then you're suddenly restricted to giving your opinion in some sort of opposition to someone else's interpretation. Very sad.
The Catcher in the Rye appeals to me greatly. It tells the story of Holden Caulfield, told by the same, as he moves through life the days after his latest expulsion, how he treats other people, exposes them as phonies and his denunciations of the world at large.
What makes it compelling is that it is written directly as Holden Caulfield. It doesn't veer away and doesn't offer alternative views except by the way he re-tells it. It's Holden's thoughts completely uncensored by anyone other than Holden himself.
And because of that, the rather poor vocabulary and repetition of phrases feel genuine rather than a mark of shoddy writing, which it would otherwise have felt like, because he really is SUCH a teenager.
Now, the default mode of a teenager is to be confused, at odds with society and a bit askew, but Holden really does take the cake. He is almost completely unsympathetic as a character, is completely wrong about pretty much everything he encounters, seems to have far more affectations than any of the phonies he encounters and is also rather paranoid. And the fact that we can read that out of an account given by the book's storyteller, while he simultaneously is obviously unaware of the fact that he's doing it makes the book enjoyable to me. Most likely because resentful young man is quite common on certain parts of the internet, and they're usually self-aggrandizing, so reading a book that in my mind rather deftly eviscerates such a person is rather rewarding. It might just be that I'm a very small person. And to balance that I would like to point out that I don't think the authour harbours any ill will towards Holden, and the book does end with him being caught before he leaps off the cliff he so headlessly rushes towards.
Another thing that comes to mind is that I can imagine that this is pretty much the perfect book for junior high or high school, considering it gives so many opportunities to analyse a person and his thought patterns and his relationship to other youths, adults, and society at large, opening up for debates on the book. That still doesn't get past the hurdle of making students 1) read and 2) opening their mouth in class, but maybe I'm a bit pessimistic.
So, in summary, it's a decent book, which has probably gotten way too much attention for the wrong things. It's not the book I would put in my coat pocket if I decided to do something extravagant, that's for sure.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Picture of Dorian Gray
by Oscar Wilde
The Picture of Dorian Gray features a "protagonist" who is an amoral monster and who lacks the tiniest sliver of empathy, perhaps only topped by the Loki character of the story, who may not do as much outright harm, but sets the decadent progress of Mr. Gray in motion, knowing full well what he has wrought. The characters are steeped in the typical misogyny of the era, mostly discarding the female characters as background noise, safe in their little castles of privilege.
Naturally, I'm completely in love with Dorian Gray and the mood of the book. Who cares if the character is despicable, as long as it's done with some charm!
I don't know what separates Dorian Gray, self-indulgent savant extraordinaire, from some other self-indulgent characters I did not have such a positive reaction to. Probably it's a case of judging the author of the piece. Oscar Wilde lets his character run free, destroying lives willy-nilly without much care, without getting his just deserts from society as given in the story, but the author provides an obvious and clear moral message in the text. Now, I read in the foreword that Wilde had been criticized for writing a book that "lacked morals", and he thus added the ending of it. This strikes me as very strange, as the tale up until the final six chapters is full of morals, and I must say that anyone criticizing it for not being moral enough is not really someone I would trust as a moral individual. The six chapters added provides some good writing, to be sure, but it's pretty clear that it's there to provide the 19th century version of a Comics Code ending. Or perhaps it is merely that Oscar Wilde showed what really counted in those circles, and that it is the appearance of a man that is the real value of a person.
Now, the actual book is a story about how Dorian Gray, a beautiful young gentleman
who is preyed upon by London's upper class homosexual men, that is, all of them who is seduced into worshipping aesthetics by what I call the Loki character (I'm pretty sure that people usually call this a Mephistopheles character, but I've never read Faust) of the story, Lord Henry, who gleefully leads the young man astray, feeds his egotism and promotes the value that it is only the aesthetic qualities of people's lives that gives them value. The hitch, if anyone was unaware (which I doubt anyone who reads this is), is that the virtuous character of the tale, the painter Basil, created a perfect, glorious portrait of Dorian, where all his young virility and beauty shines through, and when seeing it, Dorian makes the fervent wish that he should ever remain so, and the lot of aging instead falls on the portrait. This, naturally, happens, and it is the portrait that gets to carry all the weight of Dorian's physical aging and moral corruption.
Dorian thus goes through society, leaving wrecked men and women in his wake, but always maintaing the perfect appearance. He is observed with amused eyes by the devilish Lord Henry, and with a small part of wide-eyed horror by the moral watchman, Basil.
In society, none who lie eyes on him can imagine him being a bad person, so he retains his social standing no matter what corrupt deeds he commits, because he presents such a beautiful front, while the portrait grows ever darker and meaner.
Of course, I suppose the story is thus quite open for criticism. After all, this clearly postulates the existence of a soul and of objective moral standards, something I'm opposed to. On the other hand, one could see it as Basil, having put all the glorious ideals he imagines in Dorian in the painting is the one who has ensouled it, and it is thus his moral standards that judges and smears the portrait based on Dorian's actions, so it is possible to rationalize that part away. It's not really necessary, though. It is written at the turn of the century, after all, and I can find such a perspective rather quaint. Since I find great parts of the book and the characterizations quaint, what's one more? The entire late 18th-century London society is, after all, quite the vision of people blind to their privileges and failings seated on top of a corrupt empire (and indeed, Oscar Wilde was a pretty damn good example of a frivolous fop himself). The book itself is rather misogynist in the treatment of women, also, but since it's all seen rather through a lens of the cheerful selective perception of the era, I can sort of live with it. The proclamations of essential characteristics of different groups of people comes from individuals who aren't really authorities on the topic, in my mind.
As I mentioned above, I wondered if the novel was not criticized so much at the time because it strikes so close to home. Society is always open to a privileged person who presents himself correctly, and the willful blindness to the failings of a charming or "correct" fellow is rather endemic in all associations of humans. And indeed, Dorian Gray is hardly the worst example in this book, as the existence of the portrait in his attic would provide an excellent excuse for a society wanting to say "well, he was only accepted by virtue of devilish trickery." The existence of Lord Henry, of course, is not so easily explained away. He spurs on all the activities that are regarded as moral failings, and yet he is, by virtue of behaving "correctly" in good company, quite accepted.
So we can attempt to see it as but a trifle of little relevance to the world: Dorian Gray, the deviant monster, goes to his death, weighed down so heavily by the just moral standards we uphold, and just think of the horrible effect of drugs, and so on, but the good principles of society were upheld, the monster had nothing to do with us. But I would claim that the author, with a lot of charm and wit, manages to put his finger on a lot of the moral failings of both individuals and, more importantly, that of a privileged society.
In the preface, Oscar Wilde writes several epigrams about the nature of art. They are quite brilliant, and can certainly be used to criticize this review. Most importantly, we must always remember this:
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors
I sort of agree with this (it is through ourselves we know life, so mirroring the spectator is to mirror life, though not in the sense of objective truth), and I would say that my criticism of a certain other book I reviewed is that it felt too much of an attempt to make the art mirror the author. A book, read un-ironically (I look forward to reading Atlas Shrugged), that makes the reader, when looking into the mirror of the book, look too much like the author, is an abominable thing.
The Picture of Dorian Gray features a "protagonist" who is an amoral monster and who lacks the tiniest sliver of empathy, perhaps only topped by the Loki character of the story, who may not do as much outright harm, but sets the decadent progress of Mr. Gray in motion, knowing full well what he has wrought. The characters are steeped in the typical misogyny of the era, mostly discarding the female characters as background noise, safe in their little castles of privilege.
Naturally, I'm completely in love with Dorian Gray and the mood of the book. Who cares if the character is despicable, as long as it's done with some charm!
I don't know what separates Dorian Gray, self-indulgent savant extraordinaire, from some other self-indulgent characters I did not have such a positive reaction to. Probably it's a case of judging the author of the piece. Oscar Wilde lets his character run free, destroying lives willy-nilly without much care, without getting his just deserts from society as given in the story, but the author provides an obvious and clear moral message in the text. Now, I read in the foreword that Wilde had been criticized for writing a book that "lacked morals", and he thus added the ending of it. This strikes me as very strange, as the tale up until the final six chapters is full of morals, and I must say that anyone criticizing it for not being moral enough is not really someone I would trust as a moral individual. The six chapters added provides some good writing, to be sure, but it's pretty clear that it's there to provide the 19th century version of a Comics Code ending. Or perhaps it is merely that Oscar Wilde showed what really counted in those circles, and that it is the appearance of a man that is the real value of a person.
Now, the actual book is a story about how Dorian Gray, a beautiful young gentleman
Dorian thus goes through society, leaving wrecked men and women in his wake, but always maintaing the perfect appearance. He is observed with amused eyes by the devilish Lord Henry, and with a small part of wide-eyed horror by the moral watchman, Basil.
In society, none who lie eyes on him can imagine him being a bad person, so he retains his social standing no matter what corrupt deeds he commits, because he presents such a beautiful front, while the portrait grows ever darker and meaner.
Of course, I suppose the story is thus quite open for criticism. After all, this clearly postulates the existence of a soul and of objective moral standards, something I'm opposed to. On the other hand, one could see it as Basil, having put all the glorious ideals he imagines in Dorian in the painting is the one who has ensouled it, and it is thus his moral standards that judges and smears the portrait based on Dorian's actions, so it is possible to rationalize that part away. It's not really necessary, though. It is written at the turn of the century, after all, and I can find such a perspective rather quaint. Since I find great parts of the book and the characterizations quaint, what's one more? The entire late 18th-century London society is, after all, quite the vision of people blind to their privileges and failings seated on top of a corrupt empire (and indeed, Oscar Wilde was a pretty damn good example of a frivolous fop himself). The book itself is rather misogynist in the treatment of women, also, but since it's all seen rather through a lens of the cheerful selective perception of the era, I can sort of live with it. The proclamations of essential characteristics of different groups of people comes from individuals who aren't really authorities on the topic, in my mind.
As I mentioned above, I wondered if the novel was not criticized so much at the time because it strikes so close to home. Society is always open to a privileged person who presents himself correctly, and the willful blindness to the failings of a charming or "correct" fellow is rather endemic in all associations of humans. And indeed, Dorian Gray is hardly the worst example in this book, as the existence of the portrait in his attic would provide an excellent excuse for a society wanting to say "well, he was only accepted by virtue of devilish trickery." The existence of Lord Henry, of course, is not so easily explained away. He spurs on all the activities that are regarded as moral failings, and yet he is, by virtue of behaving "correctly" in good company, quite accepted.
So we can attempt to see it as but a trifle of little relevance to the world: Dorian Gray, the deviant monster, goes to his death, weighed down so heavily by the just moral standards we uphold, and just think of the horrible effect of drugs, and so on, but the good principles of society were upheld, the monster had nothing to do with us. But I would claim that the author, with a lot of charm and wit, manages to put his finger on a lot of the moral failings of both individuals and, more importantly, that of a privileged society.
In the preface, Oscar Wilde writes several epigrams about the nature of art. They are quite brilliant, and can certainly be used to criticize this review. Most importantly, we must always remember this:
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors
I sort of agree with this (it is through ourselves we know life, so mirroring the spectator is to mirror life, though not in the sense of objective truth), and I would say that my criticism of a certain other book I reviewed is that it felt too much of an attempt to make the art mirror the author. A book, read un-ironically (I look forward to reading Atlas Shrugged), that makes the reader, when looking into the mirror of the book, look too much like the author, is an abominable thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)