Lady in the Water

I've been watching a lot of movies. One could say an unconscionable amount. My excuse is that it is very, very, very hot outside. The most recent new release was Lady in the Water. Like so many of Shyamalan's movies, the special effects are disappointing, and the plot is nearly incoherent. Of course, as the dialog makes clear, it is supposed to be incoherent because plots aren't always predictable. Nice try. But as fun as literary theories may be in theory, they make shoddy fairy tales. Conventions do, in fact, serve a purpose. BUT--I would still recommend seeing it, probably when it comes out on DVD, for the real life characters populating the apartment complex in multicultural Phily. Thanks to the supporting characters, the movie has both funny and poignant moments. Story, the "Narf" spends her time cowering in a shower looking perpetually frightened.

In my real life right now, I'm about to sign an apartment lease with a Jewish and a Mormon girl. It's in a rather shoddy complex, but is quite close to campus and backs up to the Arb. I figure if I can live with Universalists, people who actually believe in a God at all should be a cinch. Anyway, there shouldn't be any wild parties--which I object to on practical grounds.

In yet other news, I think HMOs create such bad medical care that we might as well be Canada or Britain. I don't have an HMO, but Promedica oversees many of the practices in Toledo. Every time I go to a Promedica doctor I end up waiting...and waiting. This morning I waited two hours for the doctor to tell me I needed a cortisone shot (I'm not so sure I did), and another 1/2 hour waiting for him to give to me. Worse yet, cell phone reception was blocked! The health service at UM, on the other hand, always got me in and out of physical therapy in under 45 minutes. A strange reversal of usual public/private efficiency.

On this day in history

Otto Von Bismark died. He always makes me think of toothaches. Supposedly he grew his trademark whiskers to cover up a massive swelling of his cheek.


On this day in the present, temperatures in Toledo reached a stifling 92 degrees, and I saw Scanner Darkly.

No I'M Happier!

Matthew and I have long planned to live in Iceland (to bask in the thermal springs) or Switzerland (because everyone secretly wants to wear leiderhosen and yodel). Now we've got some "scientific" evidence to support our decision. I hadn't thought about Denmark much--doesn't a country whose primary global function is creating Disney prototypes seem a little sinister?

New Quasi-Hero

"There are too many people and theologians out there who say 'I know'."

I just heard about John Houghton tonight, on a TV interview about Faith and Reason with Bill Moyers. He had some compelling statements about the place of God in the universe, and it's refreshing to find a Christian who cares passionately about the earth.

He got a bit befuddled when Moyers pointed out that there's a conflict in taking Genesis figuratively while literally believing in the Resurrection.

Oh, well. I don't really believe in heroes, anyway.

The Great Escape

I like Veith, and I like his blog, but sometimes the comments make me grateful I'm no longer in the thrall of a certain extremist evangelical sect--comments like this:

"Yes, there is something wrong with the feminization of the news, just as there is something wrong with the feminization of the rest of society. Feminine inclusiveness, with its tendency to compromise principle for the sake of relationships, is made to order for the New World Order we're rapidly heading for.

"Paul's limiting of the feminine role in teaching and positions of authority in the Church were tied to deception issues. I think we need to look at this as a warning as we allow the feminine perspective to dominate areas of our culture which affect affect how people perceive 'news.'"

Eventually, perhaps, the moth-eaten fallacy that Eve completely lost her reason by eating the apple while Adam's was just mildly tainted will lose its appeal. But probably some will always think we have fuzzy dice for heads. If I thought sin were divided along gender lines, I might mention some male proclivities, but I don't, and I won't.

A Pivolous Frastime

Woxing bords is a fradition in our tamily. We shake towers and tet the sable. Grandpa has always told us stories about Rindercella who lived in a coreign fountry, with a muggly other and two sad blisters, until she met a pransome hince and slopped her dripper.

We've been spending a lot of time on the porch, since it's August and I, being the extravagant one, spent far too much money on windchimes that actually sound melifluous (I was under the influence of Ann and caffeine). We engage in many lazy summer pursuits, like crossing our eyes until two heads morph into one. Last Sunday we entertained ourselves by boxing the names of rock stars. The Runs and Goses had us falling off our chairs, but we nearly asphixiated at "Pelvis Resley." His parents must have been clairvoyant word-players.

For more such fun, read Runny Babbit out loud.

Insights from Wilkie Collins

Gabriel Betteredge, the house steward, is one of the main characters in the Moonstone, and as the individual who had to negotiate between the ruling and serving classes in a Victorian household, he has some incisive remarks.

"Gentlefolk in general have a very awkward rock ahead in life--the rock ahead of their own idleness. Their lives being, for the most part, passed in looking about them for something to do, it is curious to see--especially when their tastes are of what is called the intellectual sort--how often they drift blindfold into some nasty pursuit. Nine times out of ten they take to torturing something, or to spoiling something--and they firmly believe they are improving their minds, when the plain truth is, they are only making a mess of their house." (40)

"But compare the hardest day's work you ever did with the idleness that splits flowers and pokes its way into spiders' stomachs, and thank your stars that your head has got something it must think of, and your hands something that they must do." (41)

"People in high life have all the luxuries to themselves--among others, the luxury of indulging their feelings. People in low life have no such privilege. Necessity, which spares our betters, has no pity on us. We learn to put our feelings back into ourselves, and to jog on with our duties as patiently as may be. I don't complain of this--I only notice it." (155)

Mr. Betteredge's insights are not limited to one subject:

"(Nota bene:--I am an average good Christian, when you don't push my Christianity too far. And all the rest of you--which is a great comfort--are, in this respect, much the same as I am)." (161)

"I am (thank God!) constitutionally superior to reason. This enabled me to hold firm to my lady's view, which was my view also. This roused my spirit, and made me put a bold face on it before Sergeant Cuff. Profit, good friends, I beseech you, by my example. It will save you from many troubles of the vexing sort. Cultivate a superiority to reason, and see how you pare the claws of all the sensible people when they try to scratch you for your own good!" (162)

Book Review

Does the world really need another vampire book, and one about Dracula, no less? Rather like asking if Ben and Jerry's need more flavors--of course, if they're good! I found Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian because it is a recent winner of the Hopwood Award from the University of Michigan. The subject may be a bit hackneyed, but the novel was no boilerplate.

The obvious standards for vampire books are those by Bram Stoker and Anne Rice. I've never read either, but Kostova frequently refers to Stoker. Of the books I've read, the style is most like Foucault's Pendulum. Her language is not innovative or poetic, perhaps because she is trying to convey a story, but it is elegant and clean. I did a little dance when I realized that she used the possessive with the gerund.

Her plot is complex, stretching over several decades and many locations. Because of this the book is long, but it is also intriguing and I never wanted to put it down. This is due not only to Kostova's masterful manipulation of plot tension, but also because of the rich detail. It is in her attention to historic and folk-loric detail that Kostova most resembles Eco. Her respect for research is likewise evident in the prominent place played by archives, libraries, universities, and their denizens. She is masterful at conveying the sense of a place and an era. Her descriptions are detailed, and the book made me want to hop a plane to the far reaches of Eastern Europe and Turkey. The characters are fully developed, be they alive or undead.

I will not say more lest I spoil the book for you, and I would not want to do that, since it is a satisfying, even educational, read. If you are not opposed to the supernatural, or dedicated solely to avant-garde fiction, do check out a copy of The Historian, but be on the look out for any undead librarians.

Part II: Equality

Ok guys, I think this miniseries is about over unless you REALLY want a post on polygamy. As the Beatles so adequately put it, there's nothing you can say that ain't been said. In fact, I recall writing a paper about the illusion of democracy or something similar.

First things first--let me clarify what I mean by "equality" here. I don't mean equal standing before the law. That's a whole 'nother ball game. I'm talking about the "we're each as good as the next guy" ethos promoted in democratic societies.

The other day I was again cornered by my friendly Orthodox circulation clerk. We began our conversation (well, he began his soliloquy to be more exact) on mystery novels (I was checking out a Wilkie Collins) and ended on the leftist prejudices of the ALA. Somewhere in between we discussed the illusion of democracy.

You see, someone somewhere once said that the reason readers like mystery novels is because they impose an order on our universe that doesn't exist. More specifically, the reason we like British mysteries is because they take place in a world with a social order that we lack. Wimsey and Holmes are both amateurs--i.e. gentlemen. The second upstairs maids and the village inspectors all know their places.

Emily and I often lamented that we weren't destined to be farm laborers. She said I would make an excellent oppressed pheasant [sic], and I could see that her feet tickled to trod Italian grapes. Today on NPR an East German woman was reminiscing about the lack of job stress and uncertainty in communist times. I completely understood. Maybe I don't deserve freedom, but it seems that one would need to be clairvoyant to confidently choose a life path to follow at twenty.

To further complicate matters, equality, or lack of hierarchy is, in fact, an illusion. We all look up to and down on people based on what we value. I tend to judge people based on literacy. In my world, I am firmly middle-class, and I have no desire to rub shoulders with the unread masses. I may not "get" Derrida, but at least I culturally outrank the political head of state. Other measurements include status in civic/religious institutions, wealth, or, I suppose, the amount of tattoos on one's body and chrome on one's Harley. Because we don't have a uniform measure of status, each of us can choose the world order in which we believe ourselves to be reflected in the best light.

There seems to be a human need for some sort of aristocracy (this is not a new concept). People magazine and its ilk prosper from this need. But somehow the democratic aristocracy seems to lack, well, class--a knowledge of what is fitting. And people in small towns who consider themselves "the gentry" are unbearable--think Hyacinth from Keeping Up Appearances. Even the token royals in European countries seem to have been "corrupted" by democracy.

Has freedom contributed to our fractured reality? Would an aristocracy of birth possess more mystique and gentility (hence the word "gentle") than sports heroes and movie stars? Would you rather live in a modern suburban ghetto or be a servant in a well-ordered aristocratic household?

Nepotism: Questioning of American Values Part I

I thought the day after the 4th of July, replete with meaningless patriotic bromides and gaudy astral paraphenalia, would be a good time to engage in some unusual discussions. I'll save polygamy for later, although it is one of my favorite topics.

The theme for today: Nepotism.

More specifically, why don't we like it? Probably because of our ideal of meritocracy. In America success is supposed to be based on ability, and the boss's weak-minded nephew might not be the most able candidate. First, doesn't this sound slightly Darwinist (joking!)? Second, nepotism can serve to ensure loyalty in some businesses where trust is important (yes, like the mafia--a long-standing American institution). Third, can anything be less efficient than our current bureaucracy?

Yes, bureaucracy. Pardon my rabbit trail, but I've been having some head-ons with bureaucracy lately, and I think I've discovered the secret: persistence. Getting ahead in bureaucracy has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense. It takes bulldog stubbornness. If you are not willing to turn yourself into a gadfly and make repeated calls and fill out repeated forms, you will fail. In my experience you must bother the same person three times to get anything done. Is this, dear friends, a true representation of what our country stands for? Well, maybe it is.

Finally, and ironically, can nepotism truly be un-American when our very electoral process affirms it? First there were the Louis and now there are the Georges! Absolute monarchy predicted what it took democracy two centuries to figure out.

The Devil Wears Prada

Thanks to Ann, I actually know what Prada is, and I've even been to the store in LA, so I wanted to see this movie. My mom likes Meryl Streep so she came along. I think we both liked it--it was more complex than most chick flicks--although I know that's not saying much.

The strongest characters were definitely played my Meryl Streep, a leading fashion magazine editor, and Anne Hathaway, her new, non-fashionable assistant. In order to fulfill Streep's exacting, unreasonable demands Hathaway works 24 hours a day, changes her wardrobe, and is always being nearly killed running through NY streets with coffee. At first she complains, but tnen she realizes that Streep's job demands excellence and ruthlessness and steps up her efforts to please. In the end, it is the ruthlessness of the industry that causes her to quit her job and regain her boyfriend.

Despite her hard-boiled nature, Streep's character is not portrayed as evil or wicked. Once Hathaway defends her boss by saying to a sleazy-but-handsome pursuer who is criticizing Streep, "If any man did what she did, then people would say he was dedicated to his job." And, despite her quiting, Hathaway still gets a job recommendation and a smile in the end.

The male characters, except for the gay Nigel, are weak and annoying. Hathaway's boyfriend spends most of the movie sulking because she is being caught up in the fashion world and not pursuing her dreams. Although she gets back together with him in the end, this seems mostly to be a symbol of her regaining her personal life and integrity.

The message is that it takes sacrifice to succeed in competitive industries, and people have to choose whether or not they'll make it.

Torture Documents

Here are some documents about recent allegations of torture by the US. I can post more, but right now my pdf reader isn't working. Of course, it's difficult to know for sure what the military is doing right now. That's why I prefer history to current events.

NPR's series on Torture. This is a link to Alan Dershowitz's proposal that torture be brought out in the open so that it can be regulated. There are links to the rest of the series on the side of the screen.

Amnesty International's Memorandum about the findings of the UN Committee Against Torture. There is also an earlier document they filed with the UN Committee Against Torture, but my computer doesn't want to open it.



The Washington Post report on 2002 Justice Department memo (for those who don't have Lexis Nexis).

June 13, 2004 Sunday
Final Edition

SECTION: A Section; A03

LENGTH: 1174 words

HEADLINE: Justice Department Memo Said ...

BODY:
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later.

Bush said that he expects U.S. authorities to follow the law when interrogating prisoners abroad, but he declined to say at a news conference Thursday in Savannah, Ga., whether he believes torture is permitted under the law. Pressed repeatedly during a news conference at the end of the Group of Eight summit about the Justice Department memo, Bush said only that U.S. interrogators had to follow the law.

The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Bush administration officials say flatly that international conventions barring torture have been abided, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged.

-- Dana Priest, Dana Milbank and R. Jeffrey Smith