Most of you will know that I am no politician. My ideas are not clear enough, my ideals are... flexible to say the least (though not that flexible) and I am incapable of maintaining a position when I am not sure that I am right. However, there are a few measures I would like to see proposed by the politicians of the country I vote in (so, Spain. I would like to see it in the UK too, but it seems even less likely in this country).
1. Anyone elected for public office (this does not include people working in the public sector however, just those who have been elected) should be obligated to use the public healthcare system.
2. Anyone elected for public office should be obligated to use public education.
3. Anyone elected for public office should only be allowed to hold one public office at a time, perhaps excepting those cases where one public office requires the holding of another public office. Having been elected for public office implies that no other job will be held at the same time.
4. Those public offices that require holding another public office should be minimised, and if possible, eliminated.
5. Politics should not be a profession. People should be able to hold public office for the time when they do so, and be compensated for time taken off whatever job they had prior to obtaining public office, but once their term is done, they should go back to that job. No one in public office should be offered a life-long post or stipend for having been in public office.
6. All workers in the public sector (including people elected for public office) should make a salary based exclusively on their qualifications, years of experience and hours of work put in. In cases where results are measurable in an objective way, it could be possible to have bonuses based on performance (this is very difficult, for example, teachers, where good performance cannot necessarily be measured by good grades if the grades are handed out by the teacher, which is the current situation in Spain. Also, teachers cannot be penalised if they routinely teach classes with less intelligent students or routinely teach students with learning difficulties).
I can't think of anything else right now, but I think these measures would do a lot to eliminate corruption, nepotism, etc. in politics and the public sector. But whatever. I'll never be a politician, people who think these are measures that should be implemented will never be politicians, and if or when they are they would never get into power. So that's that.
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Monday, 23 February 2015
A little bit on privilege
Note: I am the least appropriate person to be writing this post, but I think it deserves to be written. I apologise in advance for any oversights I might have because of my "privilege" (read: cis white female with University education who has a command of the English language, etc.)
This post comes about because of something that happened to me the other day which made me check my privilege majorly. Someone I know very well, someone who I consider a very good friend and whom I love dearly, is planning a trip soon. They will be going to countries that I have visited in the past, and they've realised that they won't have as much time as they expected, so they have to cut one leg of the journey. They asked my advice. I replied honestly with what I thought would make a better trip, which country I thought was more spectacularly beautiful. And got a reply that basically amounted "Yeah, I agree, but people tend to be more racist there". The fact is, that despite this person being an extremely close friend and me trying to have their best interests at heart at all times, I had not considered this at all. Racism had not come into my mind at all when thinking about his decision on the trip.
I think I apologised for not thinking about it, and said, quite honestly, that I unfortunately couldn't help him to decide based on that factor because I had not been aware of it when I had traveled in this country. I felt awful for not having thought of this. Effectively my "privilege" had been "checked" (specifically, my white privilege) (the reason I use quotes is because I don't like either of these words in the way they are used, but that's fodder for another post).
This made me think again about how many people who try to help from a position of privilege (acknowledged or not) make mistakes. But then there are mistakes and there are complete fuck ups. Patricia Arquette's Oscar acceptance speech could have been a mistake. If you want to read it in full, it can be found here. However, what she said later backstage was a fuck up.
Now, the first few paragraphs of her acceptance speech are the typical thanks to people who collaborated in the film and to family and friends. It's the last paragraph that worries me. It says "To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights."
I don't know how anyone else reads it. But the way it reads to me is "women have fought for everybody else's equal rights". What would this mean? This would mean that women fought for equal rights for other minorities, namely people of colour (especially black people in the context of the United States) and LGBT. Now this is problematic. Firstly, it is assuming that others' equal rights have been achieved. They haven't. Though there might (approximately) equal legal rights it is obvious that in the United States people of colour especially are discriminated against, suffering the most police brutality and the most incarceration, numbers being particularly grim for black people. LGBT people, especially trans people, are still routinely the victims of hate attacks and of assault, and these crimes are less persecuted (and I mean persecuted, not prosecuted). Secondly, it assumes that women did fight for these "equal rights". This is undoubtedly true, women have been and are involved and lead many of the protests that have led and are leading to changes for equal rights. Unfortunately, it was not all women. In fact, when it comes to fighting for equal rights, each minority has done more for itself than anyone else. To suggest that women, as a unified group, have done a lot for any minority is ridiculous. It is true that women of certain minorities have been instrumental in driving change and equal rights for those minorities (trans women come to mind, but also black women, who are doing an incredible amount of work on Twitter and other social media).
Furthermore, Arquette went on backstage. And that's when the fuck up really started. This is what Arquette said:
"It's time for all the women in America and all the men who love women and all the gay people and all the people of colour that we’ve fought for, to fight for us now"
Now, let's unpack that sentence. Firstly "all the women in America". Surely, that should include the women of colour and the gay women, but apparently they are not included in this "all the women in America", because she seems to need to point out "all the gay people and all the people of colour". So clearly, when she speaks of "all the women in America" what she really means is "all the cis-hetero white women". And this is not subtext. This is clear. She follows this with "and all the men who love women". I mean, I would ask all the men to do it, but ok. This, again, should include gay men and men of colour... or is she implying that men of colour and gay men don't love women? Or does she mean "white heterosexual men" who love women? Or does she mean by "love" heterosexual, in which case, again, she is either implying that black men are not heterosexual, or that they don't love women... in any case, fucked up. Let's continue "and all the gay people and all the people of colour who we have fought for". Now, this is where the shit really hits the fan. Firstly, are those two groups not included in "all the women" and all the "men who love women" if you are meant to be inclusive (and excluding the weirdo difference between men and men who love women)? Secondly, are this two groups not an intersection? She could have just said "We should all fight for", but no, she had to name groups, and she fucked up. Now, saying just "men" and "women" would not have been strictly all-inclusive, but it would have been a bit less of a fuck up, because at least it wouldn't have assumed that women and "men who love women" aren't women of colour and gay... Thirdly "who we have fought for". What the fuck? Who is this "we"? Is this all the people in America? The people in the world? Women? Who the fuck is this we, because it's fucking problematic. Let me tell you, the people who fight for people of colour tend to be people of colour. Unfortunately, very few white people can claim to really have fought for people of colour. They might abstractly or from afar agree that they have equal rights, but have you seen them march? Put their lives in danger? Because, for the most part, they haven't. The people who have bought for LGBTQ+ rights have mostly been LGBTQ+ people themselves. Most minorities fight for their own rights and don't get shit from the privileged majority. They get less than shit: they get push back. They get shot at, they get fought, they get attacked, they get incarcerated, they get insulted.
Finally, if what she's saying is that gay people and people of colour haven't been fighting for women's equal rights (which is a stupid thing to say, especially because so many gay people and people of colour are women themselves, and most women in the US want equal rights), all I can say is that they have a) a better track record for fighting for equal rights, because they have to fight for their own and they understand the need for equality better than anyone and b) some of the most active women fighting for equal rights.
So, Patricia Arquette, I'm sure you were well intentioned. I'm sure you were trying to do something good (although actions speak better than words). But you fucked up. This sort of comment is what "white feminism" is about: it's racist and it's exclusive. Don't be part of it.
This post comes about because of something that happened to me the other day which made me check my privilege majorly. Someone I know very well, someone who I consider a very good friend and whom I love dearly, is planning a trip soon. They will be going to countries that I have visited in the past, and they've realised that they won't have as much time as they expected, so they have to cut one leg of the journey. They asked my advice. I replied honestly with what I thought would make a better trip, which country I thought was more spectacularly beautiful. And got a reply that basically amounted "Yeah, I agree, but people tend to be more racist there". The fact is, that despite this person being an extremely close friend and me trying to have their best interests at heart at all times, I had not considered this at all. Racism had not come into my mind at all when thinking about his decision on the trip.
I think I apologised for not thinking about it, and said, quite honestly, that I unfortunately couldn't help him to decide based on that factor because I had not been aware of it when I had traveled in this country. I felt awful for not having thought of this. Effectively my "privilege" had been "checked" (specifically, my white privilege) (the reason I use quotes is because I don't like either of these words in the way they are used, but that's fodder for another post).
This made me think again about how many people who try to help from a position of privilege (acknowledged or not) make mistakes. But then there are mistakes and there are complete fuck ups. Patricia Arquette's Oscar acceptance speech could have been a mistake. If you want to read it in full, it can be found here. However, what she said later backstage was a fuck up.
Now, the first few paragraphs of her acceptance speech are the typical thanks to people who collaborated in the film and to family and friends. It's the last paragraph that worries me. It says "To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights."
I don't know how anyone else reads it. But the way it reads to me is "women have fought for everybody else's equal rights". What would this mean? This would mean that women fought for equal rights for other minorities, namely people of colour (especially black people in the context of the United States) and LGBT. Now this is problematic. Firstly, it is assuming that others' equal rights have been achieved. They haven't. Though there might (approximately) equal legal rights it is obvious that in the United States people of colour especially are discriminated against, suffering the most police brutality and the most incarceration, numbers being particularly grim for black people. LGBT people, especially trans people, are still routinely the victims of hate attacks and of assault, and these crimes are less persecuted (and I mean persecuted, not prosecuted). Secondly, it assumes that women did fight for these "equal rights". This is undoubtedly true, women have been and are involved and lead many of the protests that have led and are leading to changes for equal rights. Unfortunately, it was not all women. In fact, when it comes to fighting for equal rights, each minority has done more for itself than anyone else. To suggest that women, as a unified group, have done a lot for any minority is ridiculous. It is true that women of certain minorities have been instrumental in driving change and equal rights for those minorities (trans women come to mind, but also black women, who are doing an incredible amount of work on Twitter and other social media).
Furthermore, Arquette went on backstage. And that's when the fuck up really started. This is what Arquette said:
"It's time for all the women in America and all the men who love women and all the gay people and all the people of colour that we’ve fought for, to fight for us now"
Now, let's unpack that sentence. Firstly "all the women in America". Surely, that should include the women of colour and the gay women, but apparently they are not included in this "all the women in America", because she seems to need to point out "all the gay people and all the people of colour". So clearly, when she speaks of "all the women in America" what she really means is "all the cis-hetero white women". And this is not subtext. This is clear. She follows this with "and all the men who love women". I mean, I would ask all the men to do it, but ok. This, again, should include gay men and men of colour... or is she implying that men of colour and gay men don't love women? Or does she mean "white heterosexual men" who love women? Or does she mean by "love" heterosexual, in which case, again, she is either implying that black men are not heterosexual, or that they don't love women... in any case, fucked up. Let's continue "and all the gay people and all the people of colour who we have fought for". Now, this is where the shit really hits the fan. Firstly, are those two groups not included in "all the women" and all the "men who love women" if you are meant to be inclusive (and excluding the weirdo difference between men and men who love women)? Secondly, are this two groups not an intersection? She could have just said "We should all fight for", but no, she had to name groups, and she fucked up. Now, saying just "men" and "women" would not have been strictly all-inclusive, but it would have been a bit less of a fuck up, because at least it wouldn't have assumed that women and "men who love women" aren't women of colour and gay... Thirdly "who we have fought for". What the fuck? Who is this "we"? Is this all the people in America? The people in the world? Women? Who the fuck is this we, because it's fucking problematic. Let me tell you, the people who fight for people of colour tend to be people of colour. Unfortunately, very few white people can claim to really have fought for people of colour. They might abstractly or from afar agree that they have equal rights, but have you seen them march? Put their lives in danger? Because, for the most part, they haven't. The people who have bought for LGBTQ+ rights have mostly been LGBTQ+ people themselves. Most minorities fight for their own rights and don't get shit from the privileged majority. They get less than shit: they get push back. They get shot at, they get fought, they get attacked, they get incarcerated, they get insulted.
Finally, if what she's saying is that gay people and people of colour haven't been fighting for women's equal rights (which is a stupid thing to say, especially because so many gay people and people of colour are women themselves, and most women in the US want equal rights), all I can say is that they have a) a better track record for fighting for equal rights, because they have to fight for their own and they understand the need for equality better than anyone and b) some of the most active women fighting for equal rights.
So, Patricia Arquette, I'm sure you were well intentioned. I'm sure you were trying to do something good (although actions speak better than words). But you fucked up. This sort of comment is what "white feminism" is about: it's racist and it's exclusive. Don't be part of it.
Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Review: "Crónica de una muerte anunciada"
First of all, a couple of clarifications. I read "Chronicle of a death foretold" in Spanish, so in all justice I should have written this review in Spanish (in fact, I have written a review in Spanish, which I may publish here at some point soon if I have the time and energy to type it up). Secondly, I must insist that the translation of the title is a disservice to the novel, and explain why.
The problem with the translation is that 'anunciada' and "foretold" are not the same thing. Words are, of course, open to interpretation, and it is possible that my interpretation is wrong, of course, but I suspect whoever translated the title chose to have a better sounding title at the expense of having a better translated title. Here's the problem: the death of Santiago Nasar is never foretold. In fact, his mother, the only one who could have foretold it in his dreams, fails to do this. The death is therefore never "foretold". What it is is heralded, announced, made public, made known. "Chronicle of a death made known". That would have been a better title for me, although "Chronicle of a death heralded" may be my favourite of all the alternatives I've come up with. Because that is what it is. The death of Santiago Nasar is broadcast, known by the whole village before it happens, and for this same reason it should have been preventible but wasn't. But it happened.
This is one of those books that stays in my mind, that I find applies to so many things every day, and also one of those books that is so well written that makes me wonder if there is any point in anyone else even attempting to write something worthwhile. García Márquez is one of those authors who seems to write effortlessly, whose pages don't feel worked over but works of pure inspiration. And yet, I suspect this is perhaps one of his most studied novels in that it is almost as perfect as his short stories. It has an almost circular structure. It manages to tell, through the events of a couple of hours, the story of a village. It conveys the character of each of the players and their part in the story, and how they could have all intervened.
As in any García Márquez book, it doesn't avoid the supernatural, but rather it feeds from it: the reason the story is worth telling is because the death is inevitable despite that it should have been so evitable. It's almost an ode to the universal need for Ángela Vicario's honor to be avenged, but of course, by the end of the novel we feel that it was never avenged, and that the inevitability of Santiago Nasar's death was absolutely futile.
First and foremost, "Chronicle of a death foretold" is a story of love (not a love story). There are more couples in the book than I care to list here, but more than that, it is a story of the love of mothers for their children, and of friends for friends, and brothers for their sisters, and in a way, the love that comes from the familiarity of all the people in a village, and the pain and held back feelings and hate as well.
It is also, obviously, a story about death and about honor. I suspect that Europeans of my generation don't understand this book completely (myself included) because we don't just view murder as an atrocity, but also the possibility of murder. The fact that a person would consider murder as a way to defend someone's honor is unthinkable, partly because "honor" is not really a concept anymore (not in the way it is expressed in the book, where honor for a woman is maintaining her virginity and honor for a man is refusing a wife who hasn't) but also because murder is almost inconceivable in the modern "daily life". Murder is something that happens to others far away from us, and it is a tragedy. It is most definitely not a decision taken by normal people to defend their good names or the good names of their loved ones.
"Chronicle of a death foretold" is a perfect book, as an object of writing. It has a satisfying structure, and it is written in a way that feels real. It does not shy away from violence but also does not rejoice in it. In a way, "Chronicle of a death foretold" is a joyful story: the joy of the wedding party and the joy of everyone except Santiago Nasar surviving and getting on with their lives. In a way this is also something that nowadays is difficult to understand. Nowadays we seem to see death as a tragedy and its effects as disruptive and life-breaking, whereas in "Chronicle of a death foretold" death is specific. It happens in a moment in time, it makes someone who was alive dead, and because it does this it changes the lives of those around him slightly, but not really that much. In fact, most of the things that happen to the people after would have happened very similarly had Santiago Nasar not died.
As a final note I should make a small exploration of one of the themes in the book, which is the honor of Ángela Vicario. Now, in Spanish, there are two words with very similar meaning: "honra" and "honor". This is problematic, because as far as I've been able to find out, these two words don't exist in English, and they are both commonly translated as honor. Now, the difference between "honor" and "honra" is an important one: "honor" is "the moral quality of a person who acts according to established rules", whereas "honra" is "the good reputation of someone who acts according to the moral rules". So "honra" is the good reputation that you earn by having "honor". What this means however, is that you can lose your "honor" and conserve your "honra" (if people think that you have acted according to moral rules but you know you haven't) and you can lose your "honra" and conserve you "honor" (if you've acted according to moral rules but people think you haven't). This distinction seems of little importance in this story, except for one reason: Pedro and Pablo Vicario are avenging their sister's honor. But the only reason they care about it was because she was returned. If her husband had accepted the dishonor of having a wife who was dishonorable they would have both conserved their honra. By returning the wife, Bayardo San Román saves his honor and his honra, but his wife loses her honra. Now, his wife cannot recover her honra (not really, because her reputation is tarnished) but by killing the man who was responsible (or who is thought to be responsible) for making her lose her honor, her brothers recover her honor for her. It is a strange concept and might seem insignificant but in a book so entrenched in the Spanish literature such as this I think it is important to understand this.
The problem with the translation is that 'anunciada' and "foretold" are not the same thing. Words are, of course, open to interpretation, and it is possible that my interpretation is wrong, of course, but I suspect whoever translated the title chose to have a better sounding title at the expense of having a better translated title. Here's the problem: the death of Santiago Nasar is never foretold. In fact, his mother, the only one who could have foretold it in his dreams, fails to do this. The death is therefore never "foretold". What it is is heralded, announced, made public, made known. "Chronicle of a death made known". That would have been a better title for me, although "Chronicle of a death heralded" may be my favourite of all the alternatives I've come up with. Because that is what it is. The death of Santiago Nasar is broadcast, known by the whole village before it happens, and for this same reason it should have been preventible but wasn't. But it happened.
This is one of those books that stays in my mind, that I find applies to so many things every day, and also one of those books that is so well written that makes me wonder if there is any point in anyone else even attempting to write something worthwhile. García Márquez is one of those authors who seems to write effortlessly, whose pages don't feel worked over but works of pure inspiration. And yet, I suspect this is perhaps one of his most studied novels in that it is almost as perfect as his short stories. It has an almost circular structure. It manages to tell, through the events of a couple of hours, the story of a village. It conveys the character of each of the players and their part in the story, and how they could have all intervened.
As in any García Márquez book, it doesn't avoid the supernatural, but rather it feeds from it: the reason the story is worth telling is because the death is inevitable despite that it should have been so evitable. It's almost an ode to the universal need for Ángela Vicario's honor to be avenged, but of course, by the end of the novel we feel that it was never avenged, and that the inevitability of Santiago Nasar's death was absolutely futile.
First and foremost, "Chronicle of a death foretold" is a story of love (not a love story). There are more couples in the book than I care to list here, but more than that, it is a story of the love of mothers for their children, and of friends for friends, and brothers for their sisters, and in a way, the love that comes from the familiarity of all the people in a village, and the pain and held back feelings and hate as well.
It is also, obviously, a story about death and about honor. I suspect that Europeans of my generation don't understand this book completely (myself included) because we don't just view murder as an atrocity, but also the possibility of murder. The fact that a person would consider murder as a way to defend someone's honor is unthinkable, partly because "honor" is not really a concept anymore (not in the way it is expressed in the book, where honor for a woman is maintaining her virginity and honor for a man is refusing a wife who hasn't) but also because murder is almost inconceivable in the modern "daily life". Murder is something that happens to others far away from us, and it is a tragedy. It is most definitely not a decision taken by normal people to defend their good names or the good names of their loved ones.
"Chronicle of a death foretold" is a perfect book, as an object of writing. It has a satisfying structure, and it is written in a way that feels real. It does not shy away from violence but also does not rejoice in it. In a way, "Chronicle of a death foretold" is a joyful story: the joy of the wedding party and the joy of everyone except Santiago Nasar surviving and getting on with their lives. In a way this is also something that nowadays is difficult to understand. Nowadays we seem to see death as a tragedy and its effects as disruptive and life-breaking, whereas in "Chronicle of a death foretold" death is specific. It happens in a moment in time, it makes someone who was alive dead, and because it does this it changes the lives of those around him slightly, but not really that much. In fact, most of the things that happen to the people after would have happened very similarly had Santiago Nasar not died.
As a final note I should make a small exploration of one of the themes in the book, which is the honor of Ángela Vicario. Now, in Spanish, there are two words with very similar meaning: "honra" and "honor". This is problematic, because as far as I've been able to find out, these two words don't exist in English, and they are both commonly translated as honor. Now, the difference between "honor" and "honra" is an important one: "honor" is "the moral quality of a person who acts according to established rules", whereas "honra" is "the good reputation of someone who acts according to the moral rules". So "honra" is the good reputation that you earn by having "honor". What this means however, is that you can lose your "honor" and conserve your "honra" (if people think that you have acted according to moral rules but you know you haven't) and you can lose your "honra" and conserve you "honor" (if you've acted according to moral rules but people think you haven't). This distinction seems of little importance in this story, except for one reason: Pedro and Pablo Vicario are avenging their sister's honor. But the only reason they care about it was because she was returned. If her husband had accepted the dishonor of having a wife who was dishonorable they would have both conserved their honra. By returning the wife, Bayardo San Román saves his honor and his honra, but his wife loses her honra. Now, his wife cannot recover her honra (not really, because her reputation is tarnished) but by killing the man who was responsible (or who is thought to be responsible) for making her lose her honor, her brothers recover her honor for her. It is a strange concept and might seem insignificant but in a book so entrenched in the Spanish literature such as this I think it is important to understand this.
Monday, 16 February 2015
Review: "The Silmarillion"
So, after many years and three attempts, I finally managed to get through the Music of the Ainur and read the whole of Tolkien's epic piece.
First of all, I should say that my edition of the Silmarillion (and I don't know if this is true of everyone else's) contains "Ainulindalë", "Valaquenta", the "Quenta Silmarillion", "Akâlabeth" and "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", meaning that it is doesn't just contain the story of the Silmarils, but also of the origin of Arda (the world), the coming of the Valar and the Maiar to Arda (the gods), and what happened after the Silmarils where found to the Númenóreans and also a bit more background as to what happened to the rings of power (although not as much as I would have liked).
As much as I criticise and demonise Tolkien for his heavy writing style (his descriptions of mountains in "The Two Towers" are not something I'll ever get over), I have to admit two things: firstly, he is one of the few authors who has been able to pull off creating an entire world, and a believable one, and giving it an origin story that is almost big enough (I'll come back to this later). Secondly, his style, whilst sometimes too heavy for me, is in some ways the style of the Nordic sagas, of anglosaxon myths, of his field of study, and he pulls it off incredibly well.
Now, there are parts of the Silmarillion that I still have issues with: the chapter named "Of Beleriand and its Realms" bores the hell out of me (I like maps, but deailed descriptions of the lands and who reigns where bore me), and I don't like the fact that because it is an epic the personalities of many (all?) characters are completely glossed over. I don't like that I can't remember the names of so many of the characters. And I also don't like that there seem to be no firm rules regarding certain aspects of the world (e.g. apparently Ilúvatar made it possible for humans and elves to procreate but left no instructions as to what sort of creature the hybrids would be, which bothers me enormously, though I understand it's an extremely useful construct for Tolkien to be able to have both Elrond and Elros and the Númenóreans... Also: if you think about it, Aragorn and Arwen are pretty much cousins. Ew.).
As to what I did enjoy: it is pure epic. It lives up to expectations and it does tell me most of what I wanted to know. I loved reading the story of Beren and Lúthien, although I now want to read both the earliest versions and the "Lay of Leithian". I loved the Doom of the Noldor and all the stories that go with it, and I love that (for the most part) Tolkien is not afraid of the destinies he has set upon his characters.
More than anything, I love that for a book so long that covers so many stories and characters, which could feel fragmented, it doesn't. It feels like a cohesive work, and it has an appropriate ending, even if it is a sad one.
It does make me think of this idea that for stories to be good they need to be sad. I never agreed with this. However, I might agree that in order for a story to be an epic, to get to the stature of legend, the story must be tragic. And Tolkien knows tragic. The loss of the Trees of Valinor is possibly the saddest story I had read in a long time, and the tale of how the way to the West was closed (and how the world became round), and why humans fear death, were comforting in a strange way.
All in all, I loved the Silmarillion. It made me understand a lot that I didn't about Tolkien's world, but more than that: it made me understand Tolkien fanatics, because it kind of made me wish I could understand the Elven tongues so I could read more and see the beauty of them. It made me wish I could for once see a Silmaril and speak to the Númenóreans and live in Middle Earth. It was a fantastic read.
PS: to any Tolkien fanatics who read this, forgive me for any mistakes (spelling or otherwise) that I have committed, and I'm sorry I didn't go into more depth, but I felt I'd have to read the book again to make a proper in depth analysis. I might one day, just not now.
First of all, I should say that my edition of the Silmarillion (and I don't know if this is true of everyone else's) contains "Ainulindalë", "Valaquenta", the "Quenta Silmarillion", "Akâlabeth" and "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", meaning that it is doesn't just contain the story of the Silmarils, but also of the origin of Arda (the world), the coming of the Valar and the Maiar to Arda (the gods), and what happened after the Silmarils where found to the Númenóreans and also a bit more background as to what happened to the rings of power (although not as much as I would have liked).
As much as I criticise and demonise Tolkien for his heavy writing style (his descriptions of mountains in "The Two Towers" are not something I'll ever get over), I have to admit two things: firstly, he is one of the few authors who has been able to pull off creating an entire world, and a believable one, and giving it an origin story that is almost big enough (I'll come back to this later). Secondly, his style, whilst sometimes too heavy for me, is in some ways the style of the Nordic sagas, of anglosaxon myths, of his field of study, and he pulls it off incredibly well.
Now, there are parts of the Silmarillion that I still have issues with: the chapter named "Of Beleriand and its Realms" bores the hell out of me (I like maps, but deailed descriptions of the lands and who reigns where bore me), and I don't like the fact that because it is an epic the personalities of many (all?) characters are completely glossed over. I don't like that I can't remember the names of so many of the characters. And I also don't like that there seem to be no firm rules regarding certain aspects of the world (e.g. apparently Ilúvatar made it possible for humans and elves to procreate but left no instructions as to what sort of creature the hybrids would be, which bothers me enormously, though I understand it's an extremely useful construct for Tolkien to be able to have both Elrond and Elros and the Númenóreans... Also: if you think about it, Aragorn and Arwen are pretty much cousins. Ew.).
As to what I did enjoy: it is pure epic. It lives up to expectations and it does tell me most of what I wanted to know. I loved reading the story of Beren and Lúthien, although I now want to read both the earliest versions and the "Lay of Leithian". I loved the Doom of the Noldor and all the stories that go with it, and I love that (for the most part) Tolkien is not afraid of the destinies he has set upon his characters.
More than anything, I love that for a book so long that covers so many stories and characters, which could feel fragmented, it doesn't. It feels like a cohesive work, and it has an appropriate ending, even if it is a sad one.
It does make me think of this idea that for stories to be good they need to be sad. I never agreed with this. However, I might agree that in order for a story to be an epic, to get to the stature of legend, the story must be tragic. And Tolkien knows tragic. The loss of the Trees of Valinor is possibly the saddest story I had read in a long time, and the tale of how the way to the West was closed (and how the world became round), and why humans fear death, were comforting in a strange way.
All in all, I loved the Silmarillion. It made me understand a lot that I didn't about Tolkien's world, but more than that: it made me understand Tolkien fanatics, because it kind of made me wish I could understand the Elven tongues so I could read more and see the beauty of them. It made me wish I could for once see a Silmaril and speak to the Númenóreans and live in Middle Earth. It was a fantastic read.
PS: to any Tolkien fanatics who read this, forgive me for any mistakes (spelling or otherwise) that I have committed, and I'm sorry I didn't go into more depth, but I felt I'd have to read the book again to make a proper in depth analysis. I might one day, just not now.
Sunday, 15 February 2015
On 50 Shades of Grey
So... I thought I'd ignore the "phenomenom". I thought this week I would review the last couple of books I've read (and to anyone interested: in the twentieth century, South American literature is where it's at, though even that is a massive generalisation, but moving on) and talk about something happy and non-polemic for a change. But here I am. Discussing 50 Shades of Grey.
First of all, I should make it clear I haven't actually read the book directly (though I have read the absolutely best critique of it in the Pervocracy, here's the index for her posts on it, absolutely fantastic read) or watched the film, so I am not in the best position to make a proper in depth critique of it (again, Cliff's reading of it in the Pervocracy does that fantastically), but I do want to make something clear.
Now, what I want to make clear has been said before, but I fear that with a lot of articles being written about how 50 Shades of Grey is abusive it has been lost in the message, though some authors have attempted to remind readers. Anyway, here goes: 50 Shades of Grey is not an example of a (normal/good) BDSM relationship.
First of all, let me start with a quick definition of BDSM before I get into why 50 Shades of Grey isn't BDSM. BDSM stands for the following: Bondage, Dominance, Submission, Sadism and Masochism. Not everyone who practices BDSM practices all of BDSM (in terms of, some people like the bondage part of it but not the sadomasochism part of it, some people really like dominance and submission but aren't really into tying each other up or pain), although I personally find that most people who are into BDSM are into it because of the D/s (dominance/submission) dynamics in it. I don't want to get into what is or isn't BDSM because for different people it's very different things (for example, some people practice total submission to their partner, to the point where their partner makes all their choices as to food, dress, exercise, etc., whereas some people could never do this but enjoy being dominated at certain times, typically during sex).
Now, why isn't 50 Shades of Grey BDSM? A lot of the reasons expounded in articles are mixed and I don't necessarily agree with them. For example, a lot of people seemed shocked at Christian controlling Ana's food. This is not as unusual as one might think. Some people, in fact, prefer to have someone else control their food intake and in this way they can give up the anxiety that comes with, for example, eating healthily. This is what we do when we diet. Doing it in a BDSM relationship is absolutely fine and acceptable, it is a form of Dominance/submission. But it has to be agreed upon and consensual. And here lies the problem with 50 Shades of Grey, and with BDSM (mis)understanding.
BDSM is, for a great part of the people who practice it, about consent. It is about the people involved getting what they want and/or need in a way that is safe for them. I don't think many people would engage in any sort of BDSM relationship with someone they didn't trust. And for the most part, Ana does not trust Christian, but with much more grave consequences, Christian does not trust Ana at all.
So, let's get a few things clear. In 50 Shades of Grey, the book, Christian stalks Ana, breaks into her house and rapes her. Now, if any of these of these things had been consensual, if she had rape fantasies and wanted to act them out and they had talked about it and agreed it was something they both wanted to do, if she enjoyed being controlled, this would be sort of fine with me (perhaps not personally, because I find forced sex triggering; but I would agree that it was her choice to partake in a relationship in a way she wanted to). The problem is, very little in 50 Shades of Grey is consensual. For the most part, Christian coerces Ana, scares her, forces her to do things against her will and puts her in positions where she can't escape him. More than that: very few interactions in the book (maybe in the movie this was done better?) are what you'd expect from a couple in love. They are mostly him saying he wants something, her saying no, him getting angry and her giving in in a mixture of fear and horniness.
Now, I'm up for people reading whatever they want and having whatever fantasies they want. But please don't call having a person physically and psychologically hurt you against your will BDSM. It's not what BDSM is.
(Final note: BDSM communities, like any other community, have dangerous people. People who do want to hurt and take advantage of others. However, like in most other communities, these people are the exception and are often excluded after it is known that they are dangerous and new people tend to be warned about them.)
First of all, I should make it clear I haven't actually read the book directly (though I have read the absolutely best critique of it in the Pervocracy, here's the index for her posts on it, absolutely fantastic read) or watched the film, so I am not in the best position to make a proper in depth critique of it (again, Cliff's reading of it in the Pervocracy does that fantastically), but I do want to make something clear.
Now, what I want to make clear has been said before, but I fear that with a lot of articles being written about how 50 Shades of Grey is abusive it has been lost in the message, though some authors have attempted to remind readers. Anyway, here goes: 50 Shades of Grey is not an example of a (normal/good) BDSM relationship.
First of all, let me start with a quick definition of BDSM before I get into why 50 Shades of Grey isn't BDSM. BDSM stands for the following: Bondage, Dominance, Submission, Sadism and Masochism. Not everyone who practices BDSM practices all of BDSM (in terms of, some people like the bondage part of it but not the sadomasochism part of it, some people really like dominance and submission but aren't really into tying each other up or pain), although I personally find that most people who are into BDSM are into it because of the D/s (dominance/submission) dynamics in it. I don't want to get into what is or isn't BDSM because for different people it's very different things (for example, some people practice total submission to their partner, to the point where their partner makes all their choices as to food, dress, exercise, etc., whereas some people could never do this but enjoy being dominated at certain times, typically during sex).
Now, why isn't 50 Shades of Grey BDSM? A lot of the reasons expounded in articles are mixed and I don't necessarily agree with them. For example, a lot of people seemed shocked at Christian controlling Ana's food. This is not as unusual as one might think. Some people, in fact, prefer to have someone else control their food intake and in this way they can give up the anxiety that comes with, for example, eating healthily. This is what we do when we diet. Doing it in a BDSM relationship is absolutely fine and acceptable, it is a form of Dominance/submission. But it has to be agreed upon and consensual. And here lies the problem with 50 Shades of Grey, and with BDSM (mis)understanding.
BDSM is, for a great part of the people who practice it, about consent. It is about the people involved getting what they want and/or need in a way that is safe for them. I don't think many people would engage in any sort of BDSM relationship with someone they didn't trust. And for the most part, Ana does not trust Christian, but with much more grave consequences, Christian does not trust Ana at all.
So, let's get a few things clear. In 50 Shades of Grey, the book, Christian stalks Ana, breaks into her house and rapes her. Now, if any of these of these things had been consensual, if she had rape fantasies and wanted to act them out and they had talked about it and agreed it was something they both wanted to do, if she enjoyed being controlled, this would be sort of fine with me (perhaps not personally, because I find forced sex triggering; but I would agree that it was her choice to partake in a relationship in a way she wanted to). The problem is, very little in 50 Shades of Grey is consensual. For the most part, Christian coerces Ana, scares her, forces her to do things against her will and puts her in positions where she can't escape him. More than that: very few interactions in the book (maybe in the movie this was done better?) are what you'd expect from a couple in love. They are mostly him saying he wants something, her saying no, him getting angry and her giving in in a mixture of fear and horniness.
Now, I'm up for people reading whatever they want and having whatever fantasies they want. But please don't call having a person physically and psychologically hurt you against your will BDSM. It's not what BDSM is.
(Final note: BDSM communities, like any other community, have dangerous people. People who do want to hurt and take advantage of others. However, like in most other communities, these people are the exception and are often excluded after it is known that they are dangerous and new people tend to be warned about them.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)