C.S. Lewis & Theoretical Determinism

In Through the Wardrobe, a book of essays about the Chronicles of Narnia, Lisa Papademetriou worries about C.S. Lewis's possible racist tendencies. This is in reference, specifically, to Lewis' treatment of Calormen society. Although I disagree with the charge, I can understand people who get uncomfortable or worried about seeming stereotypes of Arab culture. I always dislike when people stereotype others, including well-known fantasy and science-fiction authors.

To be fair, Papademetriou's essay "In the Kingdom of Calormen" is well-balanced. Papademetriou makes the excellent point that Lewis wanted story, especially the atmosphere of a story, to stand out in the reader's mind. He did this by relying on allusions. Allusions are not the same as stereotypes--stereotypes, I would argue, are the assumptions a writer presses onto a person or culture while allusions leave the door open for the reader's own knowledge/beliefs of a person or culture. (The difference can reside on a fine line.)

Papademetriou points out that Lewis "wanted readers to respond to his writing with their guts, not their minds. He often chose characters and settings that felt familiar in order to let the readers fill in the blanks with their own associations [such as One Thousand and One Nights]." However, she later makes a rather odd turnabout when she claims that since Lewis obviously thinks Calormen culture is completely corrupt, how could he create Emeth, who is honorable and not at all corrupt? By her own argument, however, the image of Calormen nobles as cultured and honorable would be part of the associations that Lewis relied on.

Papademetriou seems to have been caught not by environmental determinism but by theoretical determinism which is a tangled web indeed. Theoretical determinism is the way higher academic types (not Papademetriou) can feel superior about their education without acknowledging that feeling superior is one of those things that gets Western civilization into trouble in the first place (and without considering that Western civilization might actually have something to feel superior about). Theoretical determinism states that an Edwardian, Oxford (Christian) don writing in the 1950's MUST be sexist and racist (no matter what he says) and, therefore, his sexist/racist ideas MUST have been incorporated into his writing (no matter what the critics say) and his readers MUST be infected by those ideas (not matter what they say). It's an easy way to win an argument and almost impossible to refute, as Papademetriou seems to have discovered. (Theoretical determinists of this ilk never seem to wonder if they, at some future date, will be considered just as backward and unhealthy as the writers and thinkers they criticize.)

There is something to be said for Lewis being a product of his time. There is a great deal to be said for Lewis producing such a tough, responsible, intelligent female Calormen character. And, too, there is something to be said for Lewis being trained to see the Arab world from a very, very medieval point of view.

There is also a great deal to be said for modern-day theoretical determinists seeing stuff that simply isn't there.

When I read the Chronicles as a child, I did not make any connection between Calormen and Arabs. I grew up in the 1980's--my view of Arab culture, if anyone had bothered to ask, would have been fairly bland. If hard-pressed, I probably could have come up with "Islam," possibly "oil" and, once I reached college, "Kuwait." But I did not automatically associate Arab culture with terrorists (although I knew some terrorists were Arabs). Soviets were supposed to be the big scare of the 80's; since I grew up with no worries at all on that score (despite James Bond), I can't say I was ever all that susceptible to, or interested in, making theoretical connections between fictional characters and real life groups or people (I'm still not).

Neither did I assume from The Horse and His Boy that the entire Calormen culture was corrupt. Blame it on the libertarianism of my parents and siblings, but I treated the individual encounter between Aravis and Shasta as an individual encounter, rather than a theoretical cultural encounter. I never assumed (or thought that Lewis meant me to assume) that because Shasta's owner was a horrible human being, all Calormen fishermen were horrible human beings. Or that because the leaders of Calormen were obsequious and self-serving, all Calormens were obsequious and self-serving.

What I did pick up on was Lewis' loathing for a particularly type of relationship, one built on flattery, self-degredation, and entitlement (rather than merit). Oh, yes, I picked up on that! And yes, he attaches those qualities to the uppity-ups in Calormen society. He also attaches those qualities to Miraz and Miraz' cohorts. He also occasionally attaches those qualities to our heroes and heroines. (The worst, and most redeemed, character in these terms is Edmund. The second worst is Eustace.)

Lewis also discusses these qualities in his autobiography. In what place, out of all possible places, did Lewis find these hateful qualities in truly mind-numbing quantity?

English boys' schools.

Although his brother did well in all-male public boarding schools, Lewis-- well, "loathed" isn't quite strong enough to describe Lewis' feelings towards his public school experience. He describes his feelings in-depth in his autobiography. He also, in typical Lewis fashion, attempts to be objective, but the pen sure is struggling.

And yet, I've never heard of anyone, other than Warnie (Lewis' brother), arguing that C.S. Lewis made unfair comments about or had racist/sexist/classist attitudes towards English public boarding schools. There may be some anti-Lewis die-hards somewhere making those arguments, but in general, his intense dislike of public schools has not alerted any theoretical determinists.

Granted, English public boarding schools are usually on the end of the "stick to beat them with" of thereotical determinism. But if I can see Lewis struggling to be objective with a situation he loathed and yet perceive no insidious ideas in a book which he loved, I can't help but wonder how much racism and sexism theoretical determinists are bringing to C.S. Lewis. Why do they need racism/sexism to be there so badly? And what exactly are they discovering when they find it?

BOOKS

The Brooders

In her essay about Edmund, "King Edmund the Cute: Anatomy of a Girlhood Crush," Diane Peterfreund explains why Edmund is her favorite of the Narnian heroes. He's mine too (like Diane, the fan fiction I wrote about Narnia involved Edmund), and I agree with Peterfreund's perspective. She points out that Edmund qualifies as a bad boy, but what makes him appealing is that he is a reformed bad boy: a bad boy who made good and has used his bad boy past to gain insight into himself and others. (In response to my brother Eugene's post about Anne of Green Gables and Twilight, I should mention that Peterfreund does dismiss Peter as date-worthy since "while Edmund is logical, clever, understanding, damaged, grave, and quiet, Peter is just perfect. Perfect is boring." He isn't so perfect in the movies--gotta have that internal conflict!--but yes, he is in the books; I think Lewis created Peter as the King Arthur figure of Narnia.)

Despite his bad boy past, Peterfreund points out, "Edmund . . . seemed [to me] to have pulled it together. He may have been somewhat graver than Peter, but he was still a cheerful guy, overall." In other words, he isn't a brooder.

Totally!

But that got me thinking. I agree with Peterfreund in principle--brooders are a total cliche and sooo boring! But do I agree with her in fact? I decided to go through shows (and books) that I like and list the brooders:

Brooder #1: Angel

I have to admit, Angel is a brooder, and I like Angel, but I think much of Angel's broodiness is undercut by Whedon's humor, not to mention Boreanaz's interpretation. Personally, Angel always struck me less as brooding guy and more as intensely introverted guy (which, considering Boreanaz's current alter-ego, the totally extroverted Booth, is fairly impressive). Angel doesn't say much, sure, but I mostly put that down to grumpy guy who lived through the Depression syndrome ("I'm not cheap," Angel says on Angel, "I'm old.") There's a scene in "Earshot" where Buffy, who can now hear people's thoughts, comes to Angel's house to see if she can "hear" him. After following Angel around his house for several minutes, he finally says, kindly but bemusedly, "You can't hear my thoughts. Why don't you just ask me?" Not exactly brooder behavior.

Still, he does brood more than Spike, who seems to brood mostly in spurts.

Brooder #2: House

Granted, House is a class-1 brooder. Again, however, the brooding is undercut by the writing. "You don't have Asperger's," Wilson tells him. "You'd like to, but you don't." And House is always exposing his psyche to people who will not take his brooding seriously or, at least, will point out its absurdity. This makes House's brooding tolerable.

Brooder #3: Hamlet

Personally, I've always preferred the Mel Gibson action-hero version to Launcelot Olivier's blond, swooning prince. I can't speak to Branagh's version. The movie is interesting, but I've never been exactly sure what Branagh was trying to do with Hamlet.

Brooders #4: The English Detectives

I quite like Wimsey who, like House, seems to deliberately act against his own broodiness, but--sorry, PBS mystery fans!--I can't stand Morse, and Lynley gives me a headache. So much angst!! So much melancholy!! Just pull out the violins already: *sigh.*

Brooder #5: Sidney Carlton

When I was in high school, us arty types swooned over Sidney Carlton, the sarcastic, brooding anti-hero of Tale of Two Cities. I think I would find him rather tiresome now; I certainly found the hero of A Separate Peace tiresome (maybe it was just the book). However, I did quite like Lord Jim. But not Ethan Frome. So apparently, I'm an all-American girl: sure, my heroes can brood, but they have got to DO STUFF while they are brooding.

Brooders #6: Mulder & Edward Rochester

Who can forget Mulder?! Mulder is definitely a brooder, but he has the happy accident of being a nutsy brooder. Also, like many of the brooders I have already praised, he is both funny and active. He ACTS. Also, like Edward Rochester (Jane Eyre), he spends his time brooding on one particular problem, at least for the time period that we know him. The brooding has purpose and seems to be less "I'm such a jerk" oriented and more "other people have made my life miserable let's get them!" oriented. Watching a man brood about himself is far less interesting than watching a man brood about an issue.

Brooders #7: The Women

Yup, women can brood too! Buffy springs to mind although, overall, Buffy is thankfully upbeat (yes, I'm ignoring Season 6). Seven-of-Nine doesn't brood since she belongs to the "I don't like it, I kill it" mode of dealing with problems. B'Elanna, similar to Seven in make-up, broods but in moderation, and Tom is very good at handling her broods.

So I'm not completely opposed to brooders, but I do have a healthy love of the ordinary guy who doesn't brood at all, such as Xander (Buffy), Dave (News Radio), Charles Parker (Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries), almost the entire cast of both Stargates (especially O'Neill and Sheppard), Greg (Dharma & Greg) and Columbo.

And I like the non-brooding gals too: Cuddy (House) (maybe that's why I like Amber--she doesn't brood); Carter (Stargate); Monk's assistants (yes, I am excusing Monk as a brooder--he does brood, but there's just so much else going on in the guy's life, the brooding kind of gets lost); Dharma (D&G), and of course, Scully (who is allowed her occasional brood, considering her circumstances, such as--eh hem--her partner).

Conclusion:

So brooding isn't always a turn-off, so long as the brooder has humor, does something about the brooding, and gets over it (now and again). And the brooding is especially tolerable if the brooder is off-set by healthy, upbeat, kind, cool people.

TV

House's Muses

I am now in the middle of Season 4 of House. It is a wonderful season; the Wilson-Amber relationship is paying-off even better than I expected (yes, I do know what happens; yes, I do refer to the season ending in this post).

I have been impressed by how (relatively) distinct House's new team is from the old team. Relatively--they come off a bit flat in the middle of the season, but I put this down to the writers' strike. House seasons usually contain two arcs: the main arc at the beginning of the season followed by a bunch of loose episodes followed by a small arc at the end of the season. Season 4 skips straight from main arc to small arc. All the get-to-know-them-better episodes are missing which makes the distinctiveness of the new team doubly impressive.

Having said that, I think the new team members fulfill similar roles to the old team members: House needs certain types of people around him.

Taub/Foreman Role

First, House needs someone who will disagree with him. As Dobson (played by the marvelous Carmen Argenziano--Carter's dad for you Stargate fans) points out, House doesn't need someone to tell him what he thinks. Rather, House needs the stimulus of a hard logical mind that comes at problems from a different perspective than his own. This is one reason House gets so annoyed with Foreman's "que sera sera" attitude in Season 2. House wants conflict because conflict enhances his ability to process a problem.

Cameron/Thirteen Role

Setting aside the fact that both Cameron and Thirteen are beautiful women (and, as House discovers in the hilarious Ugly, he does prefer his female doctors to be pretty and smart), Cameron and Thirteen force House to consider psychological explanations as part of the diagnosis. Cameron is more of a people-person than Thirteen; Thirteen possesses a remoteness that Cameron would like to have but simply doesn't. Still, Thirteen, like Cameron, is apt to ponder "why" when it comes to a patient.

Basically, Thirteen and Cameron are Wilson, and House needs Wilson. House may loathe psychiatrists, he may mock Wilson's psychoanalyzing, but he wants the pressure to understand a patient's mindset, not just a patient's physical health. (One of the best indications of this is in Season 1, "Kids," when House realizes that Cameron would have learned about bathing-suit-girl's relationships long before Foreman, Chase, or House.)

Chase/Kutner Role

Chase has always been one of my favorites. I think he adds a nice, occasionally deadpan, contrast to Foreman's ambition and Cameron's preoccupation with House. I could never understand, though, what led House to hire Chase in the first place (he was the first person hired of the old team).

Kutner's selection made Chase's selection clear. Both Chase and Kutner are odd men out: they have interests that lie beyond medicine--interests, in fact, that make them immune to good doctoring (and sometimes prone to bad doctoring, as when Chase misses a diagnosis while in emotional shock--an event House takes responsibility for). In Season 1, when Chase betrays House, he does it to save his job, not his reputation. Unlike Foreman and Cameron, he isn't a natural diagnostician, but he becomes a very good doctor under House's aegis and would probably make a fantastic GP. But, ultimately, the job doesn't run Chase. Once he falls in love with Cameron, for instance, he is perfectly willing to go where Cameron goes, not to the best position. This lack of ambition, oddly enough, gives him the capacity to walk away from House's games in Season 4 more than Foreman and Cameron.

Likewise, Kutner likes danger, blowing things up, magic, and secret Santas--non-medical things. Like Chase, he has a wryness that makes him more attune to House's humor. (Kutner also has a gentle guilelessness about him that makes him extremely appealing.)

I think House needs a Chase/Kutner for the same reason House needs clinic duty (no matter how much he resists it). Foreman/Taub may think differently than House. Cameron/Thirteen may go down roads he would prefer to ignore (but knows he can't). Nevertheless, for Foreman/Taub/Cameron/Thirteen and for House, medicine--the case, the patient, the solution--is the controlling interest. For Chase/Kutner, it isn't. House needs this. He needs not just his mirror-self but his non-self.

The result, at least between House and Chase, is a subtle sweetness that House really only shares with Wilson. Chase is the first person House "sees" in Season 4. When Chase shows up in surgery, the potential team members ask, "Are you going to hire him?" Instead of making one of his snarky replies, House glances up at Chase in the observation booth. Chase shakes his head, an almost imperceptible but distinct motion; then, House makes his snarky comment. He allows Chase to make the decision, rather than forcing his decision on Chase--not something he commonly does with Foreman or Cameron.

Not that Chase and House could be friends. Chase isn't Wilson. But there's a purely human, non-doctorly element to their relationship that is missing from House's other relationships. Time will only tell if he establishes the same rapport with Kutner.

I think House's team member choices explain, to an extent, why he is so much fun to watch. I've been surprised by how much I like Amber, House's other-self--even before she started dating Wilson! There was something refreshing, even amusing, about her complete ruthlessness, her desire to pursue her interests at all costs. House has this quality plus another that Amber, cut down in the prime of life, lacks: he wants to be stimulated, he wants to think outside the box, he wants to be shown a different mindset; he even, sometimes, wants to be wrong. He may be arrogant, obnoxious, condescending, and a thorough jerk, but his willingness to test himself, constantly, against different selves excuses many of those flaws.

And makes him devilishly fun to watch.

TV

Buffy, Harris, and Lots of Thoughts about the Appearances of Good Guys and Bad Guys

In the book of essays Seven Seasons of Buffy (ed. by Glenn Yeffeth), Charlaine Harris (of True Blood fame) writes, "The monsters [in Buffy] are all evil. The good guys are all pretty" ("A Reflection on Ugliness"). Whedon, she argues, "uses physical attractiveness to signal moral decay."

I disagree; I also consider Harris contradicts her arguments in her own books. I'll deal with the first point, then the second.

Yes, it is true that, as Harris writes, "when the completely transformed monster's true evil nature comes to the fore," the demons in Whedon's universe transform, gaining vamp faces or serpents' bodies, etc. However, Harris' reasoning that Whedon uses these transformations because he equates ugliness with evil (or wants to make evil obvious) is unreasonable.

Here's why:

1. Harris sees the Buffy demons as ugly; that doesn't mean everybody does. Granted, the vamp faces in early Buffy are a bit cheesy, but the make-up improves and, if anything, vampires in eat-mode achieve the same coolness level as the Wraith. Okay, I happen to think the Wraith are the coolest looking bad guys ever on television, so . . . maybe not. Still--Whedon's vampires have their own cache of wowness as do the other bad guys: I'm not too hip on bugs (Teacher's Pet), but I do think serpents are very awesome (Glory, Graduation Day: Part 2).

I also happen to be a big fan of Armin Shimmerman, who Harris cites as an example of an ugly bad guy. Really? He's about as adorable as a principal can get--and he has all the good lines. ("There are things I will not tolerate. Students loitering on campus after school. Horrible murders with hearts being removed. And also smoking.")

Harris attempts to use Count Dracula as a counter-argument--sure, he's cute, but he isn't THAT cute. Dracula, by the way, is Rudolf Martin who would look good if he were dying of plague--not much of a counter-argument.

I do agree with Harris that the worst of the bad guys is Warren who never transforms. Harris perceives this as a sign that "Whedon's view is growing more sophisticated" (Warren is the main bad guy for Season 6). She misses the fact that Warren isn't a demon. In Whedon's universe, the supernatural bad guys are demons who have robbed human souls. Sure, humans may regard them as ugly (though that's inconclusive), but that does not mean the demons do. To borrow an example from the first season (before Whedon became "sophisticated," Hollywood help him), the Master makes it clear that as far as he is concerned, humans are annoying and whining and just so darn pudding faced. He and his loyal Luke, of the lovely deep voice, never change.

I would agree that Oz's werewolf is disgusting, but I think that's more bad make-up and the inability to hire REAL wolves (which are probably more expensive than human actors) than any specific statement about ugliness and evil. In any case, nobody but Kane (Phases) considers Oz a bad guy in his monster state, and Willow doesn't seem to have much problem adjusting to his "other" self.

There are at least three other indications--one of which Harris brushes over, the others of which she misses--that the "good guys" on Buffy don't always find demons disgusting: when Buffy kisses Angel while in vamp face, and when Giles confronts Buffy's come-alive nightmare of being a vampire. Buffy is ashamed, NOT because she is ugly but because the vamp face reveals one of her deepest fears. With no revulsion whatsoever, Giles looks at her and says gently, "Why didn't you tell me?"

Additionally, when the swim team morphs in Go Fish, not one of our good guys judges the changed team members as intrinsically evil. Buffy is downright sanguine, putting their animalistic behavior down to their animalistic state. Harris appears to have made the leap from ugliness to evil when no such statement was intended by the writers, but Harris' faulty assumptions are hardly Whedon's fault.

I also must mention that I consider one of the truly good guys, Sid (The Puppet), to be thoroughly disturbing (not exactly a "pretty" good guy).

2. Harris argues that Whedon should have recognized that "evil is not so clearly denoted in the real world." She asks, "Wouldn't we learn a more graphic lesson if the monsters retained their more attractive aspects even as they showed their most monstrous behavior?" Yes, we would learn something, especially since that's exactly what Whedon did.

Now, I have my own problems with Whedon regarding Buffy (namely, Seasons 6 & 7), but I don't see the point in accusing him of something he hasn't done. The first episode of Buffy opens with sweet-faced, pretty Darla luring a teenage boy into the deserted high school. Eh hem, Harris, she certainly didn't do it in vamp mode. True, she changes to vamp mode when she is about to feed, but I'm afraid her victim doesn't have much time to react. The evil has been accomplished long before Darla changes.

Likewise, bad Angel stalks and seduces women with his "golly, gee, whillikers shucks" act multiple times and his friendliness on those occasions is terrifying precisely because the viewer knows that this is bad Angel but Angel's victims-to-be do not. Likewise, Ted's behavior (Ted) is far more terrifying before we--and Buffy--learn he is a robot (and, therefore, beatable). Granted, the wonderfully slimy mayor transforms at the end of Season 3, but there is such a thing as making a show exciting to watch. Besides, who can pass up a huge snake going, "Well, gosh" over a pile of dynamite?

Over and over again, the villains of Buffy use prettiness to obtain their ends; they also, I would argue, commit more vile acts in their pretty states than as demons (the mayor's seduction of Faith is far more vile than anything he does, briefly, as a snake). This is backed by the fact that Buffy can sense vampires long before they change (by their bad clothing in one case but intuitively in many other cases).The transformations, quite frankly, appear to be more for the sake of fun than for the sake of making moral declarations.

This brings me to the end of my problems with Harris' essay. I would still have disagreed with her essay if I hadn't known her name. As it is, I have read several of Harris' Sookie Stackhouse books. In fact, when I first opened Seven Seasons of Buffy, I wanted to read Harris' essay because I had read her novels.

I was somewhat surprised by her essay. It wasn't until I read the fifth book in the Sookie Stackhouse series that I realized Harris may have no idea how completely at variance her criticism of Buffy is with the messages of her own work.

To back up: I do understand where Harris is coming from psychologically. I happen to find discussions over appearance rather distasteful. I was one of those unfortunate weedy teens with bad acne, and it took me a long time to realize that although teens, and some adults, will make fun of bad acne, even teens will respond to the unfortunate's sense of personal authority. If you act coy and ashamed, people will pick up on it. If you don't, they tend to respond to your sense of confidence.

Still, I've never shaken my distaste for discussions about people's clothes or skin care or weight. I'm one of those lucky people with a good metabolism and great genes who has to practice exactly zero discipline to maintain a decent weight. I believe this makes me completely unqualified to pass judgment on any one who does have to practice discipline and self-restraint to meet their weight goals.

This is all to say that I understand where Harris is coming from in her essay. It is also to explain why I stopped reading her books: I found her obsession with appearance distasteful.

To return to Harris' Sookie Stackhouse series: Sookie is a nice, average looking (pretty but not glamorous), normally weighted young woman who encounters vampires in her neighborhood near New Orleans. She is telepathic but otherwise fulfills the respectable role of so many suspense/mystery heroines: the good girl next door who finds herself in extraordinary circumstances.

Extraordinary circumstances that involve her being ogled by a truly stunning number of men.

Before I continue, I should state that the books are great examples of modern fantasy writing; they combine an underground world of vampires and fairies, etc. with the everyday work-a-day world. One reason I stayed with the books as long as I did, other than the ebullient Eric, was the layered world created by Harris--something I find extremely difficult to do in my own writing and always admire in other people's work.

In book 5, however, Harris begins to head Sookie down a path that so many female suspense/mystery writers seemed compelled to take: the Road of Multiple Suitors. I can only surmise, based on the Twilight series' existence and success, that female writers and their readers enjoy fantasizing a princess-quest allotment of suitors for their heroines. Too many female-written mysteries contain if not several suitors, at least two who vie, unceasingly, for the heroine's attention. I have no very high opinion of the heroines and almost no opinion of the suitors (get a life already, people).

At least Buffy only had two obsessed suitors; they occurred at different times; and Whedon did not disguise his belief that both relationships were doomed. And during those relationships, Buffy had no problem assessing what she wanted and didn't want (however confused she was over Spike, and no matter how badly the writers handled the relationship, Buffy is very clear that she doesn't want to be in a permanent relationship with Spike).

However, Sookie belongs to that echelon of female heroines who don't believe in their own prettiness. When dealing with glamorous women, said heroines (1) befriend them, thus rendering the glamorous women clawless; (2) despise them because said glamorous women are also snotty; or (3) feel dowdy in comparison at which point a suitor's ogling will reassure our heroine that she is quite attractive.

My feminism rebels.

Give me an indifferent heroine or a heroine who knows her attractions and flaunts them over a heroine who isn't into her appearance but happens to be pretty anyway and whose writer never lets you forget the fact. Give me Samantha Carter or Seven of Nine or Teyla (all completely unapologetic gorgeous women). I'll take Captain Janeway, who is largely indifferent to her appearance (except her hair), or any of the doctors from House. Give me Scully, who is so wonderful to watch, being so fastidious in her dress and so consumed with her personal interests (and Mulder). Give me Buffy who worries about her appearance but doesn't try to tuck it away!

Spare me the heroine who will say she isn't pretty but has plenty of supporting cast characters to show/tell her exactly how sexy they think she is.

In Book 5, Dead as a Doornail, Sookie goes to clean out a dead relative's apartment. While there, we, the readers, are presented with 2,000 reasons why Sookie MUST, against her own inclinations, wear skin-tight lycra pants (those pants people wear to gyms). I don't remember all the reasons--something about the cousin being a smaller size and not owning any sweats and Sookie not having a car or, I can only assume, the wherewithall to call a cab (perhaps she doesn't have any money either; I forget) let alone time to go to Walmart and buy some sweatpants. We are presented with a trillion excuses--that any reasonable adult would be able to circumvent with reasonable ease--that force Sookie into wearing the lycra pants, which, we are assured, isn't typical of her. She doesn't usually go around showing off her body like that, not because she is old-fashioned and modest, you understand, but because it isn't how she sees herself.

But *oh, a woman's burden* she puts them on anyway and then proceeds to go out into the apartment's main living area where two of her current oglers, sorry, suitors are stationed and, presumably forgetting they are there, bends over to put her hair into a twist or a ponytail or something. And when she straightens up, well, wouldn't you know, they are staring at her. Obviously, those horny men were checking out her . . . wink wink nudge nudge.

But Sookie isn't the kind of girl to flaunt her stuff, because, you know, she doesn't think she's, like, all that gorgeous or stuff, and Harris certainly isn't totally, like, obsessed with people's appearances. (Sorry, the whole thing is just so . . . teenagerish.)

I finished the book; I've never picked up another (that's not true; I pick them up at the library and read the ends to see if anything has changed in Sookie's universe--does she have another suitor yet?).

Talk about pure Victorianism; the idea of the devouring gaze is, I believe, a Victorian concept. Well, maybe, it's a medieval one. But the linking of coy physicality and ogling men is pure Victorianism. The medievals, at least, didn't make it so creepy.

I considered the modern, female mystery/suspense version of the devouring gaze creepy. Not the lycra pants, you understand. I would have applauded a Sookie who put them on because she didn't want to run to Walmart and didn't care what she wore OR a Sookie who thought, "I've got a darn fine body. I'm gonna go flaunt it!"

What I find creepy is the way the reader in this and similar type mystery series is constantly reminded that the heroine, who maintains an ingenue innocence (she never actually engages with the impact of her appearance--it's all happening to somebody else), is desired by many somebodies and usually, moreover, many handsome somebodies.

Case in point: I recently picked up a Kerry Greenwood novel. Kerry Greenwood is an Australian writer who produced the Phryne Fisher mysteries, an interesting series although the writing varies from horrible to quite good.

Greenwood has currently come out with a new series with a heroine, Corinna Chapman, who is an unrepentantly size-large baker. She certainly isn't into all that model-type starving that her assistants practice. Nope, that's not her style. Take her as she is.

And I respect that. I like that attitude in people. Except Corinna has a handsome boyfriend with a washboard stomach about which the reader is reminded incessantly.

No reason why she shouldn't have a handsome boyfriend with a washboard stomach except it fits into my current beef with Harris and all female mystery writers who play this particular game. For instance, in the mysteries with two suitors, one suitor will sometimes be a bit homely (the best friend the heroine grew up with), but the other suitor will always be a hunk; neither suitor will be especially nerdy or especially plain or an especially bad kisser or especially plump.

So, the heroines of these series aren't obsessed with appearance, but can the writers truly claim they are not?

Doesn't look like it.

BOOKS

The Inside Joke: When It Works, When It Doesn't

One of my favorite scenes from Stargate: Atlantis occurs in the pilot. Our intrepid (but cautious, as Sheppard would say) interglactic explorers have arrived on Atlantis. They decide to send a reconnaissance team through the wormhole. Rodney McKay begins to dial the gate; he engages the first "chevron" ("number" for a gate address) and announces, "Chevron 1 encoded!"

And everybody looks at him, and he shrugs and quickly punches in the rest of the address.

Now, in order for the joke to make sense, the viewer would have to be familiar with the show SG-1 in which each part (chevron) of the gate address is announced separately as the gate turns. This makes sense since the gate in SG-1 engages relatively slowly and a failure to announce each chevron could lead to an accident. And it also sounds really cool: "Chevron 1 encoded! Chevron 2 encoded!"

But this announcement is completely unnecessary on Atlantis where dialing the gate is, really, all the difference between dial-up and DSL or Roadrunner.

So the joke is implicit. I happen to think it works, however, since McKay is exactly the kind of guy who would like to announce each part of the dial-up process in a dramatic way and, also, because it catches the viewer off-guard. Like McKay, the viewer--presumably a Stargate fan--is familiar with the "old way" of doing things. For the viewer, it is natural for McKay to announce the first chevron since, well, isn't that the way people always dial the gate?

To summarize, I think the joke works for three reasons: it plays on an assumed preconception by the viewer; it underscores character development; and it works naturally into the plot.

Likewise, the constant (and hilarious) banter on Psych comes across as completely natural although I only pick up about a quarter of the references the first time through an episode and only understand about half (some websites have taken to explaining the references for each episode: cliffnotes for cable!).

Despite the obscurity of some of the references, I think they work because they create such believable dialog. These types of allusions are common between two close friends. In fact, if you listen to the commentary, this is exactly the way Roday and the script writers tend to talk. Also, although the banter assumes knowledge on the part of the audience, knowledge is not required to understand the plot. Again, the banter underscores the characters' personalities.

On the other hand, I thought the inside jokes for Ocean's Twelve (not Eleven, which used pop culture references excellently, or Thirteen, which concentrated on other stuff) were pathetic. Julia Roberts getting excited about Julia Roberts did not make me laugh. It actually made me feel rather sad: all these Hollywood actors caught in their tiny bubble of reality. Yes, there are people who get hysterical about Julia Roberts, but the fact is, a large majority of Americans just don't care. And many of those same people do watch movies.

It reminds me of the Ocean's Eleven commentary where Brad Pitt informs the listener that sure, out in the lobby all the fans are screaming about George Clooney and Julia (and me, he didn't say) but behind the scenes, the actors with real weight are folks like Elliott Gould.

Well, yeah, that doesn't surprise me, but his awe made me a bit sad. But then, if you were a movie star, and you were on Oprah every two months, and your face was plastered on magazines at the newsstand every week, I suppose you would start to believe in your own omnipresence.

It doesn't make for a good inside joke though. It becomes important in and of itself rather than a natural component of the plot.

Good inside jokes? Bad inside jokes? If you have 'em, share 'em!

TV

Full List of Published Works

I decided to post a full list of my published works (since my Fiction page does not currently have one). Here it is!

Katherine Woodbury Published/Accepted Short Stories

"Top of the Mountains" (Tales of the Talisman, September 2008): a priest and his female cleric settle on a colony where the priest instigates a rebellion against the human planetary council that controls religious dealings with aliens.

"Devil's Pet" (Andromeda Spaceways #35): in this Dilbert-meets-Milton tale, a young woman descends into workplace Hell to rescue her dead boss.

"Scattered" (Irreantum, Spring 2007): Elijah and his enemy, Jezebel, meet up in modern Portland, Maine where they alternately clash and pursue each other over the issue of rising taxes and God's intentions.

"Verbal Knowledge" (to be published soon by Tales of the Unanticipated #29): in a futuristic society, Roger can shape people's actions based on verbal suggestions. He becomes embroiled in a corporate conspiracy and ends up shaping himself to feel love for one of his victims.

"Brutal Rituals" (Space & Time #100): ancient and modern cultures collide in this tale about a ritual rape. A new emperor, returning home after many years abroad, must perform the ritual--distasteful to his modernized sensibilities--or alienate his subjects.

"Untainted" (Talebones #33): a student at a spy school challenges her teacher. To protect himself, he convinces her to give up her corrupt memories and become "innocent."

"Escaping Rouen" (Gateway Science Fiction, Spring 2005): in this alternate universe, Joan of Arc meets Henry V after she has been captured by the English; King Henry must decide whether Joan should be executed. Gateway Science Fiction is defunct. "Escaping Rouen" can be read on my Fiction page.

"Impersonal" (Andromeda Spaceways #24): a secretary is forced to adopt multiple personalities when her company splits. She uses these personalities to undermine her bosses.

"Lodging" (Talebones #31): a princess marries a ruthless king to satisfy her brothers, but the ghost possessing her wants to take revenge on the king.

"Masquerade" (Leading Edge #47): princes competing in a quest agree to undergo a psychological ordeal. The ordeal is complicated by a saboteur and a princess disguised as a prince.

"Seriously" (Irreantum #5.4): a re-telling of "Gawain and the Green Knight"; in this version, the Green Knight's human foster daughter helps Gawain who is neither as pure nor as dishonorable as he is portrayed in the original poem.

"Nameless" (Far Sector.com, Spring/Summer 2004): a horror story about a creature that lives in a mail chute and haunts a receptionist over a letter she wishes she didn't write. Farsector.com is now defunct. "Nameless" can still be read at Fictionwise.

"Thin, Scarlet Line" (Irreantum #5.1): the story of Rahab and the spies from the Old Testament with the addition of a mystical Man of Chance. The Man of Chance helps Sala, a spy, find Rahab in Jericho after it is destroyed.

"Battle Tactics" (Cicada, January/February 2003): a "behind the scenes" look at the Trojan War. Odysseus, ever scheming, helps save Helen's new husband even as Troy falls by deceit. Characters from the Iliad and Aeneid appear.

"Thorns" (Dark Regions #16): Sleeping Beauty with a twist. The witch accompanies the prince to the castle where they find Sleeping Beauty murdered. Dark Regions is defunct. "Thorns" can be read under its original title---"Kicking Against the Pricks"--on my Fiction page.

"Janitor's Closet" (Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine #47): a modern fairytale in a college setting. A godmother head secretary, a princess disguised as a vacuum cleaner, and a bad fairy imprisoned in a fax machine combine to create a "Happily Ever After." The magazine stopped publishing at MZB's death. I do not know if any back issues are still available.

"Golden Hands" (Space & Time #91): a dark version of the Rumpelstiltskin fairytale. A conqueror needs money to complete his campaign. When he finds a woman who can change straw to gold, he demands her help and is then confronted by her goblin abuser.

"The Birthright" (Space & Time #89): a modern fairytale set on a Maine island. An ancient curse by mermaids haunts a family. While the father dreads the curse and the mother denies it, the son wishes to covenant with the mermaids.

FICTION

Published Fiction

This has been one of my best years publishing-wise!

My story "Top of the Mountains" where a radical priest and his cleric fuel a rebellion on a planet occupied by humans and aliens was published this October by Tales of the Talisman (Volume 4, issue 2).

My story "Devil's Pet," a C.S. Lewis/Dante/Dilbert-esque satire, was published this summer by the Australian magazine Andromeda Spaceways (issue #35).

My story "Scattered" where Elijah, the prophet, and Jezebel, his nemesis, meet up in modern-day Portland, was published by the Mormon literary journal Irreantum (volume 9, number 1) this summer. A review of "Scattered" can be found at Motley Vision.

Coming out later this fall:

My story "Verbal Knowledge" which mixes corporate politics with a fantasy/science-fiction anti-hero who can mold people through speech is schedule to be published this fall by Tales of the Unanticipated (issue #29).

FICTION

Why Rimmer Is Such a Great Character

I've been rewatching Red Dwarf recently and have been reminded, once again, what a truly awesome show it is! It is a surprisingly low-budget sitcom with only three (later five) main characters. Of those characters, it is easy to like Lister and the Cat, but I have always had a soft spot for Rimmer, played by Chris Barrie. Here are my reasons:

1. Rimmer has great lines.

This is a very British approach to comedy. The British, more so than us earnest Americans, allow their "smegheads" to be more than just the dupes of the show. The "smeghead" in British sitcoms is often the holder of sarcasm, the rude character who speaks the truth. He is Becker, only, unlike Becker, he isn't the hero of the piece. (One U.S. example is Family Ties where Alex, who is always proved wrong by his so-called enlightened parents, nevertheless has most of the good lines.)

2. Rimmer is unhappy.

The writers make it clear that Rimmer has decided to be miserable. Non-misery creates extreme dissonance in Rimmer's brain. He has constructed a story to explain away all goodness in his life, and he accepts nothing that doesn't jive with this story.

He has also, the writers make clear, had a more stable upbringing than either Lister or the Cat. He has even had more opportunities than Arnold "Ace" Rimmer. Rimmer has literally and figuratively created his own hell.

Yet he remains a pathetic character. His upbringing, however stable, was nothing to write home about--ha ha. And he is truly unhappy. I think this is one of the smartest characterizations on the show. Rimmer's obnoxiousness is grounded in real unhappiness, rather than intrinsic horribleness. Two of the most continuously sweet (but unstated) aspects of the show are that Rimmer and Lister continue to sleep in their original assigned quarters (yes, I know this is largely due to the show's expense budget, but it makes psychological sense) and that Lister never does replace Rimmer with a different hologram. They accept each other as what they are, no matter how annoying. In "Justice," Lister admits that although Rimmer has no friends, Lister cares what happens to him, and Rimmer, who would never be so honest, depends on that emotional support.

3. Rimmer is a good counter to Lister.

Lister is the moral center of the show, but he is also lazy and slobbish. In "The Inquisitor," Lister judges himself the hardest since he has the most potential and knows that he doesn't live up to it.

Lister's live-and-let-live policy is very relaxing, but every so often, this makes him miss the obvious. In "Thanks for the Memory," Lister gives Rimmer the memory of being in love. He gives Rimmer the memory of one of Lister's relationships. Rimmer immediately recognizes the worth of the relationship, something that Lister had shrugged off (I was young, I was playing the field--"I thought that?" Rimmer responds. "I must have been mad. She was great, and she thought I was great.").

Lister does take the moral high ground as he argues that Rimmer (and Lister himself) should retain the memory since it is better to have lived and loved, etc. etc. However, and this is why Lister remains the character all the other characters rely on, he respects Rimmer's insistence that the memories be removed. Rimmer's insistence that the memories be removed takes us back to point 2. Sure, Rimmer is wrong, but which of us hasn't wished (a la Willow in "Something Blue") to simply remove our heart ache, like an appendix? How many of our true fears and attitudes does Rimmer vocalize?

Red Dwarf always astonishes me. The individual episodes are so fundamentally simply, and yet, the psychology could keep a person talking for years.

Morality in America: Spike & Dexter

This post is actually related to the post below about religion--however the relationship is tangential rather than direct, so I decided to post separately rather than in the comments.

I am rereading P.J. O'Rourke's commentary on Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. O'Rourke refers to a prior work by Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where Smith expounds on morality: what it is, how it works. O'Rourke argues it is difficult to understand The Wealth of Nations without understanding The Theory of Moral Sentiments; Smith's arguments in Wealth largely rest on accepting the truth that human beings are ultimately self-interested, even if they shouldn't be. Socialism doesn't fail (massively) because it is inherently evil; it fails because it doesn't take human nature into consideration (but, rather, wishes it away).

Rereading O'Rourke reading Wealth led me to musing on the nature of morality. Morality, to an extent, is something we can't see or label. It is either a mass of action (that is, it is quantifiable only over time) or a state of mind (there is a third option, which I will get to later). In other words, although morality results in observable behaviors, it is rooted in something that is beyond observation--Smith, for example, believed it is rooted in imagination, the ability of humans (unlike animals) to empathize, to imagine another state of being from their own.

To be extremely general, morality in our culture is rooted in law or in thought. In Dexter (specifically, the first season), morality is imposed on Dexter externally: the law of Harry (his foster father). Dexter does not feel, or claims not to feel, a sense of right and wrong (the character is complex enough to make this issue somewhat debatable), but he has enough self-preservation and respect to follow his foster father's external law. The accumulation of Dexter's actions make him a moral person (i.e., it is not the randomness of his actions but the totality of his actions that matter: observable behaviors over time form the abstract claim, This man is moral).

Spike, from Buffy Seasons 4-6 (that is, Spike post-chip/pre-soul), also has an external law that prevents him from killing humans (Spike is a vampire). I personally think more could have been done with this issue. However, Whedon and the Buffy writers chose instead to argue the second root of morality: no matter how good Spike behaves, he is never moral because he never feels moral. He is displaying positive moral behavior against his will.

This perception of morality has its roots, I think, in religious discourse, but it has spread through our culture to become a kind of emotional absolute. The religious claim states that a person who accepts certain laws or ethical obligations will be motivated to make moral choices. After all, external forces only work so far. A society where people did not feel any desire to do good would destroy itself fairly rapidly.

Unfortunately, that claim has morphed to mean, If I feel good, I must BE good, which, as Adam Smith could have pointed out, doesn't really work. After all, I could persuade myself to feel good about, oh, anything from smoking to socialism. For this reason, although I agree that God is Love, I also agree that God, as C.S. Lewis would say, isn't a tamed god. He doesn't exist simply to provide justification for any given emotional upheaval of the moment--hence the need to be grounded in a supernal but ultimately real and structured moral code.

Still, this concept of morality (morality as an internal process of thought), like the earlier concept (morality as an imposed, external law), is abstract--hence the tendency of law and college instructors to ask for evidence and essays, not just confessions. Which doesn't negate the need for, say, students to feel personally motivated to do well. Spike & Dexter can't be separated since both concepts of morality are necessary, and used, in our society. But since both cannot be applied in all contexts, knowing how they work could help us, socially speaking, determine how they should be applied.

This brings us to a third concept of morality, which, oddly enough, is more abstract and yet more grounded--morality is choice. A choice can sometimes occur over several days, weeks, or months. On the other hand, it can also be made in an instant. In both cases, it happens in time and is purely mental. We can't see it; we only know what results from it. Those results can be tracked, but they depend on internal, invisible decisions; the way is left open for both objectively realized evidence and unseen free will.

Morality as choice brings the two other concepts into harmony. It allows us to distinguish between unintended morality (which is still beneficial to society) and intended morality (which is necessary for our own moral growth). For instance, I would argue that post-chip/pre-soul Spike exhibits intended morality when he refuses to help Gloria and give up Dawn. He is motivated by his love for Buffy rather than by an internal code of ethics, but he makes a choice--he uses imagination or empathy to place himself in Buffy's shoes.

In the first season of Dexter, I would argue that Dexter's morality is proved at the very end of the first season, when he chooses his sister over his brother--he chooses to obey the law of Harry rather than thwart it.

But of course, that immediately begs the question, Was Dexter NOT behaving morally before when he kept the law of Harry? Well, yes, he was, so . . .

This is why I'm not a philosopher. I'll let O'Rourke, paraphrasing Smith, have the last word:

Adam Smith did not think we are innately good any more than he thought we are innately rich. But he thought we are endowed with the imaginative capacity to be both, if we're free to make the necessary efforts.

HISTORY & LORE

I've Talked About Politics; I Might As Well Talk about Religion!

Warning 1: This post involves positive ruminations about religion. If religious discussions make you uncomfortable, don't read it! If you think all religious people are dopes, don't read it! If you want to write comments about how corrupt and/or blind religious people are, I would suggest a different blog that actually discusses religious people in those terms.

Warning 2: This post deals with the "scriptures are just good stories/metaphors that help us learn about life" approach. This post disagrees with that approach. If you have (1) leapt to the conclusion that I am a rampaging fundamentalist or (2) think anyone who accepts scriptures as more than metaphors is a fool, the remainder of this post will simply annoy you.

You have been warned!

I consider the "scriptures are just good stories/metaphors that help us learn about life" approach to be barely more tolerable than the "everything in the scriptures should be taken literally" approach. The one opens religion to navel-gazing and warm fuzzies while the latter simply moves theology into missing-forest-for-the-trees territory.

Religion rests on a leap of faith, a leap that is not merely metaphorical or good-hearted or instructive but is, in the eyes of the world, completely irrational and incomprehensible. Paul spent most of his missions and letters trying to teach people the doctrine of (literal) physical resurrection whilst they very literally laughed in his face (and occasionally did worse things): a literal physical resurrection was too simplistic, childish, wishful, ridiculous, unbelievable and, frankly, corporal, get outta town, Paul.

I obviously don't agree with such detractions. Here's why: if I wasn't religious, I would be a materialist. I have never understood settling, belief-wise, for the non-physical, nice-sounding instructive metaphor rather than the real, if unlikely, physical claim.

I don't believe that accepting a real, if unlikely, physical claim places me in literalism territory, mostly because I'm not a big fan of either/ors. For example, to get really controversial, I don't accept either the metaphorical explanation of the beginning of the Bible (the creation story isn't talking about the actual creation but rather about the importance of nature in our lives!) OR the literal perspective which presents the first two chapters of Genesis as some kind of Douglas Adams' self-help manual: How to Create a World in Six Easy Steps.

I believe Moses received a vision from God about the beginnings of the universe? the world? humankind? the Israelites? Something. Moses then wrote down that vision. What he wrote down was later rewritten but the essence of what he wrote can still be found in Genesis.

In other words, Moses saw something. God wanted him to see it. Moses wanted us to know. That's a pretty good starting point for me. It's real.

Now, I'm not saying it's real in the "I can prove it through court records" sense. I know I can't. I'm saying that, to me, the reality of a man talking to God and seeing something important about humankind is much more interesting and intense and worth believing in than literal statements or metaphorical philosophizing.

Okay, now that I've talked about Genesis, I'm going to talk about the Book of Mormon, so if the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general makes you squeamish, you can stop reading.

I believe Joseph Smith found and translated the Book of Mormon. That's what I believe.

This is what I think: I think that, like all translators, much of Joseph Smith's own personality and perspective crept into what he translated but the essence of the original text is still there. As a lifelong student of folklore, fables, and myths, I think the Book of Mormon reads like nothing ever written (which isn't to say that similar motifs don't show up in folklore, fables, myths, the Book of Mormon, and, for that matter, the Old Testament). I also think the original writers of the books in the Book of Mormon were, like the writers of the Old Testament, individual and imperfect, however inspired. That is, I think they were real, and I think their reality matters (they weren't carbon-copy modernized characters who simply exist, textually, to make us thoughtful about our own conditions).

Now that I've said all the above, here is my point: Faith is faith is faith is faith. I have no proof for any of the above. From a secular, scientific point of view, what I claim and prove in the classroom or secular arena must involve observable/provable evidence. But in my personal life, what I observe simply isn't enough for me; hence I am religious and believe in stuff that I can't see or prove. Yet I still believe it is real. Or, rather, I believe in it because I believe it is real.

And once I believe in its reality, I'm going to believe in it the way I believe rain is wet, my cats are nuts, and English composition matters. I'm not going to believe in it (just) because it makes me feel good or because it sounds lovely or because it teaches me important lessons about life.

Real things matter. I'm not sure I can convince anyone that they matter who doesn't already agree with me that they matter. Still, the reality of God--God as a being, not an ethical construct--matters just like the reality of history--as a series of events, not an academic construct--matters. (My main beef with literalism is that literalism so often doesn't take in the full essence of the reality.)

Which doesn't mean, I should reiterate, that I expect people to believe in the actuality/reality of the Book of Mormon or the Old Testament or the New Testament. Just, trying to find middle ground by claiming that well, it doesn't matter whether any of it happened because there are good wholesome metaphorical truths in the scriptures . . . that isn't middle ground to me.

I really am one of the fools.

NOTE: I realize I am juggling two definitions of "reality" in this post. On the one hand is the argument that everything in the Bible "really" happened--which I actually don't believe. However, I do maintain that the "historical" personages referred to did exist: Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. (those individuals who matter to the historical narrative). At some point real records were made concerning their deeds, however corrupted or fragmented those records later became.

On the other hand, I don't think Job really existed; I think he is a literary construct. And I'm not completely tied to Esther having been a real person although I think it would be a pity if she wasn't (such a great story!).

Even arguing the existence of various Old Testament personalities poses a problem, however, because I don't think there's anything to be gained by arguing, lawyer-style, that X person existed, ergo the scriptures are "true." I am arguing rather that the stories of the Old Testament are grounded in real events within a historical context (i.e., they were gathered after everybody moved to Babylon for a couple of centuries). They are more than metaphorical lessons and contemporary (for the time) inventions.

Which brings us to the second definition of "reality," which is that the stories point to other/greater realities. This sounds suspiciously like metaphoricalizing, except I am arguing that the realities the stories point to are the actual realities they claim to point to. The creation story is pointing to something that has to do with creation, not to the metaphor of birth. Paul's letters regarding resurrection are pointing to a resurrection, not a metaphor about having a fresh outlook on life.

Basically, I'm arguing that there is a difference between saying, "These people may have existed and what they have to say should be taken seriously" and saying, "What does it matter? It's just a story to make people feel better and give them hope."

HISTORY & LEARNING

Jack Daniel, Gibbs Dinozzo

NCIS and Stargate SG-1 are, believe or not, quite similar television shows.

First, both shows are simply fun. NCIS is a Bellisario show--Bellisario also created Quantum Leap. To sum up: Bellisario produces good, non-frills story-telling television.

Stargate is good story-telling television too. I don't consider the seasons after 4 as interesting as earlier seasons (although there are occasional great episodes). Nevertheless, both NCIS and Stargate provide non-pompous, unself-conscious, self-amused, and enormously relaxing television viewing.

I don't know if there is any overlap amongst the NCIS and Stargate writers, but the life/earth-saving teams of NCIS and Stargate have similar leads. As Eugene points out in response to my post about Stargate SG-1, both Richard Dean Anderson and Mark Harmon play leaders who verge on the edge of exasperation (although Mark Harmon's Gibbs is more tightly strung than Anderson's Jack).

And both Jack and Gibbs have a back-up or foil--Daniel (Michael Shanks) in Stargate and Dinozzo (Michael Weatherly) in NCIS. And despite their very different personalities, Daniel and Dinozzo relate to their respective bosses in similar ways.

(1) Both Daniel and Dinozzo are outsiders to the military. Daniel is an archaeologist. Dinozzo was a cop; in season 2, Dinozzo comments that Gibbs met him when he was a cop, giving the impression that Gibbs deliberately recruited Dinozzo.

By choosing outsiders as their "side-kicks," Jack and Gibbs show they are more flexible than other members of the military. This is effective character development, since both Jack and Gibbs (the heroes) must be relatable to the possibly non-military audience. Daniel and Dinozzo become the conduits through which viewers get to know the heroes.

In their side-kick capacities, Daniel and Dinozzo act as opposites to Jack and Gibbs. Daniel is more intellectual than Jack (not more intelligent, just more intellectual). Jack basically wants to fish, occasionally save the day (whilst thrashing the bad guys), and keep his team members safe. Daniel wants to read big books, translate stuff, look at old monuments, and read more big books.

Likewise, Dinozzo--possibly the most extroverted character on television--is "day" to his introverted boss's "night." Dinozzo is into technology, making him the antithesis of both Jack and Gibbs (Gibbs is especially grumpy about technology). He also makes most of the popular culture references on the show (in one of my favorite scenes in all NCIS, he tries to explain the symbol of the key in Millennium Actress to McGee).

By encapsulating the opposite qualities to their bosses, Daniel and Dinozzo enhance their bosses' positive qualities. Jack does not have to be the intellectual and fishing and arty and life-saving hero; he can be himself. (One of the best lines from season 7 is when Jack's "ghost" tells Carter, "Face it, Carter, I'm not that complex.")

Likewise, by giving Dinozzo all the "hip," up-to-date, cool jargon and toys, Gibbs remains the pure (ungadgety) tough guy. Since Weatherly is perfectly willing to play the clown, Gibbs can be grumpy about "cool" things but still look cool in comparison to Dinozzo (but the cool stuff is still there, even if Gibbs isn't the holder of the cool stuff).

In other words, the sidekicks for both Jack and Gibbs highlight their bosses' strong points while taking over or taking care of their weak points.

(2) On a girly note, Shanks and Weatherly are just soooo handsome and in the same way (although they actually look nothing alike): regular features with fairly strong jaw lines. That is, they are handsome without being pretty and much more relaxing to watch than pretty men. A pretty man, like a pretty woman, can startle and impress the viewer; beauty is its own reward (and has value). But it is rather like viewing too many impressionist paintings. Eventually, you want some meat.

For example, I've always found Gary Dourdan, David Duchovny and Chris Noth much more interesting to watch than Brad Pitt. Of course, sexiness matters as well--which Dourdan, Duchovny and Noth have in the extreme (Duchovny is one of those interesting actors where you get the impression, from the episode commentators, that his physical presence is actually even more charismatic than he comes across on the screen). Shanks and Weatherly are more damped down sexiness-wise than Dourdan, etc., but they have enough sexy vibes to hold your interest. Poor David James Elliott from JAG was, in my opinion, an exceptionally handsome man with about as much sex appeal as a toaster.

(3) Both Daniel and Dinozzo are funny. The only flaw in the Daniel/Jack exchanges is that both actors play the straight man (with Teal'c as the super-duper straight man). Still, Anderson and Shanks have good comedic timing, and Shanks can do the blank-that-was-odd look very well (although in Season 5, you can tell Shanks is bored out of his mind since that kind of look is all he does).

Dinozzo is the Costello of the Gibbs-Dinozzo relationship. He does good physical comedy; the season 2 opening credits show a hilarious clip from season 1 with Dinozzo "dancing." I admit when I first started watching NCIS, I was put off by Dinozzo's superficial sexism (more of this later), but either age has mellowed me or I perceive Dinozzo's character differently than I used to. I now consider him one of the funniest of the NCIS characters (although I have a soft spot for Ducky's conversation).

(4) Lastly, Daniel and Dinozzo both operate as moral centers of their teams. In Red Dwarf, Lister performs a similar function despite the fact that Lister is a slob and much less self-disciplined than Rimmer. Lister is more aware of the moral/ethical problems of a situation even if he doesn't stir himself to deal with them.

Likewise, Daniel operates as the ethical voice of SG-1. This doesn't mean the other members aren't ethical. It just means that Daniel performs that particular role. In the fascinating episode "The Other Side", Daniel continually objects to the lack of background information the team has collected regarding a group of potential allies. Exasperated, Jack tells him to shut up. Jack then has an unsettling conversation with the group leader at which point he apologizes to Daniel and tells him to continue collecting information. (And SG-1 learns that their so-called allies are basically Nazis.)

Jack immediately recognizes (possibly faster than Daniel) that the conversation is "off," and he immediately takes action. His ethics are just fine, thank you very much. But he also recognizes that Daniel's willingness to be the outsider, to look at multiple facets of an issue, provides a necessary counterpoint to the team's objectives. (I like it that Carter sometimes sides with Daniel and sometimes with Jack--unlike so many sitcoms, Carter is NOT the feminine voice of reason and goodness--none of that "If only women ran the world, life would be perfect" crap; I sometimes think the Stargate writers are the most non-sexist, commonsensical people in the world.)

Speaking of sexism, I think Dinozzo deliberately "acts" the part, mostly to annoy Kate (the character, not Kate, the blog writer)--that is, Weatherly is an actor playing the part of a guy who is partially playing a part. Dinozzo is far more reliable and down-to-earth than he comes across.

This shows up in his relationship with Gibbs. One of the most important aspects of the Dinozzo-Gibbs relationship is that no matter how often Gibbs rides Dinozzo, Dinozzo receives the hardest assignments involving the greatest degree of personal trust. Yet nobody ever comments on this fact. It's all so . . . manly and stiff-upper-lippish although Dinozzo's attitude is much more Dennis Quaid from The Right Stuff than Darcy from Pride & Prejudice. As Tom Wolfe writes in The Right Stuff, the astronauts will talk about flying, maneuvers, crashes, anything but the actual courage that makes them take the risks. This is Dinozzo. More than Gibbs, he is the guy who can walk away from the job. Similarly, he is the guy who can relax and find a joke in the most unpleasant of situations. His detachment gives him a degree of sanity that the other, more intense characters, lack. (But his basic loyalty is never called into question.)

I happen to love the Jack-Daniel/Gibbs-Dinozzo combination. I am not interested in the yaoi aspects of male bonding; rather I enjoy the good old-fashioned "we few, we happy few" band-of-brothers quality. Television and movies are beginning to show this type of bonding more between men and women, but it still remains, to a degree, the province of men. It's enchanting.

TELEVISION

If I Ever Needed Proof that (Some) Liberals Are Intolerant . . .

At one of the colleges where I work, I often encounter a guy I've nick-named "Bitter Guy" (he is bitter about his movie scripts not selling--completely comprehensible!). For the purposes of this blog, I will continue to call him Bitter Guy although, yes, he does have a name, and I do know what it is.

He teaches a class after I finish my three classes for the day. Lately, when I've been over in the English building, I've encountered him waiting for his next class to begin, and we've discussed politics. He is a liberal--I'm a conservative libertarian plus I don't much care for political scandals, so I'm not usually ready to combat arguments about what scandalous things have shown up about a politician on the web lately. However, he is a reasonably rational human being, and I'm a reasonably rational human being, and we can usually at least exchange ideas. He can say what he thinks. I can say what I think, etc.

And sometimes the conversation gets downright hilarious. Today, I was complaining about how Democrats and Republicans use the whole "man of the people" approach, and he started doing this riff about how politicians tell stories: "Poor little Johnny with no legs crawled up to me, trailing blood and pleading, 'Oh, Politician, please help me . . .'" (Yes, I do think that is hilarious.)

Unfortunately, our conversations appear to be at an end. Towards the end of our conversation today, we were joined by a guy who works in one of the nearby offices, had overheard our conversations and couldn't contain himself any longer.

As soon as he started, I knew the reasonably intelligent and humorous exchanges I'd had with Bitter Guy were at an end. The new guy--I'll call him totally officious arrogant dude (Toad)--said, "I'm just wondering how they will rig the election this year."

Oh, yeah, conspiracy theories about elections, how fascinating. (Insert MAJOR sarcastic monotone.)

Then Toad started going on about how the computers in 2004 were rigged. I said, "But in Florida when they recounted the actual ballots, Bush won."

"No," he said. "The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, [etc. etc.] all said the votes in [x] states came out in favor of Kerry."

I was still naive enough to think that actually presenting my point of view/knowledge would be effective, so I reiterated that Florida counted the votes, and Bush won Florida, and a tiny article did appear about that fact. [Note: You may perceive that I confused the 2000 and 2004 elections although, for all I know, Florida recounted its votes in 2004 as well as 2000. Joe clarifies information about the 2000 election in the comments, and I comment on my confusion. Unfortunately, it wouldn't have mattered much which election I'd referred to: 2004, 2000, or 1824: Bush stole them all! Toad did not respond to my statement by correcting my misinformation--I doubt he knew my information was incorrect. He responded as follows:]

"Of course you would say that," Toad said. (Remember this phrase--"Of course you would say that": we'll be coming back to it.)

In any case, Toad's response was a huge clue that this was the type of conversation where Toad's "facts" are all legitimate (no matter how unlikely to human nature) while my "facts" are all tainted. Yeah, I've been here before.

I said so. I said, "This is going to be one of those conversations where everything Republicans do is evil, and everything liberals do is good, and I don't do those kinds of political conversations."

"No, it isn't," Bitter Guy and Toad chorused, and Toad started trying to tell me that I was misrepresenting what he'd said.

The ?monologue? didn't get any better. I kept making motions to leave (I should have just walked out), but every time I did, there was an insistence by both guys that they weren't being extreme, that Toad wasn't--as I claimed--simply throwing political statements around and politicizing everything. You can't have a conversation with a person who instead of responding to what you say--see below--puts political bars around it before moving on to his NEXT conspiracy theory.

For example, Toad said, "I'm willing to admit that [United States' democracy] was a failed experiment. I think Plato was right. I'm in favor of a benevolent dictatorship."

"Uh," I said, "I wouldn't agree with that," which was much nicer, I think you will agree, than saying, "You're one of the stupidest people I've ever met. What are you doing teaching here in a good community college? You should be teaching at some yuppie bastion of higher academe with other lame brains who think their freshman-level 'insights' about America are soooo sophisticated."

No, I didn't say that at all; I just said, "Uh, I wouldn't agree with that."

"Oh," he said, "of course you wouldn't."

Of course you wouldn't. Not "Why do you disagree with me?" Not even "Let me explain why I'm right in detail" which would have been excruciating (stupidity doesn't usually get much better in detail) but at least would have shown a desire on Toad's part to communicate, exchange ideas, and maybe learn.

Nope. "Of course you wouldn't," he said. "I've been listening to you for a week."

So this guy has heard me talking twice about politics and has decided, based on those 60 or so minutes that he knows what I think and that nothing I say can surprise him because . . .

Hmm--let's think about this. Let's suppose this guy had heard me going on and on about how evil Bush is, how stupid Bush is, how much I hate Republicans for those 60 minutes or so, do you think it is likely he would say to me, "Of course you think that" whenever I made a statement?

Are you kidding? He would be fawning all over me. We would spend the hour between classes throwing bumper stickers all over each other and telling each other how much we hate the establishment--yeah, they stink, yeah, yeah.

Sheep.

From the beginning of the ?conversation? Toad had been very clear about his perspective, especially in comparison to mine. Plus, I've heard his tone of voice before. It's the tone pundits use to dismiss anyone who presents ideas they don't like without said pundits actually having to address those ideas or explain their own ideas.

So, once again, I tried to point out to Toad and Bitter Guy that I don't much care for these types of political conversations--mostly because there wasn't one. Toad wasn't listening to anything I said; instead, he was dismissing everything that didn't support his "Bush stole the 2004 election; McCain is horrible; Hillary is right about healthcare; American democracy isn't working; one of these days, the Republicans will declare marshal law" perspective. In fact, Toad wasn't prepared to even ponder that he might be wrong about any of his facts or that anyone's facts or perspectives might have validity. (My inability to be completely unreasonable is a handicap in this type of conversation. For all I know, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal did print the articles Toad mentioned, and I personally accept those newspapers as more or less trustworthy sources. If I was less rational, I could have shouted, "We all know the New York Times is simply a product of liberal think-tanks!" which would have been the level Toad was arguing at. But I can never pull off stuff like that.)

I didn't say all of the above, but I did try to say some of it, and, yup, I was told once again by Toad that I was misreading what he'd said.

Then Toad made a mistake. He said, "I don't see how any woman could vote for the McCain platform."

And I got mad, really mad. I despise that kind of political platitude--the kind of thinking that says all women must function as a group and should think a certain way and should only be concerned about so-called women's issues.

I said so. AND once again, Toad tried to tell me that I was reading a stance into his statement that wasn't there. He wasn't making any claims about how women should vote!

But he'd already made the mistake, and I had proof.

I said, "So why didn't you say, 'I don't see how people could vote for McCain's platform? Why did you say 'women'?"

He was actually momentarily stymied, but Bitter Guy--who, I think, was trying to bring the conversation back to a rational level--said, "Here are the things I don't agree with about the McCain platform," and started listing them.

If the conversation had just been me and Bitter Guy at that point, I would had heard him out (as I had done during our prior conversations). But I was so fed up with Toad's disingenuous politicized pontificating, that I interrupted Bitter Buy after the third item.

"Yeah," I said. " And if I then told you that there were things about McCain's platform I agreed with, then you," and I turned to Toad, "would say, 'Oh, of course you do.'"

That, I told them--far less coherently and calmly than I am writing this--is just throwing political statements at people, and I don't do that.

What I really meant to say was "Toads who dismiss people who think differently than them without hearing out what said people actually think are self-righteous jerks," but it didn't come out that way.

"I don't do that," I said and walked out.

I confess I wish I was the kind of cool-headed person who could have wryly pushed the conversation to some truly extreme level and then shrugged my shoulders at the witlessness of it all. I wish I was the kind of cool-headed person who could have said, early on, "I know where this is going" and just left. Sometimes, I can be that cool-headed person, but it's really hard when one is faced when so much foolish self-righteousness within a five minute period! And after two years of grad school, I no longer feel obligated to put up with it.

The irony is, exchanging ideas with Bitter Guy was enough to get me thinking, "Maybe, I'll go the libertarian route after all." I still like Obama even if I think his platform has some major weaknesses [2012: I no longer think this, mostly because Obama has ceased to be a gentleman in my eyes]. Talking to Toad makes me want to go out and vote for every single conservative and Republican candidate I can get my hands on--like those annoying anti-cigarette commercials that make me want to start smoking.

But I've gained more insight into why (some) liberals believe--KNOW--they aren't intolerant despite all evidence to the contrary. It isn't just that they think "my liberalism = tolerance" as I've postulated elsewhere. Rather, they honestly think that belittling another person's perspective isn't intolerance. Toad honestly seems to believe (or acted as if he believes) it is his god-given right or gift to humanity to trot out his political extremism and dismiss all other perspectives from a discussion. Of course, I'm right! I'm doing you a favor by making sure you know how right am I! If you question my tolerance, it must be that YOU are intolerant. If you call me on my intolerance, you must be reading your own intolerant paranoia into my statements. Nothing I say or do could possibly be close-minded--after all, I'm a liberal.

When Goldberg pairs liberalism with fascism . . . he isn't wrong.

Regarding Toad's implicit chauvinism: I address that here.

Convention Notes 2008: Republican Convention

Four years ago, I wrote up National Election convention notes for my family. Those notes can be found on my blog. This year, I am posting the notes directly to the blog. Last week, I posted concerning the Democratic Convention. This week, I will post concerning the Republican Convention. My on-campus teaching jobs also start this week--Back to School!--so I will not post the same level of coverage as I did last week, but I will attempt to post every night.

September 4, 2008

I've been thinking about the news coverage. It does seem that the coverage of the Republican Convention has been slightly more waspish than the Democratic Convention coverage. I know that sort of comment becomes instantly suspect when I mention that I am, all things considered, more conservative than liberal. However, at this point, I have little personal investment in who wins the National Election.

And I have a theory about why the coverage of the Republican Coverage is somewhat more catty than it has been. My theory is connected to my master's program. I should state that none of my professors were particularly prone towards political-correctness; that is, they rarely made any concerted effort to push the students in any particular direction, and they occasionally seemed downright thankful to my tendency to (indirectly) question geo-social-political assumptions.

Nevertheless, most of the students, including me, were raised with political correctness, and at least one student was actually invested in it. Now, in terms of civility and good manners, I'm all in favor of political correctness. When it comes to limiting dialogue, however, I get testy. And I began to notice a trend in the discussions in my program--students freely criticized Caucasians, males, Americans, and Christians but not other groups. I honestly don't think this was due to any specific prejudice. I think it occurred because those groups, at least, could be talked about--without repercussions or worries about crossing a particular line.

I noticed this partly because, as a Mormon, nobody knew whether I was a minority (deserving special consideration) or whether I was part of the Christian/conservative mainstream. I never enlightened anyone (the answer is "Both"). I think being non-labelly is a good thing.

But the (unstated) question always seemed to be, "Can we talk about these people or not?" One reason I never complained about the anti-Christian comments was I feared the solution would be worse than the problem--what kind of dialoguing occurs when nobody can criticize anyone? I also figured, "Mormons are tough enough to take it."

And Christians, Caucasians, Americans (and Republicans) can take it too. Nevertheless, I've wondered if one reason the press went after Palin so hard was because they could--finally--go after somebody. Without tittle-tattle, the press dies. If the press felt hampered, in any way, by Obama's race, a "freebie" (white, female, young, conservative, presumably Christian, pro-life) would have been thankfully latched on to.

And sure, that's a form of reverse racism, but doesn't it bode well for women that Palin does NOT belong to untouchable territory?

Besides, she can take it.

A number of sports people talk. Sweet unaffected presentations. But what's with all this "spiritual revival" stuff? Sorry, folks, I think secular democracy is the best thing that ever happened to the United States, especially for us religious types. Rodney Stark has written a GREAT book (Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief) where he argues that the moment governments lose their hold on religion, religions proliferate!! It isn't that people begin to become religious when a state religion vanishes; it is that the absence of a state religion allows people to express their existent religious preferences.

I'll admit, I think people who get hyper about government offices posting the Ten Commandments are limited in their understanding (the United States is largely the product of Judeo-Christian thinking--accept this, people), but I prefer my politicians to keep their religious feelings to themselves. Don't tell me how to worship God. I can figure that out for myself, thank you very much. Just fight the United States' wars and balance the budget. Thank you and goodnight.

Senator Lindsey Graham: He is saying some truly intelligent things about Iraq. I get so tired of news coverage that does not appreciate the enormous strides that have been made in Iraq. "I'm not saying Barack Obama doesn't care--he just doesn't get it!" This guy is a pretty good speaker--succinct, strong on his main points, able to summarize and then refute the opposition.

Video of Sarah Palin. She didn't marry her high-school sweetheart immediately out of high school. I find that comforting. She does have an impressive resume. She may have made mistakes, but she sure has done stuff!

Let's see, how many Democratic nominees lately have actually done more than show up in the Senate? Okay, that was rude, but I have a theory about why Democrats have a tendency to go for relatively inexperienced presidential nominees. If Goldberg is right and the Democratic Party (and American liberalism specifically) is heavily influenced by progressivism, then the Democrats have been infused by the cult of youth--the idea that young, inexperienced, unpracticed people (politicians, teenagers, etc.) somehow have an "in" to the right, the perfect, the ideal answers.

They don't (by the way).

A video about Cindy McCain--she is a remarkable person. (I think Gary Sinise is the narrator--you go, Gary!)

Cindy McCain: She comes to the stage surrounded by her family--that is really sweet. She's not a natural speaker; she's more the "lady calling for philanthropic aid," which is what she is. She is gracious and . . . wait . . . "If only the Federal government would get itself under control and out of our way!" You go, girl!

That was a fleeting moment. She's a bit dull. I think Laura Bush has a more energetic style--for all her quiet reserve.

Palin is there, and boy, she is perfectly confident without airs or coy simpering. She carries herself well.

Cindy McCain is still dull. But she's doing her job, and she does have a true International perspective. I'm not sure how (if) she will come across to the great American public though. Oh, well, that's what Palin is for.

John McCain is next! I confess I know almost nothing about John McCain other than what I've heard in this convention. I do know that in 2004 (before he dropped out), he was a media favorite. He seems to be genuinely liked by people who meet him.

The video is good. Yes, we are going to hear more about his service in Vietnam. Still, it is a remarkable story, and if a nominee has such material . . . he should use it.

And the video does go on to other things.

John McCain: Positive comments about President George W. Bush and Laura Bush. His mum is 96! He addresses Obama: "You have my respect and my admiration." He means it. That is very cool. "We'll go at it--that is the nature of this business."

Disruption on the floor--what is it with these protester types? Are they THAT threatened by an opposing point of view?

I hate to tell you . . . McCain's kind of dull. But then I don't demand flash and glam in my presidents.

I will say, I think the floor is a little disconcerted by his willingness to go after anyone from tobacco companies to union bosses. I like it.

What will he do?

Double child tax exemption.
He isn't going to wish away the global economy. I can get behind that.
He's all about education. "Empower parents with choice."
Drill off-shore and other ideas: I've got to tell you, I think hybrid automobiles are kind of silly.
Help Georgia?
"I know how to secure the peace." How? How?
His experience.

In a way, it is to McCain's credit that he hasn't provided some huge list of goals (since I never believe in those goals anyway). And I think he really means what he says about bipartisanship and government transparency.

He tells his story again, only this time he mentions the American soldiers who fed him in his cell, and the men who buoyed him up and helped him--that's very cool.

"If you find faults with this country, make it a better one."

He has a positive, upbeat attitude. He hasn't gone after Obama that much. He does appear to have a clear ideology and purpose for running. He just isn't all that . . . gripping. He has passion, but it doesn't reach me.

And there are my balloons! Hooray!!

The commentators liked the speech! I tell you, the press truly likes McCain. They may not like Republicans, but they like McCain himself.

Out of the PBS pundits, only Mark Shields agrees with me--go figure. He makes the point that McCain does not talk as well about himself as he does about others.

Brooks was disappointed at the lack of a clear policy change. He did think, and I agree, that McCain's sincerity came though. I have been told that McCain is much better as an extempore speaker while Obama is much better at planned speeches (should make the debates interesting).

My summary of both conventions: the Democratic Convention was a more professional, stunning spectacle. The Republican Convention, however, came across as more real and raw (which was helped by the Republicans not moving to a huge football stadium). How will the conventions affect the campaigns? I think Obama will be promoted as smart, eloquent, thoughtful, concerned with the average American, and different with an experienced back-up; McCain will be promoted as gruff, old, experienced, patriotic, and non-Washington-circuit with an able non-Washington-circuit back-up.

Let the games began!

September 3, 2008

Mark Shields just made the exceptionally silly argument that "Republicans" tend to turn on the media when things aren't going well. Oh, that's right, Democrats never, ever do that. (Insert supremely sarcastic tone.)

I think there is a great deal of parochialism in politics. In my master's program, I would get incredibly frustrated by the completely un-ironic comments made by students that everybody they knew voted for Kerry. I found it bizarre in the extreme. There has never been a time in my life (including when I lived in Provo, Utah) when I didn't know people who thought and voted differently from me. To not be aware of that information . . . I would have to be dead.

I think the media suffers from extreme parochialism--both at NBC (see Joe's remarks in the comments) and at FOX. The reporters start thinking that ALL right-thinking people think like THEM.

This is all to say that Mark Shields probably honestly believes that when the Democrats squawk over "bias" in the press, they are raising important issues, but when Republicans squawk, it shows their paranoia. This is natural parochialism.

But he really should know better.

Chairman Michael Williams: "Life begins at conception."

I'm a Mormon, and I don't even like where this argument goes. I think House (House, M.D.) is rather cynical about abortion, but I think he has a valid point. Birth is a really clear line. You start giving the fetus (which resides in a person's body) the same rights and considerations as a baby, and man, talk about government interference.

I'm not saying I think abortion is good or right or anything else. I get incredibly annoyed with so-called feminists who think ALL right-thinking women are pro-choice. I think it is empty-headed and deliberately blind to avoid or ignore possible ethical objections to abortion, but this is one area where I think such objections have to come from the individual plus the individual's religious community, family, and doctor. I don't want the government making decisions about this AT ALL.

Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno: "This nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025" regarding gas, energy, etc. Oh, groan. Talk about radical isolationism--and both parties are advocating this.

Meg Whitman, former President and CEO of eBay: John McCain is wonderful--rah, rah, rah.

Okay, I really do need more specifics at this point.

Michael Steele: Everybody in both parties is American, rather than Democrat or Republican.

Whatever happened to supporting your party's ideology?

It isn't the Republican's fault that the more the week goes on, the more fed up I get. It's the sheer confluence of political platitudes. How do political analysts do it? I told my students today, "This semester includes a National Election, and the media is all hyped up. But you know, in a 1000 years, all that will be left will be monuments and writing. That makes me happy."

And it does.

"Drill, baby, drill, and drill now." Okay, I like that line. I approve of anyone who says things so far outside the norm.

The hilarious thing is how much liberal acquaintances of mine think they are advocating non-accepted ideologies when in fact, their ideologies are so much taken for granted that I'm probably the most unique, out-of-kilter thinker they've ever met just because I think Bush isn't evil, Palin is interesting, there are more kinds of feminists than Hillary, and JFK maybe wasn't god.

It reminds me of a very funny episode from Coupling when a Labor (liberal) woman discovers that a guy she wants to date is Conservative. She then discovers that a gay friend of theirs is also Conservative. She is appalled. They tell her, "Hey, your party is in power now. You're the establishment."

"No, I'm not!" she says, horrified.

"Yes, you are," they say. "We're the Rebel Alliance. You're the Empire," and they start humming the soundtrack from Star Wars.

It is hilarious and very, very British. American Liberals just can't accept how very, very establishment and accepted they are.

Mitt Romney is coming up next. Since I just mentioned I am Mormon, I need to address Mitt Romney as a nominee. When Mitt Romney was in the primaries, did I think he should be president because he was Mormon?

No. Well, actually, I didn't much care.

Yes, there were Mormons in my local congregation who supported him. And there were Mormons in my local congregation who were completely opposed to him. And there were people like me who said, "Well, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I really don't think he would have a chance at winning the election" and not just because of his Mormonism.

Interestingly enough, Northern Maine, whose Republicans are about as conservative as Republicans can get, supported Romney in the primaries. I don't doubt his administrative ability, and I know third-hand that he is a very fine and upright individual, but I did question his ability to wow the American people. From a purely "let's win" perspective, the nominee has to be many things to many people. Does that mean that nominees are always the best people for the job? No (look at Kerry). But they do have to be electable (as a negative example, look at Kerry). I was never convinced Romney was that electable.

I will also admit that a little part of me just can't shake the fundamental Libertarian belief that good people don't become politicians, and what does it say about Mormons when one does? Okay, I now apologize to all self-sacrificing politicians from many religions.

Mitt Romney: "Is Washington Liberal or Conservative?" He is speaking directly to the base. And . . . this is why I don't think he could have won the primaries.

He's really going after liberals, and I don't actually disagree with any of it, but it makes me nervous. I tend to respond not so much to what people say, but to the verbiage they use. I've mentioned elsewhere that when I was in my master's program, I got tired of the anti-Christian comments made by a fellow student. The verbiage she used was exactly the same verbiage people used in the early part of the 1900s to argue that Jews were an International/business conspiracy out to get everyone else. Exactly the same types of phrases.

I know she didn't, in her heart of hearts, want a Holocaust against Christians. It was simply acceptable for her to use that language. And I knew enough of history for her verbiage to make me wince.

"Let's keep Al Gore's private jet on the ground--" that is much, much funnier than a reference to McCain's three houses.

But Romney's rabble-rousing still makes me nervous.

The Talking Heads think he is setting himself up for 2012--big mistake, if so. These days, people win elections based on the swing-voters, moderates, and Independents, not the party base (says I).

Mike Huckabee: "I am genuinely delighted to be here tonight for my second choice for the Republican president: John McCain." Now, that is true graciousness. "I have great respect for Senator Obama's ability to become his party's nominee not because of his color but in indifference to it." THAT is a fine line. Me too, Huckabee. And the floor applauded--good for them.

He is a clear, to-the-point speaker. I find him much easier to listen to than Romney. And he's funny. Okay, I confess, I prefer speakers who use humor.

"A government that can do everything for us is a government that can take everything from us." Yes, yes, yes!!! Finally!!!!!! That, to me, is the ultimate point. Yes, people should help each other. Yes, a perfect society would be "of one heart and one mind, and dwell in righteousness [with] no poor among them." But that is only possible if individuals decide to do it. If a government is used to enforce this perfection, it will HAVE to be given the power to do other, less friendly things. And, taking human nature and history into consideration, it will do those things.

"I'm a Republican because I didn't want to spend the rest of my life poor waiting for the government to rescue me."

He then talks about a lot of stuff that makes me think "Do the Republicans really think this will help them win?"

Okay, the teacher story was really great: "You don't have to earn your desks because these [veterans] already did." I also like the way he tied the students' desks to the desk in the Oval Office. I'm all about tying things together coherently!

Not a bad speech, but I'm not the type of person that extreme right stances (middle part of Huckabee's speech) appeal to. Hmm, so maybe I'll be voting Libertarian after all.

Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle: Discussion of Palin. Lingle is the right person to defend Sarah Palin's record, and her speech is succinct and to the point. However, I do wish someone would address the issue of Wasilla's debt. She makes the point that Obama and Biden have no executive experience. True.

Rudy Giuliani: I like him. He tells stories. I hope he tells stories this year.

Comparing Obama v. McCain--"Who are you going to hire?"

In terms of showing magnaminity to the other side . . . I don't think either party is going to win that award this year. The convention floor is extremely partisan (but no more than those Democrats who practically spit when they say Bush's name).

Giuliani has made the point that Obama's records in Illinois and Washington aren't that impressive. He is right about that. Obama's lack of leadership is one of his campaign's biggest weaknesses. (And very saavy of Giuliani to use Biden and Hillary Clinton's words on this subject.)

"Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy"--good line but pretty forgettable.

"If I were Joe Biden, I would want to get that VP thing in writing." That's funny. I don't think Obama is quite as waffling as Kerry; I think he is careful and close. However, Giuliani is doing the job of showing how the "other" candidate is not a reliable bet.

"I'm sorry Barack Obama feels her hometown isn't . . . cosmopolitan enough." Giuliani can be downright hilarious in his delivery. He's a fun speaker.

He sure likes to talk though.

When do they ever ask a man, "Will he have enough time to govern and spend time with his children?" Excellent point!! Isn't it hilarious that the people asking that question are Republicans! Take that, NOW!

No stories. I'm disappointed.

FINALLY!! Sarah Palin is up. Okay (deep breath). What do *I* think? (And I'm sure you are holding your breaths in anticipation of my thoughts!)

The floor LOVES her.

She has just declared what her focus will be as Vice President: Special Needs children.

She will now defend her record. She has a clear, non-shrill voice. She is confident and not defensive. She is far more personable than Hillary--sorry, Hillary supporters (personally, I doubt very much that Hillary supporters will switch to Palin, but I think Independent feminists might go for her).

I have to mention that I like the changing slides on the stage's backdrop.

She is making specific references to what she did as governor--I am impressed!

Gas and oil. Gas and oil. Well, I buy Palin's experience here more than anyone else's so far.

She has delivered some fairly funny bon mots regarding Obama. She doesn't rant. She sounds . . . like a PTA mom. It's refreshing.

Okay, I have to admit, it bothers me when Republicans cheer about NOT giving terrorists their rights. I don't have that much investment in the issue, and for all I know, tackling terrorists is more complicated than the ACLU could cope with, but is that really something to get excited about?

She did a good job. She talked a great deal about McCain and ignored a lot of the press's speculations. That shows real strength of character.

So, I like her. I'm even impressed.

But I need to hear McCain before I make any lasting decisions (which I will then feel free to change at any time).

And my request has been answered! John McCain just showed up--I guess it has become de rigeur for the presidential candidate to show up Wednesday instead of Thursday.

He will speak tomorrow--read this blog for my thoughts on that speech!

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Jo Anne Davidson talks about conservative women. You would think that reasonably intelligent people would already know that many women are deliberately and thoughtfully conservative, but unfortunately, the politically-correct, NOW-like mindset still cannot accept that truly independent and intelligent women do not all come from the liberal camp. Talk about close-mindedness.

Norm Coleman: Reference to Hurricane Gustav. Who says Gustav will hurt the Republican Convention?

"I'm not indecisive, am I? That could be an Obama campaign slogan." Okay, it's the first truly funny thing I've heard in both conventions so far. Democrats can be catty, but Republicans can actually tell jokes. Ann Coulter is nuts, but she is much funnier than Michael Moore.

"John McCain has a face that says, 'Yes' because that's what's in his soul." Excellent line.

Okay, the convention hall is really ugly. I'm disappointed. The Republicans usually do better. I loved the 2000 convention hall which was light with plenty of open spaces and a sand-colored stage. The convention hall this year is just blah. On the other hand, it is simple.

So the Republican Convention is going for the PATRIOTIC/FLAG/WE LOVE AMERICA stuff. Not that I have anything against any of that stuff. I side with O'Rourke who in, I think, Holidays From Hell gets ticked at the lack of patriotism shown by leftists who traveled to Russia and openly criticized the United States. I love the song "I'm Proud to Be an American!" I have no problem with the Pledge of Allegiance remaining part of school programs across the United States. I once got incredibly upset at a neighbor who allowed her kid to throw a little American flag on the ground.

However, I get uncomfortable with the flag waving=good people/Pledge=pure American stuff. When my mom and dad were in school, the Pledge did not include the "God" phrase--that came along later. But these things get sacralized and all my pure liberal conservative instincts go "Yikes!"

David Brooks comes out pretty strong defending Palin and criticizing the media's obsession with her kid. "Look," he says (I'm summarizing), "every politician puts his or her kids on the line, in the limelight. In general, the media has agreed to lay off, but this time, they aren't. Why is that Palin's fault?" Good for Brooks!

The beginning of the Democratic Convention was all "Will Hillary support Obama?" The beginning of the Republican Convention is all about Palin. I think that's one point to the Republicans.

Michele Bachmann: "Government fosters service the best when government binds service the least." She is speaking about John McCain's encouragement of service organizations.

"We must never forget what government is NOT: government is NOT a philanthropic organization. Government is not the family. And government is certainly not the church."

It's about time somebody said it!

She's doing a good job articulating a specific philosophy! Gee, was she ever up for the vice presidential spot?

Wes Gullett with his black daughter, Nicki?: He is talking about Cindy McCain's work. I'm not sure how I feel about the show-n-tell. But those are very sweet girls (who McCain brought home, and Wes Gullett and his wife adopted). The political objective here seems a bit vague: Adoption is a good option? Foster care is positive? The United States is open to immigration?

You know, it is really hard NOT to believe in the bias of the press when you see all this "Ahhh, scandal regarding Palin, look! look! look!" It makes my skin crawl. Where's the civility? Jim Lehrer isn't terribly thrilled with the material; Brooks is getting as annoyed as his moderate soul can allow. Watching Mark Shields justify it is downright distasteful--Palin hasn't even spoken yet!

More discussion of McCain's reaction to Hurricane Gustav and requests for aid (who says Hurricane Gustav hurt the Republicans?)

Fire Capt. Shanna Hanson just got an incredibly warm welcome as did President George Bush (Senior).

These women speakers make me very happy--it's like the Republicans said, "You want feminism--we'll give you feminism!" Good. Nothing ticks me off more than the "oh, you're a woman, you can only think one way, you MUST be a liberal" attitude.

Tommy Espinoza, President & CEO of Raza Development Fund: I finally got it! It's an evening of volunteers and community organizations. As an answer to government control, it's a fairly effective presentation (although I hope someone actually makes the point clear and explains the importance).

So far the convention has appeared less well-coordinated than the Democratic Convention, but the floor is consistently up and the speakers come across as more sincere. (And appearances are deceptive--the Democratic Convention was constantly changing its program which annoyed Jim Lehrer--in his mild-mannered way--to no end. That isn't happening with the Republican Convention. PBS is able to follow its planned arrangements without having to cut to the floor every two seconds.)

Gary Sinise (one of my favorite actors) narrates a film about U.S. Seal Mike Monsoor, Medal of Honor recipient: what a remarkable story! The floor's reactions seem truly warm and spontaneous--it's nice.

The speakers are skipping back and forth from service to military, but the theme is consistent: individual sacrifice.

Laura Bush is up!! I think she is such a fine human being. "I'm proud that the first U.S. female Vice President will be a Republican woman." Yeah, that would be cool.

She says good things about her husband: "Change you can really believe in." She isn't usually so fired up in her sweet, refined way (Fanny Price on a rampage). Good for her!

George W. Bush: I still like him. I know he has made many mistakes, but I've always liked the guy.

"I know the hard choices a president must make." Ye-ah, he does.

It's a pretty normal Bush speech. He praises his wife, like he always does. His praise always comes across as very real and loving. I do like the guy.

Laura praises Cindy McCain--another gracious lady.

Well, nothing really different yet but well-grounded material.

Fred Thompson: He was on Law & Order? I love Law & Order.

He says Washington and the media is all up in arms about a woman who has actually governed rather than hit the "Washington cocktail circuit"--now, that's a great line.

He's a strong speaker: Palin is the only speaker in either party who knows how to properly "field dress a moose." Heh.

Thompson is making the case for McCain as a maverick: so far, it is all "mischievous boyhood" stuff. Instead of George Washington cutting down the tree and then confessing, the story should be that George Washington cut down the tree and then . . . cut down twenty more!

Thompson is going to tell the story of McCain's military record. It is extraordinary--very impressive. Still, it doesn't tell me how his governing will be different from other politicians. But I think it is supposed to be a presentation of McCain's (truly) tough and (truly) noble character. Does the ability to withstand terrible physical torture indicate an ability to withstand emotional and politicking pressure? I don't know.

Still, McCain's history is utterly astonishing. And well-told.

"This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of time have sought in their leaders." Yeah and . . . sometimes, it works. Sometimes . . . it don't. The heroic and charismatic Julius Caesar was an impressive leader, but the bureaucratic Augustus was probably better. Alexander was a great administrator, but he lived hard and died young. Charlemagne was apparently pretty good. Richard the Lionheart stank.

Thompson is a first-hand witness of McCain's behavior in the Senate--this is necessary information. And Thompson is also really fun to listen to. Obama is the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president"--ouch! The Democratic-controlled Congress is the "least accomplished" Congress in history. "This is not reform, and it is certainly not change." He's right although from a Libertarian point of view, you could argue that a totally incompetent and ineffectual president and Congress might not be totally terrible for the United States (economically, at least).

Thompson is the only one so far who has pointed out that taxing businesses DOES hurt the average everyday citizen. "They say they aren't going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket." That is totally funny.

Geez, did McCain consider this guy for VP?

Possibly the best speech so far.

There is a strong reaction from the floor regarding remarks about government corruption and government control. This is the most anti-government crowd of Republicans I've ever seen.

Joe Lieberman is up!! I really like him. He's now an Independent. I didn't know that. (Will Zell Miller show up?)

McCain will put our country first.

*Sigh.* It's not a bad sentiment, but I've been watching over a week's worth of political yaddaya by now. I wonder if I should try speechifying to my students: "You should put your English papers first. You should come together over your peer reviews. You should work on grammar rules that make every American proud."

"God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man." Good line.

"Eloquence is no substitute for a record."

I think the Republican tactic has been set--the old, gruff, independent, experienced guy versus the young buck.

Lieberman can speak to Obama's Senate record. Lieberman argues that Obama's record is less independent than . . . Clinton's--now, THAT is saavy. Lieberman may not completely enchant the floor (although they have been positive in their responses), but he will reach moderate Republicans.

Another good--though loooong--talk. Lieberman said some really blunt things about what's going on in Washington. However, I do think the Republicans' efforts to reach Independents may be somewhat more effective than the Democrats' efforts (I'm not sure leftists amongst the Democratic leadership understand Independents).

I think the evening was a little bewildering, but the speeches were much, much better than the Democratic speeches on the first two nights. (You could probably argue that a three night convention is more effective than a four night convention in any case.)

Palin will speak tomorrow. I'm excited to learn more about her!

Labor Day, Monday, September 1, 2008

Recap:

A week ago, when I began watching the Democratic Convention, I thought Obama and Biden were a shoo-in for the presidency. I should state here that I am a conservative Libertarian. I don't agree with many of Obama's proposals, and in general, am not a big fan of Democratic economic policies. I also don't have the highest regard for liberal attitudes towards the military and military policies. How much liberalism affects or infects the Democratic party is as debatable a point as how much religious fundamentalism affects or infects the Republican party.

In any case, despite my reservations--and the strong possibility that I will actually vote Libertarian this year (rather than going with a vote that "counts")--I thought Obama was going to win the National Election in November by a wide margin. He is young, black, eloquent, and likable. Plus the economy is reportedly not doing so well. (Some economists somewhere once made the case that the National Election is always decided based on the economy OR, at least, the perception of the economy.)

Additionally, the Republicans have made some pretty bad blunders over the last eight years. I am not one of those Independents that thinks George Bush, Jr. (or Senior for that matter) is the spawn of Satan. I don't even think he was (necessarily) wrong to go into Iraq. But, as I mentioned last week, I do think the Bushes aren't terribly good at communicating their visions. This does not mean that history won't appreciate Bush, Jr.'s hard work; it just means that in the world of short-term politics, he is rather a liability to his party.

So, last week, I thought, "Obama has it. Game over."Then I watched the Democratic Convention. It was a very, very smart convention. It was well-crafted. A convention should be well-crafted. It also needs good speakers. The Democratic Convention had good speakers although none of them were really memorable. (The 2004 Conventions included far more memorable speeches from both parties, but the evenings were also far more inconsistent--bad speaker, bad speaker, great speaker, bad speaker. The Democratic Convention had consistently okay to good speakers.)

A convention also needs to create memories. The truth is nobody but people like me watch the conventions, and I mostly watch them to pick up lessons in good and bad communication. Conventions are for the delegates, the pundits, the news media, and the opposition. BUT the impression made by the convention on those listed groups has, I believe, a huge impact in terms of formulating memory. What are people going to keep talking about? What are people going to be hearkening back to? What image will people carry with them over the next three months?

So what was the Democratic Convention's impact on the memory of the above listed communicators?

"Wow!!!! Uh."

It was well-planned and well-executed. It retained an emotional high over four days. It had great music. It was an impressive spectacle. But that's all. Despite the use of phrases like "we must make a change," nothing new was really said. It was, thankfully, slightly less vindictive than Democratic conventions usually are, but there was nothing truly individualistic about it. Palin is the most individualistic thing that happened that week, and she happened to the Republicans.

That's a problem.

Maybe.

It depends on what McCain does this week. It depends a great deal, I think, on Palin. Mostly, I think it depends on whether the Republicans can convince the delegates, pundits, news media, and opposition that the Republican Convention did offer up something substantial.

I am full of curiosity.

Since my television is still wonky, I will be watching a large portion of the convention on CNN.

The Republican Convention has suspended most of its televised first day speeches, etc. due to Hurricane Gustav. Personally, I think this was a wise decision. I also think it is being handled tastefully (with a request for donations for Hurricane Gustav sufferers). Kudos for grace under pressure.

Which is more than I can say about the protesters. Yes, I know they have been mostly peaceful, and it's their right, etc., but all they do is reinforce my (albeit jaded after two years of graduate school) perspective that liberals (who I associate with protesters more than I do conservatives) love freedom so long as it enables them to say and do what they want but no one else--especially not people they disagree with. (I felt the same way about the protesters outside the Republican Convention in 2004 and about the degree of coverage the regular news media gave them. For all I know, there are protesters at the Democratic conventions, but I never hear about them.) Heaven forbid the Republicans should even MOUNT a campaign in opposition to Obama. How dare they!! Boo! Hiss!

Oh, grow up.

Apparently, there were protesters at the Democratic Convention "protesting everything" (thanks to Carole for the update and the quote). However, my objections still stand. I know protesting is a time-honored element of American society, but I can't say that a protester has every convinced me of anything except that political discourse is sadly in need of fewer political opinions that can fit on a sign or a bumper sticker.

(And why aren't the protesters down in New Orleans helping Gustav victims?)

Speaking of being a grown-up, I am impressed by Obama's statement re: Palin's kid (and why anyone thinks Palin's kid being pregnant will hurt her with average Americans is beyond me):

Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. "Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president." (CNN.com)

Good for him: I hope he and his people stick to it.

Hopefully, Hurricane Gustav will not cause great problems to the people on the Gulf!

Coverage of the Republican Convention will resume here when prime time coverage resumes.