Jump to content


Kraggh's Works ♫♪



Photo

The Most Beautiful Woman in the Movies

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Hierarchies, Movies, Wisdom Feb 23 2013 · 275 views
Ghost, favorite, friendship

Posted Image


 

FOR YEARS I HAVE BEEN HAUNTED BY THE PHANTOM OF MY BEST FRIEND.  She is a woman, and very much like an older sister to me.   She is, in a sense, my ultimate peer.  She is the person who never gives up on me, always has faith in me, and knows that I will pick myself back up again when I fall.  She doesn’t coach me, but she holds me in her confidence, knowing that if she can get things right, then I will, too.  We are, after all, peers.
          This perpetual specter has never left me and has been an archetype in my imagination that has come to define my journey in life.  She has played a part in how I look at myself, how my identity has been formed, and how I view other people, since there are few people who are as real to me (or unreal, as further on I will explain) as she is.
          My friend has a face that has been constant and unchanging over the years, and I know its precise details.  As it happens, she bears a strong resemblance to Molly Jensen, a character from Ghost who always really stood out to me because of this similarity.  In fact, my friend and Molly resemble each other on multiple levels, the face being the least of these.  Many of the ways in which Molly is presented echo the presence my imaginary friend has.
          To me, my friend is Eve, the original, archetypal, unadulteraded Woman.  She is the standard by which all femininity is measured.  She is a wholesome and complete individual unto herself, and anyone who reminds me of her is more human in my eyes by association.
          Since I cannot explain this character, and since she has not appeared in any movie, Molly is therefore the most beautiful woman in any film, ever.  Is she more beautiful than my friend?  No, but she out of all the cinematic figures reminds me most of her, so throughout much of this exposition I will speak of Molly as if she was the standard.  So, then, I am more comfortable around women who remind me of Molly, similar to when a father has unique feelings for his son or daughter who reminds him of himself the most.  It’s difficult to explain, but it’s there.  What I can say is that women who remind me of her make me happy.
          It doesn’t necessarily have to be a feeling of attraction.  After all, I do not have a crush on Molly Jensen.  Neither do I have any romantic element with my best friend.  I never will.  She’s a constant in my life, and so is the nature of our friendship.  It’s everything a friendship can be, but it will not be more than that.  She has, to me, been the definition for friendship.  That’s the archetype she falls under, and it’s a unique relationship I wouldn’t give up for the world.
          A good marriage, though, should be with someone who is also a best friend.  It’s clearly a best friend in a different way, though.  There’s a slight difference, and it’s really difficult for me to imagine what it is.  However, I imagine my hypothetical wife as looking very similar to Molly.  How could I not?  Molly is the standard for beauty, and even if it is not a beauty I am inherently romantically interested in, I would still want a romance to include elements similar to what I see in my best friend and Molly.  I do not want her to be Molly, but I would love for us to have all the same qualities in our relationship plus one extra, that being intimacy.  This wouldn’t make my best friend obsolete, though.  I still want to live for my friends, and I want to be as real and as personal with them as possible, and I think that through friendship there is a form of support and happiness that can’t be found in romance.
          For now, I have neither such a friendship nor a romance.  I am unaware if I have met either person, yet, although there have been a couple of girls when I was a young boy who were good friends to me and I will always remember as the best friends I ever had.  Even after I find someone and decide to marry with her, Molly will most likely still be the most beautiful woman in fiction.  In fact, even if I marry an actress, I probably will not find her roles as attractive as Molly, because once I have experiences marriage, no fictional character could possibly be a standard for romantic interest, as I would already have a wife to set the standard for me.  It would be wrong to look at fictional characters and find them beautiful in a romantic way, even if they looked exactly like my wife, because they would not be my wife.  Molly, however, will forever be a reminder of my best friend, and a symbol of what femininity is beyond just attractive interest.  She represents beauty in not just a spouse, but in people of all different relations.  She can be my friend, my sister, my cousin, my mother, my daughter, my sister-in-law, my niece, and a symbol or what makes people everywhere special.  She is the innocent, blameless spirit in every human being, no matter how flawed.  She is, in essence, the image I attribute to the soul.



 
Posted Image
 

To explain why Molly reminds me so much of my best friend, I’m going to take a look at how she’s presented.  For one, I find her pure.  People have complicated emotions, thoughts, and decisions, yet we are all bound by one very simple reality: we are all human.  We are all very much real people, and we are all special.  Something about her really brings that out.  She is depicted as plain and uncomplicated, straightforward in a way that I cannot be.
          Setting her role in the story aside for now, there’s something about how she’s presented.  She’s actually presented in two ways, the first being Demi Moore’s performance, and the second being Caissie Levy’s performance in the recent stage adaptation.   I always preferred the original, which is why I use Demi Moore’s pictures here.  Caissie’s never carried the same impression, even though the character she played had the exact same name and role in the story, because the character was presented differently in the 2012 play.  It was, to me, looking at a completely different character.  Caissie’s was just some character when Demi’s was, to me, not only a real person but also the subject of this ambitiously named entry.  I appreciate the need for a difference, but I’m not a fan of Demi and I still think she found the perfect interpretation of Molly.
          Part of the difference was how she was viewed as a woman.  One of my favorite things about Molly is that she’s very androgynous.  The movie forewent depicting her as a woman and really just made her one of two people feeling the pains of separation and loss.  Before the loss, she was still characterized as just a person.  She wasn’t “the girlfriend” or “the object of the man’s affection”, and she wasn’t some prize to be sought out for.  Yes, she technically was those things, but for me, that’s never where the emphasis was.  Perhaps this is my bias, because of how she reminds me so much of my friend, but the way that the narrative worked for me was that she was a dear friend of Sam Wheat who also happened to be the one person he would marry.  That second part wasn’t glamorized, save for in a moment of passion at the beginning of the movie.  Is that part really famous?  Oh yes, it definitely is.  During that part, though, she ceased to be Molly, or at least for me, and therefore doesn’t count.  It was the “make-out scene” that was sort of a separate story in its own right and my mind sort of created a different character at that moment.  I think that one of the reasons it never stood out to me that much was because when the characters decided to make out it wasn’t treated as a novelty, since in a romance movie kissing is usually a narrative point that emphasizes how people are coming together, whereas these two were already together.  So basically, there was no glamor.  Her presence was really an ordinary part of life, reminding me very much of how ordinary it is to be with siblings and cousins.
          Molly also dressed in what I call “glorious 90’s fashion”, tied with the 50’s for my favorite era of personal style.  Nostalgia certainly plays a piece in this, since it rings with the tone of a time that means everything to me, but she would so often dress so that there was really no stylistic difference between her and the men.  Everyone dressed pretty similar, save for when Sam and Carl were either shirtless or in business clothes.  Otherwise, she was dressed essentially how any man or boy would dress on a casual occasion, or at least in terms of the 90’s, and it didn’t stand out, because her presentation was fairly similar to woman in the 90’s as well.  I always thought this was cool, because even as an adult, I haven’t strayed far from my boyhood prejudice that girls were stupid when they were “girly”.  Tomboys and androgynous girls were the coolest.  They were people I could hand out with and take seriously.
          My attitude now is less childish, but the end result is still pretty similar.  I have no accusations of girl's fashion of being stupid, since I have, after all, come to appreciate cultural norms and complex historic ideas of beauty.  Yet, wearing dresses is like putting makeup on, and I ultimately find makeup ridiculous and prefer to see people as they really are.  So, too, do I find other items of feminine fashion that supposedly emphasize femininity a distraction that makes people into cartoons instead of flesh and blood.  The way I have developed, it really comes naturally with androgynous, down-to-earth fashion.  Even dressing up like a nerd, with a full set of bowties, suspenders, and pocket protectors, as awesome as I find that to be, is ultimately only adopting a shallow label and identifying with it.  I have a whole rant about people who identify with labels.  Meanwhile, I'm always curious to see how beautiful someone is when they wear completely unromantic clothes, and forgo decoration or any gilding to their sexuality.  In other words, I’m curious to see how a person’s beauty can show through then they are at their ugliest.
          Finally, Molly’s face is crowned by the single most awesome haircut known to man.  And woman.  My best friend has this haircut, and it was the most obvious similarity that Molly had with her.  Obviously, it’s not a hairstyle that people see much of, except in the 90’s, it was everywhere, particularly with boys.  Due to various media I was exposed to, it was the haircut of the ultimate underdog, the kid I related to.  It was the hair of the hair of Kevin from Home Alone, and it was the hair of Harry Potter, among many other examples.  I always wanted a bowl cut, but unfortunately, I didn’t really have the face for it, so my hair looks more like the young John Conner’s, and even that was pretty similar to a bowl cut.
          The point I’m trying to make here is that my imaginary friend is a strong reminder of my early childhood, and by extension life in the 90’s.  Even though she became my friend after the 90’s – we befriended each other when my parents were going through with their divorce – it’s just another association I make.  She’s always had a bowl cut just like the one Molly had, and Molly has the best variation of the bowl cut ever.
          Short enough that it’s easy to take care of, but long enough to protect against sunburn in the summer and keep the head warm during winter, this hair is perfect in every way, unless you’re a marine.  I say that the haircut is pretty useful, so on a practical side it gets a plus.
          This fondness comes from a deeper philosophy I always had.  When Caissie Levy played Molly, she had long hair, and it changed my way of perceiving the character almost immediately.  It wasn’t just because she didn’t look like my best friend.  I said I liked Demi’s presentation because it was plain and uncomplicated, and part of that was because of the hair.  On one hand, it made her a product of the times, but on the other hand, my perception of her as a woman wasn’t based on superficial things.  In the great “nature vs. Nurture Debate” in psychology, I never saw long hair and fashion as an inherently feminine trait.  I never liked contrived gender differences and preferred a world where gender was never an issue of identity.  It always made sense to eliminate gender differences that were mere presumptions and stop seeing people as so different, and especially never to treat them as an image created by society.  A lot of the way femininity is characterized by culture in both the West and the East through images that have become so fundamental in our assumptions about the difference between the sexes that it transcends words.  “Femininity” is constantly misused even by those who try to avoid products of cultural nurturing, and even I am not immune.
          So between short hair and long hair, I see short hair as more “feminine”, so to speak.  It’s actually not even that.  I just see it as more human.  Long hair is weird, and I honestly do not understand how it’s feminine other than by association.  To me, it always made people look like aliens or Tolkien’s elves.  Yes, that basically means that a ton of people are aliens, but I’m not backing down from that statement.  It honestly looks like a goofy alien thing.  In my science-fiction world, short hair is for humans, and when I can see someone who looks more human, then they are plainer, normal, and at the end of the day, just people.
          Long hair, to me, has always been associated with sexuality when not associated with aliens and elves.  Enter Tarzan.  He’s a man, and those long locks make him look manly.  He has a wild side to him, and those locks – those locks – just enhance his sexiness.  When I open up book with advertisements for tuxedoes, the man who stands out is the one with shoulder-length hair and some stubble, because he’s probably some hunk of a surfer or some other crazy athlete.  Either way, there’s a woman in the background who apparently thinks of him as a god.  As nice as that is, I really don’t want to be defined by my sexuality.  Remember, I always related with the underdogs and the simple, plain boys in children’s stories, from Harry Potter to Luke Skywalker.  The long hair increases sexuality, and I have nothing against people who go with it, but it’s weird that half of the population is basically expected to be more sexual than the other half.  That doesn’t seem right.  It’s sexy, but not beautiful.
          To understand how I see these things, look at how my brain operates and deals with data.  I like to compartmentalize everything.  Aesthetically, it separates the head and neck region, and the neck from the shoulders and the rest of the torso.  There is an upward “narrative” in the aesthetics, where everything comes together to place clear emphasis on the face and then on the eyes, and in my science-fiction world it means someone is a human and not an alien and that I therefore an not alone in this universe.  Otherwise, long hair is weird, like some sort of cosmic hiccup.  It clouds the boundaries between the compartmentalized regions, and it has a downward narrative that combines the cranium with the sizes of the face, the neck, and the shoulders, perhaps even the chest and lower back, depending on how long the hair is and how it is arranged.
          The sad thing, since long hair is so uncommon among women, I often find myself interested in them, whether on a romantic or on a friendship level, not because of how normal the hair should be but purely because it is different, and it becomes one of those quirks that I get interested in like girls who dress like real nerds.  I have a giant rant about nerds, and it’s very similar to this one.  I don’t like gaining interest in someone because of superficial things.  Chances are, if someone has a different style that goes against the norm, it’s probably because they’re trying to be different instead of being their natural selves.  That’s why Molly’s different, because I think she is just being herself wasn’t being influenced by her perception of what other women were like.  I think that her presentation was plain and simple because she was plain and simple, and that’s ultimately what comes first.




Posted Image
 

There was a moment when Sam was restless, and she asked him what was wrong.  "It seems like whenever something good happens in my life I'm just afraid I'm going to lose it."
          And I am hit with strong, strong memories of good things in life that I have lost.  The way Sam phrased that concern, the fear of loss is associated with her.  Really, that's what she was to him.  She wasn't a girlfriend or a focus of infatuation.  She was something good in his life.  That spoke to me on one the deepest, most fundamental levels.  This is one of the reasons the character sticks with me, because of what she represents.  She represents meaning in relationships, and good relationships, the ones I want to last.
          Sam's concerns at this point are ones that I relate to in every sense.  There are people who I would have liked to call family, but they slipped into memory.  They became nothing more than another neuron connection within my brain.  There are some people I can never return to no matter how hard I try, because I can't go back again when the person who ought to have had a significant place in my life is now on the opposite side of the grave.  In light of those, I always regreted not loving those people enough, and I always wondered about just how much love I was withholding from all the other people I knew who were still alive.  There was the first friendship I ever had, and I always regreted taking it for granted, for now it is but a memory, and only a hazy one at that, nothing but a glorified neuron connection.  There are high school friendships, middle school friendships, and elementary school bonds that I have all had once upon a time, but now are as a fairy tale.
          I can't stress enough how much I wish for good things in my life to come and stay for good.  I want good things in my life so much.  This transcends a desire for romance, a desire for marriage.  I just want commitments, and I want some things to be permanent in my life that connect it to some ultimate narrative.
          There are many things about Molly that remind me of good things in my life that I have lost.  The good things in particular that come to mind are the biggest ones in my nostalgia arsenal, the phantoms from my past that I have never quite got over.  When I die and go to heaven, I have my equivalents to Fantine and the Biship of Digne that I hope to greet me as I pass through the light.
          I have a dream where I can be honest.  It is more than just speaking truth and being open.  It is a desire to be understood without fear, to be myself and share myself with friends who accept me as I am, and see me within the context of my entire life story.  I want to be known and loved not just for who I am now as an adult, but for everything I was leading up to this point, for how I became an adult.  I want to understand the life stories of my friends just as much, so as to btter understand why they are true and real to me.  In the same way that our mothers, to some extent, will always see us as children, I wish to have family who I feel I have known for my entire life.  I want to see them in terms of their origins, to understand how the adults I know are really just stages in the development of a baby born years ago.  In honesty, I want there to be truth in my life and in the friendships I have.  I want to be my true self - all of it - encompassing everything I have been and everything I ever will be.
          Therefore, I am happy for Sam.  I am so, so happy for Sam.  He doesn't have a girlfriend, but rather he he has been blessed with "something good".  Seeing their relationship, I get a glimmer of a vision of what sort of ultimate peace it is my innate disposition to want more than anything else.  I want friendship, in particular the friendship that I had as a child that had a certain extra meaning, exactly because there was no grand philosophy to define what it was.  Perhaps as a child we had things right.  I want to be like a child again, and I want my life to be that simple.  Work can be as complex as ever, and emotions can have their twists, but why shouldn't good things be plain?
          They are, after all, an ultimate end.
          How ironic it is that Sam is the one who leaves, that he is the "something good" and she is the one who suffers the pain of loss.


 

Posted Image
 

Even though she was a good thing, and she was presented in just the perfect manner that I saw her as an archetypal representation of such, the Sam's musings were ironic.  He didn't lose her.  She lost him.  He was a good thing in her life.
          Thus, the story of the film is twofold.  At the onset, it may appear as a story about Sam and his struggle to help Molly from beyond death.  Yet, at the same time, it's also about Molly coping with a loss and learning to believe.  She is equally the story's main character.  She is, after all, the one who is living.  She's the one with story left to tell, and that's precious enough that it's worth saving.
          There are moments in Ghost where Molly takes control of the narrative.  It precedes the film, actually, because the trailer's tagline was "Do you believe in GHOST", phrased as a question and therefore is a theme that centers around someone's ability to answer it.  Molly's the one who has to respond to that question.  Therefore, it is Molly's job to take on much of the narrative, and there are points where the story is uniquely hers.
          Certainly, the story could be completely dedicated to how Sam uses his superpowers to save the day.  That is an interesting plot point, but it ignores the very significant reality of the film.  He's dead.  Molly attended his funeral.  As traumatizing as it would be to witness your own funeral and know it was for real, imagine, for a moment, just how much more agonizing it would be to be the person standing above the ground who loved the man in the coffin dearly, dealing with the fact that he died and is never coming back.
          The fact is, Sam was something good in Molly's life as well, and he was ripped away from her.  he may have longed for her touch and the ability to meet her eyes again, but he didn't suffer her complete absence.  She went through the stages of grief I know well.  There's the shock, and then the numbness, and the feeling that life is never going to be the same.  There's the burden of loss.  I went from seeing her as a desirable archetype, a good thing, to relating with her.  Suddenly, she felt the same pains I do, and it was completely real and true to life.  I was engaged with her subtle journey through those troublesome emotions.  The moment where she rolls a jar with an Indian-head penny Sam gave her off a staircase is real and more magical than any demonstration of ghost powers on the behalf of Sam.  I live for the one-way conversation between her and Sam where she talks to the air as if he can hear her, not knowing he actually can.
          The pain, the grief, the regret.  That's all real.  She's an authentic person.  While it's something I relate to, it's uniquely her story.  Yes, I see elements of myself in her, but she's unmistakably the Other.  I can sympathize, but never truly feel her pain, yet I know it's there.  And I marvel, and think to myself, at how real this person is.  She shares so many elements of my humanity, and yet they are not a product of my perceptions.  They are not created by my ability to understand her.  They exists completely independent of myself, separated by a wall I will never be able to see past, and yet her humanity burns on, in spite of it never being able to be seen.  She is as real as me without being me, and the more I think about that, the more I get to realizing that that's some kind of miracle.
          See, we are all like Molly and Sam.  One person is not another, and therefore can never truly "know" them.  We live our entire lives on two different sides of a wall, never really seeing each other.  Yet, there are signs of the other's existence.  Through our senses, we can detect each other's corporal existence, and reason comes to dictate that since cogito ergo sum, the flesh of other bodies which seem to exhibit rational behavior must also be self-aware and like us.
          To think, the sanctuary of our minds is an entire reality.  Reality is so big that it is everything.  Then the paradox, that everything exists not only once, but twice, because someone else has their own reality!  Not only that, but it happens seven billion times, all over the globe.  It is beyond comprehension, and yet it is true.  Therefore, if reality is everything, than each person is everything, and life is sacred.  I can be comfortable in this vast world of my mind, but there is a surreal awe about discovering another person and realizing "You too?  I thought I was the only one!"  The universe of my mind is a bubble of non-Euclidean space, never to touch with another cognitive universe, and yet somehow knowing that, in theory, another universe exists, it changes everything.
          Have we ever stopped to think just how loving we ought to be to each other, and just how sacred life is?  I sometimes do, and the resulting analogies blow me away.  I stop in awe, and I chuckle at how ignorant I am most of the time.  I am dimly aware that other people have thoughts and feelings independent of myself, but when it dawns me that they do, how extraordinary it is!  How far beyond the imagination it is to fathom the seven billion stories that unfold on this planet every day.  Then I get to thinking how small I am, and how important everyone else is.  It is like everyone else is another "me", and yet they are not me.  Aristotle thought otherwise, since he thought that all souls were the same substance and merely inhabited bodies with different nurture, but for that to be true, then all realities really only one, like a well-lesioned brain keeping secrets from itself, supporting multiple different consciousnesses all at once to fulfill a complex function.  I don't see the universe that way, and it would be a shame to make everything the same reality.  It's much grander to rejoice in the hyperdimensional paradox that even everything isn't everything.  Everyone is "just like me" (except in a different body), while at the same time, they are distinctly and wholly not me!
          When I put up my willing suspension of disbelief, I see Molly in this way, and therefore she becomes of infinite importance.  I understand Sam's desire to spare her from his fate.  It isn't just romance, but altruism, the ultimate love.  When all the elements of her presentation remind me of an independent reality, of which I am normally only dimly aware, it is impossible not to love her.
          She is someone I can fall in love with.  She isn't a character, but a person.  She isn't a science fiction concept or some pretty idea.  All the fictional characters ever are only a reflection of abstract ideas, but a person isn't an abstract idea.  A person isn't something that you find in a creative story, where an avatar for the plot is created by putting together personality traits and some relateable emotions.  People are real.  Molly, even though she's fictional, reminds me of that.  In spite of all the fantasies out there, she's the person from everyday life I look at and see myself falling in love with over time.  She's that ordinary - yet extraordinary - person who can become everything.  That's what she means to me.
          Perhaps this is another fantasy, but there's always the hope that I will meet someone who consistently reminds me as Molly does every day just how unreal she is to me, for indeed another person's reality can never be my own.  To suggest that another person is real is to create an illusion of her in your mind.  Love isn't necessarily about feeling someone's presence.  She had sort of shortcoming when Sam died when she talked to the air, pretending he was beside her and not knowing he actually was.  It was a talk with herself more than anything, and it reminds me of my own shortcomings and how C.S. Lewis crystallized my awareness of this flaw in human nature in his book A Grief Observed.  We will create a figment of our imaginations out of our loved ones after they have passed away, yet it is not them.  A person ceases to love another when they fall in love with their memory, not the person herself.  The truth is, we do not live on in memory, and that is a lie as old as time.  True life exists in spite of others' notions, not because of it.  Hence, I fall in love with the idea of a person, my own invention.  Molly did, too.
          Or was it that she had some sort of faith?  In spite of not perceiving him to be there, nor having any reason to believe that he was, what if there was some innate part of her that understood that his presence was about?  Sensing his presence, and yet having no way of knowing for sure, she speaks out to him, saying what she thinks he should hear?  At that point she could never know his response, but it wasn't the point.  He wasn't real to her because he was dead, but really, he was never real to her in the first place.  Any belief otherwise would have been a mirage within her own mind, the only thing real to her.  The point was that she had the faith to alter his reality in spite of it being to her an impenetrable void of nonexistence.


 

Posted Image
 

Ghost isn't a love story, nor is it a comedy or a tragedy.  The best label I can give is a "drama", but for me it is what it is.  There's no label for it, but I find it a bit profound that it "is" anything.  It has an identity, a soul to it.  Real people got together to play fictional roles, and real people got together to direct, compose, and take photo shoots together.
          At different times, it can be different things.  Many will call it a romance, but beyond that, it's a story about friendship.  Sam and Molly were many things, but above all they were good things - for each other.  They were best friends, and being romantic partners didn't really change anything in that dynamic.  It was simple love, a benevolent care for each other, just as a child I presumed that it should be.  When Molly's life was at risk, Sam did all he could to save her not because she would have been his wife, but because she was a loved one, a friend, a part of his family and an integral piece of his life while he had it.    He had no destiny, and he had nothing to gain from helping her, not even emotional fulfillment   He was offered to go straight to Heaven when he died, which in theory would be the ultimate emotional fulfillment, but he turned it down, because he wanted for a reality greater than himself.  He wanted for the one person who mattered in his life to have life of her own, and that always resonated with me.
          It was a bittersweet ending, but one of my favorite movie endings of all time.  The music was beautiful, the unique visual feel showcased my favorite example of 90's lighting, the blocking could not have been better, and Demi Moore knew how to cry.  It was also romantic.  Very romantic.
          Which leaves me with some interesting thoughts about Molly, actually, and I return to the similar phantoms of my best friend and my wife.  What is Molly to me?  I find Ghost to be one of my favorite romances of all time, but I don't imagine myself in Sam's role.  Nor do I imagine being there to be the man who takes his place, presuming there is one.  Actually, I don't assume anything after the ending.  That's why it's a favorite: it's such a definitive end, like the end of time itself, where the story completely and entirely resolves every concern I might have ever had by the time the screen dims out.
          All I really know is that I love Molly, or at least as much as I can love a fictional character.  It's some kind of wonderful, although whatever kind it is I am not entirely sure.  It could be platonic, maybe romantic, but at the end of the day, good is good.  I wish to live well with the people in my life, and discover the meaning behind the relationships I have.  She's a constant reminder of that dazzling extra reality I'm looking for.
          She isn't as real as a real person, but it's about what she represents, and what beauty truly means.  People keep on trying to put conditions on what it is, but in actuality there's no such thing as a person who is any more beautiful than the other.  Everyone is ultimately and equally human.  I think of the real people that I meet in my everyday life, especially those who possess qualities that resonate me with elements of familiarity that betray their humanity, and I realize that they have souls equal in their cry of "I am!"
          To be is to be beautiful.


 

Posted Image
 
 
24601

 


Photo

Radicalism

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom Nov 07 2012 · 166 views

:kaukau: A common term thrown about in the contemporary world when it comes to worldviews and analyzing the opinions of others is "radical".  This word applies when one person holds views that end up on the extreme end of a spectrum.

Now personally, I feel that when someone holds a basic philosophy that if they truly believe in it they will follow through on it to the extremes of its implications.  This is called being purist.  There's nothing wrong with that, other than that sometimes a purist is forced to compromise and the result can often get ugly.  That gets into a whole different ethical argument.

What I notice, however, is that "radical" is inherently an insult when I think its technical usage is actually relative.  Whether or not you're radical depends on what you're comparing your views to.  For example, the U.S. and the U.K. have some different mainstream values.  If a Briton were to look at American culture and its politics in particular, that Briton might be inclined to say that Americans of both parties are radical.  As we know, America has two main political parties, Republicans and Democrats, which fit into the stable two-party system that keeps itself in check, but both of those parties are closer to another end of an ideological spectrum that Britain is different on.  Between them, it is my understanding that the Democratic party has more in common with British ideals than the Republican Party, so while in America the Republican party might not be seen as controversial but not particularly radical, with the exception of a few members, in Britain almost all Republicans would automatically be considered extremists.

This is a generalization, of course, based upon my understanding.  Even if these statements aren't fully true, however, for the sake of the logic of this piece and my ability to articulate a point, let's just assume accuracy.

Now, if we were to turn the tables.  From the viewpoint of an American Republican, British policies are extreme and radical, or at least when compared to the norm established by American political compromise.

Let me reiterate this point, but this time using something other than politics for example (although that was perhaps the most literal real-world application of these thoughts).  I believe in avoiding physical contact with a partner until marriage, including kissing and the holding of hands.  I've followed this logic to its natural conclusions and have even considered avoiding emotionally sensual scenarios like staying up late together.  There are people who disagree with this conclusion, some more strongly than others.  Fortunately, there are those who don't feel it applies to them but appreciate my view here.  However, given that these views are uncommon and I take them to their natural conclusions, I am technically a radical when it comes to my relationships views.  However, I no longer sense that i am a radical when I am around a group of people with shared values of how to respect the opposite sex.

From my view, I wouldn't call the views of others who don't believe in being so strict in a relationship radical.  I don't necessarily call them right, though.  I have my views for a reason, after all, and I believe in those reasons.  Which leads me to my next point.

Just because someone is radical, doesn't mean that they're wrong.  As it has been described, radical views and behaviors are merely taking basic values and following them through to their fullest implications.  If the value at its core is correct, then the extreme will also probably be correct, especially if balanced out with other correct values.  Keep in mind that a perfect person would be a radical, by the virtue that perfection is an extreme condition compared to the flawed nature of human beings.  Superman, therefore, while not literally perfect, would count as a radical compared to other heroes in his resolve to follow up on his belief that all life is sacred.  You know what?  I'm pretty sure he's right.

Now, where the term "radical" gets used the most as an insult is in politics.  Now let me make this clear: radicals are embraced by their own kind, who are usually the true believers in a cause and in an ideological thought process.  Woodrow Wilson was a radical because he was an idealist.  The reason why radicalism is often troublesome in politics is that it ruins the system of compromise that America has been founded on, and thus everyone gets hurt, even if someone believes in the right ideal.  Sometimes one side will succeed and get a radical agenda past, which one might judge as a good thing if they agree with those ideals but others might judge as a bad thing if they belong to the other side of the debate.  When it doesn't work, it causes political instability and opportunities for overzealousness.  In American politics, people debate whether or not that's a good thing.  Some people appreciate radicals of their kind in government, others don't.  I'm not taking an official stance on that.  I'm only pointing out the natural results.

Likewise in real life, radicalism can complicate things as you come across other people who disagree with your views.  Fortunately with the kissing example, these disagreements are nothing that affect me, but there are other radical differences in views that can cause a lot of damage.  What I would suggest is that these individuals should be slightly open to compromise.  Perhaps that's a conversation for another day, and it depends entirely on what system of ethics you use.  Willingness to compromise, for example, comes from the use of utilitarian ethics.

I still walk away from this with a few solid conclusions.  Radicalism is just being a purist.  It is just a relative term and is neither inherently good nor inherently bad.  It's just a comparison, much like the word "change".  However, like "change", it can end up either objectively for better or for worse, although we humans tend to be incomplete judges when it comes to evaluating them.

24601




Photo

The Business of Love

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom, Relationships Nov 01 2012 · 181 views

:kaukau: The misconception that a marriage is supposed to be happily ever after has fortunately been snuffed out.  The common couple now knows that there will be arguments and disagreements in a marriage, even moments where passions leave them.

If this is all good, why do I feel that there is still something missing?  Alas, I think it is because there's still some misconception about the type of people we marry.  All too often, important matters of opinion are overlooked in favor of the passion of the moment.  Religion, politics, money, and parenting aren't always the first discussions people have, and the last one in particular is a subject that's difficult to talk about without breaching the illusion of a platonic friendship.  Yet, they should certainly be known before the committed relationship of marriage.  Why, people might ask, should this matter if there are going to be arguments anyway?  In my view, a marriage isn't necessarily about the fulfillment of feelings so much as it is about having a stable, positive relationship that produces something worth while.  As much as I'd like to say that love is irrational, another part of me - the old man part - tells me that it's pragmatic.

So the strange analogy that my mind came up with, which was quite jarring at first, is that a marriage is sort of like a business deal.  The wife comforts the husband's soul and the husband guards the wife's heart, but what are heart and soul for?  When I think of my heart and soul, I don't think of emotions and feelings.  I think of my will.  So maybe loving someone isn't about falling heads over heals over them, or feeling them tug at your heartstrings, neither of which are behaviors that can truly be explained, but rather about things that can be explained.  Like real world results.  Like a bottom line in business.

Then I begin to think of my selfish desires.  Think of the previous entry, A Bundle of Likes and Quirks, where it was established that people are far more than their personality traits, and that it's wrong to fall in love with those ideas, because the pragmatic objective of love is to care for a person.  So what does it say about me if I find myself strangely attracted to someone and liking them on a sincere level.  What does that say about me?  Is liking someone the primary requirement for a relationship?  Yet I wonder, based on my philosophy, if that's wrong, if I should be concerned at all with my feelings about the person, or if I should judge whether or not a relationship is worth pursuing based upon where it will go.  I also called these initial urges selfish.  Why?  Once I think about it, basing love off of attraction is basically saying "I will be selfless so long as it benefits me", a contradiction.  In the case of attraction, "love" is easy.  What happens when love no longer feels desirable?  What does that say about us with regards to our place among other human beings?

It seems to be that love should be an uphill battle.  It shouldn't be easy; it shouldn't be convenient.  it is, after all, the act of selfless giving, and selflessness is against our nature since by definition we can't be anything but ourselves.    You truly have to make some sacrifices and go out of your comfort zone, all the while expecting nothing in return.

By these standards, a romantic relationship requires both parties to be strong.  Imagine the man, a saint, and the woman, an altruist.  After establishing their hearts and souls, they should be quite secure and in fact in no need whatsoever of each other.  Yet, they go against their nature and choose, even if it might be odd, to give each other their love.  Since they don't need each other, there's no needy desire for the other, although there is a desire to make the relationship work.  After all, the relationship is an important tool for utilizing love.  It's a business deal, and the couple are in the business of loving.

It's a heavy thought, and a bit jarring.  For quite some time, all I have known has been the surreal pleasure of admiring someone's qualities, I've had my heart broken and I think I need to look for something else, something that will work, and one of the primary things I think I need to do is to love wisely and not look for something that feels right but something that's going to work.  Or even better, I should stop looking.  That old man in me keeps on saying "Son, just be a man," and since he's my senior, I respect him and have to admit he's right.  So for now, it's best that I just do what I can for humanity without an agenda for myself, graduate from college, potentially join the army or air force, and when I'm ready and established accept a relationship the world will be better off for.

24601




Photo

Sadder Than Thou

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom Oct 05 2012 · 153 views

:kaukau: People like to brag about their troubles.  One person mentions how their life has been difficult, and I know first-hand that there will always be someone else who will say "Oh yeah?  Well I've got you beat."  You had emotionally abusive parents?  Well he or she had emotionally and physically abusive parents.  Your job had a cruel boss?  Well he or she was in the military and had to go through a drill sergeant.  You don't deserve to be sad with your life problems because there's someone else in America who is unemployed, yet they don't deserve to be sad because there are probably people in China who have things even worse.  Not even sweatshop workers deserve to be sad, however, because Holocaust survivors trump them all.

So nobody sympathizes with one another because everybody thinks that his or her problems are or were worse.  People with seemingly lesser problems don't know what they have and they should be grateful.  On top of that, they should spend more time sympathizing with those who have bigger, i.e. more dramatic, problems.

That doesn't work.  It creates a selfish world.  It should matter how extreme someone's sadness is.  What should matter is that they're sad.  Sad is sad is sad.  It shouldn't matter how sad you are compared to someone else; that's a different reality.  The point is, either way, that you're not happy.  What gives anyone the authority to tell someone else that they don't have the right to be sad?  Everyone has the right to be sad when bad things happen.  I don't praise depression and angst, but isn't it a good thing that humans can feel solemn when anything, even something fairly minor, is wrong with the world?

So maybe instead of caring about ourselves and our own sadness, we should for once stand with each other.  I have reasons to be sad and consider my life a struggle.  For different reasons, someone else can say the same thing for herself.  With that as a common bond, shouldn't it be a reason for us to come together?  Then united we can hope, united we can dream, and some day in our perfect unity we will discover love.

24601




Photo

Superman and Der Übermensch as Conflicting Roots for Worldview

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom, Superman Oct 04 2012 · 93 views
Supeman, Wisdom, Philosophy
:kaukau: The following is a worldview illustration, for worldviews are like tree trunks.  The trunk begets the limbs which beget the twigs which beget the leaves, representing individual opinions and applications.  In all its complexity, everything is derivative of the core idea, the trunk.  Illustration enters into metaphor in the form of roots, which are the many arguments that support and form a basis for the worldview trunk.  The argument here is made by comparing the end results of two classic literary figures, Der Übermensch and Superman.  These two ideals make their cases for big ideas, including the place of humanity and its ultimate goal, but when tested one case should stand above the other.  However, discussing humanity's placement and goals is a broad subject, so it is necessary to narrow matters down to a specific question that directly relates to the comparison at hand.  Who is the real ideal for humanity?  Thanks to the art of story, which highlights the logical outcome of such a question, the answer should be obvious.  Superman is the true ideal for humanity and Der Übermensch is not.

When Friedrich Nietzsche composed the idea of Der Übermensch, what he proposed was a future where man grew beyond morality, as in theory man could do this if he was sufficiently evolved and morality was originally only a man-made tool invented for practical purposes.  There are some who, in their own subtle ways, accept some of these notions, where there are certain extreme conditions that justify different standards for given individuals.

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster played with this idea, except they did so with a clear mindset that Der Übermensch was a villain when they translated it to "Superman" and toyed with a comic where an evil psychic genius took over the world.  For whatever reason, they turned this idea on its heel, transformed the character's mental abilities into purely physical powers, made the character a hero, and over time made him the complete opposite of Nietzsche's Übermensch, yet significantly keeping the name.  In Siegel's mind, he was still tackling the idea of a supreme human, but he came to a radically different interpretation than Nietzsche.

The secret to Superman's greatness is that no matter how powerful he is, no matter how much society changes and no matter how advanced his Kryptonian technology is, he is still bound by eternal and unchanging laws of morality.  He is always subject to the law and to ethical obligations ultimately greater than him.  The Superman code of conduct has gone strong for seventy-four years as of this writing and has proven its worthiness.  The moral to take from him is that if he isn't above morality when he is theoretically evolved to a state of perfection mere mortals can only dream about, then nobody can.  He doesn't need them; morals don't serve him, yet ultimately his life holds more meaning when he serves the values he's subjected to.

Meanwhile, Superman's archenemy is fittingly an Übermensch archetype.  Lionel and Lex Luthor are, after all, far too sophisticated for the simplistic morals that bind ordinary men.  Through the force of their will and determination to find ways to get ahead, they surely demonstrate old conventions obsolete.  Standards that bind men like Jonathan Kent are nice, but they're not for Luthors.  A Luthor is above the normal concerns of humanity because they are, after all, not normal humans but men who reign supreme in their self-built empire.  They deserve that break, and as a sign of their strength they deserve to create their own model for ideal behavior that suites their own vision.

Good for them, except no matter how well they tame their own minds like good Neoplatonists and conquer irrational Freudian psychology based around reproductive instinct, these men and their morality are still subject to reasoning based on basic animal instinct known as the drive for survival.  Der Übermensch thinks that he has become like Plato and moved on to that higher realm where the mind departs from matter and the Cave is a thing of the past, and yet no matter what the Luthor's philosophies embrace what is inherently an attribute of survival instinct when they seek self-advancement.  Supposedly the prudent man knows to confirm his security, yet he struggles for naught.  Just one look as William Cullen Bryant's poem "Thanatopsis" and this point drives itself into certainty.  These men struggle against Death, but Death always claims them in the end.  How, then, are they being winners by playing a losing gambit?

The common man will never be anything but the common man.  He will die somehow or other, and as the ages pass memory of him will fade away as the people who laid him into the ground join him in turn, leaving him no sense of worldly survival whatsoever.  Any morality he invents will die with him.  There is no empowerment, only false promises.  Meanwhile, Superman and his family on the farm held communion with something that never dies, a morality above man.  Who wouldn't consider it a privilege to serve such a fine cause?  To have that to their names when they pass into that mysterious realm, they can more truthfully say that they lived before they died.


24601




Photo

Profession of Eudaimonia

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom Sep 23 2012 · 96 views
wisdom
:kaukau: Looking at superhero movies these days, among other franchises with ongoing characters, life has been a bit uninspiring.  Famous personas are getting rebooted left and right, yet even though many of these movies are good, very few of these movies dare to create the definitive versions of their characters.  I'm disappointed to see what Zack Snyder seems to be aiming at with the upcoming Man of Steel movie, which seems content to make it good but not great.  I keep on imagining what the definitive version of him would look like and how I would direct the films, and I fear that his definitive incarnation will never come in my lifetime, or worse that his bright light will be snuffed out of society decides to take the route of Der Übermensch and consider timeless morals obsolete.  This is a great concern of mine.  Yet, I speak to the public today not about comics and movies, but of life.  I look at my own, at the way that I live, and wonder what the definitive version of my life will be.  Unlike movies, I only have one shot at this.

There is a prevailing philosophy today in society, one that is inherently selfish and yet unquestioned.  The conventional wisdom follows that when they graduate from high school, people should go to college and follow their dream job, because nothing is more important than following your dreams.  The truly important things in life are doing the things that you love with the people you love.  This is not only happiness, but the meaning of life.

From the standpoint of older morals, this is a frightening development in society's development.  It means that the self is the most important aspect of life, that our happiness is our primary concern.  This idea is a sacred cow, and  found no one else speak contrary to the attitude so my perception of life wasn't balanced, and unfortunately it took me until the age of nineteen to gain independence from this contemporary worldview.

I know what I want to be with my life.  I want to be an altruist, someone who lives for others, regardless of whether or not  gain any satisfaction during my lifetime.  My model and inspiration is George Bailey, who dreamed of becoming a great builder and had his own vision of how he could make the world better, but resigned reluctantly to banking when his father died because it was the right thing to do.  Had it not been for the famous "never been born" act, the route George's life took would seem preposterous to modern viewers, who would have considered it a tragedy that he never got his dream job.  Yet by showing how he made the world a better place by living for others, by showing his true impact, Frank Capra showed that George Bailey's life was a bright light, and that he was blessed to know that he found his own definitive story.  His life was indeed a wonderful life.

In my life there are many desires.  My passion is for writing.  I want to create many definitive stories and beautiful bodies of work.  I wouldn't mind becoming a director and inventing amazing moving pictures that reinvent cinema.  I would also like to have a healthy family and start it early on in life so that I can live to see my grand-children have children.  Yet, those are selfish and unlikely desires, and they can wait.  Maybe I'm meant to dedicate my life to my ideals.  If I live for my family, then I live for my sister, and my sister's birth represents to me the hopes of the entire nation, so therefore my duties lie solely to God and country.  There are things bigger than me to live for.  This land needs heroes, and I'm willing to sacrifice myself through my work to be like those heroes from the greatest generation.  My life is about service, and for me I think the best place for this might very well be in the organization called "the service".  There are other things I could be, but maybe this is my calling.

Life isn't about personal happiness.  True happiness is what Aristotle called the good life, eudaimonia.  Happiness isn't pleasure, a worldly sensation subject to time.  It's an ultimate end.  A person can't be happy at any one point; it's really a matter of whether their life was fulfilling or not.  Life isn't about getting old doing a job you enjoy; it's about growing up and sacrificing everything in faith of what you believe in.

It would be nice if everyone else could have wonderful lives, but people's concept of wonderful has changed.  Yet there is and always will be potential for a more wonderful world, in the sense that George Bailey would be proud.  Children and young adults just need that one mentor, that one voice somewhere telling them that they can answer to a higher calling, something higher than what they can make up for themselves.  So long as that voice is somewhere, there's hope.  Even if it's only a whisper, even if it fails to produce another Greatest Generation, if someone somewhere is inspired to discover the meaning to his life, then the whispers were worth it.


Posted Image




Photo

Ray Bradbury's Philosophy

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom, Literature Sep 20 2012 · 69 views
literature, wisdom
:kaukau: One of my favorite books is Fahrenheit 451.  There are plenty of books out there, bundles of paper with words on them, that have good stories, but this is one of the few that really tackles what the art of story is all about, especially within its respective genre of science fiction.  Being a philosopher by nature, works like these are the ones that appeal to me.  It really gets me thinking about why I read and why I look to the art of story, why it's one of the few things that we as a society still believe in, because it's not enough for me to be entertained but to know why I'm being entertained.

One of my favorite parts is when Professor Faber describes books and what's so special about them.  It's not just the paper, but what's in them.  They have quality information.  They have ideas.  They provoke thought.  All these qualities dry out in the form of ink on paper, and since paper is more patient than man it gives us the gift of leisure.  Leisure to digest our knowledge, leisure to analyze new ideas, leisure argue with the book, to beat down the book, or to stop the book halfway through and reread a favorite passage.  Where's the humanity in just taking in data and storing it?  We're not meant to be that passive.  The author dedicated his or her time to making something that will provoke the reader, not just so that the story could exist as a meaningless jumble of words that describe a meaningless jumble of events.  Therefore, the reader shouldn't get lost in the book but use the book to bolster their own sense of individuality.  No good work can exist purely for entertainment value, because then we must ask "what is entertainment?"  Is it merely passive observation, because when you get down to it a story is just a bundle of events, or is it something more?  I'm inclined to believe in the latter, that there's a reason why we find stories entertaining, why we love it when the knight slays the dragon and the princess outsmarts the villain, because those ideas mean something to us.  Somewhere in the back of our minds we apply that reading to ourselves, and even the simplest entertainment, such as the victories of the knight and the princess, trigger some sort of thought such as "I believe I could do that."

In a more recent edition of the book, there's also an interesting critique from the author Ray Bradbury in an interview, one that I have often thought back to when critiquing art:

Interviewer: There seems to have been a decline in standards of journalistic objectivity, to put it mildly.

Bradbury: It's not just substance; it's style. The whole problem of TV and movies today is summed up for me by the film Moulin Rouge. It came out a few years ago and won a lot of awards. It has 4,560 half second clips in it. The camera never stops and holds still. So it clicks off your thinking; you can't think when you have things bombarding you like that. The average TV commercial of sixty seconds has one hundred and twenty half second clips in it, or one third of a second. We bombard people with sensation. That substitutes for our thinking.


I remembered this answer while pondering how to describe the style Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance".  Listening through it several times, I noticed the complexity of the background music.  I couldn't pick out any instruments; it was a blanket of white noise, an overwhelming digital atmosphere.  Of course, I think that makes the song popular, and I don't think it devalues the song.  The more I listen to it, the more I actually like it.  Atmospheric music, after all, doesn't necessarily negate thinking and it has its purposes.  Some would say that the point of music is to satisfy the senses.

Yet Bradbury's ideas came back to me, and I remember the importance of this philosophy.  It hit me again when I discovered Fun's acoustic version to "We Are Young".  I loved the original and considered it a masterpiece of exciting quality music that bucks the trend of contemporary chart songs, but I fell in love again when I discovered their far humbler rendition.  I like how the emotional quality is so different than the main version. The meaning comes out in a new way, especially when I can hear the imperfections in their voice.  It's a paradox, but in this case an imperfect voice is the perfect voice, for it's truer, more human.  It means that the song doesn't exist just to sound pretty, but has a purpose.  Then I hear the slower tempo, the personality behind the voices, their understanding of their own art, and even though I was happy with the original with all its jubilation and positive energy, even though this version wasn't really needed, the world of chart hits is better off for it.

These thoughts I take with me as I pursue my various arts.  It's a big world out there and I don't want to waste any moment of my life dedicating myself to smaller arts.  From my drawings to my stories to my poetry, hopefully I build works that carry some small fire of relevance.  Maybe I will never light a cauldron like great writers such as C.S. Lewis did, but maybe I can relay the torch to the runner who will.

Special thanks to my cousin for being a friend and fellow traveler.


Posted Image




Photo

The Benefits of Self-Expression

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom Sep 17 2012 · 99 views
wisdom
:kaukau: Here's a post in response to this entry.  I thought it was worth reposting as its own entry.  These thoughts are incomplete, by the way, so feel free to add to them.

:kaukau: I think you're just better able to express your thoughts.  It doesn't make you a different person: you just find that you have a different way of interacting between environments.  I don't see myself as being different people between my blog and my regular life either, just that I've found more than one way of expressing myself.  My blog and my comments on other blogs is basically me typing out my thoughts in a slightly more organized matter than I would in real life, where I say more or less the same things to express the same core thoughts.

Meanwhile, if you knew me, you would know that I don't really care about the norm so much.  I do, in a sense, and I really went with the flow for my senior year of high school, but I don't let social norms dictate the ways I express myself when I deem it necessary.  I love bowties and Superman.  Most people know that.  They may not be what everyone else is into, but the world weary know that not everyone can be the same.  Some people have asked me "Why?", as in "Why are you like this?"  I tell them that it's because I'm just that guy.

We're all different.  The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll be comfortable with expressing yourself.  Look at the person across the hallway and realize that he or she also has some unique interests that you might not be interested in.  Maybe football isn't your thing, but that doesn't stop you from judging people who find that athletics is part of their identity.  Then there are people who are into anime, which I think is weird, but I guess there will always be people who will enjoy anime so I shrug it off.  It doesn't define them, and they have every right to have their own interests.  It would be boring if all my friends were too much like me, and I like it when they're open about their interests so that I know more about them.  In fact there's a girl I'm thinking of asking out on a non-romantic date just because I have a hunch that she's completely different than me and has interests and views that I won't think are cool, but I want to find them out anyway because I don't want her to just be a face in the hallway.  I want to know her better, just as I want to know everyone better in this new setting.

This diversity is good.  It makes us more world weary if we are aware of it and it lets us better know how to handle each other.  When you add in your own diversity, you attract new sorts of people.  For example, I never would have attracted the friendship of multiple nerds if I hadn't worn bowties, and I have started many superhero debates by wearing my Superman shirts.  That taught me something about the interests of others, and I never would have learned these things if I hadn't dared to express myself first.

Just some thoughts.  I hope you find them beneficial.



Posted Image




Photo

Is Batman Batty?

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Wisdom, Literature, Superman Aug 27 2012 · 224 views
wisdom, literature, Superman
:kaukau: Recently I talked to a young man who wasn't impressed with Superhero movies lately.  I asked about The Dark Knight Rises and he said he wasn't interested.  Since it was a very interesting thing to say and he seemed to be the type of person who would like such drama, I decided to find out more about his perspectives.  Here's his response:

"I'm not sure why people idolize him.  Instantly to me I just see a rich billionaire go down and become a sick man who dresses up in a bat costume and goes out to beat up other sick men.  It's overly dark and dramatized as if you're supposed to take him seriously, but he doesn't actually come across as a hero so much as a man with an obsession."

It's a popular movie, and it's success speaks for itself.  On the internet the Dark Knight is considered by most to the the greatest of superheroes, the cornerstone of superhero cinema that all superhero films since have tried and failed to emulate.  In "A Muted Superman" Tilius drove this point home with clear meaning: "And of course [Man of Steel] is going to be like Batman - basically every comic book movie outside of the Avengers [sic] wants to be like Nolan's Batman.  That's not really a bad thing, but at the same time it's often blatantly clear to be their intention."  Batman is at the center of the popular culture universe, and his fans take him very seriously.  Had this been an online conversation, the rational thing would be to try to help him see the light and emphasize with the views of the fans, to adopt the mentality necessary for enjoying the film because it would make him open-minded and appreciative of the views of the majority.

I did the smart thing and agreed with him.

He preferred the Adam West version because it was easier to like Batman when he was played for camp.  Just because something is campy doesn't mean that it can't be taken seriously, as the original Star Trek shows so well by still persisting as one of the greatest, most iconic, and mot beloved television shows of all time.  The elephant in the room of Bruce Wayne's mental stability is avoided and Batman remains just a character (Character in this case meaning the same thing as in the context "He's quite the character.").  The more realistic the character becomes, the more the truth behind him is analyzed, the more there's a reason to be concerned for how close society comes to wishing to be like someone who in reality would be a poor example of citizenship.

Now personally, I thought that the grim and realistic version of the story was good, although not necessarily for the main character.  His main redeeming quality was that the concept designs, and aesthetics were cool, but otherwise the redeeming features of the series were the villains and secondary characters.  It was good that Bruce ultimately retired from the cape because in all honesty I wanted to see him move on.  His health, to me, was unquestionable.  It was poor.  I never idolized the character.  He's cool for action, but he is hardly a shining example of manliness.

My hero is Superman.  He's not as flawed, but sometimes flaws can drag a character down to the point of making them unlikable.  In Batman's case, his defining traits are things that should actually make him an antihero.  He's dark and brooding, dedicated toward good citizenship and the preservation of life but also black in his sense of taking justice into his own hands.  His flaws aren't addressed and corrected, but rather embraced.

Superman's flaws are acknowledged.  I haven't always felt this way, but I grew to love him as a character.  He genuinely is heroic and a true, positive example of what heroism should be in a world where heroes and antiheroes are often confused with each other.  He works for truth and justice, but he never took it into his own hands.  In Superman II he expressed that he was just trying to be a good citizen, and given his powers his obligations as a good citizen were merely higher.  He never broke any laws.  He never even wore a mask.  In fact, he rarely ever lied, and his disguise as Clark Kent was very fair and misleading without being outright deceptive.  In other words, with his power he could be considered guilty for many of the crimes about in the world by means of negligence.  Truly, he stands for truth, justice, and the American way.

In spite of how simple the character may seem, it's a quality are necessary for symbols.  It's often a challenge to write about the character as the themes he explores aren't necessarily physical conflicts.  Sometimes this is mistaken for poor quality.  Wrack'n'Ruin stated a year ago in the "Writing Advice" topic that "He works best when constrasted [sic] with a better character, like Batman, to portray their growth, not his own. You can only do so much with the Man Of Steel."

While it is true that only so much can be done with the Man of Steel, I see things the other way around.  Batman is similarly a static character stuck in his ways, and I think that the characters both work well when set to contrast each other.  Including them in the same story does them both well, not just Batman.  From my perspective as a Superman fan, it often seems that Batman exists to contrast Superman and portray Superman's growth, or to challenge the Man of Steel's worldviews so as to further validate them.  Superman, after all, came first, and Batman was invented later for a new direction.

Ultimately, Batman is a sideshow for the real thing.  He's a strong character who is written in such a way that he's a textbook example of why active characters resonate more with readers than passive characters.  For being a unique person and the foundation of the restless vigilante archetype he's got all the attention that he deserves, but he's not the face that heroism needs.

Posted Image




Photo

The Musical Journey

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Music, Wisdom Aug 17 2012 · 54 views
music, life, wisdom
:kaukau: I'm near the end of a long road trip from Rochester, Minnesota, to a distant Cleveland suburb.  It's not the other side of the world, but the look and feel of Rochester is distinct from these other cities.  If this was Europe I'd have cut through multiple language regions.  Relatively large or small, the amount of time it took too complete the trip was quantifiable at around fifteen hours in the car.  To make time fly, we took with us a stack of music albums to listen to.  It made me glad that we invested in variety when Huey Lewis and the News went on for 21 songs, all of which were in major and very catchy, but also similar over time, so it was a blessing that after hours of 80's music we could shuffle the deck.

Listening to songs that spanned from the 50's to the modern day, a profound evolution revealed itself to me over time.  Sometimes it seems that with all the music out there, every genre that ever could exist has already been invented, but new genres pop up all the time.  Even within genres, new subgenres come around with each generation.  Take, for example, Rock'n'Roll, which comes in many different flavors, from 50's rock to 60's anti-conformist Woodstock rock, 70's classic rock, 80's glam rock, and 90's pop rock.  In the 00's (which I pronounce "Uh-oh's"), pop rock turned into just pop, which wasn't as true and, as many staunch guards of older music often say, "real" as Rock'n'Roll, but it wasn't inherently bad.  It just didn't have the same vibrancy to allow for the same consistency, so gems weren't as common, but the 00's might have been worth it for these gems as they could have only been produced in such a climate.  The surname might have changed, but I'm curious to see what the next generation of the Rock family looks like.

Where the Rock family has stagnated, others have excelled.  Disco gave birth to Techno, and Techno gave birth to this new thing called Dubstep.  I haven't followed Rap so much, but I'm sure it has both a predecessor and a successor in its own evolutionary line.  In this latest decade (What am I going to call it, the "Tens"?), just as the demographic for multi-racial Americans rises, there has been a proliferation of hybrid songs in the light of prominence.  The members of the Rock, Dance, and Street families are marrying together to create hybrid songs, which is just as well, because interbreeding is preferable to inbreeding any day, and the typical hit song now contains a pop chorus, a dubstep bass line, and a rap for the transitional second movement.  I like that this adds variety to songs, but paradoxically I don't like the songs.  Something is missing.

The final that might really complete this stew is Mexican music.  The States have traditionally self-identified with their European and African heritage, but in time Central America will be equally a member of the family tree.  This is a good thing, since for the longest time America has been Europe, Jr. instead of a true melting pot, and the invention of Rock'n'Roll originated from a melding between European and African music.  There just needs to be another Elvis to find the bridge between two cultures.

Yet there is one thing missing from this evolution, and that is maturity, both on the behalf of the musicians and their listeners.  This isn't something that's meant to change and is the one thing that should remain constant in music.  The majority of popular songs gravitate toward themes of partying and what it means to be famous.  There's a major disconnect there.  What does this music have to do with the lives of real people?  Where are the folk heroes like Simon and Garfunkel who composed tales of the everyman through "The Boxer" and the masters of soul like Louis Armstrong who found the most beautiful things to write ballads to?  Even in glam rock, Bon Jovi wrote about meaningful things through "Living of a Prayer".  "Don't Stop Believing", "Bridge Over Troubled Water", "The Sounds of Silence", "American Pie", and many more were the makings of American classics.  Even the King of Rock'n'Roll was known for his love ballads, due to his strong belief in love as a cornerstone for human existence.

These days, what do people have to benefit from music unless they do some digging?  It's a strong indicator of the times and the values of contemporary America, where the culture has trapped itself in a teenage mentality.  We share mutually in the musician's guilt for making them popular.  Where are the Simon and Garfunkels of this country now to sing to us as adults, or, if we are children, sung to as people destined for adulthood?  The constant of maturity is necessary for evolution, for without its guidance there would be no growth.  Even with his free will, Man is shaped by his environment, and the music he listens to are part of it.  Music is a means of entertainment, but somewhere within the mainstream musical culture there has to be a sense of forward movement to complement the rightful forward movement of the individual.


Tonight I will be making the trip back to Rochester, and from there back to my new home in Iowa City, where I will face the next major stage in my life.  Chances are I'll talk in the car this time around instead of listening to music so I can cover important topics to help prepare me, although my favorite songs will come with me on my MP3 player to help inspire me in my work.  Because in the end it isn't the music itself that matters, but the way it provokes the soul.  It won't be entertaining, but one day I hope mine is ready to answer to a higher calling.  Life is meant for the journey.

Posted Image








Me

Posted Image


Username: Emperor Kraggh
Real name: N/A
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Heritage: Half Dutch, 25% Hungarian, 12.5% Swedish, 6.5% German and Irish
Physical description: Looks like the eleventh Doctor
Favorite food: Chicken, turkey, and beef.
Least favorite food: Vegetables of any kind
Favorite song: American Pie
Favorite movie: Schindler's List
Favorite TV show: Smallville & Arthur the Friendly Aardvark
Favorite play: Les Miserables
Favorite color: Silver
Second favorite color: Brown
Favorite board game: Risk
Favorite athlete: Michael Phelps
Lucky Number: 53
Past-times: BZPower, writing, reading, politics, drawing
Political party: Republican
Religion: Christian
Language: Not English, but American.

Blog Divisions

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Search My Blog

Recent Comments

Approved By...

Posted Image

That was my approval stamp. I'd say that I did a pretty awesome job with it. If you see it in your blog, it means that you are pretty intelligent to have earned it.

The following approvals have been put in a spoiler tag in order to make some comments easier to read.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
MacGyver's Approval
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image