Gossip Girl

Time to do some catching up...I'm taking an amazing course on "Materialism in Children's Literature." The books in this course are all very modern except for "A Little Princess." The book which I am most interested in at the moment is "Gossip Girl" by Cecily Von Ziegesar.

The book is obviously directed at a young high school female readership. It is rather disturbing in the messages it sends upon close examination. The kids in the book are all 16 or 17 and act like they're 25 year olds. They drink, party, and sleep around. The first pages of the book explain that as long as the kids don't make a scene of themselves, the parents don't mind what they do.

The book actually does what seems a very good job of portraying the rich elite of New York. At least the book makes you want to be them. I was at once disgusted by the main characters, but also slightly envious. The book is filled with product placements and every material object is described vividly. The protagonists retrieve recognition and star treatment wherever they go. Their houses and hotel suites are spacious and incredibly decorated. One of the main aspects in both "Gossip Girl" and "The Insiders" is art. In class we discussed how a sensitivity to art is an inner sign of upper class. They describe the various ridiculously expensive pieces of artwork the families have. Of course, it is also the sort of thing only a wealthy person has time to pursue in the first place.

The book gives you a sense of being on the inside. As you read it, you gain further insight into how one ought to behave, or what is the 'in' thing to do or wear. Obviously the fashions must be out of date now, but the sense of it is still there. Sometimes characters are put down for wearing something 'tacky' and the reader almost instantly agrees. The use of a gossip girl website entry between some chapters further emphasizes the feeling of being 'in on it all.'

One of the most interesting aspects of the novel is the gender portrayals. While the girls do have male love interests, the major issues are between the girls themselves. They try to impress the other girls by the way they dress. They try to fit in with the other girls. The popularity game seems to be among the ladies. The guys on the other hand are interesting in that they propagate the notion that money can get you all the girls. One character in particular, Chuck, is far too aggressively sexual with most of the girls, but they accept him because his family is powerful and wealthy. In one scene he almost rapes a character who is eagerly trying to become a more popular girl.

That segues nicely into the theme that many things which normal people would consider outrageous are entirely accepted and ignored. Blair is bulimic, yet all the characters adopt an 'oh there she goes to puke again' attitude. The guys flirting all the time with other girls or being too aggressive is entirely overlooked. The use of drugs and excessive alcoholism is totally normal. The young girls down cocktails like it`s nothing. Going into drinking establishments under age is addressed slightly, but entirely normal for the 'in crowd.'

The most difficult thing with the book is that despite how much I disliked it all, I wanted to be that rich, powerful, and famous. The experience points to the difficulty in being moral and conscious of consumerism in modern society. The main character Serena seems to represent fictional ideal of a person who lives with so much excess, yet she is kind and rather unaware of her finances. This portrayal makes it much easier for us to view the materialism in a positive light.

Overall, reading the novel for the materialism really opens one's eyes to how such societal values are introduced and made to tantalize young readers. It's a rather scary read.

The Very Nature of Leadership

Over the past month I have found myself assuming more and more a mantle of leadership in the drama club. I did a great deal of organizing and assumed the role of director for "The Importance of Being Earnest." With some small experience now I've been reflecting on the nature of leadership.

The first thing I noticed was that I felt overburdened and under appreciated. Most people were quick to criticize the smallest mistake I made, but compliments for my energy and time commitment were nowhere to be heard. Then I noticed that when I took action on some club matter, there would always be at least one person who would complain or fight my decision. Some of the arguments very nearly broke into fights. Luckily, I took a deep breath and answered dispassionately. Within these situations I found an appreciation for leaders. They must maintain themselves to a higher standard simply out of necessity. They are under far greater scrutiny. They must also possess the self-control to deal with dissent. It is near impossible to make everyone happy, so the best decision must be arrived at and maintained.

As far as directing goes, I'm looking for a careful balance between presenting the show as it plays out in my imagination and making the actors look good. They each have strengths and weaknesses which I must try to accommodate. Ultimately, my goal is for the audience to think that THEY did great. If they succeed. I have succeeded. I think this aspect of directing applies splendidly to leadership. A good leader helps those he leads succeed and be recognized for their talents. In that sense a good leader is a teacher, helping to bring forth the best in each pupil.

Leadership is necessary and far from the idyllic one might imagine it to be. It is more of a burden and a sacrifice if done well, but some people are simply called to be leaders. In that sense, true leadership is an act of service. It is a giving of the self and a surrender of one's desire's for the good of the group. It is a willingness to deal with dissent, disagreement, scrutiny, and most of all to make the hard decisions and take responsibility for them.

I am sure I will continue to grow in my views. Though I might be far from the entire truth, I can't hep thinking I'm onto something here.

Titus Andronicus - Shakespeare

Titus Andronicus by William Shakespeare is one hell of a violent, yet amazing tragedy. The story itself is sad and ridiculous, but the themes regarding Revenge are amazing. If you really delve into the work and analyse it to death, it grows on you.

Following the Tragic conventions, the hero comes home, makes a bad decision, and everything goes to hell. He goes through a character change. He controls the manner of his death in a way. Then it ends with the standard scene where the prince reprimands everyone for fighting each other and they go about working towards a better future a la Romeo and Juliet. 

Let's talk themes and questions. Titus is a noble warrior who has fought for his country for forty years, but he find that the fickle mob forgets his accomplishments and he is wronged by the politics. He says his actions for Rome were in vain. This brings the honour of war into question. Yet, there is another side of this. There is an idea expressed at the beginning that men who die in war die with honour. So there is a distinction between murder on the field of battle, and murder in the streets. For a lot of people, this is certainly a truth and has been for as long as man has been around. Kill one, you're a murderer. Kill them all, you're Napoleon, or Alexander. Titus lost twenty one sons in war, and only three during the course of the play, yet the three lost in the play are somehow so much more horrible. Yet going back to questioning the honour of war, I think the play brings this notion into question. Is war really that much better than base murder? Consider that Titus is prepared to start a war for his personal revenge when he sends Lucius to raise an army. What does that say about the reasons for war?

Revenge. Revenge is the centre piece of this fine work. The play speaks about the manner of revenge. First, it is caused by some hurt that one party considers just, but the other does not (the sacrifice of Alarbus). Then Tamora lies to everyone and says the hatchet is buried, all is forgotten. This shows that people will forgive, but harbour resentment. Then the killing begins. There is the notion that once the tears stop flowing, then can a person begin to act on their newly found anger. Tamora only cries once at the beginning of the play, and Titus only stops crying once he begins his revenge.

My favourite theme is the consumption of children. Revenge, like war, consumes the children. This literally happens in the play when Titus bakes Chiron and Demetrius into pies and feeds them to their mother, Tamora. I think this is a brilliant metaphor. It's so direct and in your face. Yet, that is what happens. Throughout the play, Titus loses three sons and a daughter and Tamora loses three sons. This goes deeper still though, for even the living children will be consumed. Aaron's son will one day grow up, perhaps learn of his past, and seek vengeance. Titus' grandson is already extremely violent and eager to harm their enemies in his few lines. This shows that a parent's feud can carry on for generations consuming many of the children in it. Once again I am reminded of Romeo and Juliet. 

There is also the theme of the body parts. While they touch on many different aspects, a major one is that of a body seeking revenge being disjointed and fighting with itself. There is an image in the play of the right hand cutting off the left; there is the image of a body maiming itself. Rome and Titus both are in such a state. This shows the nature of revenge. It hurts both sides. Specifically for Titus though, it is also a large part of his state since he is going through a character change. He commits acts he would never have done and so must be in a state of cognitive dissonance. His actions do not fit with his beliefs.

Finally, I think there are several more questions that Titus Andronicus raises. How can one deal with excessive misfortune and sorrow to prevent a cycle of revenge from occuring? Is it the duty of the Justice system to give enough compensation to the harmed to still any thoughts of revenge? Is Titus right in attaining revenge? Does revenge actually benefit anyone? Though there is a notion that they will not be happy until they have hurt those that hurt them, are they actually ever made happy? The questions are endless, but stand testament to the amazing depth of Shakespeare's work.

Perelandra - C.S. Lewis

Perelandra by C.S. Lewis is the second novel in his Space Trilogy. This time Ransom, the protagonist, goes to the title planet, the one we know as Venus, and here he encounters a new temptation plot unfolding (Adam and Eve). It's up to the aptly named Ransom to fight the Evil One who has possessed the body of his colleague. The plot is very straightforward, but the theme and the descriptions certainly make this an outstanding work.

The descriptions of the planet are once again enchanting and the theme well plays into it. The world consists of several floating islands and only one solid island which is forbidden. It has to do with faith. The solid island is a place that is unchanging, a place which man can make into his own. That's my take on it anyway.

To make a very interesting scenario, the Devil comes to the planet from our world to do another edition of the Apple story. The Devil engages in debate with the Eve character and Ransom is there too trying to shoot down the Devils points. They make interesting points about what God would want for us. The devil tries to say that God wants us to grow up on our own so that he doesn't have to guide us any more, and that is why we should rebel against him(in this case by staying overnight at the forbidden island). The discussion lasts for days and Ransom is losing, so he comes to the conclusion that he must physically fight the Devil.

This was my hangup about the novel: the Devil possesses a person's body. Ransom actually does struggle with the idea of another person being no longer that person, and even after fighting the devil, almost gets tricked into believing he is the person again. In the context of the story, it works. But, in real life, I would worry about what this is saying. If someone thought the Devil possessed someone, they would still have no right to cause that person harm, they might be wrong about the possession anyway. In the author's defence, I think that most of his reader base would have realized the extremely special other worldly context of the story and known not to directly connect it with our experience.

One of the best parts about the novel was when Ransom saw the Eldila (angels) visually. Well not visually, it's complicated. Defining what an angel looks like, outside of our childhood fantasies, is a hard task. Here C.S. Lewis managed to describe, not only a novel image, but one that makes sense with his whole cosmos description. The angels live in a different dimension than ours and so when we appear to be still, they must run to keep up. It was more complicated than that, but very interesting.

Overall, the book continues the interesting descriptions from Out of the Silent Planet, but gets more theological about the Fall, Temptation, the Devil, and Faith. The first book is a bit more accessible to everyone since it deals with questioning our way of life. A lot of the themes in this book might be lost on people who aren't religious. Don't let that fright you away, the adventure aspect is still fantastic. He gets to ride giant fish, and flee from the Devil, who eventually shows up shambling after him like a zombie since he got banged up in their fight.

Out of the Silent Planet - C.S. Lewis

I am a fervent admirer of C.S. Lewis, so naturally, when I came upon a sci-fi series of his, I had to read it. The first book is very hauntingly titled Out of the Silent Planet (this will make sense later, I promise). The story is about a man, Dr. Ransom, who ends up being kidnapped and taken on a journey to another planet, Malacandra. During his time on this planet he gets to know the three different sentient species and, more importantly, the spiritual beings which watch over the planet. It is through these encounters that Lewis is able to convey his points by contrasting humanity with the world of the aliens.

I think it's important to realize that C.S. Lewis is quite the moralist, philosopher, and theologian. The Chronicles of Narnia seem to be his crowning achievement, and rightfully so. I've yet to hear a sermon which impresses upon me the wonders of God and important points of theology as those children's stories can do. Well, as expected, in Out of the Silent Planet he artfully teaches about God and Man's place, while raising profound questions in the reader's mind.

On the topic of God, there are three kinds of beings in the novel: the Eldil, Oyarsa, and Maleldil. The Eldil are a spiritual type of being invisible to only the humans which closely resonate with the reader as Angels. Oyarsa is a being which rules over the planet and seems to be an Arch Angel. Maleldil is God. Most interesting is Lewis' explanation of  the spiritual beings. They seem to us to be invisible and not physical - that is, able to pass through solid things - because they move in heaven which exists everywhere. Ransom learns that the locals call Earth the Silent Planet because there is no Oyarsa there. At one time there was, but he became bent - that is, bad. This makes me think of Paradise Lost and the fall of Satan along with the fall of Man. His work is very interesting in its angelology.

He also covers a variety of other topics. The three species on Malacandra live together in harmony and Ransom has a difficult time understanding that no one species dominates the other, rather the Oyarsa rules them. When it comes to reproducing, the species are naturally monogamous and they do not desire to fornicate for pleasure's sake, which makes the notion of overpopulation and lack of food unthinkable to the alien species. They do not fear death, for they all understand that they go on to heaven. In fact, the idea that a species should live forever is completely shot down. Why should they?

This was the hardest part for me to swallow in the novel, since I, myself, am very prone to the idea that mankind can surmount all odds and will one day rule the stars. One of Ransom's kidnappers goes to Malacandra with the intent to have it be the start of colonizing the planets so that mankind will live on in spite of the inevitable end of the Earth. Of course, though this seems a noble cause to me, he is shown to be silly, since why would a species long to live forever, especially at the cost of another species. My humanist views are slowly being eroded by looking at the universe more. I think that's why the setting is on a different planet, and in space. Turning the reader's gaze to the heavens serves to emphasize the insignificance of mere mortal man.

Perhaps the point that weighs heaviest in the novel is that of Natural Hierarchy. I have said earlier that the three species co-exist peacefully. It is because they all serve the Eldil, Oyarsa, and Maleldil. This reminds me of Alexander Pope's An Essay on Man, in which is explained in great detail this very hierarchy and why man ought to take pleasure in knowing his place, not curse it. The hierarchy is not as we would think of it, one of dominance, but one of love rather. Ransom explains a sense of being humbled and shy in the presence of the Eldil and they are described as protecting him.

Overall this book was a great read, it was short, exciting as far as story went, and full of great ideas. The best part was the descriptions of the interplay between the different species and the way that Lewis made the planet come alive. He even ends the novel with an explanation about how it came to be. Ransom had asked him to write it as a fiction because otherwise no one would believe him. This makes me think of The Screwtape Letters also by C.S. Lewis, since he pretends the content of that work to be real as well. I have to say I like his style of immersion. I will move on to the next book in the series, Perelandra.