Monday, October 31, 2005

Books--the good, the bad, and the ugly

I started reading House of Sand and Fog sometime last year, and returned it to the library without finishing it. I have a problem in literature--I can't enjoy books where I can't relate to/like at least one of the characters. (I also hate books where the characters are flat/ one-dimensional, either "all good" or "all bad." This is a problem in more published books than really should happen.)

I'm not saying that I dislike books with unlikable characters--Gone With the Wind is one of my favorite books, and it has one of the most famous dislike-able characters in all of Western canon. But Scarlett shows growth and maturation throughout the novel, which is what makes it compelling. It doesn't make her suddenly a great person at the end of the book, but it does give the novel depth.

And speaking of depth, let me use this time to once again profess my hatred of Tender is the Night, and, more generally, F. Scott Fitzgerald. In my opinion, there are two types of bad male writers in the world: those who write women as if they (women) were men, and those who write women as if they (women) were crazy. Some male writers write women brilliantly. I still find John Irving's A Widow for One Year to be one of the best portrayals of adult women and female friendship. Some female writers write men badly, so at least we're all even. And I'm not saying that a woman is always going to write women right, or a man will write men brilliantly, but, the authorial saying is, write what you know. I hate Tender is the Night because of the terrible characterizations and dialogue. (Actually, I think all of his characters suck, and that he plagiarized from his own wife while he gaslit her, and that there isn't much redeemable about him other than most people have read The Great Gatsby or have at least seen the movie, thereby giving him credit for cocktail party fodder at the very least.)

So where was I? Oh, yes. I know that House of Sand and Fog is a favorite of many people, but I just can't stand it. It's a "thud book," meaning that every so often, I feel the need to throw it across the room because of a character's stupidity. I hate books where characters know that what they're doing is wrong, but they persist in doing it. (Come to think of it, I hate that in real life, too. Pisses me off.) And, more than that, I hate it when characters are torn apart because of stupid misunderstandings that could be easily solved with a simple statement by one of the characters. (This is rampant in romance novels.) Examples: "It wasn't me who you saw with your brother." "I heard you make the bet." "I never said that--that was your sister." "I was in prison once, and here's the story about that..."

I understand that real life is complicated, and that romance is fraught with misunderstandings and everyday interactions have mix-ups at every turn. But that's why I read fiction--to escape real life!

In defense of romance novels

A Follow-Up Post re: books

Despite (or perhaps because of) my distaste for the cliche, and particularly the stupid cliche where relationships are concerned, one of my favorite authors (and friend) is Jenny Crusie. She started her career writing romance novels for Harlequin, but has since moved into mainstream/"chick lit" writing, focusing on character driven stories with sharp, witty dialogue. Oh, yeah. And there are relationships, and really hot ones at that.

So here are some non-fiction articles about writing romantic comedy, from The Cherry herself:

Romance, Feminism, and Women
In defense of romance novels
Defining the romance genre
And my favorite: If I am ever a romance heroine, I will not...

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Musings on faith and religion

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine! Heir of salvation, purchase of God, Born of his Spirit, washed in His blood!/ This is my story, this is my song, Praising my Savior all the day long. This is my story, this is my song, Praising my Savior all the day long.

(words by Fanny Crosby, 1873)

I am so blessed. That has been my overwhelming thought this weekend, as I've spent time with my family and loved ones. I am so incredibly blessed.

The thing that I love about being a United Methodist is that my religion calls for two things in equal measure: faith and works. David Dinkins, a former mayor of New York City, once said, "Service to others is the rent we pay for our time on earth." I firmly believe that. And while I have not always served others in the way I am called to do, I have done what I can.

Being a member of the United Methodist Church (UMC) indicates a willingness to take on a certain level of social responsibility. John Wesley developed the idea of Methodism from viewing the separation of the factory and field workers from the Anglican church. During Wesley's time, the Anglican faith focused on faith inside the church, and did not allow for those who, economically, were unable to come to church every week. Wesley conceived of a church where faith was an everyday activity, and where each faithful member had an obligation to assist one another in any way they could. The first Methodists were involved in labor strikes for safe working conditions, in the temperance movement, in abolitionist movements across the world, in protests against child labor, and in creating safe, clean living conditions for all persons.

Faith is a tricky thing. So often, religious leaders turn people away from believing in God by telling them that their incessant questioning and doubtfulness is indicative of some kind of character flaw, and that if they had "true" faith "in their hearts," they would just believe. But I believe that some of us are, by nature, doubters. As humans, we were created by God with intellect and questioning dispositions. The Bible is filled with those who questioned God (Exodus 3:11), railed against God (Psalm 4), or refused God (Jonah). Yet all of these people are still considered men of God.

Before, I have called upon my faith to incorporate into the flock those persons who come seeking a genuine understanding of faith. Refusing a place for doubt in the faith journey isn't just silly, it's harmful. Doubt is necessary for faith, for blind faith is no faith at all. The lovely thing about the UMC is that not only are questions allowed, they're encouraged. We look to Julian of Norwich for inspiration in exploring faith through questions. I love this about the UMC. As United Methodists, we are expected to go through times of doubt, and not just at the beginnings of our faith journey. Doubt comes at any time, and with explored doubt comes clarity.

In the UMC, we rely not on the intercession of saints or the summing up of good works, but on God's grace that has been freely given. Grace is an amazing, wonderful, powerful thing. John Wesley writes of three types of grace: prevenient, accepting, and sustaining. As United Methodists, we believe that people are inherently good and are born with "a divine spark." (That, among other things, is what the flame means in our symbol.) God's grace is perfectly free for us to accept or reject. There's nothing that we can do to earn it, for it's already there. There's nothing we have to do to earn it, for it is already ours to have. That's absolutely amazing to me.

And for me, there is nothing more that I can ask for, for I have already been given so much. I am already so blessed.

More love to Thee, O Christ, More love to Thee! Hear Thou the prayer I make on bended knee. This is my earnest plea: More love, O Christ to Thee; More love to Thee, More love to Thee!

(words by Elizabeth P. Prentiss, 1856)

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Feminisim is the radical notion that women are people

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." (Rebecca West)

"Your silence will not protect you." (Audre Lord)

"A man of quality is not threatened by a woman for equality." (Slogan for the National Organization for Women)

---------

Inspired by recent activity on Angie's site.

---------

"I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but..."

Well, why not? What's wrong with being a feminist?

I'll tell you:* Feminists are evil, man-hating lesbians. Or they're whores. Or whiners. And they just don't realize how much men sacrifice for them every day, or how hard it is to be a man. They don't understand that it's out of our hands, really, because men and women are SO different physiologically that equality is absolutely impossible. I mean, can you imagine what would happen if a woman became President?! She'd probably declare nuclear war the first time she got her period!

---------
Here's the crux of the problem: Equal rights and feminism are not women's issues. They're human issues. Just as women have been harmed by the patriarchy, so have men. It seems to me that the real problem that people have with feminism is that they cannot conceive of a way that two unalike things can be equal in their value. Now, I'm not going to get into the "types of feminism" argument** and talk about if it's necessary for women to be exactly equal to men, or if women and men can be equally valuable in their own respects with the strengths and weaknesses each bring to the table.***

What I will say is that equality is an essentially human issue. Yes, we as women have come a long way. We can go to school, hold jobs, for the most part not be harrassed at them, own property, and enter into legally binding contracts. But there is such a rich history of oppression, and women as a whole (as Simone de Beauvoir would write, Woman) are still so oppressed and victimized,**** we cannot presume to say that equality has been acheived.

But, you may ask, is equality something that we even want? God made man, then woman, and decreed that woman should serve man. He didn't say that man and woman were equal, so it must not be so. I will resist the urge to say, "Yeah, well, God didn't say that people shouldn't beat themselves over the head with kittens, but you don't see anyone running out and grabbing Fluffy by the tail, do you?" Instead, I will point out that, by and large, it is the evangelical "christian" movement that relies on the degradation of women in its teachings.¹ All this is despite the fact that Jesus chose women as central players in his ministry, respected women's opinions, and made every effort to further the situation of women every where he went.

Yes, equality is something we want. Not just "we" as women, but "we" as human beings. "I passionately believe that no one can be free until we are all free, that no one can be secure until there is justice for all, and that no one can claim to be human until there is a humane world..." (Mark Mathabane). This is what equality means to me: a world where no one is afraid of being hit by a "loved one," where you can go on a date without fear of rape or assault, where equal work actually means equal pay, where sexual harassment doesn't happen, anywhere, ever; a world where men who love men and women who love women can love as freely as men who love women and women who love men, where people don't feel compelled to change their body shape, their skin colour, the shape of the nose or eyes, to conform to some "ideal type," where birth control is perfectly accurate and there is no need for abortion, where children can grow up without fear of sexual abuse or victimization, where men or women can stay at home and raise children and be given respect and dignity, and where each person is seen with love and respect, valued for the person they are and their own strengths and weaknesses--not as a man or a woman, not as gay or straight, not as young or old, not as able or disable, not as skin colour, but as a human.

That is equality. That is feminism.

---------
* Note: Tongue-in-cheek, of course.

** As it happens, I consider myself an equity feminist.

*** A variation of this argument occurs in the Queer community. Should the emphasis be on sameness, or can we recognize that each group (in the Queer community, referring to hetero- or homosexuals) brings with it its own strengths and weaknesses?

**** Incidentally, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Yet breast cancer gets more attention. Could that be because breasts are fetishized? If only women's safety were...

---------

¹ Some of the statements from Focus on the Family: "A wise woman will understand her husband’s need to be needed: as a provider, a protector, a lover, a father to their children, a companion. She will continue to take all her needs to the Lord, but she will also realize that God can and will meet many of her needs through her own husband." Most of the statements found here belittle men and assert that women need to be patient and understanding...as if men are little better than mentally challenged grade schoolers. I don't know about you, but I find that insulting on behalf of men. (Alternately, anyone familiar with Stockholm Syndrome?)

---------

"Because woman's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we're the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a 'real' man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and 'unfeminine' and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and because we still can't get an adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and...for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."