In case you haven't noticed, we've been on a bit of a break lately. It's not you, it's me, I swear...
I'm busy binge reading but I promise to return soon.
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
the dangers of single narratives and cultural appropriation
A recent discussion with native students who had been asked to go into a classroom to talk about native knowledge/traditions left me thinking about cultural stories and authority. The students were reticent to go into the classroom because they felt like they'd be on display but all I could think about (but not figure a tactful way to ask it) was "who do you want to be in charge of telling your stories?"
I grew up with a mother who was very concerned with voice appropriation (cultural appropriation) in native communities and who would never dare to make a button blanket despite her love of them, because she felt she had no right to infringe upon the traditional craft of another cultural (particularly one who had been infringed upon so much).
As a student of literature, this idea of cultural appropriation (taking on the voice of another culture, or attempting to speak for another culture) was something that was a deep interest to me (in fact, I hummed and hawed for a long time before finally allowing myself to write about Indian (from India... because for some reaons that's never clear to people) literature. After all, who was I, the white girl who'd descended from Europeans who'd visited horrible atrocities on other nations (I'm part Dutch... and the Dutch and South Africa don't have the best track records). So how could I possibly dare to think I could become a literary (sort of) authority on sonnets from India... really?
In fact, this is still an issue that doesn't sit well with me because I think western culture is engaging in a whole new form of cultural imperialism through ESL and globalisation. But if the people of a culture won't step up to tell their stories, and if they are stories that need to be collected and told, is it wrong for an outsider to step in and tell them? To at least open the door so that another can enter it and finish the story? I'm not sure what the answer to that question is. And while I sat with these students, who understandbly don't want to be a token native spectacle for their peers, I couldn't help feeling like I wanted to be blunt and rude and say, "dammit, if you don't tell the stories, someone else will. Do you really want someone else to tell your stories? Do you want to let them take ownership and authority over your narrative?"
But how do you ask that in a polite conversation? I've been chewing on that question for the past few days now, and I still don't know how... but I'm starting to suspect that maybe, I should just ask it, bluntly, as is... and let them do with it what they will. Because the risk of not telling your own stories, in your own voice, is that of letting a single narrative take over and tell an incomplete story of your identity, which only perpetuates the stereotypes out there. Which is why, when I listened to this TED talk on my ride to work this morning, I couldn't help but be struck by the synchronicity of it (and also inspired to want to create a literary course that starts with this argument):
I grew up with a mother who was very concerned with voice appropriation (cultural appropriation) in native communities and who would never dare to make a button blanket despite her love of them, because she felt she had no right to infringe upon the traditional craft of another cultural (particularly one who had been infringed upon so much).
As a student of literature, this idea of cultural appropriation (taking on the voice of another culture, or attempting to speak for another culture) was something that was a deep interest to me (in fact, I hummed and hawed for a long time before finally allowing myself to write about Indian (from India... because for some reaons that's never clear to people) literature. After all, who was I, the white girl who'd descended from Europeans who'd visited horrible atrocities on other nations (I'm part Dutch... and the Dutch and South Africa don't have the best track records). So how could I possibly dare to think I could become a literary (sort of) authority on sonnets from India... really?
In fact, this is still an issue that doesn't sit well with me because I think western culture is engaging in a whole new form of cultural imperialism through ESL and globalisation. But if the people of a culture won't step up to tell their stories, and if they are stories that need to be collected and told, is it wrong for an outsider to step in and tell them? To at least open the door so that another can enter it and finish the story? I'm not sure what the answer to that question is. And while I sat with these students, who understandbly don't want to be a token native spectacle for their peers, I couldn't help feeling like I wanted to be blunt and rude and say, "dammit, if you don't tell the stories, someone else will. Do you really want someone else to tell your stories? Do you want to let them take ownership and authority over your narrative?"
But how do you ask that in a polite conversation? I've been chewing on that question for the past few days now, and I still don't know how... but I'm starting to suspect that maybe, I should just ask it, bluntly, as is... and let them do with it what they will. Because the risk of not telling your own stories, in your own voice, is that of letting a single narrative take over and tell an incomplete story of your identity, which only perpetuates the stereotypes out there. Which is why, when I listened to this TED talk on my ride to work this morning, I couldn't help but be struck by the synchronicity of it (and also inspired to want to create a literary course that starts with this argument):
Sunday, March 28, 2010
book lovers never go to bed alone
A website dedicated to bookshelf photos…
Drool….
Could it get any more orgasmic? Seriously? Could it?
The last picture = Marya’s idea of heavenly bliss.
Drool….
All photos from website linked above
Could it get any more orgasmic? Seriously? Could it?
The last picture = Marya’s idea of heavenly bliss.
Monday, March 1, 2010
NaBloPoMo and the ever infamous DicLit
You know...
PoMo: Post Modern Literature
PoCo: Post Colonial Literature
Hell, there's even the ever infamous DicLit: Dictatorship Literature not to be confused with DicLit: Writing intended for male audiences. I'm still not sure which genre amuses me more. Probably dictator literature because well, let's face it... the humour behind the title is just too much to not appreciate! Cause come one... romance novels by Saddam Hussein? Who doesn't find just a little bit of amusement in that?
So what, ask you, does the picture have do with any of this really?
Well how about this a try: it's a month of all me in all of my oddities... (Have I mentioned that the theme is Strange(R))? So the photo justification is thus: the mirror is turned inward as I reflect upon (pun intended) my own and the universes little eccentricities (with a few deviations and tangents to boot).
No, that doesn't fly?
Ok... what about seeing it as an homage to the strangeness that has been 4 years in the making? The life and times of Marya and Paul: 4 years today.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
the host - stephanie meyer
Overall rating: 2.5 out of 5
General Plot Summary: Aliens have invaded earth and taken over human bodies. One alien soul struggles for dominance over her host body's soul, only to learn to love humans and end up fighting for their cause.
The beginning of this book is awkward and hard to get into because the mechanics of story telling are juvenile. That said, once you get past the beginning, the story is a light and engrossing read.
Although the female lead is stronger than Bella of Twilight, some of the gender politics continue to be a bit disturbing as does the moralism that permeates some of the tale. The book is sold as her 1st adult novel, however given the age of the protagonist (physically) and the weird sexual mores that go with this "adult" novel, it really feels like the story is meant for teens. Why she chose to rely yet again on a 17 year old female as a protagonist or why she finds it so important to render her character asexual is beyond me given that this is supposed to be a novel for adults. But whatever, that's her choice.
All in all, it was an ok read. Entertaining but a bit frustrating because the conversation between the 2 characters is trite and awkwardly developped through font styles. The novel still feels like a continuation of the adolescent wish fulfillment that was the Twilight series and relies on predictable plot development and conclusions.
And can we say sequel much?
image from : LibraryThing
The beginning of this book is awkward and hard to get into because the mechanics of story telling are juvenile. That said, once you get past the beginning, the story is a light and engrossing read.
Although the female lead is stronger than Bella of Twilight, some of the gender politics continue to be a bit disturbing as does the moralism that permeates some of the tale. The book is sold as her 1st adult novel, however given the age of the protagonist (physically) and the weird sexual mores that go with this "adult" novel, it really feels like the story is meant for teens. Why she chose to rely yet again on a 17 year old female as a protagonist or why she finds it so important to render her character asexual is beyond me given that this is supposed to be a novel for adults. But whatever, that's her choice.
All in all, it was an ok read. Entertaining but a bit frustrating because the conversation between the 2 characters is trite and awkwardly developped through font styles. The novel still feels like a continuation of the adolescent wish fulfillment that was the Twilight series and relies on predictable plot development and conclusions.
And can we say sequel much?
image from : LibraryThing
Thursday, November 19, 2009
book shelf lust
photo credit: apartmenttherapy.com
This is what I feel like my books look like (minus the colour organization)
Here are some of the bookshelf ideas that inspire me...
Akin to the style I already have (Ikea Expedit/Billy):
A very different look for me.
Romantic, French Provençal style:
Country charm and for a house with a lot of space and light
Crates for a rustic look:
Probably more my style (as already sort of established) and full of colour!!!!:
I know, lately I've been all about home decor. Probably because we're trying to figure out if we're staying put, or if we're going to move to a bigger space. Either way, something needs to be done to tidy up and better organize the space. I like our condo, but it feels drab to me and in need of a style or a decor that gives it a feel/atmosphere instead of what feels just sort of blah to me...
Monday, August 3, 2009
on being a preteen bookworm
From Pandagon:
Lizzie Skurnick has made an art out of addressing the adults who grew out of bookworm children, adults who may still have a taste for overwrought pornography, walking while they read, and books that have a lot of detailed descriptions of food, first in her blog feature Fine Lines at Jezebel and now in her book Shelf Discovery, a collection of posts from the Fine Lines series. Believe me, this book was nearly as hard to put down as Flowers in the Attic was when you were 13 years old. It’s just a series of reviews of YA novels---or books that weren’t really meant to be YA, I’m sure (like Flowers), but became that way because adults have the good sense to toss them against the wall, but kids are absolutely entranced by the fact that they’re reading pornography! and no one! will stop them!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Comments on Twilight
I’m a book geek. It goes without saying. And I’m a binge reader, have always been, will always be and not interested in changing it. That said, yours truly just read the entire Twilight series in less than a week. Yes. Less. Than. A. Week.
There are benefits and drawbacks to reading an entire 4 book series in one go. Pro: that everything is fresh in your mind and you’re able to link ideas together. Con: that you become hyper critical of all that you’ve read because of this.
There are things that I really enjoyed about the series and there are things that I loathed. If I had to pick between the DaVinci Code and Twilight, I’d pick Twilight. Why? Because the writing is stronger and the narrative is crafted with more skill. Harry Potter vs Twilight? Harry Potter because the ideas are fresher and more entertaining, the world is more engaging. Anne Rice vs Twilight: believe it or not, it’s a toss-up (unless we’re talking about Queen of the Damned, which is my favourite book in the Anne Rice canon).
Here’s what I loathed:
Bella is weak and pathetic. For a girl who supposedly was capable of taking care of her mother before coming to Forks, she’s pretty damn pathetic once she gets there. She’s a total klutz (which is fine in and of itself), which is paired with her lack of sense of preservation and her martyr complex, in order to become downright infuriating. The girl can’t bloody walk or tie her own shoelaces without Edward holding her hand. She can feed her dad, take advanced biology but can’t manage to walk anywhere without tripping over everything in sight. Trust me, I’m a klutz and I don’t trip as much as Bella does.
Bella is co-dependent and doesn’t know how to be happy without men loving her. Whether it’s Mike, Jacob, or Edward, Bella’s entire sense of self worth is attached to men being attentive to her once she enters Forks. Mike makes the transition easier, Edward holds her hands, and Jacob picks her up when she’s down. I know that teenage girls are melodramatic, but Bella’s level of love or die is pushing it. Sure I get that her world felt like it was falling apart when Edward left, but the novel essentially teaches girls can only get over a boy by falling into a relationship with someone else (Jacob).
The way love is depicted is dangerous. First we have the stereotypical he hates me, he loves me transition. Edward is initially (seemingly) repulsed by Bella, he snubs her and insults her (a la Mark Darcy) and then goes out of his way to avoid her. When he deems that he can deal with her, he initiates a friendship and she forgives him without any explanation as to why he was so rude before. If hate turns to love then ladies get out there and find yourselves the biggest bastard and never give up hope because your pathetic adoration will eventually wear him down. Why? Not because of your personality, but because of attraction. No wonder women like the bad boys… we’re trained from infancy to go after them.
Then there’s the fact that Edward never really tells her anything. He’s the all knowing wise one; the elder with more experience (though it does appear as though he too is a virgin, so there is some level playing ground). However, being that she’s human and that she’s never going to be as perfect as him until he transforms her, their relationship is never one of equals until after her transformation. Aside from the fact that she remains a mystery to him (he can’t read her thoughts) and his attraction to her (blood lust), there doesn’t really ever seem to be much of a reason for Edward’s obsession with Bella, particularly given her nagging and incessant insecurities. On top of which, the fact that Bella opens her mind to Edward in the end, giving him everything and arguably more than he’s given her (in spite of her immortality), perpetuates the uneven playing ground. He can hear her, but he remains a mystery to her.
Plus, love is an addiction. Bella cannot be without Edward and feel complete. She is obsessed with him and describes her love for Edward like a drug. Despite the fact that Jacob actually allows Bella to be bolder and daring, she longs for a man who constantly makes her feel inferior and needy of protection. He doesn’t trust her to have the wherewithal to take care of herself, and who can blame him when the books is teaching girls that they should sacrificing everything at the altar of love (whether it is to protect her mother, father, Jacob, the tribe, the Cullens, her daughter etc, etc). Bella is willing to put her life on the line for everyone and anyone she loves. Her self-sacrifice is so inclusive and pervasive that not only is she a lamb being led to the slaughter, this lamb loves being slaughtered.
Bella is supposedly a strong heroine and yet she embodies all of the conventional female roles assigned to her. She is a caretaker for her mother, a cook for her father, a chaste wife, and a dedicated mother. Despite never wanting marriage and being willing to sacrifice the idea of motherhood for eternity (she has no qualms about never being a mother until she’s actually pregnant and her life is at risk), she willingly submits to all of Edward’s old fashioned morals on marriage and abstinence (regardless of her displeasure). She risks her life to become a mother at 18 (verging on 19) and all talk of going away to college is dismissed in the face of motherhood. In fact, beyond spending eternity with Edward, Bella seems to have no conception of what eternity will entail. For a girl who is supposedly so smart, you’d think she’d have some interest in higher learning or the endless possibility of adventure that eternity presents her with. But no, it’s all about having sex with Edward forever. And then when she gets knocked up, having sex and being mom. They have no discussions about what their plans are for the future other than being together. He pushes her to go to college as a human but seems to have no interest in encouraging her education once she’s transformed into uber wife and mom.
Here’s what I liked:
The myths and legends of the shape-shifters added a dimension to the story that was intriguing.
The descriptions of Bella’s first experiences as a vampire were fantastic. Her growing strength, her sense of wonder, the playfulness of the tone and exploration were all very well done. I enjoyed the humour, the details, and the way the scene itself was crafted. Her vampire awakening was arguably done better than Anne Rice.
The last battle of the final book redeems and valorizes feminine traits and leave readers with a strong heroine. In the end, it is Alice and Bella who save the day. Bella is finally equal, if not in many ways stronger than Edward by the series’ end.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed quite a bit about these books. I just wish she’d been a bit less polemical in her traditionalism in order to make Bella a more equal partner in the relationship and to offer young girls a healthier vision of “true love.”
There are benefits and drawbacks to reading an entire 4 book series in one go. Pro: that everything is fresh in your mind and you’re able to link ideas together. Con: that you become hyper critical of all that you’ve read because of this.
There are things that I really enjoyed about the series and there are things that I loathed. If I had to pick between the DaVinci Code and Twilight, I’d pick Twilight. Why? Because the writing is stronger and the narrative is crafted with more skill. Harry Potter vs Twilight? Harry Potter because the ideas are fresher and more entertaining, the world is more engaging. Anne Rice vs Twilight: believe it or not, it’s a toss-up (unless we’re talking about Queen of the Damned, which is my favourite book in the Anne Rice canon).
Here’s what I loathed:
Bella is weak and pathetic. For a girl who supposedly was capable of taking care of her mother before coming to Forks, she’s pretty damn pathetic once she gets there. She’s a total klutz (which is fine in and of itself), which is paired with her lack of sense of preservation and her martyr complex, in order to become downright infuriating. The girl can’t bloody walk or tie her own shoelaces without Edward holding her hand. She can feed her dad, take advanced biology but can’t manage to walk anywhere without tripping over everything in sight. Trust me, I’m a klutz and I don’t trip as much as Bella does.
Bella is co-dependent and doesn’t know how to be happy without men loving her. Whether it’s Mike, Jacob, or Edward, Bella’s entire sense of self worth is attached to men being attentive to her once she enters Forks. Mike makes the transition easier, Edward holds her hands, and Jacob picks her up when she’s down. I know that teenage girls are melodramatic, but Bella’s level of love or die is pushing it. Sure I get that her world felt like it was falling apart when Edward left, but the novel essentially teaches girls can only get over a boy by falling into a relationship with someone else (Jacob).
The way love is depicted is dangerous. First we have the stereotypical he hates me, he loves me transition. Edward is initially (seemingly) repulsed by Bella, he snubs her and insults her (a la Mark Darcy) and then goes out of his way to avoid her. When he deems that he can deal with her, he initiates a friendship and she forgives him without any explanation as to why he was so rude before. If hate turns to love then ladies get out there and find yourselves the biggest bastard and never give up hope because your pathetic adoration will eventually wear him down. Why? Not because of your personality, but because of attraction. No wonder women like the bad boys… we’re trained from infancy to go after them.
Then there’s the fact that Edward never really tells her anything. He’s the all knowing wise one; the elder with more experience (though it does appear as though he too is a virgin, so there is some level playing ground). However, being that she’s human and that she’s never going to be as perfect as him until he transforms her, their relationship is never one of equals until after her transformation. Aside from the fact that she remains a mystery to him (he can’t read her thoughts) and his attraction to her (blood lust), there doesn’t really ever seem to be much of a reason for Edward’s obsession with Bella, particularly given her nagging and incessant insecurities. On top of which, the fact that Bella opens her mind to Edward in the end, giving him everything and arguably more than he’s given her (in spite of her immortality), perpetuates the uneven playing ground. He can hear her, but he remains a mystery to her.
Plus, love is an addiction. Bella cannot be without Edward and feel complete. She is obsessed with him and describes her love for Edward like a drug. Despite the fact that Jacob actually allows Bella to be bolder and daring, she longs for a man who constantly makes her feel inferior and needy of protection. He doesn’t trust her to have the wherewithal to take care of herself, and who can blame him when the books is teaching girls that they should sacrificing everything at the altar of love (whether it is to protect her mother, father, Jacob, the tribe, the Cullens, her daughter etc, etc). Bella is willing to put her life on the line for everyone and anyone she loves. Her self-sacrifice is so inclusive and pervasive that not only is she a lamb being led to the slaughter, this lamb loves being slaughtered.
Bella is supposedly a strong heroine and yet she embodies all of the conventional female roles assigned to her. She is a caretaker for her mother, a cook for her father, a chaste wife, and a dedicated mother. Despite never wanting marriage and being willing to sacrifice the idea of motherhood for eternity (she has no qualms about never being a mother until she’s actually pregnant and her life is at risk), she willingly submits to all of Edward’s old fashioned morals on marriage and abstinence (regardless of her displeasure). She risks her life to become a mother at 18 (verging on 19) and all talk of going away to college is dismissed in the face of motherhood. In fact, beyond spending eternity with Edward, Bella seems to have no conception of what eternity will entail. For a girl who is supposedly so smart, you’d think she’d have some interest in higher learning or the endless possibility of adventure that eternity presents her with. But no, it’s all about having sex with Edward forever. And then when she gets knocked up, having sex and being mom. They have no discussions about what their plans are for the future other than being together. He pushes her to go to college as a human but seems to have no interest in encouraging her education once she’s transformed into uber wife and mom.
Here’s what I liked:
The myths and legends of the shape-shifters added a dimension to the story that was intriguing.
The descriptions of Bella’s first experiences as a vampire were fantastic. Her growing strength, her sense of wonder, the playfulness of the tone and exploration were all very well done. I enjoyed the humour, the details, and the way the scene itself was crafted. Her vampire awakening was arguably done better than Anne Rice.
The last battle of the final book redeems and valorizes feminine traits and leave readers with a strong heroine. In the end, it is Alice and Bella who save the day. Bella is finally equal, if not in many ways stronger than Edward by the series’ end.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed quite a bit about these books. I just wish she’d been a bit less polemical in her traditionalism in order to make Bella a more equal partner in the relationship and to offer young girls a healthier vision of “true love.”
Sunday, July 26, 2009
drowning in chic culture
For the past week I've been on vacation which ironically meant that I take a break from everything that I do normally. Calling people, answering the phone, writing emails, blog posting, cooking dinner, etc. (Ok, I cooked a few meals, but I also went out to eat a lot...)
I keep feeling like I have all this time to blog, so I should, but I feel like I don't have much to say. It never ceases to amaze me that I have more to say, I feel more creative, and more focused when I actually have more to do. Life is funny, isn't it?
Here are a few of the things I've been up to in the past week:
Hiking in Mont Bruno
Visiting the Pointe a Calliere museum
Picking up our very first wedding gift (eeks, it's becoming more and more real every day!)
Swimming at the country place
Hanging out with an out of town friend
Delivery Mr Kitten to his new home
Crafts (learning how to overstitch...)
Reading, reading, reading: Harry Potter 7, Q & A, Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. (hence the drowning in chic culture bit... I challenge anyone to read all 4 Twilight books and not feel overwhelmed by chic lit)!
Bottling wine from the SAQ depot
and...
having a stomach bug
So it's been a busy week...but alack, alas, that all comes to an end tomorrow. Back to work I go. More posting to follow!
I keep feeling like I have all this time to blog, so I should, but I feel like I don't have much to say. It never ceases to amaze me that I have more to say, I feel more creative, and more focused when I actually have more to do. Life is funny, isn't it?
Here are a few of the things I've been up to in the past week:
Hiking in Mont Bruno
Visiting the Pointe a Calliere museum
Picking up our very first wedding gift (eeks, it's becoming more and more real every day!)
Swimming at the country place
Hanging out with an out of town friend
Delivery Mr Kitten to his new home
Crafts (learning how to overstitch...)
Reading, reading, reading: Harry Potter 7, Q & A, Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. (hence the drowning in chic culture bit... I challenge anyone to read all 4 Twilight books and not feel overwhelmed by chic lit)!
Bottling wine from the SAQ depot
and...
having a stomach bug
So it's been a busy week...but alack, alas, that all comes to an end tomorrow. Back to work I go. More posting to follow!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
the ways that we are taught to recognize love
So I just finished reading the final installment of the Harry Potter series. I started them long ago with my little brother, who is now 19, and then finished them on my own. But I'm not really going to talk about Harry Potter per se, but rather, about the way that love is represented in the series and my issue with it.
Now, before I start, my disclaimer: not all of the love relationships are portrayed in this way, but for the 2 that are, I take issue!
Something about pop/romance culture seems bent on teaching girls that love follows antagonism. That true love starts off with tension and feuding. Both pairs of characters, Ron and Hermione and Lily and James both dislike each other in the beginning and then end up being each other's great love. Ron insults Hermione and James insults Lily's friend. Both women are deeply offended or hurt by this and thus the antagonism begins.
Eventually of course, these differences are reconciled and the characters after many years, finally come to realize that they love each other (this is more developed in the case of Ron and Hermione as James and Lily, being Harry's parents, are actually dead when the story begins). And so the stereotype continues. Harlequin romances, rom-coms, and hell, the entire chic-flic industry is based on this premise of eneminity turning into true love (hello "you've got mail" much?). The premise: the lovers are inherently at odds with one another, while secretly attracted to the other person and eventually recognizing, once they work past their conflict, that they are each other's soul mates.
Ok, now I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I have yet to fall in love with any boy that I originally hated. I've befriended people that I originally didn't feel much of a connection to, but madly in love. I think not.
I'm so sick of this set up. Seriously. Does this ever happen? Really? Cause I'd like to know about it if does.
Now, before I start, my disclaimer: not all of the love relationships are portrayed in this way, but for the 2 that are, I take issue!
Something about pop/romance culture seems bent on teaching girls that love follows antagonism. That true love starts off with tension and feuding. Both pairs of characters, Ron and Hermione and Lily and James both dislike each other in the beginning and then end up being each other's great love. Ron insults Hermione and James insults Lily's friend. Both women are deeply offended or hurt by this and thus the antagonism begins.
Eventually of course, these differences are reconciled and the characters after many years, finally come to realize that they love each other (this is more developed in the case of Ron and Hermione as James and Lily, being Harry's parents, are actually dead when the story begins). And so the stereotype continues. Harlequin romances, rom-coms, and hell, the entire chic-flic industry is based on this premise of eneminity turning into true love (hello "you've got mail" much?). The premise: the lovers are inherently at odds with one another, while secretly attracted to the other person and eventually recognizing, once they work past their conflict, that they are each other's soul mates.
Ok, now I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I have yet to fall in love with any boy that I originally hated. I've befriended people that I originally didn't feel much of a connection to, but madly in love. I think not.
I'm so sick of this set up. Seriously. Does this ever happen? Really? Cause I'd like to know about it if does.
Monday, July 13, 2009
three cups of tea
I just finished reading Three Cups of Tea the other day and I highly recommend it to others in search of a inspirational story. Maybe I was feeling particularly weepy the past few weeks as I read it, but the story often left me teary eyed. Not because of the man who creates these schools, but for the stories of the individuals who fight so hard for education.
It was very inspirational to read about what one man, with no contacts and no resources, can eventually do with time and dedication. For anyone who asks you: "what can I do, I am only one person" the answer is found in this book.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
ode to home
I loved Marjane Satrapi's graphic novels Persepolis (I & II), they touched me a in a profound way, educated me about the situation in Iran (which I admit to knowing very little about) and inspired a new found interest in the graphic novel genre.In a recent Op-Ed piece for the New York Times she wrote:
Six years ago, I went to listen to a man, whom I will not name, in a café in Paris.
He said it had been 24 years since he had been back to Iran, that he had to leave right after the revolution of 1979 for political reasons.
He talked of many things, and he ended by saying: “Once you leave your homeland, you can live anywhere, but I refuse to die anywhere other than Iran — or else my life will have had no meaning.”
His statement touched me very deeply. I’ve thought about what he said, not just understanding him intellectually but feeling his meaning with all my heart. I, too, was convinced that I must die nowhere other than in my country, Iran, or else my life will also be meaningless.
At the time I heard this man speak, it had already been four years since I had been home.
Yes, I call Iran home because no matter how long I live in France, and despite the fact that I feel also French after all these years, to me the word “home” has only one meaning: Iran.
I suppose it’s that way for everyone: Home is the place where one is born and raised.
No matter how much I am in love with Paris and its indescribable beauty, Tehran with all its ugliness will in my eyes forever be the “bride” of all cities around the world.
Although the location of our "homes" are different, she couldn't have put it better. No matter how long I live in Montreal, the west coast will always be "home." And while we are expats for very different reasons, I still identify with the sentiments she expresses. Although it's still the same country, it's a different culture and the ocean, mountains, trees, even the rain, are all home to me. I can find a million beautiful things in this city, or in another, and yet home will always be, ironically, Nanaimo, BC. Loathe it though I may for many reasons, the river, the lagoon, the ocean, the BC Ferries, Arbutus trees are all things that I associate with home. Even in our debates about moving out of the city, I find that many of criteria I claim to need in terms of creating a space/location called home, echo back to these things. Montreal, with all of the things I love so much, will never offer me the fresh bodies of water that I crave swimming in, nor oceans that I can sail on, or mountains I can hike and climb. And I guess, even after 9 years, home remains the place I grew up in.
Of course the rest of her article goes on to talk about the current Iranian political situation and is well worth a read...
Death, torture and prison are part of daily life for the youth of Iran. They are not like us, my friends and I at their age; they are not scared. They are not what we were.
They hold hands and scream: “Don’t be afraid! Don’t be afraid! We are together!”
They understand that no one will give them their rights; they must go get them.
They understand that unlike the generation before them — my generation, for whom the dream was to leave Iran — the real dream is not to leave Iran but to fight for it, to free it, to love it and to reconstruct it.
Given that I just wrote a couple of days ago about feeling ashamed of my country, for all of its little and big hypocrisies, her words "shame" me. They make me realize that we, who have so much, bitch about so little and never bother to fight for the things that matter most to us. The fact that 85% of the Iranian population came out to vote when less than 60% of the Canadian population could be bothered... particularly my generation. I know that our options weren't attractive and that many of the issues seem contrived to screw us over, but how do we expect politicians to ever listen to us if we don't stand up to make our voices heard? How do we expect to get detailed, accurate, and reliable media coverage of the issues that are pertinent to us if we don't even pay attention in the first place. Our apathy, in the face of all the things we have and take for granted, is disconcerting (and dare I say it: disgusting) when we look at the challenges that other nations and groups face.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Wedding musings and LGBTQ rights: the why behind "the big day"
The boy and I are about to meet with the priest tonight to discuss our wedding plans and I find myself contemplating what the consequences of my choice to agree to marry in a Catholic church really are. You know, aside from the fact that I’m not Catholic and am pretty much as anti-Catholic as it gets.
Two events are directly influencing this inner debate:
1. Having just finished reading Rebecca Mead’s One Perfect Day, which leaves readers with the question: “What is a marriage for?”
2. The recent media attention that the house of Obama has been getting in regards to its position on gay marriage rights in America.
Now I know that I don’t live in the U.S. and that LGBTQ rights are somewhat more progressive here across the border (in that same sex couples can marry through civil union) but ultimately marriage rights still have a long way to go, what with Harper continually trying to re-open the debate and all.
So what does all this have to do with me and my big fat Catholic wedding? Just that I’m wondering just how thrilled I am to get married in a church/institution that fails to acknowledge the basic human rights that I hold so dear. I mean, what does it say about me if I’m willing to compromise my dearly held beliefs in order to appease others? While I believe that my marriage should be outside the political purview, how can it truly be when so many others are still fighting for their basic rights? Am I just another hetero-normative individual who takes my right to marry for granted? What are the consequences of perpetuating such a discriminatory system? Does it validate and valorize belief systems that I am fundamentally opposed to?
In the battle between my public self and views, and my private family negotiations, I find myself torn. Do I get up on my soapbox and preach to those who will never be converted in order to sleep with a clear conscience (note the irony: the angst cause by such an action would actually probably prevent sleep) or do I keep quiet, tread water, and maintain the peace in order to smooth over family relations? Are all battles worth fighting when winning them means losing something else? I’ve been raised with the notion that you catch more flies with honey, but when do you say fuck the honey and go straight for the bitter pill of reality?
Mead’s book asked interviewed couples and readers: What is a marriage for, particularly in light of the fact that the western marriage tradition is becoming so inundated with consumerism and lack of spiritual meaning? The divorce statistics are staggering and yet we invest so much time and money on one single day. Our one special, perfect day that is supposed to define who we are, which is particularly ironic when we consider that most people consider a marriage a celebration/party and no longer a spiritual union.
Am I bitter about the big fat Wedding Industry? Yes, absolutely. Do I look at my wedding price tag and want to cry, especially when I think about my student loan and people in need? Without a doubt! And yet here I am, just 3.5 months out, facing the last stretch of a ceremony and tradition that are becoming more and more problematic and controversial to me. Don’t get me wrong: I grew up with a wedding fantasy. I’m all about wedding porn. I wanted the big day and I wanted to be married. For all my artsy, bohemian ways, being married was and still is a very important rite of passage to me.
But given the politics and consumerism surrounding weddings, I no longer know if I can identify the reasons why.
Two events are directly influencing this inner debate:
1. Having just finished reading Rebecca Mead’s One Perfect Day, which leaves readers with the question: “What is a marriage for?”
2. The recent media attention that the house of Obama has been getting in regards to its position on gay marriage rights in America.
Now I know that I don’t live in the U.S. and that LGBTQ rights are somewhat more progressive here across the border (in that same sex couples can marry through civil union) but ultimately marriage rights still have a long way to go, what with Harper continually trying to re-open the debate and all.
So what does all this have to do with me and my big fat Catholic wedding? Just that I’m wondering just how thrilled I am to get married in a church/institution that fails to acknowledge the basic human rights that I hold so dear. I mean, what does it say about me if I’m willing to compromise my dearly held beliefs in order to appease others? While I believe that my marriage should be outside the political purview, how can it truly be when so many others are still fighting for their basic rights? Am I just another hetero-normative individual who takes my right to marry for granted? What are the consequences of perpetuating such a discriminatory system? Does it validate and valorize belief systems that I am fundamentally opposed to?
In the battle between my public self and views, and my private family negotiations, I find myself torn. Do I get up on my soapbox and preach to those who will never be converted in order to sleep with a clear conscience (note the irony: the angst cause by such an action would actually probably prevent sleep) or do I keep quiet, tread water, and maintain the peace in order to smooth over family relations? Are all battles worth fighting when winning them means losing something else? I’ve been raised with the notion that you catch more flies with honey, but when do you say fuck the honey and go straight for the bitter pill of reality?
Mead’s book asked interviewed couples and readers: What is a marriage for, particularly in light of the fact that the western marriage tradition is becoming so inundated with consumerism and lack of spiritual meaning? The divorce statistics are staggering and yet we invest so much time and money on one single day. Our one special, perfect day that is supposed to define who we are, which is particularly ironic when we consider that most people consider a marriage a celebration/party and no longer a spiritual union.
Am I bitter about the big fat Wedding Industry? Yes, absolutely. Do I look at my wedding price tag and want to cry, especially when I think about my student loan and people in need? Without a doubt! And yet here I am, just 3.5 months out, facing the last stretch of a ceremony and tradition that are becoming more and more problematic and controversial to me. Don’t get me wrong: I grew up with a wedding fantasy. I’m all about wedding porn. I wanted the big day and I wanted to be married. For all my artsy, bohemian ways, being married was and still is a very important rite of passage to me.
But given the politics and consumerism surrounding weddings, I no longer know if I can identify the reasons why.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Long Weekend
My weekend has been full of relaxation and activity.
We accomplished all sorts of wedding related tasks:
- bought wedding bands
- picked out tentative readings
- made our invites (the cat personally watched each card come out of the printer and even sniffed a few to maintain quality control)
I started reading a French novel (the 3rd of the series). I stayed in bed this morning while the cat decided to supervise. See picture, my head was in the crease of the pillow before moving to take a picture. For some insane reason Mayla decided that sleeping just above my head was a great idea. Weird cat!
Later today I'll be venturing up the mountain with a friend. It's been a long time since I've walked up to the top of Mont Royal. It's a lovely day so it should be fun.
What haven't I done: marking. I've cleaned, read, watched, celebrated a 30th birthday, shopped, etc... but I haven't done my marking yet! Oops....
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
One Perfect Day
I'm getting married this October and being the bookworm that I am, this has led me to peruse and read an assortment of wedding related books. (Yes, I know the blog is called INDIAphile, but a girl can't always read books about India). Anyways, this book isn't just for the bride, it's an interesting social commentary on the wedding industry in America. (Again, I am Canadian but let's be honest, for most intents and purposes it's pretty much the same thing, especially when we're talking about weddings).
Anyways, Rebecca Mead's One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding has been an eye-opening and re-assuring read to date. I'm not finished (because I can only read so much before I work myself into a bit of an irate tizzy) but it is really showing how much of all things wedding is big business primarily targeted towards women and how much nonsense it all is. All the individualization we do to make the day ours is part of the mass marketing. It's insane and begs the question: Why are we buying into it? I highly recommend this book to anyone, male or female, that is about to get married, has been married, or hopes to get married because I think it's a vital reality check that forces us to re-examine the choices we are making.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Feminism—Post Women’s Day
I only recently finished watching season 2 of Mad Men (plot spoilers ahead) and I have to say that the season finale has left me feeling profoundly disturbed on a feminist level. For those that don’t know the show there are 3 main female characters: Peggy, the quiet working girl; Joan, the sex kitten secretary; and Betty, the depressed 50s housewife.
In the last half of the season we see the female characters go through some amazing transitions. Betty kicks Don out (temporarily) and seems to start asserting herself (in that she finally starts talking). Peggy fully claims her status within the male work place, tells Campbell about the baby, and ultimately rejects him. She’s really coming into her own, despite all of her silent, meek ways. As Elizabeth Moss states, she really is a profoundly intriguing character. She really plays out the evolution of women in the work place and her character development is absolutely fascinating.
The character that really disturbs me is Joan. She’s the shows’ Marilyn Monroe with the sexy clothes, the killer curves, and independent sexual mores that you just want to love despite all of her hard edges. In this season however, she’s taking a step backwards in order to get married. As much as that step kills me, what really upsets me is the way she is being punished for her past independence. It just makes you want to scream at the screen: Wake the f*** up Joan. A man who rapes you on your boss’ office floor in order to reassert his sexual prowess and territory is not a man to marry. Yet she’ll go through with it just to have the socially acceptable safety of marriage.
To be honest, the way all the women are punished in the show is downright upsetting. Once again the virgin/whore dichotomy is being fully played out, albeit in intriguing ways. Now I realize that the show is set in the 50s and that gender equality then was not what it is now. That said, I don’t know that the sexual politics being depicted in Mad Men are really all that different than some of the ones being drooled over in the latest pop culture phenomenon: the Twilight series. As this article so nicely illustrates, the politics of abstinence and the vamp fetish in the novel/movie are just as perverse as what is represented in the re-imagined 1950s TV show. To be fair, I haven’t read the books (I saw the movie) but as a former vampire novel junkie, the article really made me think about the power dynamics at work in terms of gender, sexuality, and much of the throwback conservatism that seems to be resurfacing in our pop culture society these days.
My post-Women’s Day blog post ends with the following thoughts: How far ahead are we really and why are we so fixated on re-fetishizing our own victimization?
In the last half of the season we see the female characters go through some amazing transitions. Betty kicks Don out (temporarily) and seems to start asserting herself (in that she finally starts talking). Peggy fully claims her status within the male work place, tells Campbell about the baby, and ultimately rejects him. She’s really coming into her own, despite all of her silent, meek ways. As Elizabeth Moss states, she really is a profoundly intriguing character. She really plays out the evolution of women in the work place and her character development is absolutely fascinating.
The character that really disturbs me is Joan. She’s the shows’ Marilyn Monroe with the sexy clothes, the killer curves, and independent sexual mores that you just want to love despite all of her hard edges. In this season however, she’s taking a step backwards in order to get married. As much as that step kills me, what really upsets me is the way she is being punished for her past independence. It just makes you want to scream at the screen: Wake the f*** up Joan. A man who rapes you on your boss’ office floor in order to reassert his sexual prowess and territory is not a man to marry. Yet she’ll go through with it just to have the socially acceptable safety of marriage.
To be honest, the way all the women are punished in the show is downright upsetting. Once again the virgin/whore dichotomy is being fully played out, albeit in intriguing ways. Now I realize that the show is set in the 50s and that gender equality then was not what it is now. That said, I don’t know that the sexual politics being depicted in Mad Men are really all that different than some of the ones being drooled over in the latest pop culture phenomenon: the Twilight series. As this article so nicely illustrates, the politics of abstinence and the vamp fetish in the novel/movie are just as perverse as what is represented in the re-imagined 1950s TV show. To be fair, I haven’t read the books (I saw the movie) but as a former vampire novel junkie, the article really made me think about the power dynamics at work in terms of gender, sexuality, and much of the throwback conservatism that seems to be resurfacing in our pop culture society these days.
My post-Women’s Day blog post ends with the following thoughts: How far ahead are we really and why are we so fixated on re-fetishizing our own victimization?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
