July 31, 2007
July 29, 2007
Simpsonized!
Mr. P and I as Simpsons characters. Via Simpsonizeme.com
Soooo cool.
Oh, and here he is going to work (unfortunately they don’t have a landscape for a grad student weeping in the library, such as would be suitable for me): 
July 21, 2007
Harry Potter and the Apathetic Grad Student
Sorry for the lame title. You would be lame too if you spent all week reading about the American Revolution (and I still don’t know the difference between Bailyn’s formulation of Republicanism vs. Gordon Wood’s. I feel dumber by the page).
I wanted to buy a card for a member of my cohort who is getting married next month (in the shmancy Mormon temple!), so I made my way to Borders about 2 hrs ago. Little did I realize that the Harry Potter premiere was tonight of all nights! The place was swarming with people in Potter garb, and their bedraggled parents/friends/spouses. Really quite festive. There were balloons, streamers…I could feel the electricity in the air.
I wish I could share in the fuss. But I have never gotten into Harry Potter, which is peculiar because I am a big fat science fiction/fantasy aficionado. And I’m not a terribly picky scifi consumer; along with the classic Bradbury, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, I also read Dune, all things Tolkien, even the novelized Star Wars series. I think I even read the Anne McCaffrey series about fire-breathing dragons. As for juvenile scifi/fantasy, I adored the Tripod trilogy, and all of Lloyd Alexander’s books. I was and still am omnivorous when it comes to fantasy and science fiction.
I encountered HP in high school, when I read Harry Potter A L’ecole Des Sorciers–the very first Potter book–for AP French. It was OK, but didn’t capture my interest in the slightest. A few years later, shocked at all the hubbub, I borrowed a friend’s copy of…the Goblet of Fire, I believe…to see if I had made a mistake, and to see if I could blame the French for my indifference. Alas, I was simply not into it. Luckily I read the His Dark Materials series immediately after, and my faith in children’s fantasy was reaffirmed. Philip Pullman is bitter about the Harry Potter success, and rightly so; His Dark Materials is just…mind-blowingly good, echoing Paradise Lost with humor, fantastic characters, and a wide imaginative scope. I wept at its end.
I admit to being in the minority in my feelings toward Harry Potter. But in all honesty: I felt the narrative was weak, the characters thin, and the prose too full of cliches. The emotional development of the characters was akin to a Sweet Valley High book. However, Sweet Valley High with wizards is just that: Sweet Valley High with wizards. And the little shiny things like the Bertie Bott’s Beans! and FedEx owls! and wizard shopping mall! made it feel hackneyed and forced. In good fantasy, I want to be seduced by wondrous things; J.K. Rowling tried to bribe me with fluff and clumsy whimsy.
That said, I appreciate how much this book means to so many people. I loved being around those Potter-ites, and love hearing about my friends’ plans to be among the first to read it. It’s just so…exciting!
I do think swollen academics like Harold Bloom need to de-bunch their panties about the whole affair. This review from 2000 certainly echoes some of my own dislikes about the series, but I’m not sure Potter-mania is associated with the dumbing down of American civilization.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a pretty badly written piece of popular fiction, but still significant and worth a look for all that. And we still had Flannery O’Connor, Hemingway, Robert Penn Warren, etc. after Harriet Beecher Stowe published her piece of mediocre blaxploitation. All is not lost. In any case–and I am glad for it!, Potter fans are not going to pay attention to me or a mumbling professor that looks like a depressed Grouper. Unless his name is Dumbledore, or whatever.
*edit: one thing that makes me extremely happy about HP is that a children’s book author is richer than the Queen of England. All hail J. K. Rowling!
July 8, 2007
The Future of Marriage?
Random question: does legalization of gay marriage mean that we must legalize polygamy as well?
Provided, of course, that all these marriage contracts are between consenting partners…why should polygamy be illegal?
My very unsophisticated rationale is that two’s a party, three’s a crowd. And that polygamy (of the one male, multiple females variety) will inevitably create a gender imbalance in society based on which men hold power and wealth. I mean, look at Hugh Hefner. Blecch.
Coming from a family in which polygamy was practiced, there are some horror stories passed down about how second, third, fourth wives were treated, and the tangled relationships that resulted. I guess it could be argued that monogamous marriage doesn’t have such a great track record, either. Still, I think the human capacity for jealousy should not be underestimated. Thus: couples of any sex, fine by me. But two’s the limit.
Thoughts? I don’t think my rationale has any legal basis, considering that the idea of marriage as currently touted by most people is “legally binding union between adults.” Legally speaking, what would be the logic of permitting marriage between a man and a woman, two men, or two women, while not permitting it between 3+ people?
July 3, 2007
A Touchy Topic
Yesterday, I was sorting through my notes from the genetics class I took a term ago. Talking about eugenics was a big part of it, and although I’m all about history, the projection of what might happen in the future regarding gene & infant selection and society really interested me. Much of this is in the future, dependent on whether or not certain traits can be specifically selected for.
The current touchy topic is, I think, abortion as selection.
A peculiar situation arises when disability activism and pro-choice feminism clashes. Pro-choice feminists often argue that each person has the right to control their own body. Therefore if a woman decides to abort a fetus, for whatever reason—including deformity/disability, it should be legal and socially acceptable. The right to choose has moved beyond whether to choose to birth a child or not; it has become the right to choose what kind of children we will have.
On the opposing side, from what I’ve read, disability activists often argue that living with disabilities is possible, and that people with Down’s Syndrome, for instance, often can lead good and happy lives. Thus they frequently oppose prenatal screening and/or abortion of fetuses with Down’s Syndrome or other “abnormalities.” Some 90% of fetuses diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome are aborted. This, to me, is clearly a form of eugenics, albeit one not enforced by the state.
This trend suggests that women are choosing fetuses that are “normal.” However, what is normal? This is a very fluid category. It seems to me that people with Down’s can lead very satisfying and productive lives.
To bring the argument forward a few years: it has been suggested that in the future, some sort of genetic basis for homosexuality will be found. Same with obesity. Should this occur, should women be allowed to test for and abort fetuses with these genetic inclinations?
What is the ethical difference between aborting a fetus because you don’t want the costs of raising a child, or aborting a fetus because it might grow up to be fat or gay? I’m not completely sure.
The unalloyed right to choose may have some major consequences on society. Take China, for instance. Selection for male fetuses has really messed up the makeup of recent generations, with severe social problems to come when women are scarcer than men. But if we reject abortion on some grounds (Down’s Syndrome, sex), how can we countenance it on other grounds (social circumstances, the right to choose)? Does the right to choose include the right to reject fetuses for disabilities, sex, sexual orientation, eye color, and so on? I’m at a loss.
Despite not being an organized-religion person myself, I think that certain religious conservatives (Roman Catholics, mainly) really have it easy with this one, philosophically. If all life is sacred/holy/gift of God, then it’s unacceptable to abort a fetus that has Down’s syndrome, is male/female, has genetic inclinations towards homosexuality, has blue eyes, etc. etc. Very black and white. I envy them, while the rest of us are mired in gray.
When I grew up in a very, very conservative community, I maintained a staunch feminism throughout my junior high and high school years that went against most everyone else’s opinions about abortion. This continued through college. I still don’t think abortion should be totally illegal. However, these days, I find this issue less straightforward. I never thought I’d be reassessing my views on abortion, but here I am.
I’d love discussion on this topic, if anyone’s interested, but let’s keep it civil.
