Pages

August 29, 2013

On Monstrosity, Talent, and Perceptions of Reward and Punishment in The Phantom of the Opera

The Phantom of the OperaThe Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I must say that with all the names being thrown around right from the beginning and the references to the complicated architecture of opera house I was very confused at first. That, however, got a lot better with the progression of the story and long after I was finished, I found myself pondering the implication that monsters may or may not be born to look the part, but ultimately made by humans/society.

I've never thought about this much before and it certainly awoke a whole new sympathy for Grendel. Did they – the phantom and Beowulf's Grendel that is – really have a choice or where they rather forced into the role of the monster by society. And if so, who is worse – they for embracing it or us for forcing this role upon them?

What's also interesting is that negative roles seem to be more reenforced than positive ones. While negative aspects like a monstrous appearance are likely to be found indicative of a person's character, positive ones like talents are often attributed to an external force. Take Christine for example. She and the Angel of Music where somewhat reminiscent of Dumbo and his feather. Like Dumbo even she herself didn't belief in her own abilities. Now, that might be good to keep a person humble and prevent them from becoming a megalomaniac or narcissist, but the underlying concept does have a serious downside.

What it comes down to is reward and punishment. Christine's talent is believed to be a reward for being good and working really hard, while the phantom's appearance is considered a punishment for being bad. The difference being that the reward is given after she put up a lot of effort, whereas the phantom's supposed punishment is received at birth. What horrible crime could he have committed in his mother's womb to deserve this? Sabotage a brother that we never heard of in a less ambivalent fashion than the biblical Jacob? Or do we believe in past lives here? And why is this punishment so permanent, when the rewards are so fleeting? Or are they fleeting because their source is corrupted?

Like Dumbo Christine only believes that she needs the Angel of Music to shine, while all she needs is really within her. And what she thought to be the Angel of Music is actually nothing of the sort, but a hoax. However, the demystification doesn't lead to her believing more in herself like it does with Dumbo. Instead it seems to make her lose her passion for music, because it now evokes negative associations – like the things linked to your psychopathic stalker will naturally do. Now, to sum this up, a book that gives you so much to think about is always well worth a read.



View all my reviews

August 22, 2013

On Truth and Perception

Isn't it funny that while most everyone thinks they're somewhat unique and special, they simultaneously assume that everybody experiences the world like they do? Everybody is so much in their own world that they rarely even consider that the world might look, taste or feel different to someone else's senses. I'm talking about the perceptions that you can't directly compare - only through the faulty filter of language. 

For example people agree that something that looks blue is blue. Because they've both learned, that the hue they see is called blue. But how can you be sure that what you see there is exactly what somebody else sees? This definition is not based on your actual perception. Think about it. How would you describe blue if not with itself. I guess you can't really. Maybe some of our differences in taste can even be attributed to differences in perception. Who knows?

However, there are other things that you can communicate better, but rarely ever think to do. I've had my fair share of experiences with those. When I was in elementary school, for instance, I first got glasses. Before I got them I naturally thought that everybody's eyes worked like mine did. But when I got the glasses, I was amazed at how much there was to see all of a sudden, and I kept wondering at what I've been missing all this time. This babbling of mine about all that sure did freak my mother out. Maybe I even owe some of my character traits or at least some of my interests to this.

Then there was another much more recent experience with this type of thing when I had an argument with my friend about him forgetting a doctors appointment - yet again - and always messing up his scheduling. When I told him how I keep track of my schedule, he looked at me like I had just grown a second head. Of course I thought he was the one that was weird. After all wasn't he the one who was lucky if he didn't forget his own freaking birthday? So I started asking around, and it turned out that it really was me. Bummer.

So - nerd that I am - I went looking for it on the Internet. But how do you google something like this when you don't already know what it is called? The faulty filter of language again. So that is why, when I finally stumbled upon the answer, it was purely by accident. Turns out it's called visuo-spatial synesthesia. It's not an illness or anything, just a different way of making sense of the world. It's still hard to grasp how all these other people can function without an inner calendar like mine or how they calculate without number forms, since I rely on them so much.

The point here is, you can never know that other people see the world like you do. Have you ever noticed how different people tell the same story, but apparently they don't remember it the same way. Does that mean somebody lied? Or did he just experience it in a different way? And doesn't that overthrow the whole concept of truth as we generally envision it?

August 16, 2013

Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night's Dream and the Dynamics of Female Friendships

A Midsummer Night's DreamA Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


I absolutely adore this play! It's fun, it's got romance and magic and lots of wisdom. But the best thing about it is that amidst all the magic and strangely bewitching scenery there are - even roughly 400 years after it's creation - certain aspects that are still very relevant today.

The one that stood out to me – at least in this latest reading - was the relationship between Helena and Hermia, who have the kind of friendship or rather 'frenemyship' that sadly still seems to be the predominant kind of relationship between female friends. That they are more frenemies than friends is rather obvious right from their very first encounter in the play, wherein Hermia claims to be totally blameless in attracting Demetrius attentions. Yet, when the tables are turned, she immediately accuses Helena of having bewitched Lysander.

O me! you juggler! you cankerblossom!
    You thief of love! What! have you come by night,
    And stol'n my love's heart from him?
(III.ii.282-284)

This is a common phenomenon that I never quite understood: that somehow when a man is unfaithful, the other woman gets much more of the blame than the guy does. The justifications for this all seem to lead to the implication that men are driven by their needs and women are responsible for enticing them - however intentional or unintentional that might be. What is really sad about this is that this kind of rational - that also leads to victim blaming in cases of rape - is so widely propagated and accepted by women.

But turning back to the play, we can see how this dynamic comes about. Notice how Hermia becomes increasingly insecure about her appearance as soon as Lysander's change of heart dawns on her.

And are you grown so high in his esteem
    Because I am so dwarfish and so low?
(III.ii.294-295)

This is a telling indication that Hermia is a woman, who measures her own self-worth via external reassurance – especially but not exclusively through male attention. She then turns right around to direct her attacks on Helena. This is because when women define their self-worth like Hermia does, every other woman is essentially a rival and a threat – even and most especially their female friends. This unfortunately doesn't only make Hermia a sad and tragic figure, but also someone with whom meaningful friendship and solidarity are just not possible.

Helena, on the other hand, did handle the same situation in a much different way. She, unlike Hermia, didn't become insecure about her appearance.

Through Athens I am thought as fair as she.
    But what of that? Demetrius thinks not so;
    He will not know what all but he do know.
(I.i.227-229)

She also didn't blame Hermia for his change of heart, but Demetrius himself, and was frustrated with her own still lasting obsession with him. She - instead of attacking Hermia - sought her advise, thinking that Demetrius might love her again, if she could just be more like Hermia. The latter, however, in correspondence with her understanding of self-worth misinterprets this as an attack.

His folly, Helena, is no fault of mine. (I.i.200)

She is just too preoccupied with the reassurance of her own self-worth to even manage unimpaired communication with her friend.



View all my reviews

August 14, 2013

On John Green's Latest Video



In his latest video John Green talks about the just-world fallacy and that apparently whoever has an advantage isn't only prone to fall victim to it, but will also behave in pretty much the same way. Which makes him question the concept of power and whether or not someone in power is actually wielding it or wielded by it. Now there is undeniably some truth in there, but the problem with this short and oversimplified way of presenting it, is that it leads to possible misconceptions. For one thing, the reception of study results and the validity of statistics is a can of worms that I'm not even gonna open up here.

The thing I'd like to suggest is rather that the concept of anyone wielding power is actually more of an illusion, because nobody can ever achieve or even hold any level of power all on his own. It always takes the support of a whole bunch of other people and organizations, who in turn need people and organizations to provide their power. The thing is, these structures are not as linear as you might think, but complex and interconnected. They are a whole network of relationships. Power, then, is not anything that can be wielded by any one person or organization. I'd say it's rather a complex global system of interests that does provide different limits and obligations for everyone involved. Power therefore is almost as unpredictable a machinery as the weather. One thing is for certain, however, that change from top down is something that just doesn't really happen. Even if it might appear like it's coming from the top down, it has always been spurred by mechanisms that go much deeper and involve a number of elements to support it.

Now this might be disheartening for some people and make them believe that it doesn't really matter who is on top, but that is actually not the case. While any specific person might not be all that significant, the network of connections and interests behind them actually do matter a great deal. That is why, when voting in an election, knowing the supporters of any given party or candidate will probably be a much better indication of their agenda, than their promises or personal conduct.

As to how one might enact change in this system, I'd say you'd have to create a sufficient level of interest. That naturally has a lot to do with money. But that doesn't mean you necessarily have to be rich in order to change the world. Rather, I'd say, that if you manage to spread an idea far enough, it will gain monetary interest all on it's own. And spreading ideas today is much easier than it has ever been. The Internet provides so many tools for you to make yourself heard and to inform people in so many different ways. Whether you're better at expressing yourself verbally, artistically or in writing, you can easily and with minimal expenses make a difference and/or help others to do so. This is what makes me rather hopeful for the future. I'd like to believe that focusing on all the little things you can do, will in the end make much more of a difference, than rallying against the things that you really can't change.  

August 9, 2013

On Pets as Presents

I've recently come across some people who claimed that pets made great presents. That claim always manages to disturb me for a number of reasons. Of curse they tend to romanticize it. They say things like 'Giving someone a pet is like giving them unconditional love'. They think they're being very thoughtful, while statements like these just show how they did not think this through.

They have apparently failed to realize that pet ownership comes with not only joys, but also a lot of responsibilities. That's why giving pets as presents usually doesn't work out. You can't fully appreciate the joys when you didn't sign up for the responsibilities. Whether or not to adopt a pet is a decision to be thought through carefully. And it is a decision people have to make for themselves. It requires research to find out a pet's needs and correlate them with one's lifestyle. Otherwise they will sooner or later be faced with responsibilities they are not equipped or willing to handle.

I believe that when this decision is made on someone else's behalf and they're confronted with the responsibilities or inconveniences they didn't sign up for, they are much more likely to feel resentment towards the animal and the one who gave it to them. Often the new owners are not adequately informed about the animal's needs and might make fatal mistakes. Either way, the animal is the one who's most likely going to suffer. It is very likely to not be taken care of properly, however intentional or unintentional that might be. The unwilling owners might even rationalize their actions to get rid of the pet. How many dogs are left on the side of the road or in dumpsters each year? Their owners were not adequately prepared to take care of them and many of them were presents.

Even if someone has expressed the desire to adopt a pet I would still caution against giving them one as a present. Simply because people are not good at admitting failures. If say they fail to properly train a dog, they might rationalize that that's because they were given an especially difficult specimen. Again they are likely to feel resentment and the one that is going to suffer is the animal.

The underlying issue here is that by using animals as presents they're being reduced to commodities. That's just not right. They're living breathing things just like we are. They feel joy and fear and pain and therefore should not be treated like things - even though sadly the law views them as such. I think that we'd fare much better, if we thought of taking in a pet more along the lines of an adoption rather than a purchase. You wouldn't give anyone a child as a present, would you now?

August 4, 2013

On Teaching and Language Learning

I've been asked a couple of times to teach people to speak English, and there are a few curious things I noticed in that regard. So, before I waste my time, I sort of put them to a test. I just point out some simple starting points and what usually happens is, they go like this: "Yeah, yeah, no that sounds like so much work ... Couldn't you just teach me?" Interesting idea of teaching they have, don't they? I mean, how do they think this is going to go down? I do all the work, perform some kind of magical dance and beam the knowledge from my brain to theirs?

Where does this conviction come from that with just the right teacher they would magically learn what they should, and of course the counter conclusion that if they don't, it's obviously the teacher's fault, not their own? Don't get me wrong I think there are some lousy teachers out there - hell knows I've had my fair share of those, but you can't blame it all on them. In the end nobody's going to care about how bad your teacher was. They're going to care about whether or not you know what you are supposed to know and if you don't, that's your own fault. If you've got a bad teacher, well tough luck, that means you're gonna have to put in some more effort, not sit back and blame it all on them. All the information is out there and you don't even have to pay a fortune to get it, if you only know where to look. That's the beauty of the Internet.

But even if you've got a good teacher, you're still gonna have to put in some effort. Or have you ever seen someone learn to walk just by watching other people walk? No, because the muscles have to practice this movement themselves and so does your brain - especially when it comes to language learning. The teacher's job, in my humble opinion, is just to show you how and where to start, guide you while you go, and correct you when you make a mistake. That sort of thing.

The first thing I would advise any language learner to do though, would be to get some good motivation. Because if you don't know what you're doing this for, you're gonna fall off the wagon as soon as the road gets a little bumpy. They all do. Now, that motivation better be something a little more feasible than saying you always wanted to learn another language, because you want people to think you're smarter or something along those lines. Good motivations are the person you really want to be able to communicate with or the book that is going to take months to be available in translation. Those are motivation, practice and reward all in one package. Once you've got that kind of motivation, you just stick to it and practice. That's all there is to it.