Notes from the River, May 2012

Blows the cover off old diary.
"What's this? Posting at least twice a week?"
"I said she crazy, that chick. She writes whenever she gets the chance, she says. Then she writes posts four months in between."
"You have to make your own chances," opined the man with the blue necktie.
"Thanks, guys. If you're done, I'm going to post. Today, and not a minute later."

As per usual, my life seesaws from one extreme of pursuit to another- I just made peace with the fact that I have no interest in a couple of old obscure texts I've clung to for over three years. I'm hoping that sticking them on Amazon for sale will both free some shelf space and fund worthier pursuits.

And thinking about the excessive materialism of the modern age (and getting rid of my smart phone). My reasoning is thusly:

* It is true that the very rich and the very poor have similarities in that they live excessively simple lives. The poor (most of them) are not living simply because they choose to do so, except for religious orders, and whether or not you live simply because you choose it seems to make all the difference in the world.
* The very rich are freer in that they can start from absolute simplicity but can go in any direction with their pursuits- whether it's starting a new type of business, a new profession, or heading a volunteer project. Their only constraints on their spending/pursuits are those they elect to be held by- whether it's keeping up with the Joneses or making the Forbes list. The poor are less blessed in this respect, except (again) the religious orders, particularly orders like the Missionaries of Charity and the Franciscans, the Carmelites- they are sustained by something outside themselves that gives them not just endurance, but joy.
Conclusion:
* The only thing that determines happiness or misery(regardless of how much money one makes) is the ability to fully live one's potential and do what you really, really want to be able to do, regardless of how much hard work you need to put into it. The possessions should always be a stepping-stone to the real goal: whatever you feel called for, whether it's building houses in Nicaragua or teaching an English class in your spare time.

 It's trite, but I think less trite when you live with a constant barrage telling you what possessions you need and how they'll help define you: "Buy this dress and be a quirky romantic heroine", "Buy this all-natural bamboo teething ring and be a Conscientious Mother", "Buy this iPad for your kids and be the Hip Parents", "Buy this beer and be a Real Man". And we can't shut that noise out, which wouldn't be so persuasive except most of us aren't really happy with what we do. Our work ought to define us, or whatever worthy endeavors we support through it. Instead of our work being defining, we have to look for something else and since we have no time to go busking on the streets of Madrid or read all the George Eliot novels, we buy things that will, hopefully, at least tell other people that's what we'd like to be doing.

Sigh. What price a ticket to Madrid?

Guttmacher Institute: An Anti-Woman Coalition

Yes, I know that our president allegedly "compromised" on an issue that cannot be compromised, while citing a ridiculous figure of "99 percent of women have used contraception". This is quite some news to the virgins, NFPers', and people like my mother, my aunt Terri, and countless married friends who never used contraception.

More on that alleged compromise here: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13292 taken from CatholicVoteAction. Please read; there's some good explanations there.

 The story is, alas, nothing new. The figures the president cites are from the Guttmacher Institute, named after the first president of Planned Parenthood. Here's a charming quote from Mr. Guttmacher:

 "No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."

This sentence encapsulates two chief problems that Christian humanists (particularly we Catholics) have with the entire ethos behind abortion. Starting with the first section of the quote, the idea that womanly fertility should subdued and discarded like a stinking dead thing that enslaves women to their men. Guttmacher and the Planned Parenthood attitude towards fertility is insane, and I will tell you why:

It runs counter to all Judeo-Christian and pagan ancient writings, where fertility is seen as an unqualified positive. In Genesis: Hagar bears Ishmael to Abraham, and even though this was outside God's plan, he provides for Hagar and Ishmael after Sarah drives her out. Greek myth: Niobe attempted to set herself up as a goddess on her qualification as a mother of seven sons and daughters. 1 and 2 Kings: The kings' consorts in Israel held very little power, but the Queen-mother could confidently intercede with the king for his subjects. In Eastern and island cultures people created and adored fertility idols shaped like voluptuous women, associating them with the success of crops and the blessings of deities.

In essence, to be woman was to be fertile, and fertility was Good. Womanhood in its fullest sense contains the idea of being fruitful with children, with works, with life. The "three faces of Eve" has the Mother- the mature and fertile genius- as the mid-point in female identity between the Maiden and the Crone. This is not to say that woman who lack fertility are less womanly, but the womb and fertility are crucial to the identity of women, not separate from it.

 This idea carries serious implications on the character of people who say that fertility is separate from being a woman and should be squelched as a distraction to the "sexy" aspect of women. The external appearance of feminity only is what determines womanly nature. Instead of empowering women with autonomy, this view cuts women adrift from their own identity. Women are expected to act like mini-men in their personal and professional lives, competing with men or titillating them, with value being assigned based on their attractiveness or their ability to keep pace with masculine standards for careers and financial achievement.

The push for autonomy in the bedroom in particul has damaged the relationship between men and women. Men are shut out from the women's decisions regarding the children that they both created. Women excuse themselves from any accountability, even though their decision affects two people. Good news for the irresponsible and callous men, who will refuse responsibility for their children (aside from state-mandated financial responsibility). Bad news for men who want children, whose fatherhood is at the mercy of a whim.

Speaking of deciding the role of parenthood, here's the second part of the quote again: "no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."

'Receives its full birthright'? Does this mean that the child isn't going to be completely happy when it's born, or that it won't really be a human person? Either way, if you could ask the baby, I'm sure it would prefer to be born and thus have the possibility of finding happiness!

"Gleefully wanted by its parents"- Both parents? If one of them doesn't want it, should they make the other one give in and agree to an abortion? He also speaks of it being wanted at birth; did he advocate partial-birth abortion and late-term abortions, as many Planned Parenthood clinics performed?

Guttmacher's "full birthright", whatever he means, the context spells it out: If both parents didn't want the baby, it's not a real person with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights that our Constitution said were both "endowed by our Creator" and "inalienable", so foundationally, America's principles uphold the human right to life.

So, It's Time to Cancel "Doctor Who"

Now, hold on a second.

Just for the record, there are no plans to cancel Doctor Who. At least, none that I'm aware of at this writing. I love Doctor Who; it's one of my favorite shows and watching the series generally just pumps me up and makes me happy. Well into Series 6, I was watching it eagerly.

And then something happened. The bloom was off the rose, the humour was off me now; etc, etc. This wasn't a sudden transition; it was something that happened slowly starting with Series 4 of the "New 'Who".  The show captivated me, but I was finding more and more reasons not to be emotionally invested in it. Below, my reasons why it might be time to put Doctor Who back in the mothballs for a while.

1) The longer the show, the less emotional impact. At first, it was hard not to get sucked into every episode, even the more mediocre ones. And with the Tenth Doctor in particular, he moved from being a cocky, devil-may-care pretty-boy to an emotionally scarred, wistful, yet wiser man. And they played out his regeneration story for all it was worth. This makes the new series' constant teasing of Eleven's "death" just damn annoying as we already mourned one doctor, thank you, and we're not ready to be dragged through the ringer again. Stop it!

2) Lack of consistency becomes more evident. What Time Lords can and can't do becomes more squiffy with time; Nine cannot damage history because things will eat time (also, he will not even attempt to change fixed points in time); Ten gets righteously smacked down for trying to make himself "Time Lord Victorious"- and Eleven- well, I won't reveal spoilers, but they're playing fast and loose with the notion of "fixed points in time" all over the Eleventh Doctor's run.

3) We could use some of these people in other projects. Sherlock needs more consistent plotting, which Moff can collaborate on with Mark Gattiss- when he isn't doing Doctor Who. I'd love to see Sherlock have a regular series of at least eight episodes, because that show has some phenomenal characterization. Let's do more of that! Arthur Darvill is a great actor who's demonstrated some impressive range. Karen Gillan could also work in just about any show and bring more to it. It's really refreshing to see good actors running around. However it's also really annoying when they are likely to be pigeonholed in one series instead of getting to work as either main protagonists or part of a good ensemble.

4) Longer the series, less quality control. It's been remarked that with the scope of Doctor Who, a little silliness is inevitable. And although I didn't care for RTD's "silliness" in terms of the monsters and writing that Earth is endangered in every single series of his run, at least he worked on even characterization for everyone. Disturbingly, characterization seems all over the place in Moffat's run, even though it's usually his strong suit besides playing with the "timey-wimey" aspects of Doctor Who. Although he didn't write "The Girl Who Waited", he allowed an episode to run that was one of the worst bits of character-defamation and inconsistency in the entire series 5-6 run. "Let's Kill Hitler" illustrated that how clunky a "dating catwoman" theme is for Doctor Who. This is one very long-running show which makes it harder and harder to do new things with it.

In summation, folks, let's cancel Doctor Who for just a while, until sanity sets in again.  I know popular opinion and the notions of the BBC are against me. The series even now is one of the better things on television, but it's time to move forward to new vistas, different projects. I think if the Doctor was meta-aware, he himself would agree, and push the people who have devoted themselves to portraying his adventures to move forward to exciting new ones. Remember: "Any time, any where. Just one rule: it has to be amazing." Time to take that line as good advice.

New Year's, 2011: Resolutions for the Blogosphere

1) I will only post constructive and positive things and use my little voice on the 'net to brighten the day of others.

2) I will avoid slangy nonsense.

3) I will not attempt to imitate Cracked.com, even though the list format would be ridiculously easy.

4) I will post at least 2x a week.

Anything is possible, especially as the new year always fills me with renewed hope: It has been 1 week, with 51 more to go. I may even travel to foreign countries and produce literature before this is over. Here's to everlasting optimism!

Steampunk, Augustan Style?

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense." -Alexander Pope
I do think that steampunk should not be overly-associated with the Victorian era. The elements are there, yes- the Industrial Revolution and the advancement of sciences and exploration, makes it a facile conclusion to attribute the popularity of the Grand Aesthetic of Steam and Brass to its relevance to our own time. What now, if we went further back... to the more mechanical (clockpunk, if you will) Augustan age?
Augustan Age- that period sparked in 1688, the "Glorious Revolution" when England submitted to the reign of William and Mary, followed shortly thereafter by Queen Anne and after her, the Hanoverian Kings. Directly after the Glorious Revolution, the two main political factions were the Whigs and the Tories, each having espoused the betterment of the nation, liberty, and trade as their cause, and vociferously denying the opposing party's ability to accomplish the same. And like our modern polemics, there was a new stage on which to carry their arguments and promote their views- the pamphlet, as opposed to the editorial, and the periodical essay, in place of the political blog.
For these reasons, why not see more speculative science fiction set in this era? One might see alchemy re-imaged as having more of natural philosophy to it, and some more differences ascribed to the parties- for instance, if the Tories were opposed to advancement in alchemical enterprises as Meddling in God's Business, and the Whigs on the other hand denouncing clockwork and mechanical engineering curiousities as "unprofitable debasement of materials and men".
Although I have been told that Neal Stephenson (of Snow Crash fame) has done some similar work in The Baroque Cycle, haven't had the chance to read it (I'm lucky to get to work on my thesis, never mind recreational reading). Regardless, I hope to see more people exploring this period of history for thematic elements (and the Neoclassical ideas associated with it) as the steampunk phenomenon develops.

So, My Friends Are Specializing Their Blogs

Which just makes me think about posting regularly on mine. If I do, it's going to be a whole lot of tea, teapots, in addition to ideas from my steampunk obsession. I better finish soon! Unfortunately a semi-romance is also taking up some of my time.

Eureka (I have it!) I am currently re-purposing some clothes into steampunk gear. Right now I have a rather naff tweed blazer (H&M made, but not really their best stuff) that I'm turning into a waistcoat), a pair of striped trousers that will be (someday) jodhpurs, and a nice bibfront shirt that will be worn with leather bustier and detached sleeves (slightly more Steam than most of my clothes). It's mostly been seam-ripping lately but I want to complete them soon.