I’d heard that greeting card companies invented Valentine’s Day as a way to sell cards, and well, I didn’t believe it. So, as a budding romance novelist, I took it upon myself to look it up on ye olde trusty internet.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were three martyrs named Valentine, two of whom died in the 3rd century (maybe) and one of whom died in Africa at an unknown date. None of them seem to have anything to do with love. But that’s where we get the name from.
Though there are many debates as to why the mid-February date (some claiming it has to do with when one of those Valentines was buried), mid-February is also the date for the ancient Roman Lupercalia, a fertility festival that was celebrated on the Ides of February (Feb 15). This festival, according to…. somebody at the University of Chicago (there’s like 3 names on the site, and I’m not sure who actually wrote the article)… involved sacrificing goats and puppies in front of a cave, then two virile young men (called the Luperci) approached the altar, painted each other’s foreheads with the sacrificial blood, wiped it off with milk, and then had to start laughing (which I’m guessing wasn’t hard, provided the sacrificing puppies didn’t get you down too much). Then everybody ate, got drunk, and the Luperci then ran through the town dressed in goat skins and spanked people (particularly women who wanted to get pregnant) with mini-whips made of more goat-skin.
Now that’s a Valentine’s party for you – two drunken, nubile men running around town in loincloths spanking women.
A Catholic legend (according to history.com), which tells why we send cards on Valentine’s Day, says that one of those martyred Valentines fell in love with the jailer’s daughter while he was in prison (some say for marrying couples against the Emperor’s orders). Before he was executed, he left a note for her signed, “From your Valentine.”
During the Middle Ages, Chaucer made a reference to Valentines Day and love in a poem (potentially the first connection between the two) when he wrote:
For this was on Saint Valentine’s Day
When every bird cometh there to choose his mate.
Though why birds would be choosing their mates in February is anybody’s guess (and, according to wikipedia.org, he in fact wrote this for the engagement of two 15 year old royals, an agreement that was arranged on May 2, 1381)
Shakespeare includes a reference to Valentine’s Day during one of Ophelia’s rants… and the part of the play where (most people interpret) we find out that a lot of her crazy comes from Hamlet rejecting her after she, uh, gave it up:
To-morrow is Saint Valentine’s day, All in the morning betime, And I a maid at your window, To be your Valentine. Then up he rose, and donn’d his clothes, And dupp’d the chamber-door; Let in the maid, that out a maid Never departed more.
So, I’m going to go with pretty clearly, Halmark did not, in fact, invent Valentine’s Day. So no matter how you choose to celebrate it – cards and chocolates, deflowering innocent virgins, marrying off teenagers, a good old fashioned spanking (and I do mean old fashioned), or taking the new wave train of finding a way to say “I love you!” to yourself – I hope you have a good one!
In a New York Times article from awhile back (like May), Steve Jobs said in regards to the Kindle:
It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.
I didn’t realize that I didn’t read anymore. But now I’ve been reading about the iPad (and I’m really going to resist commenting on the name, other than this aside in which I remind everyone that the name is infinitely commentable) and the pricing wars between Amazon and Mcmillan, and have decided that the modern world of book publishing, particularly in regards to the e-book market, is all fascinating and somewhat confusing and frustrating.
I own a Kindle. I love it muchly; it’s easy to use, carries more books than even I can read on vacation, is lightweight and very portable, and I was shocked by how much I just didn’t miss trying to read paper books in which the type was so close to the spine I had to practically rebreak the cover every time I turned a page. If, on the Kindle, I could organize my books into digital bookshelves (like I do at home – I have my own whacked out system that they will not come up with on their own), loan the books to friends, flip to other pages easily, and see the covers (and no, Nook’s “if I squint I can almost tell what that is” inch tall cover display doesn’t count), it would be perfect. Oh, and if I didn’t have this sense of impending doom that eventually I won’t be using a Kindle anymore (either because of tech envy or Kindle just goes the way of the 8track) and I will have lost a few hundred books that can only be read on an obsolete device. But, in the meantime, my bookshelves are staying at a comfortably groaning stasis, which makes my marriage a far better place to be. So the Kindle will stay.
Who knew? Technology and literature together make a powder keg. Oh. Wait. They always have by themselves; why would conjoining them make a difference?
Interesting article on an issue near and dear to my heart: misogyny within the storytelling community. Baggott touches on the side of the issue that I find the most disturbing, that recognized books “are not only written by men but also have male themes, overwhelmingly… war, boyhood, adventure.” As if writing about childbirth, love, community, and other “women’s issues” are somehow unworthy of praise. Not to say that women don’t go to war and men don’t fall in love, but I am sick of living in a world in which to be considered equal, I have to live up to a man’s definition of strength – be physically strong, fight well (kick-ass heroines anyone?… which, don’t get me wrong, I LOVE them, but that’s not the only way to be a strong female character), earn a lot of money, be a CEO…. If I’m strong because I’m mystical, compassionate, and good at working with people instead of mowing them down, clearly I’m not a feminist, or at least not equal to somebody logical, authoritarian, and violent.
Dude, the man who wrote Rambo and Titanic? Did you know he’s a Kanuck?? Yup. And he hates America. At least according to extreme right wing sites such as Movieguide (which I’ll get to in a moment. This might be my new favorite website to mock). I haven’t seen Avatar yet, but so far I’ve heard that while it’s stunning fabulousity is earning bajillions of dollars, it is a desecration of all known human values for its (a) America hating, people hating, God hating, capitalism hating left-wing madness and its (b) white-messiah-complex same old right-wing-racist-in-liberal-clothing storyline. Dude. I totally need to see this movie for myself. How can that many people possibly be offended all at once and it not be a South Park episode?
Umm… Let me start this by saying that I don’t agree with the way movies are currently rated, including items like two uses of “fuck” isn’t, in my opinion, less appropriate for children than decapitated heads being tossed over a castle wall (see http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_Rules.pdf pg 8 for ruling on cuss words; see LOTR: Return of the King for a PG-13 movie with decapitated heads being catapulted over a wall) and how is it possible that Cassanova and Inglourious Basterds have the same rating? And how is Hostel not NC-17… while Clerks had to appeal their original NC-17 designation to get an R?
So… a new rating system would, in my opinion, not be inappropriate.
However.
Movieguide has a very special rating system for people who want to know if watching this movie may torpedo their chances at heaven. Again, I’m actually cool with this (I certainly wouldn’t mind if somebody put together a pagan movieguide to help me decide what to see and what’s going to just make me angry). What I don’t understand is, why in their Christian guide, they felt the need to warn people if the movies have themes that are: communist, environmentalist, feminist, internationalist, politically correct, and/or socialist. Does Christ hate the environment and love capitalism? I don’t remember that part of the Bible where Jesus said “you’re welcome for the healing; that’ll be $200.”
But what I really love about this site is the rating system they use, a shorthand involving 29 different elements like ‘O’ for “Occult worldview, occult elements or Satanism”, all of which can be increased by adding Os, so “OOO” means it REALLY ups the Occult, as opposed to O which has some occult and OO which is… fair to midlin’ occult? So you can have a movie with a rating that looks like: PaPaPa, PCPC, EE, FRFR, CoCo, AcapAcapAcap, C, B, O, LLL, VVV, S, NN, A, DD, MM (yes, that’s an actual rating… for Avatar) which translates as:
* PaganPaganPagan,* 2xPoliticallyCorrect, * 2xEnvironmentalism, * “Strong Non-Christian worldview, heresy or false religious elements”, * 2xCommunism, * 3xAnti-capitalism/anti-wealth/politics of envy, * “Mild or light Christian worldview or elements, Gospel witness, redemptive elements, or positive reference to Jesus Christ, Christianity or a Christian church or service” (apparently the movie gets confused at one point?), * “Mild or light biblical or moral worldview, principles, perspective, or character” (continue the movie’s self-delusion that it isn’t hellbound)* Occult* “Numerous obscenities and profanities (more than 25)”* “Very strong, extreme or graphic violence”* “Implied adultery, promiscuity, sexual perversion or sexual immorality”* “Partial or brief nudity”* “Light, brief or some alcohol use”* “Smoking and light illegal drug use and/or illegal drug selling”* “Strong or much miscellaneous immorality” (for those times when the above list isn’t long enough)
Unfortunately, Avatar doesn’t have my favorite shorthand designation, which is Ho for “homosexual worldview or homosexuality (incl. sodomy & lesbianism)”. I’d really love to see a movie with a HoHoHo rating; that would totally make my day.
And I just heard it for the first time. So here ya go.
I was reading an article the other day about my state’s revamping of history curriculum (which, I think curriculum should be regularly looked at and revamped. I’m good with this so far), and two of the committee chairs are pushing for a history curriculum that teaches the importance of Christianity in shaping America, and how, according to them, our founding fathers wanted a Christian nation. *head to desk* This new wtfery is beyond me. But some politicians see a lot of power in the religious right and are going to wield it like a club, apparently and, well, maybe somebody actually believes that the people who wrote “freedom of religion” meant “right-wing theocracy”.
Just goes to show that everybody truly does believe their views are the center from which all others are judged.
Anywho, I am jaded enough to know this sort of madness will regularly come from politicians, and feel confident that the majority of the committee will turn down their truthiness version of history. What always bugs me more than politicians, is the people that post comments on them. Somebody actually said something to the effect of ”Christians help people with Habitat for Humanity and Salvation Army; atheists do nothing.”
You know what? As a religious person, I am regularly shamed by the atheists and the agnostics that I am friends with. They are some of the most ethical, fun-loving, least hypocritical people on the planet, and every good act they do has no fear of hell behind it. They are good people… because it’s the right thing to do. I admire them. (Those screaming people with bad hygiene that you see on TV are about as typical of an atheist as Jerry Falwell is of a Christian)
And so, back to the song, I love it, because it reminds us that the celebration of family and the turning of the seasons is not a religious thing, but a human thing. I can love carols even as I don’t agree with all the words, and this doesn’t make me a bad person… it just makes me a person. Celebrating people, all people, our traditions, our faiths (even if that’s faith in humanity, or just faith that you and your friends can make a difference), this is a human party. And what better season to have one, than the end of the year when so many different cultures from all over the world have found a reason to gather? Christmas, a celebration established from many religions that came before it, is for everyone.
Anyone who follows this blog probably thinks I’m a severe leftists (I swear, I’m not. I just sound like one online.), so if you normally disagree with my politics, well, this might be the post for you.
OK. So… you ever like what somebody’s trying to say and hate the way they’re saying it?
Education needs serious reform: check!
History class can (and should) be used as a call to social action: check!
All history – what we did right as well as what we seriously screwed the pooch on, all the often twisted roads to how we got where we are now – should be taught: check!
There is no such thing as a non-biased history lesson, so we might as well come right out and say “hey, this is biased”: check!
Students should be taught to question everything: check!
These are the stated goals of the Zinn project, and I believe with my whole heart that these are incredibly admirable goals. Then I read the lesson plan that’s posted in the article, and while I disagree with nothing in there… well… I guess in my mind there’s such a thing as too biased.
“Unity” – what does that mean? As humans, we are naturally social and we group ourselves. It’s how we survived as a hunter-gatherer culture whose enemies had better eyesight, bigger claws and thicker skin: we made tribes.
In modern American society, we don’t have the hunter-gatherer collective defending the tribe from panthers, but we have our facsimile standing under the Friday Night Lights watching the local boys defend the home field from the Neighbor HS Panthers. We want a group to root for, to love on, to defend. Take two people who normally wouldn’t say two words to each other, stick ‘em in a stadium, and they’re suddenly wearing similar dress, carrying the same symbols, chanting in unison, and then moshing in the same pit when a field goal sneaks through the uprights to win the game.
We do the same thing with countries that we do with high school football teams: we have symbols and pennants, colors and mottoes, and these things are used to promote tribe unity… and here’s where the idealogical divide seems to split apart, because the same things that are used to promote unity in the form of pride and loyalty (what conservatives typically emphasize, and two things I think are great) are also used to promote conformity and what I’ll call a tribal psychopathy (what liberals tend to emphasize, and two things that I have a huge problem with – and I’ll get to what I mean by tribal psychopathy in a minute).
I will stand by pride and loyalty as good things, provided they don’t swing to an extreme. Pride gives us the confidence to challenge ourselves and dare things that we otherwise wouldn’t. (“We’re going to contest and we’re taking on the bigger, richer schools of Houston – and we’re going to look GOOD doing it! ‘Cause we’re MHS Theater, and we’re awesome!”) And loyalty makes us give people a second chance when they screw up – and we all will screw up. We need loyalty.
On the other side…
Conformity is a mistreatment of members of your own tribe, and I don’t think I need to proselytize on why required (or even encouraged) group-think is bad anywhere outside of a mammoth-hunting party, a sports stadium, or a group artistic endeavor (good actors and techies know that the good of the play is more important than the good of the single performer – you don’t suddenly decide to do your own thing on opening night, no matter how good your idea is). (Just like pride and loyalty can have their bad sides, conformity, used judiciously and thoughtfully, as much as it pains me to say, does have a good side).
So what is tribal psychopathy?
A psychopath is someone who is incapable of feeling empathy for other people or remorse for their actions against them. According to an article in the New Yorker, pyschopathy could affect up to 1% of American men (women are much less likely to utterly lack empathy… go figure), so it’s much more prevalent than people think and doesn’t usually result in serial killers. It does result in that ass who doesn’t care who gets hurt, as long as he gets what he wants. Problem is, with a psychopath, this guy’s not ignoring the feelings of others or somehow squashing his guilt, like most of us tend to assume… it never occurred to his brain to have those feelings. Psychopaths will sometimes seek out useful people to make “friends” with, but when it comes down to it, their tribes only ever have one person in it.
For the rest of us, though, somewhere along the way of developing our natural tribe mentality, we realize that if there is an “us”, then there must be a “them.” And those other tribes are competing with us for the world’s limited resources, like good hunting grounds… and oil. (And while there might be enough to go around for now, our children’s children’s children are going to have a problem, so we should be forward thinking and start staking claims to provide for our children’s futures.) And while, again, it’s very natural to look out for your own tribe, a tribal psychopath is someone who, while likely caring and loyal to people within his/her tribe, feels no empathy towards any other tribes and no guilt for any actions performed against them.
I think tribal psychopathy is not only a lot more common than regular psychopathy (and if you know 100 men, according to some psychologists, you know a psychopath. As a schoolteacher who averaged 100 new students per year, every two years, I taught a psychopath. So…. it wasn’t me! It was them!) but tribal psychopathy is, to an extent at least, socially accepted. Certainly a lot more accepted than the Tribe Me form of psychopathy.
So… back to the article that you probably forgot about since I haven’t mentioned it in ten years… it seems to me, that Zinn is trying to get rid of tribal psychopathy (which is a bad thing that we should get rid of) by getting rid of tribalism. “Imagine all the people, living life as one…” and all that.
I don’t think it’s going to work. I think rejecting tribe goes against the core of human nature, because everyone but psychopaths have a tribe. (Showtime even gave Dexter tribal vestiges so audiences would like him. Imagine Dexter without his confusion over his wife, father, sister, and adopted kids. Yeah. Suddenly he ain’t so cool.) Some people might say they have no tribe, but if you study them, they’ve redirected their tribal loyalties onto an idealogical clique. For example, “I’m an artist/scientist/member of ‘x’ religious group/etc., not beholden to country but to mankind… and my fellow artists/scientists/members of ‘x’ religious group/etc.” Surprisingly, I sometimes find ideological tribes to be the most hateful of others because they (a) often don’t realize that’s a tribe, (b) justify rejecting people whose tribes are anything but ideological in nature as unenlightened or uneducated, and (c) can get the hate on in a spectacular fashion for tribes who are ideologically not aligned with their own – a difference in geography is nothing compared to a difference of opinion on gun control. My favorite true life quote ever of this type was, “I hate Republicans because Republicans hate people.” Seriously? Would you listen to what you just said?
Anyway, everyone has a tribe – probably multiple tribes – and it isn’t all of humanity. Tribalism is an inherent part of human nature. Tribal psychopathy, however, isn’t inherent to all humanity – a lot of people love their tribe without forgetting the sovereignty and potential efficacy of other tribes – which means we can combat tribal psychopathy. But we need to work with human nature instead of trying to change human nature. Don’t tell people not to group; you’ll fail. Make it not acceptable inside your group to hate other groups. That I’ve seen be successful. Wave that flag… and make sure it stands for something worthwhile. That’s the way to a better humanity.
"Maybe I just have a limited attention span, but life is keeping me pretty busy. I’m going to be dead a lot longer than I’m alive. Plenty of time to figure out the afterlife then."
Urban Fantasy is…
“In urban fantasy you don’t leave the chip shop and go to another world to find the unicorn. Rather, the unicorn shows up at the chip shop and orders the cod.”
–Elizabeth Bear