I’ve had lists on my mind lately, so I thought I’d post a little report on Thanksgiving in list form. My favorite part about this holiday, which I’ve appreciated more and more through the years, is the food, so here’s a short list of the food I was the most grateful for this weekend:
1. Sweet potatoes. Oh man. I remember trying a bite years ago at a friend’s house one Thanksgiving and spitting it right back out, but sometime between then and now I’ve developed a taste for that squash-like sweetness. Or maybe it was just something special about this batch, which is apparently Uncle Keith’s specialty: sweet potatoes with a lovely brown sugar sauce and, the clincher, pecans!
2. Green beans amandine, meaning with yummy seasonings and sliced almonds. Grandma B brought these to the feast, and there were no leftovers. I would like to kiss whoever thought of putting nuts in the veggies.
3. A salad bar for Thanksgiving? We should do this every year! There were about a dozen types of lettuce, spinach, loads of great toppings, and a great bacony/sweet homemade dressing. The salad got its own plate this year, and deserved it.
4. So it wouldn’t be Thanksgiving without the turkey. Dark meat rocks. My personal favorite version of this main dish, though, is the next day’s turkey sandwich.
5. Before (and after) Thanksgiving Day, Grandma B made really, really good popcorn. It’s microwave popcorn, popped with the butter and all as usual, then covered in a light layer of white chocolate. I don’t like white chocolate in larger doses, but this was just a taste, and this stuff melts in your mouth. The butter flavor strangely enhances it. I can’t explain it, I just like it.
6. Last but not least is the delicious corn chowder Grandma B made, an experimental variation on a soup she liked at a Church cafeteria. There was something special about the flavor. What was it? Rosemary? Thyme? (Parsley? Sage?)
I plan to gather most of these recipes for future feasts. Pardon my extreme dorkiness, but cooking good stuff (and then eating it) is fast becoming one of my favorite things. Someday I’ll have my own fridge, my own pantry, nice dishes, and a kitchen that doesn’t depress me, and when that happens, look out! All your kids will want to eat at Aunt Sarah’s.
Hope you enjoyed this gastronomical journey, and that you all had a happy Thanksgiving!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Dumbledore and JK's Big Fat Mouth
As some of you might have heard, J.K. Rowling recently said that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay.” Of course, this has stirred up a lot of controversy among anyone who loves the Harry Potter books and anyone interested in getting homosexuality more (or less) spotlight. So basically everyone. I’ve given the matter some thought, and since I’m interested in the writing field and the fantasy field in particular, I hope you won’t mind if I spend some time explaining my thoughts on the issue, particularly my reasoning that this fateful pronouncement does not “ruin” the books.
First, my stance on homosexuality. It might be helpful, or I find it so, to define “gay.” Most people nowadays speak of gayness as a characteristic, a natural part of someone’s personality that is ultimately expressed in sexual preference. This argument is greatly assisted by certain traits stereotypically associated with homosexuality; for example, men who dress meticulously or are into ballet, etc. And since most gay people appear to be the friendly and affable type, it seems that gayness couldn’t stem from the same source as society’s ills, so it must be a natural thing. However, how can we reconcile clear edicts in the Bible and in modern revelation against homosexuality if we believe it is really possible to BE gay according to this definition? Maintaining Christian belief with this definition of gayness seems, in my opinion, to accept a God who creates man and then punishes him for being himself. And then, I suppose, we only just recently uncovered God’s mistake and now we’re setting things to rights?
That is ridiculous to me, and that is not the God I worship. I’ve decided in my heart that when I see variance in the ideas of the world and what I know of God, it isn’t what I know of the Lord that should waver and change. So I’ve thought a lot about this over the years and come up with my own definitions: I believe there is a difference between having same-sex attraction and acting on that attraction. This is because acting on that attraction is a sin, and I defy anyone (particularly any Christian, who should know better) to call it otherwise. I call the sin, the action implied in homosexuality, “gay.”
Some might think that maintaining this distinction would lead me to hatred and (my politically correct sensibilities shudder) homophobia (gasp!). On the contrary, I find that considering homosexuality in this way helps me to preserve the distinction between the person and the sin. I know that there are good, righteous people out there who struggle with same-sex attraction, and I want to show kindness and compassion to them, as I would for anyone else struggling with temptations—which is, let’s face it, all of us. If I used the world’s definition of gay, I couldn’t do otherwise but label such persons as gay, and I’d struggle myself with how I should treat them. Could I really hate them if I believed what they were feeling was part of their divine nature? But could I accept them when I desire to obey God’s commands and am taught to “shake at the appearance of sin” (2 Ne 4:31)? Strange though it may seem to some, when I retain the perspective of homosexuality as a sin, I can separate the sin from the sinner, and treat both as they should be treated.
Next, on to my perspective as a writer. (This will all come together, I promise.) I know a book is going well for me when the story I’m writing starts to twist under my fingers in ways I don’t expect—and, in some cases, don’t want. Sometimes I’ll get to a scene I’ve been imagining for weeks, only to find that my characters no longer fit that scene and, now that I know them better, wouldn’t act the way I originally pictured or say what I wanted them to say. As Chauncey Mabe of the South Florida Sun-Sentinal wrote in a recent article, “That’s the way it works in fiction. Characters tell their creators who they are and what they’re going to do, not the other way round.” ("Can't Rowling Just Be Quiet?" Nov. 4, 2007.) This is one of the most exciting phenomena of writing, and I love it when this happens because it means it’s really working—my characters, who I love almost like real friends, are coming right off the page. The unsettling thing about it, though, is that it leaves seeds of doubt about where the work is really coming from. If it escapes from the author’s plot outlines, and even sometimes beyond the author’s understanding, is it really the author’s creation?
This question of who “owns” literary works is a hot topic in literary theory. Our friend Chauncey Mabe also wrote (in the same article), “If 20 years as a literary journalist have taught me anything, it’s that once a writer sets down her pen, turns off her word processor, or settles the dustcover on her typewriter, she knows no more than the average reader—about anything, including her own books.” I hope I don’t offend any of you by saying that, however annoying that high school teacher might have been who forced his/her interpretation of a literary work on you, and even though you may have countered said teacher with essays or even quotes from the author stating that there was nothing symbolically intended in the piece, that teacher was not utterly wrong. Why should the author’s interpretation be the only interpretation? It isn’t more valid than a reader’s experience. If it’s impossible for everyone to have the same experience reading literature, it’s impossible to name one experience as THE experience, as if there were some platonic whole in literary heaven for every story ever written.
Two examples of this: First, J.R.R. Tolkien. Many critics and literary folks insisted that the events depicted in the Lord of the Rings were allegorical references to WWII. Tolkien rejected all such ideas, saying, “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none.” Although apparently the work was completed by 1939, before WWII became “a threat of inevitable disaster,” Tolkien was involved in WWI, and it seems nonsensical to suppose that he miraculously survived such life experiences without any lingering effect whatsoever. Without Tolkien’s life experience, could he have written what he did? I submit that no, he could not. Can we then ascribe part authorship to these experiences? Interesting to consider. Example two is George Bernard Shaw’s epilogue to Pygmalion (which the film My Fair Lady is based on), in which Eliza and Professor Higgins do not end up together. Shaw scoffed at the audience’s desire for happy endings, but was he right, or did he bend the characters unnaturally (and rather selfishly) just to prove his point? If most people like happy endings, it doesn’t necessarily follow that happy endings are a wrong way to end a work.
Alright, at last we come to my synthesis of these ideas. My favorite thing about the Harry Potter books is that it is so easy to slip into Harry’s world. The characters and the world they live in feel real to me, so much so that I feel a little out of place for a day or two after finishing the books, strange to not be there anymore. With characters so realistic, I’m sure Rowling had the same experience that I and many other authors have had, having the story slip in unexpected ways. If this was the case, Dumbledore cannot be entirely Rowling’s creation; if he is well-written, he must be also his own and slightly beyond her control. What right, then, does Rowling have to make solid, blanket statements about him? Another quote from Mabe: “If Dumbledore had wanted the world to know he was gay, he would have come out in the text.” By tacking on such statements, especially after the books are done, I think Rowling breaks a fundamental principle of writer’s etiquette.
Putting Rowling’s opinion on Dumbledore on the back burner, then, we move to the text itself—or to Dumbledore himself—for evidence. The following are my conclusive thoughts on a gay Dumbledore: Having read all of the books, I can picture Dumbledore as perhaps struggling with same-sex attraction. I can even accept that his fascination for Grindelwald could have been affected by this tendency. But I personally believe that just as Dumbledore realized the error of his previous thoughts and battled (and beat!) Grindelwald, he battled against his internal weaknesses: lust for power, as he admitted to Harry, and perhaps also, more quietly, that same-sex attraction. I can believe that just as he placed himself in a position where he would not be tempted to sway power unjustly, he would have put himself in a position where he was not tempted to homosexuality.
This is all “could have”s and “would have”s, because Dumbledore is silent on the subject, as suits his character. As Harry’s experiences attest, Dumbledore could never be faulted for telling anyone more than what they needed to know. But you see, because I hold an author’s word as less than absolute and because I define “gay” by action rather than by character, I find no detriment to my enjoyment of these books. In fact, in considering these perspectives and synthesizing my thoughts, I have found greater enlightenment, not only on Dumbledore’s character (and the themes of the Harry Potter series) but on the nature of writing and analyzing literature, and the nature of God’s creation. In a world of criticism and contention, it is entirely possible to find the peace and steadiness that comes from absolute truths. However, I think this peace comes rarer when we bury our heads in solid ground, trying to ignore the confusion of the world around us, than when we, clasping the rock of truth firmly with our hands, raise our heads to see (and marvel!) how the world falls into place from this perspective.
(Most of the) Original Comments
Brent on 06 Nov 15:01
Wow. I could not have said it better. I can't speak English that well. I wouldn't have been able to say it with authority either because I'm not a writer of words.
Mom (Phelps) on 07 Nov 01:21
Also, WOW. I am in awe at your ability to research, analyze and then synthesize an essay that expresses so elegantly and persuasively a positive and uplifting view of a controversial subject. When I first read of Rowling's "opinion," I was disgusted and wanted to ignore it and pretend I had never heard it. I was also determined never to read any future book she wrote. You have helped me process this in a more positive way. I thank you! I still don't believe that I will read any of her future books. I will definitely read all of yours, though!
Kate the Great on 07 Nov 21:13
I enjoy what you've written, Sarah. It has good cohesion and valid, strong points. I also agree with a lot of what you've said. But there's a little bit of which I don't agree with, and strangely enough, it's not with your opinions on homosexuality. I've read quite a few opinions on Rowling's statement, and I think we've all taken it out of context. "I've always thought he's gay" might have come out indirectly as in an interview or as an off-comment when she was really talking about something else. I agree with you when you say that acting on that feeling is what's wrong with being gay, but Rowling hasn't put any sexual act in here (at least, of all the six books I've read) and she's merely commenting about a small inclination. His characteristics of kindness and bravery and inspiring leadership surpass any sexual orientation. I appreciate your opinion that homosexuality is about action, but I don't think Rowling thinks that. I think she's simply commenting on the inclinations he could be struggling with or the attractions he might have, but not necessarily on the actions he takes.
Kate the Great on 07 Nov 21:15
Arg. I had all sorts of paragraph breaks in there and now it's all mushed into one blob. That only increases my want for tact and polite pauses.
Aye Spy on 09 Nov 11:15
Thanks for the comments, everyone! I've been bothered by the lack of hard returns too. Let's see if html works in comments . . .
In response to your thoughts, Kate:
"I've read quite a few opinions on Rowling's statement, and I think we've all taken it out of context."
I did my own reading as well, and several articles did specify the context of Rowling's statement. In fact, the article I linked to references just that. It wasn't an off-comment or anything, it was a response to a direct question.
"I agree with you when you say that acting on that feeling is what's wrong with being gay . . ."
Usually I don't try to be picky about words, but I'm very stringent about my use of the word "gay" because the usage has affected (or is tied up in) the definition, as I discussed. In my opinion, nobody IS gay by the world's definition. By my definition, being gay IS wrong. I think it's the way people talk about gayness that leads them to ultimately accept homosexuality. We talk of it as an "inclination," an "orientation." No. Same-sex attraction is a temptation, just like greed, lust, dishonesty, and all the others had by many otherwise good people. The only difference is that today instead of defending against this temptation quietly and diligently with the help of God and other close friends, people make giving in, or declaring their determination to live a homosexual lifestyle, a public announcement, a "coming out" celebration, accompanied (as after JK's remark) by a standing ovation. "We are so tolerant and accepting now that we can endorse lifestyles of sin, hooray! Isn't it great to be open-minded?" It's really painful to see so many people with completely misguided good intentions.
"I appreciate your opinion that homosexuality is about action, but I don't think Rowling thinks that."
I agree with you. I think Rowling, like most of the people in Carnegie Hall that night, see no difference—or at least, no difference worth making a stink about—between the "inclination" and the action. To me, the difference means everything.
Aye Spy on 09 Nov 12:38
I found another good article on the literary side of this debate, for any interested readers: http://media.www.vanderbiltorbis.com/media/storage/paper983/news/2007/11/07/Opinion/Thoughts.Written.On.Napkins-3085250.shtml
Kate the Great on 09 Nov 21:12
Huh. That really makes sense for me, Sarah. This has been an issue I've struggled with for years. You've helped clear up my opinions on the matter. Now, I don't know if I can be this bold in stating these kinds of views when the issue comes up. And it comes up often, as I have quite a few gay friends.
I enjoy the additional article you've included. "Once created, literature speaks for itself and speaks equally to all readers. After writing, the author is resigned to a position of interpretation no different than that of any other critic." It's a fascinating concept, and it seems to support my high school mentors' theory that the Harry Potter books will stand as the classics of our time much like Chaucer stands for his time and Shakespeare for his.
Sofal on 11 Nov 22:28
"Tolerance", "diversity", and "lifestyles" are three highly abused words in my opinion. "Tolerance" is preached vehemently by very intolerant people. The word "diversity" is feared and worshiped yet at the same time its meaning is ignominiously reduced to nothing but skin color, gender, or "sexual orientation". The word "lifestyle" is used to hide wickedness of every single kind you can think of. Not everything is worth "embracing". Fewer and fewer things are.
And about Harry Potter standing as the classics of our times: You're fired. First of all, no. Second of all, no. And lastly, no. And I'd like to ask how the knowledge that literature speaks for itself logically leads to this utterly false conclusion. Please don't take offense, but I just.....no. I'm going to put a cap on the fire hose and say no more about this subject in this comment.
Sorry about some of the short-comings of this blog system. The textile support for the comments is non-existent. There are some other problems as well, the most annoying one being the complete lack of cache invalidation when someone comments or writes a blog article (especially with the feeds). It drives me up the wall. The Mephisto blog project has been abandoned by its creators, so the only way I'm going to be able to get these things fixed is if I hack them in myself or find some blog software that hasn't been orphaned.
Aye Spy on 12 Nov 11:04
Thanks so much for your comment, Kate. It is a fascinating concept, isn't it? I'm glad you found my thoughts helpful.
As I'm sure you know, your opinion on Harry Potter would be more valid if you had actually READ the books, Ryan. Also, one last thought: Where morals are not involved (e.g. concepts of literary theory, etc.) I believe tolerance is always in good order.
First, my stance on homosexuality. It might be helpful, or I find it so, to define “gay.” Most people nowadays speak of gayness as a characteristic, a natural part of someone’s personality that is ultimately expressed in sexual preference. This argument is greatly assisted by certain traits stereotypically associated with homosexuality; for example, men who dress meticulously or are into ballet, etc. And since most gay people appear to be the friendly and affable type, it seems that gayness couldn’t stem from the same source as society’s ills, so it must be a natural thing. However, how can we reconcile clear edicts in the Bible and in modern revelation against homosexuality if we believe it is really possible to BE gay according to this definition? Maintaining Christian belief with this definition of gayness seems, in my opinion, to accept a God who creates man and then punishes him for being himself. And then, I suppose, we only just recently uncovered God’s mistake and now we’re setting things to rights?
That is ridiculous to me, and that is not the God I worship. I’ve decided in my heart that when I see variance in the ideas of the world and what I know of God, it isn’t what I know of the Lord that should waver and change. So I’ve thought a lot about this over the years and come up with my own definitions: I believe there is a difference between having same-sex attraction and acting on that attraction. This is because acting on that attraction is a sin, and I defy anyone (particularly any Christian, who should know better) to call it otherwise. I call the sin, the action implied in homosexuality, “gay.”
Some might think that maintaining this distinction would lead me to hatred and (my politically correct sensibilities shudder) homophobia (gasp!). On the contrary, I find that considering homosexuality in this way helps me to preserve the distinction between the person and the sin. I know that there are good, righteous people out there who struggle with same-sex attraction, and I want to show kindness and compassion to them, as I would for anyone else struggling with temptations—which is, let’s face it, all of us. If I used the world’s definition of gay, I couldn’t do otherwise but label such persons as gay, and I’d struggle myself with how I should treat them. Could I really hate them if I believed what they were feeling was part of their divine nature? But could I accept them when I desire to obey God’s commands and am taught to “shake at the appearance of sin” (2 Ne 4:31)? Strange though it may seem to some, when I retain the perspective of homosexuality as a sin, I can separate the sin from the sinner, and treat both as they should be treated.
Next, on to my perspective as a writer. (This will all come together, I promise.) I know a book is going well for me when the story I’m writing starts to twist under my fingers in ways I don’t expect—and, in some cases, don’t want. Sometimes I’ll get to a scene I’ve been imagining for weeks, only to find that my characters no longer fit that scene and, now that I know them better, wouldn’t act the way I originally pictured or say what I wanted them to say. As Chauncey Mabe of the South Florida Sun-Sentinal wrote in a recent article, “That’s the way it works in fiction. Characters tell their creators who they are and what they’re going to do, not the other way round.” ("Can't Rowling Just Be Quiet?" Nov. 4, 2007.) This is one of the most exciting phenomena of writing, and I love it when this happens because it means it’s really working—my characters, who I love almost like real friends, are coming right off the page. The unsettling thing about it, though, is that it leaves seeds of doubt about where the work is really coming from. If it escapes from the author’s plot outlines, and even sometimes beyond the author’s understanding, is it really the author’s creation?
This question of who “owns” literary works is a hot topic in literary theory. Our friend Chauncey Mabe also wrote (in the same article), “If 20 years as a literary journalist have taught me anything, it’s that once a writer sets down her pen, turns off her word processor, or settles the dustcover on her typewriter, she knows no more than the average reader—about anything, including her own books.” I hope I don’t offend any of you by saying that, however annoying that high school teacher might have been who forced his/her interpretation of a literary work on you, and even though you may have countered said teacher with essays or even quotes from the author stating that there was nothing symbolically intended in the piece, that teacher was not utterly wrong. Why should the author’s interpretation be the only interpretation? It isn’t more valid than a reader’s experience. If it’s impossible for everyone to have the same experience reading literature, it’s impossible to name one experience as THE experience, as if there were some platonic whole in literary heaven for every story ever written.
Two examples of this: First, J.R.R. Tolkien. Many critics and literary folks insisted that the events depicted in the Lord of the Rings were allegorical references to WWII. Tolkien rejected all such ideas, saying, “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none.” Although apparently the work was completed by 1939, before WWII became “a threat of inevitable disaster,” Tolkien was involved in WWI, and it seems nonsensical to suppose that he miraculously survived such life experiences without any lingering effect whatsoever. Without Tolkien’s life experience, could he have written what he did? I submit that no, he could not. Can we then ascribe part authorship to these experiences? Interesting to consider. Example two is George Bernard Shaw’s epilogue to Pygmalion (which the film My Fair Lady is based on), in which Eliza and Professor Higgins do not end up together. Shaw scoffed at the audience’s desire for happy endings, but was he right, or did he bend the characters unnaturally (and rather selfishly) just to prove his point? If most people like happy endings, it doesn’t necessarily follow that happy endings are a wrong way to end a work.
Alright, at last we come to my synthesis of these ideas. My favorite thing about the Harry Potter books is that it is so easy to slip into Harry’s world. The characters and the world they live in feel real to me, so much so that I feel a little out of place for a day or two after finishing the books, strange to not be there anymore. With characters so realistic, I’m sure Rowling had the same experience that I and many other authors have had, having the story slip in unexpected ways. If this was the case, Dumbledore cannot be entirely Rowling’s creation; if he is well-written, he must be also his own and slightly beyond her control. What right, then, does Rowling have to make solid, blanket statements about him? Another quote from Mabe: “If Dumbledore had wanted the world to know he was gay, he would have come out in the text.” By tacking on such statements, especially after the books are done, I think Rowling breaks a fundamental principle of writer’s etiquette.
Putting Rowling’s opinion on Dumbledore on the back burner, then, we move to the text itself—or to Dumbledore himself—for evidence. The following are my conclusive thoughts on a gay Dumbledore: Having read all of the books, I can picture Dumbledore as perhaps struggling with same-sex attraction. I can even accept that his fascination for Grindelwald could have been affected by this tendency. But I personally believe that just as Dumbledore realized the error of his previous thoughts and battled (and beat!) Grindelwald, he battled against his internal weaknesses: lust for power, as he admitted to Harry, and perhaps also, more quietly, that same-sex attraction. I can believe that just as he placed himself in a position where he would not be tempted to sway power unjustly, he would have put himself in a position where he was not tempted to homosexuality.
This is all “could have”s and “would have”s, because Dumbledore is silent on the subject, as suits his character. As Harry’s experiences attest, Dumbledore could never be faulted for telling anyone more than what they needed to know. But you see, because I hold an author’s word as less than absolute and because I define “gay” by action rather than by character, I find no detriment to my enjoyment of these books. In fact, in considering these perspectives and synthesizing my thoughts, I have found greater enlightenment, not only on Dumbledore’s character (and the themes of the Harry Potter series) but on the nature of writing and analyzing literature, and the nature of God’s creation. In a world of criticism and contention, it is entirely possible to find the peace and steadiness that comes from absolute truths. However, I think this peace comes rarer when we bury our heads in solid ground, trying to ignore the confusion of the world around us, than when we, clasping the rock of truth firmly with our hands, raise our heads to see (and marvel!) how the world falls into place from this perspective.
(Most of the) Original Comments
Brent on 06 Nov 15:01
Wow. I could not have said it better. I can't speak English that well. I wouldn't have been able to say it with authority either because I'm not a writer of words.
Mom (Phelps) on 07 Nov 01:21
Also, WOW. I am in awe at your ability to research, analyze and then synthesize an essay that expresses so elegantly and persuasively a positive and uplifting view of a controversial subject. When I first read of Rowling's "opinion," I was disgusted and wanted to ignore it and pretend I had never heard it. I was also determined never to read any future book she wrote. You have helped me process this in a more positive way. I thank you! I still don't believe that I will read any of her future books. I will definitely read all of yours, though!
Kate the Great on 07 Nov 21:13
I enjoy what you've written, Sarah. It has good cohesion and valid, strong points. I also agree with a lot of what you've said. But there's a little bit of which I don't agree with, and strangely enough, it's not with your opinions on homosexuality. I've read quite a few opinions on Rowling's statement, and I think we've all taken it out of context. "I've always thought he's gay" might have come out indirectly as in an interview or as an off-comment when she was really talking about something else. I agree with you when you say that acting on that feeling is what's wrong with being gay, but Rowling hasn't put any sexual act in here (at least, of all the six books I've read) and she's merely commenting about a small inclination. His characteristics of kindness and bravery and inspiring leadership surpass any sexual orientation. I appreciate your opinion that homosexuality is about action, but I don't think Rowling thinks that. I think she's simply commenting on the inclinations he could be struggling with or the attractions he might have, but not necessarily on the actions he takes.
Kate the Great on 07 Nov 21:15
Arg. I had all sorts of paragraph breaks in there and now it's all mushed into one blob. That only increases my want for tact and polite pauses.
Aye Spy on 09 Nov 11:15
Thanks for the comments, everyone! I've been bothered by the lack of hard returns too. Let's see if html works in comments . . .
In response to your thoughts, Kate:
"I've read quite a few opinions on Rowling's statement, and I think we've all taken it out of context."
I did my own reading as well, and several articles did specify the context of Rowling's statement. In fact, the article I linked to references just that. It wasn't an off-comment or anything, it was a response to a direct question.
"I agree with you when you say that acting on that feeling is what's wrong with being gay . . ."
Usually I don't try to be picky about words, but I'm very stringent about my use of the word "gay" because the usage has affected (or is tied up in) the definition, as I discussed. In my opinion, nobody IS gay by the world's definition. By my definition, being gay IS wrong. I think it's the way people talk about gayness that leads them to ultimately accept homosexuality. We talk of it as an "inclination," an "orientation." No. Same-sex attraction is a temptation, just like greed, lust, dishonesty, and all the others had by many otherwise good people. The only difference is that today instead of defending against this temptation quietly and diligently with the help of God and other close friends, people make giving in, or declaring their determination to live a homosexual lifestyle, a public announcement, a "coming out" celebration, accompanied (as after JK's remark) by a standing ovation. "We are so tolerant and accepting now that we can endorse lifestyles of sin, hooray! Isn't it great to be open-minded?" It's really painful to see so many people with completely misguided good intentions.
"I appreciate your opinion that homosexuality is about action, but I don't think Rowling thinks that."
I agree with you. I think Rowling, like most of the people in Carnegie Hall that night, see no difference—or at least, no difference worth making a stink about—between the "inclination" and the action. To me, the difference means everything.
Aye Spy on 09 Nov 12:38
I found another good article on the literary side of this debate, for any interested readers: http://media.www.vanderbiltorbis.com/media/storage/paper983/news/2007/11/07/Opinion/Thoughts.Written.On.Napkins-3085250.shtml
Kate the Great on 09 Nov 21:12
Huh. That really makes sense for me, Sarah. This has been an issue I've struggled with for years. You've helped clear up my opinions on the matter. Now, I don't know if I can be this bold in stating these kinds of views when the issue comes up. And it comes up often, as I have quite a few gay friends.
I enjoy the additional article you've included. "Once created, literature speaks for itself and speaks equally to all readers. After writing, the author is resigned to a position of interpretation no different than that of any other critic." It's a fascinating concept, and it seems to support my high school mentors' theory that the Harry Potter books will stand as the classics of our time much like Chaucer stands for his time and Shakespeare for his.
Sofal on 11 Nov 22:28
"Tolerance", "diversity", and "lifestyles" are three highly abused words in my opinion. "Tolerance" is preached vehemently by very intolerant people. The word "diversity" is feared and worshiped yet at the same time its meaning is ignominiously reduced to nothing but skin color, gender, or "sexual orientation". The word "lifestyle" is used to hide wickedness of every single kind you can think of. Not everything is worth "embracing". Fewer and fewer things are.
And about Harry Potter standing as the classics of our times: You're fired. First of all, no. Second of all, no. And lastly, no. And I'd like to ask how the knowledge that literature speaks for itself logically leads to this utterly false conclusion. Please don't take offense, but I just.....no. I'm going to put a cap on the fire hose and say no more about this subject in this comment.
Sorry about some of the short-comings of this blog system. The textile support for the comments is non-existent. There are some other problems as well, the most annoying one being the complete lack of cache invalidation when someone comments or writes a blog article (especially with the feeds). It drives me up the wall. The Mephisto blog project has been abandoned by its creators, so the only way I'm going to be able to get these things fixed is if I hack them in myself or find some blog software that hasn't been orphaned.
Aye Spy on 12 Nov 11:04
Thanks so much for your comment, Kate. It is a fascinating concept, isn't it? I'm glad you found my thoughts helpful.
As I'm sure you know, your opinion on Harry Potter would be more valid if you had actually READ the books, Ryan. Also, one last thought: Where morals are not involved (e.g. concepts of literary theory, etc.) I believe tolerance is always in good order.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Too early for Christmas music?
It snowed here over the weekend. Well, it snowed in the mountains, and we got a little bit of slush in the valley. So today I caved in and listened to my Home Alone soundtrack. Ah, little anticipatory Christmas tingles down my back!
I’ll be strong after this, though. I’m holding out on my annual Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow celebration with Sinatra until at least November when it snows again, and I won’t even THINK about Mannheim Steamroller until after Thanksgiving (maybe). I’ll go along with the grocery stores and the malls and pretend like I’ve waited all year for Halloween.
85 days until Christmas! (About 82 days until we’re all home!)
But who’s counting?
I’ll be strong after this, though. I’m holding out on my annual Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow celebration with Sinatra until at least November when it snows again, and I won’t even THINK about Mannheim Steamroller until after Thanksgiving (maybe). I’ll go along with the grocery stores and the malls and pretend like I’ve waited all year for Halloween.
85 days until Christmas! (About 82 days until we’re all home!)
But who’s counting?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Airport Western States Mission
Yes, folks, I have now joined that elite set of Church members who have had missionary experiences during airline travel. I was sitting in the airport after one lovely week’s vacation, waiting to board my plane. Of course, since I got there a couple hours early, there were no lines at the security checkpoint and I got to the gates about five minutes after being dropped off. So I had a lot of time to kill. I whipped out a book (big brown monster purse to the rescue!) and settled down to read it.
About half an hour later, a middle-aged man came and sat next to me. He struck up a conversation. (Sam and Brina: reminded me of Randy and Colette.) Since I was reading The Once and Future King, we talked about King Arthur for a bit, but then he asked me if I was a Mormon. I said yes, of course, and a couple hundred little bells went off in my head, reminding me of Sunday school lessons, missionary talks, passalong cards, and all the advice I’d ever heard about planting seeds. This was it! Could I do it? Wait a sec, had I prayed to have a missionary experience recently? (I had!) Images of scenarios in which I royally screwed everything up immediately flickered into life and rolled continuously in the back of my mind. I didn’t want to push too hard, so we got off and on the subject a few times.
Polygamy, of course, was the first topic of conversation, and you know, as much as I roll my eyes at the lingering “curse” of association with the practice, it really does open up conversations, doesn’t it? The harder Satan tries to sow confusion, the more curiosity there is. You can’t kick the Church anywhere but upstairs, I heard once. Anyway, we continued on to temples, Salt Lake, and BYU. I chatted with this guy until it was almost time to board, and then he expressed interest in reading the Book of Mormon. I looked at my purse, wondering how much time it might have taken me to track down an extra copy before I left the house, or at least to grab some passalong cards. I had neither, darn. So I had him write down his address, and I’m going to see if I can send a referral there.
I felt carefully excited as I got in line, reviewing and critiquing the conversation in my head. I’d had this perfect opportunity dumped into my lap, and I wasn’t sure I’d done as well with it as I should—but at least I had done something. Still, I felt comforted when the woman standing in front of me in line turned and said, “I was sitting right behind you and heard the whole thing. I’m a Mormon too, and you did a good job!”
Moral of the story: Live your life so when God tosses you an opportunity, it’s like catching a baby, not like catching a small, slimy fish. And stick passalong cards or an extra Book of Mormon (or both) in your purse/wallet/man-purse/briefcase/backpack. Seriously.
Original Comments
Sofal on 18 Sep 17:12
So now there's an image in my head of me with my hands clasped together with a disappointed look on my face while a small fish bounces around on the ground.
Grandma B on 20 Sep 12:47
I am not sure I am doing this right. The last message I sent went out of the universe. Sarah, I enjoyed very much reading about your experience. I have had a similar experience and it was difficult for me but luckily I had a give away Book of Mormon with me.
Kate The Great on 11 Oct 21:32
Can you give us an example of a man-purse? I want more laughs.
Aye Spy on 12 Oct 15:09
A man-purse is something that (some) men habitually use to carry necessary stuff around with but refuse to call a purse. Denial is key. They'll say it's a backpack, a briefcase, a fanny pack, etc., but they use it all the time, not just at school, for work, or as a tourist. Sorry, sonny jim, that be a man-purse.
About half an hour later, a middle-aged man came and sat next to me. He struck up a conversation. (Sam and Brina: reminded me of Randy and Colette.) Since I was reading The Once and Future King, we talked about King Arthur for a bit, but then he asked me if I was a Mormon. I said yes, of course, and a couple hundred little bells went off in my head, reminding me of Sunday school lessons, missionary talks, passalong cards, and all the advice I’d ever heard about planting seeds. This was it! Could I do it? Wait a sec, had I prayed to have a missionary experience recently? (I had!) Images of scenarios in which I royally screwed everything up immediately flickered into life and rolled continuously in the back of my mind. I didn’t want to push too hard, so we got off and on the subject a few times.
Polygamy, of course, was the first topic of conversation, and you know, as much as I roll my eyes at the lingering “curse” of association with the practice, it really does open up conversations, doesn’t it? The harder Satan tries to sow confusion, the more curiosity there is. You can’t kick the Church anywhere but upstairs, I heard once. Anyway, we continued on to temples, Salt Lake, and BYU. I chatted with this guy until it was almost time to board, and then he expressed interest in reading the Book of Mormon. I looked at my purse, wondering how much time it might have taken me to track down an extra copy before I left the house, or at least to grab some passalong cards. I had neither, darn. So I had him write down his address, and I’m going to see if I can send a referral there.
I felt carefully excited as I got in line, reviewing and critiquing the conversation in my head. I’d had this perfect opportunity dumped into my lap, and I wasn’t sure I’d done as well with it as I should—but at least I had done something. Still, I felt comforted when the woman standing in front of me in line turned and said, “I was sitting right behind you and heard the whole thing. I’m a Mormon too, and you did a good job!”
Moral of the story: Live your life so when God tosses you an opportunity, it’s like catching a baby, not like catching a small, slimy fish. And stick passalong cards or an extra Book of Mormon (or both) in your purse/wallet/man-purse/briefcase/backpack. Seriously.
Original Comments
Sofal on 18 Sep 17:12
So now there's an image in my head of me with my hands clasped together with a disappointed look on my face while a small fish bounces around on the ground.
Grandma B on 20 Sep 12:47
I am not sure I am doing this right. The last message I sent went out of the universe. Sarah, I enjoyed very much reading about your experience. I have had a similar experience and it was difficult for me but luckily I had a give away Book of Mormon with me.
Kate The Great on 11 Oct 21:32
Can you give us an example of a man-purse? I want more laughs.
Aye Spy on 12 Oct 15:09
A man-purse is something that (some) men habitually use to carry necessary stuff around with but refuse to call a purse. Denial is key. They'll say it's a backpack, a briefcase, a fanny pack, etc., but they use it all the time, not just at school, for work, or as a tourist. Sorry, sonny jim, that be a man-purse.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
A Pox upon the USPS!!
I’m in desperate need of a rant and ensuing sympathy. I’m so mad I could . . . I dunno, actually yell at someone in person. Tear something valuable into pieces. Spit in someone’s eye.
Toward the end of March, I realized that I hadn’t gotten any of my usual mail. It’s easy for me to lose track, because it’s not like I get a ton, mostly just the regular bills. I paid them all online and wondered what was up. I waited a while longer, hoping they just got mixed up in the mail or something, but when April was winding down and I still hadn’t gotten anything, I called the post office.
“I’ll leave a note for the carrier,” said the woman on the line, sounding bored.
Meanwhile, all my creditors and the payroll office got the last month’s bills sent back to them and went into FULL PANIC MODE, contacting me with urgent inquiries for my new address. Oh, except the credit card company. They just blocked my account without telling me, which caused at least one rather humiliating experience at a restaurant. I made the rounds of phone calls and emails, telling everyone to calm down, I hadn’t moved.
So I waited eagerly for the mail to come. The weeks passed. I got some mail back, the stuff that had been returned to sender and then forwarded again, so I figured that meant we were back in business. I waited some more. I allowed plenty of time for all the stupid snail-mail to sort itself out.
Then one lovely morning, about the end of May, I got another email from the payroll office telling me they’d gotten MORE pay stubs sent back. Ten minutes later, I was on the phone with the post office, talking to a slightly-more-awake-sounding guy. He looked up my address and told me that I had moved without leaving a forwarding address. How thoughtless of me. I managed to persuade him that the computer was wrong, and I hung up satisfied that my troubles were over. I congratulated myself for not saying most of what I’d intended to. (I didn’t even ask about the promised “note” from the last call—they probably tried to mail it.)
BUT WAIT! There’s More!
My credit card got blocked again last week. Before today I still hadn’t received a single piece of mail (my roommates have gotten plenty), but today I got a green piece of cardstock, with “CARRIER ALERT!” and “DO NOT DELIVER THIS CARD” on it. It has my name, address, and the instruction “Fwd ind” on it, with “Special Services” beginning on March 19, 2007. I just got off the phone with the post office again.
“Oh,” said the lady on the line (“Please let this be a new, smarter person,” I thought), “that’s not for you, it’s supposed to be just for the letter carriers. Just put it back in the mailbox and they’ll get it.”
Meek, mild-mannered me might have said, “Okaaay,” if a little doubtfully, and put it back. It’s the USPS, whom neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor the winds of change, nor a nation challenged, will stay from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. Ever. But I admit that my faith in this area has lapsed. In very small, non-confusing words, I explained that I did not want my mail to be “fwd ind.” I didn’t want it to even resemble “fwd ind.” From now on, my mail and “fwd ind” must be strangers forever. (And if “fwd ind” keeps me for any reason from the prompt receipt of Harry Potter 7, someone’s really going to suffer.) I think she grasped my feelings on the subject.
Or at least I did until she said, “I’ll leave a note for the carrier, okay?” (I told her that the scream she heard wasn’t me, it was just static on the line or something.) I stayed on the line and made sure this note was at least accompanied by dire warnings and my phone number. I also decided to write a note of my own, which should raise my chances, however slight, of someone of minute intelligence actually reading it.
So that’s where it is now. Of course, I’ve been faithfully paying my bills online, and whenever available, I’ve asked to have all documents and statements sent through email. Let this be a warning to all of you: never trust someone who leaves a note instead of fixing the problem, never assume that your concern has been accurately addressed, and never overestimate the intelligence of Happy Valley postal workers.
Toward the end of March, I realized that I hadn’t gotten any of my usual mail. It’s easy for me to lose track, because it’s not like I get a ton, mostly just the regular bills. I paid them all online and wondered what was up. I waited a while longer, hoping they just got mixed up in the mail or something, but when April was winding down and I still hadn’t gotten anything, I called the post office.
“I’ll leave a note for the carrier,” said the woman on the line, sounding bored.
Meanwhile, all my creditors and the payroll office got the last month’s bills sent back to them and went into FULL PANIC MODE, contacting me with urgent inquiries for my new address. Oh, except the credit card company. They just blocked my account without telling me, which caused at least one rather humiliating experience at a restaurant. I made the rounds of phone calls and emails, telling everyone to calm down, I hadn’t moved.
So I waited eagerly for the mail to come. The weeks passed. I got some mail back, the stuff that had been returned to sender and then forwarded again, so I figured that meant we were back in business. I waited some more. I allowed plenty of time for all the stupid snail-mail to sort itself out.
Then one lovely morning, about the end of May, I got another email from the payroll office telling me they’d gotten MORE pay stubs sent back. Ten minutes later, I was on the phone with the post office, talking to a slightly-more-awake-sounding guy. He looked up my address and told me that I had moved without leaving a forwarding address. How thoughtless of me. I managed to persuade him that the computer was wrong, and I hung up satisfied that my troubles were over. I congratulated myself for not saying most of what I’d intended to. (I didn’t even ask about the promised “note” from the last call—they probably tried to mail it.)
BUT WAIT! There’s More!
My credit card got blocked again last week. Before today I still hadn’t received a single piece of mail (my roommates have gotten plenty), but today I got a green piece of cardstock, with “CARRIER ALERT!” and “DO NOT DELIVER THIS CARD” on it. It has my name, address, and the instruction “Fwd ind” on it, with “Special Services” beginning on March 19, 2007. I just got off the phone with the post office again.
“Oh,” said the lady on the line (“Please let this be a new, smarter person,” I thought), “that’s not for you, it’s supposed to be just for the letter carriers. Just put it back in the mailbox and they’ll get it.”
Meek, mild-mannered me might have said, “Okaaay,” if a little doubtfully, and put it back. It’s the USPS, whom neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor the winds of change, nor a nation challenged, will stay from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. Ever. But I admit that my faith in this area has lapsed. In very small, non-confusing words, I explained that I did not want my mail to be “fwd ind.” I didn’t want it to even resemble “fwd ind.” From now on, my mail and “fwd ind” must be strangers forever. (And if “fwd ind” keeps me for any reason from the prompt receipt of Harry Potter 7, someone’s really going to suffer.) I think she grasped my feelings on the subject.
Or at least I did until she said, “I’ll leave a note for the carrier, okay?” (I told her that the scream she heard wasn’t me, it was just static on the line or something.) I stayed on the line and made sure this note was at least accompanied by dire warnings and my phone number. I also decided to write a note of my own, which should raise my chances, however slight, of someone of minute intelligence actually reading it.
So that’s where it is now. Of course, I’ve been faithfully paying my bills online, and whenever available, I’ve asked to have all documents and statements sent through email. Let this be a warning to all of you: never trust someone who leaves a note instead of fixing the problem, never assume that your concern has been accurately addressed, and never overestimate the intelligence of Happy Valley postal workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
