Slasher flicks gone wild!

I just saw 30 Days of Night about vampires taking over a small Alaskan town. It was the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. People are being torn apart left and right, and not just adults but children as well. The movie has no real plot and the whole thing is mainly blood and gore. Yet this crap is what tops the box office. Instead of seeing a movie with heart or, god forbid, an actual plot, people rush to the theaters to see people being torn apart, their worst nightmares projected on the screen. I guess I don't get it.

Is it the exhilaration of fear and adrenaline? It is a way to release our morbid sides? Is it the pychotic in all of us that gets to live through the action on the screen, even if only for an hour or so?

It seems like more and more slasher flicks are being released every year. Now they are being released around Christmas time which I think is absolutely absurd! I know they are cheap to make and for some crazy reason draw big crowds. I just don't understand what our morbid fascination with this crap!

Right and Wrong in a World of Gray

This week we read Brighton Rock by Graham Greene which discussed the matter of right and wrong and how nothing is concrete. This got me thinking about how we live in a world of gray. There are very few things that are absolutes. Mathmaticians and scientists will tell you that certain theories and such are absolutes that have been proven and cannot be argued against. However, when the newest discovery that contradicts what they previously believed is found to be true, they change their story. Nothing is set in stone, black and white, right and wrong. We live in a world of gray.

I am a huge Friends fan, if anyone remembers that show and I really hope you do. One of my favorite episodes is the one where Ross tries to convince Phoebe that evolution is the only truth out there. He shows her bones, discusses theories,... anything to prove to her that she is wrong. Her arguement, however, is the best explanation of anything and everything that I've ever heard. She says that scientists believed along time ago that the atom was the smallest thing there was. However, when they split it open they found tinier stuff and proved themselves wrong. So why should she believe them when they could very well be wrong. When Ross, stumped as he is by her reasoning, agrees with her, she states she has lost all respect for him for giving up his beliefs so quickly.

Now this is not a rant against evolution. And this is not a praise session for Friends, although I do love Friends!!! What I am trying to say is that Phoebe proves an excellent point here. The world is constantly changing. New discoveries are constantly being made. Therefore, right and wrong, and various other issues can never be set in stone due to change in our evolving world. We live in a world of gray and we should appreciate it!

The Simple Life

This week we read Evelyn Waugh's A Handful of Dust. It described the deterioration of the marriage of a British couple. While quite satirical, the under lying sadness of the realities these people faced was heartbreaking.

The husband, Tony, is an all-around good guy. He takes care of his family. He goes to church every Sunday. He loves his little boy and even his wife (although some may disagree with me on this point). He takes care of his home which is out of the current fashion of the time. He lives a simple life and doesn't get involved in the scandals and gossip of London, yet he finds himself in the middle of one when his wife begins an affair with a man in London.

Tony was the most sympathetic in the story to me because he seemed the character most removed, if you know what I mean. He lived and stayed in the country, in his little house. He, at times, seemed to not care what was happening around him. Even when his wife wants a divorce, he takes the blame and puts down it was he who had the affair just so she could get alimony. And then he dies and his house gets left to some relatives who will make it into something else. Tony was a good guy who got a raw deal. All he wanted was a simple life. He wasn't too happy and wasn't too miserable either.

Sex and the Rise of Women

This week we conquered D.L. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover where the protagonist, Constance is "trapped" in a loveless marriage to an impotent, diabled veteran and begins having an affair with her gamekeeper. While Constance is looked at with great sympathy by most of the great critics and readers of the century I found her to be selfish.

Constance and her sister are described from the beginning as free-thinking, intellectual women who have sexual relations with men just so that they can keep the sintilating discussion going. It means nothing to them who they're with or why, they just do it so they can stay included. Well, if this is what the early 1900s were like am I glad that I grew up when I did!

I'm not saying that this isn't still happening today. How many women sleep with their bosses to get a promotion? Come on! All I'm saying is that this idea that women have to lower themselves to men just so they can rise to their level is a ridiculous concept!

I hope to someday live in a world where sex is not the only way for a woman to get a job she more than well deserves. We're on our way now!

Trust Issues

This week we read Forrester's A Passage to India, which unravelled the true nature of the relationship between India and the British. The problem was that no one could really trust anyone because everyone had a motive. It really got me thinking about the issue of trust.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once stated, “ Trust men and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will show themselves great. ” Maybe if this had happened in the novel there would not have been so many problems. I understand why the natives of India could not trust the British because they had taken their land from them. Maybe they would have maintained a better relationship if the British had actually bothered to treat the natives like people instead of slaves.

I think Emerson had it right. If the British had treated the natives with respect, the whole relationship could have been better.

The Stereotyping of Female Writers

Why are most female writers considered lesbians? I am in no way saying that all female writers are lesbians but since I have arrived at college and going through my lit. courses I have noticed that a lot of professors (usually male professors) claim that writers such as Emily Dickinson and Mary Shelley were lesbians and that their works hint this fact.

This week we read Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, which follows Clarissa Dalloway, as well as various other characters through one day in their lives. The novel mentions an incident between the main character Clarissa and her friend Sally where they kissed. Now it has been said that Virginia Woolf was a bisexual so I will not argue with this fact. However, this made me think back to other discussions I've had with professors about other female writers. One such case, I argued for Emily Dickinson that she was in no way a lesbian and her poems were more about life and death rather than her suppressed love of women.

I find it stereotypical to claim that a female writer is bisexual or a lesbian just because they had success during a time when male authors were in control. I'm not saying that some females weren't. That would be denial. All I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to place a woman in this catagory without real proof which has not been found yet.

The Nature of Infidelity

This week we read Ford Madow Ford's The Good Soldier which told the sad tale of two wealthy, established couples and the betrayals and scandals they hid from one another. It was a twisted tale of deceit and infidelity, yet it made me question the true nature of infidelity.

The central character, Edward Ashburnham, is "the good soldier" who is your typical nice guy. He is a great soldier, kind landlord, friendly, and noble... a real man's (and apparently ladies) man. Outwardly, he is totally devoted to his wife. However, hidden behind his noble demeanor lies years of secret affairs, almost bankruptcy, and children that have had to been "taken care of." His wife is well aware of his philandering yet she doesn't leave him due to her faith and her love of him. Even his best friends whose wife he sleeps with for nine years, still adores him even after the fact is revealed.

If he is such a great guy and so noble then why can't he control his passions? Why drag your poor wife through all that misery and heartbreak if you are so "devoted" to her? What made Edward do it time and time again?

In the end, I think the true nature of infidelity lies in an unattainable passion for something that does not exist. Sure Edward loved Leonora and respected her but he needed someone that couldn't see his flaws, that he was merely human. He needed someone who saw him as a hero, someone like Nancy who was much younger than him and didn't know better. Someone like Florence who was looking for English nobility. Someone like Maisie and the servant girl on the tracks, and the countless numbers of women he just had to have to fulfill his selfish needs.

The true nature of infidelity is selfishness. Sure back then they may of had an excuse with the arranged marriages and all that, but what is our excuse now? Just do your significant other a favor and let them go before you decide to move on to that next person. Stop being so selfish and consider others unlike Edward who merely thought of himself like the "good soldier" he was.