Thursday, July 23, 2015
Episode Thirteen | Spoiler Alert: It Wasn't Awful
Turns out Sally Johnson has some talent after all! We were quite pleased with lots of elements in the three chapters we review today. Also included are discussions on postpartum depression, the "ideal Mormon mom" and how feminism plays a role in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let’s just get straight to it:
ReplyDelete1. The character conversation in response to/exploration of my comment got me thinking. What makes a character ‘real’? Is it that they are flawed? Not too good or too bad? That there’s some conflict? That they seem like someone we could know? What if we only know a limited range of people? Could you have a ‘real’ character that was shallow, rather than deep? I mean, I think of people as shallow all the time, but they’re still real people. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the case with Sophia, since from the evidence it seems like the book’s not written well enough for that sort of thing to happen, but I think it’s an interesting question.
Personally, I think the lack of a known backstory or origin can make characters more fascinating than actually understanding or knowing everything that’s happened, as long as it feels like there is a story there, waiting to be uncovered. Like the Mad Max films, which rarely explain the reasoning behind the events in the world they’re set in, but feel like a fully realized and developed world.
I was also thinking about the relatable/likable aspect and the idea of anti-heroes that you brought up. I love lots of antiheroes, but I think these sorts of characters can be made likable or admirable in dangerous ways, where you idolize them and their flaws, rather than viewing them as more human, flawed, imperfect people. Take Breaking Bad for example—Walter White has become cool. People want to be some badass, washed-up Chemistry teacher turned drug lord. I don’t think that’s the intent of the show, which makes him intensely unlikable, but it happens.
2. I found the thoughts on the utter lack of sex in the book interesting. I’ve had a number of discussions in English classes at BYU about the role of sex in novels and how to treat it and some interesting thoughts/questions that may be applicable here. First, is that authors have been writing about sex forever, even if there’s no explicit mention of it (Jane Austen has sexual tension and undertones throughout her books, for example). Second, has the ability to freely discuss sex in literature made it better? Or does the open discussion actually limit our ability to explore the realities of sexual experience? I think this is particularly apt for a Mormon audience, where any explicit discussion of sex, even within marriage would likely be seen as inappropriate. I mean, we’re notoriously bad at talking about sex, rarely even saying the word, preferring to use things like “intimacy” (which is problematic for a whole host of reasons that I’ll save for another day). Given this and the fact that Sophia is hiding her divorce, it seems like sex could only be implicitly present (although the first person narration could provide some more flexibility), which is arguably much more difficult to pull off than to explicitly and crudely reference sex and missing the great pleasure it gave or realizing that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be or something.
3. Totally with you on the restricting roles of Motherhood and Fatherhood that are often read into the Proclamation. I talked a bit about that in a previous comment on an earlier episode, so I’ll focus this on the idea of letting families figure things out for themselves, rather than judging the efforts of all families by some ideal, poster family that we should all perfectly emulate. That’s dangerous for all sorts of reasons. I mean, the only perfect person is Christ (whatever ‘perfect’ really means) and I don’t think following him means we should all be trained as carpenters and then just wander on the streets teaching good things and relying on the good will of others to survive before being killed at 33 years old. You can learn from what others do, but it’s not up to you to decide the best way for someone else’s child to be raised. You can share friendly advice if the time/relationship is right, but it’s their family, so they’ll do their thing and you can do yours.
4. My thoughts on women and the priesthood are a bit too involved to get into here (not to mention heretical…), so I’ll stick with the fact that I think there’s much to be learned about the functioning of the priesthood and that the priesthood has historically been given to an ever-widening group of people. Just you know, for consideration.
ReplyDelete5. Madie- I’m a passionate believer in questions, so your story about your sister’s comments (and similar things I’ve been told personally) set me off. I think that questions and the pondering of them is the key to revelation and progress. We’re believers in a Church founded on the asking of a question that there was no answer to. I started a list of questions, which I’ve neglected a bit for awhile, as a missionary that now numbers over 500. That’s worrisome to a lot of people, but I thrive on the ambiguity and existence of unanswered questions—it’s that speculative aspect of Mormonism that thrills me and keeps my faith alive and glowing. Not only do I think there’s nothing wrong with thinking about unanswered or unclear questions, but I think we must do so if we want to ever gain new understanding and improve the reality that we all occupy.
6. A couple of articles about seminary teachers and BYU professors, being women with children. Looks like the seminary/institute teacher rule was changed in the fall of 2014 and the BYU prof. rule in 2013: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865615543/LDS-women-with-children-now-eligible-for-full-time-seminary-institute-jobs.html?pg=all
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56789850-180/byu-married-hudson-mormon.html.csp
7. Kate- totally with you on hating the rhetoric that equates gay marriage to an ‘attack on the family.’ I’ve really tried to understand this mentality, but I just can’t quite get it. I think it’s unnecessarily harmful to LGBT+ members or people generally. Maybe it’s partially because I tend to think that the best defense is a good offense or something, where I’m much more engaged by positive ideas and the promotion of something than attacking something else to try and protect/build up the thing I believe in (in this case the family). Kinda like how I don’t like negative campaign ads—I want to know why you’re good, not why the other dude sucks.
8. Woah. The whole ‘dad asking intentions’ scene is unreal. Ugh. It’s like the ‘ask the girl’s dad permission before marrying her’ thing, which I get is traditional and respectful or something, but seems so wrong. Just because he’s her father that doesn’t make her his property. I dunno. Maybe there’s a less sexist way to view that tradition, but I feel like if I have daughters if some dude came to ask me if I could marry them I’d tell him what I thought about him, after saying something like “Why the Hell are you asking me? She’s the one that’ll put up with you for eternity, it’s her choice, ask her. That being said, I think…”. Same with the ‘dad on the porch with the shotgun’ or the ‘older brother that’ll cream you if you touch her waist’ tropes. Gag me. Part of that may be that I’m not uber-masculine, so I’d just get thrashed, but I think it’s more than just that. I’m much more a believer in expecting a lot and having people want to make you happy, than scaring the living daylights out of them.
9. I definitely think there’s value in these platonic opposite sex friendships that you two were chatting about. There’s just different things that can be gained and I think it’s silly to limit your close friends along gender lines. And I’ve totally felt the ‘friend-love at first sight’ as well. Sometimes there are just people that you recognize as being kindred spirits or there are the people you desperately want to be friends with, but just can’t quite break into their friend circle. Would that be like the acquaintance-zone? You know, like the friend zone, but for when you just want to be friends but they just don’t see you that way?