My Thoughts on Chuck's Series Finale

Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak never fail to excel at mediocrity.

Call me unsatisfied with the Chuck’s finale. Not mad, but definitely not satisfied. I felt that the writing did the tremendous actors (specifically Zachary Levi, Yvonne Strahovski, Adam Baldwin, and Joshua Gomez) of Chuck a great disservice. I guess I'm more disappointed with what the finale could have been (and wasn't) then what it actually was.

I mean, the whole bittersweet ending isn't always bad, but it just doesn't seem like the best choice for a show like Chuck - which ran 5 seasons thanks to its passionate fans (and NBC's woes). The main problem with the finale is that the ending just doesn't fit with the character of the show. Chuck was always pretty lighthearted and optimistic, never taking itself too seriously or encouraging/expecting its fans to take it seriously (nearly every episode required fans to suspend at least a moderate amount of belief/reality). The ending to the finale would be fine on a different sort of show, but it just feels really out of character for a show like Chuck. It's like the show, and not Sarah, lost its sense of identity for the finale.

While the final scene taken by itself might come across as hopeful, taken in the context of the two (finale) episodes, it just didn't sit right or feel like an appropriate ending to the series. Appropriate for the end of episode 5-12? Yes, but not the series. In the finale, I never really got any sort of real sense that Sarah has any sort of romantic connection or feelings regarding Chuck anymore. Honestly, the ending gave me an impression that Sarah and Chuck might try to date for a while but end up just being good friends and nothing more. Perhaps I'm way off base here, but that's just what my gut told me and is telling me in the context and framework of the last two episodes (what Schwartz and Fedak provided).

Perhaps the reason that the Chuck finale failed to resonate with viewers such as myself, is that it’s ending was designed to be viewed in the lens of the popular American idea (or myth) of “soul-mates,” an idea that many individuals like me don’t buy into. I get the idea of the soul-mates notion that most of the finale's supporters seem to be citing; the problem is though, a lot of people (and from that I think we can extrapolate Chuck viewers) don't necessarily buy into the idea of soul-mates. (Now is not the time or place for me to get into the details of why, but I just don’t think the concept fits well into the Biblical worldview I try to shape my thinking around.) In fact, I'm not sure Chuck as a show has ever supported such an idea. Chuck and Sarah fell in love, but it wasn't easy and it didn’t just happen. Think of all of the fighting and work they had to do in order to finally get together. Chuck as a show seemed to support an ethic of "fight for what you believe in" as opposed to a "if something's meant to happen, it will happen." This doesn't mean that Chuck and Sarah won't fall in love again, but it'd be very hard (likely impossible) to replicate the same situations and circumstances that led to Chuck and Sarah falling in love. Additionally, Sarah really doesn't seem to want to pursue a romantic relationship with Chuck. Yes, she kissed him in the finale’s final scene, but I really don't think that kiss invalidated her character's state as previously presented in the finale. So yes, if you believe in soulmates/think that Chuck (as as an entire series) has advocated for such an idea then the ending will seem happy to you. If you don't however, the notion of Chuck and Sarah merely ending up as (good) friends really doesn't seem too far-fetched. If Schwartz and Fedak really wanted for us to have that sort of hope and optimism that some are citing, you'd think they've put more of it into the two hours they had for the finale. There's a difference between being subtle and being lazy – building something into your story versus just expecting viewers to choose the right lens needed for viewers to comprehend your story in the way you’ve intended for it to be interpreted.

I think Chuck will always hold some sort of spot in my heart regardless of its ending (and my feelings towards the ending). There will however be a lot of criticism (fair or unfair) due to the sense of ownership and investment so many individuals have towards Chuck as a show. In part, perhaps those of us expressing criticism are really just trying to be convinced that the finale was a good and proper one (proper in the sense of fitting the character of Chuck as a show) so that we can come to grips with how we are feeling now.

Worst Case scenario: Chuck's finale is a primer for the upcoming movie The Vow.

(Sorry for not touching on more of the finale – there are a lot of good and poor parts to it. Chuck getting stuck with the Intersect again could be a source of great debate and contention but is a smaller issue when compared to the one I’ve discussed.)

January Series Reflections: Pedro Noguera

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

Being raised in the rural, remote Upper Peninsula of Michigan, thinking about inner-cities and all of the problems they face is a difficult task for me. I feel that Dr. Pedro Noguera did a wonderful job in getting me to better grasp the true depth and breadth of the problems that public inner-city educational systems face. A list of such problems is quite extensive: poor or no healthcare, overpopulation, economically depressed neighborhoods, broken families, poor and dangerous living conditions, instability, and perhaps most of all, a lack of hope.

Perhaps the greatest contributing factor to this lack of hope is the frustration that we all feel at seeing politicians and government officials make the same plans and promises as their predecessors: plans and promises that we all know will fail and be broken. Yet, I don’t think that most of us believe that the politicians and officials are stupid or purposefully being wasteful and ineffective. Rather, I think we realize that there is a large disconnect between the people and the policymakers; an abyss separating the two. Both sides wonder why they can’t reach the other while an abundance of resources is futilely thrown into the chasm. The people can’t figure out why they aren’t receiving the resources they believe they are entitled to and the policymakers are scratching their heads in bewilderment at the ineffectiveness of the resources they are distributing. If we are to begin addressing and fixing the inner-cities’ myriad of problems then we must first effectively deal with the central problem inner-cities face – providing a quality education in public schools.

To best do this I believe that policymakers need to have more direct contact with both the people they makes policies for and the environments in which such people live. Looking at reports and lists of statistics and numbers may be useful to some extent, but creating policies and solutions solely based on such figures isn’t good enough. The public education system not only needs, but deserves more. Policymakers need to spend ample time in the worst public schools and the harshest neighborhoods that such schools’ students come from. If we don’t have a full, comprehensive picture of the problem (specifically all of the problem’s factors rather than just how the factors manifest themselves) then how can we expect to have a real chance at solving the problem? Can you really expect to solve a complex math problem by only looking at the numbers and not the operations involved? Without practical, firsthand knowledge of public schools and their students our theoretical and detached knowledge becomes very limited in usage capability as we have no proper way to apply it.

Can we fix public school systems? Sure, but it’s clearly going to take a lot of work and not just on the part of policymakers. While they do need to go out and engage with schools and communities, the schools and communities need to reciprocate such engagement, opening up and joining in the difficult process of helping outsiders understand a specific brand of culture. Not only do they need to be open and helpful, but they also need to better understand the sense of entitlement that so many of them possess. What are people currently entitled to in regards to their public education and what should they be entitled to? What does such entitlement presuppose from the individuals that possess it? These are the questions that we must all come to answer if a better public education system is to be achieved. While answering them may be challenging, choosing not to answer them will only lead to greater challenges.

January Series Reflections: Eric Metaxas

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

Overall I found Eric Metaxas to be the most interesting presenter/speaker of the 2012 January Series thus far. I found him to be witty, engaging, and right on the mark on the vast majority of points he made. He definitely has a fair share of charisma – something that will no doubt help him to sell piles of his books (I’m already planning on getting the Bonhoeffer book eventually). Two minor quibbles I had with him were his insistence that Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy is truthfully history, free of his personal thoughts and opinions, and his statement that he doesn’t disagree with Bonhoeffer on any (major) issues. First, while it’s great (and perhaps somewhat obligatory) to say that a biographical book you write sticks to history just as it was, we all know that authoring such a book is impossible by definition. Part of history is the lens through which it’s viewed meaning that history can’t be practiced without some sort of spin being put on it. Secondly, I think we can also pretty easily realize that it’s (near) impossible to agree with someone else on every issue. So, to understand Metaxas’ statement that he agrees with Bonhoeffer on everything we must accept one of three possible conclusions: either Metaxas didn’t feel like answering the question (it was towards the end of our Q&A and perhaps he was growing tired of answering Bonhoeffer questions), or Metaxas interpreted the question as only referring to a limited number of issues and could indeed feasibly agree with Bonhoeffer on say, a dozen or so issues, or finally, Metaxas does in fact believe that he and Bonhoeffer do agree on all issues. I find this last conclusion to be rather troublesome as it indicates to me that Metaxas may have very well projected some of himself onto Bonhoeffer when interpreting Bonhoeffer’s writings and while writing his book. If this were to be the case then it would seem that Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet Spy would be greatly diminished as it would begin to slide more towards a book about how Metaxas applies Bonhoeffer’s writings and teachings rather than an actual biography on Bonhoeffer. I tend toward believing that the Metaxas’ statement falls somewhere between the first and second options – he generally agrees with Bonhoeffer and didn’t feel like picking at nitty gritty details that individuals lacking much background on Bonhoeffer (such as most of our class) probably would be unable to appreciate.

The issue I (and probably a great deal of the class) found to be most interesting was Metaxas’ handling of the kill vs. assassination vs. murder distinction. On the whole I think Metaxas handled the subject quite well, warning against “all-or-nothing” and “black-or-white” approaches so often took. Circumstances dictate what action should be taken in such scenarios, making it impossible to have a sort of general rule about when it’s ok to take another human’s life. However, I do think Metaxas could have gone further on the distinction of the great weight that results from taking another’s life versus the beautiful and amazing story that unfolds when a villain is redeemed rather than killed by a hero. Thinking about the some of the great stories that have been told in literature and cinema, while stories of vigilantism and “redemptive violence” (making things right by killing someone) are extremely popular and constitute one of America’s greatest myths (think of all of the Westerns that have been told), stories of non-violent redemption have posses the potential to have even more resonance with audiences. I think this may be a good reflection on the way God has created us. While we can take drastic, somber actions in dire circumstances, we are ultimately more satisfied with actions that reflect God’s patience, forgiveness and most of all goodness.

January Series Reflections: Edith Mirante

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

After listening to Edith Mirante’s talk, “Burma on the Brink,” the thing that really struck me is how blessed and fortunate we are to live in the United States, a country with a stable, rational democracy. While it’s encouraging to hear that Burma seems to be moving towards a full-fledged democracy, I still can’t help but wonder if they will ever fully implement such a democracy in the near future. Mirante’s comparison of Burma’s fake, military democracy’s officials pretending to take up democratic roles to children pretending to be the characters they dress up as for Halloween is an area of great concern for me. While individuals sometimes truly do take up the personas or fronts that they put up, crises of faith or identity are bound to eventually occur, reawaking individuals’ previous states and beliefs. As the planned “real” democratic election begins to loom, it seems to me very likely that the powerful military officials of Burma may begin to realize what a real democracy will mean for themselves as individuals; meaning, they will finally grasp that they are on the cusp of relinquishing the tremendous power they’ve firmly grasped for so many years. When I consider some of the great historical figures whom were unwilling to relinquish their power, I begin to have serious reservations that the historically cruel Burma military leaders will be willing to simply “ride off into the sunset,” accepting menial lives and positions of little to no power.

Reinforcing this idea is the fact that the Burma military has been known to arbitrarily “gun down” and execute its own citizens in order to reinforce its power and remind the population that the government is in control. The military run government is the population’s family: father, mother, little sister and big brother. The government has gone to great lengths to establish that they are god to the population – it decides who lives and dies. Clearly the government has a history of possessing both megalomaniacal and irrational traits, a fact that bodes very poorly for the hope of a real democracy in the near future. Destructive habits and ideas are entrenched in the very fabric of the government, making it very hard for such habits and ideas to simply disappear after a couple of years of government officials pretending to be democrats. History has shown that radical government shifts rarely come peacefully. Are there exceptions to this? Sure, but they are few and far between. A (cynical) person such as myself can’t help but think that the road to a free, democratic Burma is and will continue to be a long, uphill one.

Does this all mean that Burma can’t hope and believe that it will be soon free? Not at all; as Edith Mirante mentioned in her presentation there are many hopeful signs that Burma is well on its way to a democracy. The country is, in some ways, in the best shape it’s been in for decades. What has to be remembered though is that while the signs are positive, a positive result is not guaranteed. Burma and its supporters need to stay vigilant and firm in their push towards freedom. The freedom that Burma hopes and longs for has not and will not be had easily; however, this difficult journey will only make such a freedom all the sweeter when it is finally obtained.

January Series Reflections: John Varineau

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

John Varineau defined music as “the organization of sound and time to move the human soul.” His definition varies from the standard definition due to his addition of the “to move the human soul” bit. I think this addition is a very appropriate one as it makes an understated truth about music much more obvious. What piece of music hasn’t been created in an effort to influence humans? Even seemingly dull and annoying “on-hold” music was likely created and chosen in an effort to keep individuals waiting on the phone in an at least a somewhat pleasant state. One can even argue that “music” produced by birds and other animals was designed by God to help humans enjoy his creation.

With this universal “soul-moving” property of music in mind we can begin to think about how music has, is, and will continue to be used as a form of propaganda. After all, propaganda is essentially content distributed with a purpose of influencing individuals towards some idea or ideology. So then, why does Varineau believe that music is only abused when it is used as a part of propaganda? Isn’t all music suggesting and trying to influence individuals toward some idea or ideology? I think what Varineau may have not articulated clearly enough is that music falls into the realm of propaganda when it forcibly pushes its listeners to a specific idea or ideology. I think music in its purest form is something that is very open to interpretation. That isn’t to say that music shouldn’t have a message; however, it’s meaning should be something that listeners are allowed to come to on their own terms, not shoehorned into. Listeners should be free to critically and freely examine what they hear and come to a conclusion they find to be best (perhaps best in regards to a hybrid between rationality and creativity). Music when used correctly should foster creativity in its listeners, inviting them to join in a song/work’s movement.

With this in mind, Varineau’s idea of the misuse of music becomes to come into clearer focus. Misuse is just a less restrictive form of abuse. When we are given music in a controlled setting our minds often become limited by what they’re observing. Creativity is diminished and avenues that are available in an open environment begin to close, forcing us down just a few particular paths. Not just one path like propaganda’s abuse, but a number that has been reduced in comparison to the music’s original starting point. This isn’t to say though that all uses of music in movies, television shows, video games, etc. are all necessarily cases of negative misuse. Such environments can be beneficiary when they are thoughtfully and tastefully applied and used. Sometimes a completely open environment is too hard for us to work from. We may need a nudge in some direction and certain closed environments can offer an appropriate nudge that gives us an idea of purpose and direction without shoving us. Really then, the misuse of music becomes something of a grey area, up to personal interpretation as to whether or not such use is a positive or negative factor.

With these clarifications in mind I believe that we can begin to have a better understanding and grasp on how music should be created, cultivated and consumed. Music and art in general are most often at their best when they afford their audience a chance to explore and build upon the ideas and feelings that a work has exhibited. Through this practice we can all mutually participate in being human – creatively and rationally exploring and building thoughts and ideas.

January Series Reflections:

NOTE: The content of this post was originally authored for a class I'm taking this Interim on Calvin College's January Series. This content was written to be a short, one page reflection prompted by a speaker's presentation. Therefore, this post does not have much context and has not been edited (or perhaps through out) very well. It is essentially just some of my very rough, incoherent thoughts that will not be backed or exegeted well due to the nature of the original assignment.

I’m not entirely sure what to think of Dr. Sherry Turkle’s presentation. After some reflection, it seems to me that her presentation’s main thesis, “technology is most seductive when its affordances meet out human vulnerabilities,” really is just another way of saying that technology – like other areas of life – is seductive when we’d expect it to be. Anything is most seductive to us when what it offers is something we lack; so, the fact that technology exhibits this same behavior really doesn’t tell us much about what makes technology unique. In fact, Turkle’s main thesis seems to say that technology isn’t so unique. She seems to be giving a stark warning against looking towards technology as a sort of god or savior that can save humanity from its own problems and mistakes. While this sort of warning has been issued frequently over the past decade, it was refreshing to hear Turkle’s own, insightful take on the topic.

While I mostly agree with Turkle’s overall claim that technology cannot solve all of humanity’s problems, I don’t agree with her stance on individuals’ privacy. In today’s world, Mark Zuckerberg’s claim that “privacy is no longer a social norm” seems to be a perfectly reasonable observation. I don’t think Zuckerberg was necessarily arguing that privacy shouldn’t be a social norm, which Turkle implied that he was. I’ll thus be addressing Turkles two questions given in response to his claim from the observational standpoint rather than the argumental one. After all, in today’s postmodern world who are we to be telling cultures what they should and shouldn’t be doing.

Turkle’s first question in response to Zuckerberg’s claim is, “What is intimacy without privacy?” True, there definitely is some level of privacy needed for a sense of intimacy to be had in most cases. However, Turkle seems to be taking a pretty extreme interpretation of Zuckerberg’s claim. She seems to be saying that a loss of privacy means that one no longer has control over any descriptive details of his or her own life. Privacy is then an “on or off” switch. You either have it or you don’t. Zuckerberg on the other hand seems to be taking a less extreme view of privacy, suggesting that a loss of privacy isn’t flipping a switch to “off,” but rather dialing a knob down a little. Sure some privacy is lost, but not every personal, descriptive detail. Taken with Turkle’s extreme interpretation of privacy, of course Zuckerberg’s claim comes across as absurd; however, when we reexamine what privacy is, we see that Zuckerberg’s claim accurately describes the social world we live in. We have lost full privacy because of modern social conventions like cell phones (the social norm is to have one and having one entails a loss of some privacy), but we haven’t lost total privacy as it’s not the social norm (or even possible) to broadcast all of our thoughts and feelings.

Intimacy can still be had in today’s social world. Is it as prevalent as it was in other times? Probably not; however, we can still be intimate with others if we choose to be, even in times when some level of privacy is seemingly compromised. Think of scenes from romantic comedies where two star-crossed individuals finally meet in a busy place and share an intimate moment. Sure, there are other people around that may be watching and listening, but the fact of the matter is that those other people don’t know what’s going on in the minds of the two individuals and the two individuals choose to have an intimate moment regardless of what level of privacy they have or don’t have. While such an example isn’t an actual case, it does seem to suggest that we find such intimacy, in situations where privacy may be compromised, plausible.

Turkle’s second question, “What is democracy without privacy?” also seems to fall rather flat. In a true, pure democracy everyone should be able to voice his or her own views and opinions without fear of retribution. A democracy works best when individuals are openly sharing ideas and thoughts in an effort to better the lives of others. A loss of privacy means backdoor, shady dealings that are done in private to benefit only an exclusive group of individuals. Sure, people shouldn’t be afraid of others attacking them for their ideals, but such an attack wouldn’t be allowed by a true, properly functioning democracy.

All in all, I found Turkle’s presentation informative and stimulating, even if I didn’t fully agree with all of her points. While I do not know what sort of faith Turkle has (if she has any), her message is one that Christians often need to be reminded of. Jesus, not ourselves or our technological creations, is the true savior and the ultimate way to fix the problems we face in this world.

My Thoughts on the Hunger Games Series

(If you haven't read the Hunger Games trilogy, you should probably quit reading now, since a moderate amount of spoilers are to follow in this post.)

To begin, I'll apologize for the lack of coherence that this blog post may reflect. It’s been ages since I've blogged anything due to college, work, and bouts of slothfulness. Christmas Break is already halfway over for me and I really haven't done much at all – not that this is a bad thing, but I was hoping to do some writing last week. I had some other topics lined up, but none are very fresh in my mind, so I'll just be writing about my recent thoughts; specifically, my thoughts on the Hunger Games Trilogy.

My experience with The Hunger Games began when I got a Kindle Touch for Christmas (it’s great by the way – and I wasn't fully sold on it [and the concept of ereaders in general] when I ordered it). Having a device to read digital books on, but possessing no digital books of my own, I decided it would be an opportune time to finally read the Hunger Games Trilogy that everyone’s been talking about (there’s a movie coming out after all so I knew I needed to have read the books before I saw the movies, or I’d risk be lambasted to do so by all of my friends and acquaintances).

Let me give you a breakdown of my mental-state throughout the series before I discuss some of my deeper thoughts. As I started the first book, I had to work fairly hard to get through the first chapter – it’s hard for a twenty-year-old male to be thoroughly captivated by an account of a teenage girl and a cat, especially on Christmas Eve. By chapter two though I was hooked, and ripped through the rest of book one without a second thought. From about two-thirds of the way through section one to the beginning of section three the book is simply enthralling. I was at the mercy of the book and felt my heart pounding hard for the entire duration of this passage. I found the last section of the book to be a bit on the disappointing side. It’s not bad by any stretch, but it pales in comparison to the section before it, and winds up being a bit predictable and stale. No doubt there are some great moments, but I feel that too many pages were wasted purely setting up the great moments and the grandeur of the previous section is partially spoiled by an absence of creativity. I was fine with the ending itself and while I won't praise it, I certainly won't penalize the book for it (although the rest of the series is penalized by it – more on that later).This book winds up being just short of a masterpiece (you could probably count the number of books I’ve called masterpiece on one hand so this is still a great compliment from me). I’d probably give Collins’ writing an 8 (recognizing the target audience) and her ideas a 9. For a sort of reference with other young adult/teen books let me say that I’d give the Harry Potter series a cumulative average of an 8.5 writing and a 9 on ideas while the cumulative average of the Twilight series has a writing score of 3 and an idea score of 5. So, all in all, I greatly enjoyed the first book and had high hopes for the rest of the series (although I already began to question whether such excellence could be maintained due to the nature of the first book and where the series seemed to be going).

Book two started off pretty slowly, but I remembered book one’s slow start which allowed me to maintain high spirits. In fact, most of section one is a snoozer with things finally heating up at the very end. The last two sections definitely improve, although they still can't recapture the magic of the first book. Really, in retrospect, the last two sections feel like a spliced together version of books one and three. This isn’t a great combination though considering one of book one’s main strengths was its freshness and creativity, something that clearly cannot be preserved if it is closely repeated. All in all, book two is solid, primarily marred by a slow first section and the hindsight for knowing what book three holds in store. I'd give it an 8 again in writing but only a 7 in ideas.

Book three is when we finally realize that Collins may have just hitched two books onto the first in order to get a heavy-handed ending that is rather predictable and safe, although perhaps not quite in the conventional sense. It’s kind of like going to an awards banquet with a fantastic opening dinner and ceremony, followed by hours of predictable speeches and obligatory messages that you have to sit through because you're locked in the room (maybe not literally locked, but locked nonetheless by social etiquette). The first section of the book once again is an entirely predictable and snoozable affair. What makes it worse though is that the book never really takes off, as it just goes through the motions of wrapping up what we knew was inevitable about fifty pages through book one. This doesn't have to necessarily be bad (in some sense it is required), but Collins’ execution is what makes it such a dull affair. Really the book is a mini-story with gobs of introspection set on repeat. Section two feels like it should have been the boring section one that has somewhat plagued all of the series’ entries; it's just stalling, waiting for section three to begin. While Collins doesn't make a Stephanie Meyer mistake and completely bag out of giving us the required (or at least greatly appreciated), climactic ending, she does a rather half-hearted job of it. It lacks any sort of creativity and just seems to mimic the dull repeating introspection we've already suffered through in this book and a large portion of book two. Katniss is tired throughout the whole book, seemingly reflecting Collins’ state and the soon to be state of the reader. I suppose one could give Collins credit for having written a consistent book in this regard. The last few chapters are drawn out and a bit sloppy. When we think the final climax is coming we get a confusing stall to a severely less dramatic climax that is about as shocking as finding presents under the tree on Christmas morning. Yeah, the presents weren't there the night before, but you knew they were coming. Anyway, the epilogue tries to wrap up the book properly, but after arguably sacrificing the entire book for her ending, Collins isn't willing to sacrifice her ending state for a proper epilogue; instead, we get what feels like a bit of staple fanficition. Overall the writing in this book comes in at about a 7 and the ideas drop to a pale 4. It’s a pretty sorry way to end a trilogy that began with such promise. It’s hard to give the series an overall rating as I feel the ending and narrative progression (a chain is only as strong as its weakest links) really hurt the series’ lasting effect. Hard pressed, I’ll give the writing an 8 but the ideas only a 6.5. Clearly a large factor in this letdown was a rushed book. If Collins had taken a little more time (or perhaps if the publishers has allowed her to) this could've been a suitable ending to the series.

Now to some more substantial (but still rather incoherent) thoughts.

The Ending of Book 1 and its Impact on the Rest of the Series:

As I said before, the ending of book 1 is a fine way to end the first book of a trilogy. In fact, with a few added pages, or perhaps even just paragraphs, it would be a serviceable ending to a standalone book (something that I think I would have preferred over what we got from the entire trilogy). The main problem is that the ending we are given at the end of the trilogy is far too similar to the ending we're given at the end of the first book. Essentially in both, Katniss returns home to spend the rest of her life with Peeta in a depressed state of mind and depressed environment. There a few noticeable differences as in the last ending it’s more of a freely-made choice to be with Peeta, Katniss is more scarred mentally and physically, and the environment is no longer under the harsh control of the Capitol. However, are these differences so great that they justify two additional books?

Taking into account the negative progression of the narrative, I feel that the differences aren't so great. First, the choice to be with Peeta still isn't exactly a completely free choice: Katniss is pretty messed up and Peeta is just kind of there while Gale has run off (he’s in no state to be anywhere else). Additionally, it wouldn't have taken too much to tweak book one just enough so Katniss is happier to be with Peeta. Secondly, it also wouldn't have taken much for Katniss to be more scarred in book one. Losing Prim is something different that would've been harder to add to book one’s ending, but it’s somewhat of an irrelevant factor as Prim’s death is barely touched on after it happens. Finally, in many ways, the environments balance out - taking into consideration what Collins gives us. While book one’s ending has Capitol control, Katniss gets a comfortable life in her new house and with the entire District still intact. Book three’s ending never really explores what the new government’s like; presumably it’s better, but for all we went through it leaves this point far too much alone. The District still seems rather depressed as it tries to rebuild and most of the people that seemed dead under the harsh control of the old government are in fact dead even in the new ending.

So in essence, the endings are rather similar. Perhaps if certain points such as the new government and Prim’s death were touched on more there’d be a more concrete difference between the two thus justifying the additional two books. Or even if a sort of disharmonious echo was drawn out between the two endings by Collins, it might have been easier to like or at least appreciate the trilogy's ending. What I've come to conclude is that an expanded book one ending would've been far more preferable to the rushed, minimalistic trilogy ending that Collins used. True, a story isn't just about the ending and is often more about the journey (a case in point being LOST), but as some of my next points address, the journey given by the final two books considerably drops off in quality from the first book, making me wonder why we even had them at all (corporate greed cannot be fully blamed as Collins adamantly states that the narrative was always intended to be in a trilogy format, something that is also clear in how she wrote the books).

Peeta and the Indecision of the Plot:

Here I feel that Collins never really could decide what kind of priority the Peeta and Peeta/Gale relationships to Katniss should have on the overall narrative. Originally it seems that the narrative of the Hunger Games is centered around Katniss’ survival. Obviously her relationship (not just romantically) with Peeta is an important part of her survival, but as the first book ends and as the second book progresses, it feels as if the narrative has shifted to Peeta’s relationship to Katniss. In fact, I think I very reasonable case could be made for Peeta being the main protagonist (or at least hero) of the Hunger Games and Katniss serving as a narrator for his narrative. This however breaks down as the third book ends leaving the reader (or at least me) very disoriented as to what he or she has just been reading (perhaps my next section has some bearing here). Is Peeta the hero of the series or just a sideplot and how important is the love triangle? Again, perhaps this could’ve been clarified and greatly improved if the third book had been handled better.

Katniss’ Internal State and Topic Range:

While Katniss serves as an interesting narrator, she seems wildly unreliable at times (while some authors like George R.R. Martin purposefully do this, I don’t know if Collins had this in mind) and certain sections of the books don’t come off clean and are a little clunky. I feel like an additional narrator or narrators (whether other characters or an unknown observer) could have enhanced the trilogy. I’m not saying they need to be given large sections of the book, but a few chapters here and there of some other narrator would've been helpful for some clarity and tone issues. Focusing on Katniss alone causes some confusion and greatly restricts the series from breaking some new, creative ground that would've added another dimension to the series. As is, we have a narrative that seems to want to be focused on Katniss, but doesn't quite work due to some of the other elements Collins has tried to weave into the series. Due to this, the range of the book is greatly limited which seems a waste given the potential waters that Collins has to tread in and seems to want to tread in. The effect of war on individuals is sufficiently explored via Katniss, but not as fully as it could be. Meanwhile, the effects of rebellion, tyranny, and public figures along with topics such as the power and role of government, ethics, and the power of the press are hinted at but never satisfactorily explored. I know these are supposed to be young adult books, but Collins clearly had a more comprehensive and complex narrative in mind, something she doesn't quite reach.

A Lack of New Creativity and Abandoning an Expanding Universe :

Perhaps the greatest bane hounding the series is the complete abandonment of creativity once book one comes to a close. Collins lays all of her groundwork in book one and expects it to carry the rest of the series. While this seems like a logical thing to do, most excellent narratives continue to add more and more into their mythos right up until the final act. A few new characters are introduced, but they comes across as flat and don't contribute a whole lot to the narrative. Most of the setting of the final two books follows very predictably from book one, keeping the final two books from having the level of excitement and wonder book one produced (book three is especially guilty of this). Collins signs off of world-making after book one, a cardinal sin in an expanding universe.

Sending a Message but Offering a Poor (if any) Response:

Perhaps the primary reason for this discard of creativity is Collins’ utter devotion to her message of the effects of war on (young) people. While this is a fine message to send and explore, Collins’ obsession to it limits the rest of the series. Any adventure elements are completely abandoned as we move into a single (somewhat one-dimensional) character study. As the series closes, the plot elements tightly constrict around this theme, greatly restricting the narrative. Any sort of plot choices are thrown out the window as Collins must craft her yarn around her message to ensure that it sticks in the mind of the reader. It does, but isn’t necessarily effective as it comes across as heavy handed and doesn’t quite resonate the way it should with readers. Also, Collins really doesn't offer any sort of advice to the reader. While not required, it would've been nice to have seen a bit more of a moral (or morals) drawn out and displayed towards the ending, especially since what we've been given has been excessively heavy-handed anyway.

Overall, the Hunger Games is an above average series (I focused on the negative in this post as I figure most people have already been told of all of its admirable attributes) that starts superbly, but roughly coasts to the end. The series could’ve been in the excellent or perhaps even legendary range if more time had been put into crafting a comprehensive and more focused final book, along with some refinements in the middle book to properly reflect the series’ expanded and yet clearer focus. What makes the Hunger Games so disappointing in my mind is the fact that this very good series could have and should have been an amazing one.

Film Ideology: An Education

I realize it's been quite some time (over two months) since I've updated my blog so I've decided to post something I wrote about six months ago just to having something new up here. I am hoping to write a short series of posts on a few various topics relating to Christianity (including things such as the negative influences of Platonism on Christianity, "reasonable" hope, Christian conflict, animals in The Kingdom of God, and the economics of Christianity) over the next few months or so - I've been extremely busy this semester taking 18 credits of Spanish, Physics, and Philosophy which is why the posts won't be sooner. Anyway, I hope you enjoy some of my thoughts on the film An Education. (Note: If you haven't seen the movie there are spoilers in my post so go and watch it - it's an excellent film - before reading this post)

“The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.” – Aristotle

In today’s world one can see, and in no short supply, conflicting views on not just what an education is worth, but also what an education is. Some call high school a proper education; others may scoff at this sentiment, going on to say that college is the truly adequate education. The arguments don’t end there however, with certain individuals declaring graduate school as the only worthwhile education and others completely rejecting the concept of institutionalized education all together, saying that one is not “educated” until he or she has begun to independently live and work among the general population. In the film An Education, this power struggle regarding the meaning of an education takes center stage, compelling viewers to examine and perhaps even reevaluate their view on the meaning of an education.

An Education is a 2009 BBC film following the development of a teenage girl, Jenny, in 1960’s suburban London, and how an older man, David, enters into and drastically alters her life. The movie contends that an education is more than any sort of institutional degree, arguing that it’s experiencing things first hand - making mistakes along the way that profoundly shape an individual’s life both positively and negatively. What the film suggests is that an education is in fact what many would call a worldview with an emphasis on experience shaping it. The film acknowledges that institutional schooling is important, but seems to argue that it is a means to opportunities in life rather than a direct path to developing a worldview. It is the opportunities in life, and an individual’s responses and experiences regarding these opportunities, that shape who people are as individuals.

An Education makes a strong argument for experience being the cornerstone upon which individuals build their worldviews. “’Action is character.’ I think it means that if we never did anything, we wouldn’t be anybody. And I never did anything until I met you.” In the film, Jenny, the protagonist, seems to routinely be caught between the ideals of her proper, traditional middle-class parents and David, an exciting, vibrant, thirty-year old. There is a stark contrast between Jenny’s parents’ dull, conservative lifestyle to whom playing the cello is a hobby, and apparently the only thing their daughter should do outside of school work, and David’s live-life-to-the-fullest-every-second-of-every-day-no-matter-what lifestyle. Due to her upbringing coupled with her recent experiences with David, Jenny completely misunderstands the meaning of “action is character.” Having lived a life of relative boredom with her monotonous parents and now experiencing all kinds of sophisticated things with David, Jenny uses this as a confirmation that her parents are in fact nobodies and that she is doing the right thing by continuing her relationship with David. Her whole string of thought is rather ironic in the context of where it occurs in the movie. Just previously to this scene, Jenny finds out that David is nothing more than a glorified confidence man and thief, seemingly doing whatever he can to make a buck - Jenny finds this out after watching David steal someone’s painting. David is able to justify his actions, to himself and Jenny, by saying, “We’re (referring to he and his friends) not clever like you so we have to be clever in other ways; because if we weren’t, there would be no fun.” Since Jenny is eventually taken in by his arguments, her worldview is forced to change in order to accommodate the meaning of “action is character.” Instead of taking it to mean (as she likely would have before she met David) “the type of actions one does reveals/builds his or her character” she now can understand it as “doing anything” is character in and of itself. There’s no denying the importance of experiencing things in individuals’ lives, and, as one can see with Jenny, these experiences do radically shape people’s lives and views.

No experience shapes a life more, and causes one to question the choices that he or she made, than that of a mistake. Mistakes are almost always recognized in hindsight rather than in the moment, partially due to individuals’ own pride and stubbornness and also due to an incorrect worldview. By observing Jenny’s father, Jack, this fact becomes perfectly clear. Throughout the film, Jack is seen as a rather stingy, uptight, slow-witted fellow. He can probably be best described as one of those people who acts as if nothing gets by them when in fact just about everything does. Jack pushes harder and harder throughout the film for Jenny to go to Oxford. It becomes clear that his reason isn’t for her to simply get an education and become a better person when he routinely puts money ahead of Jenny’s education and own interests. What viewers eventually find out is that Jack values financial security more than anything else. He only becomes aware of how foolish this philosophy is after Jenny drops out of school and finds out that David is a married man. He’s extremely upset with Jenny and her actions until she points out that silly school girls are always seduced by older men – their parents are the ones that shouldn’t be. Jack realizes that he’s made the mistake of allowing David to hurt Jenny’s life due to his mistaken belief that financial security is what matters in the world. “All my life I’ve been scared and I didn’t want you to be scared. That’s why I wanted you to go to Oxford.” Jack’s allowed his own vision of what he thinks the world should be like, Jenny marrying a rich husband, obscure how the world actually is - Jenny being tricked by an unscrupulous man. When at last he accepts this, Jack can finally take the correct view, encouraging Jenny to go to Oxford so she can learn and be happy. This, along with Jenny’s complete experience throughout the film (that there’s no easy way in life or as she says, “The life I want, there is no shortcut”), shows us that any education worth having comes with its share of trauma.

As much as one would like to say that an education is a good thing, after having many experiences and enduring suffering to get it, one realizes that everyone’s worldview is different and both positive and negative things stem from just about any worldview. David clearly has had his fair share of experiences and mistakes. These however haven’t seemed to give him a good education or positively affected his worldview. A line David says early on in the film, although said in a joking manner, probably best describes his worldview formation. “I study what I believe they call the university of life. I didn’t get a very good degree there.” We see throughout the film that David’s education has indeed failed him. Yet, even Jenny’s worldview at the end of the film isn’t without its own negative aspects. An Education was based on the memoirs of Lynn Barber, whom the character of Jenny is based off of. Here’s what Lynn had to say about her entire experience, “What did I get from Simon [The David character in the movie]? An education - the thing my parents always wanted me to have. I learned a lot in my two years with Simon. … My experience with Simon entirely cured my craving for sophistication. By the time I got to Oxford, I wanted nothing more than to meet kind, decent, straightforward boys my own age, no matter if they were gauche or virgins. … But there were other lessons Simon taught me that I regret learning. I learned not to trust people; I learned not to believe what they say but to watch what they do; I learned to suspect that anyone and everyone is capable of "living a lie". I came to believe that other people - even when you think you know them well - are ultimately unknowable. Learning all this was a good basis for my subsequent career as an interviewer, but not, I think, for life. It made me too wary, too cautious, too ungiving. I was damaged by my education." The film shows how wonderful, and yet still terrible, an education can truly be. It also illustrates how profound of an impact individuals’ mistakes can have on others close to them. When it comes to developing worldviews, it would appear that many people have some sort of stake in the process.

An important thing to remember is that a worldview is not a static thing; it’s dynamic, incorporating all of one’s mistakes and experiences. This in turn means that individuals’ worldviews can continually impact their lives in new ways, both positively and negatively. With so many variables and choices in a person’s life today, living a good, positive life may be seen as an extremely intimidating task. However, people can take comfort in the fact that everyone makes mistakes and that these mistakes can only make one stronger if one is willing to acknowledge and learn from them. Yes, getting an education and developing a good worldview is hard, but the end result is sweet.

Christianity and American Culture

American popular culture may be one of the most beautiful yet perverted things in existence. Beautiful in the sense of the emotional narratives and creativity it can express. Take the television program LOST for instance. The show masterfully displayed fully human, emotional experiences and stories in a new and imaginative setting. The audience was transported to a unique world where they could dare to dream. Yet this unique world still had deep emotional resonance as viewers could relate to the show’s characters’ feelings and stories. Unfortunately though, this free expression isn’t always put into practice by much of popular culture. Instead, we see human creativity stifled and marred by some of the terrible ideologies and ethics that our society and culture hold.

While it may be easy to talk about the various ideological systems that have seeped their way into American popular culture, it’s harder to actively identify said systems, analyzing the impact they have on our cultural expression. This course has greatly helped me to better diagnose and become increasingly aware of the problems that exist in popular culture today. In particular, after taking this course I have become more aware of the struggle for equality in American culture. Although equality is a core American value, close inspection of American culture uncovers an underlying power imbalance that should generate concern in American Christians.

One area where this power imbalance manifests itself is in the area of gender representation. In an astounding number of cultural texts patriarchal language and images perpetuate inequality through language and images that denigrate females, silencing women by denying them a voice, and by portraying women as lacking. In a country where men and women are supposedly equal, we see a systematic representation in popular culture that suggests just the opposite. Judging by media representations of gender normalizations, it would seem that gender inequality is not a problem of the past; rather, it is a major problem still plaguing our society today.

Race is another area where the power imbalance facing popular culture is abundantly clear. A claim that Americans often make is that everyone has a voice in this country. However, popular culture fails to express this as minorities are often portrayed in harmful stereotypes. Instead of coming across as unique, engaging characters, minorities often seem to be silenced by being placed in a comedic role or in a role that exists to serve as a means for white characters to use to achieve an end. In American popular culture one can see hegemonic whiteness in action as white value systems and ideals are attempted to be passed off as the values that all individuals in America should strive towards.

Perhaps the most disturbing way that inequality attempts to hide itself within American culture is through the perpetuation of the “American dream.” Despite all of the areas that contribute to the power imbalance in culture, many people fail to see and understand them due to the myth that “anyone can shake free of the limiting past in a struggling ascent toward the realization of promise in a gracious future” (Benre and Hefner). With this idea firmly implanted into many Americans’ consciousnesses, it becomes extremely hard for them to recognize and respond to the power imbalance that American culture faces.

With these ideas and observations in mind how do Christians respond to the challenges that American culture presents them with? One of the best ways to overcome any problem is through awareness and questioning. Individuals are often simply content with drinking in the messages culture sends without being fully aware of what messages mean and the implications that they carry. Many individuals will sit down in their nice, comfy, lazy-boy recliners after a hard day’s work and simply “veg out” while watching television or a movie. People don’t comprehend that various texts such as commercials and television shows that they are being bombarded with are drawing them into the systematic ideology that American culture holds. Individuals don’t take the time to examine and discuss with others the texts that they are being subjected to. They don’t question or critically examine the information presented to them. Instead, they allow themselves to fall into a state of slothfulness, letting American culture shape the interactions they have with it. If Christians want to break free of the ethic provided by American culture and truly serve the kingdom of heaven, they need to actively examine pop-culture as a whole and purposefully discuss it and their findings with other Christians, striving for God-honoring conversations, insightful knowledge, and potential paths of effective action. In this manner, humans can begin to subdue the popular culture’s influence and promote a Christian ethic.

After this questioning and examination, there is still more work for Christians left to do. If they stop short and only identify and spread awareness about the problems that exist within culture today, then no progress will have been made. If somebody goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with diabetes and doesn’t seek any sort of treatment, then nothing will change and they won’t get better. In fact, it is very likely that things will only get much worse. This is why Christians need to have a proactive response to the problems that they identify in popular culture.

Two of the best ways to do this are through creation and cultivation. If Christians are to create culture then they must find creative ways to do so that can be consumed by a broad audience. The option of creation isn’t available to most Christians. Few will find themselves in positions such as directors or writers that can do so. If Christians can’t create positive texts that fight against the problems that plague our culture then they need to cultivate culture. This means preserving or spreading existing texts that capture or portray certain positive elements that fight against the harmful generalizations perpetuated by culture. By creating and cultivating, Christians can muster an appropriate response that begins to combat the existing problems in American culture.

Stereotypes in The Big Bang Theory

I realize that it has been quite sometime since I've last posted on my blog. I hereby apologize for my extreme neglectfulness. Now that fall semester is over I have quite a few papers and essays I'm willing to publish on the blog and I will be doing so over the next few weeks. I may even write a couple new things (exclusively for this blog :P) over break. So, to kick things off here's a little piece I wrote for my communication class on stereotype usage in the popular CBS sitcom, The Big Bang Theory.

There are three universal topics of conversation in America: the weather, relationships, and television. Whether for good or ill, television has become a dependable, influential fixture in our conversations. We talk about it at water coolers, on internet forums, over drinks with friends, and on the phone with loved ones who may live thousands of miles away. Whether the topic is reality shows, sitcoms, dramas, or political talk shows, television is a source of commonality between millions of individuals. However, to hold onto a large audience, television shows need to make some “sacrifices," employing various stereotypes to easily generate humor and inform viewers how certain characters fit into the mythos of a show. While these sacrifices may lead to some negative effects, the utility and potential positive effects make stereotypes an extremely useful tool to employ in television programs. A case in point is CBS’s The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory is a traditionally-shot sitcom about two physicists, Leonard and Sheldon, and the various situations they find themselves in with their friends, Rajesh, Howard, and Penny. The show began airing in September 2007 and has steadily attracted a wide audience, becoming the highest-rated live action comedy among the coveted young-adult demographic (ages 18-34).

One character on The Big Bang Theory who clearly falls into the territory of being a stereotyped persona is Rajesh "Raj" Koothrappali, portrayed by Kunal Nayyar. As an Indian astrophysicist, Raj displays many characteristic often associated with both Indians (or foreigners) and nerds. The character speaks with a thick Indian accent and often makes remarks about how great certain aspects of America are compared to Indian practices, illustrating the common behavior of Indians admiring Americans. Raj also suffers from a form of selective mutisim which prevents him from speaking to women – unless he is inebriated. This inability to talk to women seems to play into both the idea that male nerds have trouble talking to the opposite sex and the stereotype that young, foreign men having difficulty communicating with attractive women. Additionally, Raj’s parents are frequently shown trying to interfere with his romantic life – strengthening the association between Raj and what Americans believe to be typical Indian characteristics. Finally, Raj being both a nerd and Indian plays off of the resonance had by Americans between individuals of Asian ancestry being nerds versus the dissonance of Hispanic or African individuals being nerds. Viewers are encouraged to take Asians nerds seriously, while black nerds such as Steve Urkel are viewed humorously, because they don't fit into society's conception of nerds.

Another stereotyped character on the show is Howard Wolowitz, portrayed by Simon Helberg - a nerdy, Jewish, aerospace engineer. Wolowitz still lives at home with his extremely loud, overly informative, obnoxious mother. He is also explicitly portrayed as the creepiest and least likable character on the show. Wolowitz is completely out of touch with women and usually just ends up offending them when he attempts to interact with them. Here viewers are presented with several traits all popularly associated with young Jewish men. Wolowitz is very comparable in many ways with the famous Jewish sitcom character George Costanza of NBC’s Seinfeld, who also lives with his mother and is woefully inept at interacting with women.

One other significant stereotype on The Big Bang Theory is Penny – played by Kaley Cuoco – the protagonists’ next-door neighbor. Penny is pigeonholed into her stereotype so strongly that the writers have never even given the character a last name. She fits right into the typical “girl next door” character type in several ways. Firstly, she’s blonde and very attractive. She also hails from the Midwest (Nebraska) and works as a waitress as she tries to become a professional actress. Penny is initially portrayed as a sweet, unintelligent individual who gets by on her good looks and charm rather than possessing a strong intellect or talents. Finally, Penny fits the stereotype of a beautiful young neighbor by being presented as rather sexually promiscuous. Men are often seen leaving her apartment the morning after she's been on a date, and in episode 401,“The Robotic Manipulation,” Sheldon seems to accurately estimate the number of Penny’s sexual partners to be thirty-one.

Examining these examples, one could contend that the show uses stereotypes in two main ways. The first purpose is to generate comic relief at minimal investment. The common stereotypes incorporated in The Big Bang Theory are quite familiar to the majority of its audience. This allows the show to allot its time to better set up the main story threads it wants to promote while investing little to no time generating the secondary chuckles that sitcoms seem to require. In essence, using stereotypes often nets a show the best “bang for its buck.” While hour-long dramas have the time to develop side characters and situations, sitcoms writers know that time is at a premium. Networks expect them to fit as many laughs into a twenty-one minute time slot as possible. Character development is not essential to a sitcom, because the constantly changing scenarios provide for enough entertainment.

We can see stereotypes used to set up humor in The Big Bang Theory in a number of situations. One such case is in episode 108,“The Grasshopper Experiment.” In this case Raj’s parents – being the controlling, match-making Indian parents that they are – try to set him up with a woman from India. This situation based upon a stereotype allows humor to be found in multiple ways, including Raj taking up drinking to speak to women, Raj making a fool of himself in front of his arranged date, and Raj’s parents’ reactions when they find out the unfortunate results of said date. A similar situation occurs in episode 223, “The Monopolar Expedition.” Towards the end of this episode we see Raj’s and Howard’s over-controlling parents going at each other when their sons announce plans to go to the North Pole for a science experiment. Their ethnic backgrounds are played off each other to generate maximum comedic effect. Throughout the series one can see a plethora of simple jokes that require certain stereotypes in order to work. Without such stereotypes, much of the show's easily-generated side humor simply wouldn’t function.

The second primary purpose stereotypes serve in the series is to provide a shortcut in establishing who its characters are as people and how they fit into the show's mythos. In the very first episode we are introduced to all five main characters, and the stereotypes they are portrayed to fit immediately allow the audience to get a solid grasp on what it can expect from them. Raj is the awkward foreigner, Howard is the creepy Jewish guy living with his mom, and Penny is the desirable but dim girl next door. After one episode, with little exposure to these characters, the audience has a solid foundation for how to perceive them. Again, the show is using stereotypes to better allocate its resources, allowing it to focus on the main characters of Leonard and Sheldon.

It's important to note that these stereotypes are only a starting point for these characters. While certain elements of the stereotypes remain in place – such as Raj having an Indian accent, Wolowitz living with his mother, and Penny being attractive – others are removed in order for the characters to develop and show more complexity. In Episode 217, “The Terminator Decoupling,” Raj is seen interacting with a woman in a positive way, something not initially seen on the show. In Episode 212, “The Killer Robot Instability,” Wolowitz shows a sensitive side, and the audience is given an explanation for why he comes off as creepy and inept. Finally, in episode 207, “The Panty Piñata Polarization,” Penny is seen to possess a keen mind, proving herself to be an extremely capable foe for Sheldon. All of these significant developments take place in season two, which lends itself to the idea that the stereotypes were used as springboards, allowing characters to exist in a familiar form until the show had time to better define them.

While they clearly serve a useful purpose for shows, stereotypes can also have a negative effect, reinforcing and perpetuating prejudices of audience members. Seeing a character in a stereotypical role adds credence to the stereotype. However, as shown in the previous paragraph, the use of stereotypes can be a net positive if they are eventually explored and pursued by a show. If a show can establish a character of a particular stereotyped group and then turn certain conceptions of that character completely around, the audience’s perceptions may be changed. Counterexamples and surprises in the stories may bring traditional views into question. Of course, this is not always the case. Rather than adjusting the given stereotype to fit the character, the audience will sometimes chose to instead move said character out of that stereotypical group. Even in these cases, it still seems that audience members make a little progress into better understanding stereotypes.

As more and more television shows are produced, we can expect the use of stereotypes to continue. Despite the negative effects they may carry, they are simply too efficient at providing humor and establishing characters to be simply tossed aside. However, one can hope that as more shows employ stereotypes, these stereotypes will begin to dilute somewhat, due to audiences being shown so many variations of the same type of character. While this may simply cause broad stereotypes to fracture into smaller, more specific stereotypes, doing so will reduce the amount of generalization that each stereotype encompasses. Ironically enough, the continued use of stereotypes may, in time, show audiences more nuanced sides of various, stereotyped groups that exist in today’s television landscape.

(Special thanks to my lovely sister, Sarah Joy Hewitt for the input and corrections she provided me with for this piece.)

Some Things Are Just too Easy to Say

Some things are just too easy to say...

Whether you'll admit it or not, I know that some things are just too easy to say. Yes, go on, spout off your words hoping beyond hope that they will bring you the comfort and refuge that you seek; but I won't be so easily deceived by your antics and disillusion - no sir. I know what I need to say and when I need to say it. Do you see adults wasting time counting to three?

No, wait. Please wait - don't leave. I didn't mean that... it's just... well... fine. I'll say it.

I...

You know, some things are just too easy to say.

Freedom and Government (from a Christian Perspective)

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend one of Calvin’s “Unlearn Week” events entitled What Does It Mean to be American: Considering Glen Beck. Various attendees contended that Beck is an outsider, patriotic, an individual who “means what he says and says what he means”, and/or charismatic. This leads into a discussion on the question: “Is Glenn Beck radical?” This line of questioning turned out to be rather unproductive and left a great deal of disagreement of two questions: “Should the founding fathers be revered/respected?” and “What was America founded on (what’s the crux of the constitution) and have we lost this quality?”

Addressing the first may be more difficult than some would imagine. It would seem the majority of Americans have been raised in a tradition of putting America’s founding fathers up on a pedestal - I myself feel as if I have been raised in this tradition. I contend that while the founding fathers were extremely important in forming this country, they are in fact only human and shouldn’t be idolized. We should show respect for their (sometimes) heroic action and courage to stand up for what they believed in, but we shouldn’t go so far as to think they were infallible and always knew what was best. For instance, a number of them were involved with the persecution and violation of Native Americans and their rights. It may also be argued that they pushed a white male, upper/middle class hegemony that is emulated by many conservatives to this day. The list goes on of questionable, shameful acts that some of them participated in. Yet, despite these acts I can’t condone, I do believe that we can still look to what they valued/founded our country on along with their sacrifices and bravery. There are bad apples in every orchard. To burn the entire orchard down because of them seems like a bit of a waste from my point of view.

I think it fairly safe to say that a key point in the battlefield of American politics has been the question of what value(s) the country was founded on and what exactly we should do with the constitution. It seems to me that America was founded upon the idea of freedom. The constitution is a document written in that spirit, laying out a way to practically give freedom during the time period of the late 1700’s. We can see freedom being pursued throughout American history by various groups that came to America in the hopes of escaping persecution - examples include groups such as the Puritans and Jews. I won’t really try to pursue/prove this point any further because I think it to be pretty obvious and self-explanatory. I will though touch on a complaint in response to this. If America was founded on freedom, then why did it allow slavery through its first seventy to eighty years of existence? In this valid complaint we see the common clash of what is ideal versus what is practical/possible. Often times, we as a society have to (rightfully or wrongly) make a compromise between these two qualities. I don’t know if there is an adequate answer I can give on whether or not we should compromise - and if we do what that balance should look like. I will say though that if slavery (which a great number of founding fathers opposed) had been banned, the United States likely would never have gotten off of the ground. If our country barely survived the Civil War after establishing itself, how would it have endured a similar struggle when it was such a weak fledgling country? It would seem that the founding fathers were faced with the choice of having a country with legalized slavery or not having a country all together.

Coming back to the point of freedom, we get into the constant argument of the role of government and what its definition should be. Essentially, the argument between having a large, powerful government versus having a small, weaker government boils down to how individuals think individuals can be most free and what government should be (simply a means to individual freedom or something else). I myself stick to a definition where the government allows us to be free and make healthy choices that don’t violate others. Even if we can agree this in principle, we can’t always agree on what it means in practice. For instance, does the new healthcare program infringe upon our freedom by taking away some of our choice regarding our own healthcare, or does it promote freedom – allowing individuals to make healthy choices and not be bogged down with the concerns of not having healthcare? Does it do a good job promoting our right to life (which is an essential component of freedom)?

Going in this direction I think it's important to examine how Christians view government. First of all, let me be very clear that I believe the Bible teaches both social justice and personal responsibility. This leads me to think that both need to be upheld and pursued in the world. How is this done? Well, again we come down to an argument of what the role of government should be; in this case, what are the roles of both government and the church? How do they overlap, and if they do, should they at all? I find it interesting that the Conservatives are the ones who are often accused of bringing their religious views into politics (often on issues such as abortion and gay marriage) while liberal Christians seem just as “guilty” of bringing the Bible’s message of social justice into politics. Let me state that I believe in the separation of Church and State as it was intended and that this idea is of vital importance - protecting all religions (theoretically) from governmental prejudice and persecution. However, asking someone to leave religion out of their values is equivalent to asking a white, middle-class, small-business owner from Texas to forget that he’s all of these things when he interacts with the world and makes political decisions. It’s pretty darn hard to do. So, while religion shouldn’t directly dictate government, it is unavoidable that some aspects of religion seep into politics. Anyway, back to the argument of the role of the church versus government (from a Christian perspective).

In an ideal world I think it should be rather obvious to most that the church should be in charge of social justice. I think we would see a church that is willing and able to help everyone with their financial needs; in essence, one would see the church practice its own form of socialism (as we see the apostles doing in the New Testament). However, we can also quite clearly see that we don’t live in an ideal world. Throughout history the church has proven to be ineffective at its mission and often hostile, violent, and insensitive. With this in mind, many Christians see the government as a way to enable the social justice that the world and this country lack. This all boils down to whether we should try to use the government to enforce social justice; if so, is this approach right from a political standpoint? Here I will leave everyone to their own thoughts; I’ve rambled on quite long enough.

(Thanks for reading. I’m trying to write more for the blog but due to this, quality of posts may be reduced - so please bear with me. Also, what do you think of the new look?)

My Quick, Informal Glee Critique

I have seen three episodes of Glee: The Lady Gaga episode from season one and both season two episodes. I have found all three lacking. I know Glee is an extremely popular show and I'm trying to figure out why. Yes to some degree it is simply opinion, but there are some universal factors in regards to television shows that should guide our opinions. For Glee I examined 3 factors.
1 - Are the characters likable and is there satisfying progression in the storyline/storytelling? From what I've seen firsthand and the summaries I've watched I would tend to say no. The characters seem uninspired to me, fitting into the usual high school stereotypes without too much likability - or, in my case, relatability. Plot lines seem to be who is sleeping with who mixed in with trying to gain popularity or reveling in a lack of it.
2 - Is there good comedic value in Glee (since it falls under the genre of comedy/musical, I think it fair to judge this component, especially considering what one might call traditional drama components - see my previous factor - are greatly lacking)? Again, I would say no. I've seen little humor at all and the bit I've seen seems to be trying to play off of high school elements in ways that have been done again and again. The little comedy there is simply seems to fall flat.
3 - Is the music good? Well, here there may be many varying opinions that I can see some merit in. The music is generally catchy - in a show tunes kind of way - but this catchiness often seems to come at the expense of substance. Also, many of the covers seem to really strip the original versions of their artistic merit by replacing it with simply fun and enjoyment. Is this wrong? I would argue yes, but others may not see it that way. I think pop culture should be more than just amusement.
The bottom line is that I have trouble seeing what's so enjoyable about Glee. Also, I don't see many elements that give Glee an overall message worth watching. (I'll admit, there does seem to be a strong theme of individuality and acceptance present throughout the show, albeit, not always presented in the best possible manner.) However, I've only seen three episodes of the show so perhaps there is more I haven't seen. I have tried to watch enough of Glee to give it a fair critique and I feel that I have seen enough to give my two cents. That being said, what do you fans of Glee think? What compels you to watch the show and what themes and elements do you see presented in the show?

Free Will and Augustine on the Existence, yet Nonexistence, of Evil

Free Will

Throughout the course of human history a question has been frequently asked and heavily debated – the question of whether or not human beings have free will. During my extremely brief existence, I have searched for an answer I believe to be correct and have often struggled to come to a satisfactory answer. What I have come to realize however is that regardless of whether or not I am a “free being,” I must still act as if I am one.

Why must we act the same way regardless of the truth? Well, even if free will doesn’t exist we must act like it does so that we can live in society. If we don’t act as if free will exists, then how do we punish or reward individuals that commit bad or good acts? If we don’t believe in free will then I can rob a bank and if I’m caught, I can simply say that whomever/whatever (be it my environment, my genes, or God) is control made me do it. A puppet can only do what its puppeteer commands it to do. In order to live as civilized human beings we must believe in free will or civilization will crumble. We must accept personal accountability in order to function correctly (or what we view as correctly) and that’s what acting as if free will exists allows.

As I continue on in life I hope to come to a better understanding of free will. I see obstacles in believing either side which makes me wonder if the answer to the question isn’t a simple yes or no. Perhaps I need to ask different questions in order to find the elusive answer I believe is out there.

Augustine on the Existence, yet Nonexistence, of Evil

“God saw everything that he had made and indeed, it was very good.” (From Genesis 1:31) As one finishes reading the first chapter of Genesis, he or she is left with the knowledge that everything God created was good. He or she is then left to wonder how evil can be explained. We see and recognize it in our lives but yet how can it exist when God, who created all things, is good and created all things good? Augustine’s answer to this question was that “nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity.” Evil as the absence of (a greater) good is similar to a hole being the absence of ground or dark being the absence of light. One can’t have holes in the air because there simply isn’t any ground there.

I believe that Augustine is correct in his belief that everything that exists is good. I agree with his reasoning on this position, which goes something like this: Everything that exists or has being was created by God. God does not and cannot (because He is good) create anything that is not good. Therefore, everything that exists is good. If the two premises stated are true, then the conclusion must be as well because his reasoning is valid.

In relation to this, what I find interesting (although I’m sure that either there is an explanation for it or I am mistaken on the Reformed position– I’m not from a Reformed background) is that the Reformed Church believes in both predestination and Augustine’s view on evil. I don’t understand how Augustine’s view on evil can work without free will. (Yes, free will and predestination aren’t the same thing, but I would argue that they are extremely interconnected.) Augustine’s view would seem to indicate that the act of turning from a greater good to a lesser good is what evil is. We can’t choose evil because it is not a thing, but we can choose a lesser good and turn away from God by doing so. This means that the source of evil is in the free will of humans. If free will is cut out of the picture then what is the source of evil?

One other interesting, relevant thought is the idea that no moral growth will occur in the next life of the New Heaven and the New Earth. I would argue that God allows free will so that humans can grow and develop as they face struggles with evil. If in the next life no evil exists, as scripture would seem to indicate, then there can’t be any more moral development because we won’t be allowed to choose between a greater and lesser good. It would seem that there is an urgency to morally grow in this life because once we die we’re done growing. This seems to indicate a loss (one could argue, in a sense, by choice) of our free will in the next life because our free will appears to be the source of evil.

Whether or not anything I have written in the previous two paragraphs is true or logical (although I would hope there is some truth and reason scattered in), I still think it’s safe to say that Augustine’s view on good and existence is not only interesting in itself, but also for all of the other thoughts that can spring up by its examination and discussion.

A Few Thoughts on Death

As one of life’s two certainties (at least according to Benjamin Franklin) one would think that human beings would spend more time contemplating death. Instead, many (primarily young) individuals spend what (little) time they do think, pondering questions and situations that either are unlikely to or simply never arise. While these musings aren’t necessarily bad or unproductive, as they can lead to self-discovery, it is still quite odd that humans too often neglect thinking about the only event guaranteed to happen after they are born. I suppose one may conclude that humans are afraid of the “mystery” (or unknown) of death and therefore go into the common state of denial. When society finally does see the reality of death, often having to be shocked into doing so by horrific events such as September 11^th, no one – not even groups like Christians – can come to a consensus on what exactly happens when one finally “kicks the bucket.” (As one who finally does discuss death may call it in an attempt to euphonize the topic.) Due to this befuddlement, over the course of history humans have come up with a number of theories attempting to explain, as some might call it, “what lies beyond the grave.”

I believe that the correct view of death to be the conscious intermediate state theory since this theory best fits with my interpretation of Scripture concerning death, life-after-death, and (as NT Wright would call it) life after “life-after-death.” Why? First of all, I believe humans have both mental and physical components. After humans’ physical bodies die, their souls/minds remain conscious and are sent to heaven if Jesus knew them. (Matthew 7 - I use this particular terminology because it is the simplest description with, what I think most would call, uncontroversial language.) Eventually, after an unknown - to all but God - period of time, there will be a resurrection, for those that Jesus knew, returning them to their physical bodies, in which everything in the Earth, including their bodies, “will be made new.” Heaven and Earth will be joined together in a new reality.

Comparing my aforementioned ideas to the different views on death, it is fairly easy to see which view fits most closely with my own. To begin with, the three materialistic view of death (extinction, extinction/re-creation, and resuscitation) can all be eliminated from the list of potential matches because they contradict my belief in dualism. Next, let’s eliminate the Greek view because it clashes with our physical bodies being resurrected. Reincarnation can be thrown out too because it as well clashes with our souls being returned to our remade physical bodies. Annihilation too can be scratched of the list of possibilities because I believe those not sent to heaven and eventually resurrected will be sent to hell rather than completely destroyed. Finally, immediate re-embodiment can be eliminated since it doesn’t fit with my beliefs of souls temporarily residing in heaven, or with our return to our physical bodies and the renewal of earth. So, with all of these views easily being seen as contradictory to my own, what views are left? The remaining views are soul sleep, and conscious intermediate state.

To decide between these final two theories, let me state one more belief. In the gap between death and resurrection I believe our souls will exhibit some level of consciousness (among other reasons, Luke 23:43 would seem rather odd if this was not true). Therefore, the soul sleep view can be eliminated and I am left with the conscious intermediate state, since it is the only view that does not contradict any of my stated beliefs.

Does it really matter what I, or anyone for that matter, believe about death? Well, I’ll leave for you to decide. Sure death will come whether or not it is contemplated and any sort of knowledge of what occurs at death won’t directly help. However, the ramifications of this knowledge are incredibly important. No matter what view of death one subscribes to, the implications of that view will directly impact the way one lives his or her life. So no, you don’t have to think about death. However, if you don’t think about death, then how are you living?

How Important are Pleasure and Pain? Which, if Either, is Ultimate?

Epicurus’ idea that pleasure and pain constitute good and bad captured my attention the most. His belief that what is good is pleasurable and what’s bad is painful is very interesting to examine. Looking at the idea from a physical perspective, most humans realize that when something is wrong with the body, one often (although not always) experiences pain. For instance, if an individual has a cavity, his or her tooth hurts. If someone has a broken leg, then pain will be experienced in the leg that is broken. A link can be seen between things not working properly (bad) and the perception of pain. Likewise, the same can be said about things working properly and the feeling of good. However, far too often humans have to experience pain before they are willing to say that the body operating normally is pleasurable. I remember as a child being sick with the flu and thinking about how great it felt to not have the flu and have my body operating normally (good). This fits well with Epicurus’ thought that pain is the absence of pleasure.

While there undeniably is some kind of link between pleasure and pain with good and bad, I don’t think that good or bad are determined by what is pleasurable or painful. I would argue that holding the previously mentioned view leads to the belief of moral relativism. Pain and pleasure are not experienced in the same way by any two individuals. Since pain and pleasure vary from person to person, then what is good, and what is bad, must then vary from person to person. For instance, many people understand murder to create pain. (In this case let’s only think about emotional pain to the person committing the murder. Completely forget about the person being killed.) Therefore, murder is bad because it is painful. However, some individuals derive pleasure from killing another human being (think of certain serial killers). To them then, murder is good because it is pleasurable. Murder being bad for some while good for others would appear to be a case of moral relativism.

Despite some disagreements I have with Epicurus, I strongly support his idea that, pain is the absence of pleasure. I think most people would agree that heaven is good/pleasurable while hell is bad/painful. Christians believe that God is good and is the ultimate source of our pleasure. So, in this comparison of heaven versus hell, which defines the other (or which is ultimate)? Well, we know heaven to describe being in the direct presence of God (while this isn’t the best definition it generates the point) while hell is the absence of God. Expanding these definitions we can say that heaven is pleasurable while hell is the complete absence of pleasure. So, it would appear that pleasure is ultimate thus leading to the conclusion that pain is the absence of pleasure.

The Path of My Travels

It’s a relatively warm day as I stroll through a small patch of trees in the confines of a rather large city. In such a small area one would think that the path he or she walks would be short, winding to accommodate for conditions. Yet, as I turn a corner, I step onto a long, straight path that stretches as far as I can see; or, perhaps simply as far as I dare look. I exhale deeply, preparing myself for the steps to come. These will be costly steps. They have great meaning and purpose although I don’t know why. I can simply feel their gravitas. After a moment of consideration I finally act.

I take a step.