The weekend the number one movie in America was the verbosely titled "Lee Daniels' The Butler" aka that Oprah movie with Snape as Ronald Reagan. Of course the big question that everyone has been asking is WTF is up with that title.
Above the title naming is often used when a popular filmmaker is involved. With the exception of "For Colored Girls" all of Tyler Perry's projects as director have started with his name (i.e.Tyler Perry's Temptation: If You Cheat on your Husband You'll get AIDS). This way even people who may not know anything about the movie know that the popular Tyler Perry is involved. In the days of video stores, above the title naming also insured that your films would all be grouped together which increased sales.
But Lee Daniels doesn't have the box office drawing power of Tyler Perry. His only previous directing work of note was the acclaimed "Precious" and the roundly mocked "The Paperboy". So, what's with the naming?
The story you will find most places is a variation of this one from BET saying that Warner Brothers contested the use of the title "The Butler" because they own the copyright to a 1916 short film of the same title.
But to anyone with some film history, this excuse doesn't make any sense. There have been tons of movies with the same name. "Crash" could refer to the Oscar winning movie about racism in LA or the NC-17 James Spader film about people jerking off to car crashes. "Bad Boys" is the title of both a 1980s Sean Penn movie and a 1990s Will Smith flick. And don't forget the ultimate sadness experienced by anyone who turned on "The Avengers" only to find the craptacular remake of the TV series instead of the Joss Whedon Marvel movie mash-up.
The copyright excuse doesn't fly from a legal perspective either since, to quote the US Copyright Office, "copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." Similarly titled films could run afoul of trademark law if the names could create consumer confusion, but that seems unlikely when one of the movies has Cyclops doing a Boston accent and the other is silent.
Turns out that this is a contract law issue, not intellectual property. Filmmakers who want their work to be shown in theaters must have MPAA approval. These are the people who give out film ratings (a process detailed in the must see documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated"). They also run the Title Registration Bureau. Registering your film title with the bureau is voluntary but all of the major studios take part in it because they don't want to have to risk delaying a film over a last minute lawsuit from someone claiming that you are violating their trademark. By using the Bureau you agree that you will use the MPAA arbitration process in any title disputes.
So, WB, who own the rights to the Uma Thurman "The Avengers" didn't challenge the Marvel movie title. The same thing with all those other examples of same name titles. If nobody complains then it is no issue. This time someone complained.
According to this article from The Hollywood Reporter, the name issue only came up when the studio behind "Lee Daniel's The Butle"r and the studio that owns Silent Movie "The Butle"r were having issues negotiating a different deal. The Butler naming got caught up in that. Since everyone in Hollywood is an asshole now the movie has a stupid name and Lee Daniels looks like a Tyler Perry knockoff.
So, there you go. Why is "The Butler" called "Lee Daniels' The Butler"? Because people are assholes.
This does remind me of the one other interesting MPAA naming issue that I recall. The MPAA tried to revoke their approval of South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut's title after first granting clearance. The reason? Someone explained that it was a penis joke. But it was too late to take renounce their approval.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Problematic Good of Adoption
A friend from England asked me to explain adoption to them. They were writing a story set in the US involving a couple adopting a child and wanted to know how these things were done. I explained the legal outline (agency vs. private vs. foster/adopt and so on) but I didn't tell her the rest of the story. The story about why I feel so weird about adoption.
My Grandmother placed a child for adoption. It was an inter-family adoption and I've known him my whole life since he reunited with her when he was an adult. So, I certainly know that adoption is a good thing in theory. But there is certainly a problem with the way that it is often used in the United States.
In a perfect world women would place children for adoption because they did not want to parent them. But too often the reality is that a woman does want to parent but opts for adoption because they want to give the child a better life. That is where I start to feel icky about the entire process. This concept of adoption being a way to give a child a better life.
It's problematic because of what better often means in this context. Better means a two parent home. Better means parents who have gone to college or work in white collar jobs. Better means money. Better means opportunities.
This concept of better has two sides: shaming people who don't have those things and respecting people who do have them. There shouldn't be shame from being a single parent or respect for being in a marriage. It's the quality of those relationships that deserve praise and not simply having them. A woman placing a child for adoption because she is single is rarely reminded that marriage is not a permanent state. Her child could end up being raised in a single parent home if the couple divorces or one parent dies.
The fact that an adoptive couple has more education is hardly a reason to expect them to give a child a better life. A degree doesn't mean that someone is particularly clever or gifted. And money is also no indicator of an ability to provide for a child. We've seen that many people who seem to be living large are actually just deeply in debt. A lost job or turn in the market may leave them in the same financial state as the woman placing a child into adoption.
As for adoptive families being able to provide better opportunities, that is hardly guaranteed. Barack Obama was the child of a single mother who was able to become President. Reality television it littered with the offspring of rich and powerful people who are barely able to function.
As a society, I don't want women to think that the best hope for their child is in giving it to someone else to raise. If they don't want to parent then adoption is fine. But it is the women who would parent if only they had a shift in circumstances who worry me. I want to have a society where women who want to parent are given the resources to do so. Be that monetary support, or child care, or a community where women are nurtured and supported.
I think that community will also benefit families who are interested in adoption. Currently, adoption is framed as a war over resources. Birthparents have children. Adoptive parents want children. The language treats children as commodities. A child is given in adoption. If a birthparent revokes consent they are taking the baby back. But children are not things. They belong to themselves and not to parents. A more communal approach to childrearing may help alleviate the stigma of infertility.
(I can only speak for myself as a woman who has been told that I am at high risk for fertility problems should I ever decide to try to become pregnant, but such a communal society would help me feel better about my infertility. It means that I have a part to play in raising a child as an Aunt, a mentor, and a friend. It doesn't fully eliminate any maternal need, but it does give me more respect than a culture that views motherhood as a zero-sum game.)
There is something exploitative about the way adoption is practiced in America. The narrative of adoptive parents rescuing children and that adoptees should feel grateful is all wrong. The moral element needs to be eliminated from the practice. Until that time, there are still children who are in need. Adoption may be the way we address these issues currently but I still hope that one day we can make it a better practice for all parties involved.
My Grandmother placed a child for adoption. It was an inter-family adoption and I've known him my whole life since he reunited with her when he was an adult. So, I certainly know that adoption is a good thing in theory. But there is certainly a problem with the way that it is often used in the United States.
In a perfect world women would place children for adoption because they did not want to parent them. But too often the reality is that a woman does want to parent but opts for adoption because they want to give the child a better life. That is where I start to feel icky about the entire process. This concept of adoption being a way to give a child a better life.
It's problematic because of what better often means in this context. Better means a two parent home. Better means parents who have gone to college or work in white collar jobs. Better means money. Better means opportunities.
This concept of better has two sides: shaming people who don't have those things and respecting people who do have them. There shouldn't be shame from being a single parent or respect for being in a marriage. It's the quality of those relationships that deserve praise and not simply having them. A woman placing a child for adoption because she is single is rarely reminded that marriage is not a permanent state. Her child could end up being raised in a single parent home if the couple divorces or one parent dies.
The fact that an adoptive couple has more education is hardly a reason to expect them to give a child a better life. A degree doesn't mean that someone is particularly clever or gifted. And money is also no indicator of an ability to provide for a child. We've seen that many people who seem to be living large are actually just deeply in debt. A lost job or turn in the market may leave them in the same financial state as the woman placing a child into adoption.
As for adoptive families being able to provide better opportunities, that is hardly guaranteed. Barack Obama was the child of a single mother who was able to become President. Reality television it littered with the offspring of rich and powerful people who are barely able to function.
As a society, I don't want women to think that the best hope for their child is in giving it to someone else to raise. If they don't want to parent then adoption is fine. But it is the women who would parent if only they had a shift in circumstances who worry me. I want to have a society where women who want to parent are given the resources to do so. Be that monetary support, or child care, or a community where women are nurtured and supported.
I think that community will also benefit families who are interested in adoption. Currently, adoption is framed as a war over resources. Birthparents have children. Adoptive parents want children. The language treats children as commodities. A child is given in adoption. If a birthparent revokes consent they are taking the baby back. But children are not things. They belong to themselves and not to parents. A more communal approach to childrearing may help alleviate the stigma of infertility.
(I can only speak for myself as a woman who has been told that I am at high risk for fertility problems should I ever decide to try to become pregnant, but such a communal society would help me feel better about my infertility. It means that I have a part to play in raising a child as an Aunt, a mentor, and a friend. It doesn't fully eliminate any maternal need, but it does give me more respect than a culture that views motherhood as a zero-sum game.)
There is something exploitative about the way adoption is practiced in America. The narrative of adoptive parents rescuing children and that adoptees should feel grateful is all wrong. The moral element needs to be eliminated from the practice. Until that time, there are still children who are in need. Adoption may be the way we address these issues currently but I still hope that one day we can make it a better practice for all parties involved.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
A Letter to the Writer of A Letter to the Wife of my Boyfriend
Dear Writer of "A Letter to the Wife of my Boyfriend",
Life is all about deciding how to give a narrative to the things that happen to us. Some people think that everything is a sign. Others believe it is all random. You, apparently, like turning your life into a tragic romance. That's fine, I guess.
But it isn't reality.
He didn't stop the affair because he couldn't hurt you any longer. If your feelings were his primary concern he would have left the wife to be with you. Actually, he would have left his wife before being with you because he wouldn't want to place you in the position of having to keep your love a secret.
Men don't cheat because they are madly in love with the other woman. They cheat because they want to feel appreciated. You gave him something his wife couldn't. You turned his drunken kisses on the front stoop into grand romantic gestures. You made him feel like the Byronic Hero of a great tale. You appreciated every little bit of attention he gave you from the flirting over a double date to some unspecified sex act to make him stay longer. Of course he wanted to be with you. His wife didn't treat him falling asleep in her bed as a great triumph. But you did.
But all of that attention and appreciation wasn't enough for him to want to be with you full time. Maybe he realized that you were in it for the adventure. If he did leave his wife for you eventually you'd come to take him for granted the way she does. Maybe he got tired of you. Maybe he decided that the life he had with his wife was more important than the constant affirmation you gave to him.
Whatever his reasons they didn't have anything to do with you.
Life is all about deciding how to give a narrative to the things that happen to us. Some people think that everything is a sign. Others believe it is all random. You, apparently, like turning your life into a tragic romance. That's fine, I guess.
But it isn't reality.
He didn't stop the affair because he couldn't hurt you any longer. If your feelings were his primary concern he would have left the wife to be with you. Actually, he would have left his wife before being with you because he wouldn't want to place you in the position of having to keep your love a secret.
Men don't cheat because they are madly in love with the other woman. They cheat because they want to feel appreciated. You gave him something his wife couldn't. You turned his drunken kisses on the front stoop into grand romantic gestures. You made him feel like the Byronic Hero of a great tale. You appreciated every little bit of attention he gave you from the flirting over a double date to some unspecified sex act to make him stay longer. Of course he wanted to be with you. His wife didn't treat him falling asleep in her bed as a great triumph. But you did.
But all of that attention and appreciation wasn't enough for him to want to be with you full time. Maybe he realized that you were in it for the adventure. If he did leave his wife for you eventually you'd come to take him for granted the way she does. Maybe he got tired of you. Maybe he decided that the life he had with his wife was more important than the constant affirmation you gave to him.
Whatever his reasons they didn't have anything to do with you.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Queerbaiting or Shipkilling?
At ComicCon the Exec Producer of Once Upon a Time caused an uproar when he announced the show has plans for a gay relationship on the series. The angry mob wasn't the religious right, but fans of the show who ship Swan Queen (a relationship between the Evil Queen and Snow White's adult daughter Emma Swan) because along with the announcement of this future character was an official statement that Swan Queen was never going to happen and that any romantic interest between them was not intentionally written this way.
On Tumblr and Twitter Swan Queen fans are very upset, tweeting messages to the shows creators saying "I'm not intentionally saying this. Fuck You." The Swan Queen ship is one of the most vocal in the Once fandom, and have accused non-shippers of homophobia. This post, resulting from when one of the show actors stated that SQ wasn't going to happen, is a good example of some of the things the fandom says.
As a Once fan, I do NOT get Swan Queen as a couple. Both characters have had exclusively heterosexual relationships, they are constantly at odds, and the Queen tried to kill Emma at least once. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't get together. Spike and Buffy happened so anything is possible! But I never saw the obvious signs that the SQ shippers did.
What I did see was the potential for a different show. Emma is the biological mother of Henry, a child she placed for adoption. Regina is Henry's adoptive mother. Emma and Regina both are emotionally damaged people. Emma was separated from her parents and believed she was abandoned. Regina's mother killed her fiance and forced her to marry a man she didn't love. A lot of the fandom stories stripped away the fairytale background of the series to focus on a modern world where two mothers try to find a family with each other. That's what SQ fans want.
It's just that they are trying to find it in a series that is all about the fairytale background.
I can't speak about the difficulty of not being represented in the media. I'm a cis, white, straight, female. I have plenty of characters that represent me. I might hate what that representation is much of the time (like in rom coms) but I have Kitty Pryde and Veronica Mars, and the cat lady from The Simpsons. My grandmother was the daughter of Polish immigrants in a poor Chicago neighborhood. She used to tell me that she was so excited to see any movie where the brunette wasn't the bad girl. She wasn't going to see someone who looked like her or lived like her, but she took her media representations where she could. Some GLBT have told me of similar things in their own life. They didn't have shows that really represented their lives so they'd watch Saved by the Bell viewing Zach as being gay and hooking up with AC Slater.
And even though there is more queer characters in the media now, they still are not representative to the whole community. Finding representation where you can still happens. Sometimes shows take advantage of it and intentionally play up the subtext in order to get LBGT fans to tune in. This is called Queerbaiting.
That Feminist Dyke has a great overview of Queer baiting, although I disagree about the idea that Sherlock started Queer baiting in the first episode. I felt that the "we aren't a couple" was an attempt to make it clear to fans that they weren't going to be a couple. This is because many of the modern readings have included the homosexual context (such as The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes). I do believe that by the second series the show was queerbaiting, possibly because the talk about them not being a couple didn't stop the world from shipping it anyway.
Anyway, Queer baiting is a thing. It's a real thing and a real problem. Rizzoli and Isles admits that they play up the lesbian subtext even though they don't plan to ever have the girls set together. This was their promo poster for a news season.
The Once statement at SDCC seems to be the opposite of Queer baiting. It's officially not happening. To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to not think it was going to happen before now (like the statement of other writers and actors on the show and the fact that they keep trying to murder one another). And yet people are furious with the series in a way that I haven't seen people angry with Rizzoli and Isles. They are hurt that the show has ruined their ship. I shipped Marian/Guy from Robin Hood. I know about shows killing your ship (literally). But I just didn't watch the final season of the show and went into fanfiction world where they lived happily ever after. I didn't tweet threats to the producers.
But then again, Marian and Guy were a ship for me, not a representation of me. It's natural for SQ fans to be more upset. Still, I don't know what shows are supposed to do when they find out about GBLT fans who are finding unintentional subtext in their work. If they play it up they or continue they are Queer baiting. If they come out and say that it isn't going to happen then they are accused of being homophobic (because they don't come out and state that other non-canon ships aren't real) or killing the ship.
The answer, of course, if to have more representations of GLBT characters and relationships so that people didn't need to search subtext for characters that they relate with. Of course, that comes with its own set of issues I'll have to write about one day. I will point out that it is hard for me to agree with the charges of Buffy playing into the dead lesbian cliche when EVERY couple on the series met an unhappy ending. If they allowed Willow/Tara to be the only couple to be together it would be awfully paternalistic and pandering of the series.
On Tumblr and Twitter Swan Queen fans are very upset, tweeting messages to the shows creators saying "I'm not intentionally saying this. Fuck You." The Swan Queen ship is one of the most vocal in the Once fandom, and have accused non-shippers of homophobia. This post, resulting from when one of the show actors stated that SQ wasn't going to happen, is a good example of some of the things the fandom says.
As a Once fan, I do NOT get Swan Queen as a couple. Both characters have had exclusively heterosexual relationships, they are constantly at odds, and the Queen tried to kill Emma at least once. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't get together. Spike and Buffy happened so anything is possible! But I never saw the obvious signs that the SQ shippers did.
What I did see was the potential for a different show. Emma is the biological mother of Henry, a child she placed for adoption. Regina is Henry's adoptive mother. Emma and Regina both are emotionally damaged people. Emma was separated from her parents and believed she was abandoned. Regina's mother killed her fiance and forced her to marry a man she didn't love. A lot of the fandom stories stripped away the fairytale background of the series to focus on a modern world where two mothers try to find a family with each other. That's what SQ fans want.
It's just that they are trying to find it in a series that is all about the fairytale background.
I can't speak about the difficulty of not being represented in the media. I'm a cis, white, straight, female. I have plenty of characters that represent me. I might hate what that representation is much of the time (like in rom coms) but I have Kitty Pryde and Veronica Mars, and the cat lady from The Simpsons. My grandmother was the daughter of Polish immigrants in a poor Chicago neighborhood. She used to tell me that she was so excited to see any movie where the brunette wasn't the bad girl. She wasn't going to see someone who looked like her or lived like her, but she took her media representations where she could. Some GLBT have told me of similar things in their own life. They didn't have shows that really represented their lives so they'd watch Saved by the Bell viewing Zach as being gay and hooking up with AC Slater.
And even though there is more queer characters in the media now, they still are not representative to the whole community. Finding representation where you can still happens. Sometimes shows take advantage of it and intentionally play up the subtext in order to get LBGT fans to tune in. This is called Queerbaiting.
That Feminist Dyke has a great overview of Queer baiting, although I disagree about the idea that Sherlock started Queer baiting in the first episode. I felt that the "we aren't a couple" was an attempt to make it clear to fans that they weren't going to be a couple. This is because many of the modern readings have included the homosexual context (such as The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes). I do believe that by the second series the show was queerbaiting, possibly because the talk about them not being a couple didn't stop the world from shipping it anyway.
Anyway, Queer baiting is a thing. It's a real thing and a real problem. Rizzoli and Isles admits that they play up the lesbian subtext even though they don't plan to ever have the girls set together. This was their promo poster for a news season.
The Once statement at SDCC seems to be the opposite of Queer baiting. It's officially not happening. To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to not think it was going to happen before now (like the statement of other writers and actors on the show and the fact that they keep trying to murder one another). And yet people are furious with the series in a way that I haven't seen people angry with Rizzoli and Isles. They are hurt that the show has ruined their ship. I shipped Marian/Guy from Robin Hood. I know about shows killing your ship (literally). But I just didn't watch the final season of the show and went into fanfiction world where they lived happily ever after. I didn't tweet threats to the producers.
But then again, Marian and Guy were a ship for me, not a representation of me. It's natural for SQ fans to be more upset. Still, I don't know what shows are supposed to do when they find out about GBLT fans who are finding unintentional subtext in their work. If they play it up they or continue they are Queer baiting. If they come out and say that it isn't going to happen then they are accused of being homophobic (because they don't come out and state that other non-canon ships aren't real) or killing the ship.
The answer, of course, if to have more representations of GLBT characters and relationships so that people didn't need to search subtext for characters that they relate with. Of course, that comes with its own set of issues I'll have to write about one day. I will point out that it is hard for me to agree with the charges of Buffy playing into the dead lesbian cliche when EVERY couple on the series met an unhappy ending. If they allowed Willow/Tara to be the only couple to be together it would be awfully paternalistic and pandering of the series.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Upon Emergent Occasions: GOP Edition
Meditation 17:
PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him. Well that is what he gets for not planning in advance to have someone legally obligated to tell him that information. That could never happen to me. The church is limited to only the chosen few REAL TRUE CHRISTIANS. The ones who come every week to services, but not all of them because some of them might be divorced or gay or something. When the church baptizes a child, that action doesn't concern me unless I know the people. I don't have time to care for every random kid that gets baptized. And when the church buries a man, I don't care unless it is someone I know or the death somehow benefits me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; and if that author wanted me to care about other people then he'd have those people somehow involved in my life. When one man dies, we can rip out that chapter because the book is too long if we have chapters for everyone. I mean, if it was me or someone I liked we should keep the chapter. But not random people who aren't us. The torn out chapters liter the floor to be stepped on by people coming to read the books about us important people.
There was a contention as far as a suit (in which, piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled) which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that had the least money, resources, or fortune. They don't deserve to stay in bed if they don't have some money. In fact, why should we ring the bell at all? Bell ringing should be done by the poor and unfortunate so that they can be motivated to make better lives for themselves so that don't have to ring it anymore.
Great men are islands all alone in the world. Some lesser man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe should be happy. It is better off without that worthless clod. Any clod worthy of being Europe wouldn't be able to be washed away be the sea. No man's death diminishes me, because I believe that life is some zero-sum Highlander style game. When someone else loses then I must win! And I know that the bell isn't tolling for me. I'm way past that bell tolling stuff.
PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him. Well that is what he gets for not planning in advance to have someone legally obligated to tell him that information. That could never happen to me. The church is limited to only the chosen few REAL TRUE CHRISTIANS. The ones who come every week to services, but not all of them because some of them might be divorced or gay or something. When the church baptizes a child, that action doesn't concern me unless I know the people. I don't have time to care for every random kid that gets baptized. And when the church buries a man, I don't care unless it is someone I know or the death somehow benefits me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; and if that author wanted me to care about other people then he'd have those people somehow involved in my life. When one man dies, we can rip out that chapter because the book is too long if we have chapters for everyone. I mean, if it was me or someone I liked we should keep the chapter. But not random people who aren't us. The torn out chapters liter the floor to be stepped on by people coming to read the books about us important people.
There was a contention as far as a suit (in which, piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled) which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that had the least money, resources, or fortune. They don't deserve to stay in bed if they don't have some money. In fact, why should we ring the bell at all? Bell ringing should be done by the poor and unfortunate so that they can be motivated to make better lives for themselves so that don't have to ring it anymore.
Great men are islands all alone in the world. Some lesser man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe should be happy. It is better off without that worthless clod. Any clod worthy of being Europe wouldn't be able to be washed away be the sea. No man's death diminishes me, because I believe that life is some zero-sum Highlander style game. When someone else loses then I must win! And I know that the bell isn't tolling for me. I'm way past that bell tolling stuff.
Friday, July 5, 2013
The People Meant to Be Alone Forever
I want to be happy for the happiness of other people. And yet, I find that hard to do. I am the person who reads through my Facebook Newsfeed and the stories of people getting married, pictures of their children, and news of their happy events with growing resentment.
It isn't that I don't WANT them to be happy. It is envy. Purse and simple. I want those things too. I want to be able to point to people who love me and things that I'm good at. Alas, my skills fall under areas that are not very skillful. I read 5 newspapers a day. I'm quite good at remembering details of old movies.
I am not lovely nor charming nor interesting, at least not in any positive sense. I am interesting in the way you may use the word to describe the short story a friend made you read, one where all the characters are actually dead the whole time.
I just want to feel like I have some type of direction in my life. Be it a partner or a family or a career. Something with the gravity to keep me from floating away through the emptiness of space as I currently do.
"There's someone for EVERYONE," the old saying goes. Even Hitler had a girlfriend! And so I go drifting in the hope that eventually I will find the thing that is meant for me.
Yeah. Well, I realized that it doesn't exist.
Have you read Aristophanes section of Plato's Symposium. Go read it. It's great. Here's the wiki-synopses.
But I feel like he leaves out one group. A people who didn't come from these groups. Men and women born singular and without any partner. They did not threaten the Gods and so they were left alone, ignored and forgotten. I know that this group exists because I am one of them. I do not feel that I am not whole as I am, I just feel that I am directionless and powerless. Just as the primal singletons would have felt in a world filled with these joined creatures that took on the Gods.
I'm convinced that there are those of us who really are meant to be alone forever. There is not another person who can fulfill us. And we certainly are unable to make them whole. Those looking for their missing piece may stay with use for a time. We may be fun and fabulous and amazing people, be we are not their lost piece. We can't even make them happy.
The sad part is that we of the single group may find happiness with the halflings. We can find happiness with anyone, really. We aren't missing a piece of our soul and so do not understand the call of chemistry and connection. We just wish to find someone to help pass the time and entertain us. The halflings can do that. Sometimes we may hold on to them because they bring us such joy. They may hold on to use because they are afraid to be alone. But in the end we can never make them happy because we are not what they are seeking.
The world understands the lament of the halfling looking to be complete. I'm never going to be able to understand the pain that they experience as they try to find their other half. But there is a pain that comes from being one of the singletons; knowing that you're never going to be one of the majestic pairs that could take on the Gods. Yes, you are complete and whole as you are, but you are also all you are ever going to be. Stop trying to strive for more or greatness. Those things are reserved for others.
That's a painful message, but a hopeful one. It means all the energy you are putting into trying to find someone else is no longer needed. Cancel your online dating profiles and use the money to pay for a trip you always wanted to take. Stop getting up an hour early to look perfect before you leave the house (unless you enjoy it). Sleep in and know that you aren't going to scare away your soulmate. They don't exist! Stop fretting about what you are missing out on. You aren't missing it at all. It was never meant for you. Find joy in the joy of others without wondering what it means for you. It means nothing. You are COMPLETE. You are WHOLE. You are exactly who you were always meant to be.
It isn't that I don't WANT them to be happy. It is envy. Purse and simple. I want those things too. I want to be able to point to people who love me and things that I'm good at. Alas, my skills fall under areas that are not very skillful. I read 5 newspapers a day. I'm quite good at remembering details of old movies.
I am not lovely nor charming nor interesting, at least not in any positive sense. I am interesting in the way you may use the word to describe the short story a friend made you read, one where all the characters are actually dead the whole time.
I just want to feel like I have some type of direction in my life. Be it a partner or a family or a career. Something with the gravity to keep me from floating away through the emptiness of space as I currently do.
"There's someone for EVERYONE," the old saying goes. Even Hitler had a girlfriend! And so I go drifting in the hope that eventually I will find the thing that is meant for me.
Yeah. Well, I realized that it doesn't exist.
Have you read Aristophanes section of Plato's Symposium. Go read it. It's great. Here's the wiki-synopses.
His speech is an explanation of why people in love say they feel "whole" when they have found their love partner. He begins by explaining that people must understand human nature before they can interpret the origins of love and how it affects the then present time. It is, he says, because in primal times people had doubled bodies, with faces and limbs turned away from one another. As somewhat spherical creatures who wheeled around like clowns doing cartwheels, these original people were very powerful. There were three sexes: the all male, the all female, and the "androgynous," who was half male, half female. The males were said to have descended from the sun, the females from the earth and the androgynous couples from the moon. The creatures tried to scale the heights of heaven and planned to set upon the gods. Zeus thought about blasting them to death with thunderbolts, but did not want to deprive himself of their devotions and offerings, so he decided to cripple them by chopping them in half, in effect separating the two bodies.Sweet, right?
Zeus then commanded Apollo to turn their faces around and pulled the skin tight and stitched it up to form the navel which he chose not to heal so Man would always be reminded of this event. Ever since that time, people run around saying they are looking for their other half because they are really trying to recover their primal nature...Aristophanes then claims that when two people who were separated from each other find each other, they never again want to be separated.
But I feel like he leaves out one group. A people who didn't come from these groups. Men and women born singular and without any partner. They did not threaten the Gods and so they were left alone, ignored and forgotten. I know that this group exists because I am one of them. I do not feel that I am not whole as I am, I just feel that I am directionless and powerless. Just as the primal singletons would have felt in a world filled with these joined creatures that took on the Gods.
I'm convinced that there are those of us who really are meant to be alone forever. There is not another person who can fulfill us. And we certainly are unable to make them whole. Those looking for their missing piece may stay with use for a time. We may be fun and fabulous and amazing people, be we are not their lost piece. We can't even make them happy.
The sad part is that we of the single group may find happiness with the halflings. We can find happiness with anyone, really. We aren't missing a piece of our soul and so do not understand the call of chemistry and connection. We just wish to find someone to help pass the time and entertain us. The halflings can do that. Sometimes we may hold on to them because they bring us such joy. They may hold on to use because they are afraid to be alone. But in the end we can never make them happy because we are not what they are seeking.
The world understands the lament of the halfling looking to be complete. I'm never going to be able to understand the pain that they experience as they try to find their other half. But there is a pain that comes from being one of the singletons; knowing that you're never going to be one of the majestic pairs that could take on the Gods. Yes, you are complete and whole as you are, but you are also all you are ever going to be. Stop trying to strive for more or greatness. Those things are reserved for others.
That's a painful message, but a hopeful one. It means all the energy you are putting into trying to find someone else is no longer needed. Cancel your online dating profiles and use the money to pay for a trip you always wanted to take. Stop getting up an hour early to look perfect before you leave the house (unless you enjoy it). Sleep in and know that you aren't going to scare away your soulmate. They don't exist! Stop fretting about what you are missing out on. You aren't missing it at all. It was never meant for you. Find joy in the joy of others without wondering what it means for you. It means nothing. You are COMPLETE. You are WHOLE. You are exactly who you were always meant to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)