I remember distinctly the first time I realized that girls were attractive. All of a sudden, this girl that I had known for years, looked different. I just had this unexplainable attraction to her face. I just "liked" it. It was the weirdest thing, and also the most awkward thing. I found out a few hours later that one of my male childhood friends was "going out" with another one of my female childhood friends since the day before, and I told myself that it was OK to feel that way. With this in mind, I "manned up" and told the girl I had a crush on her and she admitted that the feelings were mutual. (Awww.) The next day she told me she didn't like me anymore because she told her mom about how she was feeling and her mom said, "Why?He's got a big butt."
Middle School and High School, at least to me, are the cruelest and toughest years of people's lives. In these stages, you are so impressionable, so vulnerable, especially since they're crucial time periods in which people are figuring out who they are internally, as well as who they are socially. I can not think of anything worse than a mixture of hormones and insecurities to fuel your interactions with others as well as how you feel about yourself. It's just so brutal, especially in the earlier middle school years where kids don't really have a sense of throttling back the intensity of their opinions of others, or how they say it. It isn't their fault, they just haven't learned how to speak to people in eloquent, gentle, "nice" ways.

What Kindlon and Thompson discuss in the article, I can agree with. This notion of competition and survival of the fittest can still, in a lot of senses, be applied to boys as they get older. There are still those unspoken rules of not feeling, or at least not revealing, emotions, especially of pain and weakness. There is still that desire/necessity to perpetually prove yourself in the endless pissing contest (I was going to use a much cruder metaphor but it would have been too punny). I can get on moral high ground and say I am immune to these expectations placed upon me, but that would be severely hypocritical. When I think about it, in this "race to impress," who exactly are you trying to impress anyway? And for what reason?

I think it's safe to assert that the majority of "men" these days are really just older, bigger boys from preschool, middle school, and high school. On the flip side, the same is true for the female perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that there is this "race to impress" for women as well. When I first read the article, it reminded me of that scene in "Mean Girls" where the main character is at the mall and they all turn into animals that are savagely hunting and killing each other. Survival of the fittest.

Let's switch gears a little bit as I'd like to take this opportunity close with another "coming of age" story that was utterly humiliating. Sure, during those moments of humiliation, and the short period of time following it, were pretty painful. I personally don't have a problem sharing them now. In fact, I think those are some of my best stories and I love laughing at myself and realizing how ridiculous, although legitimate, my thought process and what I thought was most important was at that age. I hope in the future, I can say the same about myself today. Anyway, back to the story. How I managed to come out of it relatively unscathed by my classmates at the time is still a mystery to me.

So imagine this: seventh grade,  Valentine's day, a version of me that is so much more awkward (think bowl cut, "hip" 90s clothing, and my voice at the peak of breaking, so I squeaked a lot.) The internet was a relatively new thing, and computers were still on the rise. I had a great idea of personalizing a Valentine's card on the computer, printing it out, and giving it to one of the hottest girls in my grade. If I pulled it off and gotten her to go out with me, it would have vaulted me to the apex of social standing. (Kindlon and Thompson would have had a field day analyzing me.) Mind you, I had never really talked to her outside of class, so obviously I had no idea how she felt about me. It never occurred to me that my bold admission, in size 52 cursive font, that "I love you Nina" may have been a bit much, exaggerated, borderline inappropriate even.
Now let's go back to me being awkward. I liked her, and I definitely did enough innocent stalking (and this was prefacebook, so I did it the old fashioned way) that I knew where her locker was and that I got to school before her. I thought the perfect way to surprise her was to slip the note into her locker so that when she got to school to put her backpack away, she'd get the note. The way classes were scheduled that day, I knew I wouldn't see her until third period because we were in different home rooms. However, I knew we would be in the same classes until the end of the day. Third period happens. It starts, it ends. Nothing. I am confused, maybe she's just playing hard to get. Fourth period, the same thing. Fifth period, I am racking my brain confused, but I do give her a bag of Hershey's Kisses which she seemed to appreciate. Lunch. Recess. Sixth and Seventh period. Nothing. At the end of the day, I went to her locker as she was getting her stuff out and was like "well? any response?" and she goes "about what?" and I said, "well I like you, will you go out with me?" and she just looked at me confused and said "sorry, but I'm kind of with this other guy, I thought everyone knew that" and she closed her locker and walked away. I stood there for a second, baffled. To add insult to injury, the girl whose locker was next to hers goes "Leo, I think this was meant for someone else" as she handed me the card I had made.

To what extent is an artist responsible for being a role model for children?  Whose responsiblity is it?

My initial reaction is to say that an artist holds no responsibility for being a role model for children. Immediately after, I think no, the artist has a lot of responsibility because they are looked up to by their fans, and ultimately what they express in their art represents who they are. But then doesn’t that constrict or “stifle” what they can or cannot say, whether literally or metaphorically? Yes. But then what about the liberties associated with artistic expression i.e. personal truths and ideas/ideals if they are limited by responsibility?

Before the above gets even more incoherent and inconclusive, I need to define, or at least distinguish, between what is art, and what is I consider to be consumer/mass media. I realize that the distinction between art and mainstream pop culture/mass media is debatable. That’s fine. However, within each genre of art (i.e. music, theatre, movies, paintings, poetry etc.) there is a pretty obvious distinction between the classics and masterpieces displayed in museums, immortalized by awards and prestige, against the amateur work replicated by the thousands to be sold at Target, Walmart, Ikea etc.

The following distinctions are all personal, but feel free to disagree.

Movies:

American Beauty, Casablanca, Pulp Fiction, Schindler’s List, Requiem for a Dream, Aliens, Up, Revolutionary Road etc. vs. Son of the Mask, You Got Served, Ninja Turtles, Robocop, Mr. Bean, Mean Girls etc.

Poetry:

“Where the Sidewalk Ends,” “If You Forget Me,” “The Road Not Taken,” “Life is Fine,” “The Raven,” “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning” etc. vs. 90% of what you find on myspace, or personal sites.

Music (I could potentially get a lot of heat from this):

Bach, Chopin, Mozart, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, Queen, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Lil’ Wayne etc. vs. Lil’ Wayne, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Queen, Bob Marley, Michael Jackson etc.

(My intent is not to step onto some pretentious moral/artistic high ground. I will be the first to admit I enjoy the award winning “stuff” as much as its “inferior” counterpart.)

So what was the point of that? Well simple. Artists, no matter what form or what genre, are capable of producing jewels that help define/redefine their art just as well as contributing to the amount of “garbage” already present. In today’s society, at least in the Western World, when art and artists are mentioned, more often than not, music is the association. However, the music and the artists that come to mind most likely come from the billboard top 100 singles, or some local radio station’s top 10. What is unfortunate, but is just the way today’s society, is that these artists are looking to sell singles, records, and albums for money. So what is the easiest way to succeed in a capitalistic culture? Sell sex, drugs, and alcohol. Talk about how “hard” you are and what you have done (read “hustle”) to achieve what you have now i.e. sex, drugs, and alcohol.

So back to the question. Who is responsible? I don’t think any one party can be solely held responsible for how or what a child’s role model does. I think that if anything, it is more so the duty of the parent to guide/filter against what they believe to be offensive and a bad example. However, the artist shouldn’t just promote a “rock star lifestyle” because that perpetuates an unrealistic and unproductive lifestyle. Overall, it really should be a balance between the artist and the parent/guardian.

Everything in moderation, even moderation.

So although the movie's copyright is 1993(?) the images in the film are more representative of the late 70s early 80s. So in the span of 20 years, has there been significant change in the dominant portrayals of women and men? No... but there have definitely been changes nonetheless.

The film states that men are perceived, in Western society, as fearless, tough, decisive and that he knows what he wants, and that he wont let anything get in his way of achieving that desired goal. He does this mainly to impress the ladies, and to impress others with his "manliness." On the other hand, women are perceived as beautiful bodies, no brains, and are there to please men. They are shown as willing and eager to serve men, and are willing to be manipulative to the point where she can "trap" the man that she desires. Also, she is perceived as clumsy, helpless, panic stricken, especially when things go wrong.

When I was watching the video, it reminded me of the first or second day of class where we blurted out descriptors of males/masculine and females/feminine. In summary, the adjectives we used pretty much echoed what was said in the video so those senses, nothing has changed. What I did find interesting about the video was during the "musical" description of males and females with the male's segment being very punctuated, terse, and staccato, almost "efficient" and the female's song being very melodious, sensual, and legato. The overall impression that I received from the video is that males are more objective, "get it done," scientific, with females being more creative and subjective.

However, I really do think there is a change significant enough in today's Western world that at least challenges the established norms. This is evident in a lot of media today, music, movies, in that males are looking for Ms. Independent who has accomplished and gotten everything herself, and females are looking for a man who does more than just provide a shelter and food, someone who perceives her as an equal and is not threatened by that status. In terms of nontraditional gender roles, i.e. homosexuality, intersexuality etc. these images and relationships are now present in popular medias as well.

If you love someone, set them free... just kidding. I can appreciate a good happy ending just like the next guy, or gal (let's avoid being heteronormative,) but I appreciate "realistic" endings more. Now this statement may raise flags for psychologists/psychiatrists but personally, I think that there are too many "happily ever afters" so much so that everyone believes that that's what they will get. I am not trying to sound pessimistic, and sorry to burst your bubble, but in the grand scheme of things, by definition, you will only have ONE happy ever after, but a multitude of disappointment. It is kind of ironic because, I too am in search for my own fairytale ending.

In any case, is Louise dead, alive, or an apparition at the end of the story? I don't think it matters. I think the importance of Louise in the second half of the novel is not whether she is dead or alive. Instead, I think Louise in many ways becomes the green light in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s "The Great Gatsby:"

"I didn't call to him, for he gave a sudden intimation that he was content to be alone - he stretched out his arms towards the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him, I could have sworn he was trembling. Involuntarily I glanced seaward - and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away, that might have been the end of a dock. When I looked once more for Gatsby he had vanished, and I was alone again in the unquiet darkness." (16)

Specifically the green light, and Louise, symbolizes both characters' dreams and hopes for the future. If I had to answer the question, Louise would be an apparition, except not in a spiritual/supernatural sense, but that she has transformed into an idea. If she were ever found, dead or alive, the discovery would sort of "cop out" the intensity and passion of the narrator's love. Louise's lack of autonomy or voice only strengthens the novel because she becomes an unattainable dream. Had Louise been found, the reader would not be able to appreciate, or measure, the capacity and depth of the narrator's love ("Why is the measure of love loss?" (1)). Also, the tone and diction of the novel would most probably have been vastly different if the narrator had found her, assuming that they reconciled.

I think it’s interesting that Winterson chose to end her novel with a “cliffhanger” and say that” that is where the story starts.” Although there are only three feasible “next steps” after his/her failed search, i.e. move on, keep searching, cut off all ties and live as a “widow” until death, his/her stating that “this is where the story starts” implies that time has passed and that he/she is much older/wiser and that he/she has somewhat formed a detachment and has achieved some form of closure to the relationship, hence why the narrator suggests that it is a “happy ending.”

The narrator notes that a "secret code" is written on the body that contains the story of one's life.  Explain how one's body "writes" one's identity.

So I’ve had, including this one, eight and a half semesters of college already. I’ve tried to achieve “perfect attendance” to at least one class. It hasn’t happened. Why? “Oh, I’ve been to every class, I can miss this one,” “I’m allowed to miss a class, might as well use it up,” “The prof cancelled class, so I’ll just ‘repay’ with a miss of my own,” or my most recent excuse “Sorry Mr. Bautista (that sounds so pretentious) your flight out of Dayton, OH has some mechanical issues and you will miss your connection to LAX, here is 12 dollars for food, and a voucher for a night at the airport hotel.” Now why on earth am I starting this post with something so unrelated? Simple. I missed last Monday and I wish I had not missed it because I looked forward to the discussion and how people felt about it. When I was there on Wednesday, jetlagged hardcore, I was surprised to find out that not very many, if any, found it enjoyable. Personally, it is an instant favorite. I like it because the writing is so paradoxical. It is so refined and well thought out, but the emotion is so raw. It’s like the author/narrator “stream of consciousnessed” how they felt, and then added metaphors and comparisons afterward, “tightening up” the language so it was much more powerful and meaningful.

Anyway, to respond to this week’s prompt. I haven’t fully hashed it out in my head what it really means that a “secret code” is written on the body. I will go with it and agree, for now at least, with the assumption. Initially, I think about how scars, wrinkles, bags under a person’s eyes, calluses etc. all have a story, or are a physical tattletale to events that have made the individuals body the way it is. For example, scars could be from some childhood accident, a scrape on the concrete when playing tag or heavily calloused hands could imply that the person worked with some sort of manual labor, carpentry, farming, sculpting etc. However, I do not think it is that simple. Since Winterson repeats how Louise has “reading fingers” as if her fingertips could read the Braille that is the protagonist’s body, the “secret code” written on the body, at least to me, is metaphorical/symbolic.

Since there are a lot of allusions to the sense of touch in the novel, I think that one’s body not necessarily “writes” one’s identity, but one’s identity and their life’s story is “unlocked” by the touch of the person’s lover. The romantic touch is such a sensual and powerful gesture that opens up (makes vulnerable) the individual to the other person. By doing so, they are allowing their lover to hurt them, not in a physical way, but emotionally (which arguably is much more painful.) When I think of the sensual touch, not necessarily on a literal sense, I am reminded of certain personal moments in different relationships where the first kiss, hand hold, cuddle etc. had such a profound and memorable impact in my memory almost as if it revealed a side of me that had been locked up, and could only be released by that person at that time. Back to the prompt stem, when I think about the revelation of one’s life written in a secret code, it isn’t necessarily in retrospective manner i.e. a nostalgic, memory sort of thing, but something that was dormant and is “released” that can now be utilized, fostered, nurtured.

However, I realize that these “things” aren’t innate and you aren’t some sort of sleeper agent waiting for the appropriate person to decipher these secret codes. Rather, they are subconsciously learned from watching and participating in all types of relationships.

Explain which medium (book or movie) more effectively explores the dominant themes of the search for the meaning of life, duty vs. individuality, reflections on mortality, constructive social roles, and life as art in The Hours, and how this was achieved.

This is a tough decision. I don’t think either unanimously trumps the other with regards to their respective effectiveness in exploring the themes. The novel is more effective at investigating duty versus individuality and the search for the meaning of life but loses to the movie with respect to reflections on mortality and social roles. Life as art is split between both.

The reason that the novel wins those two themes is because it allows the reader to “experience” the thoughts of the characters. The “versus” in duty versus individuality can be fully appreciated by witnessing the inner turmoil of each character as they battle with the pros and cons of their decisions and actions. The search for the meaning of life, at least to me, is a very personal quest and can only be, as much as possible, revealed through the examination of the thought process and psyche of an individual. The use of stream of consciousness as a technique was an effective and marvelous idea to explore these two themes.

On the other hand, reflections on mortality and the theme of constructive social roles go to the movie. To me, watching the expressions, hesitations, hopelessness, joys, anguish, was more effective than reading about these emotions. Little expressions of the face, certain body language, fluctuations and tone of voice, when delivered correctly, are more powerful than the written word. One could argue that poetry can elicit and deliver the “rawness” of these emotions, but I think what we can actually see is much “truer” than what we can deduce from words. Words and language are lost on an individual that does not speak that tongue, but facial expression and emotions are universal.

Finally, both are tied at “life as art” because it really is difficult, I think impossible, to place an objective judgment on which form of art is better, film or novel. Sure the novel won the Pulitzer Prize, but the movie did win an Oscar as well. Now this may not answer the question as to which medium better explores the theme, but I think trying to compare the methods would be like comparing apples and oranges.

It is usually true to say that the film version is always inferior to the novel and that the novelization of a film usually does not do the movie justice. However, I think that the film does more than a sufficient job at capturing and illustrating Cunningham’s overall message. I am glad that I had read the novel first because the movie does omit some key scenes from the novel. However, I do not think that any harm can be done reading the novel and then watching the movie afterwards as it provides a more holistic approach and dissection into the main, overlying themes.

Clarissa Vaughan. What a character. When I think about Clarissa Vaughan, I think about strength, hope, innocence, and sadness. These “virtues” manifest themselves in her thoughts and actions and I see them stemming mainly from the inside due to her past experiences. She is strong because she is an independent woman who can keep it all together, but is comfortable/confident enough to deal with her problems. Her innocence is tied to hope because she genuinely gives the impression of a child, wide eyed, and full of wonder with the world and that it seems that no matter what happens, she genuinely is optimistic about things. The sadness does not necessarily come from her, but through observing how she leads her life, and the nostalgia she experiences.

When I was reading through The Hours, I could not help but think that I was reading, more or less, an unresolved love story. A love story that had a “good enough” ending instead of a happily ever after, and we have caught her on the upswing of feelings of nostalgia of “what could have been.”

To me, the nostalgia with which she is struggling, with regards to this love story, is her desire to re-experience/recreate her relationship with Richard, her first love, an unconditional love with no constraints, the typical “puppy love” “high school romance.” Her relationship with Sally on the other hand, is the adult relationship, the domesticated, healthy and rational relationship. At times, what is lacking in that relationship is the spark, or the butterflies in the stomach feeling. On the flip side, the dangers of her love affair with Richard are immaturity, superficiality, and more often than not, those intense feelings are fleeting.

On a broader scope, I think that everybody “suffers” from feelings of nostalgia and wonders what if? These little longings are usually triggered by an association to something material that allows these memories to resurface. I think that we go through a lot of those what ifs on any given day but because there is so much going on, and our short term memory is flooded with so much stimuli in such short amounts of time, that we quickly “forget” what we were reminiscing. Only the significant life altering choices that we have made where we spent hours agonizing over the right decision (e.g. buying a house versus renting, new car versus used, college, this person as a significant other versus the other), maintain a longer half life in our conscious. Obviously there are exceptions to ever rule, but I do not think it would be too outrageous to say that the importance/significance of a decision can be measured by the amount of time spent deciding.

On the other hand, I do not think the product of the times in which she lives had as much of a significant effect when compared to the lives of Virginia Woolf and Laura Brown. We must remember that the “modern,” and therefore much more progressive, world that she inhabits in the novel is definitely not as strict as the 1950 San Francisco, or around 1900 England. This is why she could live openly as a lesbian with her partner for 10 years and not be considered a deviant. I believe that the roles that the outside stimuli play are just to trigger past memories through the use of associations.