I was going to write a year-end wrap-up, but that might not be happening; Christmas was busy, and we still have Karine's surgery looming. For those who haven't been up-to-date, there's a post on the latter here, and a fundraiser here. Feel free to support or spread the word.
This is a literature post of sorts, with some of my musings on culture, art, and its various interpretations. Specifically, three discussions arose recently which interested me:
- The petition to replace the bust of HP Lovecraft on the World Fantasy Award trophy with someone less problematic.
- JK Rowling's recent response to a question about LGBTQ students at Hogwarts
- The seasonal tradition of dissecting and defending the lyrics to the holiday classic "Baby, It's Cold Outside",
All three discussions are, at their heart, about how we view art, what messages we find therein and, especially in cases 1 and 3, how we engage in potentially troublesome content from yesteryear.
HP Lovecraft |
A few years back, JK Rowling created a bit of a splash with her declaration that Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore is gay. I've spoken to some people who tell me that they see hints of this in the text, but I think we can all agree that it's never explicitly written. Given that one of the flaws in the final volume is a surplus of indigestible chunks of exposition, it would have been quite easy to include a scene with Dumbledore holding hands with a male classmate. Or kissing a male wizard. Or anything like that. Leaving it as something perhaps hinted at reduces "Dumbledore and Griffenwald were lovers" to one of many interpretations of the work; that the author is the one making it does not, to me, make it any more valid or more interesting an interpretation than if anyone else had.
This doesn't bother me as much as Lovecraft; while Rowling made some comments which weren't fully supported in the text, the text itself does have a largely positive message about inclusion and against racism. Lovecraft's text, to the contrary, supports tacism.
Discussion the Third - Holiday Cheer
Every year, someone brings up a discussion on the sexism inherent in the song "Baby it's Cold Outside". For those who either reside beneath a solid chunk of geology or hum along without listening to the words, it has some pretty creepy lyrics in the form of a call-and-response between a man an woman. That these parts are usually labeled as "the wolf" and "the mouse" respectively tells you something. If that's not enough, read a bit:
I really can't stay
But, baby, it's cold outside
I've got to go away
But, baby, it's cold outside
This evening has been
Been hoping that you'd drop in
So very nice
I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice
My mother will start to worry
Beautiful, what's your hurry?
My father will be pacing the floor
Listen to the fire place roar
But, baby, it's cold outside
I've got to go away
But, baby, it's cold outside
This evening has been
Been hoping that you'd drop in
So very nice
I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice
My mother will start to worry
Beautiful, what's your hurry?
My father will be pacing the floor
Listen to the fire place roar
Etc. The lyrics repeat a theme: the woman wants to leave, the man is persuading her to stay. It's a very old-fashioned style of seduction, with the "expected" roles that the man pursues and the woman has to at least pretend to retreat; it's the double standard that men are supposed to want sex, women to turn it down. It sends what is, to me, an uncomfortable message that to be a woman is to retreat, while it is the man's job to chase. One wants it, one has to at least pretend to NOT want it.
Why am I discussing this today? Largely because blogger Lily Alice wrote an impassioned and well-thought out defense of the song here. Her larger point is that, viewed in the context of the decade when it was first written and performed, "man chases/woman retreats" was part of the standard mating dance. It's possible - and original intent would perhaps say preferable - to read the mouse's protestations as either playful or pro-forma faux-rejections (and yes, I know that that phrase sounds more than slightly pretentious) rather than actual distress. By this reading, the woman would be hurt of the man failed to pursue. She compared deconstruction of a tale of mid-twentieth-century mating with a re-reading of Shakespeare or the Bible outside of historical context.
To a large extent, she's right and I'm wrong; it's fully possible to look at a historical artifact as a historical artifact and read it in-context for the original meaning. From another perspective, I'm right and Lily is -- less so. I'll accept her analogy about Shakespeare and counter with one about Defoe; it can be argued that no racism was meant in Robinson Carusoe; the island native Friday elevated himself from savagery and cannibalism when the white, Christian European took control of him. Read in-context, it's the tale of an educated white-man doing his duty; read today, it's terrible and blatant racism. My point is that a piece of art isn't a thing frozen in amber, nor is it a mathematical text with a single right or wrong answer. If you want to use songs, stories, and other artwork from the past to explore other times and how other people once thought and lived, that's wonderful. If you want to read them with modern eyes to throw a mirror onto today's world... that's also OK. So long as you take the effort to use reason, so long as what you say fits the text, and so long as you can have a respectful conversation, go ahead and do it. Listen to the author. Listen to yourself. Read history. Study current culture. Read what others have to say, and join the conversation.
Remember that any piece of art worth reading is worth analyzing.
With that, I'll wish you all a Happy New Year.