A Philosophy of Social Science and Literature

Riley Pritchett

Professor Jessica Lavariega Monforti

MLS697 Methodology

13 November 2016

A Philosophy of Social Science and Literature

The question of knowing others is an ancient one. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asked in one of his letters “who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?” (English Standard Version, 1 Cor. 2.11a). In the time since Paul assumed the privacy of thought, rationalism, interpretivism, and related philosophies have attempted to explain why people do what they do, and to what extent we can truly know each other.

In literature, knowing the main character gives depth to the storytelling process. Knowing the people on the page or screen taps into humanity’s longing for likeness and emotional intimacy. The thrill of sharing grief, excitement, or horror with a character is an integral part of what makes storytelling compelling.

This work will examine rationalism, interpretivism, and how to form a balanced philosophy of human knowledge that can direct literary criticism and storytelling in a positive way. Without such a philosophy, the actions of others devolve into meaninglessness.

1. Rationalism

The first stop on the journey of human explanation is rationalism, which assumes that actions can be explained through intent—through rationale. For example, I went to the store to buy eye drops because my eyes were dry, and I wish to avoid pain. My actions can be explained through my reasoning and through my beliefs. I believe that my condition will not subside on its own, that eye drops will alleviate my discomfort, and that the appropriate product will be available at the store. I am acting rationally. Moreover, the reasons for my actions can be divined by someone who observes me.

By assuming rationality in human behavior, rationalists avoid the historical mistake of assuming that people who are difficult to understand are simply irrational. Culture, race, sexuality, gender, and experience all influence how someone thinks. Without rationalism, those important contexts may be ignored, instead resorting to the philosophically lazy conclusion that someone different is simply illogical, bigoted, irrational, or ignorant.

1.1 Irrational Behavior

And so rationalism assumes human behavior (barring insanity) can be explained. Humans behave rationally, and we can assume that they will continue to do so. But what of truly irrational behavior? If irrational behavior exists, rationalism must be modified lest it is rejected in favor of self-centric philosophy on the one hand, or it becomes intensely causalist on the other hand, seeking explanation for behavior which may not have an explanation. In his Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science, Brian Fay outlines such a modification. According to Fay, even irrational behavior has rational underpinnings. The thought behind an action, though flawed, may still resemble rational thought. He argues that we cannot assume everyone is perfectly rational, but that in general humans are rational in how they behave (110).

If seemingly irrational behavior must have deducible reasons, we are forced into stranger and stranger explanations for irrational behavior. Legitimizing the need for unconventional rationale reduces the meaning of all rationale. That is, if truly irrational behavior must be explained through backwards and complex logic, there is nothing stopping someone from using that logic on rational behavior. This opens the gate for sophism and manipulation in a way that can be avoided simply by accepting Fay’s reasonable moderation of rationalism.

In the context of storytelling, rationalism assists in creating believable characters. Modeling characters with logical reasons for their behavior gives believability to a story. Likewise, allowing for flawed thinking that mimics rational thought can give a flavor of authenticity, for true literature is able to demonstrate both humanity’s strengths and weaknesses.

2. Interpretivism and Deconstruction

Before going into the details of storytelling and human knowledge, it is necessary to discuss interpretivism, an extension of rationalism which emphasizes the context of actions. Unless we understand a person’s culture, the interpretivist argues, we have no chance of adequately understanding his or her motivation. Indeed, observation of culture is the primary goal of intepretivism. So not only do humans behave according to rationale, but they do so in the subjective context of culture. Without understanding of situation, culture, and self-identification, an observer has no guarantee in understanding the motives of another person.

2.1 Limitations

The weakness of extreme interpretivism is it loses out on the potential to explain cultures themselves. An interpretivist intends merely to observe, whereas a complete deconstruction attempts to unlock the patterns and rationale behind the phenomena being studied. Without deconstruction, interpretivism is insufficient to fully explain cultural behavior. Indeed, without deconstruction, cultural behavior can seem irrational, the very problem rationalism and interpretivism attempts to solve. Philosophers cannot use “because the culture is that way” as the end-all for behavioral interpretation. Deconstruction gives tools with which in which to examine behavior, as well as giving license to examine the cultures themselves (Fay 131).

2.2 Deconstruction

Deconstruction is “a theory used in the study of literature or philosophy which says that a piece of writing does not have just one meaning and that meaning depends on the reader” (Merriam-Webster, no page). Ironically, the subjective nature of deconstruction gives a more objective framework in which to study culture and identity. By opening the space for multiple meanings in culture, deconstructionism produces the space to find underlying principles that shape culture and how it relates to the world, whether intended or not.

Simply accepting the culture’s status quo without examining its underpinnings gives up potential meanings that may lurk in the undercurrent of the culture. For example, take American gay culture. Established in a climate of oppression and turmoil, many of its underpinnings are in explicit defiance of traditional society. This inherent deviance may direct the thinking of some members of the community while simultaneously alienating others. Deconstruction allows for both groups to behave rationally in reaction to their community’s historically derived mores and stereotypes. With this in mind, let us explore human knowledge in the context of literature.

3. Directional Knowledge and Literature

Rationalism, interpretivism, and deconstruction each contribute a piece of social understanding. But what of the practical question: Can someone be known by another? Is it even theoretically possible? After all, one can spend an immense amount of time with a close friend, yet still discover new facets to his or her personality. The dictionary definition of “know” is “to perceive directly” or “to be aware of the truth or factuality of” (Merriam-Webster, no page). For the purposes of this discussion, to know means to have intimate and predictive knowledge of another human being which, once attained, would render it difficult to surprise the knower with unexpected or seemingly irrational behavior.

This kind of complete knowledge of a person is in a sense impossible. A writer hardly expects a time to come when all of humanity is explained and there is nothing is left to write about. New facets of self and of others always remain to fuel literary creation. But is it reasonable to expect to learn more of others if arrival at the truth is impossible? If it were fruitless labor, marriage and friendship, reading and writing, conversation and silence would all lack meaning. If there is no goal, no ability to improve, what point is there in trying to love or know?

For this conundrum, let us again adopt the moderate attitude of Brian Fay. As he defines objectivity, let us define knowing:

So, can we objectively understand others? No, if objectivity is interpreted in an objectivist fashion to mean “as they are in themselves.” But Yes if objectivity is interpreted in a falliblist way to mean “in an open-minded, responsive to evidence, accountable, criticism-seeking manner.” (221)

This humble approach to objectivity offers an appealing open-ended solution to the coin that is objectivity and relativity. Rather than landing on one side and dismissing the other, Fay defines objectivity as a direction rather than a destination.

Returning to the subject of knowledge, it is quickly apparent that a precise definition could be debated ad nauseam. It is more useful instead to think of knowledge not as a golden threshold, but as the direction of knowing more about others. There is no destination of empathy, but there is a practice of it.

3.1 Literary Criticism

What does this mean for literary criticism? When investigating the meaning of literature, it is necessary to employ the principle of directional knowledge as discussed above. While multiple meanings may exist (as in deconstruction), perhaps one may be better than the other in the light of directional knowledge. We cannot assume perfect knowledge of story characters, or of the author who penned them, but we can in a spirit of objectivity arrive closer to ideal operational knowledge of characters.

Critics’ perception of truth is evolving. The meaning of Raskolnikov’s redemption in Crime and Punishment may change as society advances. Perhaps Pride and Prejudice may fall out of style in literary circles, but return with the return of analogous social hierarchical structures. Directional knowledge allows for the preservation of the possibility of improving understanding or of fresh contemporary understandings.

3.2 Philosophy of Storytelling

The open-ended nature of directional knowledge is perhaps the greatest boon of literature. After all, no one asks, “Are you going to write the last great American novel?” He or she asks, “Are you going to write the next great American novel?” Because there is no arrival, there will always be literature and literary characters to explore. This principle can be used as a framework to formulate a philosophy of social science in the context of storytelling and character knowledge.

Storytelling must be founded on rational characters. Even characters struggling with insanity need rational elements. It is their connection to us that we cherish, and the tragedy of their loss of that connection that we lament. By presenting generally rational characters (in the context of their own culture), authors provide delight to the senses and an expansion of the human experience.

Storytelling offers a context of character knowledge. The desire to know another is not unique to the real world as we experience it. Characters, offered in a vacuum, are of academic or esoteric value first, but when placed in a story, the story brings alive the character and the desire to know him or her. Lacking this, the story will leave its reader dissatisfied in the quest for knowledge of other (the character) and of self (in contrast with the character).

Storytelling points rather than arrives. As we have defined knowledge of others as direction rather than finite goals, so must storytelling be defined. Knowledge of character and subject-matter is not absolute, and great storytellers realize this on some level. It is not the business of the novelist to enumerate every meaning of his or her work, nor to perfectly elucidate the motives of his or her characters. Instead, stories point toward greater truth, toward a more complete view of humanity.

4. Summary

If complete knowledge of another person (real or fictional) is not perfectly possible, it is possible to strive to know someone. As objectivity is most effectively defined as a direction rather than a destination, so knowledge of others should be viewed. This satisfies rationalism in that assumes there are discoverable underpinnings to human action. Likewise, it fits with interpretivism in that it allows for different views based on elements such as culture and self-identification.

In the context of literature, holding knowledge of others as ever-evolving complements the ever-evolving nature of literature and storytelling. Without the assurance that men and women can be better known (if not perfectly know), literary criticism is completely defanged. And without that knowledge, confidence in creating relatable and discoverable characters is similarly undone.

While common sense rather than extensive study may have instructed the Apostle Paul, his observation about human knowledge offers an encapsulation of the mystery of man, a mystery that humanity will spend the rest of its days studying—or in the words of dramatist W. S. Gilbert, “Hop and skip to Fancy’s fiddle, / Hands across and down the middle – / Life’s perhaps the only riddle / That we shrink from giving up!” (Green 645)

References

The Bible. English Standard Version. Crossway. Web. 2016.

Green, Martyn. Martyn Green’s Treasury of Gilbert & Sullivan. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1961. Print.

Fay, Brian. Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1996. Print.

Merriam-Webster. “Merriam-Webster Online.” Web. 2016.

A Leader for All Seasons

Riley Pritchett

Professor Marck Beggs

MLS683 Leadership in Art and Film

26 June 2016

A Leader for All Seasons

Opinions abound in the United States. Whether the subject is abortion, gun control, gay rights, economic security, or immigration, Americans find a way to voice every imaginable opinion on the matter. In a society in which freedom exalted, there is significant opposition to the regulation of opinion.

Historically in Europe, this has not been the case. In the 1500s, Magna Charta notwithstanding, English monarchs could manipulate the law to imprison or execute dissidents. Such a dissident was Sir Thomas More, Catholic saint and renaissance humanist. When More failed to acknowledge King Henry VIII’s remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he found himself under increasing pressure to change his opinion. His ultimate refusal resulted in his execution.

These events are portrayed in the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons, directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More. The film, based closely on Robert Bolt’s play of the same name, won six Academy Awards the following year including Best Picture.

The film provides a honed examination of the last 15 years of More’s life. In the film, More’s sharp legal intelligence and intense moral duty are vividly contrasted with the utilitarianism of England’s government in the sixteenth century. Despite his silent protestations on the matter of the king’s marriage, multiple characters insist his moral uprightness have left him a leader on such matters regardless.

This work will examine Sir Thomas More’s leadership behavior as demonstrated in A Man for All Seasons. His unwavering Catholic faith and duty to his monarch are visible in his interactions with tradition in his country and time. An unmistakable intellectual, More towered above his peers in his legal and moral reasoning. This leadership was part of what hastened his rise to the chancellery, as well as his ultimate demise. And of course, no discussion of More would be complete without an examination of the role of conscience and identity in leadership. (For the purpose of concision, references to More and Henry VIII will be assumed to derive from the film first and from history second, though both are closely linked.)

Any story which occurs in the early sixteenth century will contain traces of firmly established traditions. Sir Thomas More’s life is no exception. He was a committed Catholic, and any effort to usurp the authority of the Pope was, in his mind, an act of blasphemy.

His devotion to the Church did not merely extend to his personal faith, or his conversations with others concerning religion. In the film, all of More’s children are unmentioned other than his favorite daughter, Margaret. She, her husband Will Roper, and More’s second wife Alice are in More’s constant care throughout his ordeal, whether in person or in prayer.

More educated his children liberally. Indeed, his daughter Margaret was the first non-royal woman to publish an English translation of a work (Demers, 4). Though his wife did not know how to read, he was always willing to teach her. Margaret’s involvement with Will Roper hinges upon More’s approval of Roper’s religion. Every other judgment he leaves up to his dear Meg, whose judgment he trusts. Once “son Roper” becomes a part of his family, he treats him with the same protection he shows his wife and daughter.

When Will, Meg, and Alice visit the paternal inmate, his last will to them that they escape England lest they feel the wrath of the government after his death. Despite the individualist nature of More’s objections, his traditional leadership role as head of the household remains a core part of his duty throughout the film. This steadfastness is typical of More’s character, and should likewise characterize a quality leader.

As he cares for his family, so More tends to his employees. When he resigns from the chancellery over his dispute with the king’s government, his shrinking income forces him to dismiss all of his servants. However, rather than terminate their employment immediately, he assures them he will only release them once he or another has secured their employment under a new master.

This kind of leadership shows both his position of authority and his care for the individual well-being of his employees. Regardless of the presumed corruption of his head servant, More personally thanks him for his presence in the household and affirms that he will be sincerely missed. This implicit forgiveness strikes a sour chord with the head servant, who feels the unpleasantness of his own guilt in the face of true kindness.

Kindness is to a leader not a tool of guilt or debt, however, as was observed by Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography: “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.” (Franklin)

King Henry VIII remains infamous for his successive wives, thanks in no small part to his desire for a male heir. Catherine gave him Mary, but every son she conceived died in birth or shortly after. The events of A Man for All Seasons finds him as he places his hopes in his mistress Anne Boleyn. When Pope Clement VII refuses to sanction his divorce from Catherine, Henry does not shrink from his position as the leader of England. Indeed, he places himself at the head of the church in addition to the government. This power grab is a cause of considerable turmoil, not least of which in the life of the silent but dissident Sir Thomas More.

A leader who amasses power to accommodate personal desire can only do so through great charisma or gain to others, both of which apply to Henry’s case. A lack of inducement leaves the leader open to legitimate criticism of his motives and ability to keep the organization’s health in the forefront of his behavior.

In Henry’s mind, he does just that, since the continuation of his line is, in his mind, necessary for the prosperity of England. He would never know the success of his daughter Elizabeth as one of the greatest monarchs in history. Tradition would scarcely inform him of such a possibility, as in a monarchical system sickly sons are of greater value than healthy daughters.

Tradition, however, is a backdrop to the events of A Man for All Seasons. Another vital aspect of Sir Thomas More’s personality is his intelligence, both emotional and classical.

Emotional intelligence, an “essential and indispensable requirement for effective leadership,” is typified by More in his dealings with both authorities and subordinates (Manning, 301). He preserves his sense of humor at his own trial, despite a year of imprisonment in the Tower of London. When approached in a spirit of humor, he responds in kind. When a conversation becomes too tense, his dry levity lightens the mood.

Likewise, More’s ability to sense the emotional needs of others helps him provide advice and support to those around him. He recognizes the ambitions of the young Richard Rich, and recommends he find work free of temptation, like teaching at a schoolhouse. When More’s wife Alice despairs, he comforts her.

Of course mere sensitivity is not sufficient for functional leadership. Literal intelligence in the form of legal and scriptural knowledge form a cornerstone of More’s character in his stand against Henry. He covers himself in every case of a potential scandal. When an anti-government party seeks his advice, he keeps a copy of his letter recommending submission to the king’s will for England. When he mistakenly receives a bribe, he gives it away as soon as he can.

His faith in the legal system contrasts with his son-in-law, who wishes they could use God’s good judgment to end the corruption of the king’s men. More, horrified, affirms that should the devil himself be loose in England, he would not change his faith in the system. He says, “I give the devil the benefit of the law for my own safety’s sake.” (Zinnemann, 1966)

His deep legal knowledge forces King Henry and Thomas Cromwell to sentence him to death by suspect means. In the end, only More’s silence condemns him, despite his insistence that silence as a legal precedent would affirm rather than deny the king’s divorce.

Despite his strong intelligence, More preserves a sense of humility which was not forced. When he speaks with Henry in the film, his humility and tact back his assertion explicitly and implicitly. To the end of his life, he considers himself the king’s servant. Never does he wish to usurp the king’s authority or cause unnecessary trouble. He agrees to everything the king desires—even wishing him well in his life with Anne Boleyn—he would simply not transgress his beliefs by legitimizing Henry’s divorce and ascension to the head of the Church of England.

The meat of More’s story is not in its discussion of tradition or intelligence, however. The nature of conscience and identity constitute the primary philosophical underpinnings of the film. Without conviction and integrity, More would have submitted to the royal desire to divorce England from the church.

Leaders with conviction make for the greatest...and worst leaders. C. S. Lewis wrote in his essay “God in the Docks,”

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. (Lewis)

Perhaps some of this capricious tyranny can be seen in the whims of Henry VIII in A Man for All Seasons, but in the end it is his administrators, who will do any wrong to please the king, that oppress the film’s protagonist. They declare their end is not only proper, but paramount. Sir Thomas More is but an unhappy casualty in their war for the preservation of England.

More readily admits the subjective nature of personal conviction. “What matters is not that it’s true, but that I believe it; or no, not that I believe it, but that I believe it,” Sir Thomas asserts to the Duke of Norfolk (Zinnemann, 1966). The point, in his mind, is that he had believes, not that he might offend another. And should not others give him the benefit of acceptance he himself offers freely to his friends, whose acceptance of the king’s edict holds no culpability in his eyes?

This brings the matter beyond the simple fact of conviction, but the good sense and morality that underlies it. More was not a mere holder of opinions. He carefully chose his views, and refused to blatantly sin against them.

National Review writer Rachel Lu references More’s situation as an analogy for a different decision in 2016: “As in More’s time, a decadent and egomaniacal politician presses us to choose between valued principles and longstanding party allegiances.” In 2016, no egomaniac is as discussed as Donald Trump. Lu insists that “[supporting Trump] has moral implications that affect my psychology and character, whether or not I willingly acknowledge the fact.” (Lu, 2016)

She argues that More’s moral stand was not a fluke of history, but a demonstrative case that leads us into better decision-making in the modern day. In A Man for All Seasons, More declares, “I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.” (Zinnemann, 1966) Party allegiance out of duty risks the demolition of private conscience—of one’s integrity—and according to More that is an unworthy sacrifice indeed.

As noted by C. S. Lewis, conviction without proper integrity leads to oppression. Any leader may perceive himself as doing the right thing while being a tyrant. Plato echoes this sentiment in The Republic: “Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.” (Plato)

The willing political leader has received extensive treatment in works such as The Prince, in which Machiavelli describes his vision for a utilitarian head of state (Machiavelli). Such people devolve into power-hungry tyrants, however, unless they are governed by integrity. More himself resigns from the chancellery halfway through the film when he realizes he cannot serve in clear conscience.

The underlying conversation of A Man for All Seasons is identity and individualism verses collectivism. Sir Thomas More desires to be treated not as a cog in the machine, but as a private man with a conscience and the right to do right in the eyes of God and man. He does not argue that others must agree with him. Indeed, he urges his family to sign the agreement which he himself cannot.

Another noted individualist, Henry David Thoreau, wrote in his famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” “What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” (Thoreau) Dissent is a form of leadership to Thoreau. And though More tries to deny as much in the film, it became as much for him too.

The utilitarian moralist may argue that More’s logic is mere idealism, not individualism. Because he has faith in a perfect vision for the church, he gimps any hope he had of guiding England through a transitional period. Moral leadership, utilitarian or not, is a highly complex subject (Lehr, et al., 203). But at their core, More’s arguments are not naive or unintelligent, but individualistic.

More would have thrived in a free society, in which he could cast his vote according to his conscience without repercussion. Likewise, the separation of church and state in the United States affords a man of More’s convictions the ability to follow his faith without interference from the government—or from a specific religious sect controlling the government.

Sir Thomas More may be a distant figure to the few Americans who can readily identify him, but his example is in no way dimmed by the passage of time. A man who knew his duty to heaven and to earth, he lived in the way he believed to be right.

Through study and experience, his sharp legal mind allowed him to support his conscience without denying his loyalty to his country. And though the world did not afford him the degree of freedom he deserved, he refused to bend on matters he considered insuperable.

As presented in A Man for All Seasons, he proves himself to be a valued subject of his country, whose opinion is sought again and again through Henry VIII’s divorce. Agree or disagree with his devotion to Catholicism, anyone can admire the quiet moral leadership of the unfortunate English lawyer. More summarized himself and his philosophy expertly in the last words he spoke before his decapitation: “the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” (Zinnemann, 1966)

References

Demers, Patricia. “Margaret Roper & Erasmus: The Relationship of Translator and Source.” WWR Magazine 1.1 (2005): 3-8. Web. 22 June 2016.

Fehr, Ryan, Yam Kai Cchi (Sam), and Carolyn Dang. “Moralized Leadership: The Construction And Consequences Of Ethical Leader Perceptions.” Academy Of Management Review 40.2 (2015): 182-209. Business Source Complete. Web. 26 June 2016.

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Electronic Text Center, U of Virginia Library. Web. 26 June 2016.

Lewis, C.S. “God in the Dock.” U of Texas at Dallas. Web. 25 June 2016.

Lu, Rachel. “Would Thomas More Have Voted for Donald Trump?” National Review, 28 May 2016. Web. 22 June 2016.

Machiavelli, N. The Prince (Marriot, Trans.). Sweden: Wisehouse Classics, 2015. (Original work published 1514). Print.

Manning, G., & Curtis, K. The Art of Leadership. Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015. Print.

Plato. The Republic. Web. 26 June 2016.

Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” GoodReads. Web. 26 June 2016.

Zinnemann, Fred, dir. A Man for All Seasons. Columbia Pictures, 1966. Film.

Werther and Beyond: Media Coverage of Suicide

Abstract

Media coverage of suicide varies by nation, but the concerns remain the same for the vast majority of people. What is the best way to maintain the privacy of individuals while still reporting honestly and in the best interests of the public? This work will examine the positive and negative elements of media reporting on suicide, as well as how to potentially change the future in a way that benefits potential victims of suicide.

Key Words: media, ethics, suicide, sociology

  

Against Heterophobia

I've noticed a shift in my feelings toward straight couples. Though I would never have described my feelings as phobic, they could be...dismissive. I'm not talking about humor or teasing, but a psychologically veiled dismissal that I'm still trying to parse.

Was I jealous of the ease with which I assumed they could date and marry? Was I trying to reduce the value of the traditional family to justify myself? Was I simply trying to cope with being different?

I've been thinking about my place in the world. Listening to different opinions is something I value; I don't want to get stuck intellectually.

YouTube Recommendations: Shameless Edition

I could talk about how YouTube and new media are a revolution in communication, but instead I'll try to summarize my favorite creators in one sentence.

Reviewers

FanboyFlicks: This subdued Canadian humorously describes terrible films, many of which you've probably never heard of.

I Hate Everything: Despite the dour British exterior, IHE manages to provide thoughtful criticism of questionable movies, video games, and cultural trends.

JonTronShow: One of my first loves of YouTube, JonTron has amassed a significant catalog of hilarious video game and film reviews with ever increasing production quality that make his uploads worth the wait.

ralphthemoviemaker: Ralph is a talented filmmaker with a sarcastic wit who reviews films, especially ones that deserve harsher criticism.

Sardonicast: This is a movie podcast with Ralph, IHE, and YMS that is too good for this world.

videogamedunkey: A remarkably creative video game reviewer that uses absurdism and satire to make his point far better than a literal review ever could.

YourMovieSucksDOTorg: The sharp witted YMS is the best movie reviewer I've seen, making incredibly entertaining and well-edited content from even the most terrible films.

Breitbart Readers Own the H0mos

I read the comments on a Breitbart article that criticizes the 2017 film Call Me By Your Name for depicting a romance between two bisexual men ages 17 and 24. I may not have found the levelheaded conversation to be had about legal consent, but I did find something that invokes a wonderment all its own.

Homowood

The film industry? Not fans, Breitbart readers:

Whenever and ANYTIME homosexual scene just appears in the middle of a movie and/or a series....my channel gets changed. [...] They only throw scenes like that in to try and assimilate people, that things like this is "okay"....but it's not and NEVER has been!

The first response noted that "I am the same, I instantly shut off that repulsive vomit-inducing filth." Another joined in,

"...if a series we are watching, decides midstream to throw a gay couple in, like SuperGirl, for example, thats it. Channel is turned. Me and mine will NEVER think homosexuality is normal! God doesn't make mistakes!!

Well, one could perhaps argue that he did, dear commentator. Another reader described similar sentiments:

Boycott, no need for cable, save some money, I cut mine two years ago, haven't see a theater Movie in a few years. All Marxist Propaganda, and Anti White inserted in nearly every film, sitcom, commercial. Degenerate homosexual agenda to capture more little boy, Trans Freaks, I've tuned out, other than Tucker Carlson, free on YouTube at my convenience.

Well, it's nice that she gives Tucker Carlson a pass.

No worries, evil Western media is "being replaced by Bollywood and anime." Indeed, "It's funny a lot of people don't realize how many strong conservative values are represented in some animes." My mistake - I didn't realize the gayest export of Japan was chocked full of conservatism, but there you have it.

"Stupidest Ideology" Continues to be Goal of Gay Debate

Article 1: "Piers Akerman: Hypocrisy is the Winner in the Same Sex Marriage Debate"

This is a fascinating emotional appeal from conservative columnist Piers Akerman. He throws out a populist line about the Australian public, who will soon vote on marriage equality, having a longer memory than gay rights advocates credit them. There is some irony here, since he goes on to make a number of arguments that anyone paying attention to the gay rights debate could easily debunk.

a) Marriage equality is equivalent to discarding traditional marriage

He cites Masha Gessen (mistakenly printed as Marsha in the article) and her ideas about how marriage should change or be discarded. To my eye, Masha is advocating for typical feminist/leftist ideas. Conservative news sources pounced on this and interpreted it as the MYSTERIOUS AND POWERFUL GAY LOBBY admitting their true intent. Assuming that support for gay marriage is equivalent to extreme feminist propaganda is naive at best.

Support for marriage equality is an expansion of the definition of marriage. It does not nullify or discard traditional marriage. Indeed, if traditionalists were a bit smarter, they could easily ride the marriage equality train with the goal of strengthening all marriages, lowering the rate of divorce, and advocating for responsible sexual conduct. 

b) Gay marriage will have impending negative consequences

No-Name Blogger Destroys Ideological Pastor Who Attacks Calm Christian Reverend

No matter how much I tell myself I’m over how society treats (or has treated) gay people, I’m not over it. I recently watched Brokeback Mountain (2005) for the first time, and bawled afterward. Take a look at what's facing gay men and women in Chechnya. The world is something of a hot mess (surprise).

The Video
I want to talk about a clip that’s surfaced both on my social media and in my thesis research. Ideologically labeled, “Christian Pastor Destroys Gay Pastor,” it’s a clip of two pastors debating same-sex marriage shortly after the corresponding Supreme Court ruling. To spare you from watching the exchange, I’ve paraphrased their discussion below. 'J' is Dr. Robert Jeffress arguing against gay marriage, and 'C' is Rev. Neil Cazares-Thompson arguing for it.

J: Should bakers lose their business for not baking gay cakes?
C: Should the law not protect people who oppose slavery or support interracial marriage?
J: Race is different from sexual choice. My black friend agrees with me.
C: Being gay is a gift from God, it’s not a choice.
J: All sexual activity is a choice. Maybe not inclination though.
C: Christianity has continued to evolve through tradition and our understanding of scripture.
J: God’s word never evolves or changes.
C: God still reveals himself through living beings.
J: God doesn’t contradict himself. Jesus says a man shall leave for a woman, which has been the pattern for 2,000+ years.
C: Marriage wasn’t about a man and a woman loving each other as much as it was about property and men’s domination of women. We have evolved on marriage.
J: It was God’s created plan. It wasn’t about domination, but about one man and one woman. Who are we to say we know better than God?
C: Should we continue slavery, considering it was okay in the Bible?
J: Slavery was never condoned in the Bible. Those who led the fight against slavery were Christians.

Religious Freedom
Turning away gay customers is inherently not a good thing, and the manner in which the government interferes is something beyond the complexity of this post. Dr. Jeffress asks a loaded question, assuming at least a few things:

• Catering a wedding means supporting the behavior and beliefs of the couple
• Gay marriage is not compatible with Christianity
• Religious beliefs must explicitly inform business practice
• The government’s intervention in this matter is contrary to the first amendment

All of these should be argued in their own right before asking if bakeries should “have their businesses taken away from them.” I would hope that most Americans do not want to live in a “big brother” society. The way to balance that desire with protecting minority groups from unfair abuse is a matter more complex than this post intends to go.

Race vs. Sexuality
No, race and sexuality are not perfectly analogous. But analogies aren’t drawn between things that are the same, they’re drawn between things that are different but offer important similarities to clarify arguments about one or both. Saying these things are different does not nullify Rev. Cazarez-Thompson's analogy.

Orientation vs. Behavior
Sexual orientation is a construct of our society. Even heterosexuality wasn’t really an accepted concept until the 20th century. Rev. Cazares-Thomas implies as much in a different portion of the interview I’m not going over here (complete debate can be found here). First century understanding of same sex sexual behavior is naturally vastly different than ours. Conflating the two understandings is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Without engaging the concepts that make this entire debate function, it’s impossible to convey your belief for or against gay marriage.

Evolution of Religion
Be forewarned: You’re never going to win an argument about this with a fundamentalist. It doesn’t matter if you’re perfectly reasonable and have the perfect case for what is historically provable. Fundamentalism, like extreme liberalism, inherently ignores history in favor of revisionism. It took me a long time to accept this, but the “historical context” they provide for Scripture is little more than a snapshot of a 2,000 year old world with almost zero regard for everything that has happened since. To a fundamentalist, quoting a passage of scripture that sounds relevant has more weight than a rational argument based on thousands of years of tradition and history. The two should go hand in hand.

Instead of discussion divine revelation, however, I want to focus on the given examples of religious evolution: marriage and slavery.

Example A: Marriage
It was over a millennium after Jesus death that marriage for love began to become a thing—and that was only in Europe. In the Middle East and India today, love marriages are either unpopular or considered socially unacceptable.

Believing that the current Fundamental Baptist ideal for marriage has always been God’s plan and it’s always been that way is absurd. Many marriages in the Bible have components that are not acceptable today, especially when it comes to women. Polygamy, anyone?

And let me say how frustrating the How do we know better than God? reasoning is. The only way we can hope to perceive or understand the nature or mere possibility of a deity is through ourselves. We sense, observe, and interpret. How do we know better than God? ends up being a lazy rhetorical device used to shut down legitimate discussion on moral issues. I’ve seen it many times. The more subjects you put beyond the possibility of debate, the easier it is to control people with unwavering dogmatism.

Example B: Slavery
Go read Exodus Chapter 21. The entire passage assumes slavery is not only acceptable, but a natural part of life. There’s even a rule says you shouldn’t be punished for physically assaulting your slaves unless they die from the attack. No Christian would support that today, but many of them would happily quote Leviticus to delegitimize same-sex romantic love.

I’ve listened to pastors and other Christians try to explain why the Bible doesn’t support slavery, but all it took was one step back to realize how tenuous those arguments are. The Bible never celebrated the institution of slavery, of course, but its writers provided a framework in Christians could interact with it (see Paul’s letters). Likewise, the Bible certainly never advocated for abolition of slavery. And while many abolitionists were Christians, so were their pro-slavery counterparts. Both sides argued their position from scripture. Both sides declared God was on their side. And one side was wrong.

Conclusion
There are cases to be made for both positions reflected in the original video. And while I don’t think either advocate got a chance to fully explain his position, I contend that Dr. Jeffress’s arguments are deceptive, inaccurate, or both.

Pride and Prejudice's Insidious Agenda

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” - Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 1. This clear endorsement of the heterosexual lifestyle is a shocking summary of the flagrant pro-heterosexual agenda of the pop novel Pride and Prejudice. Who is this Jane Austin, and what is her purpose in writing this book? There are rumors that the author, never married, was a heterosexual, and actually believed it was acceptable for her to date men. Her sexuality never realized, she turned to writing to live out her strange fantasies.

Though Mrs. Bennet's concern for her daughters secure the family fortune is noble, the implication is clearly that she believes they should form romantic attachments with men to do so. Later in the book, a clergyman actually proposes to Elizabeth Bennet, the heroine! A man of God, suggesting a sexual connection to a woman? Outrageous.

These disturbing heteroerotic undertones continue throughout the book. Male and female characters refer to having "regard" for each other. What unspeakable heterosexual euphemism is this? I shudder to think of what terrible sexual exploits underwritten by this word.

Austin plays with our morality when Elizabeth (rightly) rejects Mr. Darcy's sexually disturbing advances halfway through the book. We think she is proclaiming the unnatural practice of different-sex relations, only to turn around and have Elizabeth fall for his hidden charms, which before she was happy to leave to his male friends.

Strangely, much of the family's tension does revolve around a different-sex relationship, that of Lydia and the shameless Mr. Wickam. That their horror at this attachment does not extend to the other daughters of the Bennet family leads you to wonder what a morally sick atmosphere the early 1800s had.

It reminds us to pray more for the healing of our land from the cancer of heterosexuality. It has pervaded our media, our neighborhoods, even our churches. How can we raise a pure generation if heterosexual people pass themselves off as normal?

Books like Pride and Prejudice only advance this mentality. I recommend leaving this title for the perverts that enjoy the kind of immorality it advances, the unnatural bonds between a man and a woman.

[Short Story] The Book of Rime

The Book of Rime

Riley C. Pritchett

April 24, 2016

A dim sliver of light flickered across my face. An ache that hinted at a lack of sleep tugged at my mind. I surveyed the other bunks in my monastical hideaway. Seven holy Brothers, my faithful companions for the past two years, still slept. The sylvan scent of pine leaked through the dragon-eye slit which also let in the sun, our call to action.

I pulled out the trunk containing my five possessions. The first possession was a vaguely red formal robe with my mother’s initials stitched in the collar in black thread. The second was a heavy book in which I had recorded sayings from the Book of Rime. It represented a year of toil, and treasuring it was my greatest sin. Staring at the words brought back my faith, quelled my doubts. The third possession was a small dining set: metal bowl, metal cup, wooden fork, wooden spoon. The fourth was a satchel, into which I shoved my book and my last possession. I blush to mention the stack of money I had saved from my old life. It would do little good to give it to the poor—if I gave it here at Renwald Abbey, that is.

It isn’t that our abbey is corrupt, but the ways of men are not forgotten here. A holy brother once spoke of Brother Ezriel’s endless pockets. Though he swore by the feet of the gods he meant nothing by it, he spoke as one who said a woman was not of concern to him, when his heart ached to watch her pass. The next day, I observed Ezriel dig his bloated hands into the bag and stuff coins into his habit when he thought no one was looking.

Poem: I Sorrow, but Not for Myself

I sorrow, but not for myself.
The kindness offered, clear and bright
Was a mask of value,
A lunatic's painting---
Accept his art, not his advice.

Graven, graven, the words and rules
Fade away.
Why is the real care covered
By the covered hatred?
Each corner, each brick
Is burned into mind
As it burns away.

The unfamiliar faces
Freshly charred with acne
Gave an untrusting gaze.
A dog among cats.
I spiraled into truth
As those faces vanished
Into the light
That I now see.

I worshiped a shiny god
With an aspiring accomplice.
But the deity had no need
Of its worshipers in the day
His intellect could not withstand.

Scorned for forgiveness,
Forgotten for compassion,
Condemned for acceptance,
Silenced for love.
All the chosen path,
Not narrow but blind,
Not wise but fearful
That the world might stick to its shoe.

It is not for myself,
The one who lied to escape,
But the friend shot down,
The erring one cut off,
The innocent imprisoned---
For them I sorrow.

In the snare of silence
Words take form like wind:
Faintly felt but not heeded,
The march to life is death
To a few.

Give them the rose of compassion
Lest they lose themselves in doctrine
Unwritten by God. Man is a clever author.
I did not see. I did not see.
Will they see
When there is nothing to wake them?

God save them. God save me,
For I cannot save myself
From piety, which is etched into the floor
As apathy is etched into the screen.

Save them, even as I sorrow,
For my grief is nothing at the sight
Of a God who can shine past a thousand
Of the darkest, dankest years.
He may yet live, and his breath is near.

(Written 2014, edited 2016.)

Story Time: The Nature and Impact of Storytelling in a Postmodern World

Since the publication in 1605 of the first modern novel, Don Quixote, a myriad of rules have been posed on how to construct the ideal story. As the playwright and novelist W. Somerset Maugham quipped, however, “There are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are” (GoodReads, 2015). In the postmodern era, literary figures have questioned how storytelling as a literary form impacts literature and the general human consciousness.

Storytelling has been a part of our world since the beginning of recorded history. The Iliad, Jesus’ parables, diverse Native American legends, and countless other stories have been used to provide entertainment, teach morals, and preserve culture.

By examining the elements of storytelling, effects of storytelling on readers, and the appeal of storytelling in a postmodern context, we can begin to establish a philosophy of contemporary storytelling. It is worthwhile to note that storytelling is distinct from formal novel-writing which, despite its use of storytelling, has traditionally followed rules by which storytelling, in its most organic form, has not been bound.

I Finally Understand the Problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

November 3, 2015

For a long time, I was confused by the condemnation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy adopted by Bill Clinton's administration regarding sexual orientation in the army. Since then, however, I've had the chance to see this policy in its philosophical form among many conservative circles, who assert that if you're gay, it's fine to politely request that you keep your sexual orientation and related activities private.

Concerning the policy itself, some make the argument that gay men are unfit to be in the army because of how close men have to live while on duty. List of things wrong with this argument:

• Men, contrary to popular myth, don't think about sex all the time (Source)
• Being attracted to men or to women is NOT the same as being attracted to all men or all women
• Exercising sexual restraint is a reasonable and normal part of life
• Consenting adults deserve as little interference from the government as possible

But of course, the army policy in question has been revoked. Yes, and that is a good thing. But the philosophy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is still far too common in US culture. The way it works out in practice is everyone is allowed to assume that everyone is heterosexual, despite 5-15% of all Americans belonging to a sexual minority.

Rights and Rulers: An Examination of Antigone

Now that I'm doing graduate work, I may as well share a few of the highlights. In this essay, I explain why I believe that Antigone was right to defy the government to bury her brother Polynices.

The Oedipus Trilogy, written by the great ancient Greek playwright Sophocles, concludes with one of the greatest civil and moral dilemmas of ancient literature. Following Oedipus infamous marriage to his mother Jocasta, and subsequent descent into despair, his and Jocasta’s four children attempt to live in the shadow of their parents’ legacy. Eteocles and Polynices, rather than ruling jointly or sequentially, kill each other in battle. Their sisters Ismene and Antigone, watch as their Uncle Creon honors the loyal Eteocles and condemns Polynices to rot outside the tomb of his ancestors as punishment for rising against his brother. Antigone, however, decides that her brother’s body will not be desecrated while she still draws breath.

Each character in Antigone explains why he believes the titular character is justified her in the burial of her brother—with the exception, of course, of the obstinate Creon, who does not yield until it is too late. In his eyes, his word is unchangeable law. Even the timid Ismene admits that Antigone is right, but that the living need her as well as the dead.

Grrr, Poopy Gay Wars

As soon as the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a national institution, all sorts of "it's not enough" posts popped up among the more liberal corners of my social media. At first, I was puzzled. Wasn't this the goal? Won't everything else sort itself out? Maybe.

I'm going to reproduce a microcosm of the kinds of negativity that the visibility of gay people can provoke. Mind you, this doesn't have anything to do with marginalizing or persecuting religious people. It's just people getting pissed off that gay people might simply appear in things they like. This story begins with Mark Hamill, the Luke Skywalker actor, giving a pretty generalized response to the question, "Is Luke Gay?"

“I’d say [Luke's sexuality] is meant to be interpreted by the viewer,” Hamill said. “If you think Luke is gay, of course he is. You should not be ashamed of it. Judge Luke by his character, not by who he loves.”

The reactions to Hamill's relatively benign statement are galling:

• "Please don't ruin Star Wars more."
• "Boycott Disney NOW."
• "Why are these 'people' and I use this term loosely...ruining everything I grew up looking up to and respecting as a kid?"
• "...the homosexual mental disorder is spawned by Satan."
• "homosexuality is a disease and ruined rainbows for me."
• "Between this and Marvel's constant push for diversity retconning characters into having new sexual preferences and races and genders, I'm quite done with everything Disney is touching."

My existence is a disorder spawned by Satan? If I were a character in a story, would that "ruin it" for you? I'm not even fully a person to you? It takes all types, but one wishes it didn't.

Free Places to Write

If you're like me, writing your novel on the media computer doesn't typically work all that well. Sure, you can disconnect the internet, but sometimes it's refreshing just to get out of your room and write in a new setting.

After poking around the suburban area in which I live, I've found a few places that don't require a purchase to sit in with a clean conscience. It's a great way to lower your Starbucks bill without sacrificing the ability to write away from home.

And So It Begins

I've been forcing myself the past week to buckle down and plot out a novel. Even so, this was my feeling going into NaNoWriMo:

But I have finished the first 1,700-odd words and I can say the the excitement is starting to bubble up (finally). After some introspection, I think I know where this feeling comes from:

When I write, I am primarily motivated by curiosity. 

What strange events will my characters experience? Will everyone live? Who will change? What wonderful things will they say? I need to know, and the only way to find out is to write. Write quickly, write slowly, write with a smile, write in tears - only write, and the great mystery will begin to reveal itself.

And so I keep writing.

Abrams' Star Trek: One Overshadowing Glitch

J. J. Abrams' Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2012) are full of stunning vistas and thrilling chases, but something about it leaves me unfulfilled. (Perspective: I've seen the entire Original Series and accompanying films, and large chunks of Next Gen, DS9, and Voyager.)

I can forgive the differences from the Original Series. This Star Trek is, after all, a reboot. Different timeline, presence of an extra Spock, absence of Vulcan, obligatory alien sex scenes, awkward Spock/Uhura romance - bring it on, Hollywood, I'm ready.

But the new Enterprise has a glitch I am unwilling to overlook: Kirk. Chris Pine does a great job portraying the little butthead that the new Kirk is, but the presence of this character in the Star Trek universe, even a rebooted one, presents some basic storytelling problems.

Miss me yet?

A Guide to Buying Classical Music

Buying pop music is easy. You know which piece of music you want? You buy it. There are not, thankfully, ten versions of Miley Cyrus's "Wrecking Ball." The older the music, however, the harder the decision gets. Settling on a piece of music is often the easiest part of buying a CD or MP3 Album.

Let's say I'm off to buy a recording of Tchaikovsky's underrated 2nd Piano Concerto. The first page of an Amazon search result lists over 15 different recordings. And that's just the first page. How should I pick which recording to buy?

Hey Nonny No!

Here's a thought for the day, a 16th century poem expressing contentment with an imperfect world:

Hey nonny no!
Men are fools that wish to die!
Is ‘t not fine to dance and sing
When the bells of death do ring?
Is ‘t not fine to swim in wine,
And turn upon the toe
And sing hey nonny no;
When the winds do blow,
And the seas do flow?
Hey nonny no!

~ Anonymous