19 Apr 2010
by Jamesin Rants Tags: Rants, Reviews
The social world is comprised of symbols, which ironically, are made by society. These two principles complement each other and go hand in hand; one can’t go before the other. These symbols are arbitrary; they are agreed upon by society and are a representation of something other than itself. Take for example (out of all the possible examples), a woman’s breasts. God, in all His knowledge and wisdom, designed females to develop bumps on their chests beginning at puberty. And once these lumps have developed to their fullest, society agreed amongst themselves that breasts are to be a representation of femininity and the physical maturity of a woman. They have been agreed upon to be great contributory factors to sex appeal, the physical attraction between the sexes, and as a result, have become titillating. Furthermore, we can notice that through euphemisms and colloquial terms i.e. boobs, tits, etc, that we symbolize the word ‘breasts’, which is in fact, the term for the bumps on a woman’s chest (imagine what it would be like if breasts represented the contrary of what it represents now. It is highly unlikely now, but not completely out of the realm of possibilities).
This logic can be applied to the previous SLU Intramural activities too. Generally, the Intrams symbolize the unity of our university through methods other than academic excellence, like sports and competition amongst the various colleges. But if we look at this from another perspective, we can deduce that the entirety of SLU’s Intrams is but a mere clash of testosterone outrages and a violent symbolism for women empowerment and feminism in its climax.
It is a clash of testosterone outbreaks because this symbol of healthy competition is actually a battlefield for men to prove who are the more powerful among them; it is an onslaught necessary to decide who the Alpha dog is. On the contrary, the Intrams can be said to be a feminist riot because the women clash along side the male’s primitive duel for superiority. Deep in their subconscious, they are convinced that if the men can do it, so can they! They convince themselves that they are able; they are equals of men and far better even, than their male counterparts. Consequently, these women go through some sort of Adrenaline rush where progesterone is somewhat over-ridden by the male’s testosterone outbursts.
Looking farther, we can notice the social symbols we call the athlete’s personal apparel and equipment. For example, the basketball player’s rubber shoes. If it is a shabby pair of shoes, we can guess that the player is dedicated to the sport, and practices with those shoes regularly. Or, he simply can’t afford to buy a decent pair of shoes. On the other hand, if the pair of shoes is new, branded and expensive, we can deduce that the player has good taste and is rich, since he can afford to buy shoes with an expensive price tag. It could also mean that the player is a social climber who bought shoes he can’t afford in order for him to fit in amongst his wealthy friends or team mates.
The pageant also is an excellent illustration of social symbolism. It is commonly a representation of a friendly competition between the model Louisians; beautiful, confident, intelligent and most importantly, with a good and pleasing personality. However, if we review this from a different sociological point of view, we can say that contrary to popular belief, the SLU Intramural pageant is a demoralizing display of vanity and conceit, and a subliminal endorsement of narcissism, personal comodification and to some extent, capitalism.
Now to a ‘by the book’ individual, these observations may seem to be sarcastic, radical or even anarchistic. But please do understand that this is merely an exploration and analysis of the various social perspectives regarding symbols and society, and is an attempt to overcome the social stigma we know as mediocrity and conventionalism. This is neither meant to offend anyone’s sensibilities nor to be sexist or perverted (regarding the arbitrary symbols of a woman’s breasts).
04 Apr 2010
by Jamesin Reviews Tags: Reviews
I started reading Don Quixote as a requirement for my Literature subject last semester. I finally finished. Cervantes’ book is definitely one of my favorites. It’s witty and funny, but it does not fail to relate the realities of life which are relevant to every century; to every generation. This satire on culture and human nature, which is also the father of the Modern Novel, is a great book for fun and learning at the same time.
The style in which Don Quixote was written is very unique. Few novels can be compared to this style, and even fewer can be said to be better. Cervantes communicates the story of a reasonable man who lost his mind and generally, himself to chivalry in a very vivid manner. His way of storytelling is so graphic that once one begins to flip the pages of the book, his imagination will kick into full gear. The story is one with magnificent imagery; while reading it, one would feel that he himself is traveling on horseback with the queer Don Quixote and his simpleton of a squire, Sancho Panza all over Spain. Through philosophical insights colored with Cervantes’ intellect and understanding of life, he invites readers to delve into the realm of seventeenth century Spain. He guides his readers through the culture, traditions, beliefs and the lifestyles of his people. In a clever manner, Cervantes enamors readers.
Aside from this, Cervantes speaks to the readers in a flowery yet comprehensible diction. An experienced linguist will surely appreciate the eloquence Cervantes demonstrates throughout the novel, and an ordinary layman will find himself cracked up by the authors straightforward wit and humor. This is one reason why Don Quixote deserves the title of the first modern novel.
Critiquing it from the psychologist’s perspective, one could argue that Don Quixote, or more appropriately Alonso Quixano was more of a severe nut case than a psychological patient. The psychology behind his mad deeds of chivalry can be explained simply by and attributed to his insanity. One cannot find any deeper reason behind these acts like ‘his inner desire to make the world a better place that roots from his bitter or unhappy childhood’ or whatever.
However, a great deal of psychological significance can be drawn from the man. It is made clear in the novel that his madness was caused by his habitual, no, his obsessive reading of books of chivalry, and from that point we can try to asses why he chose books to obsess upon and for the record, why he specifically chose books about chivalry and knight-errantry. It is also interesting and worthwhile to take note that when Don Quixote did not perform any deeds of chivalry, he was a man of very good reason. He conversed with his companions, giving them sound judgment and impressing them with his wit. From this it is obvious that Don Quixote was not completely mad. He had several lucid moments that made it difficult for his friends (the curate and the barber) to fathom how a man of such intellect could lose his mind to chivalry. This observation can be studied further with B. Watson and B.F. Skinner’s Behavioral Theories. One can apply the principles in Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning Theory to try to find out why Don Quixote had his fixation towards books of Chivalry. Was it because of the way his mind was conditioned?
In modern psychology, Don Quixote would most likely be labeled as a schizophrenic, as he perceived windmills to be giants, two flocks of sheep to be opposing armies, inns as castles and inn keepers as kings, a lustful farm woman as his beautiful and virtues Lady Dulcinea of El Toboso, and his misfortunes the works of enchanters.
On the other hand, a feminist could argue upon reading the novel, that it was written for the edification of womanhood. The same feminist would point out that this is because the protagonist himself, Don Quixote, practically worshiped a woman in the form of Aldonza Lorenzo, whom he figured to be the fair and glorious Lady Dulcinea of El Toboso. Before each chivalrous act, he prayed to her, requesting her to be the strength of his mighty arm. After each deed of deluded chivalry, he ordered those he was victor over to boast of his valor to his lady, Dulcinea.
Apart from this, feminists could argue that the women in the novel, for the most part, were very beautiful creatures who spun the hearts and the minds of men in their palms. Direct citations of these women would be Dorothea, the woman who bedazzled Don Fernando with her beauty; Luscinda, the woman whom Cardenio loved since childhood and the woman he lost his mind over; Zoraida, a beautiful Moor who turned Christian; Marcela, an incredibly beautiful shepherdess who’s rejection of numerous marriage proposals drove men to their deaths; and a lot more.
The point is that these women, with sheer beauty dominated men. It is a clear application of Anarcha-feminism. To top this off, these women were not only beautiful; they were highly intelligent women who could influence a man’s thinking and conviction with their well spoken words and sensible conversation. In Don Quixote, these women were portrayed to be the epitome of their sex: beautiful, intelligent, virtuous and technically every sane and normal man’s desire.
The character Don Quixote of La Mancha, in some ironic way, symbolizes the things we wanted to do but were not able to because of things called priorities, boundaries, and the like. He may symbolize the unfulfilled desire of a student who really wanted to take up Mass Communications but enrolled in Nursing because his parents said so, or a child’s craving for the delicious bar of chocolate his mother did not let him have. Basically, this peculiar character symbolizes human nature and our inert desire to go against the flow; our longing for adventure and unorthodoxy.
On the contrary, his squire Sancho Panza symbolizes the complete opposite. If Don Quixote is the symbol for non-conformity, Sancho is the symbol for total submission to the will of the authority, given that he has something to gain. In the story, Sancho follows our Don wholeheartedly and without reserve because of the promise of an empire to rule over. He endures all the hardships; getting beaten up, robbed, thrown up and down into the air with a blanket, starving and a lot more. Through all this he persevered because in his simple mindedness, he believed that his knight errant of a master would marry the princess of a great kingdom and would later on give him one of the kingdom’s isles to be governor of. Sancho Panza symbolizes man’s nature to submit and to conform even without thinking.
To be honest, I find it quite amusing how two opposing personalities could get along so well. Don Quixote, a representation of man’s desire to get out of the system and Sancho Panza, a representation of man’s nature to be part of it. One would expect that these two would jive like water and oil, but the exact opposite is true; they complement each other. The tandem of Don Quixote and Sancho symbolizes the balanced man; if comprehensively combined, they represent a person who is able to exercise self control and objectivity.
Further, focusing on Don Quixote from a Freudian point of view is quite entertaining. As a knight errant, Don Quixote was armed with two offensive weapons and one defensive weapon. His primary weapon was his lance, and his secondary weapon was his sword. Now, both of these were elongated objects and are thus phallic symbols. During his duels, Don Quixote thrust these weapons into his enemies. This somehow communicates that Don Quixote was homosexual, because all the enemies he dueled with were men. Thrusting his lance and his sword on his enemies was like thrusting his genitalia, so it was as if he raped them. Furthermore, it could also mean that since the Don had issues regarding his sexuality, the act of forcing these elongated weapons on his enemies was his way of reinforcing his manhood (If this were so, Don Quixote failed to reinforce his manliness because in several occasions, Don Quixote was defeated and his lance broken to pieces).
His buckler or shield on the other hand, was most likely round. This would represent the female genitalia. This could mean that Don Quixote was weak as a man and used women to defend himself, like using his shield during battle. This could emphasize that Don Quixote was homosexual. On the other hand it could mean nothing complicated at all.
Studying it from a Theological perspective is interesting as well. Throughout the passage of history, man has been known to seek the truth and to find the sole purpose of his existence. Man searched for meaning in various places and through numerous means. However, most of the time he turned to broken cisterns and found sources of false security like religion, wealth and the like. This is illustrated in Don Quixote; Alonso Quixano was a man in search for truth. In his quest to discover this, he turned to his books. After reading hundreds of these books, he finally accepted them as gospel and consequently lost his mind. He believed that his purpose was to be a knight-errant on a journey to rid the world of its evil with his own mighty arm. So, without wasting another moment he set out on his journey to execute what he believed he was called to do.
If only Don Quixote knew the absolute truth which could be found in the Word of God, then his pursuits would have been different from what they were. Imagine if he read the Bible instead of his books on chivalry. He would probably carry out the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) and set out as a missionary determined to share the Good News with the rest of the world, instead of a deluded knight errant on a deranged quest that led him and his squire, Sancho to great perils and overwhelming ridicule.
I’m really glad I chose this piece of Literature as my required reading. I learned so much from it and I felt that reading and critiquing it helped me improve as a reader and writer. I highly recommend that you read it too.
22 Nov 2009
by Jamesin Reviews Tags: Manny Pacquiao, Reviews
New Moon started showing last November 20, and tons and tons of Twinerds flocked cinemas everywhere.
I entered the cinema forewarned by my aunt that it was a movie filled with great laughs, and that I shouldn’t expect much. So, I didn’t.
The movie reminded me of the times I read the book and while watching, I thought to myself, ‘Bella is Bella; the damsel in distress who is not satisfied with her humanity and worships a vampire.’ Then Jacob enters the picture and I think, ‘Well, Jacob is Jacob and will always be Jacob and nothing can change that; he’s the puppy, or werewolf rather, that is so irrationally in love with a vampire worshiping girl who used him as an escape from heart ache and sets him aside when she gets her blood sucker back.’ However, watching the movie made me like Jacob Black better than Edward. I have no clue as to why; maybe because of the actor.
It was a good thing that Taylor Lautner had a nice figure, it showed that he really worked hard for the role. The only thing lacking was his supposed 6’7 stature (but I guess height is genetic). The same is true with all the other puppies, er, wolves too. Looking at Edward shirtless after seeing the pack’s naked torsos was kind of weird; Robert Pattinson should have worked out to get his muscles ripped too. But then again, his face is his selling point, I think.
As for the plot, well, it’s the same as the book, of course, but some fight scenes were added so the film was a tad more exciting. They were a good diversion to the masochistic romance between protagonists. I hated that the story progressed at such a slow pace, but it was far better than its prequel, Twilight.
It was a good watch overall, and I’d probably give it an 8 of 10. Not expecting too much from the film and laughing at the cheesy parts like Bella and Jake’s ‘almost got there’ scenes made me appreciate it better. The movie, for me, was definitely better than the book (because I had previously developed a prejudice against the novel), and I suppose this was one factor that made me like it more than I expected.
Recent Ham