It's All About Faith, Hope, and Love

Appearances are everything. Opinions are formed within the first 3 seconds of meeting someone, and those opinions are formed based almost entirely on appearance. Appearances influence our choices far more than we would like to admit, and penetrate much more than we realize. Appearances shouldn't be everything--but they are.

I recently read an article about a Harvard professor in her 80s who dyed her hair punk-rocker blue. This interesting individual made the point that beauty is youth, rather than "beauty is truth; truth, beauty" (Keats). Beauty should be truth. The Truth is beautiful. So why this emphasis on youth and staying young forever? Why are people afraid to grow old? Growing old means eventually they will die, and people are afraid to die.

I believe this is for two reasons. 1. In our current society, there is a lack of belief in an afterlife and a devaluing of life, and 2. people fear the unknown.

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Humane Vitae, predicted many changes in our society--that have come to pass--due to the use of contraceptives. It started small--just between two people--but once that door was opened, once one type of life became disposable, all life became disposable. What's to stop society from eliminating anyone it deems no longer useful? It is no longer just unborn children whose lives are threatened, but the handicapped, the elderly, really anyone society does not deem "productive."

Additionally, ours is a society that wants to take God out of everything. We try to remove morality and make decisions for "the good of all" without it. It's gone so far that our country no longer willing to acknowledge it is under God's protection in the Pledge of Allegiance (yeah, remember when they wanted to take that out?) Because of that, religion is a loosely held concept and many no longer believe in an afterlife. Instead, this life and this world is all you get. After that? Nothing and nothingness. You simply cease to be.

Now, tell me, if society deems the elderly useless and disposable, wouldn't that make you afraid to grow old? If growing old means growing closer to death, and you don't believe there's anything after that, wouldn't you be afraid to admit to anyone, even yourself, that you are aging?

And of course, people fear what they do not understand or do not know. This is part of being human. We don't know exactly what will happen when we die because, as Alfred Hitchcock so succinctly said, "One never knows the ending. One has to die to know exactly what happens after death, although the Catholics have their hopes." And that's the key: we have hope. And faith. Hope that our Faith in the Love of God will bring us to eternal life. That is both true and beautiful. That's the beauty I want to see.

Blessed with such Happy Manners...

My apologies for not posting sooner. I'm making up for it by posting something that is probably too long.

Regency-era England holds a strong fascination for modern readers, including me. Whenever I open a novel written by Jane Austen, I can be sure of getting a peek into a culture vastly different from my own. I might share the same native language as characters like Emma Woodhouse and Elizabeth Bennet, but it seems as if cultural similarities stop there.
 
One of the main ways I arrive at this sense of estrangement is the code of manners followed by characters in the book. Austen’s writing style clearly indicates that she assumed her readers were familiar with the social expectations that governed the manners and interactions of her characters.

There are few detailed explanations of why certain characters are admired or chastised for certain expressions. Every once in a while, the reader will get a freebie from Austen about the inappropriateness of a comment (“I might as well inquire why with so evident a design of offending and insulting me you chose to tell me that you liked me against your will, against your reason, even against your character” –  Pride and Prejudice). However, these miniature explanations, revealed only in character dialogue, are few and far between.

It takes a while to become accustomed to this alien mode of existence. But, I have to admit, there are days when I wish we still lived in a society where people followed a detailed and rigid code of etiquette. Most Americans and residents of the “it’s all about me” culture probably chafe at this suggestion, but I can pick out some perks to having a well-defined system of manners.

Perk #1: Manners promote society-building values

It seems to me that at some level, every code of behavior buys into two basic ideas: interactions with others matter and there is a proper way of conducting those interactions.

I think most people would agree that these two assumptions are correct, and on some level, I believe most people try to live out these ideas. Most try to be kind to others – or at least not rude. However, in a society that appears ever more fractured and, at times, hostile, these vaguely-guided attempts at civility are not likely to make social encounters any smoother.

Regency-era etiquette provided a framework in which even the most distant acquaintances could treat each other with civility, at least as far as the Austen novels reveal. There were proper and improper ways to act, and proper and improper times during which to act offended.

Perk #2: Manners allow one to interact politely with EVERYONE

What would happen if Lizzy Bennet and her family desired to speak to a certain rich young bachelor, but had never met him before? They could turn to the Lucas family for an introduction to the eligible Mr. Bingley.

What if Lizzy met Miss Bingley as a fellow guest in a party, but suspected the woman had dissuade her brother Mr. Bingley from pursuing the admirable Jane Bennet? Even though the two had grounds to dislike each other, they could still interact civilly and prevent the ruination of a social event.

From these two situations in Pride and Prejudice, one sees that etiquette applies as well to strangers as to acquaintances – even acquaintances who might not be on the best of terms.

Whether an interaction plays out between bosom friends, distant relations, friends of friends, or sweethearts, there was a way to mingle with them and mingle POLITELY.

I think it is much harder to play off awkward situations in today’s world, which is sadly lacking in detailed codes of manners, than it was in Jane Austen’s time. Good manners might not have removed the discomfort of a given meeting, but it might have prevented an interaction from going completely downhill.

Perk #3: There were rules to playing the game of love

 

All of Austen’s novels focus on a heroine finding love, so the manners displayed in the books deal in large part with how courtships unfold.

The characters of Austen’s books recognized the necessity of guarding against unwise interactions. Though not strictly considered good or bad manners, there were proper ways for young women and men to get to know each other. The results of pursuing relationships in a socially atypical way had it consequences.

One such example may be observed in Sense and Sensibility, in which Marianne is crushed by the knowledge that Mr. Willoughby has engaged himself to another woman. When Marianne’s sister Elinor probes her on the subject, she finds that Marianne’s relationship with the man has been complicated by the fact that there was a lack of typical expressions and understandings.

"Much as you suffer now, think of what you would have suffered if the discovery of his character had been delayed to a later period—if your engagement had been carried on for months and months, as it might have been,k before he chose to put an end to it. Every additional day of unhappy confidence, on your side, would have made the blow more dreadful."

"Engagement!" cried Marianne, “there has been no engagement.”

"No engagement?"

"No, he is not so unworthy as you believe him. He has broken no faith with me."

"But he told you that he loved you?"

"Yes—no—never absolutely. It was every day implied, but never professedly declared. Sometimes I thought it had been—but it never was." (pp.171-2)

Marianne’s actions had led her sister to assume that she and Willoughby had been engaged. However, by disregarding social norms for courtships and refusing to confide in her family, Marianne ended up with a case of severe heartbreak.

Such misadventures have lessons to teach to those who are trying to find their own loves today. The over-sharer, the noncommittal man, and the matchmaker - to name just a few - might learn quite a bit from the failings of Austen’s characters.

Perk #4: There WERE rules, and they were generally known

One of the nice aspects of having a detailed set of rules was that there WAS a set of rules. If a person found himself or herself in unusual circumstances, there were likely rules pertaining to that specific situation. I can only conclude there must have been fewer instances of “I’m going to say this and I hope it’s the right thing…” in Regency England.

Going along with that is that fact that everyone seemed to know these rules. This impression comes strictly from reading Austen’s novels, so I know I’m sharing a very limited view…but it does seem like everyone in her works knows what’s going on when it comes to manners.

Perk #5: People were able to appreciate good manners

Ever heard the saying “it takes one to know one”? That can be said of manners. Austen’s characters were able to acknowledge the fact that some people have good manners. On the flip side, this also unfortunately led to a lot of gossipy judgment behind closed doors.

 
We lack an appreciation for good manners today since it’s difficult to tell what exactly they are supposed to look like. We know that good handshakes are important…but what else do we know and recognize?

Manners are a big deal since they are instrumental in making impressions. Want people to like you? Nowadays, have a firm handshake, say please and thank you, and don’t hog the conversation. Back in the day, if you were a dude, you had to follow all of the rules of etiquette, including dancing with young ladies when you go to a ball.

Speaking of which…

Perk #6: Men were expected to dance

 

It was considered bad manners for a man to attend a ball and not dance with anyone in the event that gentlemen are scarce and more than one young lady was lacking a partner (cough cough Mr. Darcy).

I wish this were still the case today. Too often, I and my friends attend dances and hardly ever get asked to take a turn on the dance floor with a gent. Can’t we at least establish an expectation that if people are going to attend a dance or go to a dance hall, they should be willing to dance?

Fury

I have just seen the movie Fury, and I want to record my reaction while it's still fresh in my mind.

*WARNING: May contain minor spoilers*

This movie interested me for a couple of reasons: 1. a movie about WWII tank battalions has never really been done before, and 2. my grandfather was a member of the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion, receiving both a purple heart and a bronze star for his service.

My first reaction upon the denouement of Fury was thinking how it presents the sheer irony of war. Watching this movie feels the way reading an Ernest Hemingway novel feels, if that makes any sense. I'm thinking of The Sun Also Rises in particular. You are told to go against what you believe in and commit great sins--murder of fellow human beings among them--for a just cause: the defense of human life. You are made to feel emasculated if you do not spit upon your enemies and curse them--and yet, to them, YOU are the enemy. You are assured by superiors that you are doing the right thing, when every instinct of conscience screams the opposite.

At several points in the movie, the characters will quote bits of Scripture in an effort to convince themselves that God is on their side and what they are doing is justified. It is incredibly apparent that if they do not succeed in convincing themselves of this, they will not be able to go on. On one occasion someone asks, "Hey, do you think God loves Hitler?" It is said as a joke, but one with an underlying earnestness. The subtext asks what they dare not say: if God really does love Hitler, and God's supposed to love us too, then what are we doing here? How can this possibly be right?

Perhaps the greatest irony of all comes at the end of the film, when the youngest member of the tank, really no more than a boy, is the sole survivor of what is essentially a massacre. He is told to go through the bottom hatch of the tank and hide underneath by the last dying member of his tanker, which he does. He is discovered by an equally young German soldier, who does not shoot him. The following morning, he climbs back into the tank to lay his jacket over his dead friend's face. He is discovered by another American battalion. As the medics lead him away to a truck, one says, "Hey kid, you're a hero! You know that?" You can see the irony written all over the young man's face. He doesn't think he's a hero. He didn't stay inside to die with his companions. He hid. The survivor's guilt is overwhelming as he sits there thinking how he should have just kept shooting at the Germans until they killed him, too. The real heroes were those men who died in the tank, who were left behind.

Movies like this also help us, perhaps, to have an inkling of what a soldier might feel upon returning from war. Everyday life must seem so trivial to them, so difficult to reconcile with the horror they've endured. They have witnessed the truly awful things human beings can do to one another.

Please, pray for our troops. Pray that they do not lose hope or faith. Pray that they may continue to find the strength to show their fellow human beings mercy and love, even in the darkest of places.

Loving "The Lord of the Rings"

I’ve had The Lord of the Rings on my mind lately.
 

Not only is it the "one fandom to rule them all," but I’ve been reading academic essays about the series as part of my light summer reading. So, what would be a better follow-up to my first blog post ever than talking about why I love The Lord of the Rings?

For those of you who might be unfamiliar with the books, The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy written by J. R. R. Tolkien that formed the basis of Peter Jackson's film adaptations. The books are entitled The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. I recommend these books to anyone who is interested in a classic tale of good versus evil and adventure (with the warning that these are not quick reads and are probably not reading-level appropriate for the very young).

Now, for a basic summary of why I love The Lord of the Rings.
 

Plot

I enjoy how Tolkien built the plot of this work. The Fellowship of the Ring begins with a joyful celebration that just about everyone has experienced – a birthday party – but then it quickly develops into a quest in which the fate of the entire world is on the line. I do not want to give too much away, but I will say that trilogy’s plot keeps reader interest high as it eventually splits, follows the activities of different groups, and then reunites at the end.

Adventures

I’ve always loved adventures, and the trials the main character Frodo and his companions face in the books are incredible. The story is basically a quest to destroy an evil Ring and defeat the evil Sauron, but to quote the wonderful movie The Princess Bride, the books are full of “fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles…” There’s something for everyone in The Lord of the Rings.

Characters

Characters unworthy of a good plot make for a disappointing story. Fortunately, this is not the case with The Lord of the Rings. The main struggle of the series might seem like a straightforward battle between good and evil (which has upset some critics for being too “black and white”), but as C. S. Lewis notes in “The Dethronement of Power,” the characters are very much NOT clear cut (para. 1-2). Some are distant and almost trapped in static myth, but many are dynamic, some even seeming as likely to come from a small rural town in America as from an imaginary land.

 Style and Language

The Lord of the Rings has been criticized for being too detailed, too dense, too slow, or not having beautiful writing. I personally find Tolkien’s writing style stark but unique. In fact, I think it is lovely at times. This simplicity of the writing allows the reader to focus on the story, not on the language. Battles and mighty deeds lose none of their grandeur for being expressed with simple words. However, the simple diction is nothing to downplay. The books are full of quotable gems, such as “your Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while all the company is true” (400-1), spoken by Galadriel in The Fellowship of the Ring.

Themes

Tolkien claimed that The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory (a story that has literal meaning and deeper meaning; a story that works on two levels), but the books are full of deep universal truths all the same. I think this book is a classic because it investigates the struggles one takes on in the fight of good versus evil. Critics have drawn out themes such as the importance of free will, the power of choice, and the corrupting influence of power (please refer to Zimbardo and Isaacs’ Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism). Some see religious meaning in the story (Tolkien was Catholic), while others like to focus on how its lessons can be applied to real life. The Lord of the Rings concerns facets of life all people face in every time: how to act in the face of evil or danger, making choices, friendship, and sacrifice. The trilogy deals with important ideas and invites readers to consider them.

The Age of the Geek

I've never written a blog with other people before, so this promises to be interesting. My own blog, which lasted for about a year, sort of pathetically fizzled out, but hopefully with other writers to keep me motivated, this time around will be different.

As much as I love Narnia, LOTR, Austen, and many things nerdy, my own preferences (at this point in time) lean more toward the #SuperWhoLock category of fandoms--that is, Supernatural, Doctor Who, and Sherlock, as well as the Marvel genre: Avengers, Agent Carter, Daredevil, etc. Nor is my love of all things geekified limited to these that I have listed. The reason for this passion is not merely because the characters are so well-developed and enticing, nor is it the satirical nature of the humor, although those are major factors. (Side note: character development is important. This is why so many shows only last a few seasons and mostly suck. They have no character development.) A big reason for my love of these things is that, no matter how secular they may be or how out there, I seem to always be able to find those specks of Truth that speak to the catholicism (universality) of Catholicism. 

For instance, Doctor Who: "In 900 years of time and space, I've never met anyone who wasn't important." The importance of human life, right there. Boom. The Doctor is all about life--saving it, defending it, whatever. He's there to make sure it goes on. And he's willing to sacrifice to make it happen. And that is beautiful.

Supernatural: It's all about family, and "family don't end in blood." Also, parents are not there to be your friends. They're there to be your PARENTS.

Sherlock: Personal relationships are important. People need each other. We were created to need others. 

I could go on, but I think you get the point. All these shows and more are long-standing and have a lasting effect and a huge fan base because they all communicate universal truths, things that everyone can relate to and which have always been and will always be true. 

These universal truths are what help bind us together as a community of geeks, whether we are willing to admit it or not. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the age of the geek. 

Introduction

“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” – Gandalf

 I love quotes. I love Gandalf. And I’m deciding to spend some time writing for this blog.

There will be nerdiness!

There will be puns!

And there will be lots of references to The Lord of the Rings and other fabulous works!

But before I get too carried away…

 

My Rules

I have outlined The 8 Fabulous Rules of Blogging for myself to follow.

1.      I will not rant. It is neither fun nor uplifting. Therefore, no severe ranting.

2.      I allow myself to complain, but not incessantly.
3.      I will try to see the positive in the world and share it.
4.      I will be Catholic-out-loud.
5.      I will reference The Lord of the Rings, as well as other nerd-doms, as much as I like without regret.
6.      I will proofread. No one wants to read an article rife with typos. Therefore, I give my fellow bloggers leave to mercilessly make fun of me if I post typos and promise to do the same to them.
7.      I will post at least once a month. I can’t commit to a regular schedule, but I will post at least once every four weeks. I will aim for every two weeks.
8.      I will have fun. I think I am going to like blogging, and I hope you enjoy what you read here.

 

Welcome to FONAM.

The Time Has Come!

The time has come for me to abandon my old, neglected blog and venture forth into a bold, new, nerdy direction. The time has come for me to inundate the interwebs and with all things Veggie Tales, kittens, Lord of the Rings, Blimey Cow and Catholic.

Yes indeed, my friends, I am no longer the wallflower of my yesteryears.  While I still proudly acknowledge my natural self as introverted, shy, and mild mannered, the time has come for me to "Shake It Off" and let my true inner self shine.  

Yes. I went there.

Because let’s be real:  I am a dork and I can never say what I’m want to say without stuttering and cringing and failing to make eye contact. I am at my best in writing, so I shall let it all out here, even if it’s for no one’s sake but my own.  See Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 1.

Therefore, if I’m thinking about kittens.  Bam.  You have me freaking out about the cuteness of kittens.

I accept that I am a crazy cat lady.

If I’m feeling philosophical about the newest episode of Agent Carter: Shazam, you have a wordy puddle of sentimental feels peppered with gifs of Jarvis or Cartson (which is, for those of you who are wondering, the ship name for Carter and Thompson).

As in "Don't you want to jump on the Agent Carter bandwagon?"

If I’ve just finished a particularly long week at work and I can’t seem to get my mind off of history? Presto.  A long post about how I love the Bayeaux tapestry.

Or a nerdy knockoff of the Bayeaux tapestry.

So, please, enjoy! I must say that I am rather looking forward to this opportunity to unleash my full craziness!