The Thing About Classics

((Disclaimer: I have no idea what I’m trying to say in this post, it started off with a point and then evolved into something without one.))

So classic books loosely defined are ones that are old and have been popular for a while. They usually are also what you are required to read in middle school and high school English courses. The thing that I think is a little strange about classics is the fact that there are classics. Let me just elaborate on that.

So classics are books that have managed to stay relevant. What surprises me about this is the fact that society is constantly changing. And while we say that these books remain relevant in the modern world, let’s face it, no one can really identify with Little House on the Prairie. Not really. I don’t mean that you can’t identify with their struggle, but you can’t really see eye to eye with them in the way that the author intended. Especially when the main thing that I remember about that book is that the father had to build the whole thing and it just went on and on about building and whatever. So are we reading these books because they’re still relevant, or are we just reading them out of habit? And it’s not necessarily a bad thing if it’s out of habit, you still learn something from it. Just it’s a different something, something that has changed with society, and I don’t know if that warrants its status as a classic. Because really, any book can do that. And I don’t mean to say that these classics don’t have literary merit, because many books have literary merit but aren’t considered “classics” for whatever reason. I’m just talking about the distinction here.

Then there are the multitudes of war novels and social justice that make up the classics genre. They’re still relevant because war continues and stuff like that. This seems to indicate that society hasn’t changed at all, that we are still at the place in time when the author was writing the book. We haven’t truly escaped that struggle yet. Once again, I think it’s a good thing to remember the past struggles and all, but does that merit the distinction as a classic? Probably not if we have truly overcome the injustice that the book is talking about.

So both types of classics indicate that society really hasn’t changed that much, despite all of the overwhelming evidence that we don’t build our own homes on prairies anymore. I mean, what? What does that say about us and our society?

 

Maybe we haven’t changed as much as we think we have.

The Legend of Robin Hood

Ok so I have a bit of an obsession with the legend of Robin Hood. And that means that I’ve also spent a lot of time looking up the original legends in my spare time. So here is a timeline sort of thing that I have put together on how the legend of Robin Hood and his Merry Men formed and evolved. (This is mostly from Wikipedia…)

So the first recorded reference of Robin Hood is in Piers Plowman in the 14^th century. The first narrative ballad of Robin Hood is from the late 15^th to early 16^th century. By then, characters like the Sheriff of Nottingham, Little John, Much the Miller’s Son, and Will Scarlett had appeared. They were also identified with Sherwood Forest. By the end of the 16^th century, he was also identified with Loxley. The early legends are also clear that he is a yeoman, or a commoner, and not a noble as he is commonly shown now. And once stories started calling him a nobleman, he was often the Earl of Huntingdon.

Today he is often portrayed as a supporter of King Richard the Lion Heart while he was away on the Third Crusade and his brother John was in charge. This only started in the 16^th century, earlier than that the king is supposedly Edward. And tales earlier than that keep Robin’s efforts on a local scale only.

Along with the ballads, he was also a prominent figure in the May Day celebrations (which are most famous for their pole dancing). The earliest was in 1426, but they gained popularity through the 15^th and 16^th centuries. It’s thought that Maid Marian and Friar Tuck joined the legend through the May Day party. Robin was sometimes called the “May King” and presided over it, but there were also plays featuring him and his men.

Marian was part of a different May Day thing, but the two stories were eventually brought together. Robin’s original sweetheart was called Clorinda, which is sometimes still used as a name Marian adopts.

Allan a Dale was not introduced in the 17^th century, and managed to stick. This was also the time where his motto of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor became popular. It also quite recently (as in 1980s) has become popular to include a Muslim in with the men.

There is also Robin’s supposed “grave” outside of Kirklee’s abbey. The story is that he was dying after his cousin, a nun, poisoned him and he shot an arrow through his window to mark where he would be buried. Historians however have proved that the grave isn’t old enough to be his.

Having looked at all of the changes that the legend went through, I think it’s highly unlikely that there was a real Robin Hood (although there are several theories out there) and even if there was, he would be very different from how we would expect him to be. Which is unfortunate, but that’s just how these things go.

Comparison of Book "The Phantom of the Opera" to the Musical

Yup it’s based on a book. It’s a really good book, actually, but there are several differences between the book by Gaston Leroux and the musical with music by Andrew Lloyd Weber (who tends to piss me off, but more on that when I get around to writing a post on it or something). Overall, I thought it was a really good adaptation of it, it keeps all of the main stuff there, but there are some significant differences.

First of all, the phantom’s name is Erik. The book tells about his childhood and how he came to be living in an underground lake under the Opera House (I want to live there, think of all the great operas you could see). He ran away because he was so ugly, spent some time with traveling circuses and became a artist/magician, then starts working for royalty in various countries building stuff. This is where a character called The Persian (who isn’t in the musical) saves him from being killed. He is then commissioned to build the Opera House. Of course, these other talents of his aren’t mentioned in the musical, he’s just a musician there. Also his face is only disfigured on one side, hence the iconic mask, but in the book his whole head looks as though it is decaying. Gross.

In the musical, the fact that Christine’s father knew about the Angel of Music isn’t really explained. I had the impression that he knew the phantom personally or something like that. He actually just told stories about the Angel of Music, and when Erik came to Christine, that’s what she thought he was. So he just assumed that identity.

Meg is portrayed as Christine’s best friend in the musical, when really she isn’t in the book. Raoul’s older brother, Philippe, isn’t mentioned in the musical at all. Madame Giry also is just a box attendant and basically replaces The Persian’s role in the story.

The Phantom dies soon after Raoul and Christine leave in the book, but asks that Christine return and bury him. She does so. In the musical, he disappears, leaving his mask, and when Raoul visits his wife’s grave he finds the ring, saying that the phantom is alive and has continued to love her.

Also the having your hand up while going to the phantom’s lair is explained more, it’s so that he cannot lasso your head. Keeping your hand there means that your hand will get caught as well and you can just take off the rope.

There are a few other differences with the timing of the deaths and such, but that’s relatively minor.

And then there’s the man in the felt hat, or the shade. I have no idea who he is, and Leroux never really explains that. He just sort of appears randomly, The Persian says that he is “much worse” than Erik, and the author says explicitly that he’s not telling. Thanks Leroux.

So that’s the original Phantom of the Opera, who is basically my alter ego. Minus all the killing and kidnapping though. Seriously, how cool would it be to live in an opera house and creep people out?

Our Obsession With Being Current All the Freaking Time

I think it’s best put by Tower of Power. The question on everyone’s mind is “what is hip?” Since I’ve been trying to get freelance gigs this summer, I’ve noticed that everyone is looking for someone who keeps up with current trends and junk like that. What is it with people and always being current?

Any history major will tell you that it’s very important to remember the past, but that’s never really applied in life. We all just want to be on top of the latest and greatest, but if we don’t know our past and what was “great” then, then how can we truly know what is the greatest?

I mean really, any idiot can just set a Google alert or whatever in order to get updates, but in order to understand what happened before, that takes actual intelligence. I don’t get it. Maybe people think that it proceeds in a linear fashion: you understand the past and then get to the current stuff. But that’s not really how it works. Honestly, I could look up anything that happened recently and just put it into my own words and make it seem like I know about it. When I don’t really, I just know what I read in that one Wikipedia article. (And I love Wikipedia, nothing against that, everything against people that don’t put in effort.) And also, how exactly do you prove that you can keep up with trends on a resume? The people hiring have to be having as much trouble as those applying.

Of course, I googled this question to see what would come up, but nothing really did. Just articles on how to stay current. No one seems to be seeing this as an issue, which it isn’t for most of the time, it’s just the times when it’s being current for the sake of being current when it’s an issue.

I guess the reason is that, collectively, society has stopped caring about the past. We just want the instant gratification of what’s happening now. And that’s dangerous, because those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it!

There's Only One Catch, "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller

Just finished this classic. Honestly, I found it hilarious. But I generally find all absurdism in general hilarious. Everyone’s just such a character in this book. Like Major Major Major Major, for example. He gets embarrassed when he is promoted to Major and becomes a recluse by giving the guy at his door orders to only let people in when he’s out. Or Dunbar who is trying to extend his life by being bored all of the time so that time passes by slower. Or Milo, the resident businessman whose actions no one can understand, but it results in a huge profit. Yossarion is also pretty great, he’s the only one that’s mad that thousands of people that he has never met are out there trying to kill him. So he’s trying anything he can to get out of flying missions.

 Of course there’s a catch, catch-22. Catch-22 is that you can leave if you are insane, but asking to leave is a sign of sanity and so you would have to stay. Turns out that catch-22 is more than that, it’s also that the elusive “they” can do whatever they want as long as you can’t stop them.

Nearly all of the characters embody some certain quality, making them pretty similar to archetypes. What I find shocking about that is how realistic they all turn out, in most books the archetypal ones don’t seem very human at all, these ones seem shockingly realistic! Maybe it’s all of the absurdism around them, they seem reasonable in comparison, or maybe it’s the author’s way of describing what war does to a person. You become an archetype.

I really liked the ending as well, won’t give it away, but it ends hopeful and not as depressing as you would think. It’s comes out against people who use war to make a profit, those that use war for their own advancement. It’s a conflict of ideals versus flawed humans. Because humans suck, of course.

People keep talking about why classics are still “relevant.” Of course this work is still going to be relevant, do people still suck, yes they do, does war still suck, of course it does. The problems in this book are still around today, that’s why it’s still relevant!

College Student Nostalgia, or why I like watching Disney Channel at 12 am

Every time I come home from college I somehow end up watching old Disney and Nickelodeon shows with my sister. Seriously, we could be doing anything instead of this, and here we are watching reruns of “Victorious” until 1 in the morning. I could write a five paragraph essay of things I would probably think of doing before that. But, in that moment, I want to. Because I’m home again and I’m feeling nostalgic. Why do college students feel so nostalgic at home?

Commonly, people feel nostalgia when they’re lonely, and feeling those happy feelings of the past is a sort of defense mechanism. It helps to cope with the loneliness. Studies also show that anxious people feel nostalgia more often. So nostalgia is basically protection against sadness and nervousness. Another study also demonstrated that nostalgia can make people feel more optimistic about the future. So nostalgia helps with the present and the future.

Now, in my experience, college students tend to be stressed a lot. (If your experience was different, contact me and tell me your secret because I want it.) But even so, at home those feelings should be alleviated. So it probably isn’t the anxiety.

That leaves the loneliness. Having talked to several of my friends about differences between home and college life, there are definitely less people around at home than at school. At school, you live with your friends. At home, you have to actually get into a car and drive to their house. So there are more opportunities for loneliness at home.

You do miss your college friends at home. But at school you also miss your high school friends. So you really can’t win here. (I do get nostalgic for high school friends sometimes, but that is most always caused by loneliness instead of anything else.)

It’s also being surrounded by part of your life that you have effectively broken off from. It’s like going back to your preschool, you aren’t a part of it anymore, but you’re still there. They have this whole ceremony of sending you off to your dorm room to mark it too. The whole thing feels a little surreal afterwards.

I guess that’s the real reason why we end up staying up so late watching old shows, we want it to feel like high school again. Everything else after all is still the same, we’re the only ones that have changed. We just want to feel like we belong here again.

Coming home from college is hard, you realize you have a family again that nags you. It’s quite a game changer. There are big changes involved that you don’t necessarily realize at the time. But then you’re back at school and it’s all good again. Well, mostly.

Sources for my science-y paragraph

Science Friday-Why Do I Get Nostalgic?

Huffington Post-Benefits of Nostalgia

Psychology Today-What Does Nostalgia Do?

"Picasso at the Lapin Agile" Reflecting from the Twenty-First Century

So I recently read “Picasso at the Lapin Agile” which is a play by Steve Martin. It’s about Picasso (obviously) and Einstein meeting at a bar called the Lapin Agile (Nimble Rabbit) in France. It’s a very entertaining play, I’m not a huge fan of Steve Martin comedy but this was very clever and interesting to read. One huge part of it is the discussion between the two of them about genius and creativity and how they are not so different, despite the fact that Einstein is a physicist and Picasso is a painter. They both create “beauty” and look for inspiration for it. What is pretty remarkable about this is that it is possible that it could have happened; both were alive and in that area around that time. However, it is a fictitious meeting, there is no indication that it ever took place.

One other aspect of the play talks about how it is the early 1900s and they are ushering in a new century. Martin wrote this play in 1993, so it was almost a look back at the twentieth century and the people that brought the most change. A Visitor (readers can assume that it is Elvis Presley) also shows up in the bar, so really all of the most influential people are there, at least in spirit. So what would the twenty-first century equivalent be? This play takes place in 1904, Einstein will write his theory of relativity in 1905 and Picasso will paint “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” in 1907, bump them up by a hundred years and these events have already occurred. So who and where would this play be taking place now? Of course, it’s impossible to tell, but here are some guesses (feel free to comment with your own ideas):

People: Beyonce-She is definitely an influential artist, having won 17 Grammy awards and become one of the best-selling musicians of all time. She also describes herself as a feminist and brings that activism into her work.

We’ve already had another physics breakthrough with the Higgs-Boson particle. The scientists who discovered it certainly deserve a place on here.

Riusike Fukahori-A Japanese artist, Fukahori creates art that looks 3D, but is actually layers and layers of paint and resin. The results are stunningly realistic, and quite a different innovation in the art world.

David Mitchell-Mitchell is one of my favorite postmodern writers, having written number9dream and Cloud Atlas. If there’s anyone who is reinventing the novel, it’s him.

J.K. Rowling-I mean, she did inspire an entire generation, and most of the Harry Potter novels were published in the 21^st century. And The Cuckoo’s Calling was an excellent book as well. What she will carry on to do is anyone’s guess, but I will definitely be reading it.

Richard Linklater-A movie director who thinks outside the box, he had one boy play himself for 12 years in “Boyhood.” Also known for “Dazed and Confused” and “Before Midnight” I think he’s innovative enough to be going somewhere.

Place: Probably America somewhere, Europe is no longer as central as it was in the early 1900s. New York is a definite possibility, although Houston has been growing at an insane rate lately. And then there’s the Silicon Valley on the West Coast, another hub of innovation. Of course, what makes Paris such a great meeting place is that both scientist and artist can come together, which I think makes New York a more likely spot, since Broadway and universities are all right there.

One last idea: Picasso states that the twentieth century will be great because artists, scientists, and musicians will have be “more glorious” than any political movement. Is this still true today? Of course it’s hard to measure the glorious-ness of certain things. It’s a subjective subject, and depends on how the individual feels about the art and politics lately. Personally, I feel that the twenty-first century isn’t going to have art over politics or politics over art, I think there will be an even mix of the two. I feel as though current art (music particularly) isn’t being valued as much anymore, or at least, isn’t starting a huge revolution as it did in the twentieth century. And politics as always is influential, we already had incidents like the War on Terror and the Arab Spring. No one can say for certain at this point, but that’s what I feel.