Thursday, April 26, 2012

Fifty Shades of Snark, Part 3

They go outside, and somehow Christian saves Ana from being hit by a bike or something, which is just a pretext for her to end up in his arms trying to use mind-control to get him to kiss her. He doesn't. He's clearly all "I want you but I'm daaaaaangerous!" which Ana interprets to mean he doesn't want her. She leaves, she cries, she catalogues her "faults" in true Bella fashion. (Oh, no, she's too pale! Too skinny! How horrible it must be to be so thin and white! And with such large Japanamation eyes! How awful!)

She goes home, where Kate notices she's been crying. Ana chalks up the tears to the fact that she was "nearly knocked over by a cyclist," which everyone in this book seems to find appalling but which pretty much happens to me on a regular basis in Manhattan. They bicker about whether or not Christian likes her or whatever. Yawn. I feel like, by the time I'd reached college, I'd already gotten past the whole agonizing-over-whether-a-guy-likes-me-for-hours thing. Maybe it's just me.

We cut to Ana finishing her final exam, about which she's understandably very happy. She muses that she might get drunk in celebration, since apparently she's never been drunk before. Really? You're a senior in college and you've never been just a little drunk before? I'm just...highly skeptical, I guess. I was a goody-two-shoes English major, too, but I'd totally been drunk before my senior year ended.

She and Kate head back to their apartment to get a little crazy, but there's a package for Ana. It's three volumes of the first edition of Tess of the D'Urbervilles, from Christian Grey, duh. Ana figures out that he's trying to warn her away from him. She resolves to send them back with a cryptic, sarcastic note. Bet that doesn't happen, Ana, you drip.

They go to a bar and, lo and behold, actually do get drunk. Ana drunk-dials Christian, who is all, "Where are you? I NEED TO PROTECT YOU!" Okay, dad. She hangs up without telling him where she is. He calls back and claims he's coming to get her, even though she hasn't told him what bar she's visiting. She goes outside and José-- ahhhhh, José totally tries to date rape her, but Christian saves her! Just like when Edward saves Bella from the menacing gang-rape scenario in Port Angeles! THINGS ARE THE SAAAAAAME!

Christian holds her hair while she vomits, which is nice. Then he lectures her:

“We’ve all been here, perhaps not quite as dramatically as you,” he says dryly. “It’s
about knowing your limits, Anastasia. I mean, I’m all for pushing limits, but really this is
beyond the pale. Do you make a habit of this kind of behavior?”


Dude, aren't you only, like, six years older than her? Seriously, this whole father act is creeping me out. Also, apparently he tracked her phone to find out where she was. If it turns out he's been sneaking into her house and watching her sleep, he will officially be Edward Cullen.

He takes her inside and makes her drink some water. Then apparently he decides to dance with her? Because that's just what a girl wants to do after she's been vomiting for twenty minutes. But oh, wait, it's just so they can find Kate, who is pretty much openly salivating after Christian's brother, Elliot. Then Ana passes out.

She wakes up in a hotel room, in her tee shirt and underwear. Holy crap, how is she not freaking out about this? Christian comes in and asks her how she's feeling, and she answers "Better than I deserve," which makes me feel icky for reasons I don't quite understand. Apparently they didn't have sex, but he thought it was acceptable to take her pants off while she was unconscious. Again, I dunno exactly why this makes me so squirmy, but it totally does.

She's sort of like, "Dude, I didn't ask you to come and get me," and he's basically like, "Yeah, but you should be THANKING ME, because if I hadn't come along you'd have been totally RAPED, BITCH." Ugh. And then he refers to himself as a "Dark Knight." Sounds like someone's been reading a little too much Byron, if you ask me.

And then we have, so far, the most disturbing sentence in the book so far:

"Well, if you were mine, you wouldn’t be able to sit down for a week after the stunt you pulled yesterday."

*shudder*

Followed almost immediately by this:

"He’s the only man who has ever set my blood racing around my body. Yet, he’s so antagonizing too; he’s difficult, complicated, and confusing. One minute he rebuffs me, the next he sends me fourteen-thousand-dollar books, then he tracks me like a stalker. And for all that, I have spent the night in his hotel suite, and I feel safe. Protected. He cares enough to come and rescue me from some mistakenly perceived danger. He’s not a dark knight at all, but a white knight in shining, dazzling armor – a classic romantic hero – Sir Gawain or Lancelot."

*eyeroll*

I think I must have been the only girl in the world who has never fantasized about a white knight coming to rescue me. Sure, I've been drawn to the dark and moody guys in my day, but I don't think I ever dreamed of someone coming to save me like in a fairy tale. Because, y'know, I like to save others, instead. I guess I'm the one with the savior complex.

And then, while she's in the shower, Ana has to go through the whole litany of "OMG, does he like me or not??" all over again. Gah. Really? Apparently the fact that he didn't violate her unconscious body means he couldn't really want her. What?

I kind of get the appeal of the "reluctant romantic" archetype, now that I really think about it. I think the reason this "gentlemanly" type-- the Edward, the Christian, the guy who wants you but doesn't make a move because he wants to protect you from himself-- is appealing to women precisely because we are so very used to being objectified. When I walk to work in the morning, I always wear headphones, even if I'm not even listening to anything on my iPod. Why? Because if I don't, I get cat-called, whistled at, propositioned. Women are constantly expected to be fending off advances from guys they don't want. So I totally understand the appeal of a guy who is sexy and who likes you and finds you attractive-- but who doesn't come on to you all the damn time, who hangs back, who isn't constantly coming forward. I can see the appeal there, actually.

Christian's dogsbody has brought Ana some new clothes, including, of course, ridiculous sexy underwear. Oh, geez. She goes out and has breakfast with him. He scolds her for having damp hair (???) and then admits that he totally wants to sex her up, but not romantically, just sexually. She's confused, and he says he'll "acquaint [her] with the facts" and obtain her "written consent" to sex her up tonight. She's like, "Yeah, totes, let's do it." He's all, "Hey, did you know I like to fly helicopters? Since I'm rich and all."

She brushes her teeth with his toothbrush in secret. And thinks it's hot. Okay, now Ana's the weirdo.

They get into the elevator and have a quick make-out sesh, and then Christian drives her home. Ana doesn't know who Thomas Tallis is, which means she obviously hasn't seen The Tudors yet. Talk about hot, debauched sex! They return to Ana's place to find Kate in a good mood, since she shagged Christian's seemingly nicer adopted brother the night before. The boys leave, the girls gossip. Ana goes to work and wonders--YET AGAIN--what he could possibly see in her, what with all that horrid thinness and paleness and all.

Y'know that friend you had in high school or college--the one who all the boys liked, who was skinny and lovely and flirtatious and shapely and totally cool, and knew it, but constantly complained about how her pores were huge or her eyes were too blue or some shit, because she loved to fish for compliments? That's who Ana reminds me of.

After work, Christian is waiting for her in an Audi. WTF is it with this book (and Twilight, for that matter) being so weirdly specific about car makes and models? Like, a car is never just a car-- it's a Mercedes, a BMW, an Audi, a Rolls Royce. Seriously? Who the hell cares? I don't know the difference. I feel like I get more complete descriptions of the cars than I do of the people. It's like, hey, Christian Grey drives a 2012 Audi A5 with leather interior and moon roof and heated massage seats, and oh, also, he has hair of some color or whatever. (By the way, I had to Google "Audi" just now to find out what the model names were. Because us priests' wives are not exactly experts on luxury anything vehicles.)

Christian has had a long day of hiking with his brother. How does someone who had built a multi-billion dollar corporation by the age of 27 have time for all this hiking and dancing and coffee and meeting with random college student newspaper journalists for interviews and photo shoots? I dunno, it's a mystery. They take off in his fancy helicopter, because of course he's a helicopter pilot, too, which I'm sure he learned to do in his inexplicably vast amounts of spare time. Ana compliments him by calling him "competent," which seems like a pretty tepid compliment to me. She keeps thinking about how she's in over her head, out of her depth, blah blah blah. They go to his gleaming white palatial apartment and have some wine. Ana asks him why he gave her Tess of the D'Urbervilles as a gift. He replies: "It seemed appropriate. I could hold you to some impossibly high ideal like Angel Clare or debase you completely like Alec D’Urberville." I don't really think Tess is a literary heroine whose relationships I'd like to echo in my own life. Talk about a Madonna/whore dichotomy here. Yuck.

Then he makes her sign a non-disclosure agreement before they have sex, which she doesn't even read before she signs it.

And with that, this book crosses way beyond creepy into outright alarming.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Fifty Shades of Snark, Part 2

Apparently, Ana's been gone for much longer than she was supposed to be, despite the fact that the interview as it was written can't have taken more than a half hour, at best. Kate meets her at the door and badgers her. Like Bella, her alter-ego, Ana is an amazing cook, so she asks if Kate has eaten her soup, like a good girl. Kate apologizes for leaving her hanging.

Ana goes to her job at a hardware store, even though she's "crap at any DIY" and leaves "all that to [her] dad." Remember: WIMMENS COOK, NOT BUILD. This is a pointless paragraph that serves only to reinforce the idea that Ana is perfect at everything womanly and not at anything non-womanly.

She goes home again. The Greatest Investigative Journalist Ever is on the couch, transcribing the interview. She asks Ana about Christian and Ana is clearly flustered. Kate is shocked. "You, fascinated by a man? That's a first," she tells her. Obviously, because remember, Ana has never felt this way about any man in all her, y'know, three or so years of dating experience.

Hilariously enough, Ana's working on an essay on Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Seriously, this chick is Bella Swan. Let's see if she has any pearls of wisdom about Wuthering Heights, while we're at it. And apparently her mother is flighty and gets married all the time, just like Bella's mom. I'm pretty sure the author of this book just used the Find and Replace feature in Word to change all the names from Bella to Ana and Edward to Christian, and didn't bother changing the characterization, like, at all.

And here comes the token Hispanic character, José, who is Kate and Ana's best friend but who, of course, is in love with Ana secretly, because just like Bella, all the boys are super in love with her and her freesia scent Japanamation eyes. Ana doesn't reciprocate this feeling, though, because although José is cute and funny, he's like a brother to her. And also he's not rich.

"Sometimes I wonder if there’s something wrong with me. Perhaps I’ve spent too long
in the company of my literary romantic heroes, and consequently my ideals and expectations are far too high."
Ana, honey, I don't think it's that your expectations are too HIGH. I think it's that they are romance novel expectations. If you're taking relationship cues from eighteenth-century English novels, you're not ready for a real adult romance. Sorry.

Now we're back to Ana's day job. She's working the counter when Christian Grey shows up and gives her a massive coronary attack. Of course, he's looking pretty much like an Abercrombie model, only maybe even richer and more bourgie. Ana's heart is "pounding a frantic tattoo," to which I say, "editors, where the hell were you during the prepublication phase? WTF?"

Christian is the "epitome of male beauty," etc. He's looking for cable ties. And masking tape. And rope. All of which is supposed to be mysterious and sexy, I think, but it just creeps me out a little. Ana suddenly develops a split personality and begins arguing with herself about whether or not he came to Portland for her. No wonder she found his arrogance attractive.

He flirts. She blushes "the color of the communist manifesto," which, I would think, would be gray and paper-colored. Does the author realize that the Little Red Book and the Communist Manifesto are two completely different texts? You'd think someone who seems to be so interested in literature would be aware of this.

Ana gets him to agree to a photo shoot so her roommate can have a photo for her article. Then Ana's friend Paul comes over and gives her a hug, and this suddenly makes Christian cold and distant. Because, as we've learned from Twilight, WIMMENS CAN'T HAVE MALE FRIENDS.

Kate is thrilled about the photo shoot. She also seems to think Christian likes Ana. “The richest, most elusive, most enigmatic bachelor in Washington State, just gave you his cell phone number,” Kate tells Ana, disregarding the fact that what he actually did was give her a business card so she could contact him about taking a photo for a newspaper article, which is something that normal people do. They decide to make José do the photo shoot, because absolutely nothing could go wrong having the guy who loves Ana photograph the wealthy "Adonis" with whom she's become obsessed. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. Oh, and also, add Paul to the list of Guys Who Have A Crush On Mary Sue Ana Steele.

Ana calls Christian to set up the shoot. Naturally, she is "gushing and breathy – like a child, not a grown
woman who can vote and drink legally in the State of Washington."
Methinks I detect a whiff of the classic "I'm soooooo mature for my age."



They all go to some Portland hotel to do the shoot, although really, I would have just asked him to send in a stock headshot and called it a day. And here we have an interesting little blip, as Kate meets Christian for the first time:

"She shakes his hand firmly without batting an eyelid. I remind myself that Kate has been to the best private schools in Washington. Her family has money, and she’s grown up confident and sure of her place in the world. She doesn’t take any crap. I am in awe of her."

Here I'm getting the sense that some, if not much, of what makes Christian so very--dare I say it?--dazzling to Ana is that he's wealthy. His well-groomed features, his intimidating confidence, his fancy clothes-- those are what make this small-town girl from Georgia feel so flustered. The poor boys who love her--José, the first-generation college student with an Army dad, and Paul, the son of hardware store owners-- don't have a chance, because what really makes Ana's head swim is wealth. Kate, who is born to this sort of existence--who doesn't have to worry about money any more than Christian does--isn't nearly as attracted to him.

The more I think about this, the more I see a strong undercurrent of conspicuous consumption and economic aspiration here. Part of the romance "fantasy" into which the reader steps involves wealth-- living in a sweet apartment with your rich best friend while paying "peanuts" for rent and borrowing her Mercedes at will? Being wooed by a man who has money to burn, who worked for it and earned it fair and square but conveniently isn't much older than you are, and oh, by the way, he wants to feed the poor? What struggling working class (or even middle class) woman wouldn't want to imagine that? And really, this strain is equally present in Twilight. Oh, my boyfriend is ridiculously wealthy and owns fourteen thousand luxury cars and, oh, did I mention we're honeymooning on his private island?

I wonder how these stories would be different without the money. I wonder if women would find Christian Grey as sexy without his billions of dollars. Or if they'd feel so swept-away by Edward if he drove a beat-up station wagon instead of a BWM.

ANYWAYS, the photo shoot wraps up, and Christian asks Ana out for coffee. She apparently has to switch vehicles with her roommate, which makes no sense b/c we've already established that Ana's car is SMALLER than Kate's, but...I dunno, I've stopped expecting this book to follow the rules of physics anymore.

Kate is suddenly very worried, because she thinks Christian is "dangerous" (Edward, is that you?), especially for an "innocent" like Bella Ana. But even though Ana hates coffee, she'll be damned if she's not going to suck down some of the awful stuff with Christian. They get into an elevator and he holds her hand and she freaks out about it, and now I'm gonna have "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in my head all damn day. Gah.

They go to a coffee house, and Ana has tea, which she likes "black and weak." Seriously, she should have been like, "I like my tea like I like my men-- incredibly expensive and fairly bland." That would have been more truthful, anyway.

He asks her if she's dating either José or Paul, and observes that she's nervous around men, which he seems to like, creepily enough. He asks her about her family, and she rambles about her mother's flightiness. Apparently she thinks the fact that her mother has been married four times means she's an "incurable romantic," and not that she just has terrible taste in men.

Perhaps it's a genetic trait.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Fifty Shades of Snark, Part 1

Okay, here goes.

After the dull-looking cover (hey, you know what makes interesting cover art? A picture of a gray tie. That'll reel 'em in!), we find an "About the Author" page that informs us that EL James is a "TV executive, wife, and mother of two" who "dreamt of writing stories that readers would fall in love with, but put those dreams on hold to focus on her family and her career." Apparently this novel represents her first attempt to "[pluck] up the courage to put pen to paper," which is confusing to me since I didn't think writing stories took a lot of courage. Sharing stories takes courage, of course. Letting other people read what you write can be gut-wrenching. But actually writing stories, ones that you can keep to yourself if they don't turn out well? I don't think that's particularly brave. I'm a writer, and I don't think I have to "pluck up the courage" to write-- I just have to do it. It can be hard work, of course, but it's not really that intimidating to write stuff for your own pleasure.

Anyways.

We meet our narrator and heroine, Ana, a college student who, in the grand tradition of Mary Sues, happens to be pale and have humungous Japanamation eyes and conform to all modern beauty standards and yet simultaneously thinks she's just a mess, a total mess. She's flustered because her roommate Kate is sick and now she has to take over Kate's interview with an "enigmatic CEO" and university donor for the school newspaper. I don't really get why this is her job-- shouldn't, I dunno, another student from the paper be doing this?-- but whatever.

Kate is, of course, "gamine and gorgeous," with strawberry-blonde hair and green eyes. Ooooh, threesome maybe?

Ana muses that Kate will make a wonderful journalist, as she is "articulate, strong, persuasive, argumentative, [and] beautiful." Because physical beauty is the key to being a newspaper reporter, obvs.

Ana "gather[s] her satchel," like a good British--I mean, American--girl, and borrows her roommate's Mercedes for the drive to Portland. (Side note: Why do all trashy romance novels seem to take place in the Pacific Northwest? Seriously.) Here the author actually uses the phrase "floor the pedal to the medal." I just read that phrase in an actual published novel. That just happened. My brain just exploded and I'm only on page 8.

Ana gets to this guy's office, which is made of steel and stone and is imposing and cold and blah blah blah. She's greeted by yet another attractive woman, and thank God, because what would literature be if we started writing about women who weren't attractive?

And OMG, Ana's full name is Anastasia Steele. I think I've just decided that she's Rayford Steele's long-lost sister.

Ana signs in at the front desk, blathers on about how she clearly doesn't belong there in her one brown skirt and messy hair, and refers to herself as looking "smart," which I'm pretty sure American college students wouldn't say. She is whisked upwards in an elevator at "terminal velocity," which makes me think, in an Inigo Montoya voice, "That phrase...I do not think it means what you think it means." She refers to herself as "Steele" in her inner monologue, which makes me wince a bit. Apparently the brilliant journalist roommate is such a brilliant journalist that she didn't even equip her randomly chosen replacement with a brief biography of the interview subject. Ana freaks out a little about her lack of basic preparation, as well she should.

Cue the next series of beautiful blonde women (Ana remarks that it's "like Stepford here," which makes me both laugh and involuntarily gag at the same time), who get her water and usher her in to see Mr. Grey. (Ha ha, get it? Fifty Shades of Grey? The guy's name is Grey? Oh, how very clever.)

Predictably, Mr. Grey is tall and attractive with--guess what?--gray eyes. His office is "way too big for just one man." (That's what she said!) She's awkward, he's handsome. She approves of his art, remarking that the paintings in the office are "raising the ordinary to the extraordinary." This proves that she indeed does not know what many words in the English language mean. Perhaps she should rethink this whole English Lit major thing. Mr. Grey "couldn't agree more" with her statement, which proves that he isn't actually paying attention to a damn thing that comes out of her mouth.

She refers to him as an "Adonis." How very Bella Swan of her.

She's still awkward, he's still cold and handsome and aloof. He uses the word "incentivize," which makes me want to strangle someone. She interviews him about his success, and he starts spouting arrogant bullcrap. She's understandably annoyed, and calls him a control freak, and he's pretty much like, Hellz yeah, bitch! She's disgusted by his arrogance, of course.

She does get him to admit that he invests in farming technologies because he wants to help feed starving people, or something. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless he's investing in farming technologies in East Africa, but okay, I'll just go with it. He goes off on a spiel about wanting to "possess things" and how he's the "ultimate consumer." Gee, can you tell a TV exec wrote this?

He figures out, using his super-duper investigative powers, that Ana is only there because she happens to be friends with the girl who was supposed to do the interview, not because she's an actual journalist or anything. As a result, he decides he gets to ask her questions about her personal life now. Suddenly, and for pretty much no reason at all, he's all offering her an internship at his company and shit. She's incredibly freaked out by this, which makes sense since he's basically offering her a job based on her appearance and not her actual qualifications. She hightails it out of there ASAP.

As soon as she's outside, she tries to figure out why "no man has ever affected [her] the way Christian Grey has." She wonders if it's his wealth, power, or "civility." I think it's probably because she's all of 21 years old, so really, how many men can have "affected" her at this point?

On the drive home, she muses endlessly about why she found him so uber-sexy. She seems to believe that he has a "right" to be arrogant because he's made a lot of money or whatever. Really? Bah.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Fifty Shades of Snark- Introduction

[From here on out, I'm gonna assume that every reader is familiar with Cleolinda's Twilight Recaps and the Slacktivist's witty and fascinating serial Left Behind critiques. If you're not...become so, posthaste. You'll thank me later.]

If you've never heard of the book Fifty Shades of Grey, you have been missing out, because, dude, this shit is ridiculous. What happened was that a woman wrote a Twilight fanfiction piece and posted it on the internet, and then somehow decided that she ought to change the names and publish this stuff as an e-book. Then all these New York stay-at-home-moms became obsessed with it and then other ladies also became obsessed with it and now it's, like, an actual bestselling series. Oh, and it's an erotic novel about a BDSM relationship between a college student and a businessman. Yes, that really happened. No, I am not making this up.

I've had some friends express curiosity, interested disgust, and mild amusement at the prospect of reading this book, but few of them have actually been brave enough to jump in, considering the terrible reviews and the mountains of violently purple prose into which they would have to wade. So you know what? I'm gonna take the bullet for us all. I will sacrifice myself so that you, dear reader, can take pleasure from the horribleness of pseudo-Twilight-fanfiction-masquerading-as-actual-fiction without being forced to support the twisted literary machine that decided this shit was acceptable in the first place.

In the grand tradition of reading terrible literature and making fun of it on the internet, I've decided that I will be reading Fifty Shades of Grey and recapping it here. This way you don't have to spend money buying the books, or waste time going to the library, or kill any more of your brain cells than you absolutely must. (Although, in all fairness, you'll still lose a few. I'm not a very good writer, either.)

Aren’t you glad I’m spending my summer reading trashy fiction and complaining about it to you instead of making money to support myself? You’re welcome.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Birthday Girl

I'm 27 years old today, which isn't really a "milestone" birthday. My husband will be 30 in July, which is a much bigger deal.

But I'm still pretty stoked about my birthday. Adam took me out for my Birthday Breakfast (which is always what I want for my birthday gift--breakfast is my favorite meal of the day, and Adam always takes me to Le Pain Quotidien for bread and coffee), and my parents sent me a card with some birthday money, and it's a beautiful day today, although it's going to be hot as the dickens.

I never really get why people are so upset about being older, especially in their 20s and 30s. I mean, I guess it sucks to be closer to death, but it's also awesome to have had so many cool experiences. And there are more to be had!

I'm excited to head towards 30. I'm excited to move, to learn, to grow with my husband. I'm excited for all the adventures that await us.

One thing I'm deeply grateful for is that I've actually become the person I always wanted to grow up to be. So really, no matter what comes next, I'll still be that person...just stronger, smarter, and hopefully more financially stable in the years to come. ;)

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Weekend Notes

This is all gonna be kind of a jumble. Sorry, I'm kind of jumbled up in general right now.

We're having a pretty awesome weekend, I must say. Adam and I spent the day enjoying the sunshine--we went to Trader Joe's, strolled to Washington Square Park to enjoy the musical stylings of a wandering grand piano player, and then enjoyed a BBQ at the seminary with some friends. There were awesome foodstuffs, great people, and delicious mint juleps! Now we've just finished the first two episodes of Game of Thrones, which was pretty durn good; I didn't think I'd be into it, but I'm pretty much already hooked.

Tomorrow I'm skipping church (HORRORS!) to finish up a writing audition for a new freelance job I'm hoping to get--they liked my resume, so now I'm hoping they'll like my writing style, too. It'd be nice to have some form of income after I quit my job, so I'm looking to keep myself busy with smaller writing projects. And tomorrow evening Adam and I are going to see a production of Julius Caesar at Baruch, which should be pretty awesome. You really can't go wrong with Shakespeare, and I was lucky enough to marry a man who enjoys that sort of thing, so long as there is plenty of murder and revenge involved.

Two more weeks of full-time employment. Only a month until Adam's graduation, and then we'll move a week later.

I'll be 27 on Monday.

Life is moving pretty fast these days.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Virgin Mary, College Student

I was on Facebook this morning and saw a sidebar ad that, bizarrely, made my day:



I love imagining the Virgin Mary nursing Jesus as she completes her MBA from the University of Phoenix.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Let's stop beating each other up, shall we?

This morning I read a fabulous piece by Ashley Judd in the Daily Beast. I think you should read it, too.

Here's the short version, in case you're feeling lazy: Ashley Judd appeared on TV a few weeks back with a seemingly puffy face. Instantly, everyone in the universe freaked out, including actual news stations, who spent far more time than they needed to spend (read: any time at all) analyzing what was "wrong" with her. People accused her of having "work" done, and of using facial injections (i.e., Botox). In reality, the actress had been suffering from a serious sinus infection and had been taking antibiotics, and had consequently gained a small amount of weight.

In her essay, Judd attacks "the assault on our body image, the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification" that lead to the freak-out about her face. She does an excellent job of dissecting the media circus that erupted around her appearance, with various "experts" commenting on the supposed plastic surgery they "concluded" she must have had.

But she does a particularly good job calling out other women for fueling such viciousness:

"That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women."

Women are often active participants in reinforcing patriarchal norms. I caught myself being just as vicious last week, when Samantha Brick's infamous article "Why women hate me for being beautiful" went viral and began clogging up my newsfeed. In it, the author-- a sensationalist columnist known for her ridiculous, inflammatory remarks-- claims that other women hate her, ignore her, unfriend her, and distrust her because of her looks. And like many women I know, my first reaction was not to think, "Gee, what a nasty attitude," or "Man, she seems full of it," but rather to look at her photo and think, "Ugh, she's not pretty at all!"

Despite the fact that this woman has clearly been the victim of emotional domestic abuse (see here, here, and here), many of us had no pity for her. And many more of us felt instinctually, not interest in her high self-esteem or discomfort at her arrogance, but disgust that she dared to call herself beautiful when we felt she was really quite ordinary.

Your appearance is not your worth. Your weight, your youth, your zits, your makeup, your clothes-- those aren't who you are. You aren't a number on a scale. You aren't a certain candle count on a birthday cake. You aren't a size 2 dress or a perfect shade of red or your fine lines or your wrinkles or the bags under your eyes.

You are not your fucking khakis.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Triduum

This year was the first time I've ever been able to go to Good Friday services at Stiggy's. Usually I have to work and all, but this year I finally took my discretionary holiday and stayed home. So for the first time, I'll be able to go to all three Triduum services-- Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Great Vigil.

I hate Lent as a general rule, but the Triduum makes it totally worth it. And the Vigil is one of my three favorite services (the other two being Christmas Eve and Blessing of the Animals), even though I'm exhausted by the time it rolls around.

I've learned a lot at Stiggy's, even though (or maybe because) it's so different from my home church and my family's traditions. And beyond what I've learned about Anglo-Catholicism and orthodoxy, I've also learned things about myself, clarified what I believe and why I worship the way I do. Part of that has come from constantly negotiating compromises between the Anglo-Catholic traditions and my own, more Protestant, theology (I'll kneel for the Eucharistic prayers but not for the Creed; I'll genuflect before the altar but with a curtsy, not a full-blown kneel; I'll venerate the cross on Good Friday with the triple genuflection and prostrate myself before it, but I don't kiss it; etc.), and part of it comes from being exposed to new ways of worshiping and thinking about God. I certainly enjoy all the Latin, that's for sure.

I don't know where we'll end up, liturgically speaking. Adam did his field work within very high church traditions, and he likes them, but I think he's ready for a change. I think I am, too. I guess it'll all depend on where he gets a job, and what kinds of churches we find in Chicago.

Let the church-hunting begin, I guess!

Thursday, April 5, 2012

In Defense of Open Table

It's Maundy Thursday. What better time to reflect upon the practice of communion?

Recently, a lot of my seminarian friends on Facebook have been posting articles opposing the practice of Open Table in the Episcopal Church. For those of you who don't know what that means, Open Table is the practice of permitting everyone--even the unbaptized-- to receive the Eucharist, instead of restricting communion only to baptized persons. Currently, the canons on the Episcopal Church reserve communion for the baptized, so practicing Open Table communion is currently not sanctioned by the church. However, it is being considered at General Convention this year, and there is a chance that we may strike the sentence in the canons that prevents the unbaptized from receiving the body and blood of Christ Jesus.

I have, I must confess, been a fan of this idea from the get-go, and so has my home parish. My initial acceptance was pretty knee-jerk: Jesus practiced radical hospitality, so therefore we must practice radical hospitality. In fact (and here I think I can reveal to you a not-so-secret, since the priest who performed our ceremony retired immediately afterwards and isn't in any danger of getting into trouble), Open Table was practiced at our wedding, nearly four years ago. I didn't even request it-- our priest, a dear friend and excellent pastor, was just responding to the situation as he saw it, which was that the vast majority of the people present at the service were not Episcopalians, and that most were not even Christians. He saw that these people, most of whom had not be baptized, felt moved by the sight of two Christian people being joined together by the Holy Spirit and wanted to be a part of that sacred moment. It was a good response, I think-- not just pastorally, but theologically.

I have read the theological arguments against Open Table (or, as most opponants call it, "Communion Without Baptism"), and I do appreciate and respect a lot of the thinking behind it. And I agree that, even though I think priests need to feel free to respond to certain situations accordingly (just like at our wedding), Open Table should not be made a part of the canons until we've mulled it over for awhile. I'm not sure, even as a supporter, that we're ready to move here quite yet. I guess I'm a typical Episcopalian in that I think we need a few more commissions, committees, and studies on the subject before we even propose to make such drastic changes.

But even though I respect many of the arguments put forth by the opponants of Open Table, I simply don't agree with most of them. I agree with a few, but I prioritize certain values over others, and quite frankly, I prioritize the values put forth by pro-OT arguments more than I prioritize those expressed in anti-OT arguments. As with most heated religious issues, both sides are, to an extent, correct. Each side simply holds different things dear. Everyone has to decide which correct statements are more important.

I believe that the value inherent in practicing Open Table is more important than the value inherent in restricting communion to the unbaptized.

Baptism as a Prerequisite For Understanding Communion

One of the anti-OT arguments I find most frustrating is that of baptism as a prerequisite for understanding communion. The argument, put forth by James Farwell in the Anglican Theologican Review and by Derek Olsen in his incredibly condescending post on Episcopal Cafe, is that baptism must come before communion because without baptism, we cannot understand the Eucharist. Eucharist without baptism is "grace without cost," Olsen insists, and then even more dramatically: "It represents the offer of intimacy without commitment, love without cost and that, right there, is the crime--for the cost is Christ."

Okay, fine--we'll go with that, for a moment. If you believe that baptism is the "context" of communion, so to speak--if you believe that one cannot come to the Eucharistic table without having been "warned...what awaits [you] at the table," as Olsen says, then we have a lot of work to do.

Because we obviously can't have young children taking communion anymore. I think Kathryn Tanner's rebuttal in the ATR says it best:

"Moreover, while baptism before eucharist, and eucharist as empowering mission, broadly conform with long established church practice, [this] particular understanding of the logic of participation is hard to square with the realities of church life and practice. The idea that only the informed and the committed should participate in the eucharist conflicts with the current practice of allowing infants to take communion. Are babies sufficiently informed and committed by virtue of their baptism?...[this] logic of participation in the eucharist is also in danger of wildly overestimating the degree to which baptized Christians—in any period of church history—are committed and informed…the idea that you “already” know what the Christian life is all about before you get to the table…oddly suggests that baptism somehow completely or finishes the catechetical process. And it completely downplays the capacity of the eucharist to inform and shape the character of Christian life through participation in it."

I'm sorry, but I think, if we want to work under such assumptions, we need to eliminate infant baptism. You can't seriously believe that a five-month-old baby is more committed to the Christian life than a 55-year-old man who began exploring his faith five months ago. That's just...ridiculous.

If you prefer, we could go in the other direction and make confirmation a requirement for Eucharist. That would make more sense. But of course, then we can't let kids have communion, which is not going to please a lot of parents, lemme tell you. If you want a fun PR moment, let someone catch a priest denying communion to their cherubic seven-year-old son. And that still doesn't solve the problem of what to do when baptized Christians from other denominations--ones that don't do confirmation--come to visit. Do we deny them communion, too? What about people with severe mental handicaps, who can't fully understand the theology behind the Eucharist? What about people with severe Alzheimer's, who understood it once but remember nothing now?

Eucharist and the Last Supper

James Farwell argues in the ATR that we must reject the assertion made by scholars of the Jesus Seminar that "the synoptic accounts of the eucharistic meal and the account of 1 Corinthians are retrojections of later ecclesiastical practice into the earliest period," and I do agree with him here. (How could I not, when he's quoting John Koenig? I mean really.) I don't think it's impossible that our Gospel accounts of the Last Supper might be historically accurate--and even if they're not, they still might be theologically reasonable. As Farwell says, "Given his practice of preaching and symbolizing his hope for an inbreaking kingdom of God through meal images and practices, it is not unreasonable to imagine that [Jesus] might have gathered with his disciples in the last hour, under the shadow of the impending culmination of his conflict with temple leaders, for an intimate meal that focused, in symbolic words and actions, the vision of his hoped-for kingdom."

I think that's fair. What I don't understand is the leap from "meal with the disciples" to "meal that is intended ONLY for the disciples, even if non-disciples happen to be there."

Farwell explains that, in light of the Last Supper and the fact that Jesus ate it with his "initiated" friends, "...it is reasonable for us today about who participates in that meal and whether they have committed themselves to the vision that animated Jesus. Such a practice is not inhospitable, but simply focused for a certain 'audience.'" But to my mind, that parallel between the disciples at the Last Supper and the baptized Christians in the "audience" of the church doesn't work because at the Last Supper, there weren't any non-disciples present, either. We don't know how Jesus would have reacted to a non-disciple who wanted to partake.

I don't really see how the Last Supper indicates that Jesus wanted this meal to be a symbolic service only for the baptized. According to my lexicon here, the word "disciple" in Greek is "mathetes," which means "learner" or "pupil." It does not mean "initiate." It does not mean "official member." It means "learner." It means one who is learning, who is in transition. A disciple is not necessarily one who is marked and set apart by the one he/she follows; it is one who simply begins following.

Since we don't have any evidence that there were non-disciples hanging around at the Last Supper, and even if there were, there isn't any evidence that Jesus turned them away from the table or warned them not to participate, I don't think we can conclude that communion as a reenactment of the last supper pressuposes the exclusion of the unbaptized just because the people who were there were probably all baptized. I mean, really, all the disciples (at least the Twelve) were men; do we then pressuppose that the Eucharist is meant to be shared only with men? From what we know of Jesus, if one of his disciples had his kid brother tag along, wouldn't Jesus have shared the meal with him, too? I'm having trouble imagining Jesus looking into the face of a disciple's unbaptized friend or cousin or son and saying, "Nope, sorry, come back when you're baptized."

John 15:15 has Jesus telling his disciples: "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." He says this after communion, not before. It was sharing the meal and listening to his words that made the disciples Jesus' friends, not their baptism.

One of the reasons I have always loved the Episcopal Church is because it is liturgically intentional. The pomp and circumstance actually all means something; we don't do it because it's pretty, we do it because it is meaningful to us.

But at a certain point, I think we sometimes forget that theory is much less important than reality. It's fine to think we mean one thing, but if the message that is being sent is an entirely different message than we mean to send, we need to re-evaluate what we're doing, period. The bottom line is that, for me, attempting to imbue a ritual with a particular specific meaning is less important than changing people's lives through Christ. And the fact of the matter is that not everyone's path to Christ is the same. Not everyone's journey with God begins with baptism. Everyone's life is different; we need to be visionary enough to recognize that, just as some babies are born breech, some people may just come into the Christian life backwards, as it were.

The whole point of "radical hospitality" is that IT IS RADICAL. It's hard to be radical when you're always just following the rules, when you keeping doing things one way because that's the way things have always been done. The whole point of radical hospitality is that it challenges assumptions about who is "in the know," about who "belongs." Open Table does that. And no matter what we decide to do, I'm glad and grateful that we've at least taken the time to think hard about what these things mean to us, about what baptism and communion and community are in the Episcopal Church.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Mommy Dearest

I tell a lot of people a wide variety of things about why we don't have kids, and all of them are true: we're too poor, we move around too much, we're both too busy with school/work, we feel too young to be parents. But none of these are the real reason why I'm afraid of having children, and none of these account for why Adam is so much more gung-ho about babies right now. So why am I scared of having kids? It's not about losing sleep or painful breastfeeding or gaining weight or giving up wine.

It's because I'm scared of other mothers.

Well, it's not really about mothers, per se. It's more about "mommy culture," about the vicious and frightening ways that society picks mothers apart and tries to break them completely.

I follow some "mommy blogs," and pretty much all they've taught me is that, no matter what choices I make, they will always be the wrong ones. I will always be a terrible mother.

If I have an unmedicated birth, I'll be a masochistic show-off. If I have an epidural, I'll be deemed too lazy and selfish to have a "true birth experience."

If I breastfeed, I'm a showy boob-Nazi whose sole purpose in life is to make other people uncomfortable with her breasts. If I formula-feed, I'm a quitter who poisons her child with artifical filth.

If I send my kid to public school, I'm abandoning them to a wilderness of drugs and violence and state tests. If I send my kid to private school, I'm a snob who can't bear to force her ickle precious baby to interact with different people.

If and when we have a child, I am not going to be talking to anyone about it. No one. We'll figure it out ourselves, because that sounds a lot better than being shamed, castigated, railroaded, berated, ignored, pitied, and accused by complete strangers. Most of the internet drama I have seen unfold before my eyes has been related to childrearing and the fact that some people do things differently than other people, and I just don't want any part of that intellectual bloodbath.

I am not interested in going to a playgroup and sitting through a lecture all about why you should have only purchased organic onesies and why real mothers make all their own baby food from yams and flaxseed. I am not interested in people making sneaky comments about how it must be "so hard for me to be working and missing out on all these milestones." I am not interested in "oh, that's a different name" or "aren't you going to teach him sign language?" or "why would you let your daughter wear that?" or "I would never send my child to that school, but I guess we all have different priorities" or "Daycare? Don't you have family around?"

I read Susan Douglas' The Mommy Myth awhile back and loved it, because I thought it really explained a lot about the forces behind the "Mommy Wars" and what their motivations might be. But it never answered one crucial question: Why do we fall for it? Why do we care so much about other people's decisions?

I guess, in a way, we care because we fear other people's decisions might reflect poorly on our own, and make us feel like bad mothers. If that woman over there is homeschooling her kids because she thinks they'll get a better education, then does that mean she thinks my kids are getting a poor education in public school? If that woman over there is breastfeeding because "breast is best" and breastmilk is more nutritious, does that make me look like a bad mother for formula-feeding? Or more importantly, does it actually make me a bad mother?

I don't really want to be that invested in what other people do, but it looks to me like it's unavoidable, at least from what I'm reading and seeing.

And really, I don't want to be absolutely obsessed with motherhood. I don't want that to be the only thing I can talk about, think about, work on, experience fully. I want motherhood to be a part of me without being the only part of me. I want to be a mother, but also a wife and an academic and a runner and a Christian and a Democrat and a chocolate lover and a reader. I don't want to be consumed by this one role.

How do I do that? Is it possible to become someone's mother without becoming an unwitting combatant in the Mommy Wars?

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

YES.

There is a Mitzvah Tank currently parked across the street from me, blasting "Hava Nagila" from a loudspeaker.

I love this city so hard right now.

This is sad...

...but it's really exciting to contemplate living in a 600-sq.ft. apartment this fall. Like, REALLY EXCITING.

Our apartment is super nice, don't get me wrong. It's your typical 350-sq.ft. one-bedroom in Manhattan. It has a fireplace (yay!), hideous black waxy paint over all the floors (boo!), and a nice, cozy vibe to it, mostly because we were able to paint the walls all sorts of fun colors.

But I'm ready to have a read kitchen now, maybe even with a full-size oven and some counter space! And I'm ready to live in something that is NOT a fourth-floor walk-up! And maybe with actual closets! And consistent supplies of hot water! Possibly!

Oh, the places we'll go...