In The Hunger Games, one of the main plotlines is, to put it in the simplest way possible, a love triangle. I remember being on Twitter prior to the release of the last book, and people couldn’t stop posting about whether they were Team Peeta or Team Gale as they waited for the author’s reveal. And now, now that we’re only a few months away from the release of the movie based on the first book, people discuss the three leads’ looks as much (if not more) than they do their acting abilities.

But I don’t think Suzanne Collins intended her books to be love stories. Katniss is far too concerned with other things to want to deal with choosing a boyfriend. I get a strong sense from her that she could live easily without either male (if “easy” is a word that can accurately be applied to the life of the Mockingjay), and that’s why it cuts Katniss so much when, in the third book, Gale says that she’ll pick the man she can’t live without. As if it’s about need. As if this type of romantic love is just as essential to survival as eating, breathing.

I’m beginning to get to that age where many people say it’s time to be thinking about starting a family, settling down. What people mean when they say this is that it’s time I found a man. Five or so years ago, I would have agreed. Back then I was stuck on that ever-pervasive idea that a woman’s worth is measured by the man or men who have interest in her. But like Katniss, I know better—or at least I do now. So many stories focus on love as the main plot (or at least one of the main plots). This is especially true when stories are aimed at girls or women. In many ways, I fall victim to this easy story myself, though I’m much more interested in the stories where relationships fall apart, where people just miss each other, where people are together but oh-so-wrong for each other.

Young girls—and even older women—need stories that speak of other things. Even in a trilogy like The Hunger Games, where the love story takes a back seat to much more engaging and important questions (of survival, of human nature, of our capacity for evil and destruction, of picking ourselves back up again and again, etc.,) however, the question of romantic love is too often the one we find ourselves focusing on. (Point: I was on a blog the other day where Hunger Games fans were asked what one question they would ask Katniss if given the chance, and a huge number asked questions about one or both of the boys in the story. In her own first-person narrative, her own character and her own story have come secondary to that of her potential loves.)

A few days ago, I happened to run into an old acquaintance who was in town for the holidays and who had brought his significant other with him. I remember those days of splitting the holidays, of one meal here, a long drive, then more holiday cheer, food, and gifts. I always felt bad that I had to work to be gracious, because while I really enjoyed spending time with my then-boyfriend’s family, I hurt for the time I missed with my own. There’s love for you, but of a different sort.

There’s not much point to that story, I suppose, except to note how pervasive the idea of “the other half” has become in our culture. I don’t like the idea (implied or otherwise) that I need someone else to make me the best I can be, that by myself I am only a part of something that could be much larger. That sharing a bathroom sink and a dresser means love means ultimate achievement means the thing that should be striven for.

In the end, Katniss does get married, but it’s not a love story. She makes a choice, but she doesn’t make it out of some fluttery feeling in her stomach. It’s about hard work, and shared experience, and companionship. It’s when she’s ready, and there’s no sense that she would be lessened in any way had she never been ready. The story, in the end, is about her, and not about her+Peeta or her+Gale. It’s about her strength, fear, survival, experience, growth. It’s about her humanity, and, whether fiction of not, that should be enough for anyone.

Lady Gaga’s Judas was leaked early, and I must say, I love it! The song is, to me, metaphorical, about loving the wrong man, about loving someone who hurts and betrays you, and all the conflicting emotions that exist in this type of situation. To be sure, the surface story of Mary Magdelene and Judas works for me as well, I just love that there’s more to it.

From my limited research (if you can call it that), however, I’m finding that there’s a lot of vitriol toward the song, and toward Lady Gaga in general. A radio station here in Orlando premiered it yesterday and then had people call in with their opinions—over half (at the time I was listening) didn’t like it. (Of course, Lady Gaga was performing in Orlando at that exact time, so I feel like the numbers were skewed against her.)

I’ve thought about this response since then, and all the public response after Born This Way was released. And I’ve decided: This has more to do with Lady Gaga than it does with the music.

Okay, stay with me.

We live in a culture that oftentimes pushes against success. We to see a moderate amount, not sensations. This is evidenced in the people that call musicians sellouts when their music finally breaks into mainstream play, by the people (some of whom I went to grad school with) that find popular literature unworthy of attention. This is the girl that told me, in all seriousness, that she would never read Harry Potter for the sole reason that everyone else liked it. This is why we love to see celebrities fall, fail, why these days Britney Spears makes a splash in the news when she screws up but only a ripple when she does well. And now, I believe, this phenomenon has come to Lady Gaga.

She has her fans, of course. Loyal fans. People who tell her—and mean it—that her messages of tolerance have saved their lives. But she has also caused a stir with some of her antics, and so there is a substantial group of people out there who believe she’s had enough attention (or too much) and that it’s time for her to be done. It seems to me like the people who will go out to vote against something but not for something—the voice of the opposition can be so much louder.

And some people really don’t like her music. That’s fine. No one is universally loved. What gets me, however, is the people who then say that she’s not talented, as if their taste alone defines talent. I can’t stand Katy Perry’s music, but you won’t ever catch me saying she doesn’t deserve her record deal.

Anyway, here’s the new song. Enjoy it, or don’t. I personally can’t wait for the whole album, and I wish Lady Gaga all the success in the world.

There are no spoilers, if you care about that sort of thing.

Okay, this post is a departure from what I normally blog about, so bear with me (or, you know, don’t read). I promise this is more story-centered than combat-centered (which I also have thoughts on but will instead just whine to my sister about). Dragon Age II is the sequel to Dragon Age: Origins, which I thought was an amazing game. One not without its flaws, certainly, but one that brought to balance nicely the things I enjoy in video games. First, the story was compelling. The world was rich and varied, the characters had desires and pasts and complexities, and the plot kept my interest (and continues to keep my interest through multiple playthroughs). So when I heard about the sequel, I was super excited.

Well, now that I’ve beaten the second game (which I only did so quickly because I’ve been too sick to go to work all week, but lucky for me, the couch doesn’t care if I breathe on it, or if I fall asleep on it while I’m in the middle of playing), I’ve got some thoughts.

It’s a fun game. Fun, but not amazing. And let’s just get this out into the open: I was a bit biased against it to begin with. Mostly because I really enjoyed my character from the first game (who, it must be said, was a major badass) and this game was selling a new character that the designers seemed to be pushing as somehow superior to my world-saving Warden in the first game. My new girl just worked in a city. So right up front, I was a bit annoyed that they were downplaying the plot set up to be so instrumental in the first game (the trouble with sequels, no?).

Story Within a Story

DAII also operated as a story within a story, where a character is narrating events that happened in the past. But the way the game was sold made this fall flat a bit. It was interesting to have it done this way (something I’ve never seen done in my admittedly limited gaming experience), but it starts out with the legend version of the true story where you can do crazy amounts of damage and all the women have absolutely huge boobs (sigh). The writers seemed to want to do something with how we retell factual events, but as this was only used one other time in the game, it seemed almost incidental. I wanted them to either cut it or work with it more.

Character Interactions

One of the most disappointing aspects. DAII (as was DA:O) is an RPG, but a lot of this functionality was removed. Characters could only interact at plot specific moments, or when they had a favor to ask. Basically, if there wasn’t a yellow arrow over someone’s head, you couldn’t interact with him or her. As that is generally an important function of RPGs (as well as the fact that your character is with these people for six years), it seems like there should have been more, even if it was totally unimportant to the overall plot but instead added for color.

Then, the dialogue system felt disconnected. In order to have a fully-voiced main character, dialogue options were summarized and presented for selection along with a(n unhelpful) icon serving as a cheat sheet for how the character would say…whatever it was you picked for them to say. I can’t even begin to guess how many times the option I picked turned out to have little to do with what the character said (which makes RPing a bit difficult). On the one hand it was cool to have a voice accompanying my girl, but on the other…well, without the voice, I can assign a mood for the response in my head, which I really prefer. This new system really put a damper on my imaginative involvement with the game.

World Building and Timeline

The world building was, in my opinion, not done very well. Aside from the laziness in coding various areas (“I’ve been here before!”), the game didn’t really feel like I was in the Dragon Age universe. Now, in a video game, as in movie or television, this comes from two areas: knowledge of the world and visualization of the world. Both seemed off at times, though the visualization much more so.

It was the timeline that really bothered me. Bioware broke the timeline they’d established in the previous game in order to make this one work better. Now, I’m a series reader, and I know there will be mistakes from time to time, as later work is, by definition, created later, but I’m talking discrepancies of years. Of course, I suppose it is possible that I’ve done my own math wrong, but I really don’t think so. In either case, this type of world building should be invisible. So yeah. I wonder when a character shows up that is supposed to be in another country fighting bad guys with my Warden from the first game. Just saying.

Some Good and Fun

It wasn’t all bad, though. There were plot twists that I never suspected but that fit. The dialogue made me laugh quite a bit. And there was a great moment when characters from the first game reunite and share a moment talking about how different they look (because all characters’ looks were redesigned, at least slightly, for this game).

My favorite parts, however, were the ones that I could match up to the first game. They mentioned my Queen Warden Commander Badass (yeah, that’s what I call her, no laughing), I cheered! They insulted her, I wanted there to be an option to punch them in the face. A few characters from the first game had screen time (some even had pretty major roles), and once I got over their new looks and, sometimes, new voices, it was fun to see how this game pulled from the earlier one.

But I think this is a flaw to a certain extent. Even after finishing DAII, I feel more connected to the characters from the first game. This is because of the things I mentioned above (as well as a strange feeling of not wanting to “cheat” on my Warden). Loyalty is a good thing, certainly.

I have hopes for the next installment after the ending, but all in all the storytelling in this game suffered. I’ve got some thoughts on why this happened after they produced such a hit the first time around, but, again, I’ll save it.

This post has been a long time coming, since shortly after the finale aired in May, but I wanted to let the entire experience stew for me awhile. Since then I’ve rewatched the finale twice, discussed it to no end with my family and a few friends, and now I’m working my way through all of season six on the DVR. And I still think the finale, and the show as a whole, was a glorious piece of work, of art.

The main criticism I’ve seen deals with the shows refusal (or, as some have said, inability) to answer all of the mysteries. I saw it described very eloquently as a failure to pay the bill of dipping into the future, but I still disagree 100%. And here’s why.

The show was never about the mysteries.

Yes, they figured prominently, yes they drove the characters, and yeah, they didn’t always make sense (I still don’t understand how Sayid came back to life after two hours, or what that means about Claire). But in the end—and from the beginning—the show was about a dynamic cast of characters: Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Hurley, Sun, Jin, Ben, Richard (and Juliet, of course). That’s why the writers incorporated the flashbacks in season one. That’s why shows were usually centered around one or two characters, even while the story might touch elsewhere. And so if that’s what the writers most heavily invested in, that’s what the payoff had to be—not answers.

Because the show was based in reality—or rather, it was based in something I’ll call character reality. The characters were dropped onto the island like us, with our range of views and beliefs, our fears and ambitions, our problems and our pain. There were broken families, bitter disappointments, successes tinged with the unexpected. They were lives interrupted, and except for the more extreme circumstances they had been put in, they could have been us. When the mysteries started, they reacted in a variety of ways, as would be expected from what we know of the world. Some characters were easy to relate to while others took more work. For me, I felt most akin to Shannon and Charlie in the first season.

And for me, this reality can logically mean only one thing. There will never be a minute when all, or even most, of what people want to know, becomes clear to them. This is clear in our own lives, without the added benefit of mysteries. I will never know why my first boyfriend was so nasty to me at the end, or how I passed my intro biology class in college. I will also never understand the physics behind what caused the survivors to jump through time in season five, but it is enough that I accept that the island was jumping through time. Yes, there might be a bigger explanation there (and I’d be willing to bet that the writers know and understand at least a significant part of this), but it had no place in the television show. First off, someone please explain to me how that would have ever fit in with the show.

There were many mystery/answer combinations like this in the show that many fans simply couldn’t accept or weren’t satisfied with. My guess is because they didn’t understand or believe the explanation, but if my ex were to come back now and tell me in a few sentences why he treated me that way, I bet I’d react in a similar manner of disbelief or unacceptance. But what matters here is that those things didn’t matter. Rose says this herself when Desmond meets her in season six, commenting on how they’ve moved through time, and it is clear that while she doesn’t understand it, she accepts it. And if LOST is trying to teach us anything (though I would never call the show didactic), it is this.

What the show promised, the show delivered upon. The show had a very definite and satisfying arc, and to me, it was indeed a masterpiece that I will watch again and again over the coming years.

And also, just to clear this up, the finale in no way meant that they all died in the plane crash. The writers are not laughing at you.

If you read my post yesterday, I listed some of my favorite characters from the show, and while I think my Hugo and Ben choices are pretty well received, I think my Shannon and Juliet choices are much less so. I’ve seen these Facebook games where someone posts a list of all the characters in the show, puts the number 10 next to each character, and then turns the post loose. The game is that each new poster copies and pastes the list into his or her post, subtracts one from his or her least favorite character and adds one to his or her favorite character. Once a character hits zero, they’re removed. Though this list seemed a bit strange in that it had Ben being eliminated pretty early, something you don’t usually see in these.

As before, spoilers below.

The general reception to Shannon was especially harsh and overwhelmingly negative. And yeah, she was a bitch through most of her time on-screen, but I always saw depth of character underneath that, and I thought it was interesting that the writers took such a well-known archetype and, in the end, turned it around, complicated it. There were hints of her vulnerability, sympathy, and complexity from the first few episodes: Boone’s comment that she’s a “functioning bulimic”; her conversation with Claire while Shannon is suntanning; her resistance to translating because she might mess it up.

Juliet’s character, on the other hand, was received rather positively by critics, but very negatively by a lot of fans. They criticized Mitchell’s acting because Juliet often came across as flat (for lack of a better word; what I’m trying to get at is that she didn’t react as emotionally as many of the other characters we’d come to know and love), but this is a character trait of Juliet, not a failing of Mitchell. Juliet’s story was always incredibly captivating for me, and so complex, and while she did things that I wouldn’t expect over and over again, afterward, I felt that her reactions were really the only possible ones for her character. She sacrifices much throughout the show, and when she turns on Sawyer in the season five finale, I found it heart wrenching and utterly believable that she would fall back and try to protect herself. And throughout all of season six, her death has been hanging over Sawyer’s character, driving his choices and decisions in much the way I wished the writers had done with Claire after Charlie’s death. If Juliet does not come back during the series finale (she’s not listed as a guest start for “What They Died For,” I will be a very, very sad little Lost fan.

Finally, if anyone is interested in playing along with my favorite character and who-would-win-in-a-fight bracket games, let me know and I’ll post the links here once I make the PDFs.

Best show ever! Except where's Juliet?!

In honor of the looming end of the best television show of all time, I’m going to dedicate some of my blog space to LOST this week and next. And first, for my own personal reminiscence, I want to talk about how I came to this show and why I love it so much.

The previews for the first season didn’t do all that much for me. I only caught a few minutes of the show once, during a boar hunt (maybe the one where Locke, Michael, and Kate go after the boar), and I was bored. Then, the week before the season one finale, a friend of mine had me watch the penultimate episode with him and became hooked. I watched the season finale totally confused and then borrowed all of season one from him. I remember I watched the final twelve episodes in one day because I couldn’t stop.

Since then, I’ve been addicted. I’ve planned my evenings around the show, going so far as to not sign up for classes that met during it (though then ABC changed the day on me and I was screwed anyway). I buy every season the day it comes out and frequently rewatch episodes. About once a year I go through the entire season, starting with episode one. I’ve introduced the show to a handful of friends and also gotten them hooked. Once a year I print up an NCAA March Madness style bracket and then pass it out to people so that we can pick our favorite characters. This year I’m thinking of doing a second one that asks the question, “Who would win in a fight between…?” which is going to take an entire new seed-selection process. I’ve been mourning the end of the show since it was announced a few years back.

And here we are, two episodes and 3.5 hours away from the end. I’m excited and I’m sad, and I love every minute of it.

Spoilers below.

So, for fun, here are a few of my favorites when it comes to this, my favorite show of all time.

Character
Favorite: Juliet Burke
Honorable mentions: Alex Rousseau, Ben Linus, Shannon Rutherford, Hugo Reyes, Penelope Widmore, James (Sawyer) Ford

Episode
Favorite: The Constant (though picking a favorite episode is HARD)
Honorable mentions: LaFleur, The Pilot (parts one and two), One of Us, Ab Aeterno (though picking a few favorite episodes is like picking your favorite of all the red Skittles—it’s mostly what you grab first)

Worst Death
Death that made me cry the most: Juliet in the season 5 finale (then again in the season 6 premiere)
Others: Shannon in season 2, Sun and Jin in season 6, Alex in season 4

Best Death
Death that made me throw my hand up and say, “YES!”: Keamy in season 6
Others: When Sayid broke that guy’s neck with his feet in season 3, when Ben shot the guy with the flare gun in season 5

Grossest Moments
Moment that makes me sick just to think about: Locke’s broken leg in season 5
Other moments that I still close my eyes for: All the times Claire gets stuck with a needle in season 1, Libby setting that guy’s leg in season 2

If you know me at all, you probably know that I loathe Valentine’s Day, but not for the (horribly) stereotypical reasons of loneliness, jealousy, and cynicism (though I admit, I’m a cynic). In fact, it ranks second on my list of dumbest holidays ever, coming in behind Sweetest Day and right in front of New Years Eve. It’s a Hallmark holiday, hands down. It shouldn’t be about showing your significant other that you care—that should be evident the other 364 days of the year.

I’ve been anti-Valentine’s Day for a long time, and it’s often met by disbelief from the men (boys) I’ve dated. For instance, when I told my first real boyfriend that I didn’t want anything for Valentine’s Day, he stared at me for a full five seconds before asking if that was girl talk for “Buy me something or you die,” but I digress.

30 Rock did a just lovely introduction on Thursday between Tina Fey and a young girl selling Valentine’s Day cookies, so like Tina Fey, I will now be celebrating Anna Howard Shaw Day. And I’m going to celebrate it by doing homework and, if I get enough done, spending some time with my Xbox.

For those of you choosing to stay home (or stuck at home, as you may see it), I present, for your entertainment, what I’ve been enjoying on this here holiday. First, Pride and Prejudice in Emoticons, which covers both holidays fairly well. You’ve got a somewhat sweet and sappy love story, but you also have the story of a woman who dared do things her own way. (And did I mention the link is hillarious?) And second, courtesy of my dad, I have a column from the Lansing State Journal on the dreaded Valentine’s Day Box in elementary school classrooms, which sort of gets at my point of the whole ridiculousness of this holiday. (Though by the time I was in elementary school, you either gave valentines to everyone or to no one; that changed in middle school though, three years during which I never received a Valentine from a male.)

I’ve got a few posts brewing in my head, but I’m still on a high from the game today, so I thought I’d do a quick post of links that I’ve found lately and what I’m thinking about them. Some of these ideas I want to explore in more detail later on.

Girl sues school over prom-wear. This 17-year-old is suing her school for the right to wear a tuxedo to her high school prom, saying that, as a lesbian, she doesn’t identify with the message of sexuality a dress projects. The American Family Association supports the school, saying that her sexual identity is an “impulse” and that her wearing a tuxedo sends “destructive message” to other students. This is blatant homophobia and a push for clear-cut, traditional gender roles, leaving out anyone who doesn’t conform.

Pope claims condoms “aggravate” the AIDS problem in Africa. This is not to say that abstinence is not effective, but this is looking at the spread of AIDS through Western eyes. What about addressing gender roles, rape, women who cannot, culturally, ask their parters (husbands or otherwise) to use protection? What about AIDS education? Why does the Catholic church always seem to spout one idea as the cure rather than look at the problem comprehensively? It seems that they value upholding their law more than the lives of their followers. It’s all about the message and the power, not the people, and, unfortunately, the pro-life people seem to feel the same way: that the fetus deserves more rights than the woman.

Effort in England to improve rape prosecutions.  Now, I have to admit that when I saw this headline, a part of me was worried that it would be about how rape cases are just about crazy girls trying to cover up a mistake, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was about improving the conviction rate. It’s nice to see something that recognizes the difficulty in women (or men, though that’s less talked about) seeking and achieving legal justice for the crime committed against them. Too often certain people are presented as unrapable (the victim was a man, the victim was a woman wearing seductive clothing, was drunk, she was dating or married to the perpetrator, she was asking for it, she engaged in some level of sexual activity, she’s a sex worker, she’s a lesbian, etc…) or as bitches who falsely accuse innocent men and ruin their lives. (As a note, I’ve used one sided pronouns here, not to discount rape of a man by a woman but rather as a reflection of the gender that is most often the victim.)

Tammy Bruce calls Michele Obama trashy. This is just another example of backlash toward the first family for rising up in a white-dominated world. When it’s (mostly) frowned upon to make blatant racist statements, people often resort to messages such as this.

And finally, 14-year-old girl arrested for child pornography for posting naked pictures of herself on MySpace. I find this problematic for a variety of reasons, not least because of the double standard set for females in this country that they must be simultaneously innocent and sexual.

What have you been reading in the news lately?

I’ve been wanting to put together some thoughts on this song for quite some time now, ever since I heard it for the first time three or four months ago. I’m inclined to think I like it, though its mixed and problematic messages stop me pretty much every time I hear it. This is not an argument that the song should not exist, that it should not be listened to, or that Swift and her listeners are somehow stupid. It’s an exploration of the messages that could be pulled from the lyrics in the hope that this will inspire thought and discussion about those same issues. The lyrics can be found here and the music video, here.*

First, I want to address the most obviously problematic part of this song: The myth of the love story. This idea that love can be perfect (once two people overcome the obstacles and finally end up together) is not reality, though it is a commonly accepted myth in this world, even claiming an entire genre for itself in romance novels. Now, I’m not arguing that we should do away with everything that presents love in this sort of light–I’m not a fan of censorship–but I do believe we need to be aware of the impracticality of this belief.

Now Swift does not make explicit statements in her song about living happily ever after, but that idea hangs over the entire piece by repeating her title throughout the song. And I do not think that Swift needs to address this type of issue in her song (just as I do not believe a romance novel needs to), but the listener (and Swift herself) needs to be aware of the fantasy of such a reality.

Another problematic aspect of this song is the final verse. The girl in Swift’s song gets “tired of waiting” for her Romeo to “come around.” Her “faith in him” fades as she wonders when he will “come around.” When she does find him, she asks him to “save” her. Here she not only becomes a passive member in her own love story (which is especially odd since it seems a bit of a role reversal) but also an archetypal damsel in distress. She needs to be saved, but from what? The only problem that seems to occur in the song comes from her family’s (actually, father’s, but that’s an entire other issue) dislike of her Romeo. It’s unfortunate, but it hardly seems a dire situation from which she needs to be rescued.

Finally, there are the references to Romeo and Juliet and, once, to The Scarlet Letter. Here I’m going to mainly discuss how I feel these stories have been misinterpreted and/or distorted in order for Swift to tell her story. (Not that, as a writer, you cannot appropriate.) Romeo and Juliet was not a love story but rather a tragedy that developed out of love. They were not able to be together in the end (save through death, but I doubt Swift intends to send a message supportive of teen suicide). This misinterpretation seems to come–and this is something that really bothered one of my old roommates, so the credit all goes to Lauren–from a misunderstanding of the phrase star-crossed lovers. It’s not a pretty thing; it was not written to call up pictures of lovers with stars in their eyes. It means doomed by fate, by the stars. And since Romeo and Juliet is the story of two star-crossed lovers…well, you can fill in the rest.

The Scarlet Letter mishap is more minor, but still interesting to look at. Hester Prynne was marked with the scarlet letter to shame her, as punishment for her crime (assumed adultery, since no one save Hester knows if her husband is alive or dead). Hester cannot have a relationship because she is married whereas Swift’s speaker cannot because her father says so. And I doubt Swift is forbidden because she committed adultery.

*Eventually I want to embed things like videos, but I do want to do some more research on fair use. I’m pretty sure it’s okay, but I do want to check. I also want to find some way to use something like an LJ-cut for lyrics, but I haven’t explored this theme enough to see if something like that is supported. So for now you’ll have to follow my links.