Article 1: Setting the tone.
(Sorry for the wall of text--images forthcoming. Wanted to be sure I got this up first. --HC)
So for the next few weeks, Sunday Comics is going to be a little different. I’m
Showing posts with label Editorials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Editorials. Show all posts
26.7.09
Another very special Sunday Comics: The fall of Penny & Aggie
Sunday Comics is a weekly feature where I spotlight awesome comics that you may want to check out.
Some of you may remember way back in only my third-ever Sunday Comics when I spotlighted a little bit of awesomeness called Penny & Aggie. It was shiny goodness, a sort of modern-day, more-complex Archie, and I read it with joy and comfort, savoring especially the well-done characterization and layered character-building. This thing lived on how its characters were written.
Sadly, it has now been long enough that I think I can declare this wonderfullity no more.
It began fairly early this year--P&A wrapped up its longest, most serious, most story-impacting arc ever, called "The Popsicle War." It was well-staged, necessary to the large undercurrent plot, and changed the very nature of several key character relationships. Very soon after the "Popsicle War" arc had wrapped up (satisfyingly but still on some small "what now?" cliffhangers regarding characters who got the short end of the stick), it was announced that after five years, Giselle Lagace, their artist, was leaving the comic to work on some other comics/art projects. Though Giselle did good work, I wasn't initially too concerned--after all, the art was strong, but the comic's bigger strength had always been its writing. The new artist, whose name currently eludes me, actually draws fairly similarly to Giselle--the difference is there, but isn't jarring. So it seemed like things would continue more or less as normal.
I and a couple of friends who also read it quickly started to notice that the writing was feeling a bit off with the new artist. I shrugged it off--it's not like the comic was ever flawless, there was certainly the odd page here or there that fell a little flatter than others. Perhaps T. Campbell was simply having an off day, or as it were, off several days. Maybe Giselle was missed to an extent that it was briefly affecting the writing.
A few months later, I think I can say that whatever it is, Penny & Aggie has not been the same comic since that last arc finished, and the transition was sudden. The characters are caricatures of themselves, some, for no reason, even acting bluntly out of character. Characters revealing motivations and thinking has become clunky and as subtle as a train. Characters we should be checking up on have been ignored completely.
I do not write this to retract or rescind my spotlight--no no, at the time I did so it was a wonderful comic, and I will remember it for that. I write simply to ask what went wrong. To note. To, in a sense, warn.
I don't know what happened, but it's upsetting. Clearly, T. Campbell and G. Lagace had chemistry together...let's hope that they realize this as well...perhaps it's not silly to wonder if she might come back. Perhaps this is simply a bad new arc we find ourselves in for whatever reason. Or perhaps Penny & Aggie ended with The Popsicle War.
~Holden Out.
Some of you may remember way back in only my third-ever Sunday Comics when I spotlighted a little bit of awesomeness called Penny & Aggie. It was shiny goodness, a sort of modern-day, more-complex Archie, and I read it with joy and comfort, savoring especially the well-done characterization and layered character-building. This thing lived on how its characters were written.
Sadly, it has now been long enough that I think I can declare this wonderfullity no more.
It began fairly early this year--P&A wrapped up its longest, most serious, most story-impacting arc ever, called "The Popsicle War." It was well-staged, necessary to the large undercurrent plot, and changed the very nature of several key character relationships. Very soon after the "Popsicle War" arc had wrapped up (satisfyingly but still on some small "what now?" cliffhangers regarding characters who got the short end of the stick), it was announced that after five years, Giselle Lagace, their artist, was leaving the comic to work on some other comics/art projects. Though Giselle did good work, I wasn't initially too concerned--after all, the art was strong, but the comic's bigger strength had always been its writing. The new artist, whose name currently eludes me, actually draws fairly similarly to Giselle--the difference is there, but isn't jarring. So it seemed like things would continue more or less as normal.
I and a couple of friends who also read it quickly started to notice that the writing was feeling a bit off with the new artist. I shrugged it off--it's not like the comic was ever flawless, there was certainly the odd page here or there that fell a little flatter than others. Perhaps T. Campbell was simply having an off day, or as it were, off several days. Maybe Giselle was missed to an extent that it was briefly affecting the writing.
A few months later, I think I can say that whatever it is, Penny & Aggie has not been the same comic since that last arc finished, and the transition was sudden. The characters are caricatures of themselves, some, for no reason, even acting bluntly out of character. Characters revealing motivations and thinking has become clunky and as subtle as a train. Characters we should be checking up on have been ignored completely.
I do not write this to retract or rescind my spotlight--no no, at the time I did so it was a wonderful comic, and I will remember it for that. I write simply to ask what went wrong. To note. To, in a sense, warn.
I don't know what happened, but it's upsetting. Clearly, T. Campbell and G. Lagace had chemistry together...let's hope that they realize this as well...perhaps it's not silly to wonder if she might come back. Perhaps this is simply a bad new arc we find ourselves in for whatever reason. Or perhaps Penny & Aggie ended with The Popsicle War.
~Holden Out.
14.4.09
About to get all Religious Iconography up in yo grill.
A small article from an April 2009 "Church Around the World" pamphlet/newsletter:
"A large sculpture of Christ on the cross was removed from outside a church in West Sussex, England, after its vicar said it was 'scaring young children.' The Reverend Ewen Souter said the 10-foot crucifix, which was designed in the 1960s and made out of coal dust and resin, was 'a horrifying depiction of pain and suffering.' The sculpture, previously located on the side of St. John's Church in Broadbridge, has now been given to Horsham Museum. It will be replaced with a new stainless steel cross. In a survey carried out by the church, every comment about the sculpture was negative."
...Wow. Just...wow.
Really?
Really, now.
You took it down because it was scaring children and was a "horrifying depiction of pain and suffering?" That's funny, because I always thought the pain and suffering was, oh, I don't know, part of the point. And after keeping it up there for almost fifty years, no less. (cue a big fat sigh)
I realize that religious iconography is a tricky thing, because any symbol has potential to become just an image, and override its own meaning through that. I think it's sort of neat sometimes that some religions put strict limits on their iconography--Muslims, for example, forbidding visual depiction of Mohammad to avoid idolatry. Because a lot of times it seems like the cross, like here in this example, can become just a picture, just a symbol that stands for something generic, like a company logo, rather than a reminder of one of history's most brutal execution methods and the most recognized person who suffered under it, for a supernatural, selfless, and sacred purpose. The crucifixion was not a happy affair. There was screaming and death and blood and mutilation and all sorts of unpleasant things going on with pressure in wrist tendons because there's a railroad spike going through your wrist. My own wrists ache just typing it.
Stainless steel? If you're using that as a metaphor for the purity that comes with the aftermath of the crucifixion, then fine, but somehow I get that's not what the intent was here. Jesus' kindness and gentleness is well-documented, yes, but it seems like more and more places of worship are focusing just on that, just on the Bible's warm fuzzy moments and watering down moments like Christ's death because it's "too violent" or "frightening to kids." The Bible is not a warm, fuzzy bedtime story full of giggles and snuggles. Oh, of course there are happy moments, and peace, and hope and grace and all the wonderful things of that nature regularly celebrated about it, but when those are overemphasized, overall scope is lost and there's no longer anything to contrast those happy moments against (not that happy moments need contrast to exist--but it helps for comparison purposes). That's where we get what I call "White Jesus." You've all seen pictures of him--sitting there like a Renaissance portrait, sometimes holding a little lambkin, usually for some reason looking up and off to the left and very aloof, white as cottage cheese despite his Mediterranian origins (not that is race is actually that important to his identity, but I'm riding the stereotype train all the way to Example Station, so choo choo). This is the same guy who, when mounted up on a cross, only looks vaguely uncomfortable, if even that. A lot of this stems from the Rennaisance, since I mention it, and times where it would have been thought of as somehow sacriligious to portray Christ as anything but this stoic statue of a guy, to recognize his holiness. That's great and all, but to also ignore his humanity--the fact that he was fully capable of experiencing pain and suffering and did--detracts a lot from his overall significance within Christan doctrine.
So, St. John's Church of Broadbridge, I hope you're happy with your shiny metal logo-cross. Passerby will look up at it and go, "wow, that sure is a church." Perish forbid they discomfort people or stir up any trouble, goodness no.
Holden Out, and making a weird dissatisfied face
PS: Regarding categories...what even should constitute the difference between a piece labeled "Editorial" and an "Overreacting" piece? Should I just lump them together into one category?
"A large sculpture of Christ on the cross was removed from outside a church in West Sussex, England, after its vicar said it was 'scaring young children.' The Reverend Ewen Souter said the 10-foot crucifix, which was designed in the 1960s and made out of coal dust and resin, was 'a horrifying depiction of pain and suffering.' The sculpture, previously located on the side of St. John's Church in Broadbridge, has now been given to Horsham Museum. It will be replaced with a new stainless steel cross. In a survey carried out by the church, every comment about the sculpture was negative."
...Wow. Just...wow.
Really?
Really, now.
You took it down because it was scaring children and was a "horrifying depiction of pain and suffering?" That's funny, because I always thought the pain and suffering was, oh, I don't know, part of the point. And after keeping it up there for almost fifty years, no less. (cue a big fat sigh)
I realize that religious iconography is a tricky thing, because any symbol has potential to become just an image, and override its own meaning through that. I think it's sort of neat sometimes that some religions put strict limits on their iconography--Muslims, for example, forbidding visual depiction of Mohammad to avoid idolatry. Because a lot of times it seems like the cross, like here in this example, can become just a picture, just a symbol that stands for something generic, like a company logo, rather than a reminder of one of history's most brutal execution methods and the most recognized person who suffered under it, for a supernatural, selfless, and sacred purpose. The crucifixion was not a happy affair. There was screaming and death and blood and mutilation and all sorts of unpleasant things going on with pressure in wrist tendons because there's a railroad spike going through your wrist. My own wrists ache just typing it.
Stainless steel? If you're using that as a metaphor for the purity that comes with the aftermath of the crucifixion, then fine, but somehow I get that's not what the intent was here. Jesus' kindness and gentleness is well-documented, yes, but it seems like more and more places of worship are focusing just on that, just on the Bible's warm fuzzy moments and watering down moments like Christ's death because it's "too violent" or "frightening to kids." The Bible is not a warm, fuzzy bedtime story full of giggles and snuggles. Oh, of course there are happy moments, and peace, and hope and grace and all the wonderful things of that nature regularly celebrated about it, but when those are overemphasized, overall scope is lost and there's no longer anything to contrast those happy moments against (not that happy moments need contrast to exist--but it helps for comparison purposes). That's where we get what I call "White Jesus." You've all seen pictures of him--sitting there like a Renaissance portrait, sometimes holding a little lambkin, usually for some reason looking up and off to the left and very aloof, white as cottage cheese despite his Mediterranian origins (not that is race is actually that important to his identity, but I'm riding the stereotype train all the way to Example Station, so choo choo). This is the same guy who, when mounted up on a cross, only looks vaguely uncomfortable, if even that. A lot of this stems from the Rennaisance, since I mention it, and times where it would have been thought of as somehow sacriligious to portray Christ as anything but this stoic statue of a guy, to recognize his holiness. That's great and all, but to also ignore his humanity--the fact that he was fully capable of experiencing pain and suffering and did--detracts a lot from his overall significance within Christan doctrine.
So, St. John's Church of Broadbridge, I hope you're happy with your shiny metal logo-cross. Passerby will look up at it and go, "wow, that sure is a church." Perish forbid they discomfort people or stir up any trouble, goodness no.
Holden Out, and making a weird dissatisfied face
PS: Regarding categories...what even should constitute the difference between a piece labeled "Editorial" and an "Overreacting" piece? Should I just lump them together into one category?
23.3.09
Watchmen Review—Second Look
I know my review of Watchmen was many things, among them rambling, indecisive, faintly hypocritical (with regards to the objectivity), and exceedingly, exceedingly lengthy. I concede that it’s a tricky movie to review, and that I didn’t allow enough time for my thoughts to truly settle before writing it. This, therefore, is an attempt at two things: to sort of condense some of my points of the first review, without retreading things like the plot synopsis; and to sort of show how some opinions have changed slightly with a second viewing.
Yes, I felt I was ready to see it a second time, and did. And overall, I felt a little more warmly towards it this time around. Some of the changes I feel like I understood better, I was able to truly appreciate the efforts that were put into it a bit more, and by not having such a self-stated focus on “viewing it objectively,” I found myself suddenly actually able to do so. So, with that said:
- I partially rescind any of my earlier comments about the movie possibly being confusing to people who are entirely unfamiliar with the book. Parts of it definitely still will be, but many of them are details—I think a second viewing helped me see how Snyder fit the pieces together, and the results are more coherent than I first felt.
- I more readily accept some of the song choices, though a few of them, I feel, still don’t fit—“99 Red Balloons” fits from a content perspective but has the wrong feel, and the use of “Hallelujah” is still a bad choice.
- I still think the parts where additional violence was utilized—most particularly Rorschach’s “birth” scene and a brief moment in the prison scene—are gratuitous and unnecessary, and the changes could have been implemented in other ways.
- The Dan/Laurie Owlship sex scene is as poorly handled, laughable, and farcical as ever. Sorry Zack, you still fail here.
- I rescind my comments about some of Jack Haley’s lines as Rorschach coming off as “melodramatic.” I think I was more trying to get used to his voice. On the flipside, however, I did start to notice more that they made Nite Owl more melodramatic, but I’m okay with this in the context of the film.
- I felt a little more positive towards how Matthew Goode portrayed Adrian, but overall he’s still the weakest character in the film, and still a bit mischaracterized.
- Malin Ackerman(Laurie)’s lines actually felt a bit flat to me this time around, something I don’t think I noticed in my first viewing.
- The results that come from the new ending still don’t quite work, entirely, if you stop to think about it.
- Whoever they got to play Nixon still looks and sounds ridiculous, though I’m still not entirely sure if that wasn’t the intent (i.e. if it’s supposed to be more of a caricature of Nixon rather than a realistic representation).
All this said, I would like to revise my original score. My first review gave Watchmen a 3 out of 5 crickets. I would like to bump that up to a 4. There’s still a few too many issues with it to give it a shot at fivedom, but I think I was a bit quick to judge it as much as I did—I needed a second viewing, to watch it with my inner fanboy now calmed down. No matter what, though, I still recommend reading the book. I’m glad it’s getting the exposure that the film is now giving it. Every time I see another person on a bus reading it for what seems like the first time I smile.
Holden Out.
Yes, I felt I was ready to see it a second time, and did. And overall, I felt a little more warmly towards it this time around. Some of the changes I feel like I understood better, I was able to truly appreciate the efforts that were put into it a bit more, and by not having such a self-stated focus on “viewing it objectively,” I found myself suddenly actually able to do so. So, with that said:
- I partially rescind any of my earlier comments about the movie possibly being confusing to people who are entirely unfamiliar with the book. Parts of it definitely still will be, but many of them are details—I think a second viewing helped me see how Snyder fit the pieces together, and the results are more coherent than I first felt.
- I more readily accept some of the song choices, though a few of them, I feel, still don’t fit—“99 Red Balloons” fits from a content perspective but has the wrong feel, and the use of “Hallelujah” is still a bad choice.
- I still think the parts where additional violence was utilized—most particularly Rorschach’s “birth” scene and a brief moment in the prison scene—are gratuitous and unnecessary, and the changes could have been implemented in other ways.
- The Dan/Laurie Owlship sex scene is as poorly handled, laughable, and farcical as ever. Sorry Zack, you still fail here.
- I rescind my comments about some of Jack Haley’s lines as Rorschach coming off as “melodramatic.” I think I was more trying to get used to his voice. On the flipside, however, I did start to notice more that they made Nite Owl more melodramatic, but I’m okay with this in the context of the film.
- I felt a little more positive towards how Matthew Goode portrayed Adrian, but overall he’s still the weakest character in the film, and still a bit mischaracterized.
- Malin Ackerman(Laurie)’s lines actually felt a bit flat to me this time around, something I don’t think I noticed in my first viewing.
- The results that come from the new ending still don’t quite work, entirely, if you stop to think about it.
- Whoever they got to play Nixon still looks and sounds ridiculous, though I’m still not entirely sure if that wasn’t the intent (i.e. if it’s supposed to be more of a caricature of Nixon rather than a realistic representation).
All this said, I would like to revise my original score. My first review gave Watchmen a 3 out of 5 crickets. I would like to bump that up to a 4. There’s still a few too many issues with it to give it a shot at fivedom, but I think I was a bit quick to judge it as much as I did—I needed a second viewing, to watch it with my inner fanboy now calmed down. No matter what, though, I still recommend reading the book. I’m glad it’s getting the exposure that the film is now giving it. Every time I see another person on a bus reading it for what seems like the first time I smile.
Holden Out.
12.3.09
Tobacco will STOMP YOU FLAT.
Holden here, with a big bottle of Hate-orade for the No Stank You campaign.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for anti-drug campaigns...if they go about it the right way. Whether one smokes or not should still remain a choice, but it's good for the negative health effects to continue to be made known to the younger set so that when the choice is set upon them, they can at least make something resembling an informed decision.
Back in my day, we had the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which, granted, had its own set of problems here and there, but overall, I think it had the right idea. (I understand that a lot of places are beginning to phase it out now...hope they find some sort of replacement, especially considering today's post)
So what on Earth happened?
There's been a resurgence in anti-drug commercials the past couple years, perhaps in anticipation of DARE's phasing out. And for the most part, I haven't had any real beef with them. There's been the "(blank) is my Anti-drug" campaign and the "Above The Influence" anti-marijuana campaign. And then, just this year, came "No Stank You," a new Anti-Tobacco campaign that seems to prefer ditching the previous two's slightly drier approach to a more..."wacky" one. (I'm also told they're unique to the state of Washington, so if you haven't heard of these, well, that's apparently why) And at first, it was okay. Kinda...stupid, but fairly innocuous. The usual staples about tobacco's detrimental effects on tooth and lung health. The two most recent ones, however...augh, how did they get them approved? Here, I'll show you.
Exhibit A:
...annnd hmm. Well...I was going to show you a couple video clips for the best impact but it seems those aren't currently around the internet. Very curious.
Exhibit A anyway, then. One of the more recent commercials asks "whatcha gonna do when they hand you a smoke?" A kid in an alleyway then has an oversize arm dangled next to them, clutching some cigs. I can't say I agree with the advice that follows: "G-G-GO BLIZONKO!" The kid then begins to freak out to further musical repetitions of this questionable solution, culminating in, I kid you not, them taking a large bite out of the offering arm.
Somehow, DARE's approach of politely declining unless pressure is involved seems a lot more...I don't know...tactful? In deference to the consumption of human flesh out of a fiery spite? I know, I know. Kids aren't dumb. Very few if any of them are going to literally flip out and start gnawing them some forearm. But the fact that the suggestion is there, that it's been taken to the extreme of suggestions of actual violence...surely you'll agree that's a little disconcerting.
The other ad in question is a little less worrisome, but still raises an eyebrow of mine. It involves a giant cigar monster chasing and devouring some children, Dune worm style. No dialogue in this one, even. Just a cigar worm eating kids. Not even sure what to really say about that one. Granted, the majority of anti-drug commercials use at least some degree of exaggeration, but I think I can say that's...stretching it a bit.
Now, I recognize the risks of smoking (and for the record, I myself am a nonsmoker) but when an anti-drug campaign seems…not right, it’s usually due to one or both of two things: demonizing the drugs themselves above and beyond what is rational, or demonizing people who do them (as Starlight has stated before of this same subject: “smoking does not make you a bad person.”). And unfortunately one sort of leads to the other. While I understand why anti-drug advertisements focus on the negatives (and don’t have a problem with them doing so), I do think some part of drug informing should include some of the reasons why people do them in the first place. Not as an advertisement for them, no—but if only the negatives are learned, people fail to see why anyone would try any drug, and the rationale must still be figured out. So the simplest conclusion is reached—because they are bad people. Bad people that want to do bad things to themselves. It becomes cyclical.
I’m not making some sort of pro-drug advertisement. I’m not excusing or dismissing people who have honest drug problems. I’m not anti-anti-drug campaigns. But “going Blizonko” ain’t the answer. Go back to the drawing board, Washington…and come up with a say-n0-to-smoking ad that doesn’t involve cigar monsters or cannibals.
(EDIT: I've been informed by my closest companion that No Stank You has allegedly been around since at least 2007, it's not a new campaign. Apologies. I'd only heard of/noticed it this year.)
Holden Out.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for anti-drug campaigns...if they go about it the right way. Whether one smokes or not should still remain a choice, but it's good for the negative health effects to continue to be made known to the younger set so that when the choice is set upon them, they can at least make something resembling an informed decision.
Back in my day, we had the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which, granted, had its own set of problems here and there, but overall, I think it had the right idea. (I understand that a lot of places are beginning to phase it out now...hope they find some sort of replacement, especially considering today's post)
So what on Earth happened?
There's been a resurgence in anti-drug commercials the past couple years, perhaps in anticipation of DARE's phasing out. And for the most part, I haven't had any real beef with them. There's been the "(blank) is my Anti-drug" campaign and the "Above The Influence" anti-marijuana campaign. And then, just this year, came "No Stank You," a new Anti-Tobacco campaign that seems to prefer ditching the previous two's slightly drier approach to a more..."wacky" one. (I'm also told they're unique to the state of Washington, so if you haven't heard of these, well, that's apparently why) And at first, it was okay. Kinda...stupid, but fairly innocuous. The usual staples about tobacco's detrimental effects on tooth and lung health. The two most recent ones, however...augh, how did they get them approved? Here, I'll show you.
Exhibit A:
...annnd hmm. Well...I was going to show you a couple video clips for the best impact but it seems those aren't currently around the internet. Very curious.
Exhibit A anyway, then. One of the more recent commercials asks "whatcha gonna do when they hand you a smoke?" A kid in an alleyway then has an oversize arm dangled next to them, clutching some cigs. I can't say I agree with the advice that follows: "G-G-GO BLIZONKO!" The kid then begins to freak out to further musical repetitions of this questionable solution, culminating in, I kid you not, them taking a large bite out of the offering arm.
Somehow, DARE's approach of politely declining unless pressure is involved seems a lot more...I don't know...tactful? In deference to the consumption of human flesh out of a fiery spite? I know, I know. Kids aren't dumb. Very few if any of them are going to literally flip out and start gnawing them some forearm. But the fact that the suggestion is there, that it's been taken to the extreme of suggestions of actual violence...surely you'll agree that's a little disconcerting.
The other ad in question is a little less worrisome, but still raises an eyebrow of mine. It involves a giant cigar monster chasing and devouring some children, Dune worm style. No dialogue in this one, even. Just a cigar worm eating kids. Not even sure what to really say about that one. Granted, the majority of anti-drug commercials use at least some degree of exaggeration, but I think I can say that's...stretching it a bit.
Now, I recognize the risks of smoking (and for the record, I myself am a nonsmoker) but when an anti-drug campaign seems…not right, it’s usually due to one or both of two things: demonizing the drugs themselves above and beyond what is rational, or demonizing people who do them (as Starlight has stated before of this same subject: “smoking does not make you a bad person.”). And unfortunately one sort of leads to the other. While I understand why anti-drug advertisements focus on the negatives (and don’t have a problem with them doing so), I do think some part of drug informing should include some of the reasons why people do them in the first place. Not as an advertisement for them, no—but if only the negatives are learned, people fail to see why anyone would try any drug, and the rationale must still be figured out. So the simplest conclusion is reached—because they are bad people. Bad people that want to do bad things to themselves. It becomes cyclical.
I’m not making some sort of pro-drug advertisement. I’m not excusing or dismissing people who have honest drug problems. I’m not anti-anti-drug campaigns. But “going Blizonko” ain’t the answer. Go back to the drawing board, Washington…and come up with a say-n0-to-smoking ad that doesn’t involve cigar monsters or cannibals.
(EDIT: I've been informed by my closest companion that No Stank You has allegedly been around since at least 2007, it's not a new campaign. Apologies. I'd only heard of/noticed it this year.)
Holden Out.
15.2.09
On Valentine's.
Valentine's Day.
~~~
I was really conflicted on whether I should even do a post for the holiday, because I doubt anything I have to say on the matter will really be that different from hundreds of other, similar text-blocks out there on the net, but what the heck, it's writing, and I sure do enjoy writing.
So. Valentine's. A holiday that provokes a fairly wide range of responses from people. Some people love it, some hate it, some are indifferent, and the reasons for all of these are pretty scattered too. I could spend a while expounding on those, but instead I think today I'll just cut right to my own feelings on it: while I'm not, say, a fervent supporter of the holiday, I'm not Anti-Valentine's either. I'm not going to slap little glittery hearts all over my walls or put some tacky cardboard cupid on my door, but I certainly do celebrate and have no qualms about doing so. However, I've noticed an unusual spike in Anti-Valentine's sentiment this year, and I thought I'd address what I've noticed as the most common reasons people feel this way. In all of these addresses, I'm not trying to say whoever makes these statements is wrong. No, no. I'm just trying to make a counterpoint.
Reason 1: "It's too corporate. Valentine's Day is just something greeting card, chocolate, and lingerie companies latched onto so they could make money."
Rebuttal 1: Don't think I don't see modern Valentine's Day for what it can often be. I have a lot of knee-jerk reactions myself to things I percieve as having slick corporate scheming behind it, and Valentine's adverts and decor certainly do bug me. A lot. But. I think there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind it--a special day set aside to do something nice for people you love/care about. Yes, yes, I know that you shouldn't need some sort of special day for that, it can be any day. But among those times, I still see nothing wrong with a designated day just for it, no matter how many other days out of the year you show acts of kindness to your loved ones. Besides, who says you have to celebrate with cards, flowers, chocolates et al? Stick it to the man and make Valentine's your own if you really want to celebrate it but can't stand the thought of giving Hallmark more money. Do something different. Start your own traditions. And of course, if you don't want to celebrate it at all, hey, nobody's making you! So then be proud in your decision to let the 14th pass unmarked.
Reason 2: "That's only for people who have someone special. I'm terribly alone. It's not fair to wave this holiday in my face!"
Rebuttal 2: I'm sorry you're alone and want somebody. I've been there myself and know what it's like, and it's true that Valentine's can seem terribly unfair to someone who's bitter and lonely. I get that. But who says Valentine's is only for couples? It's geared towards them, sure, but that shouldn't prevent you from getting in on things. I say that the love celebrated at Valentine's shouldn't be exclusively romantic love--I think it should extend to the love you have for friends and family as well. So don't fear--pick up the phone and have some good times with a friend or two and remember that these are people you love and care about as well.
Reason 3: "Valentine's Day is just something jerks use as an excuse to try and have sex with someone."
Rebuttal 3: Unfortunately, yes, that can often be true. And if you were victimized by one of these horny embarassments to my gender at some point, I'm very sorry. It's a truth well-kept from Valentine's-card-toting elementary schoolers that many adults, for better or for worse, see Valentine's as the sex holiday. And for consenting couples that want some sort of excuse or special day for a special bit of romping, I think that's sweet and even a little bit adorable, and for older couples who want to re-generate some sort of spark I think the sentiment can be downright heartwarming. But there's nothing touching about unwanted advances, inside or outside a relationship. I can see how this would ruin a holiday for someone. What's been said in the previous two reasons still applies here...don't feel like it's something you need to acknowledge as any sort of special day and if you do acknowledge it, don't feel like you need to celebrate romantic love specifically. If you've had trouble saying no because of the date, or that's the person in question's excuse for trying to pressure you into something you don't want, remember, Valentine's is only as special an occasion as you say it is: no still means no on that or any other day.
So yeah, I bought a card this year, and some chocolates, and considered some flowers, and went out to a nice dinner, the usual staples. But I don't feel like I'm being hypocritical in this--because I didn't do it because I felt obligated, because it's "what people do." It was because I wanted to do something nice and special for my own beloved, on a day that's declared by many to be specifically set aside for showing care and affection. Hey, I also hung out with some friends and got a nice message from my parents, so there's some alternate celebration right there. Have a good one, whether you partake in it or not.
Holden out.
~~~
I was really conflicted on whether I should even do a post for the holiday, because I doubt anything I have to say on the matter will really be that different from hundreds of other, similar text-blocks out there on the net, but what the heck, it's writing, and I sure do enjoy writing.
So. Valentine's. A holiday that provokes a fairly wide range of responses from people. Some people love it, some hate it, some are indifferent, and the reasons for all of these are pretty scattered too. I could spend a while expounding on those, but instead I think today I'll just cut right to my own feelings on it: while I'm not, say, a fervent supporter of the holiday, I'm not Anti-Valentine's either. I'm not going to slap little glittery hearts all over my walls or put some tacky cardboard cupid on my door, but I certainly do celebrate and have no qualms about doing so. However, I've noticed an unusual spike in Anti-Valentine's sentiment this year, and I thought I'd address what I've noticed as the most common reasons people feel this way. In all of these addresses, I'm not trying to say whoever makes these statements is wrong. No, no. I'm just trying to make a counterpoint.
Reason 1: "It's too corporate. Valentine's Day is just something greeting card, chocolate, and lingerie companies latched onto so they could make money."
Rebuttal 1: Don't think I don't see modern Valentine's Day for what it can often be. I have a lot of knee-jerk reactions myself to things I percieve as having slick corporate scheming behind it, and Valentine's adverts and decor certainly do bug me. A lot. But. I think there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind it--a special day set aside to do something nice for people you love/care about. Yes, yes, I know that you shouldn't need some sort of special day for that, it can be any day. But among those times, I still see nothing wrong with a designated day just for it, no matter how many other days out of the year you show acts of kindness to your loved ones. Besides, who says you have to celebrate with cards, flowers, chocolates et al? Stick it to the man and make Valentine's your own if you really want to celebrate it but can't stand the thought of giving Hallmark more money. Do something different. Start your own traditions. And of course, if you don't want to celebrate it at all, hey, nobody's making you! So then be proud in your decision to let the 14th pass unmarked.
Reason 2: "That's only for people who have someone special. I'm terribly alone. It's not fair to wave this holiday in my face!"
Rebuttal 2: I'm sorry you're alone and want somebody. I've been there myself and know what it's like, and it's true that Valentine's can seem terribly unfair to someone who's bitter and lonely. I get that. But who says Valentine's is only for couples? It's geared towards them, sure, but that shouldn't prevent you from getting in on things. I say that the love celebrated at Valentine's shouldn't be exclusively romantic love--I think it should extend to the love you have for friends and family as well. So don't fear--pick up the phone and have some good times with a friend or two and remember that these are people you love and care about as well.
Reason 3: "Valentine's Day is just something jerks use as an excuse to try and have sex with someone."
Rebuttal 3: Unfortunately, yes, that can often be true. And if you were victimized by one of these horny embarassments to my gender at some point, I'm very sorry. It's a truth well-kept from Valentine's-card-toting elementary schoolers that many adults, for better or for worse, see Valentine's as the sex holiday. And for consenting couples that want some sort of excuse or special day for a special bit of romping, I think that's sweet and even a little bit adorable, and for older couples who want to re-generate some sort of spark I think the sentiment can be downright heartwarming. But there's nothing touching about unwanted advances, inside or outside a relationship. I can see how this would ruin a holiday for someone. What's been said in the previous two reasons still applies here...don't feel like it's something you need to acknowledge as any sort of special day and if you do acknowledge it, don't feel like you need to celebrate romantic love specifically. If you've had trouble saying no because of the date, or that's the person in question's excuse for trying to pressure you into something you don't want, remember, Valentine's is only as special an occasion as you say it is: no still means no on that or any other day.
So yeah, I bought a card this year, and some chocolates, and considered some flowers, and went out to a nice dinner, the usual staples. But I don't feel like I'm being hypocritical in this--because I didn't do it because I felt obligated, because it's "what people do." It was because I wanted to do something nice and special for my own beloved, on a day that's declared by many to be specifically set aside for showing care and affection. Hey, I also hung out with some friends and got a nice message from my parents, so there's some alternate celebration right there. Have a good one, whether you partake in it or not.
Holden out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)