A sudden empathy...

The other day, I found my copy of the Bible, don't ask me where I found it, but I finally found it, and took to reading it. If you recall from my last blog I moaned and groaned about reading Proverbs and Isaiah like the ridiculous child that I am, when it occurred to me (oddly enough, while reading the Proverbs) that perhaps the reason why Proverbs sounds and looks so slapdash-ed-ly put together is that Solomon, wise as he was, had these sudden bursts of wisdom occur to him at the moment, and jotted them down, much like any person, full of wisdom or witless, today would suddenly be struck with a thought which he would have to write down, never later deciding to expand upon that thought. Some thoughts are better left un-expanded; better left as purpose-less poetry :P

note: not poetry without purpose, but without a fluid theme. ya get me?

Perhaps Solomon walked often, making these casual observations when something struck him, like a fire pit and had to write, "As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife", Proverbs 26.21.

He heard, observed, and maybe even touched everything and heard, observed, and touched God, not because God was in the fire he noticed. Do you know, sometimes I entertain the thought: I'm sure that they who wrote the books of the Bible were not always aware that they were directly inspired. I don't imagine that, when they were inspired, they glowed likes the Avatars of the Bending World (see: Nickelodean's The Last Airbender or Legend of Korra), nothing like that- I'm sure they knew when words greater than themselves possessed them (although it would be cool if they did glow, ha) but what if God, when using Solomon, when using Abraham, or Moses, or Isaiah, or Paul, or John- what if these men did not know they were being used till after the fact?

I don't know.

Speaking nonsense, again, I know.

No, don't ask me about Isaiah, yet. Ha, I'll let you know when I get there.





On another note!- I am not an excellent reader. I pick up all these books and do not know how to finish them because I've not yet disciplined my mind to maintain peace during reading. I will read a sentence, obsess over it for a day or more (usually more) and wonder how to apply it.

Fiction, non-fiction- I don't know what it is about them that their words can't make me still. I'm jealous of those who can read for hours and hours without moving. I want to be able to do that because, unfortunately, I like to do other things while I read. I always have a pen or pencil in my hand, and a few semi-transparent sticky flags to mark something..

So, thanks be to God that my parents bought the audio series of The Chronicles of Narnia! The other day, do listen, it's frightfully funny, I was listening to The Last Battle when I finally got to the, well, second-to-last battle of the book: when Emeth wants to see Tash, when Eustace is thrown into the darkened shed; I start crying! And I'm driving while I'm listening and crying, which isn't at all safe for me and my fellow drivers, but I'm crying, salty tears stinging my cheeks, blurring my vision which is already impaired by the glow of the setting sun. By Aslan's Mane, I'm surprised I didn't crash. (Haha.)

No, I can't even blame my monthly friend for such emotional tirades.

But when Eustace was thrown in!- I absolutely fell apart! What terror he must've felt! Now, I knew what was on the other side of that door (only because I've read/heard the books over and over again)- perhaps I cried so because I was living in the story as though I'd never read or heard The Last Battle; that in spite of my foreknowledge of its 'ending' (I say 'ending' because you very well know that Lewis only describes the end of Narnia, indeed of all worlds, as the beginning of Chapter One of the Great Story) I wholeheartedly empathized with Eustace. Felt Jill's pain at her loss. Wept with King Tirian.

Now, if only I could weep, feel and empathize so with the people in this world without casually wanting the high and mighty feeling of helping their souls, but never acting upon that high.




This just occurred to me: do you think that if we just let children read the Bible, just as a story, they would later see it as inspired? Do we really need to say it's inspired? Now, don't mistake me: I'm not saying that the Bible isn't inspired, nor am I saying that we should not bring up children in the faith, but, I am saying that, perhaps, the things we emphasize now as important are later diminished as irrelevant because we emphasize the wrong part. When the word 'inspired' is said, we sometimes harp upon the word 'inspire' instead of harping upon what the inspiration actually entails to the Bible's past, present, and future readers.

But this is too much for a blog post.




On another note, a much lighter one, too: I do believe that I can trust Cumberbatch with any beloved character he so chooses to play.

An Unofficial 'Star Trek: Into Darkness' Review. And by 'review' I mean 'irrelevant commentary'.

You need to understand this about me: I am not a Trekkie. I am an Airbender with a bit of Ravenclaw; I've even been known to have Hobbit-like qualities, but I am in no way a Trekkie. Nor do I aspire to be one. Maybe my aspirations will change, but IT IS NOT THIS DAY!

With that said, last Friday night my family and I watched Star Trek: Into Darkness. I enjoyed the first installment so I expected to enjoy the second installment. That, and I am crazy about Benedict Cumberbatch. He's just so- so pretty [; Ah, okay, more on that unrealistic crush later because, unfortunately, it does come into play.

In any fandom you will find obsessions with these themes (not that I've done extensive research so this list is in no way exhaustive): love, loyalty, grief, endurance, strength, family, friendship. These fandoms want the real world to be like the things they geek about, well, who wouldn't want to travel in a big blue police box? (No, I'm not a Whovian, not yet, but I do love David Tennant.) Star Trek is no exception. It couldn't not have these themes. Any good story ought to reach the masses--beyond its fandom. Stories for exclusive audiences don't usually last beyond a decade. How do I know? Well, I've never heard of them, and that's not the hipster talking, that's just plain, simple honesty.

There's a reason many people still read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and not Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho. (Unless you do, then I suppose, read by any means.)

Stories for exclusive audiences tend to be preachy and predictable, geared toward a generation intent on outliving future generations...or, at least, hoping to outlive future generations with their insulting literature. We don't like stories like these.

We're geeks and nerds: we like timelessness which is why in 2009, and now in May 2013, we're more than thrilled to add to the fandom that is Star Trek: it's kind of like finding the Apocrypha, what with slightly deviating from the television series' main story line, but most geeks and nerds who aren't initially purist will forgive these faults, if faults they are.

"MORE STORIES ABOUT JESUS? YES!" is akin to "MORE STORIES ABOUT ENTERPRISE! HAND 'EM OVER!"

No, seriously. They're essentially the same thing. Scholars will tell you that the Old Testament and New Testament can be read thousands and thousands of times and still something new will appear, which is phenomenal. Nerds and geeks agree. But nerds and geeks would love it even more if there would surface extra content from which more new stuff would appear! NOW WE CAN KEEP ON NERDING AND GEEKING! Hollaback.

But the problem with such extra-biblical content is that it tends to feed the monster none of us know we harbor.

Our fandoms, and the fantasies of which we are great fans, may give us a better perspective of the world's problems but they're not this world. No, no, no- I would never suggest that all fantasies are analogies like the The Pilgrim's Progress, but you would be an idiot to miss Tolkien's great love of nature (and great dislike of machinery) in his Lord of the Rings; can't you see his warning signs? Geeks and nerds do...or, at least, they say they do. I don't know that I see all the warning signs, but now I can't cut down trees without praying I don't incur the wrath of Treebeard. Not that I cut down trees in my spare time. Or for my career... I have actually never held an ax.




As Into Darkness begins we are reintroduced to Captain Kirk's stubborn, good, rebellious conscience: he has to save a civilization from destruction. Did you except anything less?

But for all his good intentions he still broke the rules therefore he is demoted.

But then is unfortunately promoted because his mentor, Pike, who had graciously reinstated Kirk as his First Officer, dies. Well, okay, not dies- Pike is assassinated by John Harrison who becomes everyone's Achilles' Heel. Well. Harrison doesn't become everyone's Achilles' Heel- he is everyone's Achilles' Heel. He drags everyone into darkness (pun intended) because however justified Kirk's vengeance is he still sinks to Harrison's level. Sure Kirk won't kill Harrison on the spot, but that certainly doesn't stop him from trying to knock Harrison's jaw off his face.

To research for this movie, Cumberbatch didn't go back into the televised version of Star Trek, if anything, he avoided them. No, to research, to prepare for this role he researched dictators. Lovely, yes, yes. So, when I found my happiness at the bottom of the barrel underneath the cold corpses and fading childhood memories, I saw that John Harrison is the real deal.

He just convinced a Starfleeter to be a suicide-bomber in exchange for his daughter's welfare. Harrison held no hostages. Harrison just knew what chords to play in the happy, innocent, weaker heart of a man who has lost all hope.

Hmm, how kind, and yes, how real!-

Real enough to the point when we half-witness him crushing a person's skull with his bare hands; but just an hour ago he empathized with Captain Kirk: "Is there anything you wouldn't do for your family?" Kirk just saved Spock from from an active volcano--I think it's safe to say Kirk will do anything for his family. Harrison certainly does.

So. What's the difference between Harrison's vengeance and Kirk's vengeance?

From a third-person perspective it is very easy to see the difference, but I unfortunately cannot articulate the easy-to-spot difference because I know that fantasy makes the bad guy/good guy line pretty thick and clear. Not so in real life.

Thousands of Americans think Obama's the Anti-Christ. I think I can safely say that I am not alone in my inability to discern the good guys from the bad guys.

I can be an Airbender, a Trekkie, a Whovian- a whatever- but I will never actually be a part of that world. Yes, knowing and loving these worlds may enhance my own, even C. S. Lewis would say so.

"Literary experience heals the wounds, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. There are mass emotions which heal the wound; but they destroy the privilege. In them our separate selves are pooled and we sink back into sub-individuality. But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and I am never more myself than when I do." -An Experiment in Criticism

"...I am never more myself than when I do" because I am still me. As much as I want to believe I'd be Katara to Aang, or Ron to Harry, or Spock to Kirk, how do I know I won't be a hater? How do I know that I'd be a part of the team? How do I know I won't be a part of the the Capitol?

I don't know. I only think I know because of what I'm reading. I'm not actually in the events. What if I'm not even Azula, or Khan? What if I'm just a bystander? (We'll talk about the importance of 'extras' at another time.)

Reading enhances my life, yes, but I can't allow it to replace my life.

"Yes, I can bend air. Thank you for asking."

"Why yes!- I trek the stars all the time!"

"...what about second breakfast?"

And enter unrealistic crush on Benedict Cumberbatch, stage right!

Come at me, bro!

Last summer, my family and I were vacationing in Disney World, Florida. Yay. Good times. We were in our suite, someone was making dinner, and I was channel surfing, when I stumble upon what I think is a cool commercial for a cell phone, but it's a long commercial so I keep watching, when this guy (who I now know is Moriarty) spray paints

Oh, I have stumbled upon a gem!

Yes, I watched the last episode first. Shoot me. How could none of you have seen his death coming? Conan Doyle did it first! But I digress.

I'm now sucked in. Fast forward a few months and I've borrowed the first and second seasons from the library--I have to watch the series properly now! So, I do. At first I am all about the story. Honestly. Scout's honor. I love this story.

But then I get to this scene:

in which Sherlock is moderately bored, but then the cabbie calls Sherlock 'just a man' and what does Sherlock do? What does Cumberbatch's interpretation of Sherlock do?! Sherlock moves his upper lip and I am immediately aware that Sherlock has gone from moderately bored to livid.

When I move my lip I'm probably eating something, not switching emotions. I mean, HOLY CRAP!

I've been told that this is what actors have to do, but maybe I've just been watching too much bad television and movies but I'd never witnessed emotion portrayed so well and so simply. Talent doesn't always need bright lights and bold costumes. Whatever happened to the unpainted human face? Thank you, Cumberbatch, for bringing it back.

"Justine, what's this got to do with 'Star Trek'?!"

Well, other than the face that Cumberbatch was cast as Harrison, nothing. This isn't immediately relevant. It isn't relevant until after the movie is over and I've had time to mull over things. So, it comes to this: celebrity gives a false sense of intimacy.

During The Lord of the Rings' first publication Tolkien gained popularity. He wasn't expecting it to do well. He just wanted to write England its own, decent mythology. As his fandom grew he would receive letters from readers, or would read newspaper articles which contained fans marrying his characters. He was displeased by this because he can distance himself from his fantasy writings.

You don't marry Aragorn because (1) you're not Arwen and (2) Aragorn's not real! Don't you know that fantasy is just a lens through which we can view our world? Fantasy is a mirror to help its readers see--"I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see."

You know, I can Google all the information I need to know about Mr. Cumberbatch, but that doesn't mean I know him.

Just because someone knows the year I was born, my favorite color, my opinions; that doesn't mean that someone knows me, anymore than I really understand what's going on in math class. Knowing about someone is very different from knowing someone.I haven't had tea yet with Mr. Cumberbatch. I've had tea with people who've become my best friends--them!- I know my best friends. I don't know Mr. Cumberbatch.

As impressed as I am with Cumberbatch, and I do blush a little when I hear his voice (this is so embarrassing) I don't actually know him. I'm not saying that I don't want to know him, I think that'd be great. It'd be like me being able to meet Rizal. It'd be like meeting my great-grandmother. It'd be like David McCullough meeting John Adams. But McCullough knows he can't meet John Adams. He can separate himself from his extensive knowledge of John Adams; he knows that there is much more to John Adams than what research could ever tell. Historians know the difference between admiration and stalking, and it's not that historians mostly admire dead people who can't be stalked anyway...

Just as Star Trek and The Lord of the Rings and The Wheel of Time and American Gods will outlive its initial publication... There can be as many extra-biblical texts as each series can harbor but that will never fully encapsulate any geek's, nerd's, fangirl's love for the series. It might encapsulate the obsession. (Obsessions are akin to exclusive literature: see paragraphs 3-5.) 

So, though I enjoyed Into Darkness for its own sake, I had a hard time separating that from my fangirlish 'feelings' for Cumberbatch. I had to consciously remind myself that actors are still just people--they aren't their characters. (No, I know. It hurts. Not even Ian McKellen is really Gandalf. I know. I know. It hurts.) Fantastical characters are still fictional and I am only a fangirl. Not that I disagree with John Green:

"The sixth way to get boys to like you[, Katie]: consider different boys. Katie, I have two words for you: nerd boys. Katie, I know that nerd boys don't sparkle in the sunshine but they're sensitive, they're caring, they're sweet, they'll do nice stuff for you. They're a little bit needy, I will grant you that they're a little bit needy. / Oh, and lastly, let me explain something briefly to boys: Gentleman, nerd girls are the world's greatest underutilized romantic resource. And guys, do not tell me that nerd girls aren't hot because that shows a Paris Hilton-esque failure to understand hotness."

Now, I told you at the beginning of this blog entry that this was going to be an 'irrelevant commentary' it's even in the title, but do ya see what I'm saying? 

Fantasies aren't an escape, and to use them as such is to disregard their greater power in your life, which is to be a part of your life. Even lovers are not one another. Narcissus, anyone? In order to love, or to be a part of something greater, you must understand that it is not you, nor something that you can fully understand. 

In order to fully appreciate Star Trek, you need not live in that world. Cumberbatch didn't, and look at how many have joined his Collective. 

Okay. I'm done. I think I've said all the needs to be said about how I really feel about Star Trek, or fandoms in general. Maybe more next time. 

Flameo, Hotman! 

Vatican cameos!