Writers' Ownership

I was recently reading an article about incredibly dangerous fictional characters, both good and bad, who also happened to be gay. The main article is here. It's an incredibly interesting article. One thing disturbed me, though, in the entry of a superhero named "Shatterstar":

​Shatterstar has been a member of X-Force and X-Factor. His past is clouded in mystery: maybe he's Longshot's son from the future? Maybe he is a genetic construct built by Mojo? Maybe he just really likes padded white outfits? Shatterstar has always had a confusing, 1990's style X-Men origin, but he's constantly been devoted to his recently depowered teammate, Rictor. Shatterstar's creator, Rob Liefeld, was not happy that writer Peter David explicitly made Rictor and Shatterstar a gay couple. But as Peter David was quoted as saying, ""I understand that some parents have the same reaction. They were responsible for their children's first appearances and, when informed of their sexual persuasion, firmly declare it's impossible, they can't be gay."

My problem is this: writers are not like parents. Writers create the entire character, from the dimples in their cheeks, to the repressed memory of losing their childhood playmate, even to their sexuality. In comics, however, if a new writer takes over, they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as an editor approves. This is a travesty.

Now, I'll admit: I've never heard of Shatterstar before this article, and I don't care much about him now. What I do care about, however, is that the original creator had expressed Shatterstar's sexuality, and it was NOT homosexual or bisexual. Wikipedia (yes, yes, I know—not a reliable source) even says that he was originally asexual: a far more interesting character. Rob Liefeld was not saying, as Peter David suggested "he can't be gay." He was declaring, from the creative perch atop which all writers of fiction rightfully sit "He IS NOT gay."

Let's look at this from another perspective: that of Albus Dumbledore from JK Rowling's popular Harry Potter series. When Rowling first made the announcement that he was gay, I responded "You can't do that! You never established the character as gay in the series, so he isn't!" But I was wrong. She didn't need to establish his character in series, because she established it before that. Dumbledore is her character, and if she wants to give him a fetish for cans of cheese-whiz, she can (and you could hardly expect her to put THAT in a children's book). So why assume that if she didn't overtly state it, she didn't intend it. He'ck, why even require any kind of statement.

When a writer makes up a story, the lives in that story are wholly dependent on that author. Every thought, action, and inclination comes from the mind of their creator. Writers hold their characters in an even tighter grip than God does His creation, because no matter how much people talk about characters taking on a life of their own, they do not possess free will of their own. Even if it had NEVER come up, Dumbledore would have been gay. Because his creator wrote him that way.

Cheerleading

"Also be sure to cheer on our Cheerleaders who qualified for the State Finals and will be in --------------- this weekend competing."

I got an email from my old high school today which contained—among other things—the above sentence. This is a large part of the stupidity of cheerleading. First of all, if you need to remind people to cheer, the cheerleaders are not very good, and therefore, do not deserve cheers. But let's assume they're good enough, and that reminder was redundant or an attempt to be "creative" while telling people to come see their competition. Even so, this is stupid. The position of cheerleader was created to lead cheers at sporting events. Without a sport to cheer on, there is no reason to have cheerleaders. I suppose they could cheer on non-sports as well, but there are only so many things that bear cheering well.

Don't get me wrong. I support cheerleading. I acknowledge that it is (in many cases) athletic.* I don't acknowledge it as a sport because there is no objective goal by which competition can be judged. Foot races are a sport because you must be the first to go an objective distance in a given race. The "ball" games, anything where a ball is used to score where the highest score is objectively the winner, are also sports. Figure skating, gymnastics, cheerleading, and basically anything where a judges arbitrary decision or "style points" are used to determine the score and thereby the winner, are not legitimately sports. They can be, and often are, athletic. Possibly moreso than some sports. But athleticism is not the only feature of sports. No one has yet provided a compelling reason for me to acknowledge cheerleading as a sport, and I doubt they ever will.**

One last rant before I close this out. TV and movies depict cheerleaders as a very exclusive clique of either frigid or slutty attractive girls (with the possible exception of one female love interest) who won't let anyone with an attractiveness less than an 8 out of 10 into their sacred order. No part of this has been true in my experience. Either both my high school and my college were skewed way off the average, or this is not the case at all. Most of the cheerleaders I've known have been perfectly nice people, and though I hate to say it, many of them were by no means "classically beautiful." And very few of them had reputations of being particularly prudish or promiscuous. However, I have known a couple girls who assumed because they were cheerleaders, they were obviously attractive and deserved special treatment. The longer TV and movies portray cheerleaders as being inherently "other," the more I worry that they will begin to follow this unrealistic pattern, much as men became more useless as positive male role models faded from the public eye. I pray this doesn't happen.

*Many schools have restrictions keeping cheerleaders from doing anything athletic for "safety reasons." While these cheerleaders may still be athletes due to participation in another activity, calling them athletes for this kind of cheerleading seems to cheapen the term.

** Cheerleaders and cheerleading fans: "It's really hard/challenging/athletic" is not a compelling reason. If it were, safely juggling cats would justifiably be a sport (and the winter Olympics have blatantly ignored my suggestion).

Dollhouse

Well, I just watched the series finale of "Dollhouse." Despite my best efforts, I forgot to watch it live last night, but thankfully, Hulu is still free to use and so I didn't miss it. Like all Joss Whedon projects, there is a bittersweet sense of completion to it. Some of the twists I called easily. Others I feel I should have.

One thing that's bugging me is the gap. The jump forward, I can understand, but I'm trying to figure out whether Joss crammed a season (or more) of what he planned to do with the series into what is normally the "previously on" segment, or if he initially intended us to be so in the dark. Frankly, I would watch an entire season or two covering what happened in that gap. I'm even tempted to read speculative fanfiction that attempts to fill in the gap. Those who know what a stickler I am for cannon will understand how impressive that is.

On the one hand, I'm glad that Dollhouse is over. It feels really and truly "done," plus, it means one less show for me to obsessively watch. On the other, I can't stand that it's over, because it was such a great series. Sadly, I feel that I grow more and more under Whedon's thrall with each project of his I encounter. At some point, I fully intend to work my way through everything he's publicly created - though I have too many pots in the fire at the moment.

I could try to work out a clever sign-off related to Dollhouse, but instead, I think I'll stick with a simple "Thank you, Joss."

Disillusionment

I make no secret of the fact that I struggle to get along with my father's side of the family. I just don't click with them. I feel awkward, and as if we have nothing in common. I had one hope among them: one of my cousins was reasonably like me. I admired his fashion sense, he had a clever wit, and I thought that he and I might get along.

Less than an hour ago, I saw he had changed his facebook profile picture to this Demotivational Poster of Santa Claus:

In case the picture ever breaks, this is what it reads:
DEAR CHILDREN
One Day You Will Learn Everything About Santa Claus. On That Day Remember Everything The Adults Have Told You About Jesus.

Congratulations. You have killed my hope for your branch of the family. I knew you weren't Christian. I didn't know you were so far gone as to senselessly attack Christian faith.

Gay Rights

I spend more time than I like thinking about Gay Rights. It seems to be THE issue for a lot of people these days. So now, in risk of offending my friends and family both on the right and on the left, I'm going to spell out my views.

1) I do believe that homosexuality is immoral. I do not think it is worse than any other consensual sexual sin. I take issue with Christian homosexuals taking their identity from their sexual orientation before their faith, and with their ignoring or discrediting parts of the bible that condemn the practice of homosexuality. When conservative Christians point to Leviticus, homosexuals fall back to the "God Hates Shrimp" campaign (effectively saying that the Old Testament, or at least Leviticus, is not a legitimate guide to morality). When we point to Romans, they say either that it wasn't talking about homosexuality, but going against one's natural sexual orientation, or that the homosexuality practiced then was not like the homosexuality practiced now. I respond in the following: Leviticus outlawed many things; Acts 10: 14-15 and 11: 8-9 has God declare that He has made some things clean, and that no one must call them unholy; Romans reaffirms that homosexuality is immoral. I conclude that the only rational response from these passages is that homosexuality is wrong.
HOWEVER, I do not in any way shape or form advocate any sort of discrimination against homosexuals. Like Christ told the adulterous woman "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more" (John 8:11). We are NOT to condemn. We are to love. I have my sins, and am no more holy than any homosexual. I would even say I am less holy than some.

2) Gay marriage. It bothers me when people talk about it as a right. Marriage is not a right for anyone: it is a blessing. As I see it, Marriage belongs to the Church, not the government. If we are to truly have separation of Church and State, the State needs to back out of the Church's business. Here is the core of what I'm saying: The government should not offer "Marriage" to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. They may, if they wish, offer "Civil Unions" for the purposes of taxes, visitation, and inheritance, but the legal aspect of a marriage is just that: legal. A civil union. The marriage is a pact between two people and God, as witnessed by those the couple love. If you want to get married: find a religious institution which will marry you. If you want to get legal benefits, get a civil union. I think this should be the case for all couples in the United States.

3) Don't ask, Don't tell. I honestly don't know what I think about this. That alone should give some credence to the possibility of repealing it. I can appreciate the reasoning behind the ban, but I feel that the reasons are no longer relevant. There is enough questionable behavior in the military that the moral claim has lost all weight. One could argue it would make someone uncomfortable, but it shouldn't make anyone more uncomfortable than having a member of the opposite sex fighting alongside them, and with women in the military, that defense loses weight as well. In "the Republic," Plato even argues that soldiers would fight better with someone with whom they shared a relationship beside them, because they would not want to appear cowardly in front of their beloved. Maybe he was right. I'm not saying that the rule NEEDS to be repealed. I'm just saying, I don't see the arguments supporting it anymore.

Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I'm wrong. If anyone would like to discuss or respond rationally to this post, I'll be happy to have your input. However, any comments that are in effect yelling at me or insulting me or my views without rational discussion, I will not allow. The same goes for anyone who belittles or insults other commentors.

Epiphany

I had an epiphany today.
You can't love just one person unconditionally. If you love someone so long as they stay the same, you're putting a condition on it. If you love someone so long as they steer clear of one crucial attribute, you're putting a condition on it. If you love someone, you love everyone.

If you love someone unconditionally, you are not saying: "I will love you under all probable circumstances." You are not even saying "I will love you under all possible circumstances." You are saying "I will love you under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. It doesn't matter what. Think of someone you love. Imagine they changed in every way until they resembled someone you absolutely despise in every way. Do you still love them? Imagine they have changed, not only to resemble, but to actually become that person you despise. It doesn't matter whether this is possible or not, just imagine it. Now: do you still love this person? If so, why do you despise this other person? If you truly love any one person unconditionally, you must love everyone. Nothing else makes sense.

It may seem corny, but this epiphany has had a big impact on me. I realized this, and I began to think of those people I don't show love. People, mostly from my past, who represent to me things I fear and despise. A bully I never forgave. An enemy who still harms those I consider friends. Everyone I ever thought I hated. Each time, I summoned up the image of them in my mind. I tied to it everything about them that I hated. And I gave them everything I could of love. I tried to see things from their perspectives—not only putting myself in their places, as I had in the past, but thinking of all the possible reasons I might treat someone else as they treated me. I saw, and I felt pity, sadness, and the beginnings of love.

I don't love unconditionally. Not yet. But today, I took a step in that direction.

My Name

I was writing an email to a new acquaintance explaining my email including "William" but my preferred name being "Liam," and I though its contents might be helpful for those other people who have wondered why I go by the name that I do: a lot of people have asked why I switched.

Yes, "William" is my legal name. Liam is the Gaelic form of William, and my preferred variant, but if you prefer William, I don't mind that either. There's actually something of a story behind my name:

When I was a kid, my family called me Willy (some of my older relatives still do). When I was being registered for kindergarten I was asked what I wanted to go by and I opted to drop the "y" and just be Will. At some point, I stopped caring what I was called, so long as it wasn't Bill (it's a perfectly fine name, but it's what my grandpa goes by, and that was enough to keep me from wanting to go by it). No one ever called me Billy, so far as I know.

As time went on, I started to dislike the way Will looked when written. For a while, I stopped this by saying it was "Spelled 'William' but pronounced 'Will,' the I-A-M is silent." I even briefly modified it to "The 'I Am' is silent, in reverence to Our Lord," but then realized that since I was actually doing it out of vanity, to claim it was out of reverence was irreverent at best, and possibly blasphemous, so I stopped.

I also disliked how easy it was to think someone was saying my name when they in fact had said "I will do such-and-thus" or "well..." the final straw was being a Philosophy major and all the jokes a out me being "the Good Will" or "a human Will" et cetera. At this point I decided I genuinely disliked being called "Will" but had no alternative - I didn't want to be the guy who insists on being called by his full name when so many variants are available. At some point, I thought of switching to "Liam." Since I was planning on moving to LA for a film studies program my senior year of college, I decided that my last semester of college would be a good time to switch. Unfortunately, events transpired that stopped me from going to LA. All the same, I stuck to that schedule, started going by "Liam" and have gone by it ever since. Many people still call me "Will," but I don't call myself by that name anymore.

In addition to this "story," I also like to acknowledge the fact that I've changed. "Will" to me reflects the way I was growing up and in high school. "Liam" to me is the sum of my experiences to date, especially the growth I experienced in college. It's a much shorter explanation, but also a part of why I prefer Liam.

Is this more information than you needed? Probably. Still, I prefer giving too much information over too little.