We Judge Appearances

I am currently reading Nobody’s Princess by Esther Friesner. The book is a spin off on the famous story, the Iliad, by Homer. The book takes place in Sparta and is from the point of view of Helen, as a young girl growing up. She was beautiful even as then and, in these stories, she is to one day become the queen of Sparta. Everyone loves Helen for her beauty and always speaks of how she is almost as “beautiful as Aphrodite” (the Greek goddess of beauty and love). The one person who dislikes Helen for her beauty is her paternal twin sister, Clytemnestra. Clytemnestra was the one who always tried her hardest to do everything right. She sews, carts wool and uses the loom. She has to be the perfect little ten year old. Even then Clytemnestra feels like she is living in the shadow of Helen. Helen is the beautiful one as well as the future queen. She gets all the attention without even trying. This makes Clytemnestra upset. Why should she have to do all of this work to get attention when Helen can simply enter a room and have all eyes turn towards her? On one hand I think Clytemnestra’s resentment towards her sister who did nothing wrong is unjust. At the same time my heart goes out to her. She has to put up with so much just to get people to notice her. It isn’t her fault that her sister is incredibly beautiful. Just because she isn’t as “pretty” doesn’t mean she has less value. As much as society has changed since Ancient Greece, one thing that hasn’t is how much we value appearance.

            Lets not deny it; we care about how we look. I know I spend plenty time in the morning doing my hair and make-up just right and picking out the right outfit for that day. We are a nation of dieters, calorie counters, acne medication commercials and weight loss products, not because we want to be healthier, but because we want to look nicer. We make judgments about people and things often before even speaking just because of how they look. It matters to us. Clytemnestra had to work hard to make people glance at her while Helen didn’t have to try at all. Is that really fair? Clytemnestra should not have to work five times harder then Helen just to get people to look her way because Helen is considered more beautiful. That isn’t right. Just like it is not right that someone should get picked on in a school because they are not considered “pretty”. No matter what people say, we care about appearances and we judge people on them, and it is not okay.

            Part of why we judge peoples appearance has to do with genetics. Some people say it is human nature or natural selection. Maybe that is true. But giving that as a reason for judging a person based on appearance just sounds like laziness to me. We are human beings with highly functioning brains. We don’t HAVE to judge people. We choose to, because it’s easier. In truth it’s difficult to not judge people’s appearances and I wont ask anyone to never judge an appearance. I have just one simple request: Try to not judge. Next time you catch yourself judging a person’s appearance, step back and ask yourself what you really know about them. You might be surprised.

Pathfinder-Scapegoats

I am currently reading Pathfinder by Orson Scott Card. The book is about a boy named Rigg who has the ability to see all the paths people having taken. Anywhere he is, he can see the path of any living thing that has ever walked anywhere around him. This skill is particularly useful to him when he is crossing a dangerous river. He can see all the attempts to cross the river and which resulted in the fewest number people falling into the river. A little boy tries to go across a path that Rigg knows is incredibly dangerous. When the boy falls in, Rigg tries to save him. The boy’s older brother, Umbo, is watching and misinterprets what happens. He believes that Rigg killed his little brother. Umbo rushes back to the town and tells everyone that Rigg is a murderer. A mob assembles to hunt Rigg down. Even after Rigg has explained what really happened and Umbo says he was wrong, the mob still wants to find an excuse to kill Rigg. Something terrible has happened and they just want someone to blame, guilty or not.

            This is something that happens all the time. Bad things happen and people want a scapegoat. They don’t want to blame themselves or just bad luck, because they are angry, and you can’t punch bad luck in the face. Recently there was a shooting in Arizona. Six people were killed and thirteen were injured. The target was congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and it was suspected to be politically motivated. As soon as this happened, the right wing media started blaming the left; the left wing media started blaming the right. Everyone wanted to pin it on someone other then themselves.  This is something that we cannot do. Rather then arguing over whose fault this shooting was, we should be taking precaution to stop this from happening again. In Pathfinder, rather then trying to kill Rigg, they should be trying to make sure that kids don’t play near that river. If people don’t just blame each other then they could actually get around to solving the problems at hand. Creating a scapegoat may make you feel better, but it won’t solve your problems.

The Friend's Dilemma

*WARNING: THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SPOILERS*

I am currently reading Carter’s Big Break by Ben Crawford. The book is about a kid named Carter who gets the lead in a big movie opposite teen sensation Hilary Idaho. While they are shooting the two of them become friends and Carter begins to suspect that he may be the only real friend she has, famous or otherwise. Hillary has a lot of issues though. She drinks, does drugs and has just come back from rehab for alcohol abuse. Carter smells booze on her breath and he doesn’t know what to do. No one else seems to care as long as she performs in the movie. He feels that he will be responsible if anything happens because she was drinking and he didn’t stopping it. This made me think about what I call the friend’s dilemma.

The friend’s dilemma is when your friend is doing something that is harmful (to themselves or others) and you are aware of it. What do you do? If you do nothing, then are you partially responsible for anything that happens because of what your friend did? You did just stand by and watched them hurt themselves or let them hurt someone else. On one hand you should not be held responsible for another persons actions. They are their own human being and beyond your control. On the other hand if you just stand by and let something happen then you are responsible because you did nothing. You let someone get hurt and you could have stopped it.

 But what if you try to do something but it’s not enough? When does all responsibility lift off the shoulders of the friend?  This is a hard question partly because it varies from situation to situation. There really is no right answer. However, in the eyes of the friend, it is often their fault no matter how hard they tried to help.

In a perfect world people wouldn’t do bad things and everyone would be responsible for their actions alone. This is not the case however. We are responsible for bad things that happen if we had the power to stop them. In the end if you really care about someone then you will try to help them in anyway you can, whether they want the help or not.

Because I am Furniture-Victim or Witness?

I am currently reading a book called Because I am Furniture by Thalia Chaltas. The book is about a girl named Anke who is the youngest of three in a family where the father is abusive and violent. She is the only person in the house who is not beaten, raped or both. She sometimes envies her brother and sister’ s attention from their father because at least they are worth the trouble of a beating, while she is entirely invisible. This makes me wonder if it would be better if she was beat up by her father too, or if she should be grateful he leaves her alone. Is bad attention better then no attention?

On one hand she isn’t attacked physically the same way her brother and sister are. On the other hand she is still forced to live in a house where her family is attacked and she can’t do anything to stop it. Her father may not rape her, but she has to listen to him rape her sister almost every night knowing that she can’t do anything to stop him. When her father finds out that she is playing volleyball despite him saying she can’t, he yells at and beats her brother for it instead of her. She has to be a silent witness to terrible things while she is ignored entirely.  Her father doesn’t physically hurt her but just makes her feel worthless. This is worse then getting beat up by him because at least that way her brother and sister know he is angry with them. With Anke he acts like he doesn’t care. You have to care to be angry.

Anke’s house is a terrible place to live. Her family members are the victims of abuse while her father charms everyone outside it. She is the only witness to her fathers abuse that isn’t being beaten to a pulp. She is the only one who can see it with enough distance to know how wrong it is, but still craves her father’s attention. And that is much worse then almost anything he could do to her body.

City Of Bones-Equality

I am currently reading City of Bones by Cassandra Clare. The book is set in our world, but living among us are Demons, Downworlders and Shadowhunters. Demons are creatures of pure evil. Downworlders (Warlocks, Vampires, Werewolves and Fairies) are part Demon and part human. Shadowhunters are humans with a small amount of angel blood who are charged with protecting the earth from Demons. In the book, one of the big issues is about equality. Some Shadowhunters believe they are better then Downworlders.

The antagonist of the story, Valentine, believes that Shadowhunters are the superior race and all Downworlders should be eliminated. This really brings up the question, can one race really be better then another? The Shadow hunters believe that because they have the blood of angels they are better then half-breed Downworlders. They don’t see that they themselves are half-breeds; they have just been around longer. What gives them the right to say that Shadowhunters are better then the Downworlders? What gives Valentine the right to decide who is aloud to live on this earth? No one has that power.

One of Valentines core beliefs was that by fraternizing with Downworlders, Shadowhunters are tainting their race. He believes in the purity of the Shadowhunters. This particular belief reminds me of racism in the south. Many white people believed that mixing with African Americans tainted the purity of the white race. Some people said that if the two races had children together it would lead to the “mongrelization” of the white race. They believed that African Americans are somehow born as less then whites.

            Whenever one race considers themselves superior to another, death and destruction almost always follow. This is because we shouldn’t be classifying people based on what they are but on who they are. All people are born equal. In this book and the world people need to learn this.           

          

Perspective in Thirteen Reasons Why

At first, it is hard to tell which perspective is missing from Thirteen Reasons Why.  If you look really closely you can tell though. Hannah’s perspective is missing.  Hannah is a girl who has recently committed suicide. Clay, who has had a crush on Hannah almost as long as he has known her, comes home one day to find a package filled with tapes and no return address on the doorstep. When he plays the tapes he hears a dead girl’s voice on the speakers. She tells him that if he has received the tapes, he is one of the reasons she killed herself.

 Clay’s perspective is clearly present, the book is told from his point of view. At the same time, Hannah narrates almost the entire book through the tapes. But you only hear what she chooses to say. You hear how she is really feeling. It is only what Clay hears.

            Excluding Hannah’s voice has a really interesting effect on the story.  For one it really emphasizes how the people receiving the tape feel. If the author had just told it to us as Hannah recorded it, it would not have the same impact. The impact is also increased when we don’t know who will be next and what they did. It makes everything more of a shock.

            Whenever we hear stories about harassment or bullying, we usually hear it from the point of view of the victim or occasionally the bully. What is so interesting about this is that we are hearing it from a person who cared about the victim, so he isn’t neutral, but was never mean to her. In fact, Clay was sent the tapes because he had been nice to her once. That was the only time he really spoke to her though. Other then this one interaction, he was a bystander. It gives an interesting perspective on what happened. When she refers to “everyone else” he gives insight as to whether or not people really thought that. He also beats himself up for not stepping in and for believing every rumor he heard. This is something we don’t hear very often.

            Excluding Hannah’s perspective sends a really powerful message. It is about not watching as other people are bullied, teased or harassed. One person has the power to stop it. Everyone likes Clay. If he had said stop, people probably would have.  You can’t just stand by and watch. You have to take a stand.

Behemoth- How Many Lives?

Behemoth, by Scott Westerfeld, has some political powers moving the plot along. Then again, that makes sense considering the fact that the book is an alternate version of World War I. The difference between Behemoth’s war and ours is when Darwin has discovered evolution and DNA as well. Europe has become divided between the Clankers (Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire) and the Darwinists (England, France and Russia). The war has mostly to do with power, and whose ideas are better. Throughout the book, the question is asked, how many individual lives are worth the welfare of a nation?  

What the major countries in Europe did was unacceptable. There was no justice in it. The war can be brought to an end, but how will that make it right with the families who lost members to the war? There is no comfort in, your child died because the Ottomans can’t decide whether they like England. The rulers of many of the countries involved didn’t even think about the people they were killing. They were fighting to win a game. It was like chess. If one pawn is captured it’s not the end of the world, they are just one of eight, a number. They are pieces to move around. If there is a strategy and if that involves sacrificing a pawn to capture a bishop, then so be it. What’s worse is that they are playing for TV privileges and bragging rights, things that no one besides those in power really care about. There is no justice in playing a game with peoples lives.

There are also smaller situations in the book where people die but the reason is more sincere. When Alek and Deryn help a rebellion in the Ottoman Empire, soldiers on both sides are killed as well as people who had nothing to do with it. The Ottomans are ridding themselves of a terrible sultan as well as saving the crew of the Leviathan, an airship. On the other hand, they are taking lives from real people. The rebels, of course, believe that is okay. Their deaths are for a just cause. But is a revolution really worth these people’s lives? That is a question more difficult to answer.

This particular situation made me think of the bombing of Hiroshima, during World War II. The United States dropped an atom bomb on Japan in order to end a war they feared would drag on. They killed huge numbers of people. They resulted in radiation and caused diseases for years to come. At the same time, if the United States had allowed the war to continue, no one knows how many more lives could have been lost. This is a “what if” situation where no one really knows what the “right” answer is.

In a perfect world the answer to the question how many lives are worth the welfare of a nation would have the simple answer of none. In some cases, like the general war in Behemoth this is the answer. But in some cases there is more of a moral grey area. Either way a life is never expendable.