2016: What a Year.

Well, this has been rather tumultuous.  Following the deaths of David Bowie and Alan Rickman in rapid succession in January 2016, it seems the universe became unstable.  The election of 2016 is not one of those "insane" or "unpredictable" things.  It's an undesired outcome for many, but hardly out of left field.   I tend to take the Vulcan approach to most unexpected data in life; I have profoundly strong, fiery feelings, but logic is king.  Don't be put off by the cold approach.

First, the turn out.  America has had a historic problem of getting people to participate.  Per Pew Research, we rank 31 out of 35 developed nations in terms of eligible voter participation (i.e., out of those who meet the age criteria to legally vote, only x% do so).  Only 56% of the estimated eligible voters turned out.  Hilary and Trump both got about 25%, while Gary Johnson and Jill Stein harvested about 6%.  This left 44% not participating. 

While most recognize that this was a year of unsatisfactory candidates, this isn't an irregularity in American elections.  A lower percentage of voters turned out in 1988 (GHW Bush), 1996 (Clinton) and 2000 (GWB).  Obama's 2008 election was actually the peak of participation at 61.6%.  What causes non-participation?  Lack of palatable choices, in part, but we've had very well-liked candidates that have low turn outs:  Obama in 2012 (58%) but also Reagan in 1984, where he literally swept the board, except Mondale's home state of Minnesota, with only 55.2% of eligible voters participating.

We must acknowledge some disenfranchisement in the system.  There are people barred or prevented from voting by active opposition, whether by those with no ill intent and going by the rules, or by those who  would actively suppress the vote.  This has become particularly relevant after the striking down of outdated parts of the Voting Rights Act; without a functional Congress, those measures cannot be updated to reflect data post 1972, and so they have been voided until such updates have been made.  This, however, does not stop the feds from intervening in egregious cases. 

Sidebar/Anecdote:  It took me over 2 hours to vote during early voting.  They only had two people working the voter ID check and the registration check.  This is due to defunding elections officials.  I was able to stay because my work schedule permitted it.  If you needed to vote on your lunch hour, it was impossible; the lines were far too long.  When you have to go back to work at a certain time, you don't have the ability to wait in line to vote.  

Back on Point:  Although it is not advertised in the work place, you are legally entitled to time off to vote:

http://www.hrlegalist.com/2016/04/decision-2016-do-employees-get-time-off-to-vote/ 

That said, these items are not advertised often, and many employers will resist taking time off to vote, particularly if the law requires them to pay you.  Combined with insufficiently staffed polling stations (budget cuts), this can curtail the ability of people to vote.  But it doesn't explain 44% of eligible Americans not voting, especially since early voting, extended voting hours, Saturday voting, and other innovations have made the polls more accessible than they were in the 1980s. If we believe that 10% of the vote can be suppressed successfully with gaining federal attention, this does not explain the other 34%. 

I'm going to say it:  if the people who had sat at home voted, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein could have become president.  You can consider that a good thing or a bad thing, but the bottom line is, this did not have to be a 2 horse race at all.  "Why don't you vote for third parties?"  "Because it's a waste"  -- is a lie.  We have enough non-participating folks in the US that they could swing an entire election or even just make a third party candidate hit the 15% popular vote mark and be eligible for federal funding.  

However, because of the low voter turnout reality in the US, the lie is true; that little percentage can swing a race.  It shouldn't.  The republic is sick when there are only two viable parties, particularly when this is due to low voter turn out. And it's an ouroboros -- people stay home because third parties can't win and they hate the other two, but they stay home and the third party can't win if they stay home, and so they get dissatisfied and disengage politically and stay home because third parties can't win, etc etc etc. 



So the big question is, what does that 44% think?  We know what 56% of the US thinks, but not those that did not vote.  As such, this can be a source of comfort for those who are preparing for the end of civilization.  We have a large silent minority at the moment.  At present, Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote, which means that close to 400,000 people agree with her more than they do Donald Trump. 

The spate of attacks is deeply concerning.  There is a personal measure of responsibility -- don't be a terrible person.  However, the rhetoric used in the election was incendiary.  There are consequences to this.  It's not that Trump created these people or converted these people to hate.  There are now people out and proud about the person that they truly are, and they're simply using the rhetoric as an excuse to act upon it.  Racism did not magically evaporate from the scene in the 1960s, nor did those who voted Dixiecrat quietly die off.  They just learned to keep things to themselves.  Same with those who thought women shouldn't get an education, same with those who think the US is strictly a white, Christian nation.  (Even though it never was -- just ask Tom Jefferson and his Bible.)

Consider how many incidents we are seeing in the context of 300+million people.  How many per capita?  Is it an actual rise, or are we just finally started to pay attention to the suppression and suffering of others when we have a visible scapegoat?  Honestly ask yourself, prior to the Trump presidential campaign, did you track and become an advocate against hate crimes toward Muslims?  I'm not defending Trump in the least -- I find him reprehensible -- but it is naive to think he created all of this; he merely capitalized upon it, as any basic politician can. We have a responsibility to fight such ugly behavior.  Stop being a bystander.  I don't care whether you agreed with Trump on the issues and voted for him -- if you are a half-decent human being, you will not tolerate violence -- physical and verbal -- against others.

But what about the children?  There have been rather disturbing videos posted about white children bullying minorities, particularly Muslims and Mexicans.  Here's the thing:  reflect how politically aware you were prior to 18.  Were you your own fully formed person?

Or were you mimicking your parents and their rhetoric while you lived under their roof?  Although bullying recently "went viral," it was always there.  Cyberbullying is simply an extension of real life, which is that the parents did a bad job at raising a good citizen.  Some parents are grown-up bullies themselves.  So it's not strictly Trump.  Monkey see, monkey do -- but the most important monkeys are parents. If they themselves are supporting and echoing Trump without any sort of nuance, guess what kids will latch on to?  Ironically, parents are criticizing the "bad behavior" of anti-Trump protesters -- who are statistically likely to be the older siblings of the asshats in middle school and high school. 


The protests are an expression of anxiety.  We cannot invalidate those feelings.  I don't think it's being a collective crybaby -- it's not just that their girl didn't win the election. Anxiety is worrying over the potential options and unknowns.  The person who won the election used rhetoric and affiliated himself with people, such as Mike Pence, who have an agenda that would disrupt their daily lives, if all his ideals came true: no gay marriage, limited access to women's health care, arbitrary firings based upon religious whims, and other items that would change the paths of their lives.  I'm picking on Pence, but there are other people in Trump's corner whose potential policies may disrupt lives - Muslim registration, anyone?  I don't expect everyone to adopt protests as their cup of tea.  However, try to understand it as an anthropologically necessary pressure valve. 

Do the protests have to be so public?  We can -- and do -- put constraints on what is appropriate at the workplace and in the academic environment.  This is a matter of professionalism.  I don't think it was appropriate or professional for professors to cancel class because of feelings -- not all students are sad about this election.  Bringing your own drama into a classroom is unprofessional - nobody cares if my cat died or I caught the spouse cheating (I wouldn't bring that up anyway, since I would be incriminating myself).  I'm there to do a job, and so are my students.  However, if I am holding them to a professional standard in the classroom, then I wholly expect them to find an outlet elsewhere.  If it's typing away on a blog, ranting on Facebook, or going into the street to find others that make you feel less alone in the universe -- fine.  No outlet whatsoever is daft and self-destructive.

To be frank, we would have likely seen similar outbursts at some point -- perhaps not now, but eventually -- if Clinton was elected. Black Lives Matter has been active during the first black president's terms; progress at the top end doesn't mean that the bottom is ascending upward at the same rate.  Clinton glossed over this in her positivist campaign but it's clear that many people within the perceived Democratic base have anxiety and fear of the future; the continued fatal shootings of black men by police and the aftermath of the LGBTQ community at Pulse Nightclub are just two prominent examples.  Clinton advertised that we can fix these problems with unity -- that doesn't translate to people who already have tight, local social cohesion and yet still see the same results in the real world.  Trump tapped on fear as an anti-establishment candidate, just as Bernie Sanders did.  Bernie, however, took it in a different, progressive direction and did not ignore it as Clinton, the establishment candidate, did.  When pitting an establishment and an anti-establishment candidate against each other, if the discontent is enough, the anti-establishment will win, regardless of exact platform. 

Please, note, however, I do not think Bernie was a guaranteed win.  Bernie struggled with the loyal Clinton contingent left over from the 1990s, particularly older women and African Americans in the South.  Let us also not forget that there are still Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in the US that would never vote for a Jewish guy; Protestants were suspicious of the Catholic JFK, who is still to date our only Catholic president.  I will put in the disclaimer that I still Bern, and Vermont is always lovely at any time of the year.



What will President Trump do?  That is a major question.  Some hold out the hope that he will resign once he knows how hard the job is.  He did look a little dazed after the 90 minute meeting with President Obama.   Unlikely; that signals defeat and Donald Trump is not a loser, as he commonly says.  The question really is, how much is going to delegate?  And to whom?

Republicans are quick to say Trump is their president and their candidate, but if one looks at voting record in comparison to what Trump says, there's a clash.  Trump mentioned single-payer health care, which made Republicans clutch their chests; Obamacare was communist enough!  So the question is whether America is getting a hard-line Republican in the first place.  The anxiety about Trump on both sides is "what is he going to do?"  The man has no previous record for us to refer to.  This may actually generate tension between Trump and the Republican Party; he wore the label, but he doesn't abide by brand standard.  So Trump is unpredictable if he decides to be a hands-on president, and Congress may see a few unholy alliances in an effort to block or promote legislation.  It's better than twiddling thumbs. 

If he does delegate because the job isn't as fun as he thought it would be, then we have to consider how much Mike Pence actually matters.  On paper, he's very socially conservative, regardless of whether he defines himself as an evangelical Christian or a Catholic; the only consistency in religious practice is his love of Chicago Cubs (grats, mate).  He's contradicted Trump on a number of issues.  Will Trump delegate to him only things they agree on?  Even if Pence does get the lion's share of the work in a number of issues, we must remember that even he has his political limits.  Both on legislation relating to "religious freedom" and abortion, he was forced to step back on his most severe demands; the man can compromise and knows when it's prudent to do so for his survival.  That's still a positive sign, especially since Trump does not seem to have many instincts in this realm. 

And then who are the other people Trump would delegate to?  I believe the only person he fully trusts to be competent is Ivanka, his daughter.  We may scream nepotism, but she has demonstrated herself to be effective.  I think Chris Christie is still just Ivanka's dog walker.  Ben Carson as Secretary of Education is a terrible choice, but not a bad choice for Surgeon General.  It's in his wheelhouse;  in other areas he isn't as competent -- that's most of the human race, however

Most of my analysis boils down to watch and wait.  I've made comparisons to the 1922 election, wherein Wilson was followed by Harding.  The parallel does not extend to the elections of 1926 and 1928, as some popular memes would have it.  That's too far in the future, as far as I'm concerned. Trump himself is a wildcard -- I don't know if he's going to deliver on his promises or if this was part of the same circus as his WWF/WWE appearances.  Do recognize, however, that he has dredged up the worst in an aggressive, vocal minority of people -- the private hatreds kept out of polite company til now.  Be on guard, be an ally to others, but don't let your fear dictate your life. You likely had nicknames for people who lived in constant fear and desperation over FEMA re-education camps and death panels for Grandma under Obama.  Tin foil hat, anyone?  One size fits all, both sides of the aisle. 

Book Review: Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee

Note: Unlike everyone else, seemingly, I read Go Set a Watchman without re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird.  As such, I probably feel less upset and "betrayed" than others.  That said, I plan to reread this and then read my new copy of Mockingbird.  

***

This is a book that could not have been published in 1957, not least due to the undeveloped skills of the writer.  Readership was also not ready for it, and in some quarters, evidence suggests that people still are not ready for it in 2015.  Although the Southern Gothic genre has never shied away from the unsavory and uncomfortable, it is the bald honesty of Harper Lee in the context of 1957 that startles the reader.  It's not a benchmark book or a new classic; rather, Go Set a  Watchman gives the reader the opportunity to see characters and writers "in progress," like seeing early Disney cartoons starring Mortimer Mouse rather than Mickey, or reading an early draft of the Star Wars script with Luke Starkiller and an alien Han Solo.  

One element that may or may not shock readers is the innate feminism of Jean Louise "Scout" Finch.  As feisty as ever, she primly tells her some-romantic interest Hank Clinton that she rather be his mistress than his wife.  But unlike Heloise before her,  Jean Louise manages to break free not only of the dire social limits on women of her hometown but also the bounds between her and her Abelard; it takes more than a meeting of minds and spirits to make a relationship that Jean Louise could be happy with.  She fully believes that if she caved and married Hank, she'd probably find Mr. Right a few years later and then wallow in misery over what could of been.  She doesn't want to end up like childhood friends and kill her "self" to be a wife, a fear that I and other women of the 21st century face. That said, this is not a love story.

Nor is it a story about Atticus Finch, Jean Louise's beloved father and hero to vast swathes of readers, despite what early reviews have zeroed in on in the pre-release media blitz.  Revelations regarding Atticus occur a third of the way into the book, and they do not solely center on him.  They touch Hank, the now-retired maid Calpurnia, the meddling Aunt Alexandria, and even the quixotic figure of Uncle Jack, who features far more prominently in this book compared to To Kill A Mockingbird.  Dill and Jem make flashback appearances, but Boo Radley is never mentioned. The trial of Tom Robinson is barely recognizable, though it is a pivotal memory.  These revelations thrust readers into a different, more disturbing world than Mockingbird.... but that is the point.  We the readers are on the same journey as Jean Louise and share her terror and disgust.

That is the main plot of the book -- not "Atticus Finch is a segregationist," but rather, Jean Louise has come home to an increasingly alien world and those dearest to her more sullied than when she was a child.  At some point, the oblivion of childhood lifts and people see their elders for what they are, particularly parents.  I speak not of blind objection to "The Man" or "the Institution," but that Dad was not always such a square, or Mom was not nearly such a saint.  They had lives outside of the house, outside the realm of childhood.  Some perceive this information at an early age and call their parents out for it in the midst of their own teenage rebellion.  Others don't have the illusion broken until they return home on their first college break and find, to their dismay, that Mom and Dad are rejoicing in having an empty nest.  For some, once they fly the coop permanently, they are rudely awaken by their parents "other" lives; Jean Louise falls into this category, having moved out five years prior and settling in New York City.

Jean Louise is consistent in her portrayal from To Kill a Mockingbird.  She remains color-blind, blunt, and ever-seeking the truth in people at 26.   During this visit to Maycomb, at the same time she makes her journey from New York to Alabama, the NAACP and the Civil Rights Movement are likewise descending upon the South.  This description sounds like an invasion or a swarm of locust, but this is how the denizens of Maycomb -- including Atticus -- perceive it.  Jean Louise is frustrated and horrified as she hears anti-integration rhetoric spill out of the mouths of her uncle and father.  Worlds collide and the apocalypse is imminent -- not due to the progress to come but due to the inevitable destruction of the familiar, old ways of the society that Atticus and Uncle Jack lived in and that Hank wants to continue to live in; being of "poor trash," he wants society to remain the same so he can get a leg up for once, not have it reorganized out from under him.

It is this blind fear in the 1950s South that devours Maycomb, including Atticus Finch.  In Go Set a Watchman, he uses any weapon he can to slow down change in the South; while he knows the inevitable, he digs in his heels.  To us in 2015, his talk points are tried, tired, and old and..... shockingly current.  The arguments here are not different from those invoked in the recent South Carolina flag controversy.  Tenth Amendment, heritage, NAACP, unqualified and ill-educated black leaders -- it's all here in a 58-year-old manuscript.   As a liberal Yankee who never lived in the South as a child, the arguments are instructive; I finally have some tenuous grasp of what Southerns reach for in defense of these items, these events.

However, Harper Lee, through her persona of Scout, expresses the blunt truth of it all: Maycomb is reaching for the vile tools of racism and segregation to preserve the good old days.  Jean Louise calls Atticus out for what he is: though he never once made her doubt his goodness to this point, Jean Louise is shattered by the revelation that her father and other relations are backwards-facing, as bad as those vapid women she disdains in social circles.  In the face of change, Atticus is just one of the crowd in Go Set a Watchman. Jean Louise reaches a breakpoint with all of these situations -- without her father, who is she?  What does she do with the past?  And how do you reconcile it with the present?  And the future?

We all have this crisis in some form.  This is a grown-up, 20something bildungsroman, not the childhood coming-of-age we have in Mockingbird.  It's innately messier, uglier, and more stressful for the reader -- and maybe that's not a bad thing, given recent events.  

***

Despite myself and my own identification as this NOT being the point of Watchman, out of love of Mockingbird Atticus, I am taking a dip into the debate.

In Go Set a Watchman, Atticus Finch is a racist, as he believes in segregation on the basis of race.  He is not a racist in the same vein as Bob Ewell and the lynch mob from To Kill a Mockingbird however--- let's make that clear.  While many apply the label broadly and write them all off -- as Jean Louise begins to do in Watchman -- Harper Lee also recognizes and depicts nuance in the severity of the flaw.  This manifests in Mockingbird as we see Bob Ewell, Mrs. Duboise, Judge Taylor, Heck Tate, Link Deas, and Atticus all on a well-defined scale.  One of the flaws in Watchman is that all the minor characters seem to blend together at a point -- they're all racists so who cares?   Not caring is a fatal flaw in a book;  Mockingbird makes us care and identify these people.  

There have been some academic articles over the past 30 years stating that Atticus of Mockingbird was racist or never did enough for black people.  The 1930s South during the Depression was a vastly different context from post-war Alabama in the Civil Rights era when the book was published, and equally different from context than the 1980s and 1990s when these criticisms first popped up.  We must also remember that the POV in Mockingbird is not of Tom or Atticus, but of Scout, who had little to no interaction with Tom Robinson and her father together beyond what she sees at the courtroom and in the famous jail scene. Perhaps the most telling event we see through Scout is when Atticus, of his own will and time, goes to Tom's wife to break the tragic news.  Atticus may have been court-appointed, but most Southern white attorneys did not typically go to their black client's home.


To clarify the kerfuffle about the KKK meeting in Watchman, Atticus had gone to one years before the novel in order to see who was there; he never trusted a person whose face he could not see.  It's pointed out in Watchman that Atticus tolerated freedom of speech and belief, but the second that those thoughts and statements turned violent, he would be the first to go after them.  This doesn't do much to reassure the reader or Jean Louise, in all frankness; both Atticus and Uncle Jack harken to celebrated, historically fictional depictions of a kinder  KKK, which are a bunch of malarkey and always have been.  But Harper Lee always writes about what she knows -- and it appears that what she was told (and didn't buy) isn't too far off from tales Southerners continue to tell.

The Wall Street Journal published an article in the wake of the early reviews, revealing that Harper Lee's father, Amasa, had been the same brand of segregationist as Atticus was in Go Set a Watchman.  In the three intervening years, Amasa changed his views; what we see in Mockingbird is the end of a personal evolution.  There is far more hope in Mockingbird than in Watchman; Harper Lee may have thought her father, as wonderful as he was, would never change that one ugly thing about him.  Just like Jean Louise, she still loved him anyway.   And then he did change, much to the delight of Harper Lee; Scout in Mockingbird never knew otherwise.  




So, my conclusion on this front:  Watchman Atticus = racist; Mockingbird Atticus = not a racist. 
Atticus fought the dragon and lost in To Kill a Mockingbird, but he survived and remained hopeful.  The dragon ate him entirely in Go Set a Watchman.

Let's move on. 

*****
 "Atticus and the law" is a theme that carries through in both books.  So again, out of my slavish adoration, we're going there.

Although she herself is a bit miffed by the violation of States Rights by the Supreme Court (possibly referring to Brown v. Board in 1954), Jean Louise understands that the ends justify the means; it's a strong-arm in the right direction.  In Go Set a Watchman, Atticus, like Abraham Lincoln, personally believes that while black people are not equal to white people in terms of the stuff they're made of, they are equal under law.  Unlike in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus won the rape case and exonerated the black defendant; he did it because it would have been unjust by the letter of the law, not because of his personal convictions in true equality as expressed in Mockingbird.


This is most clearly illustrated in Go Set A Watchman when Calpurnia's grandson Frank mows down a drunk white man in the middle of the street while speeding.  Atticus takes the case before the NAACP can get there, because he knows that the NAACP will try to get Frank off regardless of whether he is guilty, using the line that the system is against him because of his race;  Atticus wants the law to ring true, and indeed, as far as the reader knows, Frank did accidentally kill a drunk man while speeding.  Here, Atticus is painfully lawful neutral, to use a role-playing alignment term.

This brings us to my key question going into the book.  I'm still not sure of the answer.  Who is the more ethical man?  Mockingbird's Atticus, who fought a case in part because of his own "good" personal convictions (despite the outcome)?  Or Go Tell a Watchman's Atticus, who took a case despite his personal beliefs regarding race and won it because of his love of the law?



****

So the writing of Watchman --- problematic.

Technically speaking, the book does need more work than a publisher would have tolerated.  The flashbacks are awkwardly placed, though probably the best-written elements of the book itself.  This is probably why we have Mockingbird.  It also helps that they cut out the womanhood bits from Mockingbird; did not need that oft performed trope. The conversations are dense and preachy at times.  The drama is domestic:  the private life revelations and Jean Louise's reactions to them are the "Action," with the car accident only there to illustrate Atticus's love of law and contempt of the NAACP.  Meanwhile, Mockingbird has the two parallel stories of the mystery of Boo Radley and Tom Robinson's trial and aftermath for action, with the coming-of-age story acting as a steady, flowing river.  That said, I enjoyed the character of Uncle Jack, and while I know that he had to be cut down for Mockingbird to work, I believe I will miss his presence once I re-read it.  Much of Jack's wisdom is ported into Atticus, while the eccentric, rambling story-telling got the boot to the wayside or otherwise transformed in the whimsical, child-like narrations of Scout. 

Is Watchman a proper sequel to Mockingbird?  The nature of Atticus would be inconsistent if it were, as would the details and outcome of the Robinson trial.  Hank was non-existent during Mockingbird, as was Boo Radley in Watchman.   All things considered, we either have to accept that Jean Louise/Scout is a profoundly unreliable narrator or, as I stated in the first paragraph, Watchman was an early prototype that didn't quite work out all the kinks.

Should this have been published/?  Yes.  It's blunt and confronts the ugly tools people reach for to "preserve."  It's not as well crafted or subtle as Mockingbird, but on occasion, I do think a cudgel is appropriate to wield.  The fact we are still coping with the feelings Jean Louise does tells me the book is relevant and deserved to see the light of day, if only to give 2015 a good slap in the mouth (spoiler?).  From another perspective, there is a question of exploitation of an aging author.  In 2013, Harper Lee went to court because she felt she was being scammed by a literary agent.  Considering that Watchman's survival in a bank box was already known to her by that date (in whatever story you believe about it), I am inclined to believe that Harper Lee did this of her own free will.  Why, I don't know.  To see what people thought?  To show the evolution of a book, as an academic exercise?  .......I just really hope it's not a scam, erk. 

From the Cover of the New Yorker

I saw this on my FB feed this morning.  I know it's a bit of a fun thing for us adults to talk about, but it seriously got me to thinking: "How would Sesame Street handle an openly gay character?"    Some advocate a Bert and Ernie wedding.  I don't know if that would work for our target audience.  It's not that it's inappropriate -- I'm sure there is an ever-increasing number of kids in the 2-7 age range that are now involved with same-sex marriage ceremonies.  But for that kid who's not yet encountered a gay person: how do you introduce that via TV?


Sesame Street has always catered to kids; the South African/Nigerian Sesame Street created their HIV-positive character Kami because there are many children now born with HIV in that region or, as in her own case, that receive contaminated blood transfusions.  Kami is also an AIDS orphan.   There was no effort to make a huge social commentary about drug use, sex crimes, health programs, or other adult issues -- it's a kids show, and the point is that these kids will meet someone like Kami in their life, and they should not be afraid of her.  Kami is a little girl who gets very lonely and sad sometimes -- she needs friends. Some adults threw a temper tantrum over her existence, but Kami and others like her are facts of life in that region. 

In the US in 2011, Lily, the Food Insecure Muppet, was introduced.  17 million American children go hungry every day - she's one of them.  There is no commentary about Lily's parents being deadbeats or what US department or program has failed her.  The fact of the matter is, her family is poor and she's very hungry.  All the time.  She's very shy and more than a little ashamed that she is always hungry, just like those 17 million other kids.  I'm very sad we haven't seen Lily again after that episode -- unlike Kami, who became a regular on SA/Nigerian Sesame Street. 


Kids understand "hungry" from birth -- ask any new mother.  Some know what it's like to lose a parent at a young age or to be constantly sick.  Sexuality, however, isn't something that kids confront head on -- they understand the physiological difference between boys and girls, but not the birds and the bees or even the concept of having a crush (remember, we're talking about 2-7 year olds).  In middle school, kids will have openly gay friends, just as they will have openly heterosexual friends.   That's past Sesame Street's target audience. 

A theoretical Bert and Ernie gay wedding announcement is suitable for that older audience and for us adults looking back and remarking, "Well that explains everything."  But does that serve the average 5 or 6-year-old?    Kids age 2-7 are pretty gender ambiguous - boys play dress up, girls play with trucks, and nobody minds. They aren't in romantic relationships.  There is no concept of being "out."  Some people have said that they "knew" from a young age that they were gay, but how does one express that through the television for someone as young as 2?

The sexuality of kids and how early you can declare them one orientation or another has been and will be debated.   How many 2-7 year olds have the confidence and understanding to say "I'm gay"?  Not many.  What is more accessible and more common than that?  How would Sesame Street depict being gay as more than just tokenism or, even worse, going through every bad stereotype?

To introduce gay marriage or gay identity on Sesame Street, gay parents probably offer the better way to go, Muppet or human.  A kid doesn't see his/her schoolmates' parents everyday, but they are present.  Kids have a remarkable sense of continuity from day to day IRL and episode to episode on TV.  "Oh, that's Teddy, he has two dads."  Teddy's two dads don't have to appear all the time on Sesame Street to have impact.   The show doesn't go into the nuts and bolts of the relationship -- all that matters is that these people are here to love and care for that child.  Just as Kami's story does not go into grown-up stuff, it still shows the impact of societal change on a young child.  Kami has no parents and deals with health issues -- just like someone your child knows at school.  Meanwhile, newly legalized gay marriages now enable people to adopt in several states -- someone will have a happy new home and a new life because of this positive societal change. If Sesame Street ever addresses gay marriage in their show, I think this may be their tact...if ever.

Sadly, when Kami premiered on SA/Nigerian television in 2002, Republican congressmen Billy Tauzin, Chip Pickering, Fred Upton, Joe Barton, Richard Burr and Cliff Stearns united to threaten PBS's funding if they dared to introduce a similar character in the US.  Other conservative groups protested the very thought of adding such a character, insisting that if the character had HIV, it had to be gay (continuing to foster the ugly lie that only gays carry the dreaded disease).  The US has never done a study to count how many AIDS orphans it has.  Additionally, we never saw Lily again in the US after her one-hour special in 2011. A gay character -- Muppet or otherwise -- will appear on Sesame Street one day.  However, it won't be in the US.

At least, not until Kami and Lily get their time in the sun here too.  

*******

TIME magazine came out with the following article in anticipation of Lily's arrival.  There's a super cute video with Kami and Bill Clinton in it as well, plus some insight on the origins of Bert and Ernie.  

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2096216_2096217_2096235,00.html

Tea and No More Symphony

Yep, last symphony concert was in mid-May.  Unless uni next year doesn't pan out, my last concerts will likely be the Russian special concerts in August.  I didn't see many concerts that really lit my fire on the rota for next year, so I may not renew anyway.  They spoiled me this past year with lots of Russians.

Tea, however, is eternal. I first became a tea drinker at age 18 after living in London for a semester in Fall 2004. The habit became increasingly acute in college, and now I generally buy mostly loose-leaf teas.  Yep, I've become a snob!

I figured I would post a review of my teas as well as the never-ending saga to replace my favorite tea, Almond Cookie/Biscotti.  It's been a painful process, as just as I get into a tea, either their change the recipe or they discontinue it entirely.

Almond Cookie/Biscotti

I first got into this flavor through the Spice and Tea Company in Fort Worth.  Then they discontinued it.  Damn and double damn.  Then I got into the Teavana version of it, Almond Biscotti.  Then they added rose petals to it and made it more of a flowery flavor called Amandine Rose.  It's ok, as it still has the overall aftertaste, but the upfront bouquet is very floral - I have mixed feelings about it.  When the original Teavana and Spice and Tea Company teas were mixed properly with sugar and milk, it was like drinking an oatmeal cookie.  It was a low-calorie version of heaven.

I've yet to properly replace it, sadly.  I am currently enjoying the user-made blend Almond Cookie from Adagio Tea, but there just isn't enough cinnamon.  The flavor that you get on the sides of your mouth is right, but the fore and aftertastes are just not quite right.  The smell is right, however.  I may try to make my own blend, but that's a bit of an investment.  Alternatively, if anyone knows of a killer almond/oatmeal cookie tea, I'll try it if it delivers!

Chocolate Tea

I've tried a few of them so far.  The problem with bagged tea from Stash and the loose tea from the Spice and Tea Company is that they rapidly turn bitter if left any longer than 3 minutes -- literally, seconds make the difference between a chocolate tea treat and a tart "Oh, that needs milk" sour face.

My current favorite is from Teavana, Slimful Chocolate Decadence Oolong.  Oolong tea is between green and black tea in terms of caffeine and in terms of processing.  I've accidentally forgotten this herbal tea after dinner, and though it's been sitting for at least an hour, the tea is still delicious, no need for milk unless I feel like it.

Oolong is considered by some to be a diet tea, as there have been reports of weight loss happening easier with it; it has many of the benefits of black tea without the caffeine and with, in my experience, a lesser need to dress it with calorie-bearing sugar and milk (again, it doesn't go bitter as easily).  However, you don't get the spicy highs you do in black teas.  I liked the French Spice Quartet from Teavana much better the the Toasted Nut Brulee (which is very nutty and just is missing a kick; enjoyable, but very mild). 

I'll throw in the Matevana Herbal tea.  It's chocolaty, but it's very strange.  The description does warn you that you're never quite sure whether you're drinking tea, coffee, or chocolate, but I'm not a fan of being discombobulated like that.  It also is a pretty decent caffeine kick.

Chai

 Again, one of the consequences from living in London was developing a taste for chai (and very mild Indian food, as I am a dreadful coward when it comes to heat!).  What we call "chai tea" is a bit repetitious:  "chai" is simply the common Eurasian (various languages from Urdu to Persian and back again) word for "tea."  The proper term for it is "masala chai" -- spice tea. 

Masala chais are probably my favorite types of tea.  It is mostly made with black tea, but it can also be made with oolong for reduced caffeine.  I'm currently drinking my way through Maharaja Chai Oolong. 

Teavana's Maharaja Chai/Samurai Chai is a great tea for a kick in the head in the morning -- very spicy, very caffeinated, even with the oolong. 

One of the teas that sticks with me is the Thai Chai, now known as Cha Yen Thai Tea from Teavana.  I wasn't a huge fan of it, but it had the most striking flavor - for lack of better description, it tasted like the word "mallow."   I reminded me of something I ate in childhood, but I'm unsure what.  It has visible berries, coconut, and a few other Far Eastern flavors mixed in, like star anise.  If nothing else, it certainly was in a class by itself.  Unfortunately, I can't figure out what the hell was in it, particularly the red berries.

Adagio Fandom

The concept is that fans create a tea that are the embodiment of characters they are named for.  I am just waiting for a Star Trek line to come out!  I ordered two teas so far from this line.  The first is John Watson (based on Martin Freeman's incarnation) and the second is Harry Potter. John Watson is, as promised, a rainy day sweater tea.  Very snuggly but you have to be on the bloody spot for it not to get overpowered by the Earl Grey in this EG, cinnamon, and green tea blend.  It's very comforting.  I really do like it, but I have to be in the mood.  The current Almond Cookie Tea blend from Adagio is what I'm into right now.  I haven't tried Harry Potter yet, which should be pumpkin spicy. 

I'll update my tea list as I drink more.

The Six Month Forecast

Life tends to get in the way of a consistent blog update.  Or any, really, for months at a time in my case.  My trip to Europe was a success, as were my PhD applications and thesis defense.  I am now a master (not a mistress, that has a different set of qualifiers....) who is getting ready for a new life in England within the next 18 months.

I say 18 because I won't have a definitive answer for my funding until after May 28.  It's driving me slowly insane; I like to plan my life six months in advance, and in six months, I'll be 28 and have no bloody idea where I'm going to be living, going to school, etc.  Currently, the ideal plan is to receive funding and head over the pond.  However, should funding not work out, I may stay in Texas for another year, working full time and saving up for the hop. 

As I said, the inability to plan 6 months ahead is making me bonkers.

That said, I'm making the most of it.  I have the equivalent of a full-time job right now between two part-time positions.  I'm preparing for a move in the sense I'm starting purge old clothes, documents, books, etc.  Now it's just a question of getting off my arse and actually taking them to the proper places for donation/resale.  I'm horrific with getting to the post office, and it takes a small miracle to get me to a bricks and mortar store. 

I'm also looking to get new pieces for my wardrobe, though in my own thrifty way.  Certain items needed to be replaced -- my black suit jacket had seen far better days and has now been replaced by a Dana Buchman black brocade suit coat. 

Original price: $80. 

Bought for: $16 at Kohl's, off the 80% off rack.  I had gone in originally looking for a purple dress (which is my other closet mission!), but no dice on that count.  However, an excellent and highly practical consolation prize. 

Couponing in Extremis is in full swing -- my average is up to 45%-60% at Tom Thumb. I dipped a bit this week at 35%, but I got a ton of gas points, which will save me about $8 at the pump later this weekend.  

On the calendar late last week was a trip to Neiman Marcus Last Call.  I participate in a survey group that rewards me with discounts to the store, so I needed to scope out what level of certificate I needed.

Behold, oh glorious purple dress.  With pockets!  It's in the mode of a 1950s wiggly dress with a slightly modern kick with the pockets.  The belt is adorable - it's a reverse buckle.  The exact model is the Becky from Single Dress.  I may be wearing this to a wedding, so pics of me in it soonish (possibly).

Original price:  $253

Bought for:  $59.63 at Last Call at Neiman Marcus.  It was on the 50% off rack, plus I had a $25 off a $75 purchase coupon from the survey company. 

Next week:  a three-piece suit for $48 delivered, a corset post, and a bit on Star Trek!

Baked Potato Soup Recipe

I pulled this All Recipes ages ago, but it's apparently been removed from the site.  So it's not mine, but I can't attribute it!  However, I've gotten rave reviews on this at Christmas parties and the like, and it's a great hangover cure (one bowl before bed with tea and ibuprofen).  Tastes great on the second and third days.

Baked Potato Soup

 6 strips of bacon OR 2 tbsp butter (see directions below)
2 small onions (I used a bit less than half of a large white onion)
2 cloves of garlic (I upped it to 5)
1/4 cups of flour and 2 tbsp flour
2 tsp salt
2 tsp basil (optional)
1 tsp pepper (I only use 1/2 tsp because of the broth)
6 cups (3 cans) of chicken broth
4 large baked potatoes (I use 5 for a chunkier, thicker soup), cubed.
1 pint half and half
1 tsp hot sauce (optional; I don't use it)

Shredded cheese, sour cream, and bacon to garnish

In a large Dutch oven/cooking pot, cook bacon until crisp. Drain, reserving 2 tablespoon drippings. Set bacon aside. Saute onion and garlic in the drippings until tender. In lieu of bacon drippings, one can substitute in butter, which works very well (my personal preference; I use pre-cooked bacon to garnish and heat it up in the microwave). I use less onion and more garlic.

Stir in flour, salt, basil and pepper; mix well. Keep this mixture moving; it should clump up nicely and start to brown. Make sure this does not stick to the insides of the pot. Once well mixed, add the broth and bring to a boil, stirring frequently. Let it boil and stir it for two minutes while boiling before reducing heat.

Add the potatoes, cream and hot pepper sauce; heat through but do not boil. Mix well. It should start to thicken up.

Garnish with bacon, cheese, sour cream, etc.

Couponing in Extremis

As part of my master's degree, I am taking a research trip to Europe.  Because I'm going to 7 (hopefully) cities, it's getting expensive.  Fortunately, the department has been supportive, but I'm trying to keep it as cheap as possible, in case my other school funding doesn't come through.  This is part of what has triggered my re-emergence as a super couponer.  My goal is to "save" in coupons $500 between now and Christmas on items that I would normally buy anyway -- groceries, gas, winter clothes, travel, etc.  The key to this strategy is NOT buying something "just because I have a coupon;" it's rarely enough to offset the loss if you don't use the item.  If it's BOGO (buy one get one free), no loss, but just carry the guilt that you're killing a child in sub-Saharan Africa when you throw out the spare.

Guilt-tripping aside, a note on expiration dates -- don't abide by them.  Expiration dates are mainly for people who don't store things ideally - this is to prevent food poisoning, just like how we have Superman costumes with "caution: suit does not enable wearer to fly."  Most people don't need it, but there's always that bottom 25% of the common sense scale.  Go by smell, appearance (black mold is not your friend) a small taste, and search online for tests.  For example, fill up a tall glass of water and drop an egg in.  If it sinks, it's good.  It's bad if it floats -- it means the egg has decayed and the liquid has become gas -- ewwwww. Eggs in my fridge keep well past the expiration date.  If you store them on the counter, start testing a week before the expiration date. 

Back to couponing.

Most of the time, I can usually strategically shop and save about 25% to 30% off the retail price.  That's just using the circular and my reward card deals.  However, if you add on manufacturers coupons and choose where you shop wisely, that can easily double.  Recently, I did three shopping events that resulted in a free blender, a half-price rail ticket, and savings averaging 55% on both my and the boyfriend's groceries (which saved us, in total, $150, and me personally $105).

Edit:  I just realized that these rules would probably blend in well with the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. 

1.  Location location location. Coupon policy is important.  I used to shop at Kroger, and then they stopped automatically doubling/tripling coupons. Basically, the process is that if the coupon is less than a dollar, the store will voluntarily multiple the coupon up to 3 times to reach or get close to  a dollar.  Tom Thumb does it, so they are my dudes.  Kroger in my area stopped doing it.  Also, if you receive a "$10 off your next purchase" coupon, see what it applies to and if you can use two at the same time.  Rules like this matter, because it stinks to be caught out, plus if you can get multiple coupons, you might want to split up your shopping order into 2 parts to get both of them (generally, cashiers are willing to go along with your evil plans as long as it isn't to o much of a hassle).


2.  Timing.  At different times of the week, stores put out their circulars.  However, they also  get their shipments at different times.  If you're a big fan of fresh produce and you see there's a sale on, you may not want to go on Wednesday, the first day of the deal, but on Monday, when the truck comes in and you get the pick of the litter.  Timing is also relevant as far as seasonal stuff.  The day after Halloween or Valentine's Day is the key time to buy candy.  As long as chocolate doesn't go grey or chalky, it's good -- fridging or freezing it is another way to extend its life.  Starting around Halloween, stores start promoting ingredients for pies and holiday foods for Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Also, stay tuned in to your local farmer's market and what's in season there.  I purchased two pumpkins for $3.50, and I already have made 5 loaves of bread, toasted seeds, a batch of cookies, a pie and a half, and I still have leftovers.

How I Got the Railpass

The same goes for travel. My rail pass to Europe for my research trip was originally about $950.   I examined my travel plans, and I condensed a few places and days I would be traveling - sometimes, you need to cut everything but what you need.  Bye bye, Prague.  Au revoir, Bruges.  And then I waited. School starts in Europe about a month later than in the US, because they don't get Thanksgiving or any federal holidays off; they go straight through, with maybe a week's break.  As a result, after the week break in October, travel is "off-peak" until March -- when spring break and Easter vacation happen.

This past week, on Rail Europe, my curtailed itinerary had a 20% off sale, plus a $50 credit, free shipping of my pass, AND a free extra day added (8 day passes now had 9, etc).  This deal is now pretty darn sweet.  However, never settle -- there is always a coupon out there!  RetailMeNot had a code for an additional $50 off any order over a certain threshold.  So my $950 itinerary, after a few edits, dropped to $509.  It's a little bit of a gamble to wait; I tried to wait out my airline tickets, but because the economy is so crummy and the taxes are so high on planes, I'm not seeing the same deals I used to see back in 2005 or even 2008.  

3. Stacking and multiplying.  You generally get the best deal when "stacking."  Stacking means that you use a store coupon and then a manufacturer coupon on top of it.  Let's say you see that cookies are on sale for $1.99 a pack.   The store may offer you a coupon if you have a rewards card, knocking the price down to $1.50.  If you find a coupon online or in a newspaper insert from the manufacturer, you can use that coupon too, reducing your cookies to $1.00 -- you get one store, one manufacturer coupon per item, plus any sales the store has on.

Multiple items are trickier -- for example, I had a buy 2, get 1 free on Pillsbury crescent rolls.  I also had a coupon for $.40 off on two Pillsbury crescent rolls.  The store automatically doubled the $.40 to $.80 off, plus I then received a free one.  In theory, if I had a $.40 off coupon for each one, then I could actually make money off the freebie too;  I would get it for free, but because it is on the receipt, the manufacturer's coupon would ring up for it too -- I would receive $.80 from the store in credit!

In short, get the weekly circulars and don't pitch them when they come in with the rest of the junk mail.  Google Coupon Divas, and they have 4 links to various online manufacturer coupons.  

**Mini-tip:  Check the price per ounce, per sheet, or per pound rather than the price on the tag.  An extra large box of something may cost more, but you may be paying less per item, which is savings.  With coupons, even though the store brand may cost less at first glance, you can usually file down the name-brand item to something worthwhile. 

4.  Stuff happens, embrace it.  Sometimes, you need to buy stuff, and there is no planning or saving you can do to offset it.  For example, I had two bras die on me in one week.  I'm an odd size, so it's a pain in the ass to find stuff that fits me AND is on sale.  And then a heel broke off a pair of shoes in the middle of the stalk --- at 5+ years and having bought them for under $60, it was time to send them to the happy hunting grounds (I would recommend ALWAYS repairing shoes/boots that are $100).  And then I needed new towels because my old ones died.  So I unexpectedly dropped over $150 at Kohl's in order to replace these needed items.  On the bright side, I got a great bang for my buck in that bras were buy 1, get 1 half off, the shoes were on sale, and the towels were 50% off. (The towels weren't the color I wanted, but they were towels -- when I'm rich, I'll buy nice towels.)

How I Got the Blender

One other thing that was cool was that Kohl's was doing a double Kohl's cash promotion.  Even though I didn't have a card, I was still able to get $10 per $50 spent rather than $5 for $50.  So that gave me $30.  And then there was a circular coupon for 20% off, as well as a special $10 off promotion in appliances.  So fast forward about two weeks -- I have 2 weeks left to use Kohl's cash, and I have just acquired my first pumpkin (I do crazy yummy foods with pumpkins).  I recalled last year's efforts in trying to blenderize hot cooked pumpkin with a handheld mixer.  That = suck.  So.  Blender time!  So I went to Kohl's, went back to their blender section, checked the Amazon reviews, picked my blender, threw down all the coupons and Kohl's cash, and then paid $1.61 for my free blender.  The lesson here is that even though I had to spend money I didn't want to at the moment, I found a place where I could get a worthwhile kickback. 

5.  Look for opportunities.  This goes hand in hand with #2, but think about new places that are opening, places that are closing, and after sale sales.  Black Friday is abject chaos, and people in the retail business know it -- that's why stores will have their own pseudo-BF sale the week before or after, or, in Amazon's case, they will have "Black Friday" deals every day from late November to December. The huge savings I got this week at the market was due to weekly circular + rewards card + Holiday circular + new store circular + manufacturers' coupons.

6.  There is no shame in thrift stores or the clearance rack.  Most of my clothes?  Second hand from the local thrift stores or the 70%+ off section.  Luke found a cashmere green lecturing jacket worth $600 for $3.  My dress that I wore to my friends Stephanie and Jeremy's wedding was $12.50 -- original price was $60, and on ebay for $30-40.  When I lived up north, my mother and I blitzed Lord and Taylor, getting $1000+ worth of name brand merch for more than half off.  Shoes are a little more iffy, but my favorite pair of black Anne Taylor pumps were purchased for $20 second hand.  If you know the brand name and you like it enough, go for it

The first key here is to go for classic, not trendy.

It's a worthwhile purchase if you can wear it this time next year (or this time in five years) and not look dated.  Many people are surprised to know that many of business suits are actually my mother's from when she was my age 30 years ago.  Indeed, my grey wool is from 1978, my black pinstripe from 1982, and I do believe the red one is from the mid/late 1980s.

The second key is to find a GOOD tailor.

Get free clothes from relatives or cheap from the thrift store...and then make them yours.  Because I am smaller than my mother and also than the average woman in Texas, I take my clothes to the tailor on a regular basis -- I'm about to make another run this week.  Never use a department store tailor -- that's a price gouge.  Ask around, or even better, ask the owner of a thrift shop you frequent -- if she's ever received any high end clothing with minor damage, you can bet she spent $10 to fix it so she could resell it for $50.  Also, the tailor can get rid of certain unpopular features, such as shoulder pads, odd skirt slits, and double-breasted suit coats (to quote Nichelle Nichols, "I'm already double-breasted; I feel like I'm the Titanic").

7.  Go for cards/free memberships with kickbacks.  Discover has a deal with Amazon.com that means you can use any denomination of "cash back" for Amazon items; Discover and other cards have reciprocal deals to get $25 gift certs for $20.  Petco now gives cardholders $5 for every $100 they spend.  Kohl's cash, with or without the card.  Grocery store cards that have smart phone apps for coupons.  My father uses a credit card to earn points for free clothing (and his fantasy boat).  Don't pay anything to get these perks -- you don't have to spend money to make money couponing. 

So yeah.  That is the thrifty gameplan!

A Scandal In Belgravia

Spoilers abound, reader beware.
 
I write this post in part to respond to a comment on my Spock and Sherlock article.  I also write it to squee profusely over the new episode of Sherlock from the Beeb.

I must preface this by stating my views on Irene Adler herself.  Doyle's original Scandal in Bohemia is the most famous and most recreated of the original canon, perhaps save for Hound of the Baskervilles.  There have been many spins on Irene.  Holmes admired her for being the only woman to fool him.  There had been 2 men, but Watson does not deign to name them.  This has led to fan fiction writers as well as professional writers to want to suggest that Sherlock and Irene had something else going on, particularly during his two-year sabbatical (resulting in a wide variety of "next generation" detectives, ranging from Raffles to Damian to Nero Wolfe).

That said.

I was at first totally on board with shipperdom on the coupling, but I've realized that in all honesty, Adler is not the be all end all for Holmes.  To put her into modern terms, in the context of her original story, Irene took nude pics with her ex-boyfriend and then threatened to post them on the internet before his wedding.  She's not a rocket scientist to begin with -- she's street smart and a grand actress.  She's not a "strong" woman.  She got to where she was by plying her trade -- actress and being "that girl."  We all know "that girl" -- she is not strong on her own, but she is the puppetmaster.  She makes the world spin around her. 

My reactions to the episode:

First off.  Poor frickin' Molly.  I really don't like how they're treating the character.  However, she does have a purpose, as I will detail below. 

Second off.  They do like to tease the Holmes/Watson shippers, don't they?

Third off.  I am satisfied that they are keeping "what" Sherlock is ambiguous.  Gay, straight, virgin, asexual, bisexual -- up to you.  Doesn't matter.  Sherlock = Sherlock.  That is all. 

This first episode of Series 2 was about Sherlock's heart, and I realized it long before Mycroft spoke to Watson. It proves that he does have one.  I do not interpret this series or any other series to be misogynistic as far as the depiction of women.  As I posted in "Spock and Sherlock," Sherlock lives in a predominantly homosocial society.  In order to maintain that same sort of environment and feel, women are limited in how they can enter into the storyline.  You can't have a female Watson.  Mycroft can't be female.  Neither can Lestrade -- see Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century or Laurie King's books.  Molly serves that purpose -- she is the epitome of "girl" -- and she does not fit in Sherlock's world.  Honestly, Molly is an incarnation of a Cumberbitch (a favorite term of mine for lovers of our favorite Sid the Sloth impersonator).  More generically, she is the perky girl sidekick that fiction writers always want to write in so Sherlock can go kiss someone other than John Watson.

Doesn't work, does she?  But that is her purpose -- to show that her character type does not work and probably should not attempt to be fused into the Sherlockian world. 



In contrast, the character of Mrs. Hudson has a new spin to her, and I like it.  Sherlock got her husband executed, and she owed him a favor.  Very strange starting grounds, but it's delightfully quirky.  The one note of consistency throughout Sherlock's incarnations, from the canon to Rathbone to Brett and to this one, is that Sherlock Holmes respects her.  The new Mrs. Hudson is decidedly a sly one herself, as she did manage to sneak the phone away from the burglar while playing the damsel in distress.  Both Sherlock and John snap at Mycroft when he tells their girl off -- good show, lads.

Mycroft.  I wish he was fatter, frankly, but he is all the manipulative statesman I could wish for.  I do hope the relationship between our Holmes boys becomes more civil, however.  The banter in the original canon is far less contentious, and much more fun in general when you know the two of them aren't at each other's throats. 

I would like to address the concerns of the commenter.  As indicated previously, I don't think Irene is strong or "had the rug pulled from under her" -- it was never there in the first place.  She is an adventuress -- she is neutral chaos, like Catwoman in the 1990s Batman the Animated series.  Neither good nor bad - she just makes it all interesting for herself.  She is not beholden by Moriarty, nor does she fall victim to him as portrayed in the most recent movie.  This Irene is a completely free agent who just happens to cross his path. I like her better than the Downey Jr. film version.  Rachel Adams' Irene is the sacrificial lamb, the cocky little thing that got herself over her head.  Irene Adler in the book and in this TV appearance is far from over her head.

True to the source material, Irene is a slave only to her heart.  I do not think we will see her again, as we do not see her in the original canon.  I would be disappointed if we did; Sherlock doesn't do that romance thing.  However, in the name of keeping Sherlock himself delightfully ambiguous, we have that scene right out of Lawrence of Arabia or 1001 Arabian Nights or something of that nature.  The final scene is Sherlock finally laughing to himself.  He takes pleasure in that memory -- and whatever came after; the shipper machine has been going full-tilt on THAT topic since January 1 on fan fic sites.  This is not Holmes making himself cry to coax a reaction out of a widow or being sweet to con Molly.  This is just Sherlock with no other window dressing.

As to the sexuality issue, particularly in Irene's scene with Watson:  again, ambiguity is the goal.  However, the scene can also be interpreted as how "exceptional" Sherlock is.  Irene suggests that for both of them, Sherlock could be the one exception to their normal behavior.  This subject somewhat tackled in Brokeback Mountain. Jake Gyllenhal's character, Jack, was gay But what about Heath Ledger's Ennis?  He didn't have a string of male lover -- just Jack.  He could never get him out of his head.  Is there that one exceptional man that makes him break all the rules?  In one of my favorite films, Orlando starring Tilda Swinton, there is a distinct possibility that the person you fall in love with is simply that -- a person.  You can worry about what bits they have later.  Additionally, Irene does not make it a point to fall in love with clients or rivals; Sherlock may be an exception for her that way, but the best way to illustrate is using the sexuality thing.  However, the point is not what Irene and John are; the point is what Sherlock is to them.  And he's the one that just makes them fall over themselves.  He makes them feel alive - that isn't necessarily sexual, even for Irene. 



I found this opening episode delightful and very true to the character of Irene.  As to Sherlock -- well, he was a bit ambiguous in the original books in some regards, but I also think that in the books he was much more savvy and well-mannered than our latest versions.  Jeremy Brett was the last "polite" Holmes I can think of.  Being a gentleman was the norm, and Doyle's Holmes complied with that.  Recent versions have had him being ill-mannered, but with the excuse that he has a brilliant mind, and that makes it all peachy.  This version is no exception, though I do give credit to Cumberbatch and the writers for portraying the character as a self-acknowledged sociopath. 

Below is a small write up I did 3.5 years ago to vent my frustrations over the misrepresentation of Holmes in fan fiction and other media. 

"Holmes is not some misogynistic, insensitive, boorish, self-centered prima donna.

"He's a Victorian.  He is two-faced and multi-faceted.  He disapproves of drinking and drug to excess, but partakes of cocaine when driven to boredom and ennui.  He understands the class system and enjoys his aloof position in it, but constantly ignores it when pursuing a case.  He has friends all over and makes sure they do not mix -- it's not because he is embarrassed.  It is because the social differences in Victorian England were enough to be other countries.  To mix them would be unwise and unprofessional.  The rich and the poor gap was fairly wide, despite the rising middle class.    And he does not discriminate who he takes cases from.  His fees are flat, unless he decides not to charge at all -- he gets paid enough to keep his mouth shut by the royals to do charity work at his discretion.  If anything, the royals bored him and he'd refuse their cases, and yet spend weeks working on some poor person who would never pay him. 

"Holmes thinks women are overcomplicated creatures (as do I), but he would never disregard them or their problems right off.  He is a gentleman, first and foremost.  It is not because he thinks they are horrible or useless -- he's the eccentric genius and while charming in his own way, he's no Casanova.  Let Watson deal with the niceties.  He admits in Doyle's canon that he has never loved anyone -- but if he did, he would be in the same position as one of his clients, desperate to avenge his beloved's death.  He is a consummate professional, and while his female clients can give him a good chase and an intriguing puzzle, once it is solved, they are not integral to his life.   Neither are the men.  He treats them the same -- non-entities after the job.  Recognition, yes, but beyond that would be unprofessional. 

"Read the Veiled Lodger case, however.  Of all the cases, this is the one where Holmes breaks the rules and touches a woman to comfort her.  She'd gotten her face ripped off by a lion.  Even Holmes cannot help but be affected by her.  He feels compassion for her and is willing to help her.  Irene Adler is the only woman to ever stir anything more than that passing, intellectual interest in him -- he keeps her dirty photograph in his private files.  Even then, there are no hints that he ever pursues her, one way or another.  As to his treatment of Mrs. Hudson, Holmes was always an ideal tenant -- minus horrible smells from chemistry, shooting VR into the wall, and tacking up his post using a knife in the mantle.  However, he always repaired and paid for his misdeeds and never sassed the landlady. 

"I'm not going to say Holmes loved kids, but they had their uses (and not the ones you're thinking of, you sicko).  Baker Street Irregulars ring a bell?  In an era of well-meaning social reform, children were still uneducated and locked out of factories; school was too expensive now that there were only parents working in the factories rather than having the eldest three work in there while the youngest three got a basic education.  Now nobody could work, and nobody could afford school.  Boys became pickpockets and petty thieves.  Girls, much the same, with the addition of prostitution.  Holmes did spend time with his contacts in opium dens and other houses of ill repute, but he hardly endorsed the corruption of children.  Holmes used the street children as informers and spies -- small size, inconspicuous in a crowded London street, and smart as whips, many of them.  He paid them better than a John would, on the Victorian scale.  It was better to be in Mr. Holmes' employ and find odd bits and bobs of information and get fed by Mrs. Hudson rather than be completely on the streets minus the point where the family would regroup. 

"One man's petty theft is another's grand larceny -- do not forget the class scale differences.  When children and women were threatened, Holmes was generally pissed off.

"Should someone get in his way during a case, yes, he'd bite and be an absolute jerk.  Yes, he was intelligent and flashy at times, but despite his confidence and almost arrogance, he often let Scotland Yard take credit for the good he'd done -- better to have confidence in the police than in one man. 

"Sherlock Holmes himself was created because of a lack of confidence in Scotland Yard; he was birthed in the middle of the Jack the Ripper serial killings.  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made the ultimate detective.  A gentleman, a brilliant man, a man who was not corrupt or lured by prostitutes, a man who had no professional grudges and would not pervert justice for his own gain.  He was the answer to the Jack the Ripper problem.  Sherlock Holmes the myth was a powerful enough creature back in those dark times that almost immediately, post was directed toward 221B Baker Street in the hopes that Holmes would get it and save them all from this menace that walked among them.  Saucy Jack knew their streets, their hours, their churches, and their children.  He walked among them during the day, killed the women by night."

Spock and Sherlock: Same Cut, Different Cloth

This article originally appeared in the USS Navras newsletter.  All mine, no stealing.  

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is rife with literary references, predominantly Shakespeare (though not in the original Klingon).  Captain Spock joins the literary spree with the words, “An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth.”  While Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the words, the man who “spoke” them was Doyle’s creation, the great detective, Sherlock Holmes.  Even before this, Mirror!Spock in the Original Series episode “Mirror, Mirror” used this quote as well while attempting to solve the mystery of the changed crew members. 

These quotes simply cement what many fans think: Sherlock Holmes and Spock are cut from the same cloth.  Both value logic and solve the problems presented to them by those of lesser intellect.  Neither are social butterflies by nature; left to their own devices, both men turn inward.  They are tall, angular, and far from conventionally handsome.  Their mind is their greatest asset. 

In the hands of fans and in the course of fan fiction, these character aspects manifest in exaggerated fashion.  The observer can lay the canon sources for both Sherlock and Spock alongside their depictions in fan fiction or pastiche and gain insight on how different these characters are…and yet how different.  However, a head-on approach here can be used due to the recent proliferation of Sherlockian media in the form of the 2009 Guy Ritchie film, the BBC serial starring Benedict Cumberbatch, and the Fox television series, House.  Given that this is appearing in a Star Trek newsletter, one would assume some reader familiarity with Spock, even if it is only with the 2009 reboot. 

One of the predominant features of Sherlock Holmes, along with his staggering intellect, is his eccentricity.  Sherlock is an emotional, passionate man.  He is passionate about the chase and solving the case, even if his client cannot pay him; as the detective says, he works on a flat fee, except when he waives it entirely.  While placing great value on logic when comes to detection, Sherlock is a Bohemian.  He is unconventional and uncaring as to external perceptions.  While neat in his hygiene, he casts everything else to the wind.  His biographer, Dr. Watson, also describes the darker side to Sherlock in graphic detail in “The Sign of Four.”  While he has his high intellectual highs, Sherlock also has cocaine lows, injecting a seven-percent solution of cocaine (or morphine, according to Watson).  He will brood, shut in for days on end.  Left to his own devices, he is destructive and undisciplined; throughout the Doyle canon, the reader hears of the mess and the lack of consideration for poor Mrs. Hudson.  This goes as far as to shooting holes into the wall in the shape of Queen Victoria’s epigram, VR.  It has been confessed by the creators and writers of the television series, House, that the grumpy, drug-addicted doctor is heavily based off of Sherlock’s dark side.

However, the “lighter” side of House is also briefly seen, mostly taking the form of his love of music.  Pianos, guitars, and an extensive CD collection represent the unburdened Gregory House, just as the Stradivarius violin embodies the active Sherlock.  For those unfamiliar with the music world, a Stradivarius violin is considered the ultimate violin to own, constructed by Antonio Stradivari in the 1600s.  While it is controversial as to whether its sound is truly superior, the name Stradivarius is still a symbol of musical luxury and desirability, as Tiffany is to jewelry.  Sherlock also enjoys outings to the theatre and orchestra.  Combined with the drug usage, Sherlock, in short, is a hedonist.

Sherlock is also not insensitive to the needs and fears of others.  In the case of “The Veiled Lodger,” the client is a woman who was mauled by a lion at the behest of her ex-lover.  He does not hesitate to reach out to her with a comforting hand – something shocking to fans that would have Sherlock scoff at her tearful story.   Sherlock expresses concern and worry at times over his clients, most notably in “The Adventure of the Copper Beeches,” when he indicates that he would not want his sister to be in his poor client’s place (whether Sherlock has a sister or not is immaterial).  He also jokes with Watson periodically and is willing to laugh at misfortunes, such as when his tracking dog takes the wrong split in a trail.

Laugher is simply not an option with our Vulcan.  Spock is philosophically light years away from Sherlock.  His quarters are depicted as Spartan, with the exception of the lyre, his one luxury. While Sherlock and Spock share a love of music and talent, the similarities do not stretch much further.  Spock’s life is ordered and structured compared to the periodic chaos of Sherlock’s.  While this is fostered by Starfleet, this also seems to be an innate part of Spock’s nature due to Vulcan philosophy.  The emotional discipline and orderliness of Spock’s knowledge is a dramatic contrast to extreme emotions of Sherlock and his haphazard collection of facts. 

Spock lacks vanity as part of his philosophy, but he is excessively meticulous about external appearances, particularly because he is half-human.  He makes every effort to conceal his human side by, as some would put it, out-Vulcaning the Vulcans.  In “Journey to Babel,” Sarek permits himself a slight smile, but it is only under duress (“Amok Time,” most famously) or when making music (“Charlie X”) that Spock allows himself an emotional outlet.  While Sherlock wouldn’t care about what others thought of him, this preoccupies Spock.  He has a need to find his place in the universe; this is part of the likability of his character, while the allure of Sherlock (and House) is the opposite.  Sherlock cares not for the rest of the world’s opinion.

Spock is a clean-cut member of Starfleet.  Spock taking drugs or having mood swings would be associated with alien influences or biological difficulties –or a bad writer!  A fan doesn’t watch Spock to see him crash and burn.  While he experiences emotional conflict within, Spock is not a character in turmoil.  That said, Spock, much like Sherlock, is not a creature lacking in compassion either.  While he can hardly be called “cuddly” and may lack bedside manner, Spock expresses compassion and concern for those around him.  Even as he suffers from the affects of the Psi 2000 virus in “The Naked Time,” he attempts to let Christine Chapel down gently after she bares her soul to him.   “Requiem for Methuselah” shows Spock mindmelding with Kirk to help him to forget the tragic-lost-love-of-the-week.  This is a nicety, not a necessity.  The ultimate example of Spock’s compassion, overriding even his logic, is his devotion to the crippled Christopher Pike in “The Menagerie.” 

The connection between Spock and Sherlock is possibly genetic.  However, their defining characteristic is their use of logical processes to solve problems.  However, how each applies logic is different.  Spock’s logic is part of his entire life philosophy.  It is all-encompassing and holistic.  Meanwhile, Sherlock’s is compartmentalized and isolated to his job; he uses his logic to help others, not necessarily himself.  Sherlock surrenders freely to his emotions and moods, while Spock reins his emotions in.  As indicated earlier, both fit the archetype of the lonely thinker.  However, they are made of different stuff.  Once one looks further into these men, they are startlingly different because of how they act out their roles and how they use their gifts.

Postscript:  The final part of this rambling report is a bit of a sidebar.  Both Sherlock and Spock in the realm of fan fiction have a notable following that believe that they are either gay or at least bisexual due to their close association with another male character, Dr. Watson and Captain Kirk.  Sherlock was not given this treatment until the late 1980s and early 1990s, but Spock had been under scrutiny since the initial run of the Original Series, coming to great prominence in the 1970s’ fanzines.  There are two reasons that occur to this writer as a student of history and film interpretation. 

The first reason for this can be found in the homosocial environments that Sherlock and Spock exist in.  Sherlock and Watson live in the Victorian and Edwardian era.  Even at the turn of the twentieth century, men and women were segregated in their activities.  Homosociality is the norm; men exclusively socialized with men, and women socialized only with women.  Also common during this time are romantic friendships – great, consuming passions for friends of the same sex without ever have sexual desire for them. It is only a modern innovation that men and women “hang out” together; this only becomes the norm after the sexual revolution in the 1960s.

Even though Spock was “born” in the 1960s, he still exists in a military organization, which, even today, is predominantly homosocial.  Uhura was on the bridge, but her role was limited to “hailing frequencies open” in many episodes.  Spock still works mostly with men.  For anyone who has been in the military, there is an innate bond with those the person has served with.  While the writer has not experienced military service, it has been indicated that there are intangible elements to this bond that can push a person to go further for a brother in arms. 

The best modern, civilian comparison to a nineteenth romantic friendship or the bond between brothers in arms is perhaps the recently coined term “work spouse.”  While at work, a pair functions as a great couple, expressing care and concern for their other half.  More often than not, these people are romantically involved or married to someone else, and the spouse doesn’t feel jealousy; the very nature and basis of the relationship is non-competitive and supportive.  Outsiders may perceive these relationships as “something more” regardless of the context. 

The second reason is that neither Sherlock nor Spock expresses their sexuality overtly.  Unlike the womanizing Kirk and Watson (definitely comparatively, in Watson’s case), they are monks in comparison. Judging strictly from Doyle’s canon, it could be argued that Sherlock is the earliest incarnation of an asexual person.  One must always keep in mind that sexual labels are a new innovation, so attempting to apply them to pre-twentieth century characters can get tricky.  Spock, while less ambiguous due to his entanglements in the Original Series, still is not a predominantly sexual being (though fangirls may hope otherwise!).  This probably is another essay within itself, so this brief addendum comes to an abrupt halt.