On Caitlyn Jenner, Gender, and Belonging

Bruce Jenner recently underwent surgery and treatment to transition to being a woman, now going by the name Caitlyn.

Numerous people have responded, some positive, some negative. I have mostly stayed out of these discussions, but a few recent posts making their way around Facebook have made it difficult for me to keep quiet about my views on this issue.

Two posts, in particular, sparked a strong negative reaction from me - so strong, in fact, that I had to close my laptop and walk away. I do not want to give these posts any more attention than they've already received, so instead of linking to them, I'll summarize.

One was written by a woman who had breast cancer. While I certainly empathize with how difficult that must have been, she used this story as a way to define womanhood - traits, she insists, she has and Caitlyn Jenner does not. She describes being a single mom - once again, something I can imagine wasn't easy. She also repeatedly and incorrectly used the term female.

We briefly interrupt this blog post for a public service announcement: female is an adjective, woman is a noun. We now return to your regularly scheduled blog post.

She signs her post, which was addressed directly to Caitlyn, "a real woman." I hope you're rolling your eyes as much as I was (and still am).

The second was even more infuriating. She goes so far as to call Caitlyn's statement that she "identifies as a woman" offensive. She proceeds to list out all of the factors that make a woman a woman, including many references to getting married and having multiple children - dealing with morning sickness and other unpleasant symptoms during pregnancy and in one case, giving birth to a 10 lb baby without drugs.

I have to admit, I laughed out loud when she said Caitlyn's statement was offensive. This woman is too busy distributing woman cards (to those she deems worthy) and giving herself a big pat on the back to even notice how her narrow definition of womanhood is biased by her own experience and values. Let alone how much her statement excludes others.

Let's dissect Caitlyn's statements that had Real Woman and World's Greatest Mom (and these two will now be referred to as RW and WGM, respectively) so offended. Caitlyn says, "I identify as a woman." There is nothing in that statement that excludes others. As with a recent post I read examining the "Black Lives Matter" movement, there is an implicit "too" in this statement. Caitlyn isn't calling into question who else gets to call herself a woman. She isn't outlining the basic prerequisites for someone to call herself a woman. The statement is, essentially, "I identify as a woman too."

Caitlyn asks that we address her as "her," not "him." Again, nothing in that statement excludes other women. Regardless of how you feel about gender reassignment, the least we can do is call people what they want to be called, right?

Caitlyn's statements are about acceptance and belonging. RW's and WGM's statements are about bashing and excluding.

Part of the venom behind these attacks on Caitlyn, who simply wants to be recognized as part of a group with which she identifies, is likely a misunderstanding of the difference between (biological) sex and gender.

Sex is at the chromosomal level, which results in the development of internal sex organs. While the so-called sex hormones are typically associated with men (testosterone) or women (progesterone and estrogen), both sexes possess these hormones, at differing levels.

Yes, there are physical aspects associated with womanhood, though many of those aspects vary a great deal from person to person. Breasts, for example: not all women have large or even noticeable breasts, and men can also grow breasts for a variety of reasons. In fact, although rare, men can also get breast cancer. Having, and losing, breasts does not a woman make.

Gender, on the other hand, is a social term, referring to the concepts of masculinity and femininity in society. By interacting with others, we learn behaviors and traits associated with being a man or woman. Not only is womanhood socially constructed, it is also culturally influenced. The idea of what is a "woman" in Western cultures differs markedly from the idea in Eastern cultures.

And the differences can become even more nuanced and further subdivided by looking at smaller and smaller populations and groups. In fact, the posts by RW and WGM - while there are references to biological notions of womanhood, such as pregnancy - are strongly biased toward social (behavioral) notions of womanhood.

And even the ability to become pregnant shouldn’t define womanhood.

Does being incapable of getting pregnant mean you aren't a woman? Does consciously choosing not to have children mean you aren't a woman? What happens then to women who go through menopause and are no longer able to get pregnant - do they stop being women? As a (thus far) childless woman (and a friend of many childless women), I find that far more offensive than RW and WGM should find Caitlyn's statements. While I would like children someday, I recognize that for many women, this isn't that important to them.

And it doesn't have to be. In fact, insisting that pregnancy be a component in the definition of woman is simply dialing back the clock to a time when the only contribution a woman could make to our society was reproducing. When her worth was determined by her ability to bear healthy (and in some cases, emphasis on male) children. A time countless women and men have worked hard to move away from.

If RW and WGM had simply written posts about being women and the traits and characteristics that make them feel like women, that would have been fine. It's fine to be proud that you've given birth to three beautiful children and that you aspire to be a great mom. It's fine to be proud that you didn't let breast cancer beat you. Or that you raised a child on your own. I think most women would happily gather around and listen to other women's stories of strength.

But why must these declarations of pride take a backseat to excluding someone you don't want at the woman table? Being a woman is hard. We should find our strength through each other. Not by knocking others down.

~Sincerely,
A Fellow Woman

My 26 Book Reading Challenge or How to Put Way Too Much Thought into Your Reading List (Without Really Trying)

As I mentioned in a previous blog post, I'm doing a 26-book reading challenge this year. Here's the information about the challenge; I don't usually enjoy cutesy, scavenger-hunt-esque challenges, but I love reading, and this one was actually kind of fun.

Though it's only a little more than halfway through the year, I have my 26 books (almost completely) figured out. The order presented below is the original challenge order; I decided I didn't have to follow that order and had one of my own. Here's the list with a little commentary:

Own but Haven't Read:

Deeply Odd by Dean Koontz

Status: Read

I've mentioned the Odd Thomas books before. I'm generally not a Dean Koontz fan, but stumbled upon Odd during a Netflix binge, when I watched a movie adaptation of what turned out to be the first book in this series. I liked the character Odd so much that I looked into whether more movies were made/being made, and found out it was a book series. The later books in the series weren't really as good as the first few, but still enjoyable. I think when I got to that point, I mostly wanted to see how it ended, and I was, for the most part, pleased with the ending.

Made Into a Movie: 

Needful Things by Stephen King

Status: Read

I read a lot of Stephen King as a child/teenager, in part because of my lifelong love of horror movies. It had been a while since I picked up one of his books, but started up again recently with The Dark Tower series, 'salem's Lot, and The Stand. The thing I love about King is that his stories are always very detailed with lots of interesting subplots. My complaint is, well, his stories are always very detailed with lots of interesting subplots. They can be exhausting to pick up, because you can already see the length (due to the book's size) and know that, though the basic story will be relatively simple, the path takes many interesting twists and turns. Once I start reading, I get pulled in right away. This was especially the case for the next book on the list.

Picked For its Cover: 

Finders Keepers by Stephen King

Status: Read

I actually had this one on my to-read list already, because it is the sequel to Mr. Mercedes. I had forgotten when it came out though, but was out shopping and noticed the cover, recognizing its similarity to the first book in the series (and knowing right away, without having to read the blurb, that I wanted to read it). So I'm kind of fudging the "picked for its cover"-ness, but hey, I think it counts.

Friend Loves: 

(tentatively) Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

Status: To-Read

I'll be honest: I'm a little unsure of whether I want to tackle this one. If you think a Stephen King book looks dauntingly long, take a look at this book; you can do some damage with even a softcover edition. But I love the movies, and feel like a hypocrite for never having reading the book. I have it on my list because I have quite a few friends who love it, but probably an equal number who hate it. If any friend has another recommendation, I'd definitely entertain it.

Published This Year: 

Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee

Status: To-Read

I loved To Kill a Mockingbird, and was thrilled to discover a "sequel" (actually written before, though) was being published. I've heard mixed things, through friends and by reading reviews, but this is a book I want to experience for myself regardless.

Author You've Never Read Before: 

The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi

Status: Read

I was killing time in a book store (one of my favorite activities) while waiting to meet up with a friend, when I checked out the "our staff loves" section. The name of the book was fascinating, and after reading the blurb, I was excited to read it. In fact, funny coincidence - the friend I met up with had read (and enjoyed) the book, which led to another recommendation also included in my challenge.

Author You Love: 

Doctor Sleep by Stephen King

Status: Read

I know I have a lot of Stephen King on this list. As I said, I hadn't been reading as much of his stuff until a few years ago. This book is a sequel to King's The Shining, a story even most non-King fans would know. It takes place many years after the events in The Shining, focusing on Danny Torrance, the little boy who could shine.

Bottom of "To Read" Pile: 

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame Smith

Status: Read

I picked this book up when it was new based solely on the title, then kept pushing it back for one reason or another. This challenge was the perfect opportunity to make myself sit down and read it. It was very good. Obviously, don't go looking for much of a history lesson, but if you enjoy revisionist history as much as me, you'll like it.

Color in the Title: 

The Silver Linings Playbook by Matthew Quick

Status: To-Read

I loved the movie. Once again, I feel like I should visit the source material. However, this is another one I'm on the fence about at the moment. I'm worried that some of the characters, who were already pretty intense in the movie, will be even more intense when we can get inside their minds. Anyone have a recommendation with a color in the title? (WARNING: I have absolutely no interest in reading  Fifty Shades of Grey. None.)

Set Somewhere You Want to Visit: 

The Ring by Koji Suzuki

Status: Read

This one could have also been "bottom of the 'to read' pile," since I owned it for a very long time (and in fact moved it twice) before reading it. This book is the basis for the well-known horror movies, Ringu (Japanese version) and The Ring (American version). However, the movies differ markedly from the book. I wondered if reading about the events would be as scary as watching, but the cool thing about the book is that it could share things that weren't easily shared through the movies - that watching the video was a full-body experience, including physical and emotional sensations that would be hard to depict on screen. This book is the first in a series of four books - I plan on reading the rest at some point.

Started but Never Finished: 

Pygmy by Chuck Palahniuk

Status: To-Read

This book is similar to A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, in that the story, told by the main character, uses unfamiliar slang. The reader has to catch on as best as s/he can while reading. This is challenging at first, but very rewarding in the long run. However, I couldn't stick with Pygmy long enough to understand his speech. Time to revisit and (hopefully) finish!

Lion, Witch, or Wardrobe: 

The Magician's Land by Lev Grossman

Status: Read

The point of this part of the challenge is not to read The Chronicles of Narnia, but to read any book that involves a lion, a witch, or a wardrobe. I selected the third book in a series that is kind of an adult version of The Chronicles... or Harry Potter... series.

Female Heroine: 

Doomed by Chuck Palahniuk

Status: Read

This book is also a sequel to Damned, which is a little like The Breakfast Club if it were set in Hell.  No, really. Funny, provocative, and just a little crazy - this is why Chuck is one of my favorite authors.

Set in the Summer: 

Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury

Status: Read

I adore Ray Bradbury, and have been told by many: "This book changed my life." I'll admit, I had some trouble getting into it. It's similar to The Martian Chronicles, in that it's more of a series of short stories with common themes, characters, and situations. I wasn't pulled in as much as I was for The Martian Chronicles, however; but I did enjoy it as I got farther along.

Poetry: 

Everytime a Knot is Undone, a God is Released by Barbara Chase-Riboud

Status: To-Read

I'm not a big poetry reader, and beyond some of the classics, could not name very many poets. I picked this book based on the title.

Learned about Because of This Challenge: 

The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins

Status: Read

I was spending a lot more time on Goodreads because of this challenge, and this book popped up as one I would like. I probably would have discovered it otherwise, because a lot of my friends read/plan to read it. I'm also a big fan of mysteries, and this is a good one. It's been compared to Gone Girl, but I think this book is better.

Will Make You Smarter: 

Police Interrogation and American Justice by Richard A. Leo

Status: To-Read

I cited the work of Leo many times when teaching Psychology and Law. His work deals with ways in which police follow the letter of the law but not the "spirit" of the law, for things like Miranda rights. He makes some fascinating points, both psychologically (in terms of how small things can make a suspect waive rights for an attorney, to remain silent, etc.) and ethically (that these practices violate the purpose of these policies). I'm looking forward to reading more of his thought of this topic, even though I don't really work in this subfield anymore.

Blue Cover: 

Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith

Status: To-Read

I'm familiar with many of Patricia Highsmith's books because of various movie adaptations (and if you look her up, you'll realize you are too) but have never actually read one of them. I definitely wanted to include one of hers on this list and I decided to start with one of her most well known.

Supposed to Read in School But Didn't: 

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

Status: Read

Disclaimer: I read this book in school. In fact, I couldn't think of a book I had been assigned that I didn't actually read, so I decided to revisit this one.

"Everyone" Has Read But You: 

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson

Status: To-Read

I have owned this book for years. I have never been able to make it past chapter two. So not engaging. But enough people have told me how much they love this book that I think, maybe I'm missing something, so I'm going to try to push on through this time. I do, however, keep pushing it down in my to-read order...

Great First Line: 

Back When We Were Grownups by Anne Tyler

Status: To-Read

A friend of mine gave me a mug of great first lines as a thank you gift. I use that mug just about every day at work. While I've certainly read and enjoyed books without a great first line, when I'm on the hunt for a new book, I sometimes randomly pick up books and read the first page. If I really want to find out what it says on page 2, I buy it. Otherwise, I move on. So I'm giving authors a little more time to get me hooked but still, this method depends on having a good first line. I always keep the importance of a first line in mind when writing, and try to at the very least, avoid some cliches.

With Pictures: 

The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster, illustrated by Jules Feiffer

Status: To-Read

This book was recommended by a friend, and I also think my mom has mentioned it before. I enjoy reading children's books every once in while, though I have no desire to write for children (and no delusions that I would make a good children's writer). Apparently, this book has some great puns.

From the Library: 

American Elsewhere by Robert Jackson Bennett

Status: Reading Now

This book also would have fit under "chosen for the cover." The moment I saw it, I was fascinated and curious. When you break it down, it's actually a really simple image, but it sets the stage that many things are not quite right. The book was catalogued as science fiction/fantasy, and is about a young woman named Mona Bright whose mother left her a house in Wink, New Mexico (a house she didn't even know existed). I just started reading it today, but the first couple of chapters did not disappoint.

Loved - Read it Again!: 

The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury

Status: Read

I blogged about this read, so I won't revisit it here.

More than 10 Years Old: 

The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson

Status: Read

This book was recommended by the same friend who read and enjoyed The Windup Girl. 

Based on a True Story: 

Little Girl Blue: The Life of Karen Carpenter by Randy Schmidt

Status: To-Read

I picked this book up at the library when I got American Elsewhere, so this one is next on my reading list. I actually went to the biography section looking for something completely different, and happened to notice this book on the shelf. My mom was always a big fan of the Carpenters, and I heard a lot of their music as a kid; I knew it was Christmas when their Christmas album was on the record player. Sadly, Karen died young due to complications from anorexia. I'd heard about Karen's life through various sources, and wanted to learn more, but the only biography I could find about Karen (when I looked several years ago) is out of print.


Those are my selections! Any thoughts or additional recommendations? Let me know in the comments!

Literately yours,
~Sara

Trivial Only Post: Journal Entry From the Past

I was cleaning today and discovered an old journal from 10 years ago.  I came across this entry, dated June 17, 2005.  Based on the time period, I was probably in one of my worst bouts with insomnia of my life, so I blame the goofiness of this entry on severe sleep deprivation.  Here it is, in its unedited glory:

I'm sitting in my apartment playing Space Invaders and I started to wonder: Just who are these invaders from space?  Why do they attack us?  Are they after our natural resources?

And another thing, why do we just sit back and wait for them to come to us?  Why don't we go find their planet, go down there, and invade them?  I mean, they can't be far away.  With how slow they move, they have to be close by or it would take them a hundred years to get to us.  And by then, what's the point?

And hey, what's with the single tank waiting?  Give me 10 tanks with some more of those fort/armor things, and I'll wipe out their entire species.  It only takes one shot to take them down, and I, apparently, have been gifted with extra lives.  Like a cat.  A cat soldier.  So, I'm good.

On Head Songs, Ear Worms, and Air Guitar

For quite a while, I've been posting on Facebook many mornings what I like to call "head songs", songs I wake up with in my head. I started wondering about what might cause these head songs, and did a bit of research.

You may have heard the term "ear worm", which seems very similar to what I describe above. A somewhat recent TedEd talk describes just this phenomenon. According to this video, ear worms are bits of a melody, often just a small part of a melody, as opposed to the complete song that get "stuck" in your head. Usually, the ear worm is only the melody, without any harmony lines. Though many believe modern technology, and the ease with which we can hear music as a result, is to blame for ear worms, the video states that this concept has been around since before the invention of the phonograph.

But what actually causes ear worms? Or more specifically, what causes a particular ear worm - why do we suddenly get a certain song stuck in our head? The video linked above, as well as an older story on NPR, shares that, though we don't completely understand the causes, psychologists believe memory triggers, emotional states, and anxiety may be to blame.

As I've blogged before, memory and emotions are strongly linked in the brain, due in part to the close proximity of the amygdala (involved in emotion) and the hippocampus (involved in transferring memories from short-term to long-term). In that previous post, I talked specifically about the connections of memory and emotions to scents. But what about auditory experiences?

You probably won't be surprised to learn that the auditory cortex is close by to the systems above. In fact, the auditory cortex is basically the olfactory cortex's next-door neighbor.

"Howdy, neighbor, mind turning that music down?" "Only if you stop burning that disgusting incense."

All of these systems connect to the higher parts of the brain (the systems that evolved last and differentiate humans from other animals) through a path known as the somatosensory cortex. This is where higher reasoning skills come in. Rather than simply being flooded with random sights, sounds, smells, etc., we can think rationally about these occurrences, understand connections between them, and even expand on them.

And not to get too heavy into brain systems, but running alongside the somatosensory cortex is the somatomotor cortex. So if you're listening to a song played by guitar, and you know how to play the guitar, you may have to resist the urge to "play" along, even if a guitar is nowhere near your hands. The connections are strong.

Next up, an epic air guitar solo

Have I, as usual, gotten away from the original point? Maybe, but isn't brain physiology fun?!

Okay, seriously, head songs.  While I definitely fall prey to a repeated (usually annoying) melody, often of a song I don't like, my head songs are a bit different. They usually are the whole song - even if the head song begins at some point within the song, I usually hear the song as a gestalt (complete with accompaniment, percussion, harmony lines, and so on). So at least my auditory hallucinations are multi-faceted, right? That's got to count for something. In either case, this seems qualitatively different from ear worms.

As far as I can tell, the explanations for my head songs usually come from my dreams (e.g., I once had a dream about an androgynous person, and woke up with David Bowie's "Rebel, Rebel" in my head - "because she's not sure if you're a boy or a girl"), or some random thought I had upon waking (e.g., it's Monday and I get Foreigner's "Blue Monday" stuck).

Why is it usually the whole arrangement, not just melody/vocals? I probably should blame this on modern technology. Though we can't fully blame radio, iPods, and Spotify for ear worms, we can blame it for giving us a full - and usually consistent - experience of a song. And my head songs, though quite variable in genre, range, and instruments used, are most often songs I've heard more than once.

Do head songs happen to you or someone you love?  Don't worry, you're not alone. And there are worse things to have in your head when you wake up each morning. Unless that head song is [redacted to save your sanity].

Musically yours,
~Sara

On Book Challenges, Science Fiction, and the Trouble with Memory

I’ve been participating in a 26-book challenge for 2015: one of the items on the list is to re-read a book I love. I decided to revisit Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles. I read this book dozens of times during my childhood. During the summer, when most families were on vacation, I would spend every day at the library. We couldn’t afford to go on a lot of trips, and hey – a good book is even better, because it can take you anywhere!

Yes, I was that kid. What, you’re surprised?

During those visits to the library, I would pick up books indiscriminate of subject, author, or even targeted age group – if it looked interesting, it was going home with me. If on one of those trips I couldn’t find anything that interested me, I would check out The Martian Chronicles. There was something about it that always drew me in: his poetry-like writing, its subject matter about adventure and exploration, perhaps even the allure of visiting another planet.

It wasn’t until recently that I finally purchased my very own copy of The Martian Chronicles. And I hadn’t read it since I was a child. Perhaps just like those old toys and childhood games, we leave them behind when we make it to adulthood, until at some point we reminisce over them. So, I decided it was finally time to return to the Martian landscape that had so enraptured me as a child.

Like many things from childhood, my memory of it turned out to be a bit fuzzy, and my reaction to the work was quite different. While I found the first few stories fascinating as a child, my adult eyes were horrified at the treatment of the early astronauts. Not that I was fragile as a child, but still – I was amazed that I so loved a book where fear and misunderstanding led to the deaths of many people.

I mean, I’m that kid who bawled and covered my eyes when I was forced to watch a pet snake eat a mouse.

Memory is an interesting thing. Though in the past (and even today), psychologists have thought of memory in terms of technology (e.g., video camera, computer), social psychologists understand that memory is malleable, to say the least – and painfully biased, to say the worst.

We really think of memory in 3 stages: acquisition (obtaining the memory), retention (storing), and retrieval (calling it up). Bias can occur at various points in creating and storing memories. Of course, our strongest memories are for recent events – though even they can become biased – which results in some contamination of the present with the past. We may misremember important people in our lives being present for events they couldn’t possibly have attended, because they are such an important part of our life now.

Our view of the future is also biased by the present. Not just in terms of our own life circumstances, but even in terms of what the future will be like technologically and socially. If you look at artists’ renditions of “the future”, you’ll see that they are highly colored by the present. For example, this vision of the future from the 1950s:

Though this picture shows technological advances, some of which we've seen - flat screen TVs, web-cam, and so on - it still reflects societal values of the 1950s. The women are in the kitchen, preparing dinner, the husband comes home (in his helicopter).

Even Bradbury’s view of the future is colored by his present, and this is perhaps what struck me most in my re-reading. In The Martian Chronicles, obviously, there is “futuristic” technology – hovercraft, rocket ships that can take off and land as easily as an airplane, food tablets, and so on.

But socially, the situation is not futuristic at all. Who are the astronauts? The early explorers? The big thinkers? Men. Later, after the planet has been settled, they talk about sending the women: their wives and girlfriends.

But what might Mars have looked like if Bradbury had written his masterpiece very recently instead? Perhaps the early explorers and astronauts would have been groups of men and women. Perhaps the settlers would send not just for wives and girlfriends, but husbands, partners. We might see blended families, gay marriages… At least, when I think of what 2030 will be like, that’s what I hope to see – a society more accepting of love in all forms, and one in which gender does not determine one’s place in society.

This is not to criticize Mr. Bradbury – simply to recognize his influences. This is a flaw with many works of science fiction. While they may be able to predict advances in technology, changes to society are usually much harder to predict, and as a result, the social aspect of science fiction is often a reflection of the time the work was written.

But even more, re-reading this book gave me an interesting perspective about memory. We don’t always get to re-experience something from the past again, but when we do, we often notice some inconsistencies. Classrooms revisited as adults “seem smaller”, places that frightened us seem harmless, and our favorite stories seem, well, different. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, and sometimes just different.

I enjoyed getting to revisit Mars, now as an adult. Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll return and get something new out of it again!

Thoughtfully yours,
~Sara

TSMR: Devil

I'm planning to sit down at some point and make a list of all the horror movies I watched throughout October - fortunately, my Netflix viewing history will help fill in a lot of it!  One of those movies was Devil, which I'd seen listed on Netflix before but passed up because the premise was so ridiculous.

Five people are stuck in an elevator.  A police detective on the case must hurry to get them out, because one of the people is the devil.  Yup.

But, it was October, and I knew I wanted to watch some horror movies I hadn't already seen, so I decided to give it a try.

The movie is written (but not directed) by M. Night Shyamalan.  It definitely shows.  Full disclosure: I do like many of his movies, including some that were panned by critics.  But it drives me nuts that he always needs to have this huge twist close to the end.  The twist was really well done in "The Sixth Sense" but felt a little strained in some of his other movies.

Shyamalan also frequently uses two literary elements in combination - these two elements contradict each other, which is how he is able to lead up to the twist.  This might be why some of his other movies, although I enjoyed them, felt much more predictable than "The Sixth Sense" - I've seen enough of his movies to be onto the toolkit he's using.

The first element is the "red herring": I would imagine most people have heard this term.  It is an element of the story that seems to be crucial and allows the characters (and audience) to solve the mystery, when it is actually simply a distraction from the real truth.  In some cases, it is the opposite of what is actually true.  In others, it is simply another potential version of the truth that turns out to be incorrect.  The point is that the red herrings are meant to distract you, not only from the actual truth, but from Shyamalan's other favorite tool: Chekhov's gun.

Anton Chekhov was a writer of both short stories and plays, though he was also a physician. His comment on this dual life was that "Medicine is my lawful wife and literature is my mistress."  He first starting writing as a way to make money, but then began to enjoy it and started honing his craft.  One of his many contributions to literature is what has become known as Chekhov's gun.

Chekhov did not believe in unnecessary details.  He felt that any information given in a story, or any prop on the stage of a play, should be essential to the story.  His example was that if the writer describes a shotgun hanging above the fireplace (or if a loaded gun is on stage during a play), someone had better fire that gun in the story.  If the gun will never be used, there is no point in taking the time to describe it (or show it) to the reader (or audience).

In Shyamalan's work, the "gun" is usually a small element, introduced early in the story, as simply a fact about the character or even an event that happened before the start of the story that later on becomes the key to solving the mystery.

Despite knowing what tricks Shyamalan had up his sleeve, I'll admit that I actually did enjoy "Devil".  I'm not sure if I'd truly consider it a horror movie, though I can see why it was classified that way.  There are a few points in the story where the movie tries to be scary (and sometimes, it is effective).  But I'd consider this movie to be a mystery-thriller with supernatural elements.

Overall, I'd recommend checking this movie out, especially if:
1) you're a fan of Shyamalan's work
2) you want to watch a horror movie (or your friend/roommate/significant other wants to watch a horror movie) but you don't really want to be scared
or
3) you like mysteries, but can also suspend disbelief (especially if you don't believe in the supernatural)

Devilishly yours,
~Sara

TSMR Double-Feature: Evil Dead and The Thing

I've been informed that my recent TSMRs have been rather spoiler-heavy.  I'll admit, they've taken a play-by-play, MST3K approach - which is a style I really enjoy, because it reflects my thought process (and occasionally speech) while I'm watching movies.

I'm totally that guy.  I just need robots.

As much as I'd like to make my posts completely spoiler-free, I don't want my posts to become little more than a synopsis with commentary and overarching things that worked or did not work.  Instead, I'll attempt to make my posts spoiler-light.

Evil Dead
First up, Evil Dead, which I watched yesterday while I was home sick.  What better movie to watch when one is ill: when I'm really sick, I kind of feel like I'm possessed, so a movie about demonic possession is actually pretty fitting.

This movie is a prime example of the blood and gore subgenre of horror: constant bleeding, oozing, dismembering, and disintegrating.  Though there are funny moments in the movie, I think Sam Raimi was attempting to make a legitimately scary independent film.  Of course, after making this movie, he obviously figured out the concept could be better if they added humor and got rid of Bruce Campbell's unibrow.

Don't worry, Bruce - I still love you, unibrow and all

Five people: couple 1 (Ash & Linda), couple 2, and fifth wheel (Ash's sister), head up to an old cabin for a fun weekend of listening to demonic texts on a tape recorder.  That might not be what they originally intended to do, but they didn't really seem to have a plan otherwise, so when they found a strange book and tape recorder in the basement, they were thrilled to have a fun group activity.

And if that gets boring, here's another fun activity to try

On the recording, they learn that the strange book is apparently bound in human flesh and inked in human blood, and that it apparently has the power to raise demons.  Ash's sister gets pissed off and doesn't want to listen anymore.  But the male member of couple 2, who also enjoys scaring people and pointing guns at them for fun, decides to skip over all the exposition and go straight to the demon-raising.  Ash's sister stomps off to her room, couple 2 goes to their room, where they seem to spend the whole time just getting undressed by the window, and Ash & Linda have some cute exchanges over a necklace Ash bought for Linda.

But the action picks up again when Ash's sister decides to investigate a strange noise outside - because it's a horror movie, and that's what people do in horror movies - and instead gets attacked and assaulted by the trees.  Yes, that kind of assaulted.  That scene in particular is probably what resulted in this movie getting banned in multiple countries.

Of course, it could have been the aforementioned dismemberment.

Ash's sister decides it's time to leave, but she and Ash discover that the bridge (the only way to and from the cabin) has been destroyed.  They're stuck there for the night, and that's when the real fun begins.

I have two complaints about the film (and don't get me wrong, I do enjoy this movie, but not as much as Evil Dead 2): 1. In many shots, the camera is obviously in someone's hand, because it's shaky - not Blair Witch Project shaky, but enough to be distracting. 2. There's not a lot of story beyond group of kids, book, recording, crazy sh*t happens.

Evil Dead 2 doesn't have either of these issues - look for a blog post about Evil Dead 2 in the near future.

The Thing
I don't think I would ever be able to pick a favorite horror movie, but I could probably make a top 5 list.  And among those 5 would be The Thing.  I can seriously watch this movie again and again.

The film begins with a spaceship crashing to Earth.  Next, we see Antarctica 1982, and a lone dog running across the snow, a helicopter chasing it.  The dog happens upon a US research station and seeks refuge among the people there, but the two men in the helicopter seem to want nothing more than the dog dead, even firing at it while a group of US workers are standing around.  One man blows himself up while attempting to throw a grenade.  The other one accidentally shoots one of the men in the group, and another man from the US group shoots and kills the shooter.

With two dead Norwegians on their hands, Doctor Copper decides to do some investigating to determine what caused these men to go crazy.  He asks MacReady, helicopter pilot and most-trusted man in the whole group, to fly him to the Norwegian base.  In the meantime, Clark, the resident dog lover welcomes the dog in, allowing it to wander around for much of the day.  At the Norwegian camp, they find the rest of the Norwegians dead, some of which appear self-inflicted, and a body that appears human, except for the fact it has two heads.

And this isn't even the weirdest thing you'll see

The characters learn pretty quickly that the dog is no dog - it's a creature that is able to absorb and imitate other living creatures perfectly.  Which means, it could not only become a dog, it could easily become one of the people at the base.

The great thing about the movie is that, while the monster is important, what is more interesting is how quickly the characters begin to question and distrust each other.  And the viewer goes through the same thing.  Who is a "thing" and who is real?

The movie doesn't bother giving a lot of background on the group, other than establishing basic personalities and some job titles of the characters.  Mac, Copper, and Clark have already been mentioned above.  Other than them, we have:

Garry, the leader who seems to receive nothing but disdain from his subordinates
Bennings, the annoying guy who gets shot
Palmer, the pothead/least-trusted helicopter pilot ever
Windows, the radio guy
Blair, the biologist/closet computer programmer, who figures out the whole "Thing" thing
Childs, or Mr. "Voodoo Bullsh*t"
Norris, the geologist, who figures out the age of the ice the ship crashed into
Nauls, the cook and Stevie Wonder fan
Fuchs, a more junior biologist and Mac's biggest fan

Honestly, I don't think we ever learn what research they're doing, or what they spend their day doing besides drinking, getting high, and watching reruns of gameshows.  But somehow, the movie works and the only thing you wonder while watching is what the heck is going to happen next.  In fact, without knowing a lot about the characters, it makes it harder for you to figure out who is a "thing" and who is not.  You have no basis for comparison, no past experience with their behavior to determine what is normal for that character.

You'll walk away from the movie with lots of great one-liners.  And if you need an excuse to watch the movie again, there are some great drinking games out there.

Any recommendations for the next movie I should watch?  Let me know!

Doubly yours,
~Sara