Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Open Letter about Open Source
One of my greatest passions in life is Free Software. I like it a lot, and I don't think it makes any sense for educational institutions not to be using it. So I wrote up this Open Letter to Educational Institutions over on the Software Freedom Day wiki. Feel free to customize it and send it to your school.
Subtle Obviousness in Harry Potter
Once every three or four months I think of something that might be worth blogging about, but I generally don't like editing text without using Vim and I didn't even want to think about different blogging toolsets and markup and so on and so forth. But now I've given in and here we go.
So lately I've been reading Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy for the second time since 2002, and some points that John Granger made in The Hidden Key To Harry Potter are presenting themselves more forcefully. Pullman has a whole series about Sally Lockhart. He's got a character in The Golden Compass named somebody-or-other Trelawney, and one of the witch queens in The Subtle Knife is named, of all things, Ruta Skadi. My wife is skeptical, but I'm totally convinced that Granger was right, and Rowling is expressing an opinion of Pullman and/or his work by her characters Gilderoy Lockhart, Sybill Trelawney, and Rita Skeeter.
Just think about what those characters have in common.
Even better, let's think about Pullman's work, and we'll even limit ourselves to His Dark Materials. Pullman's a very vocal atheist, and he quotes Paradise Lost in the front of The Golden Compass just to get us into the right frame of mind. Pullman aims to correct Milton's mistake: paradise wasn't there to be lost, and if we stop looking for the mythical and instead glory in the dust that we are and shall be, then we can get over our preoccupation with sin and our slavery to the church and get on with the important things in life, like having sex to achieve our own paradise in the end. Or something like that; it's been a while since I finished The Amber Spyglass the first time. And along the way the horrors perpetrated by the church and its agents are fought at every point, we learn how materialism is a blessed succor to minds weary of the deceit of spirtualism, and God himself, the Authority, the false "Creator", is fortunate enough to be relieved of the burden of his sad, tired, and worthless existence.
The second title in His Dark Materials ("HDM") carries tremendous irony. If we're willing to grant that Pullman started with a "subtle knife" in book one, by book two he's brandishing a broadsword requiring both hands, and by book three he's wildly swinging a club and pausing every now and then to pound his chest with his fists. He's not subtle to start with, and it just gets worse.
I was talking with a fantasy-loving frind of mine the other day, and I said that I think HDM starts out very imaginatively and well-written, but that it degenerates to the point that his characters are thinly-veiled (thin-lipped?) mouthpieces for the author. My friend disagreed and said he thought HDM was an enjoyable read but neither imaginative or well-written -- even to start with. I disagree, but like I said, my friend reads a lot more fantasy than I do, so he may know better. (We're both at a loss as to the number of awards Pullman's won for HDM. Who can explain these things?)
In any case, Pullman's work is anything but subtle. And yet we have a contemporary of his, the much-celebrated J.K. Rowling, writing a fantasy series of her own and enjoying what everyone must admit is runaway success. How does her subtlety compare to Pullman's? The Googlefight has Pullman ahead 522k to 334k, but maybe by winning this one Pullman loses. "C'est moi! C'est moi!" Pullman's forced to admit, thus book two is "The Subtle Knife". If you're vying for "Most Subtle", you probably don't want to put "subtle" in the name of your book... If you agree with me about the significance of the character name pairs I mentioned above, you can see how thoroughly Rowling mocks Pullman without resorting to an ex-nun in her books saying right out loud that "Pullman's self-important and professionally incompetent."
And just tonight, about three hours ago, I finished watching The Goblet of Fire with that same friend. Since he hasn't read the books I was filling in some details about house elves and their much greater role in the book, and it hit me right over the head: house elves are like housewives. Let's see what Rowling's done here:
1. House elves perform household duties.
2. House elves must obey their masters.
3. House elves are not paid for their work.
4. Hermione is a very intelligent, independently-minded young woman.
5. Hermione knows what's best for house elves -- for them to be released from their slavery.
6. With the exception of Dobby, house elves don't want to be "freed".
Surely this is some sort of commentary on the social liberation of women. Hermione is painted as affectionately pathetic in her misunderstanding sympathy for house elves. Dobby is clearly a hero, doing what he knows is ultimately right even when it requires him to punish himself for lesser wrongs. And yet every other house elf we've met is by nature, we are told, impelled to serve and content, even thrilled, to do so. Based only on books 1-6, it appears to me that Rowling (a very intelligent and successful woman herself) is sympathetic to women who want to liberate other women and perfectly accepting of women who seek success outside the home. But -- and this is the controversial part -- she also seems to recognize that lots and lots of women might just be very happy staying at home. It does feel rather weird when the other elves are so ashamed of Dobby's freedom, but it feels equally and oppositely weird when Hermione is unable to accept the joy that elves find in service.
I've been wondering for a while if HP7 will end with the destruction of the magical world and the end of magic*, though I'm not sure what that would mean for all the magical creatures. In such a situation, it seems possible that a liberation of sorts may be coming in which the nature of house elves will change and a more direct opinion on the social status of women may emerge. But I doubt it, and I hope not. The marvelous complexity and, yes, subtlety of the house elves' situation is superior to anything that could be wrapped up as a pro- or anti- statement.
Maybe you don't think Rowing is subtle, and you think I've just said the obvious out loud. Maybe everybody has been reading "house elf" as "housewife" all along, and S.P.E.W. as "Society for the Protection of English Women". Maybe I just caught up with the rest of you. Well, if so, then I apologize for failing to Google very well, because I wasn't able to easily find anybody writing about this issue in Harry Potter, and yet now that it's occurred to me it seems blindingly obvious.
Maybe sometimes it's best to make your point directly and clearly, yet surely a master artist can do better by making a point profound through subtle artistry. If Pullman's wrong and God exists, and if God is the master artist, then it's obvious that we, his characters, nun and ex-nun alike, serve our creator as something more profound than thinly-veiled mouthpieces.
I doubt that if Lancelot had been made the partner of Eve we'd be in Eden still, just as I doubt that cheering on Sir Lancelot, as Pullman seems to want to do, is the right response to our banishment.
* I still wonder, but I rather doubt that we're headed in that direction.
So lately I've been reading Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy for the second time since 2002, and some points that John Granger made in The Hidden Key To Harry Potter are presenting themselves more forcefully. Pullman has a whole series about Sally Lockhart. He's got a character in The Golden Compass named somebody-or-other Trelawney, and one of the witch queens in The Subtle Knife is named, of all things, Ruta Skadi. My wife is skeptical, but I'm totally convinced that Granger was right, and Rowling is expressing an opinion of Pullman and/or his work by her characters Gilderoy Lockhart, Sybill Trelawney, and Rita Skeeter.
Just think about what those characters have in common.
Even better, let's think about Pullman's work, and we'll even limit ourselves to His Dark Materials. Pullman's a very vocal atheist, and he quotes Paradise Lost in the front of The Golden Compass just to get us into the right frame of mind. Pullman aims to correct Milton's mistake: paradise wasn't there to be lost, and if we stop looking for the mythical and instead glory in the dust that we are and shall be, then we can get over our preoccupation with sin and our slavery to the church and get on with the important things in life, like having sex to achieve our own paradise in the end. Or something like that; it's been a while since I finished The Amber Spyglass the first time. And along the way the horrors perpetrated by the church and its agents are fought at every point, we learn how materialism is a blessed succor to minds weary of the deceit of spirtualism, and God himself, the Authority, the false "Creator", is fortunate enough to be relieved of the burden of his sad, tired, and worthless existence.
The second title in His Dark Materials ("HDM") carries tremendous irony. If we're willing to grant that Pullman started with a "subtle knife" in book one, by book two he's brandishing a broadsword requiring both hands, and by book three he's wildly swinging a club and pausing every now and then to pound his chest with his fists. He's not subtle to start with, and it just gets worse.
I was talking with a fantasy-loving frind of mine the other day, and I said that I think HDM starts out very imaginatively and well-written, but that it degenerates to the point that his characters are thinly-veiled (thin-lipped?) mouthpieces for the author. My friend disagreed and said he thought HDM was an enjoyable read but neither imaginative or well-written -- even to start with. I disagree, but like I said, my friend reads a lot more fantasy than I do, so he may know better. (We're both at a loss as to the number of awards Pullman's won for HDM. Who can explain these things?)
In any case, Pullman's work is anything but subtle. And yet we have a contemporary of his, the much-celebrated J.K. Rowling, writing a fantasy series of her own and enjoying what everyone must admit is runaway success. How does her subtlety compare to Pullman's? The Googlefight has Pullman ahead 522k to 334k, but maybe by winning this one Pullman loses. "C'est moi! C'est moi!" Pullman's forced to admit, thus book two is "The Subtle Knife". If you're vying for "Most Subtle", you probably don't want to put "subtle" in the name of your book... If you agree with me about the significance of the character name pairs I mentioned above, you can see how thoroughly Rowling mocks Pullman without resorting to an ex-nun in her books saying right out loud that "Pullman's self-important and professionally incompetent."
And just tonight, about three hours ago, I finished watching The Goblet of Fire with that same friend. Since he hasn't read the books I was filling in some details about house elves and their much greater role in the book, and it hit me right over the head: house elves are like housewives. Let's see what Rowling's done here:
1. House elves perform household duties.
2. House elves must obey their masters.
3. House elves are not paid for their work.
4. Hermione is a very intelligent, independently-minded young woman.
5. Hermione knows what's best for house elves -- for them to be released from their slavery.
6. With the exception of Dobby, house elves don't want to be "freed".
Surely this is some sort of commentary on the social liberation of women. Hermione is painted as affectionately pathetic in her misunderstanding sympathy for house elves. Dobby is clearly a hero, doing what he knows is ultimately right even when it requires him to punish himself for lesser wrongs. And yet every other house elf we've met is by nature, we are told, impelled to serve and content, even thrilled, to do so. Based only on books 1-6, it appears to me that Rowling (a very intelligent and successful woman herself) is sympathetic to women who want to liberate other women and perfectly accepting of women who seek success outside the home. But -- and this is the controversial part -- she also seems to recognize that lots and lots of women might just be very happy staying at home. It does feel rather weird when the other elves are so ashamed of Dobby's freedom, but it feels equally and oppositely weird when Hermione is unable to accept the joy that elves find in service.
I've been wondering for a while if HP7 will end with the destruction of the magical world and the end of magic*, though I'm not sure what that would mean for all the magical creatures. In such a situation, it seems possible that a liberation of sorts may be coming in which the nature of house elves will change and a more direct opinion on the social status of women may emerge. But I doubt it, and I hope not. The marvelous complexity and, yes, subtlety of the house elves' situation is superior to anything that could be wrapped up as a pro- or anti- statement.
Maybe you don't think Rowing is subtle, and you think I've just said the obvious out loud. Maybe everybody has been reading "house elf" as "housewife" all along, and S.P.E.W. as "Society for the Protection of English Women". Maybe I just caught up with the rest of you. Well, if so, then I apologize for failing to Google very well, because I wasn't able to easily find anybody writing about this issue in Harry Potter, and yet now that it's occurred to me it seems blindingly obvious.
Maybe sometimes it's best to make your point directly and clearly, yet surely a master artist can do better by making a point profound through subtle artistry. If Pullman's wrong and God exists, and if God is the master artist, then it's obvious that we, his characters, nun and ex-nun alike, serve our creator as something more profound than thinly-veiled mouthpieces.
I doubt that if Lancelot had been made the partner of Eve we'd be in Eden still, just as I doubt that cheering on Sir Lancelot, as Pullman seems to want to do, is the right response to our banishment.
* I still wonder, but I rather doubt that we're headed in that direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)