The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
-George Washington-
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Terrible Burden of Proof
Note: The word "pathetic" is familiar to us all, but in rhetoric it describes an argument that is designed to have an emotional appeal or effect.
Private political debate that is, debate between ordinary citizens - is as old as politics itself. From the agora to the water cooler, people have gathered to argue their views, oftentimes quite vehemently. Editorial pages and call-in shows have long reflected this psychological need and provided an outlet for it. Never before, however, have ordinary citizens had the outlet that the Internet provides. The increased use of the Internet in homes, schools, and businesses has given the majority of Americans access to sites (which often echo the contents of print and broadcast sources) where they can express their views without the editorial filter that the call-in shows and Op-Ed pages employ. While the availability of political debate has increased, the quality of the discourse has not risen. It seems that the rhetorical elements of kairos,ethos, and pathos are as hale and hardy as ever they were, as they are the elements that drive modern online political discussion. Stasis and heuristics, however, are continually ignored, and in some cases even disdained.
Pathos, of course, is readily available in even the most benign political discussions. Even when the main item in the discussion is reasonably objective, pathos will appear promptly in the comments. "Soon the taxpayers will all be unemployed and no longer able to carry the beast of President Obama and his minion's (sic) government on their backs" writes a reader in response to a CNN Ticker story about the first White House dinner party. "I don't care how bad you thought you had it before this bunch came on the scene. We are all going to miss our old way of life." Obviously, the person posting under the name "Burdened" feels strongly about the President's economic plan, although placing that concern in the dinner party story, rather than one about the stimulus plan, makes it seem hyperbolic at best and exemplifies the misplaced attempts at creating kairos that one is forced to wade through in such discussions. Such purely pathetic (using both definitions of the word) arguments are ubiquitous and easily dismiss anything resembling research or factual basis because making people think is not their function. Anyone who thinks is going to realize that a dinner for the Governors an occasion hosted annually by every President is hardly going to be the straw that breaks America's economic back. This argument exists only to make people feel something: fear of unemployment, fear of economic depression, fear of losing their status, and fear of the current administration. While this tactic fails to create kairos for that particular complaint in that particular context, it will contribute to the community's ethos but only amongst those already inclined to oppose the stimulus plan and to latch onto any available argument against it. Those who are disinclined will reject the argument as off topic, and may find their own sense of community with those who bash the offender.
Kairos is, naturally, not just present in every online political discussion it is the source of them. Politics, by nature, is about what's happening now. No one hears arguments for or against the Spanish American War these days unless they're watching Citizen Kane, itself filmed 43 years after that war's kairotic moment. Some arguments, of course, are seemingly eternal. Crowly and Hawhee point out the excellent example of the never-ending abortion debate in Ancient Rhetorics, a debate whose kairos is elongated by a lack of stasis. The question of abortion's morality and legality can't be answered until both sides agree what the argument is about in the first place, as the constant bickering at the Daily Lobo website about when life begins exemplifies. Another example is the constant debate over gun rights, although this currently gains kairos not through a lack of stasis, but rather a lack of research. After all, President Obama has not said a thing about curtailing gun rights, and Joe Biden is pro-hunting. The gun debate's kairos is fueled in part by faulty or missing heuristics. This is common in online arguments, however. After all, a hunting website doesn't come and go like newspaper articles do they are there every day looking for readers and advertisers. As a result, topical websites such as these have good reason to try and reinvent their kairos on a regular basis.
Lack of heuristics isn't only found in the comments. Many pundits, people who are employed specifically to influence public opinion, are lax in their research. No one has ever accused Michelle Malkin or Randy Rhodes of digging too deeply for facts. Even George Will, a pundit with a highly situated ethos, has recently been caught fudging facts in his arguments against global warming; among other things he thoroughly misstated scientists' conclusions regarding the quantity of global sea ice. The defense is, of course, that Will is an opinion columnist rather than a journalist, and so can use faulty inferences and misstatement of facts in the name of opinion, as Rush Limbaugh does in the name of entertainment.News items, however, will normally be more objective, although often incomplete.
It would seem that, when discussing politics and current events, the value of making informed arguments, backed by solid facts, would be obvious. How better to show your point of view's superiority than to show the incontrovertibility of your argument's support structure? Yet heuristics are not always ignored, sometimes they are disdained outright. "I could use some statistics to support my view without taking in the full picture, however, I would rather just reason it out" said one of my more frequent opponents at the Daily Lobo website. Another writer echoes that sentiment in another thread; " anyone can refer to something as being a fact." Ancient rhetors would not necessarily argue against those points. "Reasoning it out" was the accepted method for all intellectual endeavor long ago. It was, in fact (one that I pointed out in that conversation) the method that gave us the geocentric model of the universe, several philosophies, and much of what we call religion. In modern argumentation, however, it is easily dismissed as the method that, due to its inadequacy, led to the development of the scientific method. This response is especially cogent in discussions of policy, where prior experiences can have bearing and where the facts do not always agree with what can be reasoned.
Why are heuristics so frequently ignored or treated with contempt? The first possibility that jumps to mind is lack of education perhaps people simply don't know how to find the information they need, or don't realize the importance of doing so. This rings a bit hollow, however. These people knew how to find the discussion, after all. They were techno savvy enough to participate. Everyone who knows how to use a web browser knows how to use Google. It may be, however, that those at lower educational levels adopt attractive ideas without skepticism, and may easily be manipulated into believing that someone else has done the research for them.
This trust is easy for several types of modern rhetor to take advantage of. The first type is the pundit. Pundits are everywhere every channel and news source has them, and each of those pundits has a website as do many that have no offline outlet. They seem to have larger audiences than the major news outlets, possibly due to their constant use of pathos. Many people who see the value of having facts and figures to back up their assertions assume that the facts and figures that the media pundits use have been researched and are accurate. These assumptions reflect the pundit's situated ethos; the pundit is, of course, an "expert" and knows what he is talking about. Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this ethos, and his listeners rarely doubt what he says.
His is a phony ethos, however. One minute's Internet research reveals that Limbaugh has no education in political science, foreign policy, economics, social sciences, or any of the subjects he is paid- quite highly to opine on. He dropped out of college after three terms, having failed everything including a modern ballroom dancing class. His history shows that there is only one thing that he could be shown to be an absolute expert on doing a radio show (and having someone repeat what he says on a website for those who can't listen in). His situated ethos derives not from what he knows, but the flair with which he tells his audience what they want to hear. Much the same can be said for liberal pundit Randi Rhodes, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, and many others.
People also skip research because they believe what they are told by people who should be accurate, but are not. Politicians and reporters are the main culprits here. When Sarah Palin repeats that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" enough times and the media quotes her saying it every time, people who believe in Sarah Palin will parrot it in complete disregard for the fact that Obama and Ayers have never been known to be "pals," or even casual friends. When Joe Biden talks about McCain voting against troop funding, he does so without mentioning McCain's objection to the war-ending timeline the provision contained. These inaccuracies aren't the result of shoddy research, however, only the repetition of them by others is. The initial falsehoods often lies of omission - are the result of ulterior motives. A party-loyal Republican will, of course, be pro-war in Iraq, despite the array of justifications that have already floundered. Someone who owns oil company stock (or who, like a conservative pundit may, receives pay from these companies) will promote new offshore drilling contracts despite the fact that such drilling is already possible but is not as convenient as Exxon would like. The NRA will increase membership by creating a threat to gun rights where one does not exist (and the gun shop owners will promote it in hopes of increased sales to enthusiasts who want to "stock up while they can"). The primary lies will appear in news site columns and pundit websites as well as non-Internet sources like newspapers, television, and radio, to be relayed by the faithful in blogs, comments, and e-mails.
Another reason why everyday people will skip heuristics in their arguments is posturing. When people aren't sure of their assertions or are not willing to accept opposing views easily, they can pretend that their ideas are so obvious that they don't warrant the effort of providing proof. "Ah, Joe the Troll, it's not my job to educate you on the candidates' backgrounds and their positions," said "lilamar" on the Daily Lobo site when asked to detail what she called Ralph Nader's "extensive political resume." While she ostensibly sought to put the onus of research upon the reader, she could not have honestly expected that to happen. Why would the reader take it upon himself to prove someone else's point? A few more intellectually curious ones may; most will not. To expect it would seem an inefficient way to sway opinions. More likely, the shifting of responsibility was meant to make the readers feel shamed into simply accepting her assertions as being more informed than their own opinions. While that may be true in some cases, it makes for an underhanded argument, one that provides plenty of room for doubt about lilamar's veracity. This is a tactic that can be used in any milieu; however, easy access to search engines makes it more effective on the Internet. It's harder to harangue someone into forgiving a lack of evidence when research facilities aren'treadily available to the audience, as they are when the audience is already online.
It may be, also, that today's lack of heuristics can be traced to a misconception about how voters make decisions. Consider the abstract from It Feels Like We're Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy by Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen:
"The familiar image of rational electoral choice has voters weighing the competing candidates' strengths and weaknesses, calculating comparative distances in issue space, and assessing the president's management of foreign affairs and the national economy. Indeed, once or twice in a lifetime, a national or personal crisis does induce political thought. But most of the time, the voters adopt issue positions, adjust their candidate perceptions, and invent facts to rationalize decisions they have already made. The implications of this distinction between genuine thinking and its day-to-day counterfeit strike at the roots of both positive and normative theories of electoral democracy."
In other words, while we assume that people choose their candidates on the basis of their positions on the issues, the authors assert that people will instead choose the candidate that they like, then change their own positions to match the candidate's or misstate the candidate's to match theirs. One can easily find support for this in almost any political argument. It can certainly explain why middle class people who were wary of "tax and spend Democrats" have argued that McCain's tax policies were in their favor, despite the fact that the numbers said the opposite. It can also explain why anti-war Democrats are suddenly so supportive of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, as President Obama intends. In such a process, facts can only get in the way. If a political decision is the result of pathos in the first place, it is pathos that will be used to support it, regardless of what the facts say. Thus, it is easy to find comments on CNN.com or MSNBC.com from Clinton supporting Democrats that criticize Obama's policies despite their close similarity to Clinton's policies. By the same token, conservative websites and blogs will brim with comments from those who supported Bush all the way, but have suddenly found a fear of big government that didn't arise when the Bush administration was increasing the government's size, mounting a huge deficit, and weakening Fourth Amendment protections.
Stubbornness is another causal agent in heuristics' seeming demise. As Christina Page reports on the Huffington Post:
Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization's previously stated mission of saving the "unborn" had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, "The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," by which Perkins means having sex.
Why would anti-abortion organizations, which are as active online as off, also oppose contraception when contraception is proven across the world to reduce the need for abortions? The HuffPo article mentions two possibilities. First, the organizations have a good fundraising shtick that they hesitate to let go of. Certainly, money has a way of talking. Secondly, the members of these organizations are simply so used to opposing anything that they see as "liberal" that they cannot see when their own goals and the "liberal" goal are aligned. For the purpose of online argumentation, fundraising can be dismissed for the most part. People who comment on news articles and blogs aren't raising funds from their efforts. They can, however, be so used to practicing "us vs. them" politics that they see no need to look beyond the personalities that is, the ethos of anyone they see as the opposition. Once again, facts and research can only get in the way in this scenario.
Laziness, of course, cannot be discounted. Lack of heuristics may simply be the result of a person's being too lazy to look for anything to back up his claims, and hoping that anyone who reads his argument will be equally lazy. These arguments often rely on what they see as commonplaces, but can be accurately termed as stereotypes, such as the "tax and spend liberal" and the " intolerant Republican."While these types of rants are expected in comments, where individuals have anonymity and can simply vent their feelings without being held accountable for accuracy, it is surprising how many online pundits and commentators rely on them and the laziness or gullibility - of their audiences to make the use of such arguments profitable.
Is this a result of the Internet's relative youth? Will online political discussions become more factual as people become more accustomed to and educated by the instant communication and participation that the Internet offers? While one might hope so, only time will tell. It may be that the nature of the Internet that is, constantly updating and wide open to the public creates an environment where the driving forces of kairos, ethos, and pathos are sufficient bread and circus to please the masses. It may also be true that the presence of ulterior motives and special interests in political discussions online and off will always create resistance to heuristics. As it stands, however, it is evident that while all online political discussions hinge on some combination of kairos, pathos, and ethos, those looking for researched facts as a basis for argument have a lot of chaff to wade through for relatively little wheat.
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009.
"Obama Has Already Failed to Deliver the Change He Promised." New Mexico Daily Lobo Online. 4 February 2009. <http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=36d779e8-95d9-4314-b884-e3334cb61c85>
Evermore things I don't get. Perhaps you can explain?
1. How is McCain a hero?
His military credentials are never questioned, and he is unquestioningly considered a "hero" because of his experience in Vietnam. It's as if not calling him a hero means that you have nothing but battery acid in your heart for all military people. And of course, they're ALL heroes once they put that uniform on, right? They just stop being heroes when they come back and need medical care or a place to live or some such.
I say fuck it, though. I'll question his status, appearances be damned. From what I understand, he was making a bombing run and saw an incoming alert thingiebob (That's the military parlance. It means something is flying at you to blow your ass up). Instead of taking immediate evasive measures, he chose to continue bombing for a few seconds, after which his wing was blown off. Good judgement there. When he came down, he was almost torn apart by civilians but was saved by one. When I hear that part, I wonder how many of us would save an enemy soldier that was shot down while bombing us from an angry mob. Anyway, he was then hauled away to a prison camp where he was either the toughest nut in Hanoi or the ugliest songbird, depending on the report. This understanding is what I have from hearing this thing from all quarters over the last year.
So which part is heroic? Really, it sounds like he blew his mission all to hell and back. Shouldn't a "hero" be someone who did something right? In war, bullets are flying everywhere. I consider the true hero not to be the one who blunders into a bullet, but one who steps into one on purpose to save someone else. Or maybe even the smart guy who figures out how to save the other guy without getting shot. Let's not sell that guy short. That guy never gets far, though, because real heroes tend to get themselves killed sooner more than later.
Beside that, can anyone explain how McCain "knows how to win wars" when most of his war experience was as a prisoner during a war we didn't actually win?
2. How did conservation become a liberal cause?
It seems strange, doesn't it? Especially when you consider that the national park system was the baby of a very famous Republican, one Teddy Roosevelt. The same thing with the ACLU. You'd think that dogged adherence to the Constitution and equal application of same would be a conservative issue more than a liberal one. I think it's because people really have no idea what liberal and conservative are even supposed to mean anymore. A few years ago, I did a little poll of people that I met over a week's time, and asked them if they knew. I was dealing with some very well educated people at the time, but zero out of ten people could give me the definition of either. This is despite the fact that these people has very strong feelings about which word described them. It's no more meaningful today than the names of two opposing football teams.
3. Why is there a bike rack on the bus?
I'm on my way to class, or getting home after a long afternoon, and I'm hanging on a strap watching someone try to put their bike on the rack (and it always takes them several tries), and I'm thinking why don't you just ride the fucking bike?????
4. Why is calling something "political" supposed to be an insult when it comes from a politician?
Is this nutty or what? "That was just a political move on Sen. Bigballz part!" Of course it was. Sen. Bigballz is a politician. What he does is political. What mechanics do is mechanical. What artists do is artistic (Pollock notwithstanding). Why does anyone listen to such tripe from a politician, knowing that by definition it too is political?
5. How can anyone promote the idea that by voting for McCain this year they'll make the rest of us vote for Hillary in 2012?
That has to be the weirdest strategy I've seen since playing RISK on mushrooms. I keep seeing it, though. Are these people really serious?
I saw this the other day when I was waiting for class to start. This class is in a computer lab, so if the teacher is boring me I can surf. It's been stuck in my mind the past few days.
A series of attacks left 43-year-old Jeff Harriman brain dead. His family had hoped to donate his organs, but now that won't happen.
Family members met Tuesday morning with law enforcement officials in Pottawattamie County. Relatives now say organ donation could jeopardize key evidence. They left the meeting convinced an autopsy is needed to prosecute Harriman's attackers. A short time later, family members went to the hospital to take him off life support.
Relatives say organ donation would have ensured something positive would come out of Harriman's death. "I thought that would be great, but it's not as important as convicting these animals," said Harriman's mother, Ellie DeBell.
Of course, this gets me, once again, to pondering what is really most important.
To be certain, this is not to judge this family and say what they should do. They should do what they want to do. I think we can look at this a bit more abstractly, however, since this is not as unique a situation as any good person would like.
No one can deny that the woman's statement, " I thought that would be great, but it's not as important as convicting these animals," is true from a certain perspective. This is the perspective of a grieving mother, not the perspective of a person hooked to a dialysis machine, or that person's mother. Both are right. How can anyone look into either mother's eyes and tell her she's wrong?
Imagine that. You're in that bed, your doctor knows what to do to save you, has the skill to do just that, but for a lack of parts, you simply waste away and die. Imagine your child being one of the many people this happens to early in life. It makes that talk about the immorality of cloning look like the bullshit it is, doesn't it?
On the other hand, straightforward murder statistics are not easy to find. Most are rates per 100,000 people. I found only one site that provides straight numbers. (I will admit to limited research time. I really should be working on that Lizzie Borden paper right now.) If this site is reliable, it seems that in 2006 about 47 people were murdered in America every day.
So which folks are more important?
Certainly, a lot of innocent people are going down here. One could say that some of the folks on the transplant lists are there because of choices they made. They chose to drink too much or do lots of drugs, and are now suffereing for poor choices. That would be true. However, it isn't MOST of them, and the ones who aren't there because they used to be speedball addicts don't deserve to be judged along with those guys. Especially the children.
It's just as true that it isn't always the innocent to end up on a slab. Killers, thieves, molesters, rapists, and drug dealers prey on each other quite a bit as well. Many murder victims are simply the guys who didn't pull their guns out fast enough, or who trusted the wrong fellow criminal. It seems that the victim in this story didn't need to live where he did. He was there because he chose to be, and I personally feel that choosing to be homeless is a little askew. So if we can't decide which people are more important, as is usually our wont, how do we know what is more proper?
As I see it, it comes down to a choice between justice and mercy. Which is ultimately more important?
Obviously, most Americans are ready to champion Justice. We're a law and order people, despite our ironic crime statistics. We are the country that hold the greatest percentage of its own population in prison, after all. However, we never really seem to be safer.
In addition, we're about the wealthgiest folks in the world, but not the healthiest. In fact, there are very few people who feel that the American health system does not need an overhaul, and those are largely people who are making money on the system as it is now.
Could it be that we don't quite have our priorities as a nation straight here? Don't get me wrong, the people who beat this man should be caught and imprisoned. I wonder, though, could any of us choose to pursue that goal if we had to explain to someone else in that hospital that we made the decision to NOT save his or her life?
I, of course, can only speak for myself, but if I were the victim, I would want my organs passed on (and I AM a donor. Are you?) As much as I would resent being murdered (and having a sore and troubled world deprived of my light, my wit, and my unsurpassed humility), I do not consider my memory to be more important than the promise and hope of a young life I could be saving. There may be more innocents being murdered than dying from lack of organs, but the way I see it, we can help the living and suffering more than we can help the dead. At least, until we perfect the cloning of human organs, that's how I see it.
That's just me, though. How do you see it?
In Addition: Before posting this, I went looking for a suitable graphic. Obviously, I didn't find one. I did, however, find an article very germane to this topic, a thought- provoking, but short, essay on mercy vs. justice. Does this help you consider this, or just muddy the water?
Here's some interesting things I've found recently.......
First off, one of the things that I love the most about this hobby is the ability to try new things without monetary risk. Sometimes I'm just drawn to something because it sounds weird, and so it was with the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain. With a bootleg title like Anarchy in the Ukulele, how can I possibly resist? What I got was a unique and fun blend of virtuosity and humor, as the songs themselves range from the sublime (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) to the ridiculous (Le Freak). Here's one from the midrange, their their rendition of Respect performed in Berlin on Nov. 15, 2007.
As many of you know from our movie discussions, I am resistant to sequels. That's why, when it comes to Hank Williams, I still prefer the original. I recently found a slew of Hank Williams radio performances from 1951 (Actually, half a slew. There are supposed to be 15 discs total, but for some reason only the first nine were uploaded. Still, that's enough to sate the need for quite awhile.) Like the Flatt and Scruggs radio shows, he was playing to advertise flour - Mother's Best Flour, that is. He'd do a few of his songs, a Mother's Best Flour ad spot, and like Johnny Cash on his radio show years later, he'd always throw in a gospel tune. Here's one I just couldn't resist sharing -On Top of Old Smoky.
Last week I offered up a little Grateful Dead with Santana. Here they are at the Euphoria Ballroom in San Rafael, Ca. on July 16, 1970, with none other than Pigpen's pal Janis Joplin. It's one hell of a jam on the tune Turn on Your Lovelight, and they're having so much fun jamming to it that they never actually seem to get around to doing the actual song. Oh well, it's still a hell of a lot of fun.
"Clinics" are small performances - usually, but not always solo - where a musician shares techniques, answers questions, and showcases his sponsor's wares. These can make for great stealth recordings because of their intimate nature and close setting. In 1981, when bass player Jeff Berlin was working for the Musician's Institute in Hollywood, Ca., he invited former Bruford bandmate and fusion guitar icon Allan Holdsworth to conduct such a clinic. They were joined by drummer Gary Husband and Holdsworth fan Eddie Van Halen. They really didn't play any songs, they just jammed, so here is a piece simply calledJam ??
Eddie also joined Allan at his Roxy performance, probably later that same night. The boots are said to sound awful, but the rumor is that EVH has a soundboard recording of that night. Don't be a bogart, Eddie!!!
Finally, here's a story straight from the liner notes of a boot called Queen- In the Beginning:
"Around September 1971, Brian May met up with an old Friend, Terry Yeadon, who was involved in the setting up of a new recording studio in Wembly called De Lane Lea.
The studios needed musicians to try out the new equipment they had installed -- and preferably a band who could play loud! The deal was that the musicians would record using the equipment, and potential studio users would be on hand to hear and watch them. In return for their services, the band could record their demos for free. It was an opportunity not to be missed and, of course, Queen jumped at it. Not only would they be able to make the all important demo tapes, but they would have ample occasion to meet producers and engineers, people who could be vital to their future."
So there you have it - the very first recordings made by Queen. Here'sKeep Yourself Alive.
Mankind has maintained a relationship with the arcane since first gaining the ability for abstract thought. To explain the things that confounded him, man developed religions, and as new religions developed, the old ones became mere "magic." In the western world, the greatest example of that was the long process in which Christianity replaced older, "pagan" beliefs. The fairy tale Cinderella, as told by the Brothers Grimm, can easily be seen as an allegory for this historic chain of events.
The allegory begins with the death of Cinderella's mother, and with it the passing of life as she had known it. On her deathbed, her mother admonishes her to be pious and pray, yet also tells her that she will be watching and helping her. This touches upon the pre-Christian belief that magical power and protection can be gained from one's ancestors. While strict Catholic doctrine holds that death ends all worldly connections, even when the deceased ascend to Heaven, many Christians to this day feel that their departed loved ones still hear them and look after them. With this in mind, it is pertinent to note that all of Cinderella's prayers are made by her mother's grave, as is all of her exclusively natural magic.
After her father remarries, a new way of life begins. The stepmother and sisters are outwardly beautiful, but inwardly quite selfish, and they live their lives without the help of pagan"natural" magic. They represent the coming of Christianity to supplant the old beliefs. While Cinderella has been taught the new religion and does pray to God, she actively refuses to completely renounce the old ways. When her father brings gifts, the stepsisters ask for fineries. Cinderella, instead, requests a branch that she grows into a tree at her mother's gravesite a pagan symbol of life beside a scene of death. Her new family, for their part, does not ignore her. Instead, she is practically enslaved, placed on a lower social tier and denied her rights. Early Christians did much the same to those who hesitated to join them. Many pagans were converted by torture or murdered outright. If early Christians could not covert the pagans, they would subjugate them or destroy them. They were never treated as equals. Those that did convert would then sever past associations in order to fit into their new society, just as Cinderella's father neglects her after remarrying.
It is important to note that in this tale of transition, the number three can be seen several times. The family has three girls. Cinderella makes three daily trips to the tree for prayer. There are three nights of dancing and festivities, followed by three attempts by the Prince to find his bride. The number three has been of utmost importance in many pagan religions. The druids, for instance, would knock upon a tree three times to awaken the spirits. By the same token, however, the number is also central to Christianity, which worships the Trinity, one God with three aspects. It can hardly be a coincidence that a number so important to both the old ways and the new ways would appear so frequently in so short a tale. Especially important to the transition theme are Cinderella's three daily trips to the grave, in which she kneels by a pagan symbol of life to pray to the Christian Trinity.
The behavior of the sisters when trying on the slipper illustrated the behavior of many Christians and converts of the day. In attempts to curry favor, or perhaps merely to stay alive, they would demonstrate their Christianity by showing contempt for older beliefs, rather than through any actual piety. Certainly, the sisters didn't behave kindly toward Cinderella, the pagan, and were never said in the story to pray at all. Rather than be honest about the slipper being too small for them, they chose to make cosmetic changes like lopping off a toe or a heel in order to curry favor by appearing to be something they weren't. Certainly many pagans, as well as Popes, had to deal with those who didn't truly believe in Christ but were quick to seek favor by harshly condemning those who failed to convert.
In the end, however, it is the girl with one tiny, delicate foot in each world that curries the favor and marries the Prince. With the help of both natural magic and, presumably, God (who is mentioned several times but never takes an overtly active role in the story), Cinderella marries the Prince and goes on to a better life. She still does not change her ways completely, however, as her magical birds follow along and make sure her family troubles are over. The story ends without the slightest indication that the birds then leave or that she stops visiting her mother's grave or working natural magic. Yet, she is leaving that home and moving to a much more secure and loving environment.
Is this not also how it was with Christianity? It is well known that the dates on which Christmas, the birth of Christ, and Easter, His resurrection, are observed were chosen to coincide with common pagan holy days. Following scripture, it is more likely that Christ was born in the spring or summer, but the observance was placed in the winter because of the fairly ubiquitous winter solstice celebrations. Christians ultimately found it easier to replace one celebration of birth with another than to beat the love of God into the celebrants. The same holds for Easter and what we now call Halloween. Christmas trees and Easter baskets both have pagan origins, as do church bells. As Cinderella's and the Prince's problems were solved by a wedding between them, so did a marriage of sorts end the violent strife between the Christians and the pagans.
Whether or not the Brothers Grimm intended their version of Cinderella to allegorically tell the story of Christianity's rise, the tale certainly steps up to the task. Every character serves the allegory. Mother represents the old ways, the stepmother and sisters are the new ways, Father is a willing convert, Cinderella a hesitant convert, and the Prince is the religious establishment that all the others want smiling upon them. As many nursery rhymes and fairy tales throughout history contain a germ of history within them, so it is that the Grimm version of Cinderella can be seen to tell the story of a way of life's demise.
Works Cited
Brothers Grimm, The. "Cinderella." Retellings. Ed. M.B. Clarke and A.G. Clarke. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 5-10.
As I said before, Trolling the Underground is on hiatus for lack of time. I'll be doing a lot of writing today and tomorrow, believe me, but nothing for Blogovia unless you'd like to read my literary analysis of Cinderella (Two versions!) or my paper on ethical technical writing.I don't even want to know about that second one.
But I'm still downloading music and listening to a lot of new bootlegs, so I'll share a sampling with you throughout the month. Here's the stuff I've been listening to on campus this past week!
The first cut has a story to it. On 08-06-2003, I went with my friends to the Journal Pavilion just south of Albuquerque to see Galactic, Jeff Beck, and B.B. King. I had scored us some sweet second row center seats for this one, and as Beck was starting I noticed that the guy to my left was recording it! Cool! It turned out sad, though, because the guy hadn't checked his batteries before starting, and they died during the fourth song. Fie! I still wanted the recording, though, so we exchanged e-mails. He offered me a copy, and I suggested we get together so I could buy him a beer for his troubles. I never heard from him again. I figured maybe he thought I was hitting on him or something.
Then, last weekend, I see it posted on my fave site. I made a comment about the guy I met, and it was indeed him posting it. He said his hard drive had crashed, so maybe we'll have that beer someday after all. In the meantime, here's the first song that Jeff played that night, called Psycho Sam. You can hear me and my former friend to my left discussing the presence of drummer Terry Bozzio (whose name I mispronounce) on stage, a happy thing that we hadn't known would happen. You can tell that I'd had a few and didn't yet know that my neighbor was recording.
I got into Doc Watson through listening to a radio show where he performed with blues great Taj Mahal. His blend of blues and bluegrass adds up to true Americana. I was surprised to hear this song, called Deep River Blues, because I learned it from Jorma Kaukonen under the title Big River Blues. Same cool old country blues, though. Here's Doc and Merle Watson doing Deep River Blues on September 14, 1982.
Moving right along, here's the Jimi Hendrix Experience on 2-24-69 at some London nightclub dive called the Royal Albert Hall. I guess you have to play a few places like that before you get to the Fillmore. The song is I Don't Live Today.
I first saw my favorite live performer, Peter Gabriel, in 1983. I've been looking for a copy of that show, or any great sounding 1983 show, ever since. I still don't have the show I saw, but I finally found a great sounding recording from the show in Werchter( which I think is Bavarian) on 7-03-83. First, Peter gets a little advice from an audience member, then launches into one of his most popular songs, Solsbury Hill.
I've long known of Jan Hammer's incredible keyboard skills from his time with the Mahavishnu Orchestra and his magnificent work with Jeff Beck. I've long since forgiven him for his 80s transgressions such as the Miami Vice theme. Since this bootleg was recorded between Mahavishnu and Beck, I figured I'd give it a try, and I'm glad I did! This song, called Plants and Trees and recorded at Ratso's in Chicago on 11-26-75 is some PRIME jazz fusion.
Finally, here's All Along the Watchtower as brought to you by the Grateful Dead and guest Carlos Santana on 8-23-87. Both Jerry and Carlos jam here and anyone who can't hear the difference has to stay after class!
I first heard of Billie Holiday in high school when I was in the chorus. I had joined for two reasons. First it was a very easy "A", since the teacher needed basses something fierce and just appreciated having a few guys there to sing the low notes. Second, that teacher was fine, and any excuse to just sit and look at her while getting an easy "A" worked for me.
We did God Bless the Child, and I really didn't like it much. Of course, why would I? High school chorales don't exactly make the music sound cool. In fact, we sucked every last vestige of blues out of that puppy in no time at all. It was years before I even bothered to listen to anything Billie had actually recorded, and when it finally happened I wasn't in control of the musical situation, so I had no choice.
Wow. What an eye-opener.
I don't remember what song it was, but what a delivery. It's difficult to describe my reaction to her singing. I could analyze it every way 'till Sunday like the intellectuals do, but I'd just end up sounding like a jackass, as they do. Billie just had something, something so genuine. Billie was real blues.
Of course, there's good reason for that. She had a rough ride from the get-go. Abused throughout childhood and adulthood, she died in 1959 from the effects of long-term heroin abuse. It was after her death that she finally received the appreciation she deserved, first with a film about her life and then with her induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2000. I sometimes wonder if performers like her, Charlie Parker, Elmore James and others would have done that to themselves if they knew how much we'd look up to them eventually.
When I first found this bootleg from 1951, it unseated my 1954 Louis Armstrong recording as the oldest in my collection. That lasted about 2 weeks when some 1940s Benny Goodman popped up. You have to love these old radio recordings! These songs come from the Storyvill Club in Boston, MA. on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of October. Her band included Buster Harding (piano), John Fields (bass), and Marquis Foster (drums), but that subtle sax you'll hear hanging back there came from the soon-to-be-world-famous Stan Getz.
First, from Oct. 29, 1951, I offer a helping of Billie's famous attitude, with a song that's been covered many times. It's called Ain't Nobody's Bizzness If I Do.
Then, from the next night, we have the autobiographical Billie's Blues.
Well, my second summer class kicked in yesterday, and since both classes are writing classes, July promises to be much more intense. So, I won't really get into any big posts for the next few weeks, and we'll see how things are during the fall semester.
In the meantime, Trolling the Underground is a little cumbersome, so I'm temporarily bagging it. I'm going to start a new series of music posts, however, that will allow me to share more music without all the research, expository and whatnot. It will be much simpler, so I'll do it weekly and I'll start this weekend at Where the Vibe Is. That blog needs aome attention, methinks.
