I Guess I’m Too Old For Harry Potter

I was as thrilled as a little schoolgirl this morning when I stumbled across the box set of Harry Potter novels posted on Varage Sale. In an instant, I’d answered a cool ‘interested’ in the comments section while inside I was screaming “Meeeeeee! I’ll take them! Give them to me!”

Thus and thus, I became proud owner of the Harry Potter books at age 24. When I was a youngster, growing up in a conservative Christian home, all things Harry Potter were forbidden on account of the magic. I agree that magic is a biblically grey area, and if I should have children, I’d probably at least want to read the books with them so we could talk about those things. So, unlike my peers who grew up with Harry, Ron and Hermione, I waited to meet them until last autumn.

I committed to the movies first, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. Never mind that they were ‘kids movies’. Little Harry and his friends were so darn cute, and I especially loved know-it-all Hermione. I’d be the one going ‘Don’t you read?’ too. Later on, as the stakes get higher and the movies become darker in tone, the relationship between Harry and his friends grows even stronger in contrast the evil they face. Yeah, there’s a little bit of harmless romance in the story, but the platonic, brotherly love is what shines in these stories. Love, sacrifice, friendship and loyalty are praised almost above all else.

I’ve been reading a lot of ‘kids books’ lately. I’m plugging away at a seven-in-one volume of the Chronicles of Narnia. Narnia is my lunchtime escape from the perils of work. The imagination is so much fresher than in ‘adult’ books. The good is so much ‘gooder’ and the bad is so much more cut and dry. I guess I’m surrounded by cynicism all day, so reading a kids book is refreshing to the mind.

So I’ve finally got my hands on the Harry Potter series. I’ll be the lone adult on the plane or in the waiting room, reading Harry Potter. So what if I’m too old? 🙂

The 5th Day Without TV

I don’t own a TV, but I do own an iPhone. Therefore I have perpetual access to YouTube.

I am addicted to YouTube, or at least nearly so. It is a pitiful thing. Since my sister and I got wifi in our apartment, I also can stream my favourite shows, and due to the video rental store a block away (archaic, I know) I need not ever lift my head from the screen.

And for the last few months, it seems I didn’t. I’d come home from work, meaning to read, write, or do something useful. But I’d be tired and sit down ‘just for a few minutes’ with my laptop. Before I knew it, it would be time for dinner (or two-thirty in the morning depending on the shift).

So, when I was challenged to a ‘media fast’ as part of my church’s ‘Month of Prayer and Fasting,’ I knew exactly what I needed to do. For those who are not of religious background, ‘fasting’ traditionally meant giving up eating for a time. Many Christians have expanded the definition to mean laying down a good thing (such as food, TV, coffee, etc.) in order to concentrate on prayer, and to submit that thing to God. For the next month, Monday to Saturday I may not watch TV, movies, or YouTube.

Today is the fifth day. And you know? i don’t miss it–not really. I mean, it’s Friday night and often that meant watching a movie with a snack and coffee. Tonight I’m home sick from work, and I’m on a the couch anyway, so a movie would be lovely. Tonight, I do miss it. I’ve ‘settled’ for a radio version of Les Miserables (no singing–yay!).

Every other day, I’ve enjoyed the freedom of having no choice. It sounds strange, but the worst thing about watching YouTube as much as I wanted was the compulsion. I couldn’t seem to resist it. So now my mind is made up for me. And also, I was the master of multitasking. In fact, it seemed I couldn’t concentrate on writing without a YouTube clip or a TV show playing in the background. Now I enjoy music, or silence instead. On the whole, my head feels clearer and I’m more productive.

But we weren’t challenged to fast from media to clear our heads and make us more productive, any more than we’re challenge to fast from food to make us lose weight. Here is the question: have I been using TV and media as a God-substitute? I realize after the fact that watching TV after work was just novocaine. It was a distraction so I didn’t have to face my issues. It was an easy way out.

Does one month of fasting fix this? I don’t know. I’ve never tried this before. It’s my hope that after a month, I’ll be able to enjoy movies and YouTube in more moderate doses, and to REALLY enjoy them without guilt because of it.

Imagination Turns Dangerous

“Is it possible to read a story and not enter into it; to write a story and not become part of the script?”—Ravi Zacharias.

Isn’t it amazing how obsessed we can become with an ‘imaginary’ character?

I enjoy the BBC series Sherlock. I think it’s smart, snappy, suspenseful, and the actors are brilliant. But some people LOVE that show—they make Sherlock memes, Sherlock valentines, go to costumed Sherlock events, and write kinky Sherlock fan fiction. They masquerade as Sherlock and Watson by tweeting in character. Pretend long enough, and it becomes real, right?

Some girls dig Mr. Darcy and wish he was real, and in a moment of weakness I’ve probably done the same. I once cried because there were no men like Aragorn, Faramir and Eomir (from Lord of the Rings) in my neck of the woods.

In hindsight, that is probably for the best—the swords and all, but it’s hard not to fall for that kind of badassery.

Stories, whether on the page or screen, engage our imagination. In our minds, these people can be everything we want them to be. We can rewrite the sad endings, put the broken relationships back together, even insert ourselves into the story. As a novelist, I find I embody my characters and see through their eyes—like an actor, taking on the thoughts and intentions of her role.

But what if this becomes dangerous?

Ravi Zacharias, in his book Why Jesus, gives an extreme example:

In [The Dark Knight], award-winning actor Heath Ledger played the sinister role of the Joker with nearly satanic powers. Once again, you walked away from the movie thinking it was “just a movie.” But was it…?

In the real world, devoid of pretense, when the news of Heath Ledger’s sudden and mysterious drug-related death at the age of twenty-nine hit the news, the question being bandied about was whether his portrayal of the Joker had so overtaken his thinking that he couldn’t break free from the script of Batman. According to his co-actors and friends, Ledger ended up possessed by the Joker and unable to break free from the character, even away from the set… The sinister won the day and the Joker was no longer a phantom character, but was embodied away from the set with dire real-life consequences.

I got a taste of this phenomenon last winter. I was already suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder (aptly initialed ‘SAD’) when I began researching Post Traumatic Stress disorder to add depth to a character I was writing. Immersed in the stories of soldiers, whose lives had practically been stolen by this affliction, I began to wonder if I was writing myself deeper into depression. Sometimes I wasn’t sure if it was me or Liam (the affected character) who was screaming inside my head–a little melodramatic, but scary all the same.

This reminds me of my responsibility as an author: to speak truth, mindful that whatever I weave into my story has the potential to be expanded on the screen of the reader’s imagination. And also, to choose what I read, and what I view carefully—because unlike the ideas that are force-fed in a classroom, statements a movie or novel makes are insidious. They creep in slowly, and stick while we are still saying “it’s just entertainment.”

Is it just entertainment, or is it real? Ask the guy who tweets as Sherlock.

Why I Didn’t Watch “God’s Not Dead”

I didn’t go see the movie God’s Not Dead.  In fact, the idea of it disturbs me.

Perhaps it is hypocritical to call into question a movie which I haven’t seen, but hopefully I can be fair about this.  I’ve attempted to read up on it and get a good idea of what it is about, but I realize that any review will naturally be biased.  This is based on second-hand information.  Feel free to correct me.

That being said, essentially, I see the movie as a Christian pep-rally, propaganda movie–a sort of one-dimensional, thin portrayal that makes Christians feel good about being Christians at the expense of real thought.  Was the intention to be a ‘witnessing tool’?  An aid in apologetics?  I doubt it worked.

My beef with it is twofold.

Stereotyping and one-dimensional portrayal of non-Christians

In their review, Plugged’N (part of Focus on the Family) admits,

Pretty much everyone who’s not a Christian in this story is villainized for being mean, abusive, grouchy or narrow-minded. Several such sinners are condemned to either death or terminal illness, as if they’re being punished for their attitudes.

Obviously (the movie implies), if you’re an atheist you’re a jerk.  If you’re a Muslim, you’re going to violently kick your daughter out of the house for converting to Christianity.

That’s not a fair portrayal.

The Christians Win in the End (hurray for the good guys!)

Rembert Browne said:

This is a film in which antagonizers of Christianity are strategically given a platform to speak, just so they can be shut down.

If there’s anything that makes people irate about this movie, it is this one.  The atheist MUST be shut down, and therefore he cannot be given a true chance to speak.  Both sides cannot be argued fairly.  Why?  Is it because the questions he could ask are too hard to answer?

And what if the protagonist did not win the class over?  What if he had given his best defence and was still considered an imbecile?  What if he failed his class?  Would he be less ‘successful’?

And then, as if to make everything better, everyone ‘becomes a Christian’ in the end.

Rembert Browne again:

So yes, this movie is absurd.  It creates a fantasy world in the name of Christianity winning in the end.  It positions a David vs. Goliath scenario with the kid who believes in God and the professor who denounces that belief.  After losing to the student in the eyes of the student body, the professor has a revelation, gets hit by a car, and decides to give his life to Jesus as he lies in the street, probably dying.

And then we end with a rock concert.  What?

Perhaps what disturbs me most about this movie is that as Christians, we could do so much better.  It seems to portray unhealthy ways of engaging with our friends, neighbours, coworkers and professors.  I would rather see these two ideas promoted:

When engaging others, remember they are people.

It is entirely possible that their views are NOT well thought through, and that their religion (or lack thereof) is based on a shaky foundation.  But assume that it isn’t.  For the sake of their dignity as a human and an image-bearer of God, take the time to hear them out.  Get to the root.  What do they really believe, and what led them there?

Ravi Zacharias, Christian author and apologist, said that one of the most important qualities of an apologist is humility, and it takes humility to listen, risking that the other may have a good point to make.

Winning is not the point

There is no shame in bowing out gracefully, and there is no shame in being out-gunned. Learn from it. If you can’t win the crowd over, as long as you have spoken the truth and as long as you have conveyed God’s love and character, consider it a job well done.

I recently had a debate with a coworker that dragged on (by email) for almost a month.  A professor of mine, who I turned to for advice, urged me that arguing with him was probably not the best method.  I disregarded him at first, but I eventually realized that we were getting nowhere, and so in order to preserve the relationship, I bowed out.  It felt like caving, honestly, but it was the right thing to do.

Debates, if done well, are extremely useful.  If you keep your mind open, and focus on learning instead of winning, they will force you to reconsider what you hold dear–what is truth, and what is just pet idea of yours.  In the end, you are likely to walk away stronger (or perhaps with a new viewpoint).

If you are interested to learn how to engage people of other faiths, or defend the Christian worldview, I encourage you to listen to podcasts by Ravi Zacharias, read some of his books, or if possible, see one of his apologists in action.  Their simultaneous knowledge and humility is a great example to uphold.

By nature, a movie like this will polarize.  I get that.  Friends of mine who saw it all loved it, but it was no surprise that IMDB.com was full of vitriolic reviews (from Christian and non-Christian alike).

I expect there were instances where God’s Not Dead inspired thought.  Perhaps it stiffened the spine of some.  I appreciate the idea: stand up for your faith no matter what.  I just wish the movie-makers used a bit more wisdom in how they did it.  We, as Christians, are already viewed in stereotypes of hypocrites, bigots and intolerant fools.  Let’s not prove them right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Trouble With Romantic Comedies… Or This One, Anyway.

I watched a horrible movie this weekend. It was a romantic comedy.

Formulaic as they are, I enjoy a good rom-com. Last weekend I watched Hitch, starring Will Smith. It was good enough to watch twice—witty, well made, even if predictable.

Not so this movie.

It started out alright. Nerdy but cute Rachel is in law school. Her study partner is the handsome nice guy, Discount Tom Cruise, or Dex as they call him. She falls for him, but doesn’t have the guts to say anything, so he up and dates her best friend, Darcy who is an over-the-top extravert and treats them both like garbage. Nevertheless, Discount Tom Cruise and Loudmouth get engaged.

Rachel is crestfallen. See, she still is crushing on Dex. So, one night, with a healthy shot of liquid courage, she blurts out that she had a crush on him in college and Dex wonders why she never said so. More drinks, and things get steamy. Seems Discount Tom Cruise kinda had a thing for her too, and now combined with pre-wedding cold feet, he’s beginning to rethink things.

You don’t have to be a literature major figure out what happens.

The story perpetuates the idea that somewhere out there is ‘the one’, and you must do anything to be with them. Anything.

On the surface there is some nobility to this: sacrificial love, which braves all danger for the beloved. Jesus Christ is a model of sacrificial love, and he is my example for life. Sacrificial love is, in my opinion, the highest of loves—putting aside yourself for the one you love.

But the movie I’ve mentioned twists this noble idea. Dex and Rachel think they just might be meant for each other so they decide to go behind Darcy’s back and ‘figure what this thing is’—read, have an affair. Rachel knows this is wrong, but her friend assures her that sometimes “Good people do bad things”. In the eyes of the writers, betraying Darcy is justifiable because she’s an awful person, and Dex’s and Rachel’s love is ‘true love’.

And we, the viewers, are manipulated into rooting for them as they display flagrant disregard for Darcy’s feelings and their own integrity. All is fair in love and war, the movie seems to say, and when we find out that Darcy, too, has been cheating, it seems we are supposed to conclude that everything is now fair.

It is this lack of integrity that bothers me the most. I will suspend disbelief and say that Dex and Rachel really do love each other. Fine. Now, say ten years down the road things aren’t going so hot. Say Rachel meets some really nice, good looking guy, and things just feel right, and she wants to figure out ‘what this thing is’. Exactly why wouldn’t she cheat on Dex? Why does Rachel think she can trust Dex when he is cheating on his fiancé to be with her?

And Dex, though he’s in love with Rachel, doesn’t have the spine to break it off with Darcy. Neither of them have the guts to come clean until they’re caught. If they display such cowardice now, will they have the courage to deal with the heavy issues of life together?

Character, more than looks, more than personality, more than how they ‘make you feel’ is what counts. Love conquers much, but not all. Whatever crappy self you bring to the relationship won’t disappear with ‘true love’s first kiss’.

Which leads me to:

You know the scene.

“Oh Jack, I love you.”
“I can’t live without you, Frieda”.
Kiss, kiss. More kissing. Rain begins to fall. People walk around them. Kissing. Kissing. Still kissing. That’s how Hitch ended, and I liked that movie.

Rom-coms would have us believe that love is expressed with your lips, or in bed. And it is—but only to a point.

Love is commitment. You commit, and you stand by your commitment. Show me the happy couple two years later, when one spouse has just come home from working a twelve hour shift, cold, exhausted, and the other greets them at the door with a kiss. I like that kiss better. Show me one of the two lying in bed, a bowl beside them, while the other scrubs the vomit off the bathroom floor. Show me them listening to each other and trying to work out a conflict without vindictiveness. Show me one, heart broken by the other, and still standing by them. Show me the couple, married twenty-five years, going for a walk holding hands. Show me them surrounded by a few healthy, happy kids. Show me them, eighty years old, still side by side.

Why don’t they show those parts?

In the end, I’m not bashing romantic comedies. By all means, watch them. I will. But remember that they don’t show the whole story. That when the couple is kissing and the credits are rolling, it is just the beginning. How the couple falls in love is fun to watch, but how they stay in love is more important.

If a movie was made of their last days together, would we still want to watch?

An excellent article on a similar subject is Terri Brady’s “Finding a Character to Marry”.  Also check out parts, 2, 3 and 0.