Eating Animals

“We can't plead ignorance, only indifference. Those alive today are the generations that came to know better. We have the burden and the opportunity of living in the moment when the critique of factory farming broke into the popular consciousness. We are the ones of whom it will be fairly asked, What did you do when you learned the truth about eating animals?” 

I felt duped as I plunged into another of Jonathan Safran Foer’s books. His third book, “Eating Animals,” is not a brilliant work of fiction, but an exposé of factory farming.

As usual, his writing is brilliant, and with this tool he tries to justify his vegetarianism, and convince others to follow in his footsteps. He brings in a number of perspectives, from factory farm workers, to family farm owners, to PETA activists. He explores what he is willing to give up, and is fairly thorough. He explains the evils of the fishing industry, of the poultry farms (both for meat and eggs), but when he gets to cattle, his chapter is sorely lacking. He explains that this is the least cruel, in the sense that they live a fairly decent life, and concludes by describing tortuous murders of these animals. I also noted that he did not describe the life of cows who produce our milk- is it possible that he is not willing to give that up, so he will not divulge? Or is it not gruesome enough to waste words on describing?

His argument is that we have the ability to eat other foods, so we should not support industries that have such terrible work ethic. There is no flaw there. The problem is that he is unclear as to whether or not he believes that one can eat solely family farm meat and be morally in the right.

I spoke to a rabbi over the weekend regarding this. Am I responsible to make sure that I do not buy from products that support things I do not believe in? (i.e., terrorism), and he readily said yes. Then I asked him about buying eggs. According to the Jewish tradition, hurting animals is absolutely forbidden, so am I responsible to ensure that I am not supporting an industry that locks birds up into small boxes to create as many eggs as possible. This method is not a secret; there are many books and video exposés on this topic. His response is that there is no way America would allow such a practice. He cannot believe this. I was told to rely on the government to regulate the laws, so no, I do not have to do research. If I know as a fact that this is happening, though, I should buy eggs (or whatever else) from a place without such practices.

This is the attitude I have been seeing lately. No one wants to know where their food comes from, and no one wants to believe that our government can be so corrupt in its dealings with corporations. Well, I have no such naïveté.

I do believe humans are omnivores, I do not see it any more wrong for me to eat chicken, then for an owl to eat a mouse. This is how the world works. I do have a problem in the unhealthy and cruel methods of many of these factories. I have a problem in people pretending that they do not exist.

Mr. Foer: Even though I was hoping for one of your thought provoking novels, you gave me another thing for me to think about. 

Larsson's Three Book Letter to the Govornment

“Dear Government... I'm going to have a serious talk with you if I ever find anyone to talk to.”

Turning pages Saturday night, I was unable to put my book down until the last page was read. For the last two weeks I have been reading through “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” series, and have enjoyed it thoroughly.

The translation from Swedish to English was well done, so much so that many who I have spoken to did not believe me.  Steig Larsson brilliantly wove together many storylines to create this thrill ride. There is action, retribution, murder, mystery.

The first book, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” is by far the best. The overarching plot is a 40-year-old mystery. I do feel obligated to warn readers that it is not for the sensitive at heart. The book is full of intrigues, but also contains very violent scenes including rape.

The next two books are more about the social injustices committed against Lisbeth Salander, the most fascinating character I have met as of yet. These are much less sexually graphic, although the plot revolves around the Swedish sex trade.

The ideas that Larsson brings up are regarding political honesty, and how many individuals are forced to suffer due to the lack of justice. Americans can relate to this. The poor condition of our child services leaves much to be desired. There is often no retribution for victims of sexual abuse due to the statute of limitations in many states. Police often abuse their power. Many who try to defend themselves are found guilty of assault and battery. 

There is something very appealing about the way Lisbeth Salander defends herself and does what she thinks is right despite the legal system. 

The Hunger Games

“But they teach them about them at school, and the girl knows we played a role in them

My children who don’t know they play in a graveyard.

But one day I’ll have to explain about my nightmares. Why they came. Why they won’t ever really go away”

Having just finished the trilogy of Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, devouring each word within a weekend, I am glad to finally have fallen back in love with reading. I decided to pick it up because I overheard a conversation between a couple of my seventh graders regarding the book. One girl was explaining to the other that she wished she had waited a couple years before reading it, and that it was really “intense.” After reading it myself, I readily agree.

Hunger Games is no more violent then The Inheritance Series by Christopher Paolini or the seventh Harry Potter book. It is the premise. The premise is what makes a preteen admit to needing a few more years before facing the horrors of this trilogy. The book is a post apocalyptic novel, in which the President forces each district to give two children a year to participate in a tournament. Only one child in 24 is meant to survive. Much of the final book Mockingjay is reminiscent of the holocaust, and of the PTSD, which afflicted many survivors.

This book is geared to preteens and teens (12-17), but I would bump that up a bit, probably ages 16+ due to the premise. I don’t think that most kids under 16 are able to handle graphic holocaust novels, and this seems to fictionally slip into that category. A few seemingly minor details make this easier to read for the young reader. The fact that it is in first person narrative gives away the fact that the protagonist, Katniss Everdeen , survives the trilogy. The tame romance (no more than kissing) spurs the reader on for a bittersweet ending (I don’t want to give it away, but the love triangle is compelling).

The themes in the trilogy are interesting to think about (even as an adult). 

Is Collins warning the reader against Big Government? Is she warning about the inherent corruptness of Socialism? Are we sacrificing our children for peace now, even though no one really wins? Is war any better then murder? Is Katniss Everdeen less of a pawn when she is a soldier than a player in the Games? What do you think Collins is saying about our current social position? Is there a purpose of calling the radical leader a “President” or is that a coincidence? What do you think? 

East of Eden: The Great Unknown

I got hooked by Steinbeck's East of Eden a few years back, and my obsession brought me to see both the movie and the television series. After being dissapointed by the award winning movie, I was told by a neighbor that in the early 80's there was a mini-series that I should look into. After searching for a while to find it online, I resorted to buying it on VHS via ebay. This was a bit over a year ago, but i just re-watched it and was as impressed by it as the first time around.

The story-line is a modern day retelling of the story of Cain and Abel, as well as the search of Adam Trask (played by Timothy Bottoms) to find the meaning behind the hebrew word "timshal." Although the latter point is not established in depth by the series, avid readers would appreciate that it was the last word of the show. The heart of the book was definitely shown (which was my complaint against the movie, it barely touched the depth of the book).

For any movie buffs, one of the main actresses, Karen Allen who played Abra, was also the female lead in the first Indiana Jones movie. The other well known name, Jane Seymour, played the evil mother Cathy.

When I bring this series up in conversation nobody has heard of it. Have any of my readers indulged in this series? I would highly recommend it, and if you can't find it online, I'll lend it to you!

She's the Man: Would Shakespeare be Proud?

Thanks to a good friend, I sat down to enjoy this amazingly funny movie. Andy Fikman's "She's the Man" was the ultimate entertainment. Amanda Bynes plays Viola, a soccar player forced to dress as her brother to be able to play. Through awkward-guy moments, romance, and laughter, Viola wins the game, the man, and many friends. This movie was inspired by Shakespeare's 12th Night.

For those of us who love Shakespeare, there would be a debate: Is this insulting, or would Shakespeare be proud to be associated with this movie?

Keep in mind that this movie was inspired by him, and this in itself would have made him glad, but as an actor, Shakespeare would have appreciated the humor and the entertainment value.

As a poet, he would have seen it as a shallow script, not much thought put between the lines despite the obvious humor of it.

Whatever he would have thought about it, I enjoyed laughing with a friend.

Girls' Night Out: Eat Pray Love

I would be lying if I said that I was expecting any depth to the movie Eat Pray Love, I thought it would be a typical chick flick and went just to spend more time with my sister. Having never read the book, I had no idea what to expect (admittedly I own the book and did plan on reading it). Since Julia Roberts is one of my favorite actresses, I went without a fight, even though generally I avoid chick flicks. Eat Pray Love is not what I consider a chick flick (I'm not sure where I picked that idea up), especially when one considers the visual effects, the plot, and the depth of confusion woven into the movie.

Eat Pray Love was visually magical. Since the story had Liz Gilbert (played by Roberts) travel from Italy to India to Bali in four month increments, the montage was not only a beautiful tour, but a way to tell Gilbert's story without having the audience sit through a six-hour long movie. The music only added to the color and journey, allowing us a real glance of her story.

Her story, what is her story? Much of the background was left unexplained, and some of it was alluded to by tastefully done flashbacks, but much of it was left to the imagination. (Is it like that in the book?) The plot synapses on imdb.com says "While trying to get pregnant, a happily married woman realizes her life needs to go in a different direction, and after a painful divorce, she takes off on a round-the-world journey." I was not under the impression that they were trying to have a baby. There was a conversation between Liz Gilbert and Delia Shiraz (played by Viola Davis) about when the latter realized she wanted a baby. Despite the ambiguity of why she wanted to leave, her decision to divorce her husband did not make her happy. Her traveling the world did not make her happy, nor did food, prayer, or men. Her happiness came from inside, it came from her meditations in which she was to smile with her whole body. This is a story of finding happiness and balance, and of course, love.

After the movie, I decided that although I enjoyed the movie, I do not necessarily agree with Gilbert's method of finding happiness. Theoretically there are two ways to become happy, changing one's surroundings, or changing one's insides. Eat Pray Love seems to suggest that the only way to find happiness is to run away from your life, and try to 'find' yourself in other cultures. I have always believed that this is the immature way of finding happiness. There is a strength in keeping one's support group and continuing life, and acknowledging the wonderful gifts that one has. To go on vacation to be able to see that is not a bad thing, but leaving everyone important to you, giving up on family, friends, and work for a year, is not anything I would be able to do, as it seems cowardly.

Am I wrong?

Pinter, a Practical Joke?

Tonight was the premier viewing of No Man's Land by Harold Pinter at the Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey. For those of you who have read or seen a play by Pinter and came out with a new view on life- I envy you. My goal of seeing plays is to see the world through another's eyes, and gain an appreciation. To leave with gladness in my heart, or mascara smudges beneath my eyes is a sign that my evening (along with the $10 ticket) was not wasted. Walking into the theatre gave me a false sense that my curiosity will be aroused, and that new ideas will flit into my mind. Beautiful scenery and lighting gave way to a most peculiar show.

No Man's Land has no plot, which apparently is a theme of Pinter's and the director, Bonnie J. Monte, explained that this displacement was the reason he won a Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005, since it had great influence on modern playwrights. Unfortunately, I enjoy the classic build of a story. There is just something about having a beginning and a middle that brings the play to life. When asked by my grandparents what it was about my answer was "four guys in a room, talking."

The text was rich, in the way modern poetry so often is. I felt stupid for not understanding why the audience was wracked with laughter, half of the words alluded me. Whether it be boredom or confusion, the play made little sense until afterwards when discussions arose. Was it a dream? Was it reality? Who was Spooner, was he an alter ego? Where were they? The questions went on and on, most of them being just as juvenile as the last few. When the director and actors came out for a q&a session after the play, Monte mentioned a story about Pinter's flippant answer to the question of what his play meant. His "the weasel under the cocktail cabinet" answer was analyzed as a true commentary about his play instead of a flippant answer (which he supposedly regretted afterwards).

This story got me thinking. Maybe he really is talented, but realizes that it doesn't matter. If he can write a string of complicated words to create a conversation, and make it strange enough with no concrete evidence of what is going on, then all theater and english majors in college will still manage to find subliminal meanings to ramblings and clarity in his confused works. Why they bother is beyond me, since in the play itself they claim that "it is not method but madness", so why bother trying?

The idea of a dream was bounced around, and if you have seen, or read this play let me know what you think. The version I saw featured many dreamlike settings, a five walled room, blackness beyond the window although all characters claimed it was daytime.

Before I wrap this up, I want to point out that the detailed scenic design was extraordinary, and really created a strange dimension of life onstage. The lighting, though unusual due to use of elipsoidles, was well done and very realistic. Each individual part of the play was beautiful. Each costume, lamp, actor, was immaculate and beautifully shown on stage, but together created a strange play that cannot be categorized.

To have my first play critique be about such a complicated script is both frustrating to me and a challenge, and I hope it does not dissuade you from attending the theatre in general. My advice on this play? See it, but only if you have the patience to mull it over afterwards until the play settles into the crevices of your mind.