Archive for June, 2012

June 23, 2012

Part of your world: TG themes in The Little Mermaid

I was doing some filming at a queer cabaret in Cambridge the other day. Despite what I’ve said previously about such safe spaces feeling profoundly un-safe for socially-awkward little me, this particular evening was pretty damn awesome; we raised hundreds of pounds for an LGBTQ library in the city in honour of a recently deceased member of the community, and lots of people have demanded DVDs, so my filming may help them raise even more money. Get in!

Even better, I ended up having an exceptionally stimulating conversation with CN – a musician who also had a vast amount of knowledge concerning queer themes in folklore. In addition to providing me with a stonkingly good reading list (I’m planning on reading Kissing the Witch at the first possible opportunity), they revealed to me the apparently well-known fact that The Little Mermaid was written as a love letter by Hans Christian Anderson to his best friend Edvard Collin – the whole mermaid-WLTM-sexy-human-prince-thing is actually a metaphor for Anderson’s impossible, unreciprocated love for Collin. The original final passage – which expresses the Little Mermaid’s wish to be reunited with her prince in heaven – was a direct insertion of Anderson’s own sentiments.

This reminded me of something I hadn’t thought about in years – a blast from the past, if you will.

Disney is infamous for being terribly gay-phobic. Wanting to avoid pissing off the One-Million-Moms lobby in the U.S. (which is far smaller than a million, and mostly contains angry middle-aged men, rather than mothers), Disney has made all its films gay free. For all those who think that it’s “unsuitable” to include gay themes in something aimed at children – well, you’ll see.

When I first watched Disney’s version of The Little Mermaid, I must’ve been about four. We never had many videos when I was growing up, so I watched the spots off this one. Despite Disney’s policy of never venturing into Prince and Prince territory, The Little Mermaid, has a fair bit of gay stuff included. Ursula (the be-tentacled sea witch whose campy craft fascinated me so much at a tender age) was apparently modeled after the infamous drag-empress Divine. Triton’s parental disgust at Ariel’s desire to be human is familiar to many gay youth these days – whose parents are often at least upset by the revelation that their kids aren’t quite what they expected. However, something nobody else seems to have pointed out is a tiny detail from during Ursula’s song “Poor Unfortunate Souls.”

Little and large: Ursula is not impressed.

During this scene, Ursula conjures up a series of magical holograms to help tell her story. At one point, she reveals a thin, weedy-looking merman and a dumpy depressed-looking mermaid. Ursula sings:

…This one longing to be thinner

This one wants to get the girl…

At least, that’s what the words are meant to be. When I watched the film, I misheard what Ursula was singing (I had trouble with correctly identifying words in song when I was younger) as:

…This one longing to be thinner

This one wants to get them girl…

Much better: Possible TG moment?

This, combined with the lack of visible a human midriff on the fat mermaid in the manner of her more svelte sisters, made me assume that the she was in actual fact a fat merman. I assumed that Ursula had transformed this dumpy bloke into a beautiful woman; that the two unfortunates were actually friends, transformed into lovers by the sea witch’s magic, in order to satisfy both of their deepest desires. I had no idea of queer themes – but I nonetheless arrived at them independently of any express guidance.

So regardless of Disney’s policy regarding queer themes in their creative product – queer kids will be watching regardless. Chaste romance – an integral part of the Disney vision – can involve partners of any gender; homoerotic pairings are no more (or less) intrinsically sexual than heteroerotic ones. And even if only heteroerotic themes are included, as my experience proves, kids will see what they will into what they watch.

June 19, 2012

Tarot: A rationalist’s guide to why it works

This weekend I’ve been back in Cambridge reading fortunes at May Balls. The pay is good (though not as much as it would be for individual readings) although it’s pretty exhausting, reading tarot for three hours solid. It’s occasionally a little dispiriting too, especially if you’re working the queues outside the ball. When you ask people in the queue if they’d like a reading, one of your hyper-intellectual student clientele, usually a man, will regard you with scorn and say “No(!)” in a very get-away-from-me-now-you-superstitious-dickwad sort of a way. Then there’s the always-hilarious moment when a skeptical student haughtily questions your intelligence (“Q: Did you go to university?” – how is this relevant to my entertaining you, I wonder) and looks utterly dumbfounded when I reveal that I’m just as educated as them (“A: Yes, I went to this one actually”). The assumption is that if you read Tarot, you must be some kind of credulous fool, or a charlatan, or both.

The thing is that most people’s assumptions about Tarot, and divination more generally, are basically flawed. They think it amounts to a supernatural ability to access transcendentally valid foreknowledge of future events. This popular image, promoted by Hollywood (it makes for great cinema), paints a picture of those with oracular abilities as chesty, dulcet beauties, who gaze soulfully into the eyes of the hero whilst prognosticating in loose vowels and doubtful archaisms. As I have neither the bust nor the feminine grace of Jane Seymour, I’m sure most of the gentlemen I met in the queue were disappointed that they couldn’t manfully deny the influence of fate in their lives, before promptly ravishing the gift of foresight from me in demonstration of their powers of self-determination, a la Roger Moore in Live and Let Die.

Unfortunately for them, movie Tarot is about as reflective of the real practice as movie science is of the scientific method. Just as Hollywood’s ludicrous attempts to incorporate plate tectonics or viral epidemiology into ripping yarns make the average geologist or pathologist wince, so it is with genuine occultists watching magic on the silver screen.

The first thing that is worth clearing up is that Tarot doesn’t say what Will [Definitely] Happen. The main work of any Tarot spread is not to say what the future holds; it is to analyse the present situation of the quierent. Only three card positions out of the ten in the Celtic Cross spread, for example, are directly concerned with the future. And there’s a reason for this: Tarot assumes the future is what we make of it in the present. Our daily choices alter our future. Try it. Get up and go pour yourself a glass of water. Done it? There. You weren’t going to do that when you started reading this article. You’ve changed your future. Congrats.

This principle is also illustrated by the types of cards that comprise any Rider-Waite Tarot set (the one I use). This traditional iteration of Tarot consists of the Minor Arcana – four suits, each of which corresponds to a classical element and an aspect of life (emotions, creativity, intellect and practical concerns) – and the Major Arcana – a set of cards that together compose a sort of Bildungsroman; beginning in ignorance (The Fool) and progressing through choice, refinement and change to ultimate completion (The World). The basic meanings of the cards are obviously not geared towards predicting specific events, but towards personal development. Like a work of great literature, the Rider-Waite Tarot deck deals with universal human themes in such a way that you can use it to reflect upon your own life’s course. The aim isn’t prediction in any scientific sense, but rather a sort of self-gnosis, that supports better living in the world.

The rationalist might ask: if this psychological blueprint is so good, why dress it up in pretty pictures and symbols? The answer, in my view, is that the symbolism is what makes it so good. It makes it fun. It encourages the imaginative, creative aspects to the human psyche to engage with a process that would otherwise be rather dry. Denuded of this playful aspect – perhaps into some HR event-compatible “Rider-Waite Lifemapping System” – Tarot would not engage quierents (or readers) to the same degree, and therefore would not be as affecting. Play is the major way in which humans learn, and let’s not forget that Tarot is first and foremost a game of cards.

This is as much I am sure of. There are other things I have observed in my time as a reader, though, that lead me to think there might be more to it than the use of play to empower introspection. The awkward truth is, that Tarot works. Despite being based on the random process of shuffling some cards, Tarot seems capable of answering questions, and scoping out the current situation of a person (not to mention probably consequences of this) with unnerving accuracy. Even my dad, who is an arch-rationalist, was disconcerted when my reading for him turned out to be super accurate.

Now, I am well aware of the positivist argument for why Tarot appears to work. A mixture of cold reading, combined with interpretive drift, positive bias (a tendency to remember positive results and ignore negative ones), and a suitably general and mutable regime of meaning. Personally, I have no problems with this explanation. When skeptics like Derren Brown attempt to explain away divinatory techniques’ effectiveness by claiming their insights are broad enough to apply to anybody and draw on human interaction to seem real, they miss the point – it is the fact that they are universally applicable and resolutely social that gives them their power. Even if the mechanism is pure psychology; Tarot still works. Like performance art, the bundle of symbolic cards and psychological tricks can be used for good, or for ill – to manipulate or to help. But it’s still an effective way of altering perception and assisting self-reflection. Then of course, there is what the Tarot books themselves say about the power of intuition and the spiritual forces at work behind the cards. These claims are non-scientific, and therefore they are difficult to address scientifically. Personally, I view them as simply another way of talking about the same processes I have mentioned above, although I can understand if they might be off-putting to a dyed-in-the-wool rationalist.

Still, I wonder if there might be more to it than that. I wonder if the numerical structures within Tarot (14 cards in each of four suits, 4 of which in each suit correspond to personalities + the major arcana) are uniquely effective at throwing up meaningful patterns when attributed significance in terms of a life’s course. I wonder if human shuffling is a truly randomizing act (friends often bring up the same cards but in a different order; suggesting to me that there may be some unconscious process by which individuals may imitate how their friends shuffle the pack). I wonder if the imagination, so crucial to Tarot’s effectiveness, might have some deeper order that Tarot as a practice reveals and harnesses. I wonder if all of this comes together to produce something that is more effective than is often assumed.

June 14, 2012

A Faun’s Exile

Narnia is a realm dominated by one voice – the roar Aslan of the East. He has cried out many times in our history, drowning out all others. Sometimes in love, sometimes in anger. Sometimes with great cause. But only ever when it has suited him.

- Cybil of Beaversdam.

There is a deep magic, unknown to most. There is a deeper magic, unknown even to the wise. Then there is the deepest magic – known to everyone.

- Piphallow.

 

 

I first read the Chronicles of Narnia when I was six. The triple volume we had in our house contained the first three books in the series – The Magician’s Nephew; The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe; The Horse and His Boy. I can still remember the front cover now; a thick, starry-blue border, edging around a rolling green landscape that swept up to high mountains beneath a clear sky. In the foreground stood the Great Lion himself; Aslan looking gold and glorious as always. It was an evocative image, and it drew me in.

My parents were surprised and overjoyed when I started reading it off my own bat. I devoured the books; first reading The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, then The Horse and his Boy, and finally The Magicians Nephew. I remember whisking my way through pages and pages of text, whilst my friends at school were still stumbling through picturebooks. Words like “gifted” were bandied about over my head in hushed tones.

 

I didn’t care about that, though. I was worlds away  – dancing with fauns, fleeing from wolves and exploring the lantern wastes. I was in love. In love with Narnia, its people, its places, its culture. It was a vision of a totally animate world; and yet, one that was still earthy – it wasn’t some ethereal Neverwhere, hard to imagine separately to its bookish casings – it felt like (what I now call) ethnography; a thick description of a real place with realistic people. There are plenty of less-than-pleasant parts of Lewis’ vision – the sexism towards adult women, the blatant xenophobia, the authoritarian glint in Aslan’s leonine eye – but I didn’t notice any of it. To my six-year-old mind, the nasty hobby-horses of Lewis’ rode past unnoticed; the Christian allegory, 1950s ethnocentricism and 1930s misogyny moving over my head, perhaps intended to be visible to older children. What did stick with me was the obvious Paganism upon which Lewis drew – the walking trees, the speaking beasts, the divine waters. I recognized them at once as friends and true gods, following them into the wild, forgotten places of the text, whilst Lewis played his Game of Thrones in the wide, open country of chapter upon chapter.

 

Because Lewis did focus upon heroes. Heroes, by and large, I didn’t really care about. Peter, Edmund, Eustace, Jill, and even Lucy seemed rather old-fashioned to the millennial me. I was frustrated by how I was expected to only empathise with a person if they hailed from my own world. I felt patronized even at age six by this authorial choice. It was for this reason that my favourite in the series was The Horse and His Boy; here was a book where those irritating Pevensies and their fellow travelers only got involved at the edges. This book is also, incidentally, populated by characters who have the least interest in Aslan – Shasta and Hwin barely knows who he is, Aravis doesn’t care, Bree doesn’t get him at all despite using him as something of a battle-standard.

But what I really loved about Horse was that it gave a precious insight into ordinary Narnia. Towards the end of the book, Shasta, on his way to the capital of Archenland, manages to find his way into Narnia proper. There, he meets a community of everyday Narnians – dwarves, fauns, talking beasts. Simple people, leading their uneventful, happy lives in the forest. He spends a-few short hours amongst them, eating bacon and seeing what he’s been missing all those years in the south, before rushing off to save the day. The narrative follows him, but my heart remained in those quiet woods. I read that chapter again and again, wishing the pages would open up and lower me down gently onto a bower of golden leaves and celandines; only to be greeted by a band of dwarves with a kettle on the boil.

 

I read the rest of the books only later, receiving them a couple of years later at Christmas. I loved Prince Caspian – the trees and awakening gods avenging themselves on dull Telmarine Narnia struck a chord that still sounds in my heart today. As The Voyage of the Dawn Treader didn’t actually take place in Narnia, and ended in what seemed at the time to be a sort of fuzziness I couldn’t pierce (i.e. Christian allegory) so I didn’t much care for it. The Silver Chair, overwhelmingly bleak, had brief points of relief for me in shedding light on the irascible marsh-wiggles and a positively Bosch-esque winter celebration when Eustace, Jill and co. return to Narnia.

 

Then I read The Last Battle. Each page left me feeling worse and worse. Here was the land I loved being torn to pieces. The trees being felled, the waters stilled, the animals broken as dumb beasts. Things got worse, and worse. And then, when all seemed darkest – Lewis rewarded me with the utter annihilation of Narnia, and most of its people, in fire and death.

 

What replaced it? A heroes reunion. Christian Allegory. More Pevensies. In short, everything I cared least about, was assured salvation!

 

The Narnia I loved – that magical Arcadia half-way between dreaming and waking – was replaced by something I found utterly incomprehensible. Like an onion, but bigger on the inside – what utter madness, I remember thinking, that doesn’t make sense at all! My visual imagination struggled to grasp this eschatological bulb, trying to imagine it as simultaneously England-and-Narnia-and-Everywhere all at once. I failed. The Christian intention of the books, once entirely invisible to me, had now become all there was to see. Sad though it is, Aslan’s Country seemed entirely foreign to me.

 

I was ten at the time, and I cried. I cried because I didn’t understand why Narnia had gone, or if it had gone, at all. I cried because I felt that all those nice, ordinary Narnians – simple people, who asked for nothing except a peaceful life – must’ve been exactly the sort to be tricked by Shift and his idiotic donkey-lion… who (and I really couldn’t believe this part) was allowed into this post-Narnia place, despite the fact that he had shown exactly the same level of ignorance that the others had done; they had been damned, yet he had not. I cried because I knew the Narnia I had believed in, was, in the eyes of the author, gone. And what’s more, he felt that was a good thing.

 

Now I am older. I ended up converting to the faith that Lewis himself followed – Anglican Christianity – in the vain hope of recovering some of the mystery I had felt close to in reading those first books, and that had been thoroughly banished by the Last Battle. Rather ironic really. I now realize that it was at around the time that I read that damn book that the rot to set in – the gradual loss of innocence that was less about becoming interested in stockings and lipstick and boys, as Lewis might have it, and was more about believing the world didn’t actually have any magic in it at all. Lewis successfully broke the spells woven through my Pagan heart, by shattering it in two – for a while, anyway. In the depression that followed, I was vulnerable in precisely the way that Christianity is so adept at addressing. As such, I became a Christian.

In the end, Christianity did little for me. It energized the worst parts of my character – the self-righteous, self-hating, self-denying tendency that I still have trouble with – and left me feeling harrowed and guilty over my sexuality and my philosophical outlook. I spent years worrying about being gay and about possibly doing something that would get me sent to hell. The voices I heard on the wind told me I was safe. But the angry words of other Christians told me something different. I doubted.

 

Gradually, though, I was guided back into Paganism. Those voices in the wind revealed themselves as gods, not one God and saints. Those angry words were shown to be vacuous and fearful by plenty of good education and reflection. At Cambridge and through Druidry, I found my community – my Narnia. And now, after all these years, I’ve found myself again too.

 

Personally, I think authors need to take responsibility over what they write. The impact children’s books have on those that read them can be immense. I am sure that the Narnia books are one of the formative influences in my life. So much of my pleasure and pain has flowed from the triumphs and mistakes of Lewis’ work. His vast knowledge of Pagan, particularly Classical culture, flowed into the Narnia books – where the themes they created helped nourish my love of the same. However, his hamfisted, doctrinaire submission of those themes to Christian allegory helped quicken the despair I felt as I lost the magical sensibilities of my childhood.

 

So: I figure that an update is necessary. A Narnia for the 90s. Or the Noughteens. Regardless, just as I have peeled back my own character’s Christian patina and liked what I saw beneath, so I’m going to try and do the same for Narnia; and see what happens!

June 6, 2012

Jubileeway: Thoughts after a weekend of Pageantry

This Tuesday sees the last of many celebrations, marking our monarch’s 60th year on the throne. Reams of bunting, mountains of barbequed meat, oceans of pimms and enough cake to sink a royal yacht have been devoured in honour of Queen Liz – and a merry time was had by all.

Except on Twitter and Facebook, where legions of those I follow have expressed their overwrought frustration about the entire affair. Plenty of people I know have avoided built-up areas because of the doubtlessly thronging crowds; still more have kept their televisions switched off in order to avoid the BBC’s shambolic and obsessive commentary of the whole thing.

 

My mum and dad have been away for most of the weekend – going out to a jubilee party on Sunday and a beacon-lighting ceremony last night. I couldn’t attend the former because I had a friend staying over, nor the latter because I had two blogs to write. But whenever they’ve been in, my mum and to a lesser extent my dad have spent a good couple of hours watching the celebrations in London.

 

Now, I’m not an ardent republican. I have quite a lot of respect for the Queen as an individual, so I think the degree of violent bile certain anti-monarchists tend to vomit in her direction – wishing her dead, that sort of thing – is just horrible. Personally, I feel that when the real power-brokers in our society – large corporations and the big political parties – do great evil on a daily basis; it seems rather odd to get more annoyed about a little appendix of a power-structure like the royal family. There are far bigger fish to fry.

 

But I’ve nonetheless found the jubilee celebrations irritating. For me, the main thing is not who is being celebrated, but what – sure, it’s about Britishness, but what vision of Britishness has the jubilee been used to express? What values flow from it, and underpin it? And where might those values take us as a society?

It’s pretty clear that what’s being invoked with all the funny hats and partying in the rain is the sort of obstinate zeitgeist that characterized the Britain throughout and between the two World Wars – a blitz spirit of pulling together as one nation in the face of adversity. The sheer amount of wanky emoting about how everyone was doing so very well at partying despite the recession and despite the rain was being eagerly pumped straight from the rhetoric of a 1940s public service announcement. Of course, nobody seemed to feel that equating standing out in the wet for a couple of hours and or buying some (reduced in price, numerous in quantity) foodstuffs, to an entire nation fighting for its life, to be poor taste.

 

Despite Wilfrid Owen’s dire warning about the attitude of dulce et decorum est, pro patriae mori in the First War, the British sense of national pride never quite broke under the weight of mass mortality and destruction of the two wars; instead, the heat of battle reforged the tattered remnants of our 1900s swagger into a sort of quieter dignity; gone was the Empire, in its place was a Commonwealth, with a mawkishly nostalgic former colonizer at its heart. Nostalgic not for the glory days of the Raj and British hegemony though, but for a “Finest Hour” that happened immediately afterwards. Instead of believing, as the rest of Europe does, that the Wars were a terrifying part of a collective history that must never repeated, we Brits seem obsessed with them; or at least, who we were whilst under their influence. We still talk of those dark days reverently, even fondly, and have been busily elevating them to the position of a national foundation myth for the past eighty years. It seemed to me that a wartime, Edwardian tone stalked behind the jubilee celebrations; which, combined with the constant obsessing over what Britishness is, Euroscepticism, the continued popularity of Downton Abbey and Upstairs Downstairs, stands as grim testament to our collective sense of awe at our grandparents and great grandparents who fought for us – a sense of awe that sits at the heart of how we think about our national identity.

 

All this is completely understandable, of course. It is only natural that after the transformative experience of two world wars and losing an empire, that Britain should become a very different nation. The nation it has become doesn’t represent what I most love about this place – the magic and the fire and the rustic mysteries of the Isle of the Mighty – but instead this sort of pseudish ironic mashup of the 1950s, the 1890s and the present. But I also note with concern how easily this hero-worship has been used by those in power to silence dissent and to demonize rebellion. Legitimate protest and popular revolt, such profound mainstays of British folk culture since Boudicca, have become almost blasphemous, held up against the sterling example of our (genuinely) brave boys and girls who went off to fight and die without complaint. The spiritual (and sometimes physical) descendants of the very over-privileged dolts who sent our young men to die by the thousands at Ypres and Passiondale are now elevated as the respectable voice of necessity. And yes, they still send our brave soldiers to die in foreign fields – just look at Iraq. While those of us who cry foul at the injustice of it all are decried by those same elites as weasley malcontents. The social justice campaigner is the new “conchie”.

Of course, they will be those who say that the jubilee isn’t about these sort of divisions. But that’s precisely the problem – such events as the jubilee are fully part of the spectacular pageantry of statecraft; serving the explicit purpose of masking the differences between the many echelons of British society, merging us into a single political body – with the head of that body being the Head of State herself. Bathed in the reflected glow of Her Majesty – as we saw during the service of celebration at St Pauls – are the rich and powerful. And the City of London Corporation; the very organization which was instrumental in clearing St Pauls of Occupy; hosted a sumptuous reception after the service. At a time where we more than ever need to hold the wealthy and priviledged to account, we’re being encouraged to wave the flag and proclaim our solidarity, regardless of income. This is as a perversion of the genuine heroism of our forebears; a cunning confidence trick, that makes a mockery of what they stood for.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers