I recently submitted a vlog (video blog) submission to geek and sundry as a potential pitch to be one of their video bloggers. Here was the concept: I would do a weekly vlog about characters, themes, tv shows, etc., that were nerdy only I would put my own psychological twist, interpretation, and/or analysis on the subject matter because of my background and passions (not bad, right? I thought it was an OK idea, maybe not the funniest). Anyways, we shall see how it turns out.
What I would like to write about is the actual example I gave in my vlog pitch: the relationships between Sam, Frodo, and Gollum in LOTR and the concept of the ring and what it represents. Here's what I asked: Why do we like Samwise Gamgee? Why do we love him the most as a character? And it isn't as simple as he has qualities that are noble or loyal. To understand Sam, to understand why we like Sam, we have to go back to the original books and the origins of Sam.
Samwise Gamgee was the Baggins' gardener. He was from a lesser class. He was--dare I say--the outcast of the four. No, not outcast, but perhaps, out of the ordinary. Frodo, Merry, and Pippin, dreamed of adventure, dreamed of leaving the Shire and living the stories in which they read in books. Sam enjoyed telling and reading those stories as well, but he didn't care for it: he wanted to stay in the Shire, have kids, raise a family. But what happens? He goes because of Frodo, because he's a loyal friend, despite all the great things that could keep him happy in the Shire. He has no special powers. He is not charged with any quest deemed by fate. He is completely ordinary, while his actions are extraordinary. That is one reason that Sam is so special. He's the underdog in LOTR, the lowest of the low, and he does the most with what he's got.
What develops is one of the most interesting--at least for me--psychological examples of writing that has ever happened in fantasy. It isn't seen much until the company parts ways and Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are left to fend for themselves as they travel toward Mount Doom. We, as viewers and readers, see a major difference between Frodo and Sam: Frodo's behavior/actions are easily manipulated by the situation; people easily influence Frodo--the constant push and pull of Sam and Gollum on him is what I'm talking about here. Frodo's actions are so malleable that he becomes to the reader, completely undependable--which allows us to not be surprised when he fails to throw the ring into Mount Doom. Gollum is able to manipulate Frodo so well that he reaches the point where he abandons his best friend who has been with Frodo since as long as he can remember. Sam, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. He is an anchor in the midst of chaos. We can't cling to Frodo; we can't cling to Gollum; we can't cling to Gandalf (he dies). We can cling to Aragorn, Merry, or Pippin, but they aren't essential--if they died the world will still be saved if Frodo can drop the ring into Mount Doom. Thus, Tolkien presents a beautiful contrast: Frodo is completely undependable, while Sam is completely dependable. He's loyal to a fault. He loves Frodo unconditionally. And no matter what the situation, you know his actions are true and geared towards the greater good.
Besides Sam having the most poignant moments and sayings in the books and movies alike, he also represents something else: moral purity. The ring is used as a vehicle for this. At first glance, the ring represents power--it's the most obvious conclusion to make because of all the shit surrounding it. Evil desires it, while Good desires to destroy it. But the ring itself isn't evil is it? It's a ring. How could it possibly be evil? The ring is an external manifestation of human flaws: For Boromir it was power. Boromir wanted power and that's what drew him to the ring. For Frodo, it's mistrust, its the manifestation of human flaws in physical form. The ring distorts the purity of Frodo. It taints the love between Frodo and Sam (not homosexual love, but I'm sure there is literature on that). A writer mentioned a psychological analysis of these three and said that Frodo and Gollum represented the best and worst qualities of Sam (i.e., Frodo the noble/moral and Gollum the instinctual/addictive need). I disagree. Sam represented the best qualities of Frodo.
As for Gollum, the ring was an external manifestation of instinct. A Jekyl and Hyde phenomenon. Under the ring's spell, he killed his friends/relatives. The split personality develops, one wanting to do good, the other wanting to do total evil (Jekyl and Hyde); Gollum represents an age old theme: the duality of man. He was addicted to it like Jekyl was to Hyde. He loved himself and he hated himself. He loved the ring and hated the ring. Jekyl loved Hyde...and hated him. "My precious" comes to mind. It was a love of sorts. A love and hate relationship. An addictive love, kinda like Heathcliff and Catherine in Wuthering Heights. Okay that's all I got. Have a good one, guys.
--Matt
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Evolution: Sometimes its a pain
I was in a restaurant the other day called Diamond Thai (they obviously specialize in Thai food) here in Sioux City, Iowa, and besides the fact that they make great pad thai, I had the opportunity to eavesdrop on a conversation that was going on at the table next to me. Okay, I don't like to eavesdrop, but when your little chitter chatter is louder and more irritating than the garbage truck I hear every morning at 5am, then I have a right to drop into the conversation.
Anyways, they were talking about men--it was a group of ladies talking, well, not really talking, but venting about the woes of men. The concept in question was an age old thing that women complain about: men don't listen; we want to solve everything. All right, yeah ladies you're right: men want to solve everything; we want to do it because we think that's the best way to make you happy--we are not saying its right, just that that is how we think. Women want someone to listen, just to provide a welcoming ear, and to be able to empathize with the problem. They don't want it solved; they can do it on their own, but what they don't have is someone that shows they truly care about the problem, well, once again, they do (their friends), but sometimes they don't want to talk about it with their friends: they want to talk about it with you because you're her partner; you're her best friend (theoretically).
This blog post isn't intended to complain about women or men for that matter, but as I sat there, I looked across to Euodia (she's a grad student in the same program as me) and I started to laugh: You see, ladies, evolutionarily speaking, men solving problems for women has been the way to A) protect them, B) show they care, and C) get them into bed. Think about it: Men who proved their physical prowess by fighting, protecting, and showing they can produce viable offspring are the ones that get picked. This is still seen today in humans, but only much subtler ways. This has been hundreds upon thousands of years of evolutionary behavior; it is only recently--say, the 1960s or so--that this has really started to change (e.g., women becoming bread winners, fighting for rights of equality, equal pay, sexual liberation, feminism in movies, books, etc). The point: it's going to take us guys awhile to change (sorry, I know its frustrating, be patient).
So, taking a break from the guy bashing at the Diamond Thai place, I'm going take this opportunity to talk about some more disturbing evolutionary behaviors that both ladies and men can be lucky we don't do.
Case 1) Male Redback Spider:
So some species of spiders, the female spider being the more powerful and also being the one that needs to provide for the offspring will forcefully eat the male spider during or after copulation; however, this concept is much more interesting in the male redback spiders. The males in this species during copulation voluntarily place their abdomen over the female's mouth to be devoured. Why? Research has shown that after their first round of copulation, the likelihood that they are able to produce offspring is highly unlikely, and therefore, the first time is their best chance of having kids. Somehow they know this and therefore want to do as much as possible to make that happen, even if that means sacrificing themselves to provide the female with additional nutrients and supplies for food in the coming months--which is what they do.
Case 2) The Argentinian Lake Duck
The Argentinian Lake Duck has the longest penis of any bird species (yeah guys, get excited), but it isn't what you think. There is an evolutionary adaptation for this: women sometimes try and escape during copulation with a male Lake Duck and so what does he do? He "lassos" that's right he "lassos" the female with his penis, throwing it around her neck so she can't escape... in a sense, he's a serial rapist.
Case 3) Honeybee.
The queen bee gets a select few of males to copulate with her. They are the select few amongst many, many men, kinda like the bacholerette--actually, no, more like the hunger games. Male honeybees (the ones chosen) begin copulating and at the end of it their penis breaks off inside the queen, and their testicles explode. Yeah. Think about that guys. The reason has complete evolutionary basis: the snapped-off penis acts as a genital plug from other males, preventing them from copulating, and thus, allow them to have their offspring continue. And obviously, when the male honeybee does this, he dies. So. yay for men.
Case 4) Greylag Geese
Something interesting is happening in the Greylag Geese: Males are choosing other males to mate with. No one knows why, but some theories are that there is no sexual dimorphism in the species--that is, you can't tell, from human observation, the difference between male and females. And so researchers think that they males can't either. However, contrary to this, some scientists are suggesting this isn't the case, citing the fact that when engaging in pre-copulatory rituals, men exhibit significantly different behavioral gestures that women don't exhibit, and thus, theoretically, male geese should know its a male by how they act. How do females compensate for this? They slip in during male to male copulation in order for their eggs to become fertilized--clever little things aren't they?
Okay, I told you for the last time: I didn't know it was a dude. I'm blind as a bat and I'm not that smart.
Okay, so back to this convo I was listening to. As I talked with Euodia about it, I wondered about it all and said, "You know, maybe in a thousand years, women will be around the table gabbing and saying, 'why can't my man just solve a problem for me? Does he always have to listen?'".... This maybe true, but what is probably truer and already starting to happen is what Euodia replied with: "With all the female advancement in women's rights, feminism, etc., I think it will be Men in a thousand years gabbing about how women always want to solve everything." Bahaha how true is that? I could definitely see it. I mean come on. Guys, how awesome would it be to be a stay-at-home Dad? Okay, yeah taking care of the kids would be hard and accepting the fact that your wife is the breadwinner or that you might not have a career until later in life may be hard to accept, but people (men) are already doing this. What is the evolutionary palette going to look like in a hundred years, hell even fifty years? Hopefully, it won't be like the honeybee or the redback spider where we are killing ourselves for our women--we've already done that years ago in many cultures. But perhaps it may look like Euodia said: men sitting around chit chatting about women and how they don't listen. Sounds like something I would see in a Sitcom. So next time if your complaining about the opposite sex just remember that, on both sides, we are fighting years upon years of evolutionary mechanisms. Be patient. =). All the best.
--Matt
Anyways, they were talking about men--it was a group of ladies talking, well, not really talking, but venting about the woes of men. The concept in question was an age old thing that women complain about: men don't listen; we want to solve everything. All right, yeah ladies you're right: men want to solve everything; we want to do it because we think that's the best way to make you happy--we are not saying its right, just that that is how we think. Women want someone to listen, just to provide a welcoming ear, and to be able to empathize with the problem. They don't want it solved; they can do it on their own, but what they don't have is someone that shows they truly care about the problem, well, once again, they do (their friends), but sometimes they don't want to talk about it with their friends: they want to talk about it with you because you're her partner; you're her best friend (theoretically).
This blog post isn't intended to complain about women or men for that matter, but as I sat there, I looked across to Euodia (she's a grad student in the same program as me) and I started to laugh: You see, ladies, evolutionarily speaking, men solving problems for women has been the way to A) protect them, B) show they care, and C) get them into bed. Think about it: Men who proved their physical prowess by fighting, protecting, and showing they can produce viable offspring are the ones that get picked. This is still seen today in humans, but only much subtler ways. This has been hundreds upon thousands of years of evolutionary behavior; it is only recently--say, the 1960s or so--that this has really started to change (e.g., women becoming bread winners, fighting for rights of equality, equal pay, sexual liberation, feminism in movies, books, etc). The point: it's going to take us guys awhile to change (sorry, I know its frustrating, be patient).
So, taking a break from the guy bashing at the Diamond Thai place, I'm going take this opportunity to talk about some more disturbing evolutionary behaviors that both ladies and men can be lucky we don't do.
Case 1) Male Redback Spider:
So some species of spiders, the female spider being the more powerful and also being the one that needs to provide for the offspring will forcefully eat the male spider during or after copulation; however, this concept is much more interesting in the male redback spiders. The males in this species during copulation voluntarily place their abdomen over the female's mouth to be devoured. Why? Research has shown that after their first round of copulation, the likelihood that they are able to produce offspring is highly unlikely, and therefore, the first time is their best chance of having kids. Somehow they know this and therefore want to do as much as possible to make that happen, even if that means sacrificing themselves to provide the female with additional nutrients and supplies for food in the coming months--which is what they do.
Case 2) The Argentinian Lake Duck
The Argentinian Lake Duck has the longest penis of any bird species (yeah guys, get excited), but it isn't what you think. There is an evolutionary adaptation for this: women sometimes try and escape during copulation with a male Lake Duck and so what does he do? He "lassos" that's right he "lassos" the female with his penis, throwing it around her neck so she can't escape... in a sense, he's a serial rapist.
Case 3) Honeybee.
The queen bee gets a select few of males to copulate with her. They are the select few amongst many, many men, kinda like the bacholerette--actually, no, more like the hunger games. Male honeybees (the ones chosen) begin copulating and at the end of it their penis breaks off inside the queen, and their testicles explode. Yeah. Think about that guys. The reason has complete evolutionary basis: the snapped-off penis acts as a genital plug from other males, preventing them from copulating, and thus, allow them to have their offspring continue. And obviously, when the male honeybee does this, he dies. So. yay for men.
Case 4) Greylag Geese
Something interesting is happening in the Greylag Geese: Males are choosing other males to mate with. No one knows why, but some theories are that there is no sexual dimorphism in the species--that is, you can't tell, from human observation, the difference between male and females. And so researchers think that they males can't either. However, contrary to this, some scientists are suggesting this isn't the case, citing the fact that when engaging in pre-copulatory rituals, men exhibit significantly different behavioral gestures that women don't exhibit, and thus, theoretically, male geese should know its a male by how they act. How do females compensate for this? They slip in during male to male copulation in order for their eggs to become fertilized--clever little things aren't they?
Okay, so back to this convo I was listening to. As I talked with Euodia about it, I wondered about it all and said, "You know, maybe in a thousand years, women will be around the table gabbing and saying, 'why can't my man just solve a problem for me? Does he always have to listen?'".... This maybe true, but what is probably truer and already starting to happen is what Euodia replied with: "With all the female advancement in women's rights, feminism, etc., I think it will be Men in a thousand years gabbing about how women always want to solve everything." Bahaha how true is that? I could definitely see it. I mean come on. Guys, how awesome would it be to be a stay-at-home Dad? Okay, yeah taking care of the kids would be hard and accepting the fact that your wife is the breadwinner or that you might not have a career until later in life may be hard to accept, but people (men) are already doing this. What is the evolutionary palette going to look like in a hundred years, hell even fifty years? Hopefully, it won't be like the honeybee or the redback spider where we are killing ourselves for our women--we've already done that years ago in many cultures. But perhaps it may look like Euodia said: men sitting around chit chatting about women and how they don't listen. Sounds like something I would see in a Sitcom. So next time if your complaining about the opposite sex just remember that, on both sides, we are fighting years upon years of evolutionary mechanisms. Be patient. =). All the best.
--Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)