Frozen: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Tags

absent parent syndrome, aps, c.s. lewis, characters, controversy, courageous, creativity, disney, frozen, morality, oocs, out of character syndrome, spontaneous expedient character defamation syndrome, star wars, story dynamics, veggietales, writing

In which Erin delivers her totally-not-offensive run-down of the hit movie…

Okay, I fibbed. This will probably be offensive, though it’s not intended to be. It just depends on how the readers take it. (Please don’t be offended, readers mine. I’m just trying to be totally honest with you.)

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Disney’s hit movie Frozen. Those of you who are fairly conversant with me will remember how I said that I was very upset because I missed out on the “experience” of Frozen, per se; I had received so many spoilers (from generally well-meaning quarters, but also from trolls [not the small round rolling love experts, but the mean Internet entities,]) that by the time I saw the movie, there was nothing left to spoil. Sure, the movie was a good movie, but I would have enjoyed it a whole chunk more if I hadn’t had it spoiled for me.

That much said, even though I love a few things about the movie, there were a few things that bother me. But just to be polite, I’ll mention the things I loved about Frozen first.

• It’s about two sisters, their relationship, and family.
• It involves the sisters becoming closer and their familial bonds becoming tighter (though not quite a la Courageous, which by the way is a fantastic movie and you should REALLY SEE IT if you get the chance!)
• It’s the first Disney movie to be honest about early mornings. (Check out Anna’s bed-head!)
• It’s the first Disney movie to give young women the message that the first guy to catch their eye may not always be Mr. Right.
• Eight words: “You can’t just marry someone you just met!”
  “Wait, what?!” Disney’s actually telling someone to wait for the banns?! *LE GASP!*
• Anna actually believes in true love. (You’d be surprised how many Disney “heroines” say they do, but their actions say otherwise…) And FYI, true love is not love at first sight. It’s the kind of love that grows on you, that steps forward and says “I love this person even though they are horrible and egotistic and snappy in the mornings” and sends you swooning to the floor and sweeps you off your feet. It’s the sort of love that is a decision that becomes a miracle. It doesn’t have to be between spouses or lovers. Siblings can find it too. To quote the Veggietales (which is TOTALLY more quotable than Disney!) movie Duke and the Great Pie War, “True love’s the kind of love that puts others first.” (I love Duke and the Great Pie War too–not only was it the story of Ruth, Naomi and Boaz with the spotlight on Boaz, which we don’t really see that much, but it had a story featuring baby Moses and ten-year-old Miriam back to back with it. Pure gold.)
• Though Anna and Elsa have their falling-outs, they still make up in the end. (It was fear, not anger, that drove Elsa away.)
• Anna is the true hero of Frozen. Let me say that again: Anna is the true hero of Frozen.
  When I heard the songs from the movie (completely out of context), Elsa sounded like a selfish, pettish little pest, while Anna sounded like the naive, sweet person (the classic Disney princess stereotype.) And when I saw the movie, I could identify with Elsa’s angst, but I completely fell in love with Anna. Though it was hard to respect her when she fell in love with Hans, her off-balance moments and spunky, eager, cheerful demeanor more than made up for that. (Get the idea I love Anna much?) Also, Anna is a Christ figure. Like Christ, she has to suffer for her sister’s sins even though she is entirely innocent (except if you want to blame her for being deceived by Hans, who is a much better actor than even Palpatine, really, so you people who love Anakin Skywalker and want to make excuses for him… YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE if you hate Anna over her naivety.) Also like Christ, she ends up saving her sister’s life, upon which Elsa, like Peter, begins to sob… over her “denial” of Anna and their wasted time. Sorry, Elsa. Your ice powers may be visually stunning, but your kid sister TOTALLY has you beat on this count.

Now for the things I didn’t like.

• Absent parents/parents with bad philosophy. Why does Disney (all of popular culture, in fact) have this vicious tendency to pick on parents?! GAH. They deserve our respect for what they do for us! This is just so annoying.
• Teenaged rebel princesses. BOTH of them. (Not only historically inaccurate, but
• Also, there is the fact that there may be a more insidious message to the absent/bad parenthood dynamic. “Conceal, don’t feel”? This sounds eerily similar to the statements anti-Christian propaganda attributes (often falsely) to Christianity. (Yes, I called it propaganda. Live with it.) People think that Christians want to tie people down, to force down their “natural impulses” and live a perverted, repressed life. No. That is not what Christianity is at all. Read C.S. Lewis, for heaven’s sake! He argues it totally better than I ever could. Moving on…
• Song lyrics.
  GAH. This is the number one thing that disturbs me about this movie.While I loved “Frozen Heart” (OHMYGOODNESS IT JUST FORESHADOWED THE WHOLE MOVIE IN ONE SONG I LOVE YOU BRILLIANT WRITERS!!!), and the sweetness of “Do You Want to Build a Snowman” and the adorable “In Summer” (and Olaf was a marvelous foil without being ridiculous, by the way! Also, he was more than just a plot device! He made a place for himself, and he is the sweetest thing!), “Let it Go”, which is probably the one most popular song from the film, had a part that had me torn between being disturbed and feeling sick. Here it is:

• that perfect girl is gone

• No right, no wrong, no rules for me; I’m free!

• SINCE WHEN DOES DISNEY CHANNEL JOHN LENNON?! (yes, I am aware of the pun. *pokes Disney Channel with a stick* die, you…)
• Does anyone else see the problem with this? Apparently, it’s a bad thing to try to be perfect (though having a “perfect image” is, actually, a problem, in my opinion), rules are also bad, and the second line just reeks of moral relativism. (Yes, I do have a problem with that! There is absolute right and wrong!)
  Poor Disney. They have the same problem with lyrics and/or lines that Revenge of the Sith did: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”? There’s a cringe-worthy rhetorical trap right there, and it totally ripped-off Obi-Wan, whose tenure as a Jedi and a character was otherwise absolutely shining. Of course Obi-Wan Kenobi believes in absolute right and wrong! Look at his actions, for the love of the Force!!! He has been wronged too many times in his life to believe that there is no such thing as moral absolutes (since he doesn’t have the throw-up-your-hands victim mentality that would be the only other option in this, I believe that this is safe to assume.) Seriously, Star Wars would be better served if we clipped this line entirely and put subtitles on it instead, claimed the audio was broken, and attributed that what Obi-Wan really said was “I am not your enemy, Anakin.” That speaks better to both the audience and the character. (In fact, when I eventually do see the movie, I will be mentally substituting that for the sickening rhetorical and out-of-character trap that we see above.) The line that was used can’t help but jar, and it ruins the pacing of the scene, making Obi-Wan seem to preach when it seems more in line for him to say something personal which brings a moral conclusion (leading by example, anyone?) to the character as well.
  (Most fans agree–sometimes Lucas doesn’t really know what’s best for the franchise.)

Okay, there’s my rants on why Frozen (and Star Wars too) is flawed. Please don’t send me hate mail for ruining your childhood fantasy/favorite movie for you. (MWAHAHAHA–ahem. 😛 )

Thanks for reading, have a great day, and may God bless you! 🙂

Advertisement

Richard Dawkins: Social Darwinist, Generation 2.0

Tags

anecdotes, catholic culture, catholocism, charles darwin, charles dickens, christianity, controversy, evolution, gnosticism, hypocrisy, inspirational, pro-life, religion, richard dawkins, roman catholic, social darwinism

To say that reading this article was a shock to me, would be the understatement of the decade. I could not believe what I was reading.

Social Darwinism, which all compassionate people hoped was dead, is alive and well, it would seem.

But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. I don’t know what sort of reading background is normal for my dear readers, but maybe you’re not all sure what Social Darwinism is.

Social Darwinism is the savagery that Hitler used for an excuse when he had millions of Jews, gypsies, vagrants, the mentally ill, all kinds of other innocent people, and anyone who tried to protect or hide them slaughtered in what he termed “The Final Solution,” but which history better remembers as the Holocaust.

Basically, Social Darwinism examines the theory of evolution, which states that natural selection will gradually winnow out those in a population who are unfit to live. In the wild, weak animals never last very long, and sick ones are the first to be picked off by predators. This results in the strongest animals surviving to reproduce. This is all well and good–in the wild.

However, Social Darwinism takes the idea that natural selection is a good thing to the extreme. Social Darwinism states that inferior human beings deserve to die as well. And, as dystopian novels are constantly reminding us, the human condition is such that no human being is inferior, and certainly that no human being is “worthless”!

From Social Darwinism springs the idea (much abjured especially by Charles Dickens in his work, specifically in A Christmas Carol) that we should not help the poor; that they are “unfit to live”, and we should just let them die. I don’t know about you, my fair readers, but this idea with its blatant disregard for human life and lack of belief in the value of all life horrifies me. After all, sometimes conditions are horribly unfair. They hit a man or woman when he or she is down, while seeming to reward those who cheat. For instance, even though my dad has every reason to be employed, we were forced to rely on our savings for a year while he was unemployed. (He’s a very competent computer security and risk management expert. He could have prevented one security breach at a company he worked for if the people in charge had actually listened to him. Forgive me for not giving better credentials, but Internet privacy and safety and all that.) Life has a way of knocking people down when they don’t deserve it. And people, contrary to all expectation, have a way of getting up again.

If you are all for Social Security and wellfare and that sort of thing, let me tell you… Apparently Richard Dawkins… isn’t?

Because it seems Richard Dawkins thinks that giving birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome or another mental health issue is “immoral.” According to him, we should abort all such pregnancies. (I find this especially frightening and horrifying, as such a belief was trademark of one of my–fortunately fictional–totalitarian governments which was depicted in Angels’ Reflections, and which, realistically speaking, would be a likely component of the totalitarian governments of the future. For more information about Angels’ Reflections, visit my Novels page.) From there, it’s just one step away from the concentration, and eventually death, camps.

To me, this is barbarism of the worst kind. To kill a child for merely having a genetic disorder is savagery, in my mind. Mr. Dawkins even called it “civilized.” Yes, if you want the worst of the Roman Empire. Yes, if you want to live in Sparta–which, by all accounts, was a very brutal city. One of the worst human “instincts”–the one of which we should be most ashamed–seems to be that at every level in history, we tend to slaughter our young.

In ancient times, in many cultures, including the ones now considered to be the root of most modern cultures, a baby that was perceived as “weak” was left exposed to the elements to die.

When Herod was afraid of being replaced on his throne, what did he do? The Slaughter of the Innocents.

Children killed in hospitals and death camps alike in Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

Gender-specific abortions, targeting (guess what?) mainly unborn baby girls.

And now, abortions targeting those children who are mentally ill or who have a genetic disorder that isn’t always nearly as debilitating as we are told.

Do we see a pattern here?

It seems Richard Dawkins has an interesting brand of “morality”. (Man, it’s hard not to make ad-hominem attacks when something this odious comes out… I’m trying. Possibly not succeeding. But trying.)

Let’s take this out even further, shall we?

Is there one person currently living on this earth who has never told a lie? Not even a little “white lie”? Not even a lie of omission?

Is there one person who has not been tempted to steal or embezzle at times?

Is there one person who has never been tempted to use violence, whether on others or himself or herself?

Wait, wait, wait. Those are all things that can leave you behind in the “grand” scheme of things. (Like, say, if you were registered in The Hunger Games.) Let’s talk in language Social Darwinists would understand.

Is there one human being in this world who has never made a bad business decision?

Is there one person who has never, ever made a mistake? (From a strictly amoral viewpoint.)

Is there one person who has not had to have their life saved in some way?

Also, how should we measure who deserves to live and who deserves to be aborted? Should we determine it by the righteousness of the individual? Righteous people don’t always do things that are for the amoral “good” of people in general. Should we reward those who put themselves ahead of others, or vice versa? Should we reward those who are physically strong, or those who are intellectual and intelligent? The two don’t always go together. There have been intellectuals with bad health, and strong people with bad health, and strong people who were also intellectual. (This is a big, glaring problem with moral relativism, FYI.) There are simply too many variables to measure.

And all this was before I saw his Twitter feed. (The link is at the bottom of the article I linked you to above.) Really, Mr. Dawkins? “Dislikes pretentious obscurantism”? (Well, I agree, Gnosticism was a gnarly heresy, but does it really justify hard-core materialism?) “Treats all religions with good-humored ridicule”? I’ve seen and heard some of your ridicule before, and in places it was anything but good-humored. And even if it was good-humored, it was violently–yes, I’m using that word–violently anti-religion. Dare I say, in places you were even as bitter towards religion as I am currently bitter and outraged at your inane Twitter logic.

Basically, what I’m getting at here is that, on some level or other, every human being alive today is unfit for survival. Every last person alive has known failure. I’m sure that at this point Mr. Dawkins would say, “We’re only talking about eliminating those least fit to live!” To which I would have to answer, “Who are we to say who deserves to live and die? We are mere grains of sand in a vast dune, mere moments in the ocean of time. To use the Christians’ imagery, we are mere dust. Who are we to say that one of our number deserves death when, perhaps on another level, we equally deserve death?”

We are mere dust, mere creation. But we were shaped by the hand of God, and thus though we are equal in guilt, we are also all equal in destiny. Autistic children have been known to be incredibly bright. Children who, all the doctors prophesied, would be no better than vegetables, have grown up and thrived. Inspiring stories can be found everywhere. I’m certain that our scientist friend would object that “The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’!” But truly, there would not be so many instances of excellence, found in the strangest of places, if there was not some “divine spark” to be found in all men, women, and children, making all men, women and children worthy to have at least their lives and dignity respected?

Shout me down for comparing Dawkins’ philosophy to Hitler’s. I’m just calling it like I see it. But I can not be silent when I hear about this horrid fiasco going on with our educated scientist friend.

Survival of the fittest is a horrible philosophy, Mr. Dawkins, when applied to the “real world” of humanity and politics. I hope you realize that soon.

Disclaimer: The author apologizes for any bruised toes caused by this article. She does not, however, apologize for presenting her views, though she admits to being a mere human idiot (despite having a high IQ and better grades than most of her classmates,) and thus parts of this post may be inaccurate or misrepresented. She would also like to point out that this is not, technically, any kind of personal attack, especially as the words “is going to hell” did not appear in conjunction with anyone’s name, in keeping with the general theme of nonjudgmental-ness, and she opposes the principles or philosophy proposed by the victim subject of this post. She would also like it if her readers were to research the origins of the theory of evolution and the history of Social Darwinism–if they dare. 😛

I’M STUCK IN THE DARK AGES AND PROUD OF IT! X-P Hey, that should be a badge… 😛

Thanks for reading, and may God Bless you, whether you believe in Him or not! 😀

Truly Geek Fandoms

Tags

controversy, fan stuff, fandoms, history, intellectualism, j.r.r. tolkien, lord of the rings, science, stereotypes, theoretical science

Erin is back for another rant about fandoms!

This is not actually about what you normally think when you hear the word “fandom”, though. It’s actually more of a closed-circuit phenomenon, really…

What am I talking about? (Have I lost my readers already? Oh, dear. Your pardon, readers all.)

Basically, this is the most stereotyped fandoms out there that I’m talking about. Drum roll, please–

I’m talking about fandoms that are better known as “school subjects,” “study projects,” and “general education courses.”

Now, I know you’re all thinking, “Whaaaat? is Erin nuts?” I can assure you… well, actually I can’t. 😛 But anyways, no, I do know what I’m talking about.

I’m passionate about theoretic science, partly through my interest in science fiction. (Which is why I think that vampires are lazy and if a zombie apocalypse does really happen, your biggest survival tool will be bug spray, you will need to take carefully-stored-and-preserved iodine supplements, and mosquitoes will be your biggest enemy. I may explain why in another post.)

Iris is passionate about American history. (So am I, for that matter. In fact, I’m passionate about most history!) And aren’t we all passionate about literature and media? Don’t we all get into arguments about bias in the media? And don’t most fandoms originate in books? We’re also passionate about culture, sociology, and psychology. Not to mention that Iris and I are advocates of algebra.

Basically, I’m saying that we need to redefine the word “fandom” and re-think the use of the word “geek.” Even someone who self-professedly “doesn’t like to think” can be a geek. Even someone who isn’t permanently heart-broken by the end of The Lord of the Rings can be in a fandom. All of us have the potential for intellectualism. Why don’t we delete the stereotypes surrounding it and just embrace it?

Just some thoughts for back to school. 😉

Of Peter Pan and College Admissions

Tags

catholic culture, college, controversy, counter-culture, education, homeschool culture, insanity, job searching, life, living life unexpectedly, long rants, peter pan, work

Now, I know some of my friends must be concerned. After all, Erin left the age of minority behind a few months ago, she will be attending college (again) this fall (after having attended under the early-entry clause at the age of 17) and working for a while… yes, this is a lot of stuff going on.

But the answer is no, I don’t have any intention of “growing up” any time soon. After all, didn’t Our Lord say that we should aspire to be childlike (in a good way)? And then there are all the Disney movies which praise immaturity, she says sarcastically.

On the other hand, though, I feel that in many cases, and in some ways, I was actually more mature than the people I met at college, even though I was far more naive than any of them. Perhaps it was because I was actually better prepared for college than they were? I don’t know.

That leads into my next point. I think that homeschooling has taught me more effective ways of thinking. My high IQ is not the result of native intelligence, perhaps, but the result of knowing how to exercise that intelligence. Also, I’ve been in a more mature role, one that has pushed me into more responsibility and forced me to be more proactive. In a sense, I never had the childhood that other children do. Rather than just “being a kid”, I’ve been preparing to be a successful adult all my life.

And yet, I had the childhood that “other children” never had. I was sheltered, but nurtured. I suppose that if I had a point of comparison, I would call the homeschool experience superlative. And best of all, it has given me a grip on both the best of childhood and the better part of adulthood, so that I will never forget what it’s like to be young. It has given me a means to be immature in a very mature way, so to speak. This is the essence, I think, of Peter Pan. Except that he isn’t under the same pressure as the otherwise-normal children around the world who are pressured by the Zeitgeist into wearing a sophisticated, dirty mask. Here and now, in the ultimate anonymity of this blog, I’m taking off my mask. You may not see my face, but you know who I am.

After all, worldview and attitude give more to identity than does all the sass in the world.

So, here’s to Peter Pan and his Masquerade, the Masquerade of which I am a proud member. Here’s to the beautiful counter-cultural experience of homeschooling. Here’s to being a rebel for a reactionary cause.

Hooray for Peter Pan! And hooray for shocking people in admissions.

A Big Thank You Goes Out To All My Supportive Readers!

Tags

catholocism, christianity, conservatives, controversy, humor, liberal, media bias, moral issues, politics, religion, roman catholic, support, thank you, things not permitted in "polite conversation", visibility

5 likes. 3 follows.

[Update: It is now up to 7 likes. Yay! ^_^]

And this from a blog that normally takes days to get more than one like to a post, let alone comments.

Dare I say, wow?

I really should not be so surprised by this, really. Every time I post on something that people are passionate about, such as religion, the Constitution, and moral and controversial issues, it’s always the same. The world is listening. Erin takes the world by storm. ;-P

The funny thing is, the media says that “no one agrees with the conservative viewpoint”!

What a sell-out! Maybe it’s only the conventional media that disagrees with the conservative viewpoint! 😛

But then, maybe it’s just based on visibility and who shows up where and we’re not seeing the whole picture and the people who disagree with me just don’t want to take the time to comment and tell me so and most conservatives, Catholics, other Christians, and amazing people who you talk to on your blog just like blogging anyway??? 😛

Maybe.

I don’t know.

The point is, every time I post on a controversial or tacit issue, one that’s not considered kosher in “polite conversation” (nyah! :-P), I am completely blown away by the response.

Thanks for caring, y’all. You keep me going. Thank you for supporting me in my feeble attempts to fight the good fight. Keep on praying for me, as I’m praying for you.

Thanks for reading, and God Bless!