Arguing with a Non-Catholic

Just a few years ago, I reaffirmed my faith in God. My participation in the church choir helped better my understanding of my faith. As a Catholic, I also believe in the intercession of Mary and the saints. Non-Catholic sects perceive it as worshipping Mary and the saints instead of God; I would like to point out that it doesn’t work that way.

I’ve had at least one encounter with atheists challenging Christians to debates. At first, I thought it was difficult, but I spoke too soon. It’s a little more challenging when a fellow Christian—non-Catholic—criticizes Catholicism and brands it as a phony. There’s one Christian YouTuber than outright bashed Catholicism on his MySpace blog. I was so not pleased. Since I don’t have a MySpace account, I commented him on his YouTube profile. I was relatively calm, but I can not stand that he accused Catholics of worshipping Mary or the Pope, and also said that the Catholic Church is a phony Church made by man, which is ridiculous.

“Don’t bash something you don’t understand,” I told him. He apologized right away, and pointed out his views according to the Scriptures, which is perfectly fine. But I noticed through the Biblical quotes that he posted that he has a rather fundamentalist perception of Christianity and the Church. He showed me that the True Church is the one that will come on the Apocalypse, the New Jerusalem, according to the Book of Revelation.

I understand his views. But I think he missed out on a few basic facts:

Christianity as an established religion began with the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the official religion in Rome. The Greek Orthodox Church kinda made a big deal about it, but since Rome was the one in power at the time, the Roman Catholic Church was recognized as the origin of Christianity as we know it today.

But that’s not saying that St. Peter (who is widely recognized as the first Pope because Jesus appointed him as the Rock or cornerstone) or Constantine established the Church. Jesus is the true Founder of the Church; He is the Head, and the Church His Body; the children of God, the “Beautiful Bride [and] Body of Christ; one flesh abiding, strong and unifying.” (From “Beautiful Bride” by Flyleaf) St. Peter and the succeeding Popes are just His earthly representatives.

The YouTuber did not argue further; neither did I. As far as I’m concerned, (and I’m sure he feels the same way, too) we shouldn’t even be arguing in the first place because we worship the same God; we are both His children. Although his insinuations still gets my blood boiling, I am willing to keep my cool. “Peace be with you, my brother in Christ,” I told him on my last PM. To my surprise, he was just as willing to make peace with me; he added me as a friend on YouTube. I accepted.

I hope that’s that.

Jacob's Kiss

For the past several months, I’ve been joining the bandwagon of Twilight Haters (a.k.a. “anti’s”) who read the entire Twilight series for the sake of either acquiring concrete basis for their dislike, or for having something to make fun of. I am doing it for the former, and to try to find the reason why fans of the series exist in the first place.

I am now more than halfway through Eclipse—a feat that I never thought was possible until I was there. Eclipse, the third volume of the so-called Saga, was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many a hater, and even a few fans. The highlighted reasons for this are as follows:

1. Edward’s abusive and controlling behavior
a. Taking out the engine of her truck to keep her from visiting her best friend Jacob
b. Bribing his sister Alice with a yellow Porsche to take Bella hostage
2. Jacob forcing a kiss on Bella

So many anti’s have discussed the first one that I feel I don’t have to tire myself by repeating my fellow haters’ sentiments. However, I have my own complaints about it, aside from the fact that Edward is a glorified abuser. I have a problem with Bella’s viewpoint about it. When Alice picks her up from work, Bella figures out what was going on and asks, “Alice, don’t you think this is just a little bit controlling? Just a tiny bit psychotic, maybe?” Alice responds with: “Not really. You don’t seem to grasp how dangerous a young werewolf can be. Especially when I can’t see them. Edward has no way to know if you’re safe. You shouldn’t be so reckless.” If you ask me, even with consideration with the circumstances involved, what Edward did was improper, especially for a boyfriend. But Bella automatically accepts Alice’s explanation, as though it was the most reasonable thing in the world. I was even more disgusted, later, when Jacob confronts Bella about what Edward did: “You forgave him for all that?” Bella answers, “There was nothing to forgive.”

Really? Practically taking her vehicle apart—nothing? Acting as if he has any authority over her—nothing? They are lovers! They are supposed to be equals! Keeping Bella safe—that is not Edward’s job; he is not her father. Behaving like one just takes their relationship to a whole new level: their love becomes more perverse than it already is; the protective paternal gesture merges erotic and filial love.

Most fans claim that Bella’s willingness for Edward to do these things justifies his actions. What these fans don’t realize is that victims of abuse are often in denial and unable to recognize the signs of abuse because they are blinded by love; they fool themselves into thinking that that their love is worth sacrificing their freedom and personal happiness, or that maybe the guy has a good reason. This is exactly how Bella’s mind works. She doesn’t quite realize she’s being victimized by her boyfriend, who probably doesn’t realize he’s going about things the wrong way either.

This brings me to the next point: Jacob forcing himself on Bella, to the point of kissing her without permission. To female anti’s in particular, this is a big deal. It’s extremely improper for a man to kiss a woman once she’s made it clear that she’s in love with someone else. When Jacob kisses her so forcefully, she has every right to be angry. But wait, does she?

Maybe it’s the part of me screaming “TEAM JACOB!” that’s trying to cut Jacob some slack. To some extent, Jacob has his own valid points in the conversation before and after the kiss:

“You wouldn’t have to change anything for me. You know Charlie would be happy if you picked me. I could protect you just as well as your vampire can — maybe better. And I would make you happy, Bella. There’s so much I could give you that he can’t. I’ll bet he couldn’t even kiss you like that — because he would hurt you. I would never, never hurt you, Bella.”
(Eclipse – PDF, page 255)

“They told me I couldn’t tell you — that it wasn’t safe for you if we were together. But I never left, never! I used to run around your house at night — like I do now. Just making sure you were okay.”
(Eclipse – PDF, page 255)

If you ask me, that’s more than enough reason for Bella to choose Jacob over Edward. The kiss, in a way, was his last desperate attempt of claiming her. I was ticked off by Jacob’s show of arrogance after the kiss. This is probably why many fans go for Team Edward. But thanks to another anti’s opinion, I now share her sentiment on the possibility that Stephenie Meyer made Jacob a jerk to make Edward look good by comparison. But I take that as Jacob’s mask, his attempt to his sense of defeat, especially in front of Edward. It’s not so different from Leah Clearwater, who keeps a brave face while she could only watch her ex fall in love with her second cousin, her best friend Emily Young.

I haven’t read up on Leah Clearwater yet. I shall be making a new entry about her soon.

Why I'm Going to Watch New Moon

As much as I hate the Twilight series in general, I am looking forward to seeing the first sequel New Moon. I read the book, in my effort to understand what it is that Twi-Hards love so much about the series. Months ago, I would have said that I would watch New Moon to bash it like I did Twilight. After I read New Moon, I found that it’s something that I actually would like to see, for some reason.

Don’t get me wrong: I still don’t like Twilight. And New Moon is not any better than Twilight. It’s just as badly written; there is no character development; and Bella Swan remains such a poor excuse for a protagonist that she puts to shame even stupid fourteen-year-old Juliet Capulet, who she likes identifying with so much. In fact, Bella comparing herself to Juliet is rather arrogant; in analogy, it’s Stephenie Meyer comparing herself to Shakespeare, which is just as ridiculously pompous. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

However, if there’s anything good that I encountered in reading New Moon was the freshness that Jacob Black brings to Bella Swan’s life after Edward Cullen so cruelly leaves her. Sunny and charming, Jacob is fun to be with and easy to talk with. Even at the time when his own life changes and he has to keep secrets from Bella, he doesn’t make things hard for her by pretending that there is nothing wrong going on. His relationship with her is based more on a real bond of friendship rather than magic (in Edward’s case). There is vulnerability in Jacob that is so captivating that it rivals the invincibility that Edward seems to put off. This is what I would love to see interpreted in the big screen.

Meanwhile, after viewing the trailers of New Moon, another thing that fascinated me was the treatment that the adaptation gives to the so-called Volturi, an ancient coven of vampires residing in Volterra, Italy, who act as a sort of government for vampires.

The Volturi makes sure that the existence of vampires is kept secret from humans. They also make it a point to observe discipline among vampires, meaning that vampires must not kill too many humans at a time so as to not risk exposing their existence. I didn’t see much of this facet of the Volturi in New Moon because the book focuses solely on Bella mourning over a runaway boyfriend a great deal more than a normal person would grieve over a dead loved one.

After reading about the Volturi in Twilight fansites, I was almost instantly interested. Aro, the elderly coven leader, for example, likes to collect people with supernatural talents and turn them into vampires to add to the Volturi. Among these people are young twins Jane (Dakota Fanning) and Alec (Cameron Bright, X-Men: The Last Stand), who have powers they use for mental torture. And as displayed in the third trailer, we see Felix (Daniel Cudmore, X-Men: The Last Stand) fighting Edward Cullen, which is going to be quite interesting, because such a scene did not exist in the book. It was kind of a treat for me, too, because I really like to see somebody beating Edward Cullen.

So those are my reasons for watching New Moon later this month. If anything, I expect it’s gonna be nice to look at. Jacob Black’s wolf transformation in the first trailer is amazing.

Epiphany

Chaos and mediocrity is rampant in the Philippines, but it is worth noting that a majority of its people still fervently defend it when a foreigner dares to criticize it, usually in the least tactful way possible. In a way, Filipinos do have the right to defend their nation’s dignity, but given the nation’s present condition, it’s not always a good thing. But in such times, one would observe a kind of unity in such grievances. If not stressing their painful history, Filipinos would assert that their identity as a nation has been deeply insulted. Although the claim is fairly legitimate, it is flawed: What is it that makes a Filipino? Nobody seems to know, so there seems to be no point claiming something to be of essence.

I have been constantly confronted by the question in the last few years, and it hasn’t been easy. I have been conflicted by my people’s ignorance and arrogance, so harshly that I wonder: maybe there is something there worth fighting for, after all; maybe they know something that I don’t, and whatever that is, my people haven’t been able to point out for a while now.

After much deliberation, it occurred to me: being Filipino is more than having strong family ties or being hospitable or industrious or having an unstoppable sense of humor. Being Filipino is even more than defending the Philippines from foreign opposition; in relation to that, why are Filipinos so adamant in protecting their country from outsiders? Well, the sentiment is not too different from people of other nations; there is something that binds peoples to their country of origin and hence, people of the same origin. Why else would people of a certain country fight so hard against a foreign rule threatening to take over? They always struggle for the cause of “freedom,” which would closely translate being in control of one’s own space. Furthermore, a nation is attached to their country of origin because there is a sort of reconciliation between the people and the land which they call their home.

The Philippines is mother to the Filipinos. Anybody whose lineage traces back to the Philippines is a brother, which is perhaps why Filipinos tend to impose their nationality on anyone with Filipino blood. We are not like the Japanese, who tend to discriminate against individuals a fraction of foreign blood; we are the opposite. We tend to embrace individuals with even the tiniest drop of Filipino blood. Sometimes, we get carried away, but that’s how we show our love for country. I guess that also explains why even those who have left the motherland feel thrilled to meet others of the same bloodline.

Bloodline must not be confused with race. (I daresay some of my people tend to confuse it.) Filipinos are generally of a mixed race: anyone who calls himself a Filipino has at least one foreign ancestor. These people would include Chinese Filipinos (mestizos included) and some Indians, Japanese and Arabs—non-indigenous peoples who have bonded with the Philippines through shared history.

However, although Filipinos value the notion of blood relations, being of the same bloodline is not essential to being Filipino. A pureblood Chinese, for example, may call the Philippines home and might as well call himself a part of the nation, while an American of Filipino descent would rather identify with his American side than his Filipinos side. As I explained earlier, it has more to do with the inhabitants’ attachment to the place.

Therefore, the Filipino society being a potpourri of cultures through a colorful history of intermingling with visitors, Filipino culture as we know it today has become a blending of various elements of cultures—both native and foreign. It would be pointless to argue that there is no “true” Filipino culture because of it being molded through foreign relations; Filipino culture is of mixed cultures, just as its people are mostly of mixed race. Filipinos are attuned to it as something they can call their own. It has shaped them into who they are now. Only an unfortunate series of circumstances has deformed Filipino culture, which foreigners are quick to point out as severely flawed.

Indeed, it is badly misshapen, that Filipinos can no longer pinpoint what it is that binds them as a nation. I have only managed to do so now, and it has taken me years. We Filipinos have a bond with our country that is so strong that we are willing to fight in an effort not to sever it. We love our country because it is where we can be ourselves and be in control.

In the present, the Philippines is not exactly paradise. Every aspect of Filipino culture and society today may be flawed and definitely not worth being proud of anymore. Things have gotten so bad that Filipinos leave the country, and many more intend to do the same. On one hand, things might be too late; on the other hand, if somebody takes a stand, we might have a fighting chance. I am a Filipino; I am done fighting it. The Philippines is my home; I cannot sit here and complain anymore. I know it’s in bad condition, but just because it can’t serve me doesn’t mean it’s not worth taking care of. Although I am leaving the Philippines, it is not to abandon it. I will make a change.

Danielle de Barbarac a Mary Sue?

This has disturbed me since I read this essay on Mary Sues, which fleetingly mentions Danielle de Barbarac as a Sue. Although I could see that Danielle's character matches the qualities of a Mary Sue, I keep finding myself trying to make excuses that she's not.

When I watched Ever After in full for the first time last year, I was absolutely awed at Danielle de Barbarac’s display of wit and intellect. As a girl, Danielle grew up listening to her father as he read to her books on philosophy and science. Such subjects captured her heart; in the years to come, after her father’s sudden death, she treasures these ideals she learned in these books, especially in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. In effect, Danielle grows to care so much for the peasants and outcasts, especially when she becomes one herself when her stepmother turns her into a servant.

Ten years after her father’s death, she carries with her these passions; this is perhaps what keeps her strong in life and work. In an effort to keep Maurice, her family’s oldest servant, she disguises herself as a “courtier” and impresses Prince Henry and his men by reciting: “A servant is not a thief, and those who are can’t help themselves. If you suffer your people to be ill-educated and punish them for that educated disposed of them, what else is to be concluded, sir, but that you make thieves and then punish them?”

I was impressed myself and after other similar quotes, Danielle gradually stole my heart.

For the rest of the movie, she keeps charming the Prince and also Signore Leonardo da Vinci with her witty and feisty attitude. Danielle might be unusually free-spirited for a 16th-century French woman, but at least it makes sense: her father was a healthy man who gave her access to heavy books. Besides, it is from lack of maternal guidance that Danielle’s best ladylike ways do not come naturally and have to be observed from wealthier women. This is perhaps reason enough for her not to be uptight or squeamish unlike her stepsisters Marguerite and Jacqueline. Danielle is fun-loving and adventurous like the present-day woman. She even befriended a gang of gypsies, who are considered outsiders who don’t deserve anyone’s sympathy.

Another realistic touch to Danielle is that, with her powerful ideals, it would have been more sensible for her to run away from the manor and make a life for herself. But she doesn’t for the sake of self-preservation (at least she gets fed and sleeps with a roof over her head) and to keep an eye on her parents’ valuable properties and the servants she considers her only family.

Danielle is undoubtedly a good character, but a Mary Sue?

According to TV Tropes, a character with Sue-ish qualities can get away with it if written well. Danielle may be incredibly smart and witty and “beautiful all along” but by the way she’s written out, it works.

Perhaps what ruins her is the climax, when Monsieur Pierre Le Pieu was held at swordpoint—his life in exchange for her freedom. “My father was an excellent swordsman; he taught me well,” Danielle warns the lustful merchant. Meanwhile, her designated love interest, Prince Henry, is racing to rescue her, but by the time he arrived, Danielle is walking out of the mansion completely unharmed, as a display of her independence. It would have worked if it didn’t involve a sword, because that seemed to have come out of nowhere. Danielle was supposedly eight years old when her father died; what self-respecting father would teach a little girl to do combat? He might as well have handed her a gun.

Reading Anne Rice

When I read the Penguin Classics publication of Bram Stoker’s Dracula at the age of 13, I officially proclaimed myself a vampire fan. That was after I had watched the novel’s 1992 film adaptation, which was directed by Francis Ford Coppola. I loved the movie for its awesomeness and smooth storytelling; I loved the movie even more after I’ve read the book, because then, I had a better understanding of the vampire myth.

Unfortunately, despite my claims of becoming a vampire fan, Dracula remained to be the only sample of vampire literature that I actually read.

A few years passed, and many vampire movies became popular. I’ve watched Van Helsing, which I expected to be a mind-blowing back story for Abraham Van Helsing but turned out to be a fanfic crossover of Dracula and Frankenstein, (Seriously, where the hell did Victor come from?! Igor isn’t even supposed to be there!) AND disregarded a few facts about Dracula (only a werewolf can kill him?—puh-lease!) AND threw Abraham van Helsing out of the window. I came across trailers of Underworld and Blade, but never got to watch the movies. After such a time, I felt like I'm not worthy to call myself a fan of the vampire literature.

So, after finally watching the Interview with the Vampire movie, Nosferatu, and a few episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and True Blood, I decided to pick up Anne Rice’s most popular work. I’ve read and heard people claiming that it’s the next best thing after Dracula, but I also encountered negative opinions. A classmate of mine claimed she didn’t like Anne Rice, but I didn’t ask her why, because I didn’t want to expose myself to negative opinion before making some of my own. Unfortunately, I have been exposed to some on YouTube, but the negative comments about Anne Rice turned out to be pretty tame.

Most of such comments basically said that Anne Rice is long-winded. I am now halfway through Interview, so now I can see what annoys some of its readers and fans. As it clearly explains on the title, it is an interview—a human interviewing a vampire in order to delve into the mind of a vampire, who somehow deviates from the evil vampire stereotype: Louis de Pointe du Lac, who is deeply in touch with his human nature, complains about killing people (and is ashamed of doing it even for the sake of his own existence) and the pains of immortality. It is a fresh story, and people love it for that new taste; however, it is an interview, so it should look like one. But as it approaches the middle of the story, it becomes more like a first-person narrative punctuated by questions from the human interviewer, which gradually becomes less and less essential because Louis seems to drone on and on as if he can tell the story on his own without the need for questions to continue.

At some point, I wondered if having the entire narrative in first-person point of view would have been better, because by the middle, when everything grew more and more intense, it didn’t sound like an interview anymore. It didn’t look like somebody telling a story to somebody else. After all, who would tell a story from over a hundred years ago with complete dialog and explicit detail?—and in an actual conversation, no less?

On Rosalie Hale

I know this is a really old issue by now that I shouldn't even be talking about it anymore. But since it occurred to me, I couldn't get it out of my head.



As much as I hate Twilight, I wouldn't say that I hate absolutely everything associated with it. Unlike less knowledgeable "anti's" who dislike even the actors that make up the cast of the Twilight adaptations, I don't. I haven't heard of Kristen Stewart until I've heard about her getting the lead role in Twilight as Bella Swan. When I learned of her impressive performance in Panic Room (opposite Jodie Foster), I was no longer surprised that she got the supposedly big role in the adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's bestselling novel series. I loved Robert Pattinson portrayal of Hufflepuff heartthrob Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Although I still think they could have accepted a better-looking actor, Pattinson's faithfulness to the brave and humble character made appearance seem less important. Nikki Reed is a different matter; despite her fine portrayal as Edward Cullen's bitchy sister Rosalie Hale, I don't think she should be in the role. Evan Rachel Wood seems more fitting for it.

Don't get me wrong: I like Nikki Reed. I was impressed with her in Catherine Hardwicke's independent film Thirteen, where she plays Evie, who becomes a bad influence to straight-A, seventh-grade student Tracy, who is coincidentally played by Wood. I also loved her touching performance in the music video "Just Feel Better." Nikki Reed is also one of the most beautiful actresses I've ever seen. But this doesn't fit with Rosalie Hale, who is supposedly "inhumanly beautiful" because Rosalie Hale is a blonde.

This wouldn't have been a problem if Nikki Reed isn't a brunette with a rich tan and at least 15% Native American blood. The makeup that they had to put on her didn't make her look like the hottest vampire ever; it just makes her appearance look fake and icky. The vampire look would have been better for Evan Rachel Wood, who seems to always wear it.

Evan Rachel Wood, on the other hand, is a natural blonde with porcelain skin. She's awfully pale but she's incredibly beautiful with it. If Wood had played Rosalie Hale, her presence would have exuded awe instead of disgust at how unnatural and obvious the makeup is.

Dream Disney Adaptations

I’ve always been a Disney kid. The first Disney films I’ve ever watched were Cinderella, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. The Lion King was the first movie I’ve seen on theater; I was six years old. By the time Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame came out, I learned that Disney has been exploring its horizons; Disney has been exploring stories adapted or inspired by slightly heavier material than fairy tales. At that time, I didn’t care much that Disney was toning down the dark elements of those stories.

Even today, I still don’t mind that the little mermaid’s desire to have an immortal soul was edited out, or that Quasimodo didn’t die, or that Mulan’s comrades found out that she is a woman during the war and not after. However, I do mind that they changed the plot of Hercules altogether and messed up several details. (i.e. Philoctetes was human and a pupil of Hercules, not the other way around.) In any case, what I am glad about is that around that time, Disney has been expanding its horizons … adapting stories from beyond mainland America and Europe.

But after Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Disney seemed to have paused producing big “classic” films and limited itself with Disney Channel productions aimed at girls aged 12 to 15 years old. I blame this on The Princess Diaries, which started the trend. After that, the only good movies that came out were produced alongside Pixar. This isn’t a bad thing, but Disney/Pixar films did not provide the elevation and sublimity that Disney’s “classic” films exuded.

Lately, Disney has been trying again. They produced Enchanted, which is a tribute and a parody of the Disney Princesses, most notably Snow White and Cinderella. Two more new movies are coming out: The Princess and the Frog, which features the first black Disney Princess, and Rapunzel. This is great, except for one problem: this is only a safe move, a comfort zone, on Disney’s part. To this day, the classic fairy tale tradition is the most effective production of Disney, so they keep it that way. If you ask me, I hope they pick up where they left off: that is to explore stories from far-off places again.

I came up with a short list of great stories that would be fabulous if Disney adapts them:

Disney has drawn stories from Shakespeare plays before. The Lion King and its sequel were inspired by Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet respectively. I thought it would be cool of they adapted Othello, King Lear or The Merchant of Venice. Of the three, I think Othello would be most interesting: I’ve always had a weakness for interracial romances. Iago, who sabotages Othello’s relationship with Desdemona, would make an outstanding villain. His wicked ways would rank among those of the Wicked Queen, Lady Tremaine, Scar, Ursula and Jafar … to name a few.

The Princess and the Frog seems to be quite a disappointment among the African American community; like many individuals, I was not very pleased that the setting is not Africa and that it is adapted from a European fairy tale rather than an African one, which would have been great. If Disney’s going to make another black Disney Princess, I would suggest that they make an adaptation of "The Rain Came" by Kenyan writer Grace Ogot.

It tells the story of Oganda, the daughter of Labong’o, the chief of a clan of Luo people. She is the only girl among Labong’o’s twenty children and thus, his favorite. Meanwhile, their clan is suffering from a drought; Nditi, the medicine man, had a dream that Podho, the ancestor of the Luo, told him that “a young woman who has not known a man must die so that the country may have rain.” Nditi then had a vision of a maiden with “a glittering brass chain around her waist,” who must be sacrificed to the “lake monster.” Oganda happens to be this virgin maid; the chain was given to her by her lover Osinda. See? This would make a great movie.

Moving on toward Asia, I estimated that if Disney had kept on expanding, they might have picked up a story or two from the Philippines.

My sister thought that an adaptation of Noli Me Tangere would be splendid. I thought that the material for Jose Rizal’s controversial novel would be too heavy for children to comprehend; I couldn’t imagine Disney toning it down without ruining it. However, I could see why Disney would be interested in it: a tragic romance in a devastating colonial setting and a young man determined to avenge his father and liberate his country is quite tempting.

Another good story would be the origin of the Mayon Volcano. One myth tells of the tragic tale of Daragang Magayon and Pangaronon. Daragang Magayon, the lovely daughter of Rajah Makusog, fell in love with Pangaronon when he saved her from drowning. But another suitor, Pagtuga, a tribal chief from Iriga, wanted Daragang Magayon for himself. He kidnapped Rajah Makusog and demanded Daragang Magayon’s hand in marriage in exchange for her father’s freedom. Pangaronon learns of this and gathers an army to fight Pagtuga. War ensues, and Pangaronon successfully slays Pagtuga. According to an online source, Daragang Magayon rushes to meet her lover when a stray arrow pierces her back; Pangaronon is struck by a spear shortly after. According to a poem that I’ve heard as a child, the lovers were already hugging when they were struck dead by a single spear. Anyway, Rajah Makusog buries the couple in a single grave, which rose higher and higher into the magnificent volcano that is Mayon, short for Magayon.

Another cool story would be the Ilocano epic Ang Biag ni Lam-Ang.

But an even better epic would come from India: the Ramayana. If Disney adapts that one, it would so cool. A banished prince who rescues his wife from a demon king—C-L-A-S-S-I-C! I wouldn’t mind if Disney cuts out the part in the end where Rama questions Sita’s fidelity after rescuing her from Ravana; a hot kiss after the climactic battle would be just fine.

Here’s info on the stories I suggested.
http://www.philippinesinsider.com/philippines/myths-folklore-superstition/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Lear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1924130785265585243
http://www.viloria.com/secondthoughts/archives/00000416.html
http://tagaloglang.com/Philippine-Literature/Filipino-Epics/biag-ni-lam-ang-buod.html

Exploding iPods: A Public Service Announcement

I've read just now from a news article (link below) of an account of somebody's iPhone exploding in his face. It has been reported that similar occurrences have happened to iPods. This scared me, because I've been an iPod owner for almost a year. But the news article explained that the explosions are probably caused by overheated lithium batteries, which probably means that the iPods that exploded were probably overcharged.

Therefore, I advise fellow iPod users (iPhone users included) to check your devices when charging them. Be sure to unplug or disconnect them once they are fully charged to avoid overheating them.

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090814/ttc-us-france-it-internet-telecom-apple-0de2eff.html

A Feminist Analysis of Ratatouille

Just for the record, I am not a feminist. Although I believe in the equality of the sexes, I do not believe in the adage, “A woman can do anything that a man can do.” Neither am I the kind of woman that would complain about Dolores Umbridge and Bellatrix Lestrange being the main villains of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and being second-in-command only to more powerful male villains. I don’t have a problem with having the desire to be taken care of. However, I have great respect for women—fictional or not—who know what they want and know how to get it, without letting any man to get in the way.

This brings my attention to the only female main character of the Pixar film Ratatouille, Colette Tatou. A chef in the kitchen of the gourmet restaurant Gusteau’s, Mademoiselle Colette is introduced as the mentor and partner of Alfredo Linguini, after he is mistakenly recognized as the creator of a fabulous new soup, which was really created by Remy the rat. “I am the only woman in this kitchen!” she says to Linguini on his first day of work. “I have been working too hard for too long to get here, and I am not going to jeopardize it for some garbage boy who got lucky!” (It is no surprise why she is an uptight nagger throughout the film. Tired women do that.)

It is clear that Colette has a strong personality. She can make Linguini shudder and recoil just by her mere presence. She initially sees Linguini as competition; it is her greatest misfortune to even be involved with him. “Haute cuisine is an antiquated hierarchy built upon rules written by stupid old men—rules designed to make it impossible for women to enter this world. But I’m still here,” she explains to him. To her, it shouldn’t matter that she is a woman; she can cook—and well, at that—and she is set to move beyond what the masculinist society dictates upon members of her gender.

Come to think of it, her motives are similar to Remy’s, who also wants to become more than what he really is. So now it bothers me that by the middle of the story, Linguini, under Remy’s control, has become the talk of the town just days after “his” soup’s popularity grew, and Colette lets it happen, putting her in the same position as she had been before. It bothers me even more that shortly after Gusteau’s reclaims its fame, she is shown to have given in to Linguini’s affections. It is implied that all she’s been looking for all along was love. She lowers her shield and lets an arrow pierce her, and that was it. All of a sudden, she is contented with being second place just when she’s halfway to her goal.

I understand that the theme of Ratatouille is “Anyone Can Cook.” Remy is a rat, and he has talent greater even than Colette’s. (His improvisation of the Sweet Bread a la Gusteau recipe became known as the “special order”; quite superior to the original, which was what Colette meant to serve; she was only following the rules.) Linguini, who cannot cook at all, is given a high position in the kitchen because people believe he can do it excellently. I understand that the audience loves the underdog. But doesn’t that make Colette, the only woman in the kitchen, sort of an underdog, too? I couldn’t accept that she’s been “working too hard for too long,” and suddenly it doesn’t matter because she fell in love. Who would have known that it would be a man that would soften her up?

And that’s another thing: Although I don’t have a real problem about women dreaming of someday having a stable family life with a man at their side to support them, I would agree that it is a masculinist notion that it is ideal that women would want exactly that. Walt Disney Pictures has been known to demonstrate through their films virtues that humanity holds dear—in the case of Ratatouille, perseverance against the odds. That being given, it could be deduced that even Colette’s behavior in the film was placed there that way on purpose. (Yeah, to make us go, “AWW…!” because she has a soft spot for Linguini—of all people.) That really seems disturbingly masculinist to me.

Björk vs. Lady Gaga

When I first heard Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face,” I thought it was an outrageous and ridiculous excuse for a song. I still do, and from then on, I refuse to ever like Lady Gaga or her songs.

Meanwhile, I hadn’t become a Björk fan until very recently, when I found myself quite fascinated with the eccentric imagery in her music videos and also the honest sensuality in her lyrics. I didn’t like her before because what she’s doing doesn’t sound like proper singing. The first videos of her that I’ve seen were “Big Time Sensuality,” “Pagan Poetry,” “Cocoon,” “Hunter” and another video that features what looked like two sea mollusks mating to form a human embryo in the end. What made me like her was when I was driven by curiosity and watched almost her music videos on YouTube and was just struck.

Björk’s eccentricity is somewhat comparable to Lady Gaga’s. Like Björk, Lady Gaga stands out with her rather outlandish style of hair, makeup and clothes. Also like Björk, Lady Gaga frequently wears her costumes in public as a fashion statement.

But the contrasts about them are more obvious. Lady Gaga seems to be just a little more upfront about her eccentricity; Björk doesn’t always come out wearing a ridiculous costume. Although both singers are honest about their sexuality, their manner of expressing it in their music videos is slightly different.

Lady Gaga is sexy, and she shows it unabashedly. She displays her body and moves like a snake, not unlike Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera at the height of their career.

Björk, on the other hand, have been known to appear nude in a music video but is not trying to be sexy. In the music video of “Cocoon,” she is shown totally nude with red threads coming out of her nipples; in relation to the song, which is about sex and love, her bare body shows the persona welcoming the sensuality, and the red threads symbolizes the emotion bursting out of her and then engulfing her.

Meanwhile, “Pagan Poetry” shows heavily distorted images of—according to Wikipedia—sexual intercourse, fellatio and pearls being sewn into skin (perhaps a euphemism for semen and penetration?), and Björk wearing a dress covering only her lower half. She has pearls on her skin. Her breasts are bare. “Pagan Poetry” bears the same themes as “Cocoon,” and the persona is preparing herself for marriage and sex. I'm guessing the symbolism is similar. The nudity is a statement—a sexually explicit one, but not with the purpose of sexually exciting an audience.

Both Björk and Lady Gaga appeal to the lowest instincts of humanity. Their sexual honesty opens the audience's minds to the intimate points in their being that society tries to conceal in an effort to make us less like the "lower" species of this planet. They just showed people that they don't have to deny their animal instincts to be human.

However, I would like to stress that Lady Gaga's sexual appeal seems to be a little too distracting to get her message across—Björk's nudism, although also distracting, is more mind-provoking due to the fact that you don't see her going all over a group of sexy men. Her sexuality is not overblown that she would resemble a showgirl. Perhaps that's also what Lady Gaga is trying to put off: making people see the substance beneath the seeming lack of it.

A Lamentation

I love my country. I love it for what I have seen that is good about it. No matter how willing I am to leave it, I know deep in my heart that it would be just as willing to go back when I would have left it. It is my home, after all. When I do leave the Philippines, I want to show other peoples that I, who was born and raised in a country wrought with political and economic instability, could still be somebody who can bring something to the world.

I'm a little sad that I might sound hypocritical right now for saying that after all the stuff that I’ve said about my own country in previous blog entries. But to be honest, although I'm quite disillusioned to the point that I would be quite ashamed to be from a country run with sheer mediocrity, I am satisfied that beyond the ugliness of it all, I have been lucky enough to see parts of it that is still worth fighting for.

When I write my novel, I think about the Philippines that I have learned to love and treasure—the smiling faces of my people, the idealism of my peers and of those in the military (including members of my family) … the land that somehow still boasts of friendly, hospitable, prayerful and industrious people—that I feel is still there somewhere—or at least, I hope so.

I shudder to think that from the nation that our foreign neighbors once looked up to for holding a “peaceful, bloodless revolution,” we have become the subject of ridicule. I have immersed myself in the company of visitors of different nations, and I have heard them complain that they, too, have been disillusioned about what the Philippines could offer. Instead of respect and tolerance, they have been met with racial stereotyping and apathy brought on by ignorance. Sometimes, I tell myself that perhaps they had been expecting too much from a country they don’t even know; different nations have different values. But that would be unfair of me to think, because the Philippines is advertised to be … as I have said above. The Filipino word for “foreigner” is dayuhan, from the root word dayo, literally “visit”; dayuhan means “visitor” or “guest,” and they must be treated as such. It breaks my heart, knowing that the values that this nation hold dear are being twisted or ignored.

This brings me to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is a website parodying Wikipedia. Although ED typically defames nearly everything under the sun with explicit language and sometimes untrue statements for the sake of humor, it is often believable and accurate to reality. I recently bumped into one article about the Philippines. Nearly everything in it is true, about as true as nearly everything is in the article about Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight. I am not proud and arrogant enough to find it completely offensive (it’s not offensive if it’s true; at least, to me). It just scares me, to be an individual from a country falling behind her neighbors. It frightens me to imagine about what other peoples really think about us.

I try my best to be a good representative of my country. Already, I look forward to publishing my novel and showing other people the Philippines as I know it. I just fear that by now, it seems that people of other nations wouldn’t take me seriously anymore because I am Filipino, unless they really know who I am.

I know my identity. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. But if that identity meant being associated with hypocritical behavior and mediocre standards, I guess I'm gonna have to work hard to be the best I can be, despite my dystopic origins.

About Cory Aquino

I was born in 1988, two years after the historical People Power Revolution that ended the reign of Dictator Ferdinand Marcos after 20 years. By the time that I was old enough to care about what was going on in the world, Fidel V. Ramos was president. That is to say that I never truly appreciated Corazon C. Aquino as the first woman president of the Philippines except from what I would learn later on in school.

I only know that it was on her time of office that democracy was brought back to the Philippines. As I was taught in school, democracy had to be the best form of government because the common man has a part in the way things are run in the country. Thus, people seem to claim that President Aquino was a sort of a hero for standing up for the rights of her people to freedom of speech and press … and all the benefits of a democratic rule.

Considering the condition of the Philippines now, after almost 25 years of democracy, I was gravely disillusioned—more so when a college professor of mine once ranted how President Aquino was not even the best ruler she could possibly be. He told us about how she was not even properly qualified to become president because she was a housewife who was educated in France—with a degree for French cuisine. I also heard that she appointed into office not those who would be good in the job but her friends—including her stylist, manicurist, et cetera.

All those combined, I am sorry to say that I feel rather indifferent about the death of the Lady in Yellow. I admit that I feel quite guilty that, even in her death, I still blame her for the gradual decline of this country. As I have seen in the memorial service dedicated to her, she was a nice person who was possibly just defamed by opposition during her time in office. But I am sad to say that the damage was done; what I’ve heard cannot be unheard. I know I’m supposed to feel sad about her passing, but I just don’t feel anything. I’m not even grateful toward her for bringing democracy back into this country. I feel bad, not because she is gone, but because I don’t feel bad about her being gone. It’s frustrating.

I could only say that I do hope that the former president Ma. Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino would rest in peace, along with her husband Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino in the afterlife. With that, I also hope that the legacy they supposedly left for the Philippines did not die with them.

Something to Be Proud of

I'm not usually this passionate about my origins, but let me show you a glimpse of my ancestors' hometown.


http://proud-to-be-pinoy.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

Rock ≠ Conformity?

Freaky Friday is not particularly one of my favorite Disney movies, but when I watched it again last night on DVD, I couldn’t help admiring it for “treating rock music with respect.” Like School of Rock, it frequently references “classic” examples of rock, while the music that Anna Coleman’s band plays is reminiscent of punk in its root form.

I am the kind of music lover who listens to whatever is on the radio. Having been born in 1988, my musical experience began in the early 90’s, when I enjoyed Michael Learns to Rock and some Bon Jovi and Aerosmith, and Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston, boy bands such as the Backstreet Boys, ‘N Sync, 5ive and Boyzone, and female singer-songwriters like Alanis Morissette, Natalie Imbruglia and Chantal Kreviazuk.

Let’s not forget the Disney movies—I am a huge Disney girl. As a child, I watched the fairy tales, Robin Hood, Alice in Wonderland, The Nightmare Before Christmas (if you count that as Disney), The Lion King, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. (Tarzan was good, but I look at it as the weak link in the chain of Disney classics, because it was in the milieu that spawned non-musical animated features, cheesy Disney Channel Original Movies and poor and unnecessary sequels.)

Given this background, I am positively embarrassed to say that although I am a fan of rock music, I haven’t listened to the bands that “decent” rock fans uphold as the true rockers. Although I respect that the Stone Temple Pilots, The Ramones, Black Sabbath, Radiohead, Kiss, Queen, AC/DC or Marilyn Manson are among those that are hailed as the epitome of rock, I haven’t listened to them. Nirvana, Aerosmith and Bon Jovi are among the few bands that I have listened to. Growing up, the closest I have been to rock was through alternative bands like Garbage, Oasis and No Doubt, which is sometimes considered to be pop.

I am also ashamed to call myself a rock fan when I was among the millions of pubescent girls who screamed over boy bands during what I call the bubblegum boom in the late 90’s. But when Linkin Park came out in 2001, which was the decline of boy bands, I tried my ears with “nu rock,” which is the classification of bands like Incubus, POD and Staind. I loved these bands, and their angsty content inspired me to become a writer; Linkin Park is my favorite, because they managed to express anger without being dependent on swearwords.

To my surprise, nu rock is deplorable and inferior in the opinion of fans of the “classic” bands listed above. But at the time, I was not aware of such a hierarchy.

In the years that followed, pop rock became popular. Michelle Branch and Vanessa Carlton started the trend in rebellion against bubblegum pop, but Ashlee Simpson, Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson were the genre’s most celebrated by 2005.

Also around the time that Avril Lavigne came out, pop punk took the place of nu rock. Good Charlotte, Green Day and Simple Plan became fan favorites.

Evanescence came out of nowhere and became an instant success in 2003. It seemed to be one of a kind; ignorant music listeners called it gothic rock. But real Goths didn’t think so, so I respect their opinion and have since refused to call Evanescence gothic. Amy Lee wasn’t even a real Goth, after all; she just likes wearing dark clothes and black makeup.

As I have been in my childhood, I liked whatever was on the radio, so I listened to these bands and singers despite complaints from traditionalists, who called these musicians posers. I ignored those complaints: Avril Lavigne and her contemporaries are pop singers anyway; I looked at Good Charlotte, Blink-182, Green Day and Simple Plan’s music to be a new version of punk rather than a different kind of music labeled as punk, which is what traditionalists claim. Evanescence is only labeled by the media as goth, but they really aren’t.

I entered college, just as emo music became all the rage. Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance, Panic! At the Disco, Dashboard Confessional and the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, among others came into the spotlight. At first, I thought this was a new wave of pop punk bands, but I discovered through some research that this is a different genre altogether. An offshoot of punk, emo is characterized by depressing lyrics, a combination of red and black clothes (not to be confused with the White Stripes, who wear red and white clothes), eyeliner (even on men), black- or red-framed eyeglasses (this fell out of trend within a year of its popularity) and sleek, overgrown bangs that cover one or both eyes. In the Internet, some people include some nu rock bands like Linkin Park and Staind in the label “emo,” as their lyrics are commonly angry, depressing, and repeatedly so.

I am not a fan of emo music (i.e. MCR, FOB, etc.), but I admit to listening to some of their songs. However, I am not one to actually buy their albums.

As you have probably figured out by now, I am pretty much a conformist. I got good grades in school, and never skipped classes on purpose. My academic performance is not my best, but only because I am lazy. I go to church and sing there, prompting me to be punctual and committed to attending Mass services. I am not what you would call a Jesus freak but I have significant knowledge of the Bible, Salvation History, and some Church doctrines; I get uncomfortable when I don’t get to go to Mass on my birthday or on Ash Wednesday. When it comes to religion, I am a devout Catholic, although I do not believe that Mary stayed a virgin after having Jesus, who I also believe married Mary Magdalene. Whoever this particular Magdalene was, she was most probably Mary of Magdala, not to be confused with the one who washed Jesus’s feet (that was Mary of Bethany); whether or not this Magdalene was the adulterer, I don’t quite know.

My conformity is the same with my taste in music, which makes me worry a bit. I listen to bands that are labeled inferior posers, and yet I admire “classic” rock bands without listening to them—am I hypocritical or just open-minded? I just don’t want traditionalists to shoot at me.

Forever the King of Pop

I've never cried over the death of a celebrity before. Suddenly, I find myself breaking down over a rather memorable video on YouTube.

2001 marked the twilight of boy bands and bubblegum pop. Britney Spears and company were growing up, and their fans were growing up with them by either listening to more substantial music or staying as loyal followers. I was a faithful Backstreet Girl at the time, although, with the rising popularity of rap metal/nü rock, I was drifting away from the pop genre and trying my ears on "darker" material. But even then, I was still consuming the last full blast of the boy band era. Then, that year's MTV Video Music Awards happened.

'N Sync at the time was the top boy band. Being the Backstreet Girl that I was, I only got pissed that they were flashier than the Backstreet Boys. It was obvious with their performance of "Pop." Still, I was pretty much entertained; I was actually impressed, especially with the opening sequence (how did they make the stage and everything in it black and white?!) and the props and costumes and the choreography. Then, the performance gradually came to an end with the members of 'N Sync repeating the chorus while moving from one area of the stage to another, eventually stopping at the middle, with a giant Etch A Sketch behind them, which drew the words "Kings of Pop," as they ended the song. The music seemed to fade and break when the letter "S" was erased, leaving the phrase "King of Pop."

I got the drift, and at that very moment, I screamed in an excitement incomparable to that which I would feel when watching a Backstreet Boy video. I couldn't believe it. He was back! Michael Jackson was back, and he was performing with the hottest boy band who, like myself, grew up with his music. Michael Jackson was no longer as handsome as I remembered him to be, but he was the King of Pop, and will always be.

That was eight years ago. At the wake of Michael Jackson's death five days ago, I was craving for videos of him that struck my memory. The first one I thought of was 'N Sync's performance of Pop, and I watched it on YouTube. When the finale showed, I just started crying. I remembered how happy I was to see Michael Jackson performing again, and now I would never experience that same excitement ever again.

Michael Jackson may have influenced many pop and hip-hop stars today such as Britney Spears, Usher, Justin Timberlake and Chris Brown, but none of them compare to what he exhibits in his performance. The King of Pop, indeed--he made such a great impact to this world with his unforgettable music. He had his ups and downs and endured ridicule because of his seeming lapse in sanity and deformed visage, but nobody could really deny what he had contributed to popular culture.

He may no longer be in this world, but his legacy would live on. Be it in music, dance or film, he had made his mark. For this, the world will never forget him.

Philippines vs. Spain Again?

On the day that my sister and I were going to watch Twilight, we got into the theater early enough to watch the trailers of upcoming movies.

One trailer in particular caught my eye, and it’s Baler, starring Anne Curtis and Jericho Rosales, as a Filipina and a Spanish soldier respectively. At first I thought this was just another movie about the Philippine Revolution. The idea seems a bore to me but the concept of an interracial romance (though not obvious since both actors are whiter than the average Filipino) is intriguing.

Since I saw the trailer, I’ve wanted to see the movie. I’ve long learned to not be so biased on the Filipino side of the Philippine Revolution (mind you, history books here are VERY biased). And since this movie features a love affair between a Filipino and a Spaniard, I thought this movie just might have a saving grace.

But soon after I’ve seen the trailer, my professor, who is a history enthusiast, mentioned that this “historical” movie, like its predecessors, seems to have been made with a minimal amount of research based on Filipino AND Spanish accounts of the Siege of Baler, which is the event that the movie was based on.

Now, I haven’t seen the movie yet but if I take my professor’s word for it, I think that would be unfair. What was the point of having a Spanish protagonist if that character would just be a token? I’m suddenly afraid that Jericho Rosales’s character would turn out to be getting himself on some damn moral dilemma about how wrong it would be if he keeps siding with his own countrymen.

Just, if Baler would become as historically biased as my prof says it is, then maybe the filmmakers would be missing the most important points about war.
There is no good or bad side in it. In the case of the Philippines versus Spain, it is only a matter of territorial, cultural, political dispute in which two peoples fight over a land that each claims to be its own. Yeah, the Spaniards never actually loved the Filipinos but it would be unfair to brand them as bad people just because of the atrocities they supposedly did to the Filipinos. But that’s not everything that they did.

The Spaniards unified the archipelago, brought Christianity and, in a way, helped develop Filipino culture as we know it today. Yeah, I would have to agree with another prof who once said that being colonized is like having a stranger ordering you around in your own household; but considering the benefits that the Spanish colonization brought to this country, I guess it’s only fair that we acknowledge and appreciate that.

Apparently, biased historians only cared about snooty Spaniards hitting indios with canes when they fail to greet the visitors, or Spanish priests raping native women. But we have to take note that just because some of them actually did those things doesn’t mean they all did. More importantly, it doesn’t automatically make them the villains of the story.

What do Spanish accounts say about the Siege of Baler or the Philippine Revolution in general? It seems reasonable we take those into account, too. But apparently, Filipinos would rather make themselves the victims all over again.

War doesn’t work that way. Each side might be fighting for what they think is right, but there will always be casualties. Whether one or the other is justified, we can never really tell unless we give each some consideration. Nonetheless people would die for a cause that they weren’t necessarily involved with. That’s the tragedy of war. There is no good and bad side to speak of, but people fight and kill nonetheless.

And as for the idea that Jericho Rosales’s character is a token: it could be that his character is used to show that not all Spaniards are bad. But if he’s the only one, that’s still not a good sign, don’t you think?

Nicole Scherzinger to Sing at Pacquiao Match?

A few weeks ago, my family stopped over at S&R for some grocery shopping on the way home from Clark, Pampanga. As usual, the radio was playing, and I was taking a look at the cookies and cakes displayed on tables near the daily products while listening to the radio. The woman DJ was sharing her thoughts about Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger, who allegedly refused to talk about her family during an interview.

I wasn’t listening too closely, but the DJ seemed a little ticked off about Miss Scherzinger not talking about her family. Whatever else she said, it didn’t really matter to me. However, one statement struck me: “Do you think Nicole Scherzinger is still worthy to sing at Manny Pacquiao’s match?”

Now, I have heard that Nicole Scherzinger had expressed her admiration for the People’s Champion as well as her desire to someday sing at one of his future matches. I was rather pleased. Miss Scherzinger was born in Hawaii and grew up in Kentucky, where I guess she had little exposure of Filipino culture so I don’t expect her to think too much of it. However, I was glad that she actually acknowledges her Filipino heritage and appreciates what Filipinos are capable of. In the past, she appeared in local commercials such as in Bench Body and Clear anti-dandruff shampoo, which I take as her way of saying, “Hey, I may be just half-Filipino, but I appreciate that you accept me as one of your own.” So why are people making such a big deal about Nicole Scherzinger refusing to talk about her family? I think I know: Filipinos probably think she must be somehow ashamed of her Filipino heritage.

I am not a fan of either the Pussycat Dolls or Nicole Scherzinger, but in my curiosity of the girl group’s lead singer’s ethnicity, I took a peek at her Wikipedia article, where I discovered that her Filipino father left her and her mother when she was just a baby; her stepfather Gary Scherzinger adopted her and her sister. Such a tumultuous family background—I wouldn’t be surprised that she wouldn’t want to talk about it. In any case, the fact that her biological father was a Filipino is hardly the case.

As long as Miss Scherzinger chooses to embrace her Filipino heritage as much as she likes, I wouldn’t have any trouble believing that she is worthy to sing at Manny Pacquiao’s match. If it’s such an honor for her to do so, well, I also think it’s an honor to have her among us as an admirer of the People’s Champion.

Racism in the Philippines

Just so everyone knows—I am not the kind of person who likes to think or talk about interracial tensions. In fact, I delight in the idea of interracial harmony. I also enjoy reading and viewing fiction about interracial romances such as in Save the Last Dance, The Joy Luck Club, Othello, The Last of the Mohicans, Spanglish and Legacy, among others. At present, I am writing two.

So I don’t like these stories (real or fiction) about Filipinos being bullied outside this country; but neither do I like hearing Filipinos complaining about it with unnecessary pride and passion. As a Filipino myself, I understand that my people have been treated unfairly in the past, and it’s a cause for some righteous anger. But I think it’s no reason for us to be unreasonably angry with our ex-colonizers OR revere them for a reason that I totally do not know.

Growing up in a country where colonial mentalities remain to be the diseases of society, I am extremely thankful that my family and I do not have the same perceptions about foreigners, especially white Americans. But to our disappointment, the residue of such behavior could still be observed in the people around us. We don’t want to say we are ashamed to be Filipinos, but we see that there isn’t much to be proud of either, because the pride that some of our countrymen is showing is confused with vanity and arrogance.

I am not going to talk about how many Filipinos brag about how we are the best. I think too many foreigners and some intelligent folk from this country have already complained about that so I leave it to them.

But let me share you three events that my family experienced recently: two were my father’s personal experiences, and one was my sister’s and mine.

In a not-so-distant past, my father was boarding a bus home. The bus wasn’t full, so he spotted many unoccupied seats there. When he chose a good one, somebody in the bus told him to get another seat because “Americans are sitting there.” My family—we don’t think of people of other colors that way. To us, people are people. If somebody—regardless of race—leaves a good seat in a bus vacant, we would gladly take it unless the person previously sitting there made it clear that they don’t want anyone else sitting there (e.g. leaves his bag there). But the “Americans” just left the bus to buy something and left the good seat vacant, so my father sat there. “So what?” my father said. “Did they tell you to keep this seat empty? This is a public place; I can sit where I want.” The person who told him to leave the seat spoke no more. The two “Americans” did not complain when they returned. My father was even more annoyed that the two Caucasians were actually French (or perhaps French-speaking Canadians).

In a more recent event, Papa was temporarily assigned in Clark Air Base when his international and domestic flights would be from Clark and back, not Manila. Cebu Pacific arranged with the local Holiday Inn to accommodate Cebu Pacific pilots. Being a former US Air Base, Clark still has a large percentage of Caucasians in the population. But my father noticed a peculiarity in the behavior of the employees of Holiday Inn: at the dining area, when the guest is a foreigner, especially when white, the employees would be warm, greeting the guest with a ready smile, even guiding the guest to his table without being asked. My father wasn’t treated the same way, although he was as much a guest as any big white American in the hotel. “What kind of training are you giving to your employees?” he asked the manager irritably when he complained about it. The manager, a Filipino, graciously thanked him for the comments and promised to do something about it.

About two weeks or so later, Papa was assigned in Clark once again. This time, he took Mama, my little sister Coleen and me with him.

On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, our second day, my sister and I went to the pool in the back of the hotel. The shallower end of the pool was full of people; since we were used to swimming in a pool with only our relatives, we chose to step into the empty deeper end, which was just four feet deep. To our surprise, the employees who are watching the pool guests told us to join the other guests in the shallow end, and we obeyed. I speculated that they were going to clean up the surface of the water at the empty end, but they did nothing anyway. My sister and I aren’t rule breakers by nature so we stayed with the strangers.

Then, about half an hour or so later, a brown-haired white man entered the deeper end of the pool with his kids, and nobody stopped him. I don’t understand it—why were my sister and I told to join the strangers and not that guy? But this gets worse: his son, who must be about eleven years old, handed him a glass of mango juice while he was still in the water—food and drinks are not allowed in the pool. Again, nobody stopped him.

My sister, who is a passionate anti-racist, was fuming.

But we didn’t tell this to our parents, because we knew that it would be our father who would complain. We didn’t want our father to get a reputation at the hotel for being such a frequent complainer. Besides, it wasn’t that big a deal; there could a good reason why we weren’t allowed in the deeper end of the pool. Maybe there was a schedule, I dunno…

Anyway, regarding all three instances, we all have the same thoughts: Why do Filipinos tend to be so nice to foreigners and not their own countrymen? If we want foreigners to respect us as a nation, we should start respecting each other and ourselves. I think the reason why foreigners think we’re slaves is because we act like such—putting Caucasians on the pedestal as though they’re so much better than us. I don’t believe they’re not, but us treating them with unnecessary reverence gives them an impression that we don’t value ourselves as much. And now, it’s becoming too real. We don’t value ourselves properly anymore.

Seriously, I don’t know where our society’s going at this rate.

On Predestined Love

Personally, I do believe in predestined love. I do believe in the concept of soulmates. I believe that there is somebody out there that would someday make me feel complete.

According to a Greek myth by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, humans once had complete souls. They had four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. They were great in mind and body, and attempted an attack against the gods, who became angry (I forgot why) and cut the humans in half and scattered them all over the world. In effect, the humans would spend the rest of their lives looking for “the other half.”

According to Indian philosophy, soulmates are two souls that are destined to be together; consequently, these pairs become lovers in several (if not successive) lifetimes. In modern Christian belief, God supposedly chose one specific person for you, to someday fall in love with and eventually marry. Unfortunately, many people have misconceptions about this romantic destiny, and it is manifested in published works of fiction or else misinterpretations of them.

Some people tend to take love at first sight as an indication that what a couple has is predestined love. I don’t believe in love at first sight. For starters, people cannot “love” one another without knowing each other first. One cannot “fall in love” after having just glimpsed a potential partner. Love at first sight means instant attraction; attraction is essential, but attraction alone is not love.

A famous example of this is the affair between Romeo and Juliet. People tend to point this out as the epitome of romance. They do not realize that Romeo and Juliet is a satire of how rash young people can be; the tragedy of the “star-crossed lovers” is magnified by their sheer immaturity combined by the feud between their families.

Many like to point out how strong Romeo and Juliet’s love was by citing how quickly they decided to get married and how upset both were upon each partner’s death. But Shakespeare’s eloquent writing had everybody fooled: these actions are exactly what made Romeo and Juliet so stupid.

The love at first sight part is out of the question: they were smooching before even knowing each other’s names—even people who actually do that would count it as a mindless encounter with the purpose of satisfying their lust. In other words, Romeo and Juliet were just struck by each other’s beauty that their hormones got ahead of them. They were just so horny that they wanna have sex right away so they decide to get married, as is the custom of the times. It was smart enough of them to get married, but even that wasn’t good: seriously, who would tell somebody, “Let’s get hitched,” after just knowing the other for only a few hours? (It seemed like minutes in the play.)

According to psychic experts, love at first sight/instant attraction could signify a romantic relationship in a previous lifetime, meaning that a couple who bond just moments after meeting each other just might be “meant to be together.” But let’s get real: just because you meet someone and immediately imagine a lifetime together doesn’t necessarily mean (s)he’s the one. Maybe you’re just horny.

As for the suicide part, I understand that it’s devastating to have somebody you hold dear die, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you’d have to die, too. I realize it’s hard for some to imagine a life without the significant other, but the fact that you are still living just might mean there could be more in store in live even without your lover.

Dependency is a tricky component of love. Possessive lovers in particular usually prefer the continual presence of the lover. Especially those new in the venture of romance feel a strong desire to be with their partner. These are the ones who claim they “cannot live” on the occasion of the beloved’s departure. To claim that the beloved is the “reason to live” would be healthy if it’s ‘coz life with the loved one is great. But letting yourself go when it doesn’t work out is over the top. I’ve never actually been in love so I don’t know what it’s like. So I wonder, is this pain enough for some people to give up living?—to start harming themselves with drugs and/or alcohol?—or even kill themselves? I don’t think it has to go that far, so that’s where we draw the line. It’s okay to grieve and mope; but don’t start getting yourself hurt under the excuse of a broken heart.

Besides, isn’t love all about giving what’s best for the other person. So what’s with the lines like “I can’t live without you [because] I need you”? It sounds selfish to me. Love means becoming a better person for the sake of the partner. If you love your departed lover so much, isn’t it better to pick yourself up and keep living?

Taking the events of New Moon into account, I think it is selfish on Bella’s part to start putting herself in danger so she could hear Edward’s voice in her head, when he left because he didn’t want her to be in danger in the first place. She should know better to take care of herself because that’s exactly what Edward would want.

Also take note that although it is reasonable for Edward would leave for the sake of Bella’s safety, the decision falls short of being the right thing because he knows how dependent Bella is on him. He could have talked it out with her and settled for a compromise instead of making the decision without even telling her beforehand. But no, Stephenie Meyer wanted an excuse to have a hot guy (i.e. Jacob Black) rescue her “strong and independent” lead character.

Sorry for the outburst.

Going back to the topic at hand, some people like to imagine that a person cannot fall in love before meeting the soulmate or that a relationship cannot work out if it is not between soulmates.

With the first issue in mind, I am citing the idea that Edward Cullen never took interest in ANY woman in his 100 years until Bella arrives. If he’s really 17 or as old as 25, I could still find it romantic. But at 101 years old, he seems too picky. For a guy, that’s greatly unrealistic.

Edward’s situation is similar to Landon Carter’s, who never had a serious relationship before meeting Jamie Sullivan. But compared to Edward Cullen, Landon is so much more believable. At 17, he has had many girlfriends, although almost all of them become playful flings that eventually end. But when he meets Jamie Sullivan and falls in love with her, he discovers a new meaning to romance: that love means becoming a better person not only for your partner but for your own good.

At the same age, it is equally understandable if Edward is not the type who is interested in getting into a relationship. But it is unbelievable that he wouldn’t at least steal a glance at a pretty girl nearby if it isn’t Bella Swan. He’s a guy! Men don’t stay dormant when it comes to girls once they reach adolescence. Besides, it’s not like Bella is the ONLY one who could be worth his time. And Bella isn’t even the best girl you could possibly meet: she is a superficial, killjoy bitch who catches everyone’s attention simply because she is beautiful.

From that, I would relate the second issue which would be applicable to the relationship between Bella Swan and Jacob Black: despite the fact that Jacob comforted Bella when she was depressed over Edward’s departure and protected her from Laurent, she chooses Edward because he is her “true love” and not Jacob.

Even psychic experts would disagree with this: I have read that people may not marry their soulmates and still be happy. Sometimes, your soulmate is not the only person who could be good for you. Just because he’s the best choice doesn’t mean nobody else could possible make you happy, too. At times, people never know for sure it they person they’re in love with is their soulmate. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not a couple is destined to be together, a healthy and meaningful relationship in which each partner could grow as individuals is all that is necessary.

And Speaking of Constructive Criticism.......

I've also been viewing anti-Twilight rants on YouTube again. Strangely, I don't get tired of it. For some reason, it fuels not only my passion against nauseatingly horrid writing but also my desire for good literature not only from authors who have taken their place in culture and humanity but from myself.

Yeah, I write, too. I'm also not ashamed to admit I'm not bad at it. Upon watching a video on YouTube about how mean Bella Swan is to her friends (especially in New Moon and Eclipse), I noticed that Bella seems to love to use the word "evil" out of nowhere. I don't like how she uses the word. What is evil anyway? From how I look at it, Lauren Mallory and Jessica Stanley never seemed to have done anything to be called "evil." As the YouTuber had said, anybody who disagrees with her is immediately cast as the bad guy. To me, that's just wrong.

(For reference, see this video. You can check out the rest of the playlist, if you like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBRT1GdG8kk&feature=PlayList&p=C889B504E14888E7&index=24)

My Thoughts on Tsip Chao

While I was in the hospital getting ready for surgery, I watched the news with my mother. One night, we encountered this much hyped news about a Hong Kong based Chinese journalist named Tsip Chao who supposedly talked trash about Filipinos, calling us a “nation of servants,” incorrectly translated in the news as “bayan ng mga alipin” (alipin = “slave”).

Yeah, even I would say that was mean. But I wasn’t angry ‘coz it’s true, but it seems my people seem to be going on a rage about it for the same reason. The politician who was most passionate about it (I forgot his name) kept saying, “I want to see him come to Manila. Let’s see how he likes it.” I was like, “Dude, that’s like the stupidest thing ever!”

What pisses me off most about it was that my people, especially the OFWs were so mad that they threatened to boycott Hong Kong, as if to show “let’s see how you’ll do without us!” People, Hong Kong would survive pretty well without Filipinos. It’s us who need them to employ us.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who thinks about the issue this way. Yesterday, on my way to an appointment with my surgeon, the radio was tuned in to DZMM, in which Korina Sanchez was speaking at the time. She was saying, “Are we angry because it’s rude, or are we angry because it’s true?” Apparently, she’s feeling the same way I do.

Open your eyes, people. There is such a thing as constructive criticism. If somebody says something mean about you, maybe you should look at yourself first before lashing out.

On an Anti-Twilight High

I've been spending today browsing online anti-Twilight articles, including professional reviews and amateur (even immature but not incorrect) reviews of the book and the entire series, text and video form alike. Considering that I hate the so-called Twilight Saga right now, these articles entertain me a lot. I think I'm just feeding my hate against the series so it would grow. I know it's a bad thing, but I can't help it. Like fellow young readers who are ranting against the series on YouTube, I admit I am jealous of Stephenie Meyer and her success. (I misspelled the author's name in a previous blog entry, I apologize.)

I've read less than half of the first book of the series, and let me just say that I don't need to read the entire "saga" to know that it's nothing but poor writing. Don't get me started on explaining why; I already did on the previous entry. I know what I said there isn't enough. But I wouldn't be able to explain everything in detail because nearly everything in the book is so badly written that I do not intend to read the rest of the series unless I want to bash it.

What's really bothering me is that I don't understand why such an abomination to literature is gaining this much fame and commercial success whereas the best pieces of literary art is barely even heard of. Yes, I understand WHY and HOW Twilight is appealing to young fans (particularly teenage girls); what I don't understand is why the series is getting so much attention that it doesn't deserve.

I'm jealous because I know I write better. As far as I'm concerned, if Meyer gets this much fame and fortune for something she doesn't even have talent with, I think I should get more than she does when I get published. I'm almost sure my own novel will not be as popular, but does Twilight have to be? I don't think so.

On "Little Ashes"

I recently saw the trailed of this new movie called Little Ashes, which tells the story of the homosexual love affair between two of my favorite artists, painter Salvador Dalí and Federico García Lorca. In case you don't know, Salvador Dalí was a surrealist painter who is known for his The Persistence of Memory, which is a strange picture with melted clocks and what looks like half the face of a man on the floor. Federico García Lorca was a poet and playwright; his play The House of Bernarda Alba is an allegory of the cruelty of the Spanish government. García Lorca's cruel death was the subject of the 1997 film The Disappearance of Federico García Lorca (also known as Death in Granada, as a reference to his poem "Lament for Ignacio Sanchez Mejías"), with Andy Garcia as the revolutionary poet.

I am ashamed to admit I did not know about this relationship between Lorca and Dalí. But when I saw the trailer, and confirmed it through a wikipedia article, I was thrilled. I really want to see this, and it's not because of Robert Pattinson, ha-ha!

Dracula's Rival - NOT!!

Since I first heard of Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight around last year through murmurs in the dorm, particularly through a dorm-mate who likes reading chick lit. I came under the impression that Twilight is chick lit; chick lit for me is highly unsophisticated and unworthy of my eyes, which I think should be exposed to classical and canonical literature, including those I haven’t finished yet, like Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables and Homer’s epic The Iliad, which, in the words of Lisa Simpson, “practically started the whole Western literary tradition.” (I paused reading the epic at Book 11, just halfway through the entire story.)

I'm not really sure how I came to the subconscious conclusion that Twilight might not be good for me. I'm guessing that because of its being just another vampire novel made me think: “So what’s new?”
Later, I learned that it’s not exactly chick lit; at least not like books like How to Survive a Breakup or Between Dinnertime and the Morning After, which I hear are awful. After all, considering how many people actually love Twilight, I guess it might not be as bad as I think. I don’t believe that many people can be so stupid to fall for something that’s not worth reading, if Twilight is that bad.

So around September or December last year, I thought Twilight could be worth a shot. But in case it was bad, I was unwilling to spend a peso for it. To my delight, my roommate sensed my curiosity and was generous enough to send me the e-books of the entire series.

I’ve read only at least two pages of the first book Twilight and I was unable to continue. The writing was only as good as the average online fan fiction, meaning it’s not even good enough to be published as an expensive book and distributed worldwide.

I think the appeal of the books come from the fact that the characters are attractive and its premise is something that any teenage girl would fall for. But even that is an undignified quality if applied to any proper book. A good book can get anybody’s attention; an excellent book can attract more than its target audience. Harry Potter is not the best novel series ever, but its charm and witty language caught the attention of children and adults alike.

But Twilight—its immature language ruins its chances of being something good to read. Yeah, I would say that the premise is cliched, but there's no telling it would work or not. Obviously, it did, but only to a certain extent. The problem of the book was the writing itself.

After reading excerpts of the first book, I learned that it's not just the beginning of the book that was bad; the rest of it is.

I've read an excerpt of the scene of Bella's first day in school. She describes there how she somehow attracts everyone's attention, how everybody's head turns to her direction. As I remember earlier in the story, Bella does not find herself very attractive with her paleness, so why would anyone else take notice of her? And even if Meyer was using the unreliable narrator tactic when Bella describes her own appearance, it still does not explain why every head would turn to her direction. Even the prettiest girls in existence don't get that kind of attention.

In relation to this, Bella previously resided in Arizona, where she loves the sun. If she loves the sun so much, one would think she would soak herself in its light, giving her a tan. Why and how would she remain so white, then?

Another annoying scene I bumped into is the one where Bella first sees the Cullens. Here, Meyer displays her excessibve dependence on adjectives. She uses "beautiful" and "perfect" more than once. Meyer does not exactly fail to explain why they're beautiful or perfect, but the character's teenage awe gets in the way of making a description that could have been more eloquent than what was printed.

Furthermore, what constitutes beauty or perfection anyway? If Bella describes one of the Cullens to be of an athletic build, what could possibly make that more perfect than Anna Kournikova's body, for instance?

It doesn't mean that she's so vague that I can't see what the scene intends me to. I do, but the language, its limited vocabulary makes it less than it could have been. What makes it worse is that this language makes Bella sound stupid; whether or not she is, the author seems to be making the character's age as an excuse to let the narrative fall apart.

Although I discourage my sisters from reading the book, I am not going to tell people that reading Twilight would show how unintelligent they are. (I've seen online articles that say that.) I won't. But if anybody reads this, let me just say that there are better books to buy. Go get them. If you're into vampire novels in particular, grab Bram Stoker's Dracula. Let's just say that this is where you see what the vampire really is.

Entry and Exit

This is my first time to post a blog on an actual blog. My first blog has been in Friendster, and I hope to post many blogs here in the future.