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.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)