María Clara has long been identified as the ideal Filipina, and at first glance, it’s not hard to see why. Gentle and meek, María Clara would never hurt a fly; the closest she came at it was when she was hitting Crisostomo Ibarra with a fan, but that was a playful encounter. Devoutly religious like her father Capitan Tiago, she looks to the Holy Virgin as her mother, having lost her biological mother Doña Pia from childbirth. María Clara might as well be an avatar of Mother Mary herself; any scene including her would not be complete without description of how beautiful and chaste she is. “Everything about her breathed virginity, purity, innocence,” as she is described shortly before the end of Chapter 40.
But I beg to differ.
José Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere is better known for its legacy of provoking the Philippine Revolution than for its literary merit. Considering that Noli was Rizal’s first novel, it’s not that much of a surprise. (It’s nowhere near bad but it certainly has its faults.) Rizal’s poetry is better than his prose, I would say. His earliest ventures into literature was into poetry rather than prose, so I’m not going to take it out on Rizal for writing such a miserable excuse for a love interest as he had not much practice for prose apart from his journalistic undertakings in La Solidaridad. (I might be wrong, of course.) Noli Me Tangere borrows heavily from Victor Hugo’s style, as both Hugo’s and Rizal’s works incorporate criticism of social issues within the plot. Rizal’s text is mercifully fast-paced, but certain long-winded descriptions tend to slow it down. Such lines include anything with María Clara in it.
The idea that María Clara is the symbol of the ideal Filipina might have been a misinterpretation. Forty-four chapters into the novel, I simply do not see a reason why. María Clara is a completely static character and contributes absolutely nothing to the plot; she is there just for everyone else to fawn over for her beauty, talent for music (specifically for singing and playing the piano), and her genteel manner. If anybody else is not entranced by her, they are envious of her.
But I am neither drawn to nor envious of María Clara; I’m just irritated with her. Aside from everything I’ve already mentioned, and in case you haven’t figured it out yet, María Clara is a Mary Sue—a Purity Sue, to be exact. She is the very essence of goodness, to the point that she might even put Mother Mary to shame. For this, she doesn’t seem to bear any hint of a [character] flaw, and everyone simply loves her.
When I first encountered Noli Me Tangere when I was 15-year-old schoolgirl, I practically swallowed up my teachers’ biased interpretations of the novel. It wasn’t my teachers’ fault; I’d say it has to do more of the curriculum and the poor educational system than the faculty itself that result in misguided education in the Philippines, but that’s not what we are discussing here.
I remember feeling for María Clara as what was expected of me. Now reading Harold Augenbraum’s English translation of Noli Me Tangere, I couldn’t read a scene with María Clara in it without wanting to swear at the book under my breath. It’s true that “Clarita” never utters a foul word against anyone, nor even thinks about spiting anybody; however, despite having everything a maiden would want—a loving family, loyal friends and a devoted lover— whenever María Clara does or says something she would either be complaining or crying for no apparent reason. But hey, I understand that she was depressed when Ibarra was excommunicated, but that was no reason to have a nervous breakdown over it ... becoming bedridden with just a fever, not talking to anyone. She practically turned into a baby; crying was the only thing she could do. María Clara was probably the original emo character.
María Clara is also a Relationship Sue; she exists only to be Crisostomo Ibarra’s love interest. Without her, the plot would have carried on without necessary alterations. There is no conflict going on with her; she’s suffering, alright, but everything terrible that happens is completely beyond her control. Rizal could have given her a task she could handle herself, but he was too busy making friars angry by “painting” them as perverted tyrants in a pseudo-dystopian society. If Rizal knew that María Clara has no significance to the plot whatsoever, he should have just killed her “onscreen” in Noli Me Tangere instead of killing her “offscreen” in El Filibusterismo.
As for the notion that María Clara is the prime example of the ideal Filipina is nothing less than insulting to me. I can understand how being meek and submissive is ideal; it’s always been that way in patriarchal society. But I won’t accept it if it means being totally ineffectual with no dreams or aspirations of my own. If anything, I think the notion as mentioned above might have been a mistake. We would never know for sure what Rizal was trying to put off but a highly intellectual guy like him would more likely place strong women like his mother and sisters to be ideal Filipinas; considering that Noli Me Tangere was meant to be a criticism of Philippine society in under the Spanish rule, could it be that María Clara was also what the Filipina should NOT be?
Maybe it’s just my modern idealism talking, but I personally and seriously think that it was a misinterpretation. Somebody must have admired Clarita’s submissiveness and disregarded everything else. If you ask me, like any man, a woman should also have the chance to make something of herself in this world and not be just a pretty face.
If there’s another character that should be the epitome of the ideal Filipina, I say it’s Tía Isabel. She might not be the best character on the novel either, but she’s caring and she wants the best for her family. She might not be María Clara’s mother, but she cares for the girl like she’s her own daughter. Similarly, she looks out for her cousin Capitan Tiago and is not afraid to tell him off when he says or does something stupid.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
"Juliet is perfect," said Bella Swan.
For someone who has a bachelor's degree in English Literature, Stephenie Meyer doesn't know shit about Shakespeare. To some extent, I could see the resemblance between Meyer's twisted love story and Shakespeare's timeless classic Romeo and Juliet. However, Meyer fails to see the underlying significance of the play that his excellent writing tends to unwittingly conceal: Romeo and Juliet are nothing more than stupid, angst-ridden, hormone-driven, rich teenagers willing to risk their own lives and that of each of their families and friends for sex. Critics and literary experts even consider Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare's worst work, but only because it lacks the sociopolitical impact of his other works such as King Lear or Macbeth; not to mention that Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet as a satire of how foolish young people (i.e. teenagers) can be, rather than the epitome of love and romance as Meyer apparently sees it to be.
Keeping that in perspective, let us move on to the single line that really struck me with ire the moment I set eyes on it while I was reading New Moon several months ago: “Juliet is perfect.” Although Shakespeare is known to defy the rules and standards set by Aristotle's Poetics, but he gets away with it with good writing; however, Shakespeare does obey the rule that in order for a plot to take place, a conflict must get in the way of the protagonist and further complicated by the protagonist's “flaw”.
Assuming everybody reading this knows the conflict and plot of Romeo and Juliet, there must be character flaws that go with it, right?
Romeo's flaw tends to be more obvious than Juliet's. Rash and reckless like a whirlwind, he immediately falls for Juliet so soon after breaking up with Rosaline. Romeo also went straight to Friar Laurence, mere hours after meeting Juliet, to arrange their marriage. But wait, whose idea was it for them to get married?
Three words, dear Romeo, and good night indeed.
If that thy bent of love be honourable,
Thy purpose marriage, send me word to-morrow,
By one that I'll procure to come to thee,
Where and what time thou wilt perform the rite;
And all my fortunes at thy foot I'll lay
And follow thee my lord throughout the world.
~Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II
There you have it, people: it was Juliet's idea. She was no worse than Romeo, and not any better either. If there was any hint of so-called “love” within them, they might have at least thought about sacrificing their affair to avoid further conflict between their families or else urged their parents to reconcile so their relationship can have some breathing room. Unfortunately, the young couple thought of nothing else but to satisfy their sexual desire, which they know they'll taste only at marriage.
What was so “perfect” about Juliet anyway? I for one don't see anything pure or perfect about her. Like Romeo, she thinks of nothing but herself. Like Romeo, she is just as willing to risk getting disowned for having an affair with the enemy. … If that's not stupid, I don't know what is.
Keeping that in perspective, let us move on to the single line that really struck me with ire the moment I set eyes on it while I was reading New Moon several months ago: “Juliet is perfect.” Although Shakespeare is known to defy the rules and standards set by Aristotle's Poetics, but he gets away with it with good writing; however, Shakespeare does obey the rule that in order for a plot to take place, a conflict must get in the way of the protagonist and further complicated by the protagonist's “flaw”.
Assuming everybody reading this knows the conflict and plot of Romeo and Juliet, there must be character flaws that go with it, right?
Romeo's flaw tends to be more obvious than Juliet's. Rash and reckless like a whirlwind, he immediately falls for Juliet so soon after breaking up with Rosaline. Romeo also went straight to Friar Laurence, mere hours after meeting Juliet, to arrange their marriage. But wait, whose idea was it for them to get married?
Three words, dear Romeo, and good night indeed.
If that thy bent of love be honourable,
Thy purpose marriage, send me word to-morrow,
By one that I'll procure to come to thee,
Where and what time thou wilt perform the rite;
And all my fortunes at thy foot I'll lay
And follow thee my lord throughout the world.
~Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II
There you have it, people: it was Juliet's idea. She was no worse than Romeo, and not any better either. If there was any hint of so-called “love” within them, they might have at least thought about sacrificing their affair to avoid further conflict between their families or else urged their parents to reconcile so their relationship can have some breathing room. Unfortunately, the young couple thought of nothing else but to satisfy their sexual desire, which they know they'll taste only at marriage.
What was so “perfect” about Juliet anyway? I for one don't see anything pure or perfect about her. Like Romeo, she thinks of nothing but herself. Like Romeo, she is just as willing to risk getting disowned for having an affair with the enemy. … If that's not stupid, I don't know what is.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
If Eclipse and Breaking Dawn Ended My Way
I finished Eclipse two nights ago, skipping several insignificant paragraphs and dialogs along the way. This makes me just one book short of finishing the Twilight series—two if you count Midnight Sun. (I wouldn’t count the upcoming The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner because it has nothing to do with Bella or Edward.)
Like the two previous books, Eclipse could have been shorter; but “concise” doesn’t seem to exist in Stephenie Meyer’s vocabulary.
The epilogue was my favorite part. Told in Jacob’s point of view, Jacob is contemplating on the future now that Bella is bound to choose Edward over him anyway. Leah Clearwater taunts him while she urges him to get over Bella; her speech and actions were hostile, but she was the only character so far (apart from Rosalie Hale in the first book) who ever said anything that made total sense.
The falling action with Bree and the Volturi caught my attention in particular. Little Bree’s presence was so captivating despite her short existence in the book that I’m not surprised that Meyer wants to tell Bree’s side of the story.
Even if I happened to be a fan, I don’t think I’d like the outcome of events at the end of the third book. I already know what’s going to happen in Breaking Dawn; considering what I’ve seen in Eclipse, here’s how things could have turned out if it went my way:
Carlisle Cullen could have convinced the Volturi to spare Bree. His previous alliance with the ancient coven should have earned him enough influence toward them. If they let Carlisle adopt Bree, Bree would have been a new little sister in the Cullen family, as well as a witness to the events in Breaking Dawn.
Meanwhile, a few casualties could have been nice; and it would have made total sense, too, considering that Victoria’s army of newborn vampires clearly outnumbers the Cullen family and the Quileute wolf pack, not to mention that they’re bigger not only in numbers but in strength. I don’t mind Sam or Rosalie or Jasper Hale or even Jacob Black getting killed. It would still break my heart to have Jacob die, but at least that solves the love triangle issue the easy way. This also spares everyone from the nauseating prospect of Jacob “imprinting” on Bella’s baby.
However, if Jacob doesn’t die, it would have been great if he ends up with Leah. This is something that many a Breaking Dawn hater (including former fans) were expecting. Now that I’ve seen Jacob and Leah interacting, it would have been great if they fall in love in the end. I’ve read somewhere that in Breaking Dawn, Leah actually defends Jacob by telling Bella off. I realize that Stephenie Meyer wanted every character to have a happy ending, so why not let Jake and Leah get together? That’s a lot better than having Jacob fall in love with a baby and have Leah still be left with nothing.
Like the two previous books, Eclipse could have been shorter; but “concise” doesn’t seem to exist in Stephenie Meyer’s vocabulary.
The epilogue was my favorite part. Told in Jacob’s point of view, Jacob is contemplating on the future now that Bella is bound to choose Edward over him anyway. Leah Clearwater taunts him while she urges him to get over Bella; her speech and actions were hostile, but she was the only character so far (apart from Rosalie Hale in the first book) who ever said anything that made total sense.
The falling action with Bree and the Volturi caught my attention in particular. Little Bree’s presence was so captivating despite her short existence in the book that I’m not surprised that Meyer wants to tell Bree’s side of the story.
Even if I happened to be a fan, I don’t think I’d like the outcome of events at the end of the third book. I already know what’s going to happen in Breaking Dawn; considering what I’ve seen in Eclipse, here’s how things could have turned out if it went my way:
Carlisle Cullen could have convinced the Volturi to spare Bree. His previous alliance with the ancient coven should have earned him enough influence toward them. If they let Carlisle adopt Bree, Bree would have been a new little sister in the Cullen family, as well as a witness to the events in Breaking Dawn.
Meanwhile, a few casualties could have been nice; and it would have made total sense, too, considering that Victoria’s army of newborn vampires clearly outnumbers the Cullen family and the Quileute wolf pack, not to mention that they’re bigger not only in numbers but in strength. I don’t mind Sam or Rosalie or Jasper Hale or even Jacob Black getting killed. It would still break my heart to have Jacob die, but at least that solves the love triangle issue the easy way. This also spares everyone from the nauseating prospect of Jacob “imprinting” on Bella’s baby.
However, if Jacob doesn’t die, it would have been great if he ends up with Leah. This is something that many a Breaking Dawn hater (including former fans) were expecting. Now that I’ve seen Jacob and Leah interacting, it would have been great if they fall in love in the end. I’ve read somewhere that in Breaking Dawn, Leah actually defends Jacob by telling Bella off. I realize that Stephenie Meyer wanted every character to have a happy ending, so why not let Jake and Leah get together? That’s a lot better than having Jacob fall in love with a baby and have Leah still be left with nothing.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Dumbele
I remember rehearsing an excerpt of this piece back in 2005 with the UST Chorus of Arts and Letters; not long after hearing my older choir-mates rehearse in the university park, putting me in a trance of awe. I never got to perform this with them because I left the choir later that year.
This music conjures in my head images of ancient Filipinos pleading to their rain and fertility deities over a dying field. ... beautiful ...
This music conjures in my head images of ancient Filipinos pleading to their rain and fertility deities over a dying field. ... beautiful ...
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Fake Evanescence
I first heard of We Are The Fallen in a vlog by a YouTuber by obsessedwithamylee, who made it clear that “I do not support this band … Amy Lee is Evanescence.” That was, like, at least half a year ago. I didn’t bother finding out anything about this band beyond that it’s composed of former Evanescence members including Ben Moody. I didn’t really care at all because considering that all of We Are The Fallen are former Evanescence members, I'm pretty sure that they’ll just sound exactly like Evanescence without Amy Lee. I was ticked off enough knowing that Ben Moody supposedly said, in a nutshell, that they’re better than Evanescence would ever be.
Like obsessedwithamylee, I do not support this band either, so I put them out of my mind until a few days ago, when I was watching videos in YouTube of Evanescence’s “secret show” in New York from November 2009. For some reason, people kept mentioning Carly Smithson in the comments; if you didn’t know who this person is already, you might remember her as a tattooed Amy Lee look-alike from the 7th season of American Idol whose final performance was of “Jesus Christ Superstar” for Broadway (Andrew Lloyd Webber) week. I was taken aback when I saw a comment saying “F**k Carly Smithson!” and I got confused; a powerful singer, Smithson was my favorite contestant of that season so I couldn’t see what people would possibly have against her. Then, in another video, I found another comment that clarified everything: “… We Are The Fallen is Ben Moody’s new band. Which is Evanescence’s first album Fallen and fake ass Carly Smithson as the replacement for Amy Lee.”
This came off as a bit of a shock for me. I have great respect for Smithson as a singer and performer, and I was kinda heartbroken that Ben Moody and Co. would use her like this. Forgive my choice of words, but that’s how I feel. Carly Smithson is a powerful singer; having her in this band makes her look like a fake, and she’s not. Ben and Co. ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are arrogant and pompous for constantly comparing themselves to Evanescence and then pulling Carly in. This endeavor is in vain and I hope that Evanescence (according to Amy Lee, they’re recording for a new album) will outshine We Are The Fallen, which I think will happen.
Like obsessedwithamylee, I do not support this band either, so I put them out of my mind until a few days ago, when I was watching videos in YouTube of Evanescence’s “secret show” in New York from November 2009. For some reason, people kept mentioning Carly Smithson in the comments; if you didn’t know who this person is already, you might remember her as a tattooed Amy Lee look-alike from the 7th season of American Idol whose final performance was of “Jesus Christ Superstar” for Broadway (Andrew Lloyd Webber) week. I was taken aback when I saw a comment saying “F**k Carly Smithson!” and I got confused; a powerful singer, Smithson was my favorite contestant of that season so I couldn’t see what people would possibly have against her. Then, in another video, I found another comment that clarified everything: “… We Are The Fallen is Ben Moody’s new band. Which is Evanescence’s first album Fallen and fake ass Carly Smithson as the replacement for Amy Lee.”
This came off as a bit of a shock for me. I have great respect for Smithson as a singer and performer, and I was kinda heartbroken that Ben Moody and Co. would use her like this. Forgive my choice of words, but that’s how I feel. Carly Smithson is a powerful singer; having her in this band makes her look like a fake, and she’s not. Ben and Co. ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are arrogant and pompous for constantly comparing themselves to Evanescence and then pulling Carly in. This endeavor is in vain and I hope that Evanescence (according to Amy Lee, they’re recording for a new album) will outshine We Are The Fallen, which I think will happen.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Deception
A shroud of lace
Covers my eyes
Conceals my face
And all your lies
You bought my love
With sweetened drugs
I soared above
Held down by tugs
So much damage
No veil can hide
All the sickness
Hidden inside
Covers my eyes
Conceals my face
And all your lies
You bought my love
With sweetened drugs
I soared above
Held down by tugs
So much damage
No veil can hide
All the sickness
Hidden inside
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Fundamentalists and Hypocrites
In my teens, I was under a struggle with my faith. Then, when I was 19, upon learning that God can help those who have been seriously hurt, like ex-atheist-turned-Christian-rock-star Lacey Mosley, who has been outspoken about her faith since she was rescued from suicide at 16 years old, I thought, How could I doubt He can rescue me, too, when she got bigger problems than I?
I was raised a Catholic, and I loved to read Bible stories. My favorite parable was the one about the Parable of the Talents, but the one that struck me the most was the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave. From that, I learned to take Jesus's two powerful commandments seriously: 37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” In relation with the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave, I'm going to focus on the second commandment.
I've been a YouTube user since 2007, I think, and I've come upon many atheists, who, despite their blatant refusal to understand how faith works, have earned my respect because of their intelligence that I could only wish that they find find God and accept that He loves them. Sadly, most of the rest of these internet atheists are trolls who bash Christians and Christianity for the sake of proving the invalidity of the Christian faith and religion in general. But what breaks my heart even more are the Christians who shove their religion in people's faces and pretend to know so much about their faith but totally behave the opposite way of how they're supposed to.
God gave us free will so we would love and serve Him with all our heart. Even if we turn away from Him, we are free to go back. We are made in His image and likeness, so we are expected to act by our divine nature and let others think and act on their own. We are not to impose our faith on anyone; the most we can do is encourage them.
Just last night, I came upon an arrogant Christian in the comments section under a video with a Nine Inch Nails song called "Heresy". He (or she) was arguing with an atheist, trying to prove the existence of God by explaining the "order of the universe". I knew he was trying to do what St. Thomas Aquinas did in Summa Theologia, where Aquinas strained his reason to explain how there is a God, and with that, he filled out a big, fat book. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant man; even so, I don't believe that explaining God with all his human reason was a piece of cake. That the Christian on YouTube attempted that in a single comment seemed to me so arrogant to the point of being ludicrous. I genuinely felt very bad for him and the person he is arguing with because the Christian guy won't get respect, and the atheist would not understand where the discussion is going. I gave him a piece of my mind: "It's people like you and your 'just because' arguments that make Christianity look bad. You're not making any sense. You don't give out such broad points and expect people to understand you. If you want to prove God is real, you show it, not shove it." That was fair, wasn't it? But he lashed out at me with "its people like you who should EAT A DICK lololol".
An earlier comment controlled my urge to lash back, and it made me feel heaps better. "... In case you read this, I believe in God as well but I don't shove it in people's faces and talking down to people because they don't. You should try it, stop being close minded. ..." I guess it wasn't worth it to fight back. I already did my part on showing him how to defend his faith; if he doesn't listen, let him face the consequences. For someone who believes in God, he surely has no idea how to show it. Christians are supposed to show love and kindness, even to those who spite them, for 'tis in this way that others would learn how it is to love the way that God taught us.
I was raised a Catholic, and I loved to read Bible stories. My favorite parable was the one about the Parable of the Talents, but the one that struck me the most was the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave. From that, I learned to take Jesus's two powerful commandments seriously: 37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” In relation with the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave, I'm going to focus on the second commandment.
I've been a YouTube user since 2007, I think, and I've come upon many atheists, who, despite their blatant refusal to understand how faith works, have earned my respect because of their intelligence that I could only wish that they find find God and accept that He loves them. Sadly, most of the rest of these internet atheists are trolls who bash Christians and Christianity for the sake of proving the invalidity of the Christian faith and religion in general. But what breaks my heart even more are the Christians who shove their religion in people's faces and pretend to know so much about their faith but totally behave the opposite way of how they're supposed to.
God gave us free will so we would love and serve Him with all our heart. Even if we turn away from Him, we are free to go back. We are made in His image and likeness, so we are expected to act by our divine nature and let others think and act on their own. We are not to impose our faith on anyone; the most we can do is encourage them.
Just last night, I came upon an arrogant Christian in the comments section under a video with a Nine Inch Nails song called "Heresy". He (or she) was arguing with an atheist, trying to prove the existence of God by explaining the "order of the universe". I knew he was trying to do what St. Thomas Aquinas did in Summa Theologia, where Aquinas strained his reason to explain how there is a God, and with that, he filled out a big, fat book. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant man; even so, I don't believe that explaining God with all his human reason was a piece of cake. That the Christian on YouTube attempted that in a single comment seemed to me so arrogant to the point of being ludicrous. I genuinely felt very bad for him and the person he is arguing with because the Christian guy won't get respect, and the atheist would not understand where the discussion is going. I gave him a piece of my mind: "It's people like you and your 'just because' arguments that make Christianity look bad. You're not making any sense. You don't give out such broad points and expect people to understand you. If you want to prove God is real, you show it, not shove it." That was fair, wasn't it? But he lashed out at me with "its people like you who should EAT A DICK lololol".
An earlier comment controlled my urge to lash back, and it made me feel heaps better. "... In case you read this, I believe in God as well but I don't shove it in people's faces and talking down to people because they don't. You should try it, stop being close minded. ..." I guess it wasn't worth it to fight back. I already did my part on showing him how to defend his faith; if he doesn't listen, let him face the consequences. For someone who believes in God, he surely has no idea how to show it. Christians are supposed to show love and kindness, even to those who spite them, for 'tis in this way that others would learn how it is to love the way that God taught us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)