In Celebration Of “The Kalevala’s” (And Finnish Culture’s) Day!

“It is my desire, it is my wish
To set out to sing, to begin to recite,
To let a song of our clan glide on, to sing a family lay.
The words are melting in my mouth, utterances dropping out,
Coming to my tongue, being scattered about my teeth”

So begins the first poem of the Kalevala, the national heroic epic of the Finnish people. The tales depict numerous universal subjects such as failed marriage proposals, death, sorrow, the miscommunication between parents and their children, love, hope, and war over wealth and power. Before being documented upon paper, the stories had traveled throughout Finland by song and tale telling for thousands of years. The poems were learned by heart and passed on through oral tradition, since books in the Native Language of the Finns did not yet populate that nation (nor had Finnish yet been standardized for script). The poem chroniclers not only sang the tales to entertain, but also to teach the lessons of life, morals and customs. Despite the oral tradition of the tales, and their recounting, dying out around the 18th centrury, the growing desire to restore and cherish the ancient stories blossomed in the early 19th century.

The birth of the earth (by: Gallen Kallela)

The one who set out to re-discover and collect the poems was Elias Lönnrot, a highly educated young man, who not only was an explorer but also a doctor and scientist. Lönnrot is often credited as the father of developing and reinventing (standardization of the scriptural form of the language which had yet to see the written page) the Finnish language – and indeed, after working as a doctor he moved on to becoming a professor of the Finnish tongue and spent his retirement working upon the Finnish dictionary. While traveling, Elias Lönnrot collected many of the old myths and legends. He used the known poems in his work while also adding more characters and events to the original tales.* Thus the first volume of the epic, titled “The Old Kalevala”, was published in 1835, soon followed by the second volume, “The New Kalevala” in 1849. “The Kalevala” has by today been translated into over fifty different languages and is the only national epic which is honored with a flagging day.

Elias Lönnrot

Since today, the 28th of February, is the national day for the Kalevala, I should probably say what the Kalevala means to me as a fellow (Half) Finn. The Classic book is historically important for the development and growth of the Finnish language. The language in question had weakened and been held back for quite a while, so one could argue that “The Kalevala” and Lönnrot basically saved the Finnish tongue. To me, a speaker of fluent Finnish and one who finds some sort of personal subjectivity in the use of this tongue, “The Kalevala” stands out as a form of linguistic savior. But beyond the importance of the text to Finnish national identity and the personal subjectivity this engenders, the book further explores the realms of the broad-spectrum human condition and metaphors and fantasies which form the collective insights and narratives of the human tale and the abode of nature in which we find ourselves.

In addition, “The Kalevala” is interesting in its portrayal of the female characters. For the Era in which the epic was published, not to mention when the myths-singings and tellings were communally recounted, one could argue that the tales are surprisingly feminist. One of the most famous stories found in the epic is Väinämöinen’s (the Kalevala’s leading character, and the oldest being in the world) ill-fated wooing of the young maiden Aino. The legend begins with Väinämöinen getting promised the hand of Aino from her brother Joukahainen through the machinations of a lost duel. The mother of Aino and Joukahainen is thrilled with the idea of her daughter saying “I do” to Väinämöinen (as he is considered very old and wise, perfect husband material), but Aino is not. After Väinämöinen’s persistent chase of Aino, she, in absolute despair, drowns herself. In the aftermath of her child’s suicide, Aino’s mother woefully exclaims : “Do not, wretched mothers, ever , ever at all lull your daughters, rock your children into a marriage against their will as I, wretched mother, lulled my girls, brought up my chicks”. The Aesop of the myth is clearly that children, especially young women, should not be forced into marriage. Even if it’s peculiar that the Aesop only targets mothers instead of both parents, it’s really fascinating and wonderful to hear such an enlightened, modern moral from a story that probably was told thousands of years ago. The poem is a manifest to a woman’s right to choice.

Gallen Kallela's "The Aino Triptych"

The epics women are also portrayed as just as wise, if not sometimes wiser, than “The Kalevala’s” men. Lemminkäinen, an ambitious and notorious ladies man, is rescued from death by his wise mother who often gives him life-saving advice. Louhi, the powerful mistress from the North, is shown having more smarts then any of the men and being more handy of life-important objects. Even the creation story depicted at the beginning of the Kalevala is credited to a woman: the maiden of the air, who grew tired of living her life as a virgin in the sky and came down to the sea. She created land when she, out of kindness, befriends a bird and helps it to fabricate a nest in order to lay and nurture its eggs. After land was formed, the maiden gave birth to Väinämöinen. (If you’re wondering: yes, the sea somehow manages to impregnate the maiden of the air). Basically: land is born through a maiden’s curiosity and kindness and we are shown how the open and inquisitive woman can accomplish great things.

Lemminkäinen's mother brings him back to life (by: Gallen Kallela)

The Kalevala is a lyrical, tragic, comic read, and the varied and multiple characters and story lines yield themselves easily to a re-reading, re-immersion and re-interpretation many times over of this wondrous text. A book that saved a language, offers great entertainment and insights for today, and flows as both great literature and narrative folk-art —– A day for “The Kalevala”!

Aaltonen's "Ilmatar, maiden of the air and the bird"

Information on “The Kalevala” and Lönnrot token from educational site here.

For those interested, you can read “The Kalevala” online here. You can even download it as a e-book!

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬——————————————————————————————-
*This has spawned lively and numerous debates about what is in actuality the Finnish Folktale and what the imaginings of the “neutral anthropological scholar” in the beloved Lönnrot.

Special Valentine’s Day Post: Low-Spirited Love Stories

“Valentine’s Day is a holiday invented by greeting card companies to make people feel like crap” – Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Ah, the 14th of February! The day is slowly, but surely, coming upon us with all that it entails with its meanderings and commercially tinted vocabulary of love. Usually we are fed the most mundane and conservative of loves: predominately focused on the heterosexual, circulating around the material gift as its expression, and, usually, one sex seen as passively accepting the honors of the day. Not to mention the holiday’s neglect of love that isn’t “successful”; i.e. the holiday’s depiction of romance that is blissfully ignorant of the times when love falls far short of happy endings. Valentine’s Day uplifts the beautiful, harmonic side of love, which no doubt is important. On the other hand, the sad and dark parts of love are a major part of romance and relationships. Therefore, it is my pleasure to contemplate those most unhappy of love tales which I invite the curious reader of this post to watch, read, or listen to on Valentine’s Day.
(Note: I will talk about the tragic parts of the tales and stories of love and betrayal, so this post will harbor the most conclusive of spoilers).

The series “Powerpuff Girls” was a children’s cartoon about three kinder garden aged girls with superpowers which ran for six seasons from the years 1998 to 2004. The episodes were filled with irony and amusing reconstructions on the superhero and the story-telling around them. The series was also a delightful blending of action and cuteness, featuring very bold and strong heroines who never drifted far from their adventurous and comical personalities: Blossom-the intelligent, but slightly vain leader, Bubbles-who’s naïve and passive-aggressive, and Buttercup-the rough and tumble tomboy (who despite being a tomboy always wears a dress). Most of the episodes concentrated on the girls solving the mysteries, and actively fighting crime and the criminal. Still the episode “Buttercrush” which aired on season one as its fourth episode, found the tough and unsentimental Buttercup embroiled in her first crush. She falls for Ace, a bully and mean leader of a criminal gang, who manipulates Buttercup by sweet-talking himself and his gang out of trouble. After successfully getting Buttercup to believe he returns her affections, Ace sets out a plan to use the situation as a chance to kill off Blossom and Bubbles. However, Buttercup finds out about Ace’s plan and doesn’t take to the attempted murder of her sisters kindly.

“Buttercrush” portrays two different types of love. Firstly we are presented with Buttercup’s blind infatuation with the bad guy Ace, which is exploitive and manipulative. This theme is extremely universal, for haven’t we all sometimes been taken advantaged of due to our emotions blinding us? The second form of love is that which we find between siblings. This love is demonstrated by Buttercups ultimate loyalty to her sisters and her sisters understanding and forgiveness to their sister’s misguided crush. The girls share an unconditional love to each other, which strength saves Buttercup from the deceitful Ace. Even if it is sad to see Buttercup get her heart shattered, it is still extremely touching to see how important the bond with her sisters is to Buttercup. Bad love and good love, both demonstrated in this fine episode!

Greek Mythology is known and regarded for its near soap-opera like tales of the gods and god-like creatures. When I was young, I read all the myths I could come across, and at the age of ten I read the myth of “Apollo and Daphne”, which details Apollo’s first love. Humorously, it was the first love story I enjoyed (and the only one I would enjoy till recent years), so much that I read it out loud to the grownups around me. In the legend, Apollo enrages Eros by claiming he’s too much of a boy to handle his arrows. Eros decides to prove Apollo wrong, so he shoots one golden arrow into Apollo and one blunt dart into the nymph Daphne. Thus Apollo falls violently in love with Daphne despite Daphne not wanting anything to do with Apollo. This leads to Apollo obsessively chasing Daphne, begging her to marry him. While Daphne sees Apollo as an ultimate terror, Apollo can’t stop thinking about how wonderful Daphne is, even when she runs from him. The nymph tries to escape Apollo multiple times, and in her most desperate hour pleads the earth goddess Gaea to destroy her beauty. She is then transformed into a tree. However, Apollo loves Daphne even in this form, and concludes: “Since you cannot be my wife, you shall become my tree”. The love sick god takes the tree to his heavenly garden where he intends to keep it eternally. After his last soliloquy of love he embraces the plant.

"Apollo and Daphne", famous statue by Bernini

This legend is an intense take on obsession, unrequited love and despair. Daphne is a woman who can’t escape her stalker and not even as a tree finds freedom. Apollo is a lost, immature man struck with feelings he can’t handle. The ending is bittersweet in the realization that Apollo didn’t love Daphne for her looks, but for who she was and how she expressed her being. Daphne having her beauty destroyed couldn’t alter the feelings which Apollo felt for her. Even though we find the stalker Apollo as unsettling in the extreme in this story, we still find ourselves oddly moved by the tragedy which unfolds. Apollo, as immature in his emotions, doesn’t have the means to handle unrequited love and reacts to it as a child would, making his actions sympathetically tragic in hindsight, while still overdone and horrific in his refusal to accept her wishes (no means no). In short this could also be a cautionary tale of what happens when you refuse to take no for an answer. If you can get your hands on a collection of Ancient Greek legends, make sure to read this tale of woe.

“Futurama” is an animated series created by Matt Groening. The series centers on Philip J. Fry, a delivery boy who is accidently frozen in 1999 and thawed out in the year 2999. There he befriends a scoundrel robot named Bender, a warrior-spirited Cyclops named Leela and starts working for an absent minded professor Farnsworth, who is Fry’s last living relative. Due to Fry’s situation, many episodes explored the things Fry had left behind back in his 1999. The most famous, or infamous as some would say, was “Jurassic Bark” (season four, episode seven). Fry uncovers the remains of his late dog and learns that 29th century science will be able to resurrect his beloved pet, Seymour. Fry is thrilled, but his best friend Bender grows painfully jealous, disliking the fact that Fry is paying more attention to Seymour’s remains then he is to their mutual friendship. The plot portrays Bender’s jealousy leading to near disaster, but Bender redeems himself in the end, learning to sympathize with Fry’s wishes. The episode at that point seems upbeat and will end happily, until Fry learns that his dog died at the age of fifteen. He then decides not to resurrect Seymour. The last scene takes the viewers back to the 21th century. Seymour is shown patiently waiting for Fry, year after year, in summer sun and in pouring rain. He dies of old age while still contemplating the return of his human friend Fry. Fry’s decision to leave the past as it is and not resurrect the long dead friend makes the episode a complete downer, since Seymour will now never get to be with Fry again.

“Jurassic Bark” is perhaps the saddest episode from “Futurama”, and as one of the most powerful and touching one we find in the series. Bender learns to become a better friend to Fry, which is an uplifting plot point. However Seymour’s love for Fry is devastating, and he uncompromisingly waits for his owner to return to him in a past without mercy. Fry will never return, and love and loyalty is depicted in a dark, bitter light. This episode is a must see. However, a fair warning is that you should have many boxes of tissues beside you while watching this utterly depressing, striking episode.

“Pokémon” is a Japanese children’s Anime show which takes place in a world filled with so-called pocket monsters. People in this world collect these creatures by “catching them”, maintaining them in small magical globes and then training them to fight each other (i.e. this world is a member’s of PETA worst nightmare). Ash, the show’s star, is a young boy who travels this world finding and pursuing a multitude of adventures with his favorite Pokémon, Pikachu, and his two friends, the feisty Misty and the caring Brock. The team of friends is constantly chased by Team Rocket, a criminal trio who steal Pokémon’s from others. The members are Jesse and James, and the talking Pokémon Meowth. Meowth is a cat-like creature, who is the only one of his species who can speak and walks on two feet. This is a mystery many characters in the show ponder about aloud, but it’s not until the seventy-second episode, “Go West, Young Meowth!” that an explanation for this phenomena is given. Team Rocket decides to go to Hollywood, which awakens painful memories in Meowth, causing him to reveal his past to the viewers. Turns out Meowth started out as a hungry homeless Pokémon, who couldn’t talk and walked on four paws. After seeing a block-buster film, Meowth decides to traveled to Hollywood in search of glamorous food, ending up in a thieving league of other Meowths and a Persian (another cat-like Pokémon). Finally having and abundance and grand access to food, he comes to longed for love as well. His craving for love is fulfilled in his becoming smitten with Meowsie, a female version of a Meowth. His love will never be returned since, as she is more than boldly willing to tell him, she is rich and he is not, and she values beyond measure her rich owner who will give her constant love in the guise of expensive gifts. Meowth becomes determined to win the love of his heart through making himself as human-like as possible to emulate the owner and master of Meowsie. Throughout a torturous process, Meowth learns to talk and walk like a human. Yet, Despite this massive effort, Meowsie still turns him down, telling him, in no uncertain terms, that though he has achieved these behaviors, he is a street-cat. Meowth leaves the pain of unreturned love to seek out riches, hoping he then would finally win Meowsies heart. After this past is revealed in the story, Meowth finds himself returning to Hollywood with Team Rocket, where he meets his lost love Meowsie again, only to find that his ex-love has been abandoned by her owner and need to be with Meowht’s old criminal gang to survive. Meowht promises Meowsie to help her leave the gang and he fights in order to gain her freedom from the gang, only to have Meowsie reject him again and stay with Persian. Meowth, at last, realizes he’ll never win Meowsie’s heart and is shown at the end of the episode devastated.

This episode is the only Pokémon episode I’ve re-watched since my early childhood, and it made a bigger impact on me now than when I was seven. The episode brings up a painful, yet solid truth about love: sometimes you will make great sacrifices and deeds for the one you love; only to find rejection and denial. All the pain and forfeit will be for nothing. This happens to everyone at least once in their lifetime. It’s nearly shocking how honestly Pokémon is able to portray this fact, considering the love martyr being a talking cat-like creature. The issue of class is also brought up nicely. A strong recommendation for anyone who has sometimes felt used!

Ang Lee is a Taiwanese-born director who has made a number of great films, many which have love as a major theme. He’s two most famous films are “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) and “Brokeback Mountain” (2005). The Latter is an adaption of the short story written by Annie Proulx, and follows the literary works plot to the letter. The film stars Health Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, who do stunning portrayals of star-crossed lovers in the 60’s Wyoming, capturing all the heartfelt wonder of two guys who, despite loving each other, never really get to be together. The film is beautifully shot, the characters are complex and the ending brutal. Few romantic films are this well done. Proulx’s short story is also a great read for those who haven’t examined it yet, too.

Nancy Sinatra’s song “Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)” is a beautiful song about falling for your friend in early childhood, only to be horribly abused and abandoned by that friend once you’ve grown up. Listen to the song below. (The Clip features the lyrics!).

Kraftwerk’s song “Sexobject” deals with feeling emotionally neglected and used. View video below.

Jack Off Jill’s song “Vivica” depicts friendship, abuse and repressed feelings. Lyrics and song exist below.

These sagas of woe and misfortune all depict harsh realities that come with loving another person, despite the stories varying from cartoons to mythology to grittier down-to earth films and songs. All of these tales are exquisitely interesting takes on love, friendship and devotion, and all are handled with care and marvel.

Happy Valentine’s Day, everyone!

Take Care/ Maaretta

Elementary, My Dear Viewer: A Review Of Two New Adaptation’s Of Sherlock Holmes

What can you say about Detective stories and novels? That they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere had Sir Arthur Conan Doyle not invented his iconic character Sherlock Holmes, that’s for sure. The first detective story of the modern genre type was written by Edgar Allen Poe, “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, in 1841.* And even if the detective and its archetypical form of narrative detective structure as formulated in Poe’s short story was an inspiration for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, his character Holmes is by far the one that set in motion the beloved rules which became the detective story: a strong, outstanding personality, the importance of details, the use of deductive reasoning applied to the material of the world, the righting of social (and personal) injustice, and a loyal (and documenting) sidekick.

Edgar Allen Poe

Sherlock Holmes is the most recognizable detective in Literature. He is well-known and loved for his wit, ability to notice minor details that crack cases wide open and his love for lingering around in his morning robe, as well as smoking a pipe. Sir Conan Doyle’s detective stories also featured Holmes’ loyal friend Dr. Watson, who provided the narration for all but a few of the stories, and who has become one of the most famous of sidekicks. Among the famous and infamous characters which line the hall of fame of personalities which inhabit the Holmesian canon are the characters Irene Adler, an actress who is the only one to outsmart Holmes, and Holmes’ archenemy Professor James Moriarty. These two particular characters find glad residence at the heart of Sherlock Holmes Fandom and discussion, and have been portrayed in various films by various actors. In fact, they too have found themselves being re-invented countless number of times along with the principles of the case Holmes and Watson.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The two most recent and popular re-inventions of the Sherlockian Genre are Guy Ritchie’s two “Sherlock Holmes” action packed films starring Robert Downey Jr. and, now, BBC’s modernization “Sherlock”, a Television series created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. Both of these adaptions are pretty well done as well as being interesting interpretations of Sir Conan Doyle’s creation. Ritchie’s films move more towards the comedic while BBC’s series land a bit more in the realm of the dramatic. In this post I will analyze how both these Adaptations’ portray their re-invented characters, as well as their tone in the story telling.

Portrait for Strand Magazine, by Sidney Paget (where the famous "detective hat" first appears!)

Let’s start with the chief anti-hero himself: Sherlock Holmes. In “Sherlock”, he’s portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, who represents Holmes as a very cold personage who is often beyond the merely cruelly blunt. He openly shows great delight in murder cases, especially very elaborate ones, like serial killings. Holmes in “Sherlock” seems to not care for many people, except for very few friends. And even towards his friends he can be, what can only be labeled, a jerk. The interpretation of Holmes in “Sherlock” is a quite brutal one; He is often mean, but always is largely talented. Downey Jr.’s Holmes is portrayed less as mean spirited, but lacking and devoid of social skills. He is largely obsessive, but more affectionate towards Watson in this version. His erratic behavior is more bizarre than cruel, and Ritchie uses the peculiar personality for laughs. However, even Downey Jr’s version of Holmes can come off as rude at times, but it does feel less malicious than Cumberbatch’s version. Both Holmes are shown to be experts at detection though attention to details and extraordinary fighters.

The Holmes which gets more character development is Cumberbatch’s. During the first season of “Sherlock”, Cumberbatch depicts Holmes as not caring about anyone besides Watson and seemingly doesn’t care about the murder victims whose cases he is attempting to solve. However, in the last episode of season one, he is briefly shown panicking when a child is endangered by Moriarty and his detection solution (which he has counted on to save the child) is shown to be lacking a key point. In the second season, Holmes apologizes to people he says vicious things to and shows more concern for his friends. Even committing himself to heroic sacrifice to protect those close to him.

Moffat's Sherlock Holmes

Downey Jr’s character doesn’t develop much in either film, be it “Sherlock Holmes” from 2009 or “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” from 2011. The only change we see is his growing acceptance of Mary, Watson’s fiancée/wife. So, in terms of a character, Cumberbatch’s Holmes is more interesting as well as probably how Holmes is suppose to come across in Sir Conan Doyle’s stories. But Downey Jr. depiction in Guy Ritchie’s films is hilarious and often lightly and springingly entertaining. Both Downey Jr. and Cumberbatch bring their obvious talents to the character of Holmes and believe in the passion of their roles and its spirit. So my conclusion is that Cumberbatch’s portrayal of the detective is more serious and complicated, therefore more superior to Downey Jr’s. But both make excellent Homes.

Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes

The two versions of Watson also differ greatly from one another. In the Guy Ritchie’s version, Watson (Jude Law) is a soon to be married man who grows impatient with Holmes and the wild situations Holmes sucks him into. In the BBC version, John (as he mostly goes by, played by Martin Freeman) is fiercely loyal and quite enjoys the “adventures” Holmes gets him into. The BBC version of Watson as character additionally functions as a conscience for Sherlock, calling him out when he is rude or insensitive. John, in both versions of the characterization also dislikes Holmes butting in on his dates and mating habits, for example where Freeman objects to Holmes showing up on a date he has with a fellow doctor (“Watson: Actually I’ve got a date. Holmes: What? Watson: It’s where two people who like each other go out and have fun.”) in “the Blind Banker” or Law’s Watson who shows a marked distain of Holmes intervening on his honeymoon trip in “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”. While Freemans Watson is more serious, Law’s portrayal of Watson is quite snarky, often throwing sarcastic comments here and there, for the purpose of creating comedy. Law’s line deliveries are quite good and I specifically enjoyed the scene in Ritchie’s first “Sherlock Holmes” film, where after getting thrown in prison Watson says: “I’ve been analyzing why I do all the things you ask me too. And my conclusion is: I’m psychologically disturbed”. This remark while being funny on its face also becomes a meta-comment on the Sherlockian writings which have questioned Watson’s strange unstoppable loyalty in the original stories, making a pretty funny reference to a second tier of literature about the writings of Doyle in the Sherlockian stories (Both series use the “Sherlockian Writings” from the Sherlock Groups to make in jokes to this faction of the Holmes Fandom).

Guy Ritchie's Watson

Freeman’s version of Watson is, like with Cumberbatch’s version of Holmes, more dramatic and played more seriously. It is also made more clear in “Sherlock” why John and Holmes are such close friends: he is shown to be one of the rare people who truly thinks Sherlock’s gift in crime solving are amazing, vocalizing it pretty honestly, which flatters Sherlock. He’s also a fan of adventure, like Holmes, which makes it easy for them to bond. This makes the friendship between the two men seem more understandable and deep. The friendship is depicted more through bickering in Guy Ritchie’s films, with a few very tender moments. All and all, I find John from the BBC’s “Sherlock” to be a more interesting Watson, since he functions as both a faithful sidekick as well as a voice of reason, while Law’s more of a conflicted friend who becomes a devoted helper in solving crimes when needed.

BBC's Watson

I will be blatantly honest and say that I’m not fond of either Guy Ritchie’s re-interpretation of Irene Adler, nor Steven Moffat’s. In Guy Ritchie’s films, Irene Adler is a spy for Moriarty who does do some impressive manipulation, but is just suddenly (spoiler!) killed by Moriarty in “A Game Of Shadows”. I wouldn’t have minded Ritchie killing Adler off if she would have died while putting up a fight. Instead, she’s declared too weak by Moriarty since she’s in love with Holmes, and dies by getting “poisoned” by an extreme form of tuberculosis.

Guy Ritchie's Irene Adler

In “Sherlock”, Adler is introduced in the second seasons premiere episode “A Scandal in Belgravia”, where she’s over sexualized and is ultimately de-powered by needing Sherlock to save her. As Jane Clare Jones wrote at the Guardian: “Not-so-subtly channeling the spirit of the predatory femme fatal, Adler’s power became, in Moffat’s hands, less a matter of brains, and more a matter of knowing ´what men like´ and how to give it to them”. Jones’ whole article really spells out perfectly what was wrong about this characterization of Adler, so do read the essay on it here.

Strangely, both versions of Irene Adler are weakened by their attraction to Holmes, making it seem like all powerful women can be weakened through (superficial) emotion. Also, both Adler’s are somehow working with or helping out Moriarty, which is peculiar since the two characters never even met in the original stories. But none the less, it was nice that the BBC version hired a woman, Lara Pulver, around her forties (“Older”, as known in cinema and TV) to play Adler. And Rachel McAdams was pretty energetic in the 2009’s “Sherlock Holmes”.

BBC's Irene Adler

Professor James Moriarty is perhaps one of the earliest archenemies to appear in fiction. Andrew Scott, who portrayed Moriarty in the BBC adaption, and Jared Harris, who plays Moriarty in Guy Ritchie’s films, had a difficult task: to live up to all the expectations from viewers. Now, Harris did an excellent job on portraying a sophisticated, intellectual villain who does pretty gritty stuff. He is convincing. However, he doesn’t come off as memorable as the deadly and controlling Moriarty. Scott’s first performance as Moriarty in the episode BBC “The Great Game”, the final episode in season one, was far too flamboyant and giggling to be truly frightening (and a bit of overacting further diminished the feeling). But, come “The Reichenbach Fall”, the finale of season two, Scott changes his performance tremendously. He depicted Moriarty as being wildly intelligent and Machiavellian, but bratty, arrogant and childish as well. His combination of the different character traits blended well. Not to mention making him quite unsettling, as well as probably what a person like Moriarty would be like. A criminal mastermind, but immature – which are a pretty scary combination. Harris, as the deadly and devious Moriarty, had the misfortune of starring in the second film in Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” franchise, which previous film had already featured a memorable and great villain, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who had a noxious charisma.

Guy Ritchie's Moriarty

Considering how Moriarty, the archenemy of Sherlock Holmes, ends up in the shadow of another villain in Ritchie’s franchise, one can say Harris ends up a little weaker in comparison to Scotts. Scott was a wonderful surprise in “The Reichenbach Falls”, being the perfect deadly brat.

Moffat's Moriarty

And lastly, on both franchises on a whole. Guy Ritchie’s both films are highly entertaining and a lot of fun to watch. BBC’s “Sherlock” is also entertaining, but a lot grittier and darker in tone (though “A Game Of Shadows” did have nasty bits as well). As the BBC is practically the Shakespeare of Television, it’s pretty obvious why, with its archetype-characters and the historical nature of the literature Holmes springs from, this adaption becomes firmly the better of the two.

In the Moffat-BBC version of this canon the characters are more fleshed out and complex, the writings more interesting and perhaps more alike the original stories. But all is not lost for Ritchie. The 2009’s film “Sherlock Holmes” did follow the tradition from the original stories in that Holmes gets to prove that the “supernatural phenomena” happening in the film aren’t really supernatural in the least and can be explained through reason and a insistence in the actuality of the lived world. This was a common theme in the original stories, for example in “The Hound of The Baskerville” and “The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire”. Ritchie’s films also had some nice scenes where Holmes figures out how to win fights through wit and thought. The Ritchie movies would have done well, and served the humanistic traits of the character and stories better, to highlight the scientific methods Holmes is known for using to solve cases. Oddly enough (as well) during “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” Ritchie seem to be implying that the world his Sherlock Holmes was living in was (some form of) the perfect world; Watson and Holmes, for instance, dance a waltz together in a major Ballroom scene among politicians and diplomats. The year is supposedly 1891, But not a comment is made about this behavior (remember Oscar Wilde had been convicted and sent to prison in 1895 for the “Love that dare not speak its name”). So when Moriarty makes a speech about humans natural desire for conflict and fights, I felt like saying: “No, Moriarty, you’re the only one who’s mean in this universe. Everybody else is perfectly fine”. The point being that films, while taking place in the 19th century, are neither terribly nor historically accurate in this regard and the dance would have meet, at the least, with revulsion by the crowded participants of the dance. Yet this may be a mote point and the film doesn’t have to meet this historical standard since Ritchie’s take on both Sherlock films is in the sphere of the action comedy. Within this Genre who can argue with the Ritchie take? Both films are satisfying in this regard and are funny with good fight scenes and become, in this way, more than decent Sherlock Holmes adaptations.

The BBC/Moffat series “Sherlock”, in distinction to the Ritchie interpretation, is a lot more similar to the original stories, with Sherlock’s wits and talents, his interest in science and logic, his humanity and glaring faults, being a driving force in the series. The murders are a lot nastier and gruesome in the BBC outing and cleave more to Doyle’s sense of the uncanny which permeates the crimes that inspire Holmes’s interest. The Series characters, as well, have a sense of identity to the ones peopling Sir Conan Doyle’s works, even if the character of Sherlock is made a bit crueler and lacking in humanitarian compassion in this adaption than is found in Doyle’s writings. So in my humble opinion, this adaption of Sherlock Holmes is the better of the two.

Re-inventing Sherlock Holmes seems to be hip right now, which should be meet with no surprise. Holmes is a historically significant character for not only literature, but other Medias as well. His and Watson’s friendship is an interesting portrayal of team work and loyalty, Holmes’ skeptical attitude towards supernatural things is still one which should be grappled with in a world which forgoes reason for hate, and accurate subject for our consideration is given us in the Bravery of Watson and the Contemplation of Holmes. What better means to explore ourselves than through a Holmes as a character one can interpret in different ways and so make us wonder what might make us worthwhile.

Ritchie’s and BBC’s interpretations are both interesting takes on the character and now that the doorway has been newly opened to reconsider the dual character of Watson and Holmes it only remains to see what other adaptations will emerge next?

____________________________________________________________

*Poe was to write three stories informing the structure of the Detective Story and following the adventures of the “deductive” detective, C. Auguste Dupin. The most famous of these three tales is Poe’s, “The Purloined Letter”, a story which shares some slight similarities of tropes and narrative structure with “A Scandal in Bohemia” in which Irene Adler makes her famous appearance.

Happy Birthday, “Catch-22”!

Today is Joseph Heller’s great and most famous novels birthday. Published in 1961, “Catch 22” tells the equally tragic as hilarious story of Yossarian, an American captain during the Second World War, and his friends. The novel is mostly known and appreciated for its anti-war themes, but Heller explores in his novel many other themes.

In “Catch-22”, corruption and capitalism at its most extreme is portrayed and explored, especially trough the character of Milo, one of the most unlikeable characters. Milo is desperate to make profit, doing all sorts of irrational schemes to make money. As the book nears its end, Milo springs – as often during extreme capitalism – out of control, caring more and more about profit instead of people. The results are horrendous, as Heller masterfully describes in this passage: “This time Milo had gone too far. Bombing his own men and planes was more than even the most phlegmatic observer could stomach, and it looked like the end for him. … Milo was all washed up until he opened his books to the public and disclosed the tremendous profit he had made” (chapter 24, page 269).

The novel also centers one of the most iconic atheists. Yossarian, a young man full of idealism, sees the horrors of war and comes to the conclusion that no god can exist in such a world. He’s reasoning is touching and relatable, one of the more truly honest depictions of a person’s lost of faith. I myself can identify with Yossarian on this point, since I became an atheist after hearing my teacher give the numbers of dead men (as well as women and children) during the second world war.

There is also a chapter (no spoilers!) depicting violence towards a woman, and there Heller raises the problem of how societies used to not care at all about such problems – and makes one think if more could still be done.

“Catch- 22” is rich with lively and complex characters. They are wacky characters, sympathetic characters, tragic characters and bizarre and evil characters. I could go on and on about all of the themes and characters explored in “Catch- 22”. There was a film adaption from 1970, which in no way is as good as the book, but has its moments. To end this post, here’s a clip of one of the most funny scenes from the film (you might want to make it full screen):

Into the Disturbance: Joyce Carol Oates’ novel ”Zombie” explores a serial killers mind

Joyce Carol Oates is perhaps USA: s most popular contemporary writer. She is also critically acclaimed and many of her fans are of the opinion that she should win the Nobel Prize for literature. Even if I am not a huge fan of Oates (despite her undeniable talent, I personally have a few of other women writers I think should win the Nobel Prize instead of Oates) she has written some extraordinary pieces of fiction. The novel “Blonde”, a fictional bibliography of the iconic actress Marilyn Monroe, is in my personal opinion a masterpiece and future classic. In it Oates demonstrated her talent for experimental writing. Oates has also shown a great talent in her novel, “Zombie”.

“Zombie” centers on Quentin P. As the novel begins, Quentin has been charged and is being prosecuted for sexual violence towards a minor. He is found guilty and is forced to enter both group and personal therapy. Quentin, despite his age, is supported financially by his parents and grandmother and he lives a solitary and confined life. Quentin P. becomes obsessed, after reading about lobotomy, with the notion of creating a sexual zombie for himself. He begins this horrific attempt with the obvious result of a slew of deaths meted out to the young men on which he tries his fanatical experiments.

The story is told completely from Quentin P.’s point of view and Oates convincingly plumbs the twisted portrait of a psychotic mind. Similar to the attempts made by Ian Banks in his novel “The Wasp Factory”, which portrayed a teenage sadist, and by Brett Easton Ellis in his most famous novel “American Psycho”, Oates uses a telling prose to navigate us through Quentin’s thoughts and feelings. The prose, as constructed by the irredeemable protagonist, is always grammatically challenged and resembles, at times, a child’s way of writing. Oates additionally lays out an “illustrative novel” of the disturbed mind by giving us a set of small, simple pictures that are supposed to be drawings made by Quentin. While both the language and imagery is childlike, the actions described by Quentin are chilling, sickening and unpleasantly graphic. Here Oates succeeds in commenting on how the mind of violent people may sometimes be: they are immature and outside the kin of the social and interactive. This is an interesting take on people who commit extreme acts of violence. What if they never learned empathy while growing up?

Oates doesn’t give the reader a straight explanation for Quentin P’s behavior and psyche. She shows Quentin as a master of manipulation, being able to gain sympathy from people even if he clearly doesn’t deserve it. He says things that don’t mean anything to him, but he knows will get him out of trouble. This cynical and remote characteristic of manipulation is shown as his most poignant and disturbing weapon from when he was a little boy attacking a playmate and not wanting to get into trouble with his parents for it, to the present day when he wants sympathy from the counselor in his group therapy. This tactic gives Quentin the possibility to do more and more terrible crimes and still feel he is distant to them. Oates hints that Quentin’s use of manipulation may be an explanation for how he can get away with his crimes, along with Quentin’s immaturity and lack of empathy being a reason for how he himself can carry out them.

Other possible reasons for Quentin’s actions and psyche described in the book are Quentin P’s repressed sexuality, loneliness and obsessive need for control. Quentin speaks of how his “Zombie” will think he (as friend, companion, master and creator) is the greatest of humans, will be ultimately committed to Quentin regardless and despite his actions, and will be totally subservient to his wishes and commands.

Theatrical production of "Zombie"

The fundamentally and major motivator to the psyche of Quentin is his father, who in a telling moment, relentlessly chastises the young Quentin for his deep “sickness” regarding his attachment to the pictures of muscular men and forces the traumatized Quentin to create a bonfire of this collection in the suburban family backyard. Quentin is show growing up, and obtaining the deep mental scars, in an environment and time (50’s and 60′s) where homosexuality is regarding by nearly all as the most disquieting and repellent of sins. Quentin, not being able to develop and explore his sexuality identity, must repress the normal explorations of his-self with the consequences and developments emerging as a disturbing, violent nature.

“Zombie” is a rough read. It is not for the squeamish. However I do recommend this novel. It has a difficult subject matter, yet deals with it both subtly and thought provokingly, while not giving way to simplistically “clear” answers or undemanding moral polarities.

Worth the read on each and every page.

The Cost Of Womanhood: Yvonne Vera’s Prose Gives Voice To Unfortunate Women

Yvonne Vera (1964-2005) was one of the first women writers from Zimbabwe to get international attention and acclaim. Even though she lived major parts if her life in Canada, her fiction took place in Zimbabwe and centered on the lives of young Zimbabwean women. Vera described her home lands dark history under British colonization and oppression while also giving a sharp, feminist critique to the domineering and repressive attitudes of the men in the country. Yvonne Vera was an extraordinarily astonishing writer who died much before her time due complications of AIDS. Luckily she has left a great literary legacy behind.

Vera’s definitely most famous novel, “Butterfly Burning” centers around the life of a lively young and ambitious woman called Phephelaphi, who falls passionately in love with a much older man, Fumbatha. The two lovers move in together in hopes of happiness. But Phephelaphi wishes to educate herself and become a nurse, while Fumbatha pushes Phephelaphi for her life to find its only dedication to him alone (as the roles of men and women should play out in this culture). This causes a major conflict in the relationship, and Phephelaphi is forced to reconsider her love.

“Butterfly Burning” is Vera’s manifesto to independence and female liberation. Phephelaphi fights the patriarchical society to get the freedom she earns for. Through the character of Phephelaphi Vera portrays the difficulty women face when their strength and liberty is made clear. Phephelaphis only weapon is her determination. The novel has a bittersweet tone; even if Phephelaphi is strong and is ready to fight for her rights, she still must suffer continual heartbreaks at the hands of the patriarchical society.

In Fumbatha Vera depicts both an intolerant patriarch, but also a victim of the colonization. As a child he’s father is mercilessly and brutally killed at the hands of the Englishmen. Vera makes it clear that such crimes were too often committed during the colonization of Zimbabwe and gives the reader a clear image of the traumatic modern history of the country. Many habitants of Zimbabwe suffer from this history. Fumbatha’s anger is understandably due to his past; but Vera still gives him little sympathy when he tries to hold back Phephelaphi only because she is a woman.

“Butterfly Burning” illustrates independence which freshly emerges in women born into a male dominant society as well as habitants of a colonized land. Both must face great challenges to free themselves and gain self control. Vera’s novel tells in poetic and lyrical sentences of the harsh lives of the subjugated. The novel describes in frank words that the road to liberation is long, but reachable.

In “Without a name” the young woman Mazvita goes to drastic measures after first becoming pregnant and therefore being kicked out by her live-in lover. After giving birth to her child, Mazvita walks the streets of Harare ( the capital of Zimbabwe). Riots are breaking out in the politically hostile environment. Mazvita can barely survive the restless streets and sees little hope of being able to feed her child. As the riots unevenly rise and accelerate, Mazvita makes a heartbreaking decision.

“Without a name” gives, as the title suggest, an image of a woman with little identity in society. No one notices or cares about her and her child. The riots don’t scare her since she is not really a part of them, even if she witnesses vicious violence. Her own fate is already too ferocious for her to care about the fate of others.

“Under the tongue” tells the story of a girl who is left alone with her grandmother after her father is murdered by her mother. Zhizha, the girl, suffered sexual abuse at the hands of her father. The mother, unable to turn to any help, defends her daughter by killing him. She is then imprisoned. Zhizha loses her ability and courage to speak up and express her. As she vaguely remembers the horrors she’s lived through, her grandmother bound, teaching Zhizha to finally to talk and once and for all confront the abuse.

In “Under the Tongue” Vera illustrates the importance to talk about the dark and harsh realities. She sharply attacks cultures where women and girls (as well as men and boys) are hushed and denied the chance to tell their stories and therefore denied the right to properly heal. “Under the Tongue” is a dedication to language and the beauty of dialogue; it is through these two things that a society can end violence.

Yvonne Veras prose is unique in its use of blending versus with prose. Nature, humans as well as events are gracefully and elegantly portrayed. As nature is described as beautiful, the events and actions of humans vary from horrible to depressing to hopeful. The major theme of the novels being the lack of freedom. Too often must the women suffer and pay for the gender they were born into.

Yvonne Vera’s novels are must reads for anyone interested in women’s issues.

Zimbabwe's Flag

In Celebration Of International Childrens Day!

Today is the international childrens day! For this special day, I will post a touching, yet tragic poem by the Nobel laureate Gabriela Mistral.  Mistral was from Chile, a known feminist and wrote poems centering themes as mother’s love, sorrow, sterility and recovery.

“Tiny Feet”, the poem below, speaks of a child stricken with poverty. Mistral speaks of the poor child’s bravery and of the horror of the adult world ignoring the unfortunate little one. Considering the amount of children still living, around the world, in poverty, this poem is still terrible and horrible accurate.

Tiny Feet
By: Gabriela Mistral

A child’s tiny feet,
Blue, blue with cold,
How can they see and not protect you?
Oh, my God!

Tiny wounded feet,
Bruised all over by pebbles,
Abused by snow and soil!

Man, being blind, ignores
that where you step, you leave
A blossom of bright light,
that where you have placed
your bleeding little soles
a redolent tuberose grows.

Since, however, you walk
through the streets so straight,
you are courageous, without fault.

Child’s tiny feet,
Two suffering little gems,
How can the people pass, unseeing.

Good will to all children! / Maaretta

Quotes On Love By The Great Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche

When people think of the German philosopher Nietzsche, they often think of a misanthropic, bitter nihilist. It is true that Nietzsche was often critical of human nature and often pointed out the faults of societies, but he had another side which loved music, art and said amazingly wise things about love and friendship. Below I will quote some of the most moving ones. Enjoy and ponder!

“It is not the lack of love, but the lack of friendship which makes unhappy marriages”

“There is always some madness in love. But there is always some reason in madness”.

“Shared joys make friends. Not shared sufferings”

“There is not enough love and goodness in the world to permit giving any of it away to imaginary beings”

“Love is not consolation. It is Light”

In The Spirit Of The Revolts In Egypt And Yemen (including Libya and Bahrain now)

This Poem written by the Harlem Renaissance author Langston Hughes speaks of the necessity to fight the oppressors and oppression. I’m publishing the piece here to show my support for the (hopefully) democratic uprisings which are currently taking place in Arabic countries:

Democracy

Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.

I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my two feet
And own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.

Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.

I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.

Raw And Beautiful: Leonora Mianos Literary Works Leave Strong Impact

Leonora Miano was born in Douala, Cameroon in 1973 and moved to Paris, France in 1991. She has written three fictional works in French, two which have been translated into Swedish, but only one in English. Miano has also gotten shockingly little attention. This puzzles me since Mianos works are so stunningly original and well written. She deserves a lot more notice as a writer than she has gotten.

Her debut novel, “L’Intérieur de la nuit” (”Nattens Inre” in Swedish, ”Dark Heart of the night” in English) tells the story of a young woman named Ayané who returns to her home village in the fictional African country Mboasu. Her arrival is not smiled upon, which makes her feel alienated. Most of the men in the village have gone away to work, leaving the village in a vulnerable state. As Ayané wonders off by herself, a group of militant men invade the village. Ayané, being lucky to have wandered off, is able to climb up into a tree, and is witness to the horrors the villagers suffer under the intruders.
The plot of the book sounds simple, but Miano does an interesting twist to the relationship between the villagers and the militants. These invaders who now infest the village want to “restore” old African cultures; however they have weird and delusional ideas of what African culture is. Their leader kills one of the villagers and starts to demand that the rest must eat him. The villagers in utter horror say they will do no such thing. The intruders do not listen to the villagers, which results in that the killed person is cooked and eaten in order to bring back African culture – despite the obvious fact that the African villagers have never practiced cannibalism in their entire history, and are disgusted by the idea. The act forced upon them is torture. The intruders are also African, but Miano hints that they may have been brainwashed by white travelers to believe old clichés about Africans, which in this case is the supposed Cannibalistic rituals. The reality being that the people in Mianos country never even heard of this kind of “tradition”.

Ayané watching the violence while hiding up in the tree is a perfect way to narrate the Novel’s macabre story. Ayené, like the reader, is an outsider to the village. She is a bystander, who knows that as soon as she can she must climb down from her hiding place and help the survivors. As a main character, Ayané was the perfect pick; easy to identify with yet in touch with the villagers.

Leonora Mianos third novel, “Contours du jour qui vient” (“Konturerar av den dag som nalkas” in Swedish. Don’t know what it would be in English…) centers a young girl named Musango. She is chased away by her mother, accused of having “the evil eye”. The novel begins when Musango is twelve, and hasn’t seen her mother in three years. Yet she still feels such a strong connection to her that throughout the entire novel she speaks with her mother as if they where communicating. On her journey to find her home again, Musango takes solitude in a local church- only to find out that the two priests running it are also involved in forced prostitution and enslave Musango. After spending a long time under their abuse, Musango is able to escape and tries to inform the authorities on the secret trafficking the priests are guilty of – only to realize that some people are so powerful they can get away with anything.

Mianos third novel is one of the most remarkable novels to have come out in the past years. It deals with many complex, rough issues, yet handles them delicately. Miano critiques the hypocrisy done by religious organizations as well as society’s habit of letting “important” people off the hook for serious crimes. She also pictures a country torn by civil battles and restlessness (the country this takes place in is the same as in her debut novel).

Musango represents the forgotten children in society. She is abandoned by her parents and other adults. No one wants to take responsibility of her. Musango also represents unconditional love a child can feel towards its parents. Musango is determined to be reunited with her mother, even if through her memories we find out that her mother tried to kill her before chasing her away. Yet Musango feels a need to meet her mother. As she states after escaping the priests secret brothel: “I will find you, Mother. And then I will say what you won’t believe is true. I will tell you I love you”. Unconditional love is a fascinating, if not tragic. Miano shows that a child’s undying love to a parent can be unbelievable painful. It is also unfair. However there is a disturbing beauty to it which touches you. A lot is written about a parent’s unconditional love to his/her child, but rarely can you see portrayals of the other way around. Amy Tan briefly explored it in her novel “The Joy Luck Club”, where one of the stories told by the Chinese women is of when her mother mutilated herself to cure the family’s grandmother, who constantly in return had insulted the mother. Also Brian De Palmas movie “Carrie” can be seen somewhat dealing with this issue. Carrie seems to, in one way, love her abusive mother, even if the treatment she receives from her mother drives her insane and into a killer. All of these tales capture the brutality of loving a mean parent, ultimately somehow destroying themselves in a big or small way.

Leonora Miano writes about the rawest subjects, but has a beautiful way of telling them. The novels are downright disturbing; what she is talking about is important and though provoking. I surely wish that more of her works will be translated into English as well as her second work will be translated into Swedish, due to her talent. Both her novels which I have read are nothing less than masterpieces.

Cameroon's Flag