Book Review

Gladiatrix
by Russell Whitfield, 2008
"In the arenas of Ancient Rome, the ultimate female warrior is born"

I went to Borders bookstore in search of historical fiction to get a sense of what the market in that area looked like. I especially hoped to find novels focusing on Ancient Greece, but alas, to my dismay there were none. Almost all the historical fiction I saw dealt primarily with European history--and medieval European history at that. We seem obsessed, as a culture, with the stories of kings and queens, emperors and the upper crust. I saw little, if any, stories about regular people and every day lives, as if somehow human struggles and daily toils do not transcend time. And what I saw of ancient times dealt almost exclusively with Rome (with one or two exceptions focusing on the likes of Genghis Khan). It's as if the Romans stole everything from the Greeks and we all decided the thieves were more interesting than the creators. Perhaps because they were marginally bloodier with all the sex still intact. It seems only philosophers in the ivory tower of academia bother themselves with Socrates and Plato and their ilk.

But I digress.

I saw Gladiatrix and seized upon it, grateful to find a book that, if set in ancient Rome, at least had a protagonist from ancient Greece. Albeit Spartans were a special breed of Hellenic folk, but at least one could say Greek characters appeared in the book.

Overall, I found the book an entertaining read, full of lively characters, vivid battle scenes and a good plot of a woman's struggle for freedom. The heroine, Lysandra, is strong and noble, even if a bit arrogant. In real life, I find people with too much ego obnoxious, but in Lysandra I found it gave her character a bit of spice. Instead of being annoyed, I found myself smiling indulgently at her like a parent might smile at an overly precocious child's attempts at profundity and pat them on the head.

What I especially appreciated about the book was its attempt to break down borders of traditional fiction in a way that was entertaining and less overtly activist. It dealt with issues of ethnicity, gender, class, homosexuality and human nature but it didn't bludgeon the reader over the head with it. A lot of breakthrough fiction deals with these issues more overtly--and that is important and good to force readers to think about issues and perspectives they may not have thought of before or may not have wanted to think of. But it's also nice to have a book that weaves these themes in so unselfconsciously you almost don't even notice they're there. You identify with the protagonist's point of view before you even realize you might be uncomfortable with it. I think that might be a very powerful way to advance more activist causes and still entertain while you're doing it.

However, what I did find less than fulfilling was the book's treatment of the sexual relationships between the gladiatrices. I think it's fantastic the author attempted to deal with it and treat it just like we would read heterosexual encounters in romance and literary fiction. But there is something about it that rubbed me the wrong way. It could be that because I knew the author was male, my perceptions were colored perhaps unfairly. But to me, it read a bit more like an adolescent male's wet dream of two women oiled up for battle rubbing each other in explicit and lascivious ways. The only thing I can imagine that he could have done to lend that part of the story a little more emotional credibility (maybe especially for his female audience) is to delve a bit more into the characters' relationship, especially between Lysandra and Eirianwen. Why did they love each other? What attracted them beyond the physical? There is clearly a strong and deep emotional attachment between the two, but why? Perhaps in delving more deeply into their love, the author can strengthen his treatment of their loving.

Overall, the book is entertaining and satisfying in the end and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good summer or lazy Sunday read.

A Shift in Generations

What did you want to be when you grew up, before you grew up? I remember when I was a kid (ten to twenty years ago) it seemed that people used to dream big about professional careers. Everyone wanted to be doctors, lawyers, scientists or high-powered executives. After about the age of 5 or 6, nobody really dreamed of being bakers, poets, or carpenters.

Now it seems to be less true. We've all heard stories about highly-paid, highly professional bankers or marketing executives who, mid-career, get disillusioned by the whole deal and suddenly quit the rat race. They leave their jobs, uproot their lives and move to the south of Spain and start all over as a florist. Or they paint. Or they write. They do something they've always wanted to do and never did because they were so consumed before by the paycheck at the end of the day. But now, instead of individuals, it seems like an entire generation is becoming disillusioned and making that shift.

It seems now, that instead of dreaming big about making their mark as elite doctors, lawyers and executives, people are dreaming big about freelancing, opening their own B&Bs or restaurants, setting up their own studios and becoming yoga instructors. Instead of wanting to be politicians and veterinarians, people dream of being firemen and dancers. Instead of managing teams in established industries, people are dreaming of ways to make smaller, yet more unique, imprints on the world.

In a way, I wonder if it's a sign of the times, the reckless consumption and drive for money of the 80s and 90s being tempered by people of the new millenium questioning themselves about what they really want in life. Do they really want the bigger home or do they want to have more vacation time with their loved ones? What makes them really happy: the size of their 401(k)s or the chance to try something they've always wanted to do? People are taking stock, and maybe some are deciding that when push comes to shove quality of life is outweighing quantity in life.

In that sense, maybe some good can come out of this economic downturn. I hear that many people, now faced with unemployment, are taking the opportunity to pursue higher education and degrees they've always wanted to have but, for whatever reason, never had the chance to pursue before. People are branching out and trying new things in an effort to pay the rent and keep busy. But they would never have put themselves out there if they hadn't lost that crappy, but stable job with the decent pay. It's of course idealistic to think a surprise happy ending will come out of all, or even most, of the layoffs, but it would be nice to know if the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit is being revitalized. I wonder what it would mean for our economy (and perhaps general health) if people relied less on mega corporations and started afresh at the grassroots.

So of course my observation is in no way based on any empirical, scientific evidence, and perhaps is even wildly skewed given my present location. We all know the dangers of extrapolating from a non-random sample! But what if it were true? What if we saw significant shifts in how people thought about their careers and desires in life? What kind of changes would we see?

My Closest Friends Are All Far Away

There is something indescribably wonderful about having friends with whom, no matter how close or far away, no matter how much time has passed, you can always pick up the threads as if you were never apart.

This weekend I spent time with some of my closest friends. I haven't seen them in almost a year, yet when I am with them, it is almost like it was only yesterday we last saw each other. We can laugh and joke and fall into an easy rhythm. There are no awkward silences because you love each other so much, just being with each other is enough. You talk about the big things, you talk about the little, insignificant things and all of it is important and meaningful--something to remember.

And who knows where we all shall go? Some may fly off to foreign lands, some moving for career opportunities, and some finding their home in which to settle down. No matter where our paths will lead, there is never good-bye because we know we will always find ways to touch base, to reconnect and pick up as if we never left off.

There is something so indescribably comfortable and sweet in that.

The Art of Flattery

Confessions of a Socially Awkward Grad Student

If there is anything I fail miserably at doing, it is receiving compliments gracefully. Compliments make me nervous. Effuse praise makes me positively wish to flee. I feel as if I am thrust up on stage and I don't know my lines. The audience is waiting and all I can do is draw a blank.

I used to try the whole deflection routine. You know, the one where you tell the flatterer that they're totally wrong.
FRIEND: Your hair is lovely today!
ME: Ugh, no. I had to scream at it for hours this morning to make it stay.
FRIEND: Well...it looks very nice.
ME: No it doesn't. I hate my hair.
And therefore, Friend has poor taste. Way to reward a compliment with an insult.

So I discover that tactic is not modesty so much as rudeness. Advice columns suggest instead just saying “Thank you” warmly. I try that, but the “Thank you” inevitably precedes a big, empty space in the conversation. A pregnant pause where it feels like the other person is always waiting for something and I always struggle to close the gap.
FRIEND: You did an awesome job on that article!
ME: [smile warmly] Thank you!
...pause
ME: [grinning wider to stave off nerves] So...how about this crazy weather we're having?
Ugh. Awkwardness galore. Plus I just feel immodest. I try to send a grateful smile, and feel I just come off looking smug.

Then I get to thinking: what if I follow up the compliment with another compliment?
FRIEND: Hey, cute dress!
ME: Aww, thank you! That's very kind of you to say (Bing! Compliment 1!). I really like your shoes (Bing! Compliment 2!)
FRIEND: Oh really? Thank you, I... (And SCORE! Attention effectively diverted and friend feels good.)
Fantastic plan, right? Except sometimes I am caught off guard and don't have a genuine compliment handy. Not because I don't like the person, but just because all I can think to offer as a compliment would be something stupid to say in that moment. Like when they've complimented your new coat and you look at them to compliment an article of their clothing and they're wearing the same outfit they've worn once a week for the past year. So what do you say? “I like your...eyes”? “Oh that sweater always looks good on you”? If you're lucky they take the compliment, but to my ears it sounds trite and disingenuous. Even if I genuinely mean it, it comes off sounding like I only said it because they complimented me.

Thus my only option left is to compliment first. So what is it now? A war of the compliments, where you hope to pre-emptively compliment and hope your companion doesn't have second-strike capabilities? First one to strike wins?

I have only met a couple of people in my life who roll off geniune compliments so easily, I feel completely comfortable in their presence. There is no pregnant pause, no awkward silences because they're not waiting for a response. They're not waiting to be complimented in return, or congratulated for their own kind words. And I find it so easy to compliment them because there are no expectations. They say thank you warmly and the conversation moves on effortlessly. And I can give a sigh of blessed relief. All relationships should be so easy.

Emotion in the Public Sphere

I just heard (yet another) fantastic discussion on NPR on the US's use of torture as an interrogation technique. The commentator, who argued that torture is not justified and punishment should lay on the heads of the top policymakers who sanctioned the abuses in the first place, (I'm sorry I missed his name, I only caught 10 minutes of the segment) was very erudite and polite in his arguments and gracious in receiving criticism. In the spirit of full disclosure, I agree whole-heartedly with his arguments. The commentary which follows addresses things his critics have called in to say and I wish to take issue with these comments, not because I disagree with their argument, but because I find fault with the presentation of their arguments—or the reasons they provided. If someone had called in using emotion in the same way to support the commentator's argument, I would find fault with that as well.

Argument #1: “I'm sick and tired of you Europeans coming here and criticizing America.”
So the commentator had a British accent, but as he so eloquently pointed out, he too has a stake in the issue. His family is fully American, he was there on 9-11, people he knew died in the 9-11 attacks, etc., etc. The point is: don't assume that because you know one bit about a person that you know what their entire life has been.
But more than that, 9-11, the War on Terror, wars abroad and American responses are global issues. We are not some backwater country living in isolation. Our actions (as a global leader, if you will) have global effects. We're not talking about some domestic issue like the death penalty or legalizing abortions. We're talking about issues that have repercussions and consequences worldwide. Other countries have a stake in these issues as well, and therefore have a right to participate in the discussion, even if we don't like what they have to say.

Argument #2: “Where is your anger?”, implying that if you were truly angry you'd agree torture is necessary. But since you're a cold SOB, your point of view is invalid.
Commentator's response: He is deeply angry but also passionate about the values that America and democracies in general uphold. He argues we must stick to our values because it is our values that sets us apart from the terrorists. It's the fact that we have a judicial system instead of beheadings that makes America great and resorting to the other side's tactics reduces us.
Hear, hear I say! But I would like to add to that and question the caller. When has anger ever led to wise decisions? We do stupid things, things we regret, when we are angry. When have you ever heard of anger leading to wisdom? (Except by way of a mistake and lesson learned.)
[As a side note, it always amazes me that some of the very same people who will argue until they're blue in the face that America is great because of the liberties it provides are also the very people who are so quick to abandon those liberties whenever it suits them—in this case, presumably because they're angry. But maybe I am wrong? Maybe they believe in liberty but not equality? Or maybe they just think the principles sound good in the abstract, but don't believe in them in real life.]

Argument #3: “Even presented with evidence that torture doesn't work and has negative consequences, I still think we should engage in torture. Because I have family fighting over there and that's just how I feel.”
The commentator said he respected this woman's viewpoint and thanked her for airing her views. But I take umbrage at this kind of argument. I will say that there are valid reasons for her viewpoint even if she didn't express them and even if I may disagree with them at the end of the day. But I take issue with the notion that in discourse people can fall back on their emotions as a substitute for reasoned argumentation. Don't get me wrong. I believe emotions DO have a role in public discourse. They help mobilize and inspire people in ways that logic and reason perhaps cannot. They demonstrate intensity in ways that hard facts or numbers cannot. Very few people can argue completely without some emotion, and I don't think people or their viewpoints should be excluded because they are emotional. But I disagree entirely when people resort to their emotions because their arguments are flawed and they let emotions supercede reasoned debate.

I understand this woman's point of view and have had to think long and hard about the justifications for torture before finally coming to my decision on where I stand. But instead of arguing she supports the use of torture just because that's the way she feels, I think the more appropriate response would be for her to examine her feelings on the subject and figure out why, even presented with evidence that torture tactics are not only useless but harmful, she feels they are justified. Is she seeking revenge? Does she think that even if 99% of the time it doesn't work, innocent people are tortured, and it causes the growth of more terrorism, that the 1% of the time it might work is worth all the risk involved? If so, why? Is there something else going on? Is there a better way to address her core concerns? If that is really her root viewpoint, she should learn to express that. If not, maybe her reaction is just knee-jerk and should be re-examined.

So, issue of torture aside, what role should emotion play in public discourse? Can there be guidelines for its use? When is the use of emotion in an argument or discussion helpful, and when does it obfuscate the point? Are there points where emotion can actually hinder good policy making?

10 Habits of Highly Effective Fat People

And I say this as one who has looked in the mirror and saw someone roughly approaching the circumference of Chicago staring back at her.

1. Offer to split a meal with your friend—and sneakily take the bigger portion for yourself.
2. Schedule in exercise, buy cute exercise clothes and an expensive gym membership—and then don't go (see Tuesday's post).
3. Have a salad and water for dinner—and brownies and ice cream straight out of the container for dessert.
4. Buy loads of healthy veggies for yourself and Cheetos, frozen pizza, and hamburgers “for the husband and kids”--even though you're single and childless.
5. Diligently measure out the appropriate serving size of the dinner ingredients—then effectively double it when you discover you're still hungry afterwards.
6. Buy skinny jeans to motivate yourself—then throw them out 6 months later when you have to make room for your fat jeans.
7. Drink a margarita instead of dinner—and then during the 4th one down the line, tell yourself calories don't matter if you're drunk. Because by then, you're incapable of counting them even if you wanted to.
8. Send hate at all the skinny bitches you see—and then congratulate yourself for at least being thinner than that one woman over there.
9. Congratulate yourself when you still fit in your jeans—and cut the seams to make more room when you don't.
10. Only allow pictures of yourself from the neck up. This allows for easy photo manipulation to paste your head on supermodel's bodies and saves you the trouble of burning everything else.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Exercise

(Or excuses I give myself.)

1. Bad weather. In places like Minnesota, this probably involves snow. In California, this means rain. Or rain's younger sister, drizzle. It also includes: fog, hail, anything below 55ºF and winds above 15 mph.

2. Good weather. Because clearly the better reaction is to celebrate by trying that new ice cream parlour and plopping down on the beach with a smoothie and a good book.

3. No time. Between work, school, chores, eating, drinking, socializing, watching favorite shows on TV, reading books, scoping the net, sleeping, petting the kitty/puppy (and no that is no a euphemism--unless for you, it is), taking care of the kids, and um....washing one's hair--who has the time to exercise?

4. Too tired. After doing all of the above, who has the energy?

5. Sick or injured. Obviously you can't bring your germs into a gym, now can you? That would be rude, selfish and gross. And of course, how can I go for a walk when I've stubbed my toe?

6. I'll do it later. This is not so much an excuse as procrastination--until you've procrastinated so long it is now midnight and you can't do it until the next day. So you promise yourself you'll exercise tomorrow--and repeat.

7. I've already done it. I walked from my car to my office and back again. Surely that's enough for one day, right? In fact, I even took the stairs (because the elevator was broken) so that justifies having dessert!

8. I exercised yesterday so I can take today off. Wouldn't want to overdo it now. I might hurt something.

9. I forgot! Truly I meant to, but I got wrapped up and before I knew it my exercise hour was over.

10. I'm too lazy. I've run out of excuses but still can't get my ass off the couch.

Honorable Mentions:
I'm too fat and therefore must stuff my face in a vat of ice cream (for bad mirror days).

I'm thin enough and therefore don't really need to exercise (for good mirror days).