Weekend Readings

So what are you reading this weekend?

Or whenever your spare time happens to be?

Since summer school let out, I've been on a bit of a bender. Reading for leisure, what a joy! Sigh. And with only three weeks left for me to soak up all that is non-required reading...

Anyway, right now I've just begun reading Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse. I'd previously read Mrs Dalloway, which I enjoyed enough to start picking up her other work. I'm finding that Woolf's writing does this really fine balance of hitting emotional cores within broader social concerns.

However, in doing some light research on Woolf herself (and I emphasise light), I've come across some criticisms that suggest some anti-semitism on her behalf. I thought this odd considering that her husband was Jewish, but I'm still interested in finding out about the validity of this accusation.

Virginia Woolf is an amazing figurehead not just in literature but for feminism, for artists, and for people suffering with mental illness as well. What becomes of her work if it is tinged with a form of racism? I haven't found her novels thus far to be particularly reflective of this alleged attitude but this criticism of hers must still beg the question of how we read or accept one's work, or if we should, when the artist betrays a negative ideology. Do we brush it under the table for all the important things she brought to in the first place? How do we critically engage with an artist's work when certain attitudes come to the table?

Perhaps the first real question I should be asking is if this is even true about Woolf. I only did a flimsy little Wikipedia search; I'm definitely going to be scouring some more trustyworthy and indepth resources.

This reminds me of the whole Roman Polanski debate. He raped a thirteen year old girl and escaped to Europe to avoid jail time. Still making award-winning movies in exile, how does he remain uncriticized? How do the actors and producers that work with him forget about this enough to make with him what are apparently critically acclaimed movies? Why doesn't Polanski own up to his actions and address them? Maybe I could take him more seriously if he had at least faced some serious consequences for his crime. Exile in Europe hardly seems on par with jail time.

People are complex and certainly we cannot expect anyone to be flawless in their thinking and belief systems. But I think it may be a tad flippant to dismiss all such criticisms in this way.

So seriously, how do we critically think about the work that artists (and politicians and anyone else who makes history)offer to the world, when they have shady attitudes and actions lurking in their backgrounds?

Hmmm...

Questioning (And Revealing) My Own Biases.

This post is something that I originally wrote on my livejournal. I'm cross-posting it here, because I think that dealing with issues of bias and questioning what is critique and what is just prejudice are important lines to traverse in feminist (and all social/political) standpoints. And so it goes, with a few grammatical corrections, and some additional thoughts:

Is it wrong that it so disappoints me that the following people are Scientologists?
(This is a list that is available to the public):

Beck
Giovanni Ribisi
Jason Lee (this might explain his latest movie choice--the live action version of The Chipmunks)
Juliette Lewis
Kirsti Alley
Nancy Cartwright (et tu, Bart?)

I mean, I don't ever want to discriminate on the basis of religion. I don't ever want to tell someone that what they believe in, what they have faith in is wrong. However, my distaste of Scientology right now is making me feel like I'm being racist (or maybe religionist? What's the correct -ist?) against the above people, for questioning their creditability, meanwhile I have no idea to what degree they practice their religion, anymore than my Catholic upbringing makes me a true Catholic.

But Scientology is just so sketchy in its origins, and while its structure and history certainly mirrors that of most of the main religions, to me that doesn't read as automatic religious authenticity. Justifying Scientology by the set-ups of previous religions is faulty, and only serves to further reveal the flaws of institutionalization. After all, many of the things that Scientology mirrors in established religions are problematic for those faiths as well. Certainly, a walk through the history of the Catholic Church is no fairy tale picnic. Repression, total excommunication, money-lust, colonialism, and other abuses are not specific to Scientology. And I certainly no longer identify as Catholic, despite my records of baptism, communion, and confirmation.

It is not the theology of Scientology that bothers me either. After all, is it really so far-fetched to be asked to believe their stories anymore than it is to be asked to believe in something like transubstantiation? Or exorcism? As well, the ability and choice to take these stories as figurative for deeper meaning rather than fundamental, literal doctrine is (or at least should be,in theory) possible.

But there is just something so sinister about the dealings and the conception of Scientology, and its celebrity status. I don't think even any other major world religion(should proponents continue to compare Scientology to other faiths)--even the Catholic Church--started its bid for followers by asking anyone for copious amounts of money. The Church demands a vow of poverty from its clergy, or at least it is supposed to. I don't know how poor the Pope lives. And, yes, the Church expects 'donations' to perform weddings and baptisms, but its regular Mass services, confessions and such are available for free. You can't get shit from the Scientologists unless you have the money for it. Even in the major religions, during their own heights of money-lust, poor people were allowed to have faith (if it wasn't already imposed on them). And most major religions have a diversity of ethnicities amongst their faith-holders (though, again, many imposed upon due to colonialism). Ever notice how all the major Scientologists are white? And rich?

See also, how problematic defending Scientology by comparing it to other established religions gets? Look how many parenthesis I had to use in the above paragraph...

Christ. Xenu. Whomever.

Can anyone even start a new religion these days with any creditability? You know, I would never not be friends with someone I thought was a great person just because of their religion. But I would steer the fuck clear away from anyone who was actively trying to rope/force/impose on me ANY set of beliefs against my will. I like being educated about other faiths, societies and cultural constructs; often, such education is enriching, and opens up new horizons of knowledge, expression and experiences. However, I wouldn't want to feel coerced into a new dogma, especially if it is rigid and oppressive about whom, what, where, why and how I can believe. I suppose I can only offer the same back to the list of people mentioned above. I love and respect all those actors and musicians. Jason Lee is a great talent, Nancy Cartwright's voice is iconic, and Giovanni Ribisi is just so cool. Doesn't it just make me a total douchebag to automatically assign disappointment to those people based on my own misgivings about Scientology? Without knowing anything about their personal practice?

I don't know.

Stupid Tom Cruise.

For a good examination/investigation of Scientology, see this article here from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology