Howl's moving castle and a bit about race

SPOILER ALERT

I loved this book. 


It is a beautiful story that borders on happy-go-lucky, without being too cheesy. But I found a detail in the end a bit disturbing; that is when Calcifer decides to come back to castle after everything happened. 
This reminded me a bit too much of Stockholm Syndrome, and I think without the proper context it might send the wrong message to some (by making it seem so trivial). But I don't think authors are necessarily in charge of the own social message they carry (at least I'm fiction)-if they want to make a commentary, they are more than welcome- so that some responsibility is carried over to the reader.

I realized later, that the book does try to give a proper context to the relationship of Calcifer and Howl in light of the nature in which i interpreted it. Even more so, the following books explain this matter much  better and deeper; problem is, I don't know what to make of their relationship. Is it co-slavery or co-mastership? Does this even matter? Regardless, there is the perception of a unequal power relationship and that caught my attention and was always in the back burner while I was reading the book. The author made this even more exciting by weaving the plot in ambiguous clues into the relationship of Calcifer and Howl (Howlifer as the tabloids would call it...no?)

On an unseeingly unrelated point, this made me think about conversations that I have had with friends and co-workers about race and Latin America. The main point in these discussions being that race in Latin America is so much more complex than in the US; and as such, trying to compare the black/white dichotomy of the Anglo colonial/republic discourse falls short when trying to talk about Latin America. The problem further complicates itself when all these studies (and scholars) that reside here in the north (see allusions to USA) accuse the Central and South Americas (including of course the Caribbean) of rampant racism and of using colonization as an excuse to ignore our blackness. Racism exists, but the situation is so much more complex than that, and more than often these accusations reek of ethnocentrism; and I'm more than willing to bring my lemon pledge.


One has to think of the colonization processes and histories of each country and their respective metropolises in Europe. While rampantly racist, Spanish colonization characterized itself with mestizaje (intermixing). The late enlightenment in Ibero-America brought to Spanish Speaking American countries a criollo (creole, local, native) pride in their respective national identities, so that the 19th century became a focal point of ethnic differentiation from Europe and independence movements that highlighted their mixed ethnicity as Mexicans, Venezuelans, Colombians, etc (of course this needs deeper discussion, but of course this intermixing was of course mostly 'white' with a bit of color-not too much, cause...apparently that was not cool back then...being brown and all). This happened in some Latin Americans countries where these conditions surfaced; except in the countries where indigenous people were still alive (they were mostly ignored by the new elite); except also in those countries where indigenous people were driven to extinction, (e.g. most of the Caribbean) and where these indigenous identities, now long gone, were romanticized; except in those places where blacks were the majority... maybe it wasn't that homogenous after all.

My point exactly...

There is too much diversity from place to place to talk about race in one sentence and try to express national identity, ethnic origins and racial politics. Sadly, the constant in many of these places was the reproduction of how we look at our African ancestry. In Puerto Rico, the extinct Taíno society became an emblem of the original settlers to drive out the Spanish colonizers; all the while reconstructing this past in lieu of our African culture.


Everyone (most) knows and acknowledges the influences of our African Ancestors as heritage and genetics; thankfully this heritage is not limited to people who phenotypically look 'black' (whatever that is). Also, nobody in Puerto Rico says they're Spanish, or Taíno (except a few people, and I have a strong opinion about this, but alas another time), or African. The shared knowledge of being Puerto Rican permits a fluid identity that has been discoursally fed through the state and cultural apparatuses; the same apparatuses that feed racism to all of us.

Nonetheless, the discourse and collective consciousness of being a mestizo society does not mean that our ideology is an excuse, but more so a different reality than the one in the US. Therefore, being Puerto Rican (in the island I must add, for pseudo methodological and theoretical reasons) allows you to not think about race in the same way that they do here in the US. To be honest, we are made 'aware' of these nuances and dichotomies of the racial headache of the US when we come to the mainland. The fluidity is amazing... and complex.

Why did Howl made me think of this? Maybe it was the connotations of negotiated meanings
in the relationship between Calcifer and Howl. Their co-dependency was filled with borderline hate, love and the life debt they owed one another. Who was really the slave and who was the master? Who was negotiating the meaning of the existence of the other? Why oh why did Calcifer come back?


Paradoxes, complications and a dash of racism? of course, but again, not just black and white. It's more grey, and we all fall in the middle.

Ender's Game and NOM

x

x

[Warning: Highly subjective and personalistic post]

Yesterday I realized that the author of this book I'm reading, is a conservative gay-marriage-hater Mormon . I am currently reading Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card and I am enthralled with the book. This is taken from the author's wikipedia entry:

"A devout and outspoken Mormon, Card is a board member of the National Organization for Marriage." (wiki link).

NOM is an organization that embodies many things that are wrong with American society (I am not even trying to be objective, but this is my narrative after all so bear with me) as they are against civil liberties and rights that should be entitled to every person regardless of their sexual identity, gender, race, religion, etc. I feel really strongly about this topic, but this is not the issue that I want to discuss.

It was a shock to learn that the author of this book that I am reading (and enjoying) would be against something I thought so essential in my life. I felt insulted; but that was partially my own fault. I should have done more research about the author before I started reading the book. I feel conflicted, as it is a moral and spritual dillema for me; If I knew beforehand that he is an outspoken participant of this organization, I would have boycotted reading the book in the first place. How do I make it right in my mind right now? I am disturbed and feel wrong about this. How do I deal with the fact that this guy is a "gay-hater" (my personal subjectification) and I enjoy his sci-fi books?

It would have been clearer (easier) for me to have made this decision if Glenn Beck came out with Sci-fi books; I would definitely not go there! That's why it's easier to make this kind of decision with contemporary authors, and that is exactly why I don't read Paulo Coehlo's books among others. Problem is, Orson Scott Card is a contemporary author. BURNED doesn't even being to describe how bad this looks.

My mistake still makes me think about the product of artists and authors when we consume them. Obviously I don't see a problem when the product goes along the lines of a more liberal (as opposed to conservative) vision of the cosmos. In addition, thinking about art and its products reminded me of my short trip yesterday afternoon to the National Portrait Gallery in Chinatown, where I lingered on the President's Hall. Out of curiosity I went to this specific part of the museum trying to replicate a sublime experience such as the one I had last Sunday at the National Gallery of Art. I felt sad and scared, but no sublime. The portraits presented a group of white men who are regarded as the epitome of the American Republic; a climax that everyone thinks represents what it means to be American. I definitely didn't feel that way: I felt as a stranger looking at canvas in disdain. I felt sad because of the many catastrophes these men unleashed. But of course these men also had many great qualities, but so did many other monsters through history. Point is, no one is one-dimensional and these men definitely were not just brave, awesome and the founding fathers and leaders of the American dream the discursive narratives repeat; they also owned slaves, treated women as inferior human beings and did as they pleased with Native Americans and the emerging American Countries all over the continent. My gaze in the museum lingered on a imperialist perception of an neo-imperialist nation. I didn't feel represented by that. How can non-male, non-white people see these men and see empathy in their eyes? How can they see themselves as part of the result of their endeavors? How can people see them in such a romanticized manner? How can they insert themselves in this narrative?

And that was my lesson; a rude awakening. Being a victim of what I profess, I realized that these presidents, these artists and these contemporary authors are more than just anti-gay conservative bastards, or self-help suppliers to needy-emotional junkies. These people are also creative souls that can inspire me and make me joyous in other aspects of my life. This aspect of living in multiverses also reminds me on how people from different beliefs are crossing over into areas some people never thought they would go.  Conservatives writing Sci-Fi; homos like me preying on sci-fi; Cher and Madonna resisting aging; Apple and Google fighting over control of the world; Gays wanting to get married, etc... Nothing is just something and authors, very much like humans are more than just one thing: they can be other things too and that is ok.

Orson Scott Card is an asshole, but I can still enjoy his book. It's ok, I can do this.

Other thoughts

• Is this why Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh's wedding? Because he knows Rush is not just a conservative prick?
• What's the difference of this and when I read The Chronicles of Narnia?
• Would I be disillusioned if I knew that Asimov was also a homo hater? What about other people like Darwin, Galileo, Pope John Paul II?
• Is this really important? Do I really need to know the artist's politics to enjoy it more? Less? Same?

Favorite Books and what not...

On my recent trip to Europe, I took Prelude to Foundation by Isaac Asimov with me, to read on the bus rides. Well, not so much as Impressed, but more like I fell in love with the series. I read the next book in just 5 days (and that was in Madrid, while I was still on vacation). That came as no surprise because a few years ago I read I Robot and fell in love with Asimov's writing style. The interweaving of different stories, while maintaining the stories chronicity, is a refreshing take on this ever so charged and overloaded plots that we encounter almost everyday in movies and television. What was surprising (but not unexpected) is to find out that Asimov, was indeed the father of sci-fi. You can see the visions, imagery and the 'futuristic' technology you see from star wars to Star Trek on his works, done a long time before this was all developed. Even the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy (which I also dearly love, for it's absurdist tendencies) makes subtle allusions to Asimov's work. Again I say, Indeed the father of sci-fi.

Sadly, I haven't had much time to read on that lately, as I just moved here for grad school. I guess that happens...now, on to Neon Genesis Evangelion (which I'm watching for the third time!!!)