Matt and I went to see the new Indiana Jones movie the other day, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The movie takes place in 1957 during the Cold War, and the antagonists in this film are some hot headed Russians seeking a weapon to help them (of course) dominate the world. We got a kick out of the movie--were even willing to look beyond a few over-the-top CGI scenes--and left without thinking a heck of a lot about it.

The next day I saw an article about the new film titled: "Indiana Jones makes Russian Communists see red." The article describes how Russian Communist Party members condemned the film as as "crude, anti-Soviet propaganda that distorts history and called for it to be banned from Russian screens."

The article goes on to quote Communist Party member Viktor Perov as saying, "What galls is how together with America we defeated Hitler, and how we sympathized when Bin Laden hit them. But they go ahead and scare kids with Communists. These people have no shame." Another party member, Andrei Gindos states, "Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett (are) second-rate actors, serving as the running dogs of the CIA. We need to deprive these people of the right of entering the country."

Now, part of me kind of laughs at this because this is clearly a fictional movie, using hyped up, stereotyped villains and subplots like all Indy films. So, you'd think that the Russians could just see the film and laugh it off for what it is, you know?

I'd like to think that the members of the communist party could go to the movie, get out and go to the local bar, pound some Vodka, slap each other on the back and laugh: You know, Comrade, we really had some good times with the Americans back then, didn't we? Remember good ol' nuclear proliferation? What a riot that was, huh? And man, the KGB--remember how we couldn't say anything about the current regime? Wow, that Indy film sure brought back some memories.

But no, they have to go and get offended by it.

I'm mostly joking here, because when you really think about it, their reaction is sort of understandable. I don't think too many Americans would like to have themselves depicted unfairly, running about U.S.S.R. looking for a weapon that would help us take over the world, destroying ancient ruins and Russian super heroes in the process. If roles were reversed, perhaps we might take offense (some of my Freedom Fry munching compatriots probably would, at the very least).

But this brings me to my point--and yes, there is one--what are the consequences of depicting another nationality as our enemy in our films? These days it seems hip to make (insert Muslim country here) our enemy in films, but is that appropriate? What does that do to further damage our relationship with those nations? And after we've healed our rift with the Middle East like we have with Russia, then what? Who will be the next enemy in our films?

Now that we are connected through the internet, through trade agreements, through travel and journalism, it is increasingly cringe-inducing to make some other nationality depicted as "The Enemy." Not only are there repercussions in our relationships with those nations, it's also really juvenile and over simplified. We the viewers buy into the same cliche stereotypes less and less now that we've traveled there, met coworkers from there, or read the latest New York Times bestselling novel that takes place there.

So in some way, the Russian Communist member's response, while a clear overreaction, also gives me a bit of hope. It seems that we've come to a place where there's a bit more accountability to how we portray other nationalities in the media, both in history and the present. In short, we have to be nice to each other if we want to get along.

It reminds me of being in third grade. I gossiped about about another friend of mine, only to have her find out and have her feelings bruised (as well as our friendship) as a result. We are now so inextricably linked internationally that we have a new responsibility to respect each other; to speak well of one another. I'm curious to see how this changes our political and cultural landscapes as a result.

And as for our film making--perhaps global warming will be the new enemy or some other human-induced natural destruction. Or maybe we're in for something fresh: unknown killer deep sea jelly fish that plan to take over the world, forcing us to unite and destroy their killer stinging tentacles.

Now that I'd pay 10 bucks for.

A friend of mine--Melanie Abrams--just published a novel, Playing. I wrote a review on it, which will ultimately be published in MARY, a Saint Mary's College online magazine. I have a couple interviews published in there, but unfortunately they don't utilize Google's search engine optimization tools AT ALL, and it's impossible to find the magazine through Google. Not to mention the magazine's name is a little overdone--just try Googling MARY and see what comes up.

But, I digress. I'm super excited for Melanie who's been a great friend and literary support for me. So, here's the review I wrote:

At first glance, it might appear that Melanie Abrams’ debut novel, Playing, revolves entirely around the subject of sexual games. The cover reveals a young woman tied with a teal sash, her blonde head bowed in submission, surrounded by a background of sumptuous satin. It’s seductive really, and yet it offers a warning for the potential reader: this book is not for the faint of heart.

Yet Playing’s appeal extends far deeper than its steamy bedroom scenes. This well-orchestrated novel centers on Josie, an anthropology graduate student in her twenties with an interest in burial rituals. An ethnography assignment leads to a placement in a first-grade classroom where Josie develops a relationship with Tyler, a six-year old boy with an obsession for counting and trivial facts. Tyler’s mother, Mary, offers Josie a live-in nanny position and Josie takes it—not because she needs it, but because of an inexplicable connection between her and Mary. But when Josie falls for Mary’s crush, Devesh, an Indian doctor ten years her senior, she embarks on a tumultuous journey of sexual domination that increasingly complicates her life as the lines blur between Mary’s family and her own.

It is this relational complexity, compounded with the protagonist’s inexplicable desires, that makes the novel so compelling. While the tension between Josie and Devesh is riveting, over half of the book takes place exploring the other equally important relationships in Josie’s life. Her relationships with Devesh, Tyler, and Mary all force Josie to look at how her childhood has shaped her, and to finally face the haunting memories of her past.

Abrams pursues these various narrative threads with brilliant pacing, razor-sharp language, and tightly wound suspense. As the story progresses, the reader ends up feeling much like the woman on the front cover: willingly tied to the page as Abrams maintains a tension that keeps us aroused, horrified, and enrapt. As Josie navigates through her relationships somewhat recklessly, at times both disgusted and excited by her experience, the reader feels a similar magnetic push and pull.

This is where Abrams is particularly daring—not only has she created an electric tension between the book’s characters; she creates a tension between the reader and the story itself.

Josie is not extremely likeable for much of the story. Though she is largely caring for the children she nannies, and her vulnerability is relatable as she falls in love; she is also deceptive, self-abusing, and at times apathetic, and her behavior becomes increasingly volatile as she unravels on the page. As Josie explores herself through her sexual relationship with Devesh, the reader wonders—almost frustrated at times—what motivates her need for such brutality, and how can she be redeemed? Yet just when you feel like you can’t stand the character, just when you feel like you can’t handle another violent act, Abrams expertly offers the necessary information that delivers the needed dose of compassion to keep you hanging on for the ride, breathless, unable to set the novel down.

In addition to the conflicted relationship with the protagonist, Playing presents several other edgy topics to wrestle with: sexual violence that beautifully entangles love and power, and the even more uncomfortable topics of childhood violence and sexuality. Abrams faces both unflinchingly while not veering at all into the sensational or melodramatic. This conflicted novel-reader relationship is not unlike the experience of reading Nabokov’s Lolita. The protagonist disturbs us and yet we continue on, compelled without reason, upending our own mores about what is right and allowed on the sexual playing field.

And yet, hopefully, the book ultimately cracks us open as well, expanding our minds about what love can and cannot contain. Though Abrams’ novel certainly makes bold strokes into the realm of erotica, its superb writing, deep characters, and plot complexity keep it solidly in the realm of literary fiction. The book has much more to offer than sordid bedroom scenes and cliché sadomasochistic representation. It offers an intimate view into the heart and mind of a woman who wants what society tells her she shouldn’t, a woman who must ultimately learn to love herself not on society’s terms, but on her own.

There's an article circulating around called: Made in the USA: Spoiled Brats. It's been mistakenly attributed to Jay Leno, but was written by commentator Craig R. Smith. It talks about a poll that states that 67% of Americans are unhappy with with the direction the country is heading, and 69% are unhappy with the performance of the president. The article begins by asking what people are so unhappy about: their cars? the abundance of food? Their great education? And this, I feel is legitimate. A lot of Americans have no idea how blessed they are and how abundant their lives are. They are quick to complain about rather petty concerns without realizing how many people would die to live here--and do every day.

But then the writer goes on to lump ungrateful Americans (the spoiled brats) with political dissidents--basically, anyone who disagrees with the current president and the direction the nation is headed. This is an oversimplification. When people say they are unhappy with where the country is headed, it is not necessarily because they are ungrateful or unhappy with what they have. That would imply that people only think about the US in terms of their experience of living here, and not also in terms of the role we play internationally.

Let's take an example: I am very happy with my ability to have a car, but I'm not happy about the United States' role in global warming. And I know that our fuel consumption has lead to wars in the Middle East (let's be real about why we're really there; we knew they didn't attack us in Iraq, and there are horrible dictators in Africa that no one is complaining about or going to war over--what's the reward?). It's lead to rising global temperatures, and huge use of fresh water and materials to make our vehicles. And I also know that our president denied that global warming existed during his first term, and still refuses to abide by Kyoto protocols to this day. I know that he'd like to drill in pristine eco-preserves in Alaska instead of creating sweeping measures to switch to other energy sources.

Americans have a huge impact on the rest of the world--we're a super-power, essentially--and we have a responsibility to be a positive model for the rest of the world to follow. Many of us are disturbed by the huge drop in respect we've had globally, the anti-American sentiment that has nothing to do with our discontent and everything to do with our senseless wars, wasteful lives in the face of deep poverty, our ruthless border laws, our reckless consumption, and our rogue mentality.

This is why international citizens have "disdain" for American citizens, not because we don't like our president and are unhappy with where our nation is headed. I've traveled all over the world and spoken to people living in trash dump communities in the Philippines, single, starving women in Tijuana, and orphans begging on the street. I've also heard this from the wealthy elite around the world. I am not merely speculating--I know.

Smith's article ends with a rather disturbing call to arms:

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

This statement has haunting echoes of comments Bush made shortly after 9-11 which were that we should basically forget about what happened and get out and shop. Remember the shopping bag with the American flag posted everywhere? Here was an opportunity to reflect on what we have become as a nation, to reflect on how we want to respond to the terrorism, to talk with our neighbors and engage in creating a new nation. But instead we were encouraged to bury our heads in the sand and shop. To ignore what our government was doing and just get back to work and let them take care of it.

Smith's comment above does the same thing. We should, essentially, burn alternative media sources (I didn't see him tell us to turn off Fox news), and stop caring about what's going on. While I believe in positivity and gratitude, but I don't support chosen ignorance. A balance must be made.

We live in a nation whose choices have a huge footprint on the rest of the world, politically, socially, and environmentally. Unfortunately we don't have the choice to be disengaged. We don't have the option to stick our heads in the sand, and we do a great disservice to the world if we go down that path. Instead we need to choose the path of educated engagement while coming from a place of gratitude for all that we have.

Ultimately, I hope Smith--and those who think like him--would open their minds to another, greater possibility. Many of us are deeply grateful for what we have in this country, but we don't feel that we should have it at the expense of others. I think that those of us who are unhappy with where the country is headed are unhappy because we don't need America to be better for ourselves, we need America to be better for the world.

The Denver Rally was incredible yesterday, though I understand it was also bittersweet with so many who were not able to attend. Who knew there would be such an incredible turnout? And then there were so many who wanted to come but turned away or never drove out in the first place because of prior commitments, jobs, or the travel distance.

After the incredible talks--both at the rally and at the precinct captain strategy meeting afterwards, my friends and I sat around talking about our experience and feelings. We were all so "fired up" after hearing Barack's message of hope, change, and unity. My boyfriend and I mentioned we might attend Bill Clinton's rally later that evening, just to check him out and compare. We're committed Obama supporters, but also committed Democrats that feel we are responsible to listen to both candidates. We were also just curious what it would be like in contrast to the Obama rally.

"Besides," my partner said, "Bill Clinton is one of my personal heroes."

Our friend shook his head. "You know, he's one of mine too," he said, "But I wouldn't want to hear him speak right now, not at this time, not in this context."

I thought this was a fascinating comment that shed an interesting light on the "Billary" Campaign. No bones about it, if we elected Hillary, we'd be electing Bill back into office as well. But what does that mean about our progress as a nation? What does that say about the kind of America we're trying to create?

I read a few excerpts from Clinton's speech last night, and this one struck me deeply:

"If you vote for HIllary, she will send the world a very different message about America," Clinton said. "She will say, 'We're back'."

I find this--a comment that literally made me shudder--such a different tone to a comment Obama made in his speech at the rally. He spoke about how America used to be a country that people looked up to, that people admired, and that if he's elected as the presidential candidate we can say: America is Back.

This comment inspired us so much. We used to live in a nation we were proud of. But now, (and I especially experience this as a world traveler) I feel such shame of who we've become: a rogue, bully nation with a crippled economy. I want to be proud of my nation again, proud of what we stand for and how we interact with the rest of the world. I want to be an example of what to do, not what to avoid.

That's partly what makes him so appealing. The Clintons focus on how THEY are coming back, and Barack focuses on how America is coming back, how Americans are voting for a new nation, not just a new leader. I think that's huge. It says volumes about the Clinton dynasty of the past, and volumes about the new leadership possibility of the future.

Okay, so I'm writing a lot about Obama lately. Well, he's inspired me. So, I'm going to caucus training on Wednesday, and then I've got to get in gear and start calling my precinct folks. Apparently I just have to call and try this script out, which I like alright:

1. I tell them I'm doing a survey and ask who they're voting for in the next election.
2. If they say anyone besides Obama, I tell them I'll make a note of it and thank them for their time.
3. If they say Obama, then I ask them to come to the caucus and give them the time and information that they need.

Then, I show up on caucus day and help get other voters excited about Obama and into our camp.

It's a strangely arbitrary electoral process, but fascinating as well. What I'm loving most about this campaign is learning about the election on every level. It's fascinating. I've never felt so in the loop before.

There's a slight possibility I might try to become a delegate. I hear you may have to campaign for it, but if it's light campaigning (like going door to door to introduce myself) then I just might do it. We'll see. My friend Kara is getting excited about helping too, and I'm just fascinated by the process and the power of politics.

Anyway--it's fun! Get involved. Now that I am, I'm amazed at how much we take our personal power for granted. I wish I'd known just how involved I could be long ago.

Matt and I went out to the Denver Diner (one of the select few establishments open 24 hours) around 1am Sat night/ Sunday morning. Somehow the topic rolled around to the presidential campaign, which it tends to do often, these days. One of my friends believed that Obama didn't have what it took to be the next president. Her argument was that it would come down to two things: money--of which she believed Clinton had an endless supply, and experience--of which Clinton may have had arguably more.

As for experience, Abraham Lincoln--considered by many historians as one of the 3 greatest presidents of all time--only served in national politics for one (two year) term in Congress before running for president. His experience? Law (same as Obama) and 4 terms in the House of Reps, totaling 8 years. On a side note, those top three presidents are usually George Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

As for financing, Obama has proven he can keep up with Hilary as well. He had an immense victory in Iowa, almost a tie in New Hampshire where people had recently said he didn't have a chance, and he's continuing to go strong and gain financial and political support. Every day I read more and more accounts of politicians who have dropped out (Kucinich) and cast their votes to Obama, as well as labor unions and other large political factions that are rallying behind Obama. He inspires us, and after 7 years of desperation, inspiration is a very important thing.

My point, however, is not that Obama will win--though I really hope he does--it's that it's still up in the air. It's going to (at least from this vantage point) be a fight to the finish.

But most importantly, I just hope this doesn't end being a huge dividing factor for Democrats. Because the fact is, we have two stellar candidates, both of whom represent a real evolution in American politics: a white woman, and a man of African American descent. Both are fairly environmentally concerned, both are focused on mending our international bridges, and both are concerned about ending the wars in the Middle East and getting our economic state more stable. Honestly, I'm thrilled. So, while I'm big time in the Obama camp, and far more inspired by him: his energy, what he stands for, his vision, his political strategy, I say we're truly fortunate this year to have two very worthy candidates. So--game on.

I am crazy, crazy, crazy about Barack Obama. My boyfriend Matt and I go onto his website every couple days and watch videos of his speeches and blurbs about his stances on various topics.

I read a recent New York Times Op-Ed article about the Obama Phenomenon. Basically, Obama has been blowing away the skeptics with his message of hope, unity, and change. At first many of those skeptics thought Obama's message was naive and fanciful. But now--just look at what happened in Iowa. A mid-western state full of mostly-white people turned out to vote for Obama, a black candidate with a Muslim name and only four years as a senator under his belt. It's unbelievable.

Obama's creating something new that I'm totally enamored with: a political campaign of unity and positivity. He's encouraging politicians to speak positively to each other, to not get caught up in mud-slinging. He's concerned about the environment, health care, and mending broken ties with other countries. He sounds and feels authentic, real, passionate, and alive--a great mix of JFK and MLK Jr. We need a leader like Barack after the last seven years. It's so refreshing from the rhetoric of us versus them, good versus evil, that I've heard for the last seven, painful, years.

So now I'm more inspired about the political scene than I have been in years. Like so many other young people that Obama has inspired, I've decided to get more involved in politics myself. I volunteered to be our precinct captain, and I'm excited to caucus on Feb. 5th as well. I'll also be--if I'm in the country--volunteering at the Democratic National Convention here in Denver in August. I can't wait. More than anything, I'm just excited to believe in something again, to be moved by a leader my generation has never seen, but has desperately needed.

I'll end with this great quote from the NY Times article I mentioned above:

However this election turns out, Mr. Obama can be credited with a great achievement. He has drawn tons of people, and especially young people, into the political process. More than anyone else, he has re-energized that process and put some of the fun back into politics. And he’s done it by appealing openly and consistently to the best, rather than the worst, in us.

Obama '08!

Get out and caucus for your candidate this year! Just go to their website and contact a local volunteer.

Well, it's ironic that my last real blog entry was about writing nonfiction--and in particular about the "joys" of it. Right about the time I wrote my last entry, I began to really struggle with my decision to write my book about the Philippines. I was having a grand ol' time writing about my previous three trips, but when it came time to write about my most recent experience there, I hit a wall. A big wall. A big, brick, solid wall. And that's how I broke my nose.

Seriously though (I only broke it metaphorically)...I struggled with writing about my experience so much that I began to hate writing, to despise it actually. Usually I enjoy writing in my voice, I get a kick out of relating an event and putting my own particular spin on it, but this time I felt like I was pushing it, like I was prematurely giving birth, and the story just wasn't ready to be born.

I began to agonize over my decision: Do I write this book about the Philippines, or do I work on an entirely different book, one I've been wanting to write for almost two years? The one I've been wanting to write is young adult fiction, quite a stretch from my two year master's degree in nonfiction, in addition to my half a year researching a nonfiction book in the Philippine rice terraces.

Well, here's what I decided. I'm not ready to write my book about the Philippines. And while I won't push my personal writing agenda onto other people, I will say that I think a book needs to be written with some distance from a topic or event, and I don't feel I have enough yet. While there is a freshness in the writing of a just-experienced event, I have to wonder: has the writer had time to discover the meaning of the event or series of events? Has the writer had time to discover which moments were most important to the over-arcing theme to be conveyed?

I decided that I could relate the entirety of my five months in the Philippines, but how would I pick and choose the important moments to relate if I didn't know the overall idea I was trying to get across, if I didn't have some distance from the experience to have a larger vision of that time of my life? I want to have some wisdom when I convey a story, some perspective. I think that's what makes nonfiction compelling for me--the double layer. The story, and the perspective on it, the wisdom gained.

But more importantly, I wasn't enjoying myself. And writing, while often a struggle, must at some level be a joy. Otherwise, why sacrifice the stable paycheck? Why risk spending years writing a novel/memoir that may never be published? Writing must be a joy in and of itself, and if I'm not enjoying myself at all, then I will never keep the momentum and discipline I need to finish the book.

So...now, onto some young adult fiction. I'm working on this novel I'm totally excited about, it's almost completely outlined (well, the first one is outlined, but the other two to follow are the ones I haven't finished yet), and I'm enjoying myself in the process. I felt a little weird delving head-on into fiction after so much nonfiction training, but ultimately, I went to school to be a better writer. And as long as I love what I'm doing and feel like it's meaningful for me, isn't that all that matters?