Hope for the Ark Encounter?

Utnapishtim's, ahem...Noah's ark

Depending on how much you pay attention to issues regarding religion, you may or may not have heard of the Ark Encounter. In a nutshell, it's a museum devoted to the Biblical flood story, and it's a life-size reconstruction of Noah's boat. I suppose it's more of a construction than a reconstruction for the simple fact that NOAH'S ARK NEVER FRIKKEN' EXISTED.

Yeah, I'm being a little harsh, but if you think that the Noah story actually happened, or you even entertain the possibility that it happened, then the rest of this post isn't going to appeal to you. Unless you can provide some AMAZING evidence (you can't) of a global flood, I'm going to put flood believers into the same category as Scientologists who learn about Emperor Xenu and still stay in the organization anyway.

It opened on July 7th, and from what I've read, opening day didn't have quite the turnout that they were expecting. Maybe there aren't as many Biblical literalists as they were hoping for? Or maybe the literalists just don't care that much? Who knows? I'm not expert in these matters, and I haven't seen any official figures, but I have to wonder if this thing will one day go the way of Jim Bakker's Heritage USA, and become a monument to religious folly.

 

Let's just assume that I'm right and this thing will eventually go bankrupt and have to close down one day. Overall, this would be a good thing. Perhaps it's too bad that the state of Kentucky is losing out considering how many tax breaks Answers in Genesis (the company that built the thing) got for it, but the good far outweighs the bad. For starters, the place is basically devoted to spreading ignorance and anti-science. Even worse, it's targeted at children with its inclusion of dinosaurs. (It's funny how for some people the dinosaur thing is what puts it over the top into Crazy Town territory. Guess what? It's crazy without dinosaurs.) It will also be good to see the end of a place that has discriminatory hiring practices (no non-Christians, no gay people) while receiving taxpayer money. 

With that said, I wouldn't want to see the place get torn down. I also wouldn't want to see it just sit there and rot. Here are some possibilities as to what can be done with it:

1. Turn it into a science museum. Have a big part explaining how flood geology is riddled with fallacies.

2. Have it be a museum devoted to mythology. Utilize much of what's there, and keep the dinosaurs in a section entitled "What happens when people take myths literally." Include displays for various flood myths, paying special attention to Utnapishtim and his similarities/differences with Noah. 

3. Make a nautical museum. Yeah, it's in a landlocked part of the country. Well, who would be more starved for boat-related stuff than them? People on the coasts have their fill of that sort of a thing, thank you very much.

4. Make it a literal monument to religious folly. Have displays ranging from the weird to the outright dangerous like snake handlers and Jim Jones.

5. Why was the world flooded? Because of sin, right? Make it a museum of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. People will love it. Throw in some hookers while you're at it. See if the firmament opens and the waters pour forth. 

Read These Comics! - Boxers & Saints and a bit more

Last Wednesday, my local comic book store had a signing with Gene Luen Yang. He's the current writer on Superman and has done numerous creator-owned projects like American Born Chinese and today's specific recommendation, Boxers & Saints. It was a great opportunity to meet him, and he was really gracious to everybody who showed up for the signing. I got a chance to talk with him a little bit about the historical and mythological subject matter that his work deals with, and that sort of a thing is always a plus when it comes to signings.

I was intrigued by Boxers & Saints when I first heard about it, but it took a while for me to finally pick it up. What finally prompted me was when he was announced as the new Superman writer, as I have been picking up that title anyway. The thing that got my attention about this particular work though was that it covered a little piece of history that most folks don't know about - The Boxer Rebellion.

I first learned about it when I worked for Military.com, and I was writing brief text summaries of the various military engagements that involved the United States. It's still there, and I'm fairly certain that's the text that I wrote for it. In a nutshell, it was a war where a secret Chinese society, with the awesome name of The Society of the Righteous and Harmonious Fists, declared war on Western and Japanese influences in their country and attacked not just the foreigners but Chinese converts to Christianity. Eventually it would come to an end when an international coalition, including the United States, eliminated the "Boxers" as the society came to be known. (One disadvantage of the Boxers? They believed that bullets couldn't harm them. Turns out they were wrong.)


Lang's comic is actually two graphic novels, the first one titled Boxers and the second one Saints. The two just go together and you can usually find them sold in one slipcase. The first one tells the side from one of the Boxers and the other from a Chinese convert to Christianity. When I told Gene Yang about how I really liked that technique, he told me that it was due to his ambivalence about who the "good guy" was. Personally, I think that any honest telling of a war story will find it hard to create such clear-cut distinctions.

But just like any good war story in particular or good story in general, the appeal is in creating sympathy for both characters, even when you feel that they're making bad choices. The thing is, I can completely get why those Boxers wanted to do what they wanted to do. Who the hell were all those foreigners coming in and imposing their will on the Chinese? And what was up with this foreign religion and its complete disrespect of all their gods and customs? They basically reacted the way anybody else would, although they took on a violent solution, fueled by religious fervor.

At the same time, I can sympathize why some of the Chinese would convert over to the new religion of Christianity. I'm no Christian myself, but the religion definitely has an appeal compared to a lot of others, whether you think it's for good reasons or not. And more importantly, nobody wants to be persecuted for their beliefs, whether they're the traditional ones or newer, foreign ones.

One thing I also got to tell Mr. Yang was that I really loved how he incorporated Chinese mythology into the stories without making it feel like a textbook lesson. References to the gods are seamlessly blended into the overall story that both serves the theme and informs the reader. The same thing happens in Saints although with a lesson about Joan of Arc.

After finishing both volumes, you're left with that same feeling of ambivalence that the author described to me, and all that death and war seems like such a waste. That might be a common theme for war stories, but it's really the only honest one.

I don't know if I'll get a chance to write about it, but if you like this particular work, then I also highly recommend American Born Chinese. It's mostly autobiographical, and anybody who has ever felt like an outsider can relate to it. (But probably more if you're of Chinese descent, no doubt.) Just like Boxers & Saints, it also incorporates a good deal of Chinese mythology while not feeling didactic.

As for his first issue of Superman? It looks like it's off to a good start. I don't know if it was his plan or not, but the story picks up on recent events where Kal El not only has a new power where he essentially flares like a star (only to lose his powers for about a day until they recharge) but he also has had his secret identity revealed to the world. In other words, no more Clark Kent. Not sure how they'll put this genie back in the bottle, but I think that there are definitely some interesting possibilities if he's gotta be Superman 24 hours a day. Gene Luen Yang has showed that he can tell a good story with his own characters, so I trust him to do the same with the Man of Steel.

You can probably guess which guy has the last name of "Johnson" and which one has the last name of "Yang".

Dirk Diggler's Heroic Journey

In both my freshmen and senior English classes, I teach a version of Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey. It's a good way to get students to start looking for patterns and symbols in stories. For the freshmen, I teach it with Greek Mythology, and with seniors, I teach it with Beowulf, Siddhartha, and The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I include the last one because the overall point I'm trying to get across with them is that the things that happen in stories reflect what happens in reality.

When teaching it, I have a video that I made that illustrates the various parts of the Hero's Journey. Some movies that come up often are the Star Wars films, The Lord of the Rings, and the Harry Potter series. Those work well because they're basically patterned after older myths. However, I also include a few scenes from other movies (that remain popular despite their age) like Mean Girls. The kids are often surprised to see the latter in all of that, but when I explain it all, it makes sense to them.

There is one movie that exemplifies the Hero's Journey that, when I made the video with all of the movie clips, I was really attempted to include some scenes from it. There's just one major problem. That movie is Boogie Nights, and that movie's about the porn industry. In other words, somebody's probably going to get offended if I include that, and I'll find myself having a meeting with administration. I suppose that even with that aside, I'd agree that it would be pretty inappropriate for a public school setting.

I give my freshmen a paper where they're allowed to write about any story that they want and relate it to the Hero's Journey. That's essentially what I'm going to attempt here in order to finally get this example out of my system. If you're a former student and you liked that lesson, then enjoy. If you're a current student, keep in mind that I don't promote my blog in class nor have I made it an assignment to read this. In other words - you're choosing to read this on your own. If you like mythology, movies, and/or porn, then you might find yourself enjoying this. But let's get one thing straight - this entry will be discussing porn, however tangentially, so don't keep reading if that sort of a thing offends you.

So, let's get started:

The Hero's Journey of Dirk Diggler - better known as Boogie Nights

Boogie Nights tells the story of a young man from Southern California in the 1970s who adopts the pseudonym "Dirk Diggler" when he joins the porn industry. Gifted with a large penis, he's a natural for the genre; however, his natural charm and ambition pushes him beyond what's expected and he emerges as a superstar of porn. With fame comes temptation and a battle with his own ego, and he begins to alienate his friends (who have become like family) when he overestimates his own importance. After a series of disastrous mistakes, Dirk Diggler eventually rises again, ready to conquer the adult entertainment industry once again.

One can find a lot of basic archetypes in Boogie Nights. Obviously, Dirk is the hero of the story. He meets the archetypal definition as he overcomes overwhelming obstacles. His obstacle includes baring everything, which is a big deal in a society whose mythology is based on the idea that being ashamed of one's nudity is the first realization when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Much like any good mythological hero, Dirk also suffers. He's cast out by his mother, and lacking appropriate role models leads to all sorts of dangerous behaviors (which will be elaborated on later).

Of course, any good hero deserves a mentor, and in this case, it's Jack Horner, a producer of porno films. Jack's goal is to get people to stay in their seats and finish the movie once their done masturbating. In other words, he's looking to transcend the genre, and he sees what he needs in Dirk. Through Jack, Dirk is able to learn the ropes of the business, and his star rises because of Jack's love and support.

There are multiple characters who fit the role of the sidekick, but probably the most obvious example would be Reed Rothchild. He's there from the beginning, and he comes along with Dirk as he rises to the top. He's also there through the bad times, and he's still around at the end. Everybody deserves a friend like Reed.

The character Amber Waves presents an interesting dilemma, as one can find multiple archetypal ideas in her personality. In other words, she's more complex than the sort of characters that you'd find in a myth - especially considering that females have so long been used more as plot devices than fully realized human beings. On one hand, she's the Outcast, as her husband keeps her apart from her son due to her choice of career in the porn industry. She's also a bit of an Earth Mother, as she acts very loving toward Dirk and it's clear that she's looking to him as a replacement for the son she cannot see. Most fitting though is that she's the Platonic Ideal for Dirk. This, of course, sounds strange as the Platonic Ideal usually involves a non-sexual attraction, and Dirk has sex with her shortly after meeting her. However, it's important to note that this sexual encounter is entirely in the context of his job. She's very sweet and motherly to him. And yes, that is a strange, awkward, uncomfortable thing for the audience. This is the porn industry, where if one is looking for normal, healthy relationships, then somebody's doing something terribly wrong.

Dirk's Journey as the hero begins with his extraordinary birth. While not the son of a god, king, or other important figure, he is endowed with an extraordinarily large penis. So, really, who is to say for sure that he's NOT the son of a god, most likely The Dagda of Celtic Mythology, whose penis was so large that it dragged on the ground behind him as he walked. The call to adventure comes when he meets Jack Horner, his helper and mentor, for the first time. Jack discovers Dirk working at a nightclub and asks to see Dirk's "equipment". From that point on, nothing will be the same. By this point in the journey, many heroes are presented with the talisman, a magical object that will help them through their journey. Oftentimes, the talisman comes in the form of a sword. Insert pun about Dirk's penis being his talisman here.

Dirk crosses the threshold when he attends a pool party at Jack's house. Oftentimes in stories, this is a moment that involves a great deal of danger and much confusion. This scene doesn't have that, but it still fits because Dirk is in a completely new world. He's surrounded by people who not only have more money than he did growing up, but they are extremely liberated. Dirk is able to overcome his initial trials and obstacles without any problem, as his large member not only impresses the filmmakers, but his ability to generate multiple ejaculations within a short time frame has everyone's jaw on the floor. With his ability comes fame and awards, and soon his illumination comes when he realizes that he and his pal Reed can star in a series of pornos that feature a recurring detective character named Brock Landers. Dirk realizes that the movies that he's in can be so much more than what people expect from him.

It doesn't take too long into the story to witness Dirk's transformation. With fame comes money, and with that comes a more expensive wardrobe. While Dirk never marries nor returns home to make peace with his parents, his story does fit the atonement with the father, as he has a severe falling out with Jack. Eventually, he returns to his mentor, realizing how important the man was to him and his success.

While Dirk doesn't literally become a king, he still fits this particular part of the Hero's Journey, as he becomes the most popular adult film star - and as was mentioned before, he wins multiple awards. Towards the third act of the film is when one can see how strong Dirk's connection is to the Journey, as the story focuses heavily on his fall from grace. With his fame, Dirk's habits also became more expensive. To be more specific, he developed a cocaine habit. This, in turn, resulted in him losing the ability to attain an erection when needed for a scene. This led to a severe blow to his self esteem, and he started butting heads with Jack, creating a falling out where Dirk and Reed were exiled and went their own way to achieve their fortune. This turns into a real mess, as they pursued a music career, drug dealing, and the worst example, Dirk turned to masturbating in front of strangers for money. 

Here was Dirk Diggler, once the most popular porn star in the business. He had it all. He had friends. He had money. He had the finest shirts made from imported Italian nylon. He had more creative control than any other porn star, with Jack even letting him block his own scenes. All of that, and there he is, jerking off in front of a guy for a lousy ten bucks. To add insult to injury, the guy gets a bunch of friends to beat up Dirk afterward. As though that wasn't bad enough, one of them even shouts at Dirk, who's lying on the ground, beaten and bloody: "You don't do this, donkey dick!"

We never witness the death of Dirk Diggler, but his fall from grace was very much like a death of the hero the audience grows to love. Just like Dionysus, Balder, and even Jesus Christ, Dirk rises once again, and no doubt that even long after his physical death, he will be remembered in the porn idustry forever, thereby insuring his immortality.

Boogie Nights might not seem like the most obvious choice when pondering the Hero's Journey, but clearly it fits rather well. It doesn't just work on that level though, and there are a lot of other interesting subplots and characters like: Rollergirl, Buck Swope, Little Bill, Scotty J., and Todd Parker. It certainly deserves to be considered a classic, and hopefully this analysis just adds one more reason to the list of what makes it great.

Multiple monotheisms

A talking point that gets thrown around a lot when discussing the major Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that they all worship the same God. Usually, the point in bringing this up is to encourage tolerance and acceptance among the three groups. While I don't want to crap on the idea of people getting along, I do feel like this is a disingenuous talking point. It's not quite as bad as those who try to accommodate other beliefs with the "it's true for me and that's true for them" talking point, but it bears more analysis than it usually gets.

Sure, they all have something in common. They all begin with the same God who kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, told Noah to build a boat, and made a covenant with Abraham. They all accept the story where Judah Ben Hur told the King of Siam to let his people go (or something like that). So, same God, right?  I'm not so sure.

According to Jews and Muslims, God is one and indivisible. According to most Christians, God came down in human form as Jesus Christ, and he is split into the Trinity, giving you three gods for the price of one. (Christians will insist that they have a monotheism, but honestly I think that the Muslims and Jews make more sense when they think of that concept as being decidedly polytheistic.) So, the very nature of this same God they believe in is different. If I told you that I owned a certain kind of animal that was a mammal, and you said that you had the same one but it was a reptile, would you think that's the same animal? (That might not be the best analogy. Work with me here. The point is, how can a Trinitarian God and an indivisible one be the same thing?)

Perhaps you think that's a nitpick, but we can go on from there. Jews don't even recognize Jesus at all, but for Christians, he's easily the most important part of the whole concept. The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for salvation and what everything in the Jewish scriptures was leading up to. Jews don't even believe that humanity needs the kind of salvation that Christianity claims that we do. Plus, tehy can give you an entirely different interpretation of their own scriptures. (But hey, what do Jews know about the Torah anyway?) So, supposedly it's the same God who has two completely different concerns regarding what his creation needs. How is this the same being?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is similar, as Muslims absolutely reject the idea that God came down in the form of a man and "died". They also do not accept that God can be split into a Trinity. Unlike Jews, they do believe that Jesus was a prophet and he plays an important part in their overall theology, but to say that a guy's not God is saying something drastically different than saying that he is God.

I'm not denying the historical link between all three of these religions, but they each define their deity in such different ways that it's like they're not even talking about the same thing. Even when you start to break it down by denominations/sects/schools of the three main faiths, you still wind up with a singular God who's described in so many different ways that it's hard to imagine that they're all talking about the same being. Are the Orthodox Jews correct and the creator of the world gives a crap about mixed fabrics? Seems like a different sort of personality from the being of Reform Jews who is more hip with changing times. One way or the other, he certainly can't be both.

Of course, Christians aren't off the hook. We can go as extreme as Mormonism (which is arguably more different from mainstream Christianity than Islam or Judaism when you've got a God who used to live on the planet Kolob.) And it sure doesn't seem like Methodists are talking about the same guy that the Westboro Baptist Church rant on about. Same name? Yeah. Same being? I can't find my way to that conclusion.

Even in the earliest days of Christianity, there were strikingly different views as to what Jesus even was. Some considered him to be fully God. Some considered him to be more along the lines of an "adopted" son. It's like they weren't even talking about the same thing, just many different ideas that they all wanted to call Jesus.

Despite the fact that all these Gods stem from the same source, there is reason to believe that this is hardly a unique phenomenon. The Norse goddesses, Frigga and Freyja, are considered different goddesses, but there is reason to believe that they might have evolved from one singular goddess. With enough time and distance between related peoples, its not so strange to have that sort of a thing happen. You'll also find similarities in gods from different cultures. For instance, the Slavic god Perkunas shares many of the same attributes as the Norse Thor, as they both control the thunder and lightning while riding goat-pulled chariots in the sky. It's not so unlikely that the two descended from a common ancestor, if you'll pardon the evolutionary wording of that statement. (It should be noted that they have a lot of differences as well - but I'd argue that their differences are no greater than the differences you'll find within the Abrahamic faiths.)

I realize that as of this point, I've probably completely lost most theists, as I'm treating Yahweh/Jesus/Allah the same as any other mythological deity. But if you're with me so far, then consider that there has been at least one study which shows that people who believe in God generally tend to think that God agrees with them on important issues. It's pretty rare to meet two theists who see God in exactly the same way, but even when they're close, they'll ultimately be describing somebody who's more their idealized self than anything else. I've noted this before when it comes to Jesus, as people (even some atheists and agnostics) will talk about how wonderful he is, but they're essentially describing a character that they've invented in their heads, only borrowing the bits of the New Testament that they like.

I realize that it's a very inclusive, accommodating point of view that creates this idea that all of these people are worshiping the same being. Some will take it even further and say that basically any idea, be it Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, deist, etc. of a deity essentially amounts to the same thing. While the motivation might be a good one, it ultimately trivializes one hell of a lot of history and a great deal of cultural diversity.

I once debated a Christian and I spoke of how there are other gods, but the Christian kept insisting that there is only one God. I tried to make it clear that while I understood that, according to his belief system, there is only one God, there have been thousands of gods that have been worshiped all over the world for a long, long time. He wasn't having any of it. But honestly, now I'm not even sure that I agree with as much as I was willing to grant him. Yeah, people might be using that generic term "God" and think that they're all talking about the same thing, but I can make an argument for many different monotheisms - perhaps even one for each theist out there.

Hercules - Movie Review

As a fan (and teacher) of Greek Mythology, I got pretty excited when I heard that they were making not one, but two Hercules movies. I was really hoping that Hollywood would realize the great potential that lies in the character. Sure, the Disney cartoon is a lot of fun, if you ignore the Michael Bolton theme song, but it really doesn't get to the heart of what Heracles is all about. He's a suffering hero, who performs his twelve labors to atone for having killed his wife and children (not by his own free will, the goddess Hera drove him into a hallucinogenic rage).

My expectations dwindled considerably when I heard that one of them was to be directed by Renny Harlin and the other by Brett Ratner. Oh boy, that's not a good sign. It looked to me like the studios weren't going to be taking this very seriously.

Call me crazy, but I think that there's a potential for a Greek Mythology movie that does for the myths what Batman Begins did for superhero movies. I think that they can create something where the actors play their roles straight and the dialogue doesn't need to be stilted with a bizarre, trying-to-sound-like-Shakespeare-but-that-ain't-Shakespeare cadence to it. Perhaps somebody in Hollywood has had this idea, but nobody's funding that movie just yet.

When I saw the previews for the first one, The Legend of Hercules, I couldn't see anything that was even remotely connected to the myth that I know. You could have called it The Legend of This Dude from a Hella Long Time Ago, and it would have made just as much sense. I figured I'd skip it, and considering that it's holding a whopping 3% (no, I didn't leave out a zero - that's three) on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems like that was the wise move. Shoot Hercules in New York has 20%! I'd be better off watching that.

Perhaps I was just hurting for a mythology fix, but when I first started seeing pictures of Dwayne Johnson (Aren't you glad I didn't write "The Rock" in between his first and last names?) as the title character, I started to get optimistic. The pelt of the Nemean Lion on him? Okay, they've got the look down. Also, when I would read interviews with Johnson (no relation) it certainly seemed like the guy was enthusiastic for the project.

When I saw the previews, I started to get optimistic. They certainly weren't skimping on the special effects, and the Nemean Lion, the Hydra, the Erymanthian Boar - yeah, looking good. Still, at best it was just going to be dumb fun, right?

The early reviews confirmed my best-case scenario. It's currently sitting at a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes with the consensus being:

Hercules has Brett Ratner behind the cameras and Dwayne Johnson rocking the loincloth -- and delivers exactly what any reasonable person reading that description might expect.

I'd say that's a fair assessment, but since I have a soft spot for the material, I probably like it a bit more than even most of those who gave it a good review. Is this the definitive Hercules movie that I think can exist? Not exactly. However, they did get one thing right, and that's that he's not just a hero, but he suffers, and there is a lot of pain behind all that heroism.

The story plays around with the source material quite a bit, making the character a mercenary, and the impression is given that all of his labors were done with the help of his friends, but the stories grew in the telling. Also, his friends have no problem with him getting  all the credit, as it makes their enemies more afraid. Still, things are kept just vague enough, and if you want to believe that he's literally the son of Zeus by the time the story ends, you have enough justification to believe so.

I really liked Johnson in the lead role. He's a great action star, and he's able to bring the right amount of humor to a movie like this. However, I think that he also was able to convey the right amount of pain behind that Nemean Lion's pelt. (The movie keeps the bit about him killing his children, but it adds a twist that I won't spoil. As far as I'm concerned, the twist doesn't take away from what's important about that particular piece of the mythology though - and that's his inner need to atone.) From what I read, he really threw himself into the role, even to the point of passing out eight times. I'd say that it paid off, as the particular scene he's describing is the movie's high-point.

Some of the critics have complained that the movie has these dead-serious moments, when the rest of it is a lot of fun. I suppose you can accuse it of having an uneven tone, but it never went too far in either direction as far as I was concerned. Then again, that might be my blind spot for the material talking there.

One thing that struck me is that it was nice to see something that dealt with Ancient Greece that didn't look like 300. When that particular movie came out, it was cool because I had never seen anything like it, as it was bringing Frank Miller's comic book to life. But then I'd see previews for movies like Immortals and it seemed to be aping the same style. I couldn't even get past the first episode of that Spartacus TV show because it was such a stylistic ripoff of 300. With Hercules though, there certainly was a fair amount of CGI, but there were also a lot of practical effects and tons of extras running at each other during the battle scenes. (Or maybe the CGI is just getting that good to the point where I hadn't noticed. It seemed to me that they just used it to enhance the armies, not create them.) I looked up to see where they filmed, as the backgrounds weren't CGI vistas, and while it wasn't Greece, the scenery of Hungary sure looked good.

I figured that at worst, I'd be entertained. I got a bit more than that. Lastly, I should point out that I have only read the first issue of the comic book series on which it's based. I liked it, and now I'm eager to check out the rest of it.