Spontaneous Musings

Considered writing a review of George RR Martin's novel Game of Thrones, but have more or less decided against it. What you would be reading would be how I experienced the novel through my lense not necessarily how the novel is. Although I could step back from it and give some objective pointers, I suppose. It is in my view over-written and spends far too much time describing every little event in the characters lives - which would be fine if we didn't have a total of eight characters points of views to keep track of, plus eight different plot threads, each with their own chapter. And often the points of view do not coincide. You are shifting perceptions constantly.



Read an interesting anecdote recently - in a Harvard Business School classroom, a professor handed out two versions of the same drawing to 20 students. Ten students were told to look at a drawing of a young woman. Ten students were told to look at the drawing of an old one. For ten seconds. Then, the professor projected a separate drawing. This drawing was a composite of the two. Half the class insisted it was the picture of a young woman in profile, half insisted it was a drawing of old woman. They vehemently argued their points, insisting the other person was blind, a nit-wit, insane. Until the professor asked the students to show each other what they saw. One student got up and pointed at a line around the woman's neck - "see this is a young woman's necklace", while someone else got up to the board and said, "no that is her mouth." That's when they had the "ah-hah" moment and realized wait it is both. You can see the picture both ways. How you see it depends on how you were conditioned to see it. But you can break the conditioning and see it another way - that's possible, but each time you look back at that picture you still see it the way you were taught to.

Reading this anecdote reminded me of the vehement discussions I witnessed and participated in on BTVS discussion boards in 2002-2004. People did not understand how it was possible that someone could watch the same show, hear the same dialogue, yet experience it in a completely different way, at times a way that was the complete opposite to theirs (much like the Harvard students and the drawing). They argued their points in somewhat the same manner the Harvard students did - they would pull out dialogue from posted teleplay's from the TV show, show word by word how the dialogue supported their perception and only their perception. Then the opposing party would use the same exact dialogue to support their opposing perception of the show. Frustrated, they'd obtain posted interviews from the writers, actors, and producers of the series - yet, those interviews more often than not conflicted with one another - the writers also perceived their work differently from one another, each had a different perception, as did the actors. Add to this the fact that the people arguing perceived what they read in each interview differently, picking up on the bits they identified with and not seeing the bits they didn't. Unable to persuade the other party that what they saw was "canon" or "fact" they resorted to name calling much as the Harvard students did.

Unless someone happened upon an "a-hah" moment, somewhere along the line and realized what I did - that the show could be seen more than one way, that there was more than one possible reading of it - which was why it appealed to such a broad audience spanning cultures, languages, ethnicity, gender, and age. Because you could see it in more than one way. Sure there were certain facts - ie. Angel is a vampire. Buffy slays Vampires. But the metaphors, the dialogue, the themes, even the characters roles and relationships with one another could be seen in more than one way - more ways even then the writers and actors themselves intended. That was its appeal. An "ah-ha" moment comes - when you realize it. When you can actually see the show from someone else's perspective or point of view. That happened to me actually with Seasons 5-7. Which is why I own those three on DVD. I suddenly saw the series from two opposing points of view. I was able to see the old woman and the young woman in the picture simulataneously. (Or in the case of BTVS I saw these opposing pov's: 1)the Spike as bad-boyfriend, soulless manipulative monster, not redeemed, literal view and got squicked by him being too close to Buffy in S6 and in S7 because he attempted to rape her, 2)saw the Spike on hero's journey pov where he misunderstood due to their sexual past-history and did not mean to rape Buffy etc., 3)the Buffy/Spike metaphorical pov, ie. Buffy coming to terms with her shadow via Spike, 4) Spike as Faith arc... and several more, I won't bore you with.)

Of course some may argue that if you can see something more than one way, the writer isn't being clear. Which reminds me of a writing experience I had in college. I had written a short story about my brother in art school. In brother's voice and it was stream of consciousness. (I had just finished reading Ulysess and Beckett). In the story my brother was sending notes to the trash can and the desk and to some bizarre person with an odd name, his girlfirend- which he used to talk about doing in letters to me at the time. The members of the class each interpreted the story differently - one group saw a person dying of cancer sending letters to a friend as he lost his mind. Another group this included the professor - saw a radiation victim in the distant future, the sole survivor of the apocalpsye whose only friends were inanimate objects. A few people thought the guy was insane and we were in an insane mind. Then there were three or four who saw a lonely art student. When I told them what the story was about, the professor chastised me for not being clearer - not telling the reader what it was about up-front, guiding them. He was that rattled at not being right, I wonder to this day what he would have said if the story had fit how he saw it? This experience was the first time I witnessed the variety of ways people may perceive something and how much their perceptions have to do with their experiences. This wasn't the first time I got chastised for something in a story - another time, a girl reamed me for having a character who survived three cancerous brain tumors with no mind left - insisting not only was this impossible but offensive, since her aunt had just died of brain cancer - she refused to believe that the story was based on my own grandfather who had survived three brain turmors and was a bit like a three year old afterwards. She could not accept an experience that she perceived contrary to her own.

But when you do realize more than one perception is possible, when you do get that ah-hah moment - like I did in the writing course and on the discussion boards...it is mindblowing.

Why? Because you suddenly realize, wait, there's more than one way to see this. That my view is neither right nor wrong, nor better nor worse than another's. Just different. And what I see says a great deal about who I am or rather what I've learned and been taught. But even that is impossible to determine based on one perception. I think one of the biggest problems about discussing things - is we are so stubborn regarding our own point of view and so judgemental of opposing ones. Instead of trying to understand them, we judge them, and hunt for ways to prove them wrong. We argue. We fight. We retreat. But refuse to really listen. I know I do.

It's hard for me, for instance, to see any justice in the war in Iraq, yet if I let my mind flip into another point of view, I can see why we did it. Why my work colleagues are in favor of it. We are exposed to different sources of information, different stimulous, different events. I saw the Towers fall from the Bronx and rode through the wreckage. My work colleagues barely got out of the building alive and lost their offices and equipment. They saw President Bush come and shake their hands, sympathize with their plight, and demand justice. Defeat a nasty tyrant and free an enslaved country. I, well, I saw a weak President pontificate platitudes at a weary public and go after the wrong enemy, causing misery and unnecessary bloodshed in a war that reminded me far too much of Vietnam. There's two ways of seeing the events unfold. So much of what you are seeing is based on what you were taught, what is ingrained. But the ability to see the other side, suggests that we aren't pavlov's dog, we can rise above conditioning and see more than one angle and choose which one works for us, while choosing at the same time to accept another angle, even though we don't agree with it? When I allow myself to see the other guy's point of view, it's oddly enlightening, it allows me to question mine and feel compassion even empathy for someone else. But I have to get past the ingrained emotional response often to do it. I have to get past the desire to retort, to argue, to defend my position, long enough to understand and fully comprehend theirs. But once I do - it is often an "ah-hah" moment of revelation.

(Oh as an aside, I'm researching Social Psychology courses and books at the moment, with a possible interest in pursuing that field as a new career. If you know anything about this field or any books that would interest me - feel free to advise/recommend/etc. Thanks muchly!)