Don Quixote meets Bartleby meets Pacey Witter

Several years ago I decided that there were certain books I needed to read in order to consider myself an educated person, a list which ultimately lead me to go back to school in the hopes of getting my degree out of the way while being required to read these books. It turns out that they no longer really require reading many of the classic works of literature on my list (even for an English Language and Literature degree which is what I now have). I took a trip to Dublin a couple months ago, though, at the conclusion of my formal education, and came away with renewed interest in the list. The first two books on the original list were The Odyssey and Ulysses. I read The Odyssey first and then I went back to school thinking that certainly Ulysses would be required reading and it turned out not to be (though Dubliners was required for more than one class). So, I bought a copy of Ulysses in Dublin and now I'm finally reading it.

Until today I hadn't been reading as much in the last 6 months as I normally do. In fact one of the books on my must read list (Madame Bovary) was required for a class I took winter quarter and I didn't even bother to read it at the time. I did started reading Don Quixote 6 months ago though but I still haven't finished it. I'm beginning to suspect that I might never finish that one. That's not a comment on my slow reading speed of late, or a negative comment on the quality of the book (to say that I might simply stop reading it, lose interest), or on it's length (though it is a VERY long book). I just suspect that I'll keep coming back to it because I think that it's one of the prime examples of the reason I started the list of books in the first place. That reason being, that so much of subsequent literature and culture (even to present day pop culture) is derived from or makes reference to certain classic works of literature (especially to Don Quixote and the Odyssey).

What I've been doing the past couple weeks, instead of reading, is marathon viewing Dawson's Creek and it's been very educational. I've learned that Pacey Witter is the perfect man. He's a nice guy in that typical "nice guys finish last" way with just enough asshole, bad boy traits in the mix to make him not actually finish last without making him actually an asshole, which is to say that he takes what he wants but he also respects people (especially women). He likes classic rock which is certainly a point in his favor. He's good with his hands (he can sail, and catch fish, and build things, and cook). He's passionate and loyal to a fault...which brings up the great point that almost all of his major personality traits seem to alternate between being points in his favor and flaws. If ever there was someone about whom the saying, "tilting at windmills", could often apply it's Pacey Witter, but, not unlike Don Quixote, his, often aggressive, defence of the underdogs mostly just makes him all the more endearing.

The reason I brought up Dawson's Creek was not simply to extol the virtues of Pacey (though they are many and varied). No, the real reason I brought up the pinnacle of late '90s teen soap operas is because it brings me back to my book list and the fact that all culture, even pop culture, has been heavily influenced by, and is peppered with references to, these classic works of literature. For example, in one episode of Dawson's Creek, Joey has a conversation with her professor (incidentally containing the following bit of phenomenal dialogue, Joey: There should be a word for people who use sarcasm as a defense mechanism; Professor Wilder: There is, 'sarcastic') which leads to the fantastic bit of insight that every college student, when asked, would say that the best ending in all of literature was the ending of Ulysses. This professor disagrees, he thinks that the best ending in all of literature was the ending to Flaubert's, A Sentimental Education. All of this is in the context of Joey's formal literary education but the show, and all others really, contain so many, much more subtle, references to classic works of literature that I can't help but return to my own informal literary education to fill in some of the blanks, since my formal education so failed me in that respect.

Of course, even the mention of the literary implications of this bit of modern pop culture does bring me back to the virtues of Pacey who once said, in response to a teachers suggestion that he might repeat the section on Bartleby the Scrivener, "No, sir, I should prefer not to", thereby proving yet again his superior wit and intelligence despite the large, bad boy, slacker, chip on his shoulder about being an academic failure and disappointment to all his friends and family.

The Lennon Principle

Maybe I'm unqualified to give an opinion on religious, cultural or racial conflict and war. I don't subscribe to any organized religion, my racial background is far from homogeneous, and I come from a culture that's defining characteristic is that it is not homogeneous. Perhaps I'm genetically predisposed to wonder why people fight so hard to hold on to their father's land, or their holy land, or anything really, since my ancestors are all immigrants who specifically chose to leave their home lands (or in a few cases perhaps had to flee from their home lands) and build new lives somewhere else. It's true that I also think anger and hate are wasted emotions, toxic even, in general so it's hard for me to understand being angry at or hating an entire race, religion or nationality of people.

I'd like to believe...No. I do believe that if I was forced out of my home tomorrow I'd find somewhere new and call that home and it would be because I would make it home and I wouldn't spend my time and energy being angry at, or hating the people that made me leave, or planning and executing retaliation, or even trying to get them out of my former home. I also would prefer, if I had children and they had children and so on, for my descendants to live their lives and spend their time in search of happiness rather than in pursuit of revenge. Retaliation seems like a particular waste of time and energy to me because it's circular (i.e. only leads to more retaliation). If someone wants to hate me because I'm Jewish, or if they want to hate me because I'm not Jewish enough, or because I'm American, or a woman or for any other reason, I can't do anything about that. Am I supposed to hate them in return for being any of the things that they can't change either, or because they hate me? I just can't do that.

Maybe, okay certainly, I have it easier than some people. I may be a product of a few technically interracial relationships generations back, but on the surface I'm pretty white looking and from a cultural perspective I'm American (which I guess has it's own drawbacks in much of the world right now, but I haven't been targeted for it anywhere I've been). Sure, like many Americans I identify with certain cultural aspects and traditions of my patchwork genealogy, especially the ones from my mothers side (Italian, Irish and Jewish for those who are interested), but really, I have to admit to being, almost quintessentially, an American girl, though I can't say that I'm especially proud to be an American girl right now. I can identify with the desire to find someplace where you can be who and what you are without being ridiculed, persecuted, hated or attacked for it. Hell, that's the "American dream", isn't it? I just can't get my head around the idea that, rather than looking for that, or after finding it, or if the search for it seemed futile, someone would turn to doing exactly those things to other people. It bothers me that people will let what I consider to be the most base, and toxic, and evil, of emotions rule their hearts and minds. I can't seem to get past it.