A Most Ingenious Paradox

Down yonder, a reader writes:

I would like to see someone write a long article on the strange combination of traditional values like patriotism, family and a faith that plays right alongside praising infidelity, praising being drunk and Tim McGraw’s ambivalent song about abortion. There seems to be a strange disconnect among Country singers and their fans who can sing along with Restless Heart’s "Why does it have to be wrong or right?" one minute and then switch to "Believe" by Brooks and Dunn the next.

It’s like reading Cosmo and Inside the Vatican and not seeing any conflict.

Weird.

I think I can shed some light on the paradox. The reason for it is very simple: Country music is a form of folk music.

Folk music, by definition, reflects the interests of a particular people or "folk." Since there are saints and sinners in every group, folks music invariably includes songs that appeal to both. By its nature, folk music is broadly reflective of whatever the particular folk is interested in, which includes things like their religious lives, their families, their romances, their jobs, their frustrations, and their entertainments. The particular mix of these topics will vary from culture to culture and from time to time even within a particular musical tradition, but the same topics show up over and over again, just in different ratios.

Folk music can be distinguished from more selective musical traditions which are more polarized topically. Religious music–particularly those song that are sung in church–for example, is very, very narrow topically. Perhaps it’s the most narrow genre of music that shows up in each culture since it is devoted to the holy, which by definition is set apart from the ordinary.

Children’s music is also quite narrow in topics because its target audience is only just learning about life and the music created for children is focused on what children are interested in (e.g., animals, the jobs of the adults they see around them) and what is considered appropriate for them at their age.

Classic rock and roll, which received its foundational imprint as music for mid 20th century adolescents and young adults, is also narrower in topic than country music since its target audience hasn’t really come to terms with life as adults. It’s also marked by the obsessive interest of young males with a few particular topics (e.g.,  dating, sex, cars, rebellion against authority). It also shows notable traces of the particular era in which it was formed (e.g., songs about drug abuse rather than alcohol abuse).

Country music received its foundational imprint as music for traditional American adult society, which has historically been rural and religious. This means that you get some songs that are heavily religiously themed but also songs about sin. Since people struggle with their sins, you get some songs that reflect the struggle ("Why Does It Have To Be Right Or Wrong?"). Since people also give themselves over to their sins, you also have songs that glorify sinning ("Get Drunk And Be Somebody"). Since people get hurt by others’ sins, there are songs about that, too ("Your Cheatin’ Heart"). And there are songs that morally censure sinning ("Wreck on the Highway"). And songs from the perspective of those hurting under their own sins ("Honky Tonk Blues"). And songs that worry about whether people will escape from their sins ("Will The Circle Be Unbroken?").

You even get some songs that are like something from a Flannery O’Connor story (e.g., the Dixie Chicks’ "Goodbye, Earl" or Rock County’s "Turn It On! Turn It On! Turn It On!").

It’s a big, complex mix because folk music reflects the lives and struggles of the folk it represents. It includes both the good and the bad, leading to the paradox of amazingly powerful spiritual songs right next to ones glorifying sin.

That’s not to say that people to whom the folk music is addressed like all of the songs in the tradition. Religious country music fans frown on the glorify sin songs. Irreligious country music fans may roll their eyes at the  religious songs. But the mix is there because the music represents a folk and the folk itself is mixed. Some fans appreciate both kinds of songs because both reflect their lives and aspirations.

The paradox seems particularly striking if one is used to music that is topically more narrow (e.g., used to only religious music–which has the holy stuff but leaves out the sin-oriented songs–or used to rock and roll–which is more oriented toward the sinful stuff and tends to leave out the holy most of the time).

But the paradox of modern country music is normal in folk music. If you go back and listen to 19th century American folk music, the exact same themes are there: You’ve got explicitly religious songs and ones that hit the standard life and sin themes. "Ol’ Rosin the Beau" glorifies a reprobate who dies and goes to hell and drinks whiskey with the devil. "Soldier’s Joy" has alcohol/drug abuse in it ("It’s 25 cents for the morphine/It’s 15 cents for the beer/It’s 25 cents for the morphine/Gonna drink me away from here"). The original, pre-War version of "Dixie" has adultery in it ("Old Missus married Will the weaver/William was a gay deceiver . . . Old Missus played the foolish part/She died for a man who broke her heart"). "Sweet Betsy From Pike" has implied extramarital sex and possible illegitimate preganancy in it. "Buffalo Gals" and "The Yellow Rose Of Texas" are about being attracted to the opposite sex. "Cindy" is about the opposite sex being attracted to you. "Lorena" is about lost love and missed opportunities. The "Boatman’s Dance" is about glorifying a particular job/lifestyle.

And the same is true of folk music in other times and cultures. Back in the Middle Ages they had all kinds of religiously themed songs, but they also had drinking songs they’d sing in the taverns. And songs about romance and sex and loneliness and hardship and everything else that is part of the human condition.

Because that’s the paradox of true folk music: It reflects the paradox of the fallen human condition.

As to the paradox of why particular singers will sing both religious songs and those that glorify sin, the answer to that is simple also: They’re doing what singers have always done . . . trying to make money.

Incidentally,

MUSINGS FROM A CATHOLIC BOOKSTORE ALSO HAS A DISCUSSION OF THIS GOING.

SOWELL: Stop Insulting Our Intelligence!

Thomas Sowell is not impressed with the current immigration bill or the arguments used to support it. He writes:

The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.

He should know, because he’s got a lot of intelligence to insult. For the rest of us mortals, though, it can be handy to have a scorecard listing the ways our intelligence is being insulted, and Sowell provides a particularly good one.

HOW IS YOUR INTELLIGENCE BEING INSULTED IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE?

A Lemonade Per Day…

Lemonade_1

… may keep the kidney stones away. Or so says recent research.

"Regular consumption of the refreshing drink — or even lemon juice mixed with water — may increase the production of urinary citrate, a chemical in the urine that prevents the formation of crystals that may build up into kidney stones.

"So conclude two studies presented Tuesday at the American Urological Association annual meeting in Atlanta."

GET THE STORY.

<Tongue in cheek> Just you watch. If this theory gains traction, the next thing you know the Food and Drug Administration will close down kiddie lemonade stands for prescribing medicine without a license. </tongue in cheek>

Ascension Thursday

Ascension

Today is Ascension Thursday–the celebration of Christ’s ascension into heaven, 40 days after Easter Sunday.

In many parts of the U.S. (though not in California, where I live), this is a holy day of obligation.

I view that as an absurdity. A country should either treat this as a holy day of obligation or not. Culture doesn’t vary that much within a country that it should have different holy days of obligation compared to other parts of the same country. But I’m not the one who makes the rules, and the Vatican approved the current arrangement.

Part of the edge for me is that–given St. Luke’s indication that the ascension occurred 40 days after Easter, we know (at least in approximate terms) that the Ascension occurred on a Thursday, and I don’t like the idea of transferring it to the following Sunday. Of all the holy days, we have special reason to place this one on a Thursday.

Part of it also is that I’ve stood on the place on the Mount of Olives where the site of the Ascention is commemorated by a stone tower, though no one knows precisely where on the mountain the spot was from which Jesus ascended.

Still, it makes it more real to me.

Regardless of what ecclesiastical province you live in–inside or outside of the United States–I hope that you have a very blessed celebration of the transition of Our Lord from this lowly, fallen world back to the realms of glory from which he descended.

Extreme Mountaineering

Mteverest

A young mountaineer’s tragic death on Mount Everest has divided climbers around the world. David Sharp, 34, is believed to have died of oxygen deficiency after being passed up by an estimated forty climbers determined to press on to the top rather than cancel their ascent to help him.

"Sharp was trying to climb the mountain alone. He died after he apparently ran out of oxygen 300 metres below the summit.

"[Climber Mark] Inglis [himself a double amputee who climbs with prosthetic legs] said his party was the only one among about 40 climbers to stop and help Sharp as he lay in Everest’s ‘death zone,’ above 8000 metres. He said his group kept climbing after deciding there was nothing they could do to save the Briton.

"’He had no oxygen, he had no proper gloves,’ Inglis said. ‘He was effectively dead … so we carried on. Trouble is, at 8500 metres it’s extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive.’"

GET THE STORY.

Another veteran climber isn’t buying the excuses.

"’There have been a number of occasions when people have been neglected and left to die and I don’t regard this as a correct philosophy,’ [Sir Edmund Hillary] told the Otago Daily Times.

"’I think the whole attitude toward climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top,’ he told the newspaper.

"Hillary told New Zealand Press Association he would have abandoned his own pioneering climb to save another’s life.

"’It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say "good morning" and pass on by,’ he said.

"He said that his expedition, ‘would never for a moment have left one of the members or a group of members just lie there and die while they plugged on towards the summit.’"

Edmundhilary

GET THE STORY.

Who is Sir Edmund Hillary?

CLICK HERE.

"’It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say "good morning" and pass on by,’ [Hillary] said."

"[Jesus asked] ‘Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?’ [The lawyer] said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise’" (Luke 10:36-37).

READ THE WHOLE THING.

The 4400

4400

I basically don’t watch TV any more. Most TV shows–even ones that I like and intend to watch–don’t motivate me to tune in each week. So what I’ve done with such shows is to just watch them on DVD when they come out.

That way I don’t have the hassles of commercials or having to tune in each week or being frustrated by cliffhangers (except for the season finale).

That’s the up side. The down side is that I also have to wait a really long time between getting to see seasons of the show, but it works for me.

I’ve just started watching the second season of The 4400, which just arrived in the mail, and so far I’m pleased. The opening episode is two hours (well, 90 minutes) long, and it serves as an effective reintroduction to the premise and cast of the show–though  the first few minutes of it were a little rough given how long it’d been since I saw season one.

You may not have heard of The 4400 since it’s not getting that much publicity, but here are the basics: It’s a show that airs on the USA Network and–like other USA Network shows (such as Monk)–it has really short seasons (12 episodes in the second, and even less in the first). But they’re trying to do quality rather than quantity, which is what is important to me.

The show was co-created by Rene Echevarria, who was one of the best writers on Next Gen and DS9. It also has Ira Stephen Behr as a regular writer. He also was one of the best Next Gen/DS9 writers. It was their names which got me to watch the first season, and I wasn’t disappointed.

The premise is that, beginning in 1941, a bunch of people–4400 of them (big surprise)–were abducted, apparently by aliens (though we’re later told that isn’t the case) and then returned–all at the same moment–in the present day.

When they were returned, the government did the only sensible thing: It locked them up.

But eventually it was determined that they didn’t seem to be a threat to themselves or others, and so they were released. The government’s still watching them, still trying to figure out what’s up with the whole getting abducted and then being returned all at once thing. It’s a good thing that the government’s watching, because a few of the 4400 start manifesting unusual abilities that even they don’t understand or know why they have.

The writing on the show is quite good, and Echevarria and his team have avoided some of the obvious traps that a series like this could fall into. The government is not persecuting the 4400. It’s acting reasonably. We don’t have an evil government versus righteous 4400 plot. This isn’t a standard good versus evil show. Both members of the 4400 and the normal population are shown being good and bad, helpful and creepy.

That ambiguity is the stuff that human drama is made of.

Let me give you an example of a really nice bit of writing from the series pilot episode, which shows insight into the human condition:

One of the guys we see get abducted is an American serviceman in the Korean War. When we meet him, he’s not aware that he’s about to be abducted, and with an especially good reason since he has other things to worry about at the moment: He’s getting the snot beat out of him by fellow American servicemen.

Why are they doing that?

A clue is found in the fact that he’s black and they’re white and it’s 1951, just after the integration of the armed forces.

Now the standard, easy thing to do in the writing here would be to chalk the snot kicking incident up to simple, straightforward racism: They’re bigots who view him as sub-human. But that’s not what happens.

Instead, as his fellow servicemen are leaving, one of them turns to the gentleman and says: "We treated you like an equal. . . . But that wasn’t good enough for you."

All of a sudden we’re not in familiar territory anymore. They’re not the kind of simple, unadulterated bigots we were expecting. They were willing to treat him like an equal–or at least they thought they did so.

So what was it that sparked the incident?

We find out when they leave and the serviceman looks at a photograph of himself and his white girlfriend.

Now it all makes sense!

His fellow servicemen are bigots! But they’re not the simple, stereotypical bigots we were expecting. They’re a bunch of "separate but equal" bigots. Their racism isn’t simple, unalloyed hostility towards black people. It’s tempered in a way that makes them and their motives–and the writing of the show–more complex.

And it’s a fully believable moment that shows insight into the human condition: This kind of thing could and did happen in 1951. We have an example of racist evil in this scene, but it shows more subtlety and thus deeper insight into human psychology than the simple, comic book racism we’re used to seeing on screen.

There’s also a nice bit when the serviceman is returned–along with the other 4400–in the present day: As he’s sitting in the detention center with the other returnees, he’s reading a magazine and he exclaims: "What? The Secretary of State is colored!"–at which point another character, abducted years later, walks by and corrects him and says, "Black."

(What would have been even better here is if another abductee then walked by and said, "Afro-American" and then a third walked by and said "African American." That also would have showed the evolving racial situation, but the writers didn’t go in that direction.)

Once he is released from the detention center, the serviceman has culture shock at seeing a genuinely integrated society and as being treated–for real this time–as an equal and one who can cross racial boundaries and isn’t expected to remain separate. But he gets over his culture shock and is able to fit in to 21st century society . . . at least as well as a member of the 4400 can.

That shows you the kind of writing you can expect in the series. It’s more complex than the run-of-the-mill, hackneyed stuff you’d get on most shows of the type, just as Echevarria’s and Behr’s scripts were better and more complex than typical Star Trek stuff. Now that they’re freed from the (amazingly tight) shackles that Star Trek writers were under, they have a chance to spread their wings, and I’m enjoying watching the results.

It’s the same kind of situation as with Battlestar Galactica–where DS9 veteran Ron Moore got the chance to spread his wings.

The second season opener–the only ep I’ve watched so far–has some nice touches as well.

There is, unfortunately, a violent, Fundamentalist zealot in it, but I can accept that since some Fundamentalists would react negatively to the 4400 in real life (and the one in the show is able to cite a verse from Revelation that does sound like the events of the series).

(Also like Battlestar Galactica, there are interesting religious themes in the series, that I’m curious to see how and if the writers will pay off.)

Summer Glau (River from Firefly/Serenity) makes an appearance as a mental patient and does her usual excellent job playing a mentally disturbed young woman.

Jeffrey Coombs (Weyoun from DS9) also has a cameo, which may turn into a regular part. It’s nice to see him without prosthetic makeup.

And an H. P. Lovecraft book plays a significant role at a crucial moment in the plot.

CHECK OUT THE FIRST SEASON.

OR THE SECOND.

STICKS HICKS NIX DIX CHIX

Dixie_chicksSince I was talking about music earlier today, I may as well touch on this story as well.

To the left is the cover of the Dixie Chicks’ new album, Taking the Long Way, which is their first new album since they shot off their mouths in a spectacularly rude way at a specutacularly bad time that was sure to alienate their country music audience.

GET THAT STORY IF YOU DON’T KNOW IT.

They could have recovered from that, but instead they issued a string of smouldering non-apologies and eventually appeared–bizarrely!–on the cover of Entertainment Weekly stark nekkid with inflammatory words and phrases painted on their bodies.

That ain’t really the country thing to do, and their fans turned their backs on them.

Now, personally, I don’t care if they hold the opinions of President Bush that they expressed in England. I’m not happy with President Bush, myself. But to say what they did (that they’re ashamed that the president is from Texas) when they did (in wartime) where they did (on foreign soil) to whom they did (Euro liberals) was sure to hack off the people who bought their records, and following it up with a bunch of non-apologies and bizarro stunts LIKE THIS (skin warning!) was utterly contemptuous of their core audience.

In other words, they were alienating their base.

So, three years later out comes their first new album and their label starts pitching it to country music stations and with news stories being written with headlines like "Dixie Chicks Return To Country Radio."

So have three years changed things? Is all forgiven? Will their country fans start listening to them again?

A precondition for forgiveness is repentance, and with defiant, in-your-face songs on the album like "Not Ready To Make Nice"–a contemptuous stab at those who were offended by their actions three years ago–it’s clear that the Chicks have some repenting to do if they want to be forgiven by their country fans.

AND SO THE ALBUM IS GOING NOWHERE, MANY STATIONS AREN’T PLAYING ITS SONGS, AND THOSE THAT ARE ARE GETTING COMPLAINTS.

Good.

I used to listen to their songs–I particularly liked "Goodbye Earl"–but the Chicks showed themselves to be a bunch of spoiled girls who have never grown up. I have no interest in listening to their songs because I will have no ability to enjoy them until they can adopt an attitude other than contempt for those who gave them their success by buying their albums and supporting them and their careers.

A basic rule of getting along in life for public figures is "Don’t show contempt for your base."

That’s a principle Mr. Bush ought to learn if he’d like his reputation to fare well in the long term, too.

Quote Of The Day

Oscarwilde

Digging into the Great Quotes File, we find a quote that I first found attributed to that apostle of common sense, G. K. Chesterton, and was pleasantly surprised to later find attributed to an unexpected source:

"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." –Oscar Wilde

Who was Oscar Wilde?

CLICK HERE.

As you may know, Oscar Wilde lived an actively homosexual life for some years. What you may not know is that he was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed. For more on that story, check out Joseph Pearce’s biography The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde.

GET THE BOOK.