Vanilla

The other day I heard someone described as "boring.  You know, she's sort of a vanilla."
Lay off vanilla.  Okay?  It did nothing to you whatsoever.  It's a good solid flavor with good solid potential!
I mean, I hear this so many times a day.  Vanilla is boring, only boring people appreciate vanilla.   You know what I think?  Vanilla is more willing to work with a wide variety of things than anything else in this world, and that's a rare and beautiful quality.  I mean, look at your rich, decadent, beautiful chocolates of the world.  Sure, they may be full bodied and go great with caramels, but have you seen them when you add gummi bears or strawberry syrup.  It's Chaos.  Sheer chaos!  It's this disgusting mass of sad gelatin lumps and broken dreams.  Too sweet, too different.  Too much.
Vanilla, good old reliable vanilla, is able to work with whatever your palate may appreciate, but it's also a standalone item.  If I'm feeling up for a chocolate coated masterpiece, do you know who I turn to for my foundation?  Vanilla.  Chocolate is great, but overloads of chocolate can ruin your night.  Chocolate decadence?  More like chocolate despair and ruin.
Or on the broader spectrum.  If I want fruity delights to grace my taste buds, do you think that I'm going with strawberry as my starter flavor?  Do you make your umbrellas out of paper? No.  Do you know why?  Well, in umbrellas, it makes everything super soggy and leaves you with a bunch of pulp and sorrow.  Now, trying to transfer that metaphor would just be idiotic, but here I go.  Too much strawberry, with those great hunks of artificial something that dares you to not call it fruit, leads to a bowl full of melted ice cream and disappointment.  Much like my paper umbrella, I'm left with nothing to see but my own lack of planning.
So, let's hear it for all the vanillas of the world. They may call us boring, they may call us bland; but in the end, everyone's life could use a little more vanilla.

de Tocqueville-Part 1

Associations and Democracy

                Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America has often been lauded as one of the greatest political tomes of our time.  And there is no denying that on a philosophical basis, he has accomplished an admirable demonstration of the core values of a democratic society.  De Tocqueville summarizes his beliefs with the idea that “The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal; but it also depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” (De Tocqueville 880).  With this sentence, he illustrates his idealistic faith in the possibility of a utopian society, one of complete equality, but also his strong pragmatic convictions that a utopian society can easily turn into a dystopian one.  In understanding what de Tocqueville was attempting to accomplish with his political treatise on democracy; it is undoubtedly just as important to understand his motivations for such an undertaking.

            Alexis de Tocqueville lived when France was still reeling from the aftermath of the French Revolution. Despite France’s search for complete equality in its politics, he had a passionate interest in the idea of a democratic government and in 1831; he went to the U.S. to study its penal system.  Whilst there, he became even more fascinated by the idea of American Democracy.   He traveled to over a dozen states, and in 1835, he published his four volume work, Democracy in America.  (De Tocqueville 1)

            With the idea of American Democracy, de Tocqueville saw infinite possibilities for the betterment of mankind. He went as far as to say that “Aristocratic nations are naturally too apt to narrow the scope of human perfectibility; democratic nation to expand it beyond compass.”  (De Tocqueville 545) However, that is not to say that he was blind to the dangers of democracy. Rather, he warned against democracy leading to a tyranny of the majority.  He also was fearful of the dangers of a democracy leading everyone to be mediocre in their equality.

            De Tocqueville’s admiration of American Democracy was not limited to the political realm.  He also saw its impact upon other aspects of life; permeating art, literature and social movements.  There is a rather large section in Democracy in America which is devoted to the importance of the “voluntary association” or club.   He compares the voluntary associations of England and the United States by saying “The English often perform great things singly, whereas the Americans form associations for the smallest undertakings.  It is evident that the former people consider association as a powerful means of action but the latter seem to regard it as the only means they have of acting.” (de Tocqueville 629).

            This idea is demonstrated within the formation of Temperance societies.  Temperance societies in the early parts of the 19^th century focused upon “moderation in drinking, specifically by abstinence from spirits…employing education and good example to encourage reform.”  (Farmington).  These associations were rapidly increasing in popularity, with over 1.5 million members in more than 8000 locations by 1835.  Their main agenda, in de Tocqueville’s time period, was not to prohibit the consumption of alcohol, but rather, to limit its quantity.  Another important factor was the emphasis upon voluntary membership.  At this point in the history of the temperance movement, coercion was not tolerated.

It is vital to note that these societies were entirely voluntary because much of de Toqueville’s argument about the power of American Democracy relies upon the idea that voluntary associations help to maintain democracy.  These associations cause people to feel as though they have power to act and to be heard.  They use these associations in order to be heard; it is their “only means of acting.”(de Tocqueville 629). 

Then De Tocqueville remarks upon his astonishment at the formation of these societies, stating that “the first time I heard [of temperance societies] it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement…” (de Tocqueville 632).  The idea of forming a society based upon moderately consuming alcohol confuses him; he says at one point “I did not at once perceive why these temperate citizens could not content themselves with drinking water by their own firesides.” (de Tocqueville 632).

This is really the crux of de Tocqueville’s argument.  American Democracy works because there is a united front, a spirit of camaraderie and unity that is-pardon the pun-foreign to de Tocqueville.  Without a unity, or an opportunity to unite, there is no real hope for any democracy.  The reason that he delves into associations is because within those voluntary organizations, things that we find incredibly common, within those are the true keys to democracy: a feeling of unity, and the ability to be heard.  In turn, these feelings of unity give a democracy the ability to become something that can lead to “…wretchedness or prosperity.”(de Tocqueville 880).

This is hard! (Sheen or Gaddafi)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsiYvcn8oZw
But seriously, this is much more difficult than it should be, and he makes a good point.  We hear more about celebrities because that's what we act like we're more interested in.  So, play the game...perhaps feel bad about your priorities, and learn something!

Chimeras...

"I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the same government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really to oppose them to one another.  The form of government which is usually termed as mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera."

Alexis de Tocqueville...is an interesting guy, it must be said.  The idea of calling mixed government to be a delusional, grotesque fantasy is something that really strikes a chord in me.  I dunno, I guess I can see what he's saying about the whole idea of mixing forms of government and opposing freedoms against one another, but it's a bit of a tough pill to swallow.
I feel as though it is possible to have opposing freedoms.  Mayhaps not on a federal level, but honestly, with the different interpretations on our freedoms, is that not nearly the same thing?  We have an opposing value system and while not perfect, it's not delusional and grotesque.  It's a very clear reality.  Again, this addresses the fact that Democracy in America, at least from my cultural context, has not aged very well.  It's good with some themes, but it is not the definitive tome.

Of crushes and clubs

First off...I'm really sick of Alexisde Tocqueville's crush on the U.S.  Please...just stop, it's too much.  This goes beyond the simple idea of admiration and explanation of that admiration. It's like the awkward kid in high school, or better yet, that kid in a club with you.  He really wasn't that bad of guy, but then you realize that he knows a lot more about you than you've told him/said on facebook.  He could be a really great guy, but...do you want to take that chance?  You could have a great friend...or you could have a clingy creep.  I'm just saying, Alex needs cool down a bit.
Speaking of clubs or "voluntary associations" I was fascinated by Alex's idea of the European clubs really being about being in an organization and reaching certain goals whereas in the US, "the independence of each individual is formally recognized..." This was intriguing because I never thought of the clubs that I joined as being somewhere where my individual contributions were recognized.  We had a goal in mind, and we were going to reach it, whether it was putting on a play, or volunteering somewhere, or winning in quiz bowl...there was no environment to express oneself in the sense that he describes.
I must say, I disagree with his assessment on this count.  I haven't joined in clubs in Europe (surprised?) but I really felt as though his European model was closer to my actual experience as someone in the US.

I. Dare. You. (Also, I promise to be less booky later!)

My literary friends,

Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here.

Instructions: Copy this into your NOTES. Bold those books you've read in their entirety, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish or read an excerpt. Underline if you've seen the movie or play. Tag other book nerds. Tag me as well so I can see your responses!




1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien

3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling

5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

6 The Bible

7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell

9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens

11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott

12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy

13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller

14 Complete Works of Shakespeare

15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier

16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien

17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk

18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger

19 The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger

20 Middlemarch - George Eliot

21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell

22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy

25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams

27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll

30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame

31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy

32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens

33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis

34 Emma -Jane Austen

35 Persuasion - Jane Austen

36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis

37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini

38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres

39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

40 Winnie the Pooh - A.A. Milne

41 Animal Farm - George Orwell

42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving

45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery

47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood

49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding 

50 Atonement - Ian McEwan

51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel

52 Dune - Frank Herbert

53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen

55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth

56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon 

60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt

64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold

65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas

66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac

67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy

68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding

69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie

70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville

71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens

72 Dracula - Bram Stoker

73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett

74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson

75 Ulysses - James Joyce

76 The Inferno - Dante

77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome

78 Germinal - Emile Zola

79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

80 Possession - AS Byatt

81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens

82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell

83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker

84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro

85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry

87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White

88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom

89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton

91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks

94 Watership Down - Richard Adams

95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute

 97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas

98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare

99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl

100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

"And like other American Dreams, the power of this one lay in a sense of collective ownership: anyone can get ahead."-Cullen

This post gave me trouble.  I was going to write it, I was going to write it, I was going to write it, and clearly, I very nearly didn't.  The Cullen chapter, whilst I kind of despise the man (mayhaps he's too close to a certain "vampire")? was intriguing in the idea of the American Dream being accessible to every person, almost as a mythos or dogma.  Going through the public school system, we learned that education was the key to getting ahead, self made and self educated people...the whole nine yards.
But here's the thing.  I can't completely say that I believe that anymore.  The beautiful gorgeous optimistic idealistic charming...(read: mildly irritating) side of me wants to believe that anyone, with diligence can pull ahead.
The horrid realist cynic (read: really not that bad...) side of me really can't acknowledge that simply by working hard, everyone pulls ahead.  That's why I disagree with the idea of collective ownership.  Sure, it's practically been indoctrinated into us since the cradle but I see so many cases where people just don't seek out what's good for them.  At my high school, there were about 25% of people who wanted to work hard, the other 75% either coasted or blatantly didn't care.  And even that other 25%, there were maybe a fourth of them (so...6.25%, and I'm being generous) that actually wanted to learn, that actually had passion for their education. And if we take those 25% as being more likely to be successful, we're in trouble.
Call me cliche, but I love to learn, I really do!  I like reading, I like other perspectives, I like knowing things that I didn't know before simply for the sake of knowledge! And that's where I think that Cullen's interpretation falls flat.  You need to educate yourself to get ahead (80% of the time) but 100% of the time you need diligence and passion.  You can go through the  motions and maybe succeed, but you're not living the American dream until you have passion for what you're doing.  The American Dream to me, the idea of upward mobility, is accessible, but without love for what you're doing, or some sort of goals that you want to attain, a purpose, it's completely useless.  There may be some people who are ahead, and "living the dream" but without the passion for something behind it...everything just feels flat.