God in Kevin Brooks’ ‘Killing God’

Upon opening ‘Killing God’, it becomes impossible to escape to its constant references to Christianity. Whilst simultaneously trying to escape the influence of God and denying his existence, our protagonist, Dawn, counter actively surrounds herself entirely with the idea of a God. Dawn finds herself drawn into ideas of God all around her in her own actions. Suffering after her father rapes her and leaves the family; she blames God for her father's actions and consequently believes erasing the idea of God may ease her suffering. Within Dawn’s narration, God is presented as a force that lives within the minds of Christianity’s followers. For her, the only way God may be ‘killed’ is to remove the idea of His image from humanity, and thus the duration of the novel she spends wrestling with the idea of God.

Dawn attempts to disprove the idea of God to herself obsessively, as for her; ‘killing’ God would allow her to recover from her traumatic past, however, by doing this she ends up surrounding herself with the idea of God. Readers are shown her buying two bibles, one of which is a ‘Children’s Illustrated Bible’, a subtle hint by Brooks to her motives for trying to ‘kill’ God. Her childhood was traumatic, and thus by burning both a regular and children’s bible, she attempts to erase what she believes are the effects of God in both her own childhood and in the world as a whole. She takes these two bibles home to burn them, feeling as if a way to remove the influence of God would be to remove the text that spreads the fundamentals of Christianity. However, by doing this, she is left with the burnt ashes of the bibles in her room. Drawn up later by Mel and Taylor who visit her later, whilst she simultaneously tries to destroy the idea of God, the only result of it for her is more evidence to remind her of the past.

Dawn’s occupation with getting revenge on her father by ‘killing’ God dominates the narrative of the novel. Ultimately, the novel is an exploration of Dawn’s own conquest to fix her traumatic past, and for that it must be admired. Although on the surface without the fuller exploration and explanation of Dawn’s character seen later within the novel, it may appear to be anti-Christian, Brooks really only takes the idea of God and bends it around Dawn’s warped, strange character. The novel carries a sense of poignancy within its ending, as Dawn’s needs have finally be met to remove the uncertainty of life without her father, yet the future of Dawn and her mother are left open and uncertain to readers. Her father's final death resolves the conflict of her character, she may finally let go of the thirteen year-old Dawn who was so vengeful against God. ‘Killing God’ for her is really her own desire to be okay and recover from her past, and the final outcome of the novel, although raising new problems for her, leaves Dawn satisfied that she has killed God. 

I hate growing up

I can sum up why I hate growing up in one story.

I have a friend I grew up with. When we were kids, she always used to put obscene amounts of ketchup on her chips. She wouldn't dip them in the ketchup, she'd just coat her plate of chips almost entirely with ketchup. I always used to laugh about that and we'd joke about how she was going to make the tomato plant an extinct species. 

Now my friend was sat on my bed 10 years later, crying after an argument with her mum about how they were going to afford the cost of travel to and from school. 

She had some chips. She opened some ketchup and coated the same obscene amount over them like when we were kids. 

That's when I realised nothing had really changed. Things had just gotten harder from there to now. 

And that's why I hate growing up. 

Arguments against homosexuality are unjustified

Silly excuses against gay marriage/gay rights/gay equality/gay anything make me so mad. I've heard so many of them, and so here I've chosen to put some of the ones I hear quite regularly. 

1. “It’s in the bible!”

No. I thought we’d had enough of religious laws. Religious laws are unjust. Not everybody follows your religion, the bible should not be the be all and end all of laws. When you start following religious laws, you start implementing drastic things such as:

 - Leviticus 3:17 “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood”
Ban bacon immediately, folks.

 - Leviticus 19:28 “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.”
Sorry, tattoos are now forbidden.

 - Mark 10:11-12 "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
Henry VIII was familiar with this one.

There should be a clear distinction between religion and law. Under no circumstances should “but the bible says so!” be a legitimate reason for something to be against the law.

2. “Homosexuality produces no offspring”

We really don’t need any more offspring. Everyday 5,760 more children become orphans[1]. We don’t need more offspring. There are already too many kids without homes or families. Same-sex couples can help with this issue. They can give these kids love and a home they would otherwise not have. The fact being gay leads to no offspring is a good thing for the world as a whole.

Also, if you won’t allow partnerships that don’t produce offspring, should a sterile man be allowed to marry a sterile woman? They won’t be able to produce any offspring. The argument is invalid.

3. “Kids raised by a same-sex couple don’t turn out right”

Generally the argument here is that a child needs one of both genders in order to shape them. The Archbishop of Singapore argues that children will not find their identity without two oppositely gendered parents. This just seems ridiculous. How many single parent families exist? Last time I checked my dad raised us on his own and my brother and my brother and I turned out fine. Neither of us is struggling to find our identities as a woman or man.

4. “Being gay is unnatural”

So are shoes, but you wear them. 
Also, “Over 1000 species have been shown to engage in same-sex mating and pair-bonding.”[2]. That's so unnatural.

5. “Kids shouldn't be shown homosexuality, they won’t understand it”

Hold up. Did your parents ever have to explain to you what being straight is? Of course not. Exposing kids to these kinds of things from a young age decreases the chance that they will be homophobic when they’re older, it may seem weird to kids that have been sheltered from the real world, and that is the fault of the parents. Don't alienate those growing up questioning their sexuality. Kids are some of the most accepting and open-minded people. Show them homosexuality, and they won’t need to understand it, just like kids won’t understand what being straight is about. They’ll accept it.

6. “Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman only. Gays already have civil partnerships”

Firstly, marriages are hardly holy anymore. How long was Kim Kardashian married for? 72 days? How holy. 50% of first marriages in the US end in divorce[3]. Also very holy, isn’t it?

Why should it be between a man and a woman? Everything seems to always come back to the fact it’s religion that’s preventing gay marriage. Christianity says marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I thought we’d separated state and church? At the end of the day, to the government, marriage is just telling the state you are a couple. Applying religion to marriage is out of date.

7. “Being gay is a choice”

If sexuality is a choice, fall in love with someone of the same sex.

This source phrases the idea that there needs to be a gene for something to be acceptable perfectly: “Autism is also not associated with a single gene, but we’d hardly claim that it is not biological, or that children choose to be autistic.”[4]

Honestly, I’m all for religious choice. Hold whatever faith you want, but it’s honestly infuriating when religion gets in the way of people’s rights. Of course it’s not all religious people, of course it’s not only religious people, but it seems like many of the arguments against it stem from religion.

---

[1] Source: http://www.orphanhopeintl.org/facts-statistics/

[2] Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/04/top-7-claims-for-same-sex-relationships-being-unnatural/

[3] Source: http://www.divorcepad.com/rate/

[4] Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/04/top-7-claims-for-same-sex-relationships-being-unnatural/

David Lynch's 'Rabbits' and some theories behind it

As a piece of coursework for the IB film course, we had to research different genres and create a 7 minute film in one or a combination of them. From previous experience of surrealist films, I decided I wanted to look a little more into the genre and some of its most influential films. I watched a few of David Lynch’s films, but the one that really stuck in my mind was ‘Rabbits’.

Rabbits is a series of 8 episodes about 3 rabbits within one room, in short. They have human bodies, with a rabbit head on top. The camera is static, giving a view of the room as if they are on a stage. Occasionally one of them may leave the room through a door on the left and return later, but never ending rain can be heard and a studio laugh track makes appearances when there is nothing really to laugh at. The rabbits don’t talk much, when they do, it makes no sense.

Surrealist films often have a lot of deeper meaning behind them; they may use metaphor in order to establish a message. Rabbits is no different, there’s many different possible interpretations of Lynch's intentions for the film.

For me, my first impression of the film was that the message is existentialist. The film could possibly embody the idea of a meaningless existence. The rabbits just seem to exist, moving around the room and occasionally saying things which mean nothing at all. From the start of the film to the end, there is very little progress. Nothing ‘gets done’ essentially. The view we first see as the film opens, the rabbit in the pink dress ironing, is repeated again and again on the same shirt. They just spend their time moving around the room, being laughed at, and saying their eerie lines. Without any deeper thinking, the film, particularly the laugh track, appears random and unexplainable. It’s disturbing and creepy, perhaps because the occasional lines serve only to remind us of death, how meaningless our lives are as they we progress until death.

I also did some research on the internet to find some other interpretations of the film.

One of these interpretations is that the film is a critique on modern society. The viewers are “watching characters who are in fact role playing the normalcy of everyday domestic situations.”[1] They appear to be sitting as if a television should be where the camera sits. Lynch appears to try to convey the idea of the rabbits sitting around, with very little communication between them and repeating the same remedial actions. The film’s laughter track does further enforce the entire of television dependency. The laugh track is similar to that within sitcoms, laughing at things that appear meaningless, such as one of the rabbits returning to the room after being outside for a short while. The film “deliberately violates everything we have come to expect in a narrative”[2], actions such as ironing the same shirt, sitting on the sofa only to get up, walk around and return again are repeated by each of the rabbits. This mirrors the nature of sitcoms, they are essentially the same characters repeating the same actions in each episode, with a laugh track to complement each ‘funny’ repeated action. This interpretation suggests that Lynch created the film to mock how pointless and mundane these sitcoms we enjoy really are.

Another message some got from this film was that it is set in purgatory. This theory may further go on to suggest that the three souls are waiting to be reincarnated into rabbits. Their lines sometimes mention murder, sharp teeth and dogs barking, suggesting they were hunters[3]. However, the general theory is that the souls are stuck within purgatory, explained by the boss they frequently make reference to and eventually visits them. He would be the thing that has trapped them there. The laugh track could be explained to be souls within hell, laughing at their actions or potentially waiting for them. In addition, the rabbits could have been killed within a fire. There are mentions of burning, an alarm sounding through the open door at one point too. However, this theory has flaws. For example, what is the purpose of the door leading outside? The male rabbit frequently enters and exits through it, something which he should not be allowed to do if he were trapped within purgatory.  

To me, the theory that the film could be a mockery of sitcoms and a reflection of our modern day lives appears the most credible and supported with the most evidence. Although I loved this film, it really did scare me. It was eerie and uncomfortable but I’m very glad I looked into it.

---

[1]http://www.academyofmusicelearning.co.uk/moodle233/pluginfile.php/17687/mod_resource/content/1/Rabbits_Analysis.pdf

[2] The Brain In Your Kitchen: A Collection of Essays – David DiSalvo

[3] http://whohonestlygivesashit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/david-lynch-rabbits-quick-analysis.html

Why I love S.E Hinton's 'The Outsiders'

‘The Outsiders’ has been my favourite book since we started it in year 8 as a text for English. We were told to read the first chapter for the next lesson, but I ended up reading the entire novel. The Outsiders for me was the book that got me into reading. I didn’t really like it that much before, I read really terrible books I thought I would like but never really got into. The Outsiders absolutely grabbed 13 year old me and dragged me into the world of books. I’m 17 now and still read through it again to add to the annotations on my copy.

Despite being published in 1967, The Outsiders still holds all of the truths S.E Hinton discusses within her novel. The kids today may not be named Ponyboy, Sodapop or Darrel, but for every character within the novel you can find their counterpart in the modern day. The gangs may not be greasers vs. socials, but the key themes still ring true.

One of the key themes the novel deals with is the issue of poverty. Hinton perfectly highlights the difference between right and poor in Ponyboy and Cherry’s relationship... there isn’t much different between them besides their class status. The idea that the two ‘see the same sunset’ on both east and west, greaser and soc territory, can be applied to the modern day. In every town there are degrees of wealth, of course, in every town you can compare the lives of the richer and poorer. At the end of the day though, we’re all human, we all see the same sunset.

Expanding on that, The Outsiders too shines light on how misunderstood the working class are. Being a greaser is frowned upon within Ponyboy’s town, a girl in his class who discovers he’s a greaser is shocked and scared. Many, even in the modern day, have the tendency to group together the working class and apply a certain amount of fear to them. The most infamous within the UK, ‘chavs’. The greasers within The Outsiders aren’t portrayed as something to fear. They don’t carry out unnecessary murder or rapes like the term ‘gang’ may suggest they do. Hinton confronts readers with the reality of gang situations. They’re not all bad. Ponyboy would never want to hurt a fly, Darry is just the family man, in the end, even the rougher character (Dally in particular) are all only looking out for each other. They group together in likeness because it’s the only thing they have.

The Outsiders is, and always will be relatable to teenagers. The values it puts across can always be applied to the teenagers of the modern day. I love this novel so much because to me, Ponyboy will always be relatable, it’s a classic for a reason.

The problem with 'LGBT'

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about lesbians/gays/bisexuals/transgenders themselves. I'm only discussing the term 'LGBT' itself. 

The term 'LGBT' stands for lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender, of course. On the surface, this term sees to blanket all of the queer community. Sure, it's easy and simple to remember, but I've got some problems with it. 

For one, it disincludes many people within the queer community. What about the pansexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, etc.? They don't count according to that term. It could be argued that these are 'exceptions', but that's really not good enough. The term 'LGBT' is plastered all over gay pride processions and is the common term known the public, disincluding all these other branches of the queer community leads to a situation uch like we have today, where any sexuality outside the umbrella term doesn't seem to exist to the general public (if you want proof of that, my iPhone didn't recognize pansexual or demisexual as words). 

In addition, I have a problem with the inclusion of 'transgender' in the acronym. I'm not hating on transgenders, however, as any of them may tell you, transgender isn't a sexuality. The inclusion of 'T' in 'LGBT' creates the misunderstanding that one's gender has anything to do with their sexuality. A male-to-female transgender (a woman who was assigned a male body at birth) doesn't necessarily have to be attracted to men. She can be a lesbian, despite identifying as a woman in a male body. However, transgenders really do need the understanding they deserve, and their place within the widespread term 'LGBT' helps them to get this. Although the placement can create misunderstandings, there's really not much we can do. 

On the other hand, other acronyms, such as 'LGBTQ' or 'LGBTAQ' do exist. The best in my opinion is 'LGBTAQ' (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/asexual/queer). To me, this really does cover as much as we can of the queer spectrum. Other branches of sexualities would still need recognition, but are covered in the 'Q' of the acronym. Although in another interpretation this 'Q' can mean questioning, I feel it is better that it stands for queer. 

Or in the end, wouldn't it be great to hold gay pride under the term 'queer pride'? We should be raising awareness for the whole queer community, not just the branch we are in. Let's embrace all sexualities, not just our own. 

'Night Of The Living Dead' - a film everyone needs to see

I watched the original 1968 'Night Of The Living Dead' last night with my cousin. I knew already it was one of those all time classic films, but it really impressed me. It wasn't one of those black and white horror films you force yourself through because you feel you should, I really loved Night Of The Living Dead.

Night Of The Living Dead was the film that really sparked off the zombie genre. It was the first of its kind, and inspired almost every other zombie film to date. Interestingly, the living dead are never called 'zombies' within the film, but the film laid down the characteristics of zombies to come.

What's particularly interesting about the film's zombies is the influence the nuclear age had on them. The broadcast of news updated throughout the event at one point states that the revived dead were the result of radiation. My first thought was nuclear radiation, and the dropping of US atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Released in 1976, the film originated in the USA, where the Cold War was currently escalating. 

Both the space and arms race of the Cold War were in full swing, bringing new anxieties to the public. Space was a big unknown, the idea of a danger from space could be a possibility, and meanwhile the new nuclear weapons being developed were an obvious sues for fear. The new, scary technology being developed by the US and USSR led to some drastic thinking. Night Of The Living Dead displays a result of some of this thinking. What could be some of the effects of radiation? This question inspired the risen dead we see within the film. 

-Stop reading if you don't want spoilers!-

But what I really loved about this film was its ending. It's tragic. Surviving throughout the whole incident, our protagonist, Ben, goes to the window to see the arriving officers, only to be shot, the officers thinking he was one of the risen dead himself. It's so raw and crushing, the traits of his character really get you hoping that he makes it out. He's kind but firm, he's logical and a real leader, and he's just shot down right when he's got through it all. 

It's a frustrating ending, but great. The film is extremely worthy of all the praise it receives.