October 25, 2003
Born For It?
I think I may want to study Russian literature at some point. I am intimidated by the difficulty of the language and so far my knowledge is extremely shallow, like a pinhead submerged in an enigma.
I have said this before but I am fond of repeating myself so I will go on anyway. Beyond loving to watch people on subways and every place else public, I am fascinated with the Cold War and how it affected Berlin specifically, but also its impact on Russia. What has instantly attracted me to Russian literature is the influence of a teacher I respect tremendously and that Russian writers often had to be subtle and clever in conveying their messages so that government officials would not instantly recognize the subversive element while simultaneously being clear enough that the people who needed to read what these writers had to write could catch on. It appeals to my love of controversy and politics, etc.
In so many classes I am becoming the 'horny girl in the corner', mosty in my literature class. Anyone who studies literature a lick recognizes that there are sexual allusions and imagery everywhere. My sensitivity to it has been heightened thanks to my Creative Writing class that opened me up a little more to that realization and now that I am flirting with it a bit in my own writing, I am agitated when it goes unrecognized. For a while my literature teacher would bring it up but he would often feel kind of perveted so he has stopped; now I am the one that has to point it out. One of these days I should stand on my desk and declare simply "Sex penetrates everything" and sit down.
I refuse to allow a little bit of embarassment prevent me from examining and understanding as much of a poem or story or whatever as possible. Part of me hopes that sometime I will point out a sexual element and someone will go on to try to explore the significance or purpose of the sexual imagery in the work.
Speaking of sexual...(oh transitions)
Today I read an Op-Ed in the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristoff (who is becoming a favorite columnist of mine) discussing new research that homosexuality may have biological routes. He cited research relating homosexuality to blinking patterns and finger lengths. The new research is simultaneously exciting and disheartening, as Kristoff writes, because it helps show that homosexuality is something you are born with, not something you choose, to those people who need to be persuaded, but is disheartening in the sense that some people will interpret it as a genetic defect that needs to be dealt with Hitler-Aryan-Race-style.
I generally look at the research as being positive in that it is progressive in helping us to understand ourselves. Hopefully Will and Grace will start to be a good show again so no one will start looking for the Aryan solution any time soon.
I talked to one of my friends about this research and her feelings on the research was mixed, which is perfectly understandable. One thing she marked as disturbing was the idea that your emotions and preferences are determined by your biology. It brings into question that whole element of how much control does one have over one's life? Is Biology a means of understanding pre-destination? Characterizing the research as Calvinistic definitely puts a sour taste in my mouth, as does the idea of having little control over one's destiny. But they are all interesting ideas to explore.
Love,
Mandy