Into the Woods Reflection 1 - Cinderella and the Prince

Into the Woods is my favorite piece of 20th century musical theatre. Period. West Side Story may contain and fuse more elements of the performing arts, My Fair Lady may have a more balanced and easily-digestible book, Les Miserables may have better tunes and deal with redemption, etc., etc., etc., (See what I did there?), but Into the Woods is the most complete reflection on life in this Telestial sphere that I know of. Most people fail to fully appreciate its depth and I have yet to see or participate in a completely satisfactory production of it, one that is able to make each facet reflect the light of life the way it should.

Chris and I went with my uncle, Ryan, to see the recently-released film version the day after Christmas, and last night, Chris wanted to watch the Great Performances broadcast of the original Broadway production I have on DVD. Hence, this is the first in what I hope will be a series of reflections on this endlessly fascinating masterwork of Sondheim's. (The review linked below is pretty fair in its assessment of the film and expresses most of my views on the movie, though not on the musical itself.)

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/into-the-woods-should-satisfy-most-of-sondheims-fans/Content?oid=2340199

"Not one row!" exclaims Cinderella's Prince at the beginning of the second act of the stage version. Every performer of the role that I've seen fails to show what a clue this line is to the Prince's infidelities, especially in light of the fact that he immediately follows it with "Darling, I must go now." Why does he stray? How does "happily ever after" go awry for these two seemingly well-matched people?

To be blunt, (Emily, I thought your Baker's Wife was really good!) Cinderella is the first girl that ever ran away from the Prince as something more than a coy flirtation. "Wanting a ball is not wanting a prince," she says after the second midnight is gone. She sincerely wants to get away from him so she can sort out how she feels and figure out what she wants. The Prince, for his part, is addicted to the chase, a fact amply explored in both "Agony" and its Reprise. Cinderella makes him work harder for it than he's ever had to before.

Sadly, Cinderella's decision to let herself be caught is a death blow to their relationship. All the practice she's had submitting to her stepmother and stepsisters, combined with her inherent niceness, lead to a conflict-free marriage. While this sounds like a dream to most people, for someone like the Prince, who was "raised to be charming, not sincere" and is completely unprepared to deal with domestic bliss, this takes all the fire out of the relationship and he is again driven to quest after the unobtainable. Had Cinderella been less submissive, had she made the Prince work to keep her, their marriage might have had a chance...or the Prince might still have tired of her and strayed anyway. (There's a reason why sex toy parties have replaced Tupperware parties in many suburban homes.)

In laying this out, I want to be clear that understanding why something happens doesn't justify it. You can understand why the Holocaust happened without justifying the actions of the Nazis. The emotional damage inflicted by infidelity is what makes it morally repugnant...and yet, it is also an opportunity for spiritual, personal growth. Finally, Cinderella knows what she wants! "My father's house was a nightmare. Yours was a dream. Now I want something in between," she tells the prince once she's faced his peccadilloes. While going into the woods (ie. facing adversity) has stolen Cinderella's innocence, it has also helped her answer in an assertive way the questions she asked while stuck on the steps of the palace. She is no longer passively letting someone else determine her future. From that point on, she is capable of caring for a child, imparting true wisdom to Red Riding Hood, and defending herself against the giant that threatens her life.

We've all heard that facing conflict is part of a healthy, lasting relationship. How that conflict is resolved is equally as important. Sadly, Cinderella and her Prince didn't have it in them while they were married, and they were too estranged by the conflict that gave them what they needed to resolve their issues to start over.

"I shall always remember the girl who ran away," the Prince says wistfully. "And I the faraway prince," answers Cinderella. In providing a more honest, consequence-based ending, Sondheim and Lapine have restored a sense of the cautionary to this most popular of fairy tales. And like the Greeks, who knew that theatre was for more than mere entertainment, we can learn from what we see and avoid making the same mistakes in our own lives.

"Into the woods you have to grope, but that's the way you learn to cope! Into the woods to find there's hope of getting through the journey." I love this show!

A Little Holiday Light

I was privileged today to attend the holiday concert at Franklin Middle School to see one of my students perform in choir. I was prepared for the usual music making of young people. What I wasn't prepared for was the jolt of hope I received. These young people made some very impressive music and most of them seemed to really be enjoying themselves. (The few who didn't were trying really hard to seem bored.)

I realized that although things aren't ideal, they also aren't hopeless. All the desperate negativity I see on Facebook and in the traditional media regarding the education of our young people - despair I, myself, have passed on - just can't stand up to what I saw today. With professionals like Michael Helman and Anne Bailey in the trenches (not to mention the music professionals there with whom I'm not acquainted), there is still light and life being communicated to our kids. I applaud their  courage, their stamina, and the sacrifices they make every day to keep the  lower lights burning, sending a gleam of hope across the waves in the stormy seas of our time. Thanks to the Franklin Middle School for this little holiday miracle.

Why I Support Matt Bloxham's Boise Bid

A friend of mine messaged me yesterday asking about my support for Matt Bloxham. Before I answer that question, I would like to say that this is the one race where I truly wish I could vote for both candidates. Both are qualified, intelligent people with considerable communication skills. Both have experience in public service and are respected members of the community. Should Mr. Nye be elected, I have no doubt he will do his best to represent the citizens of Bannock County well.

That said, there are a few reasons I decided to publicly support and vote for Matt Bloxham. An experience I had with him a couple weeks ago illustrates them much better than I could ever explain.

After one of the candidate debates, Michael O’Donnell in the Idaho State Journal summarized it, publishing his impressions of what the candidates said. O’Donnell’s version of Matt’s position on education funding bothered me. Matt didn’t look too good on funding infrastructure improvement either. Given my previous exchanges with Matt on the subjects, I wanted some clarification and sent him a Facebook message asking if he had been represented accurately, and if so, why. His response was swift, inviting me to meet with him at a local eatery in order to better explain his statements.

As I had suspected, Mr. O’Donnell hadn’t adequately summarized Matt’s statements in the debate. Matt explained that, while it is true increasing taxes is not his first impulse to fix our educational woes, it is because the current system of funding earmarks hobbles the school districts in their efforts to spend money where money is needed. By coincidence, a friend of mine who is employed with the local school district was also taking lunch at E-fresh that day and I asked him if he would join us for a minute, since our topic of discussion was one with which he was intimately acquainted. My friend oversees a major department at the school district. Matt asked him about the funding for his department and my friend replied that while he had more than enough funding for materials, he desperately needed funds to hire more people. The current system of funding earmarks prohibited him from spending the money he had on the resource he needed the most. Matt’s point that before we ask for more money we need to more effectively spend the money we have couldn’t have been more poignantly made.

My friend excused himself because he needed to get back to work. I asked Matt if he had checked into the recent history of education funding in our state, specifically in regards to former Governor Jim Risch’s base switch from property tax to sales tax in 2006. This significant switch deprived our education system of a stable source of funding and replaced it with a highly variable and volatile funding source.  Matt hadn’t known about this before I brought it to his attention. He indicated that not only had he looked into it, he had discussed it with several of his political contacts and found out some very interesting information. Because of the sensitive nature of that information, I can only say that no one need worry about Mr. Bloxham’s dedication to providing education in Idaho with the money it needs in a stable and sustainable way.

I then asked Matt why Mr. O’Donnell quoted him saying that he doesn’t support a 1¢ increase in the fuel tax to fix Idaho’s aging roads and bridges. He explained that when the debate occurred, he was concerned that raising the tax on fuel would have a negative impact on the trucking industry in our state. While such a tax wouldn’t be too much of a burden for the average fuel consumer to bear, for those who purchased fuel in great quantities, it could have very negative consequences, potentially driving their business out of Idaho. However, since the debate, he had spoken with several of his contacts in the industry who supported the tax increase. Since they were supportive of the tax, Matt said he had no problem supporting it as well. To me, this demonstrated not only an uncommon ability to understand the intricate web that connects seemingly disparate issues, but also the ability to revise a position in the light of new and reliable information.

I consider myself to be fiscally conservative. Although I work at a public library and obviously believe in the good that can be done with public spending, I also believe that public money is sacred and should be spent with all the wisdom and restraint we can humanly muster. I perceive that Mr. Bloxham feels the same way.

Also, as much as I despise party politics, given the current composition of the Idaho Congress, Bannock County needs a Republican representative whose voice will actually be heard. Democrats have little to no influence in our Republican-dominated legislature, a fact which has muted the voice of Bannock County in Boise for decades. Put another way, Democrats are the kids with cooties in the sandbox whom no one will play with. We need to change that, and strange as it may seem, at this point, I think sending a Republican into the fray is the best way to get that ball rolling, especially when Matt is that Republican.

This doesn’t mean I think any Republican will do. I didn't vote for Terrel Tovey because statements he has made regarding Democrats indicate to me that he is unable to see beyond a person's party affiliation to work for the common good.  Mr. Bloxham, on the other hand, would be a credit to any party with which he aligned, not least because he has the ability to see past partisan politics to all the people he's serving. As I’ve illustrated above, I have had the opportunity to spend some time with Matt, and he is an informed, intelligent, and insightful person who asks sincere questions and really listens to the answers. Should those answers provide unexpected information, Matt evaluates it and, if it proves sound, he adjusts his views accordingly. Unlike the Titanic legislators we’ve had for the last 15-plus years, Matt will change his course if he sees an iceberg. He also doesn’t surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear. This is the kind of legislator we want in Idaho.

We put our trust in those we send to represent us, but these people are human. Will Matt and I agree on everything? No. Will he make mistakes? Possibly, but from what I’ve seen, he has both the integrity to be true to his constituents and the humility to recover when he makes a misstep. He takes the time and listens to people. He genuinely cares about Idaho in general and Southeastern Idaho in particular. His youth and energy make him a breath of fresh air that our stale statehouse sorely needs. And although the “R” beside his name on the ballot means he will be given a place at the table, it doesn’t mean those who identify as a “D”, an “I” or an “L” will be deprived of a voice at that table. This is why I support Matt Bloxham in his bid to represent Bannock County in the Idaho legislature.

More Humble Pie

I sent this letter to Ian Fennell at the Idaho State Journal on August 23, 2014. I have yet to receive any acknowledgment of said letter and am wondering if it will be published. Given that uncertainty, I figured this was the next best place to post it so it would gain some kind of publicity:

"I can admit when I’m wrong. It was careless of me to make such a broad, easily-misunderstood statement regarding people who move into our state. It was also unkind of me to use adjectives like “pouty” and “petulant,” and I should have refrained from doing so.

In a debate as highly charged with emotion as this has been, it is unwise to do anything but dispassionately stick to the facts. Emotion clouds judgment and obscures truth, making a muddy, unproductive mess. We fail in our efforts to make Pocatello a great place to live when that kind of environment is fostered. While I stand by my view that the ordinance protects all residents of Pocatello and was legally adopted, I apologize to Mr. Swenson and ask forgiveness from my community for contributing to the mud-slinging.

I would also like to specifically apologize to Glenda Bellanca and any other “transplant” to Pocatello who have gracefully come and strengthened us with their refreshing and respectfully-shared perspectives, as well as their revitalizing energy and industry. They have seen what Idaho has to offer and come to partake, replenishing the soil in which they have set down their roots. Immigration, whether between states in the union or our union and other countries, is vital to the health of any community of people, keeping it from growing complacent or stagnant.

As a human being, I do have limits to my tolerance. Ironically, it is injustice, intolerance, and unkindness with which I have the most trouble. The faults we find in others are frequently the faults in our own characters we find most distasteful. It seems Mr. Swenson and I see certain things differently, but for my part, I will in future do my best to keep the contributions I make to the discussion factual and respectful."

I'm sure this won't be the last time I will have to eat my words, but I hope this taste of humble pie will deter me from being careless for a while.

Fingers Pointing Back at Me

Now that I'm a couple of days removed from the anger that first inspired my recent letter to the editor, I am keenly aware of how I could have better handled the situation.

Instead of returning Mr. Swenson's unkind words and jibes, I should have focused purely on the facts. I should have outlined what was incorrect (that the ordinance only protects LGBT people) and presented the correct information (that the ordinance protects all people). In this way, I would have neutralized the name-calling and still spoken the truth.

I deeply regret giving in to my urge to be mean. I hope I can clean up the mess.

Speaking Up

It has often been said that if you tell a lie long enough, people will accept it as the truth. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the editor of the Idaho State Journal in response to an editorial in Sunday's paper where George Swenson wrote an inflammatory piece about Pocatello's non-discrimination ordinance. Most of his words were just sour grapes that the vote didn't go his way, but there was one assertion he made that I couldn't resist answering. I still believe that responding to argumentative words with other argumentative words is a less effective way of resolving the issue, but in the case of blatant lies, I think it's better to shine the light on them and show them as such.

For those of you who don't get the Journal, here is what I sent. It is not as compassionate as it should be.

"George Swenson’s recent Sunday editorial regarding Pocatello’s non-discrimination ordinance poked the hornet’s nest yet again, hoping to see if there were any hornets left to anger. Ostensibly dedicated to Christianity, he doesn’t seem to be interested in fostering any kind of peace. Instead, his diatribe questions the integrity of many people involved in the election and the intelligence of anyone who voted for the ordinance. Election officials and volunteers, Councilman Steve Brown, and Mike Simpson are all targeted, but this editorial can easily be seen for what it is: a pouty and carelessly accusatory cluster of sour grapes proffered by a petulant individual who didn’t get his way.

The one assertion he makes that merits any real response is that the ordinance creates a specially protected class of people in violation of the Constitution, specifically in regard to use of public accommodations. This tired argument has been made time and again ever since the ordinance was proposed and is just as erroneous now as it was then. All people, of whatever sexual orientation or gender, are protected by this ordinance. To address Mr. Swenson’s citation of PDA's (public displays of affection) as a specific example of the alleged inequality created by the ordinance, whether at a public park or a garage sale, all people are welcome as long as they conduct themselves within the legal code. PDA’s, straight or gay, tasteful or not, are currently legal as long as no genitalia is displayed. Perhaps, if Mr. Swenson is so worried about these PDA’s, he should spend more time trying to change the law to ban them all. Good luck with that.

How long are we going to have to endure the querulous ranting of those who didn’t get their way in what was a heavily-scrutinized, protracted, but ultimately legal process? And why is it that transplanted Californians are the ones crying the loudest?"

In all honesty, I probably shouldn't have sent it. I allowed my ire to get the better of my good sense leading me to ignore the nudgings I believe the universe was sending me to be my better self. Have I mentioned I don't like to be nudged?

 I'm not always up to following my ideals, but I still hold them. Exceptions to them are not always justified, but I'm committed to the truth as far as it is perceivable, and the truth needs to win.

The Wrath of God

Years ago when I read The Strain trilogy, its authors posited that God and DNA were synonymous, that God was found in the proteins that direct the development or perversion of living cells. That idea struck me with significant force and has worked its way into my understanding of God and how He functions. (Please forgive my use of the masculine pronoun. I am limited by the English language.)

God truly is in everything. He is the energy that makes stars burn and galaxies spin. He is mitochondria. He is chlorophyll. He is the volcanic eruption. He is the bond between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. He is our intuition. He is the wind.

I am contemplating what this means when it is said that God's wrath will destroy nations. If prophecies of the brutal subjugation and destruction of the great Native American nations are to be believed, then God was, indeed, with the Europeans, but it wasn't because of their virtue or their professed religion that they conquered. It was because they carried God with them in the form of microbes. Charles Mann asserts in Before Columbus: The Americas of 1491 that it was smallpox, anthrax, measles, and other diseases that decimated the Native American populations, allowing Pizarro, Cortes, and the other conquerors to overcome them. Does that mean God sometimes destroys basically innocent people? It certainly sounds like something you'd hear in the Old Testament, doesn't it? Perhaps that explains the dichotomy of the biblical God. Perhaps how we face this aspect of God is an important factor in the health of our souls, or whatever you choose to call that which enlivens our physical selves.