Andrew and I watched this show last night for the first time. It seems as though reality TV has taken over the airwaves. Since we don't have cable we don't have many options if we want to watch something in the evening, even if it's just background noise.
I'd watch this show again if I don't have anything going on and I remember when it's on. But it's not something I'd set the Tivo (ha - if we had one) up to record. Poor Beacon and Andrew didn't have good representatives as their namesakes. Beacon's a girl and Andrew is a frou frou dog with stuff in his hair.
There were some dogs that we did like. One reminded of us of foster dog Betty. Another reminded us of our own Beacon. There were also some annoying owners, which resulted in annoying dogs. But I guess that's to be expected in a reality show.
We commented on how well we thought our dogs would do at the various tasks. In some cases our dogs would have buried the competition. In other instances we could see Haven getting distracted or Beacon getting pissed off.
If nothing else it's good to see a dog related show on network television. Although it sucked that there were adds for crappy dog products.
I’ve recently become aware of and been reading Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight Saga. As a high school English teacher, a pop culture addict, and a fan of all things vampire, it’s almost inexcusable that I’ve only become aware of these novels in the past few months. Maybe I’ve been living under a rock for the last three years, or maybe last summer’s release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows consumed all my brain space. Nevertheless, to say I am “obsessed” with Twilight would be much too passive a term to describe the amount of thought I have put in to these novels in the past few weeks.
One of the issues I find central to the upcoming fourth novel and the series as a whole (as well as deliciously interesting to contemplate) is the morality of vampires. Do Stephenie Meyer’s vampires possess souls? Is redemption possible for them? Carlisle, father figure of the Cullen coven, has hope. When protagonist Bella asks why he abstains from drinking human blood like the rest of his kind, he responds, “I’m hoping that there is still a point to this life, even for us. It’s a long shot, I’ll admit . . . By all accounts, we’re damned regardless. But I hope, maybe foolishly, that we’ll get some measure of credit for trying” (New Moon 36-37). Bella agrees, but the love of her life does not. Carlisle says, “Edward’s with me up to a point. God and heaven exist . . . and so does hell. But he doesn’t believe there is an afterlife for our kind . . . you see, he thinks we’ve lost our souls” (New Moon 37). The idea of whether vampires have souls and thus can be redeemed in some sort of afterlife is central to Meyer’s novels. It fuels Edward’s extreme self-loathing and self-sacrifice and drives him to insecurity in his relationship with Bella, and it’s the point on which Bella’s possible transformation into a vampire pivots.
So, what is a soul? The most fitting definition for Meyers’ novels seems to be “the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come” (www.dictionary.com). How is one redeemed? Redemption, in this context is defined as “deliverance from sin; salvation; atonement for guilt” (www.dictionary.com). These are weighty questions that philosophers and theologians have debated for ages. I’m sure every belief system on the planet has a different answer, but I’m going to choose to consider these questions instead through the lens of some of my favorite books, movies, and television shows.
It’s a generally accepted fact that vampires are evil. However, the vampires we see on the page and on the screen always seem to be that strange combination of dangerous and alluring that blurs the line just a little between good and evil. Consider, for example, the original literary vampire: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He’s definitely evil . . . but also extremely civilized and pretty darn compelling. Modern day presentations of vampires tend to blur the line even more. Angel and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel, Mick St. John from that (thankfully) short-lived series Moonlight, and now Stephenie Meyers Cullen family: all these are vampires that have unquestionably committed horrible crimes in the past but who now strive to make up for them by doing good, and this makes us question what really constitutes good and evil. By what standard should these characters be judged in terms of redemption? Should they be judged by what they are? By what they have done in the past? By the degree to which they try to make up for their pasts with present good deeds?
Stephenie Meyer questions whether it’s fair to judge a mythical, superhuman character like a vampire by human standards of morality at all. In a personal correspondence published on The Twilight Lexicon, Meyer responds to an online debate about why the Cullens are able to live a seemingly charmed life in the face of all the misery they’ve caused in the past. Shouldn’t they be walking around in rags repenting for the times they’ve slipped from their “vegeterian” diet? Meyer addresses the fact that vampires are predators at the top of the food chain: they “see humans as beef or poultry . . . And it’s a hard viewpoint to resist—after all, vampires are physically and mentally superior to the nth degree. Their life spans measure in centuries and millenniums. Human lives are so short—sort of like fruit flies that only live a day in comparison. Humans die so easily, too, in their sleep, from tripping, from a tiny heart glitch, from a virus, from getting bumped a little too hard by a car. It’s sort of hard for an average vampire to take them seriously. They’re going to die soon anyway, right?" She questions whether it's wrong for them to see themselves this way in relation to humans: "I know it might be difficult to step away from a human perspective and see it through their eyes. The question is, is it really wrong for them to see the world that way? Vampires are at the very pinnacle of the food chain. Should they feel bad about that? Or are they simply following the dictates of nature?" (The Twilight Lexicon). Do we think it’s “wrong” or “evil” when a lion kills a gazelle in the wild? Or when we eat beef? In the Twilight world – as well as most other literary worlds that involve vampires – vampires ARE a superior being: is it so “wrong” or “evil” for them to act like it?
The issue of superiority comes up in the seventh season episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “Conversations with Dead People.” When Buffy encounters former peer/psychology student and current vampire Holden, she confesses to him in a mopey deadpan that she can’t muster up any excitement about the fight to come between the two because she knows she’ll win. “Do the words ‘superiority complex” mean anything to you?” Holden asks. Holden says he understand how Buffy feels: being the chosen one and all would understandably make her feel a bit superior to other beings on earth. However, Buffy protests that she doesn’t feel superior at all because she’s done terrible things for which her friends should hate her. She feels unworthy of their love, but she also feels like their love and opinions don’t matter because they can’t possibly know or understand the things she goes through as the Slayer. She begrudgingly acknowledges that maybe this is the same as feeling superior. To this, Holden concludes that she has “a superiority complex, and you’ve got an inferiority complex about it" (www.televisionwithoutpity.com). It’s a different situation, but the message is the same: if you are mentally and physically superior to those around you, does it make you a bad person to feel that way and act on it? In the simple, to-the-point words of Justin Timberlake, “It might sound cocky, but is it really cocky if you know that it’s true?”
Whether it is right or wrong for vampires to behave like predators at the top of the food chain, the Cullen family makes a choice to go against their instincts and nature in an attempt to overcome what they are and do good with their existence. In my opinion, this choice has everything to do with conscience, which is inextricably tied to the soul. Without a soul, which presumably guides morality (supposing, as the definition does, that it’s our link to heaven), where would the conscience come from? Joss Whedon might agree. Vampires in the Buffy-verse commit evil acts because they lack souls. They don’t sit around intentionally contemplating ways to be evil; they have no moral compass to distinguish between good and evil. They commit evil acts because, without a conscience, they do not see them as evil. As a vampire, Angel spent his existence committing heinous and unspeakably violent and numerous crimes without a second thought. It is only when he is cursed with a soul by a clan of gypsies that he is able to see his crimes through the lens of morality and experience remorse. In other words, when Angel was ensouled, he also developed a conscience. That conscience gave him the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and cursed him to feel remorse for the evil actions he was inclined by nature to do; thus, he was able to choose to take a different path. Meyer does not base Twilight on the same mythology as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Angel, but this business of the conscience motivating vampires to do good seems to hold true in her work as well. When Edward describes to Bella his own beginnings as a vampire, he tells her about a time when he resented Carlisle for curbing his appetite and went off on his own for a time: “It took me only a few years to return to Carlisle and recommit to his vision. I thought I would be exempt from the . . . depression . . . that accompanies a conscience. Because I knew the thoughts of my prey, I could pass over the innocent and pursue only the evil. If I followed a murderer down a dark alley where he stalked a young girl – if I saved her, then surely I wasn’t so terrible . . . but as time went on, I began to see the monster in my eyes. I couldn’t escape the debt of so much human life taken, no matter, how justified” (Twilight 342-343). Edward’s decision to recommit to Carlisle’s “vegeterian” lifestyle comes from his conscience, from his sense of knowing right from wrong and feeling remorse when he commits acts that he knows are wrong. When describing how Alice and Jasper came to join the Cullen family, Edward says, “Alice and Jasper are two very rare creatures. They both developed a conscience, as we refer to it, with no outside guidance” (Twilight 289). From both his words and actions, it is clear that Edward views a conscience as a necessary prerequisite to making the right choices in one’s un-life..
And so, because they are possessed of consciences that tell them right from wrong, the Cullens make the difficult choice to abstain from human blood. In the same personal correspondence mentioned above, Meyer makes it clear that this is an incredibly difficult choice to maintain. She writes, “It seems that, in other vampire worlds, drinking blood is more pleasure than compulsion for vampires. They can “drink from” a person in a leisurely manner, leaving that person alive, and perhaps returning for more later. It seems like the lust for blood is very equivalent to the lust for sexual satisfaction. Thus, something that can be controlled by a responsible person fairly easily under most circumstances. A pleasure impulse rather than a need impulse . . . In the Twilight world, this is not the case. Thirsty vampires are in acute physical pain. It is comparable to the feel of a third degree burn inside your throat. It can make a vampire literally crazy for relief—beyond thought. If your hand was on fire and there was a bucket of ice water beside you, would you resist that relief? Of course not. You would have no reason to. Back to the average vampire’s viewpoint, neither does a vampire have a reason to resist. There is a fire, he or she quenches it. Problem, solution . . . Sure, we could sit around and trash talk the vegetarian vampires who make mistakes. But were doing it on a full stomach, so to speak. We’d all stick our hands in the ice water if we were burning” (The Twilight Lexicon). Edward seems to be of the point of view that he is damned because of what he IS. Edward is a vampire = Edward is a monster = Edward is damned to hell. However, I argue that that it is precisely this choice that proves the existence of Edward’s soul and makes redemption possible for him and the rest of his vampire family. If Edward were to face judgment, I believe he would be judged not merely on the fact that he is a vampire but more importantly by what he chose to do with his vampiric existence.
JK Rowling’s characters might agree with this assessment. When Harry learns that Voldemort put a part of himself in Harry in Chamber of Secrets, he questions whether the sorting hat made the right choice by placing him in Gryffindor. Dumbledore admits that Harry has many of the qualities Slytherin sought in his hand-picked students and asks Harry to think about why he was put in Gryffindor. Harry says, "It only put my in Gryffindor . . . because I asked not to go into Slytherin." Dumbledore responds, "Exactly . . . which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." The same theme recurs in the Order of the Pheonix movie. Harry wonders, "This connection between me and Voldemort . . . what if the reason for it is that I am becoming more like him? I just feel so angry all the time. What if after everything that I've been through, something's gone wrong inside me? What if I'm becoming bad?" Sirius responds, "I want you to listen to me very carefully, Harry. You're not a bad person. You're a very good person who bad things have happened to. Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are." In JK Rowling’s universe, a clear distinction is drawn between one’s physical and mental abilities and how one chooses to use those abilities, and it is those choices that really count. In terms of ability and even personality, Harry and Voldemort are similar in many ways, yet one becomes a monster and one a hero, and it is their choices that differentiate the two. So much of this can be applied to Edward’s situation in Twilight. Edward didn't choose to become a "monster," as he sees himself. None of the Cullens did. They can't help what they are. However, what they can do is choose what to do with it. Yes, the Cullens do "slip up" and do things that are morally reprehensible, and Edward seems to assume that because of the mistakes he has made he is out of luck when it comes to a chance at redemption. However, if one mistake is enough to send the offender to the fires of hell, then we’re all in trouble. Humans aren’t perfect. We all do things that are morally reprehensible at times. It’s human nature. As Sirius says, we’ve all got both light and dark inside of us. I recently read a novel called The Book Thief that describes human nature like this: “So much good, so much evil. Just add water.” Edward might argue that his crimes of conscience are worse than the average person’s and fall into the category of “unforgivable,” but who’s to say? Can we really judge whether one sin is greater than another in the eyes of God if one is truly repentant?
Tolkein’s character’s might also disagree with Edward’s point of view. In the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo says, “I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened." Gandalf replies, "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." Gandalf’s wisdom is very similar to both Edward and Carlisle’s explanation of why they chose the path they did. Bella asks Edward, “Why do you do it? . . . I still don’t understand how you can work so hard to resist what you . . . are. Please don’t misunderstand, of course I’m glad that you do. I just don’t understand why you would bother in the first place.” Edward responds, “Just because we’ve been . . . dealt a certain hand . . . it doesn’t mean that we can’t choose to rise above – to conquer the boundaries of a destiny that none of us wanted. To try to retain whatever essential humanity we can” (Twilight 306-307). Bella asks Carlisle virtually the same question when he talks about why he chooses to work as a doctor: “You try very hard to make up for something that was never your fault . . .What I mean is, it’s not like you asked for this. You didn’t choose this kind of life, and yet you have to work so hard to be good.” Carlisle responds, “I don’t know that I’m making up for anything . . . Like everything in life, I just had to decide what to do with what I was given” (New Moon 34-35). Like Frodo when he bears the ring, none of the Cullens chose their fate. None of them chose to become vampires. They were put in a certain situation, and the only choice left for them is what to do with themselves now. Given that they had no control over what they’ve become, one could argue that it means little in terms of redemption. What matters more is what they choose to do with their existence, and the Cullens are arguably paying a high price to take what they believe is the morally high road. In terms of redemption, that has to count for something.
What’s interesting to note is that, in light of this argument, Bella and Carlisle become the most “evil” characters in the book. In the previous examples, Edward refers to becoming a vampire as being “dealt a certain hand,” which implies he had no control over his fate. When Bella reassures Carlisle, she relies on the fact that he also did not choose his fate: what happened to him wasn’t “his fault” because he “never asked for this . . . didn’t choose this kind of life.” However, if Bella is to become a vampire in Breaking Dawn, it won’t just be a hand that she’s dealt. What she is will be precisely her fault because she DID ask for it – repeatedly – and she DID choose “this kind of life” in full knowledge of what it meant. Does the fact that she chooses to become what the Cullens fight against make her more morally reprehensible than the lot of them? What about Carlisle? The saintly Carlisle who pioneered the idea of abstaining from human blood and even works to save human lives as a doctor is arguably the “best” of the Cullens on the surface. He certainly didn’t choose his existence; however, knowing what he was, he did make that choice for all those he changed: Edward, Esme, Rosalie and Emmett. Despite his unwavering abstinence and altruism, does the fact that he took this choice away from them make him the worst of the bunch?
In conclusion, I believe the questions of souls, conscience and redemption will be pivotal in Breaking Dawn. Edward has spent 90 years hating himself for what he is and believing there is no hope for his soul. Until he can see things from another angle – an angle in which choice weighs more heavily than being – he won’t be able to go through with changing Bella, a choice he equates to damning her to spend eternity as a monster.
Our weekend seemed like it was non-stop. And I know I'm going to crash when it's time for bed.
Friday night Andrew and I played a bunch of PackRat on Facebook. It's our latest obsession. That and MouseHunt. The former is a major time sucker but addictive.
Saturday we ran errands, which included taking some puppy pictures at Vicky's. Vicky was working at the store for us so we actually had a two day weekend with both of us off. We also got to see (and photograph) some two day old puppies. We spent some time at the store after it closed. The person who has been selling higher end boutique items is moving out. We've been contemplating what we'll do with the extra space and how we'll rearrange the store. We're beginning to develop a plan but it'll likely take a few days to actually complete the move. We're targeting the first weekend in August at this point but will likely have some time beforehand in transition.
Part of our restructuring is going to include adding Ruff Wear to our line of products sold. We've always liked their products and now that we'll have more retail space in the store it's the perfect time to add it. We've been working this weekend on getting an order together. We'll be purchasing a bunch of things for our dogs to try out so that we can tell people how the merchandise works and what we think of it. And the dogs will be spoiled in the process.
This morning Andrew and I completed a marathon. I was on bike and he was on inline skates. I'm tired and sore and am looking forward to sleep. But it's the good kind of tired and sore. On the ride I though a rabbit and a chipmunk were going to dash out in front of me. Parts of the White Pine Trail were pretty crowded too. It was a nice and sunny this morning with little humidity.
We're relaxing and hanging out with the dogs now that our Ruff Wear order and another big order with one of our distributors is finished. Weekends need to be longer.
I leave you with a silly photo of Beacon and Haven from a couple of weekends ago. We were trying to get them to sit together. Beacon yawned and Haven was making funny faces. I like how this shows off their silly personalities.
Yesterday I didn't have time to upload my photos and post. We spent most of the day with Andrew's family in Ann Arbor but before we left we took some pictures. The three rabbits were all snug in the nest. No real changes other than being a little bigger.
When I got home from work today we went out to the nest. It looked like the grass and fur weren't packed down as tightly as usual. We wondered if any of the babies were in the nest. We looked and only found one. His or her eyes were open and it didn't want to stay in my hands very long. And once it was back on the ground it didn't want to go back into the nest.
We're not sure if a predator (cat or bird) got the other babies or if they were off exploring. I did see the mom go to the nest this morning before I went to work. We didn't see any signs of another ground animal or a bird landing near the nest. But we also got some heavy rain today so marks could have been washed away.
Perhaps the lonely bunny was late with eyes opening so he or she was late leaving the nest to explore. I've read that that the babies will come back to the nest on their own for a couple of weeks. Who knows if we'll see them again. We'll keep checking each day to see if they're there for a while.
We didn't see any big changes today other than the baby rabbits are a little bigger. Their eyes are still closed, but I suspect that they'll open any day now. Once that happens it'll start getting harder to get photos!
Sadly we discovered that one of the babies had died. We wonder if he or she was dead yesterday and we thought he or she was just trying to hide in the dirt to get away from the light. All four were still alive on Day Four. Who knows if the rabbit suffocated by trying to go too deep and got covered by the other rabbits, if somehow all of the rain we got had something to do with it, or if it was just too weak and wouldn't have survived anyway.
The remaining rabbits look healthy. We had to take them out and place them next to the nest as we took out the dead rabbit. We didn't want the dead rabbit to start smelling or for the mom to neglect the other babies. Hopefully with one of them missing she won't wonder what happened. When the three babies were on the ground near their nest they were crawling around trying to find some shelter. They looked pleased to be back in the nest.
The babies continue to get bigger. Their ears are starting to get longer, stick out, and open up. Their eyes are still closed. I've read that they'll open between day six and ten, so we must have found the nest when they babies were just born or a day old.
Today Andrew held one of the babies for a photo. They look smaller in his hands compared to mine.
Today is Day Five of Operation Baby Bunnies. Andrew took today's photos.
I've been reading and learning a bit about cottontail rabbits. Only 15% of them live more than a year (mostly due to all of the predators). A three year old is considered lucky to still be around. They usually have 2-4 litters each spring/summer. Their development is pretty quick (it has to be if their life expectancy isn't that long). A female can have a litter and then mate the next day!
I'm sure that once the babies are old enough to be out exploring that taking photos will be much harder. And I'm not sure we'll want to be around them too much and have them not be fearful of things they should be. But for now it's fun seeing how they grow and develop.
Today was the first day that we picked up any of the babies. They didn't like being out in the light. They're still small. Their fur is soft and they feel fragile.
I didn't have time last night to post photos from yesterday. And actually my photos from yesterday didn't turn out very well, but I do have a video.
The photo below is from after posting on Day Three. We've been seeing mom coming around 8:30 to check on and feed the kids. Here she is leaving. She heard me exit the screened in porch and quickly left the nest.
Yesterday we were out checking on the babies between severe thunder storms. We got around five inches of rain! Roads were flooded, trees down, etc., but no harm at our house. We were both out driving in the stuff at different points. I had to go various ways in order to get home and avoid flooded roads. I still had to drive through some flooded spots but was able to avoid the really deep stuff. We also battled mosquitoes while we were out checking on the nest. With the crappy weather and mosquitoes my camera wasn't interested in focusing. At least the video came out okay.
The babies are looking even more like rabbits now with their brown fur and ears growing.
The babies' brown fur is definitely coming in now. It's sort of amazing how quickly they're growing and changing. Of course with a lifespan of less than a year they've got to get a move on things.
Today we each petted a couple of heads. They still look too fragile to attempt picking up. Maybe in another day or two. As we uncovered them they started moving around right away. But when the discovered that we weren't their mom they calmed down a bit and even tried to hide. It still looks like there are four of them unless there are more hidden deeper in the burrow.
Andrew and I have decided to check on the rabbits we're growing in the vegetable garden once a day. That also means daily photos until they don't want to be near us. I have a feeling vegetable names will be given to these rabbits at some point!
In just a day the litter of kits has grown. Their ears are bigger as well as their bodies. They were more active today as well. I'd really like to know exactly when they were born so we knew how old they are.
We even saw who we assume is mom. A rabbit went into the garden area and was there for a while. So it's good to know that she doesn't care that we've been peeking at her kids. And here is a picture of the replanted weeds strategically placed by Andrew to protect the nest.
