Monthly Archives: June 2015

What’s in a Name?

by

I recently read some comments on an article about the Charleston shootings that were debating on whether the event should be called a hate crime or domestic terrorism. Yesterday, I was half-watching Daniel Boone at work. I saw how one of the characters was acting and I thought, “I bet he has multiple personality disorder.”

These two incidents are extremely different from each other. Indeed, it might seem strange that they are included together. The question that pulled them together in my mind was: What is in a name? Why must human beings always have names for everything?

One answer: order.

We give our children names so we can tell them apart and to help their identity along.

We name buildings and streets so we travel easier.

I acknowledge that knowing whether something was a hate crime or domestic terrorism will be important is sentencing the perpetrator, but I feel like a heinous crime does not necessarily need a specific name. It is a heinous crime no matter what it is.

I also acknowledge that psychiatry has progressed tremendously in the past few decades. No longer are mental disorders lumped into “nervous conditions” or “insanity.” And partly because of the new names and knowledge, mental asylums are the thing of the past. But when behaviors of children are constantly analyzed and given names, it makes me wonder if we are starting to over name parts of the human condition.

Is it possible to be overly “name happy?” or is right to categorize each and everything, let alone each and every person.

 

Recently Read/Watched

by

When I was in early high school, I watched a BBC miniseries called “North and South” (made in 2004). Back then, I did not completely understand what was going on.

Just a couple weeks ago, I saw it on Netflix and loved it. I realized that the reason behind why I did not grasp all the events going on is that they dealt with politics and different societal expectations in a country not my own. But since I’ve learned more about England’s history in my literature classes, I comprehended everything. Instead of being confused, I could enjoy and analyze (after all, I am an English major) the story.

To this American, the title “North and South” immediately evokes thoughts of the Civil War. The title, however, refers to the north and south of England. The protagonist, Margaret Hale, has lived in the south for her whole life (it does not give her age) and is forced to move to Milton, an industrial town in the north after her father, a pastor, removes himself from the Church of England. Throughout the story, she and her family gets involved in the lives of the cotton mill workers, Mr. Thornton, who is Marlborough Mill’s manager, and Mr. Thornton’s family.

After watching the miniseries, I learned that it is based off the novel of the same name by Elizabeth Gaskell and immediately checked it out from the library.

From the miniseries, I expected the novel to read like one of Charles Dickens (who, incidentally, published Gaskell’s works in his newspaper), but the style of writing seems a bit like Jane Austen. The subjects broached in the novel more similar to Dickens than Austen in the sense that Gaskell paid attention to the entire human experience instead of one aspect of life. For example, Gaskell writes about worker’s unions as well as Margaret and Thornton’s attraction to each other.

One thing that I noticed in both the miniseries and the book is that when Margaret is in Helstone, her home in the south, everything is idyllic. On my computer screen, the scenery at Helstone was lush and green and always tinged with a delightful yellow. On the pages, the flora and fauna are given wonderful descriptions. In both the original and adapted versions of the story, Milton is gray and unwelcoming. This is a perfect example of one movement (Romanticism) transitioning into another (Realism). I love Realism and I don’t particularly like Romanticism, so I absolutely loved when the novel became more realistic.

Enough of heavy English major talk!

I actually liked the miniseries infinitesimally more than the book. Strangely enough, it added more depth to each character than the author was able to. But for the most part, the miniseries and the novel were similar plot-wise (although the miniseries added scenes and information that wasn’t provided by the book).

I only have one complaint: I didn’t like the ending of either one. Without giving away what happens, the miniseries ending was not realistic for the Victorian era and the book ending was rather abrupt.

Despite that one misgiving, I definitely recommend both versions of “North and South.” While I may not like Elizabeth Gaskell’s writing as much as Charles Dicken’s, I do appreciate that the product of her pen and mind reveals more of what its like to be human.