Inspiration or imitation?

I was recently listening to an old-school radio station (no shame!) when I was surprised to hear this song:

I quickly found out it’s name on Shazam, and discovered it is ‘Piano in the Dark’ by Brenda Russell, originally recorded in 1987.

What surprised me most were the chorus lines:

“I know, caught up in the middle
I cry just a little
When I think of letting go
Oh no, gave up on the riddle
I cry just a little…”

I mused at how familiar these lines were, when I realised they have been recently brought back to life in 2011 by Dutch duo Bingo Players in their hit ‘Cry (Just a Little)’, and even more recently the Bingo Players version was remixed by Flo Rida in his even bigger hit ‘I Cry’.

Interestingly, comments in the youtube videos seem to constantly lament the lack of originality in the songs. Comments for the Bingo Players version cry ‘The true original is Brenda Russell’s!’, meanwhile comments on the Flo Rida version wail ‘Everybody knows this is just a rip off of the Bingo Players song!’

This got me thinking, is anything actually original anymore? (Yes, I do realise I sound like an old person). When it comes to music, I always used to wonder whether we would ever run out of songs, because isn't there a finite combination of notes to be strung together to make a tune?

This question was well answered in the Vsauce video here. 

So, as the video above explains, we will probably never run out of songs after all. Yet why is it that so many songs seem to recycle the same sounds? This was clearly and hilariously expressed by Melbourne group ‘The Axis of Awesome’ in their video 4 chords. 

Sometimes, similarity can cause legal feuds over who has the intellectual property rights, as was famously seen in the legal battle of Men at Work over their famous hit ‘Down Under’ due to incorporating the well-loved Australian ballad ‘Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree’.

The same question applies to any other kind of creative work, whether it be music, fashion or books. It seems that there is rarely any originality when it comes to novel and movie plotlines. For example, many commentators have noted that the plotline for Avatar was suspiciously similar to that of Pocahontas.

But the last time I checked, Pocahontas did NOT involve a strange species of weirdly hot blue people that ‘bond’ with the animals that the ride by joining pony-tails. On that note, what was up with that?!

At the end of the day, nothing is created from a vacuum. All artists draw inspiration from their life experiences, including others’ art. I suppose that ultimately, similarity is just a spectrum, and we must use our judgement to decide when something is ‘inspired by’ or simply ‘copying’ another work. After all, in the words of Gandhi, imitation is the sincerest flattery.

“Originality is nothing but judicious imitation. The most original writes borrowed one from another.” –Voltaire

the reckless philosopher

Book review: Moloka'i

I just finished reading the novel ‘Moloka’i’ by Alan Brennert. Although this blog doesn’t usually involve book reviews, I really couldn’t help myself.

I’d like to say ‘this is one of my favourite books of all time’, however when I stop to think about it, I’d be hard pressed to think of a book I liked more. This book had everything: history, romance, tragedy, comedy and an overall sense of hope and inspiration.

Now see, even when I write that it sounds too hyperbolic, and I’m sure many of you are saying ‘yeah yeah, heard it all before’.  But this is the real McCoy, people! 

The same thing seems to happen in the blurb:

"Rachel is sent to Kalaupapa, the quarantined leprosy settlement on the island of Moloka'i. Here her life is supposed to end - but instead she discovers it is just beginning... Moloka'i is a masterpiece of story telling about a people who embraced life in the face of death."

When I first read this part of the blurb, my initial reaction was 'eh, sounds a bit depressing. She gets sent away to a leper colony, but still does some cool things there. Great.'

But, as you might have guessed, I couldn’t have been more wrong.

The novel follows the life of the protagonist, Rachel Kalama, from 1891 to 1970 in her homeland of Hawai’i, where she “dreams of visiting far-off lands like her father, a merchant seaman”, however at the age of seven she is diagnosed with leprosy, and is quarantined at the Kalaupapa settlement on the island of Moloka’i.

The novel follows all the trials and tribulations she experiences throughout her life, most of which are based on real life experiences of Kalaupapa residents and events that the author meticulously researched.

Although I had known a small amount about the history of Hawai’i, the novel explores events like the annexation of Hawai’i to the United States, WWII and the later commercialization and tourist-takeover, from the perspective of native Hawai’ians. There are other, smaller, considerations which also give the novel realistic qualities, such as the arrival of films, electricity, and aeroplanes.

Of course, this is all occurring as an undercurrent to the main plot: that of Rachel as she grows from a young girl, throughout her teenage years, into adulthood and as an elderly woman.

I don’t want to spoil too much, so I’ll try not to say anymore, however I do want to share with you this quote:

“There’s only one disadvantage, really, to having two mothers… You know twice the love… but you grieve twice as much.”

In her time at Kalaupapa, Rachel found a whole new “ohana”, a family, comprised of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and lovers. Although almost everyone, even her dogs, seemed to perish before she, the novel allows you to realise that the pain you suffer when those you love leave is a small price to pay for ever having had them.

I highly recommend this book to anyone with or without knowledge about Hawai'i, with or without interest in historical/epic novels, and with or without a heart. 

- the reckless philosopher

Beauty is not pain

I recently finished a novel ‘Snow Flower and the Secret Fan’ by Lisa See. The story takes place in 19^th century China, and was completely mind-opening-ly outrageous. The way these people lived, especially women, was so completely removed from today’s society that I almost couldn’t believe it. Women accepted themselves as ‘worthless’ from a very young age, and focused heavily on their future marriage prospects, their intra-family hierarchies, and the hope of bearing sons. Social actions were completely dictated by rules, and especially controlled by one’s place within the family (first son vs second son, wife vs concubine).

However the most shocking part of the book was the ordeal the protagonist, Lily, endured when she had her feet bound.

For those who do not know, foot binding was a custom practiced in China from approximately the 10^th century until the early 20^th century. It involved tightly wrapped the feet of a young girl (typically 4-7 years old) with cloth to prevent growth and encourage the feet into a lotus flower shape. The ideal length was 3 inches long.

Often the bones were broken to encourage the foot to move into it’s new shape. Having bound feet prohibited women from being able to walk very far, and was seen as a status symbol, because bound feet meant one was not labouring in fields.

Why was it done? Asides from being a status symbol, men apparently found the feet to be highly erotic, and Qing dynasty sex manuals allegedly incorporated 48 different ways of playing with a woman’s bound feet. Furthermore, the bound feet produced a particular unsteady way of walking, which men found appealing.

Of course, foot binding brought a plethora of health problems, including infection, back problems, falls in later years, and often death. Because women with bound feet were severely inhibited from many activities, it was seen as a sign of male ‘ownership’ and control over their women.

However, despite the fact that it was the men’s desire driving the practice, it was ultimately the women who were binding their daughters’ feet, and the women who wanted to have their feet bound.

This made me wonder about other practices that women endure in the pursuit of ‘beauty’. It seems that it is predominantly women who end up altering themselves most significantly for beauty.

Now, we look back on feet binding with disgust and amazement. How could so many millions of Chinese women endure this painful and debilitating practice for so many centuries? And for what? To many, the small feet now look grotesque and disgusting.

And yet, what are we women doing to ourselves today that might one day be regarded in the same light? In today’s nip and tuck culture, was are constantly changing ourselves in the pursuit of beauty, whether it is permanently lasering all our hair off, injecting melanin into our skin for a tan, or even getting breast augmentation. In smaller, less controversial ways, women still pierce their ears, wear spandex, and get braces. 

In parts of Africa, a shocking majority of women still undergo female genital mutilation, and in parts of Burma, girls as young as two start wearing neck rings to lengthen their neck.

The irony is that for just about every painful procedure women endure, there has been an opposite movement somewhere at some point. For example, in the Western world, women (and men for that matter) bake themselves in the sun, risking skin cancer and premature ageing, in order to get a tan. Meanwhile, in India and other places, women are applying potentially dangerous bleach and other chemicals to their faces in order to appear whiter. 

Modern society focuses on having a svelte figure, when once a plumper shape was more desirable. Some women constantly complain about their large buttocks, whereas other women flock to have silicon butt implants. A decade ago, thin eyebrows were in style, and now women apply crème to help them grow into full furry brows.  In China, a small mouth is regarded as cute and beautiful, but in the Western world, a large mouth with full lips is perceived to be attractive. In the 50s, women used curlers in their hair, while now they straighten.

You may argue that there is an overarching perception of beauty that does not change, however clearly, that is not true. I implore you to find one constant of beauty for women throughout all the world and time.

I proudly tout my belief that our bodies are incredible machines that almost always sort themselves out and natural do what is best. I believe that so long as we treat our bodies with respect, they will return the favour by always being there for us.

And yet, I myself have undergone hair removal treatments. Even my parents supported both emotionally and financially an arguably purely cosmetic procedure: dental braces.

Why do women so often forget the capacity of their bodies to DO things, rather than just look a particular way? And furthermore, why does out pursuit of beauty so often end up being so damn painful?!

Beauty is NOT pain, it should not be pain. Beauty should be a pleasure, something to enjoy, but not something to kill ourselves for. But saying that is a lot easier than actually doing it, especially for those blessed with features that fit into a preconceived idea of beauty.

I wonder, will people of the future look back at our painful modern procedures and not believe how we were able to endure them? Or will women never cease in modifying their bodies to an unattainable standard of beauty?

“Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time.” – Albert Camus

the reckless philosopher

Sif totes not slang?

For most of my life, I have actively disliked American English. That’s right, actively. Not passively. Actively.

I used to think that the changes such as “color” instead of “colour” were blasphemous, and laughed at the pronunciation and spelling of aluminum instead of aluminium.

Even as I type this, both “colour” and “aluminium” are both underlined with squiggly red. Damn you Microsoft word!

Let’s see if I can manage to get an entire sentence underlined:

“Colouring the doughnut was focussed on in the dialogue programme that evening, although nobody had bothered to catalogue the faeces or diarrhoea of a foetus. Although somebody had modelled the effects of globalisation and fibre on an ageing population.”

Leaving aside the nonsensicality of it, the following words are underlined with that darned red squiggly line:

·      Colouring (Coloring) American English (AE) often changes “our” words to “or”. E.g. Flavour/flavor; harbor/harbor.

·      Focussed; Modelled – (Focused Modeled) AE often leaves out double letters no verbs when adding “ed”, “ing”, “er” or “est”. E.g. Cancelled/canceled; labelled/labeled.

·      Programme – (Program) AE often leaves out the “me” in programme.

·      Faeces; Foetus; Diarrhoea – (Feces; Fetus; Diarrhea) AE often changes “ae” or “oe” words to “e”.

·      Globalisation – (Globalization) AE often changes “ise” words to “ize”.

·      Fibre – (Fiber) AE often changes words ending in “re” to “er”. E.g. Theatre/theater; centre/center.

Interestingly, the following words were not underlined:

·      Doughnut (often spelled “donut” in AE)

·      Dialogue; catalogue (Often “ogue” words are shortened to “og”)

·      Ageing (AE often drops words ending with “e” when adding “ing”)

As you can see, American English frequently involves dropping letters.

Oh what’s that, you don’t actually need that extra letter in there? Well, heck, why was it even there to begin with? BE GONE VILE LETTER!

A younger, more naïve me once believed this practice reflects the Americans’ laziness. While that may be true, now I believe that this kind of practice is more efficient, and therefore is the way of the future.

After all, why bother aimlessly maintaining something that serves no practical purpose, other than to waste our fingers’ time in typing or writing? We are holding ourselves back, people!

Think of all the time you’ve wasted in your precious life typing and writing out those extra letters! Imagine if you could reclaim that time! Just think! You might regain a whole 3 minutes! You could listen to a song in that time!

This got me thinking about other inefficiencies in our language. Many older folk scoff at the language of youth, with their “el-oh-el” and “bee-ar-bee”. A friend of mine once accidently said “totes” during question time in a formal presentation setting. (For those who are unaware, “totes” is an abbreviation for “totally”.)

But when you think about it, why do we have words that can be shortened? Why is our language not already utilising (or utilizing?) the shortest possible forms of words to make for the most efficient language?

Some examples:

·      Perf (perfect) –E.g. “that is perf(ect)” or “you are perf(ect)ion”.

·      Deets (details) – E.g. “give me the deets”.

·      Totes (totally) – E.g. “I was totes under water”.

Why are these words – perf; deet; totes – not already words (and I’m fairly sure they are not)? Why do we not already use that combination of letter to describe something else? WE ARE WASTING OUR TIME WITH EXTRA SYLLABLES!

Now, I’m not suggesting we all start speaking like text messages. But I do find it interesting that a language which has evolved for so many centuries, and taken the best parts from other languages, still has such inefficiencies.

It’s not hard to see why inefficiencies in language are bad. Being able to express one’s self quickly and succinctly is useful (and sometimes crucial) in a variety of situations. So perhaps American English is just attempting to eradicate such efficiencies in language.

For example, simplified Chinese characters, as opposed traditional characters, take on some remarkable time-saving changes. Some of my favourites are:

Traditional	Simplified	English meaning
籲	吁	To call
鸞	鸾	Phoenix
鬱	郁	Dense
麤	粗	Coarse
龢	和	And
辦	办	To do/manage
邊	边	Side

As you can see, some traditional characters are significantly more difficult and time-consuming to write out than their simplified counterparts, saving even more time that dropping the occasional “u” or “o”.

Some advocates for traditional characters argue that the traditional versions maintain their original meanings. For example, the simplified character for love “爱”（traditional愛）replaces the character for heart “心”with the character for friend “友”. Perhaps the same will happen to English, as we move to a more abbreviated language we will lose the original meanings of words.

What do you think? Are slang words and abbreviations an improvement on our language? Or are they abhorrent?

“Slang is a language that rolls up its sleeves, spits on its hands and goes to work.” – Carl Sandburg

the reckless philosopher