a w a k e : t o : d r e a m

Alias Madame Doubtfire, for all of its sad, childish, parental nuclear fighting, seems more suited to our “reality” reading list. As the story goes along and the reader is exposed to more of the family situation, Madame Doubtfire’s appearance in Miranda’s household, and the subplots of “life drawing” and Miranda’s unintended storytelling about the marriage, it reminds me more and more of Melinda’s perspective of the dysfuntional adults in her life in Laurie Halse Andersen’s Speak. As much as confused observation of adult behaviour is a theme in young teen fiction and beyond, I feel as if this is a strong similarity between Alias and Speak, and based on this and the strong issues of divorce, fighting and family violence that are dealt with in this story puts this book more solidly in the Realism genre than humour.

There is some weak, inappropriate and mean-spirited humor in this book, but it is buried by the much larger issues and problems being dealt with. The humor in this book might as well be a weak attempt to distract from what’s really happening, both in the plot itself and in the writing.

For the most part, reading Madame Doubtfire involves a grimace, one eye shut tight and a lip bitten slightly to prevent outbursts of protest. I have read this far in the book holding it far from myself, half in disbelief at what I was reading. But there have been one or two moments of lucidity among the bitter outbursts and tears of alarm. I’m really fascinated with the discussion that Daniel and his older children have about Madame Doubtfire just before Daniel wrote his letter of resignation. The older children felt that it was getting to awkward, too hard to spend time with their real father while he was being Doubtfire and too difficult to relax lest the secret get out. Their talk with their father about acting seemed to be the absolute heart of what the whole book was about, and I found myself wishing that this discussion was developed more, and that the questions it raised actually investigated and addressed.

I think almost every child who experiences a divorce wonders why the parent who leaves couldn’t have stayed longer, worked harder or pretended a bit to make it work, and this question what Daniel and his kids in Madame Doubtfire wrestle with in a rare moment of reality. I can completely understand that question, especially in the light of the acting that Daniel is doing as Madame Doubtfire already - it’s hard to understand why he couldn’t accomplish the job in his own skin.

I’m so sad for this family. Just this one exchange made the children seem more three-dimensional as characters, desperately wanting their father to be able to make it work with their mom. I think it shows how immature Daniel is as a parent that instead of understanding what it is that they were really wanting (i.e. understanding of why a marriage can’t be held together by determination, affirmation that he’s still willing to go to whatever lengths to keep their childhood together. I wonder why it is that Daniel can’t see it - I suppose that he is still blinded by his bitterness, but when his kids lay it all out so plainly it just makes me shake my head. I can’t help thinking that if this were indeed reality that parents like these would have caught on long ago. It simply contributes to the unbelieveability of the novel.

The plot of Alias Madame Doubtfire is simple - family split up, kids are sad, parents hate each other, dad disguises as nanny, much tension ensues. However, it is the children’s characters who add real substance to the book. They are so easy to relate to, and so pitiful at the same time. It really makes me wonder how this novel is classified as humour especially considering the subject matter. It just doesn’t seem very funny.

Lydia, as the oldest child, takes on the typical “divorced child” role as the spokesperson, shepherd and chief defender of her younger siblings. Christopher is the middle child, stuck between adolescent maturity and childhood innocence - his reaction to the tensions in his world is a mixture of both. But Natalie - Natty - is the one who really breaks my heart. She’s barely school aged and all she can do is cry and hide from all of the anger.

It is Natty I most relate to. There was a time in my family’s life when my parents were less than comfortable with each other. I was 6 or 7ish, the youngest of four children, and mystified by all of the yelling that was happening. The mahogany desk became my sanctuary. This period in our lives didn’t last long, but at the same time, I was discovering how many of my school friends had divorced - or divorcing - parents, and for years afterward, every raised voice, slammed door, or grumbling look gave me the same anxious feeling. Now that I’m older I realize that though things were tough, my parents were committed to figuring out their differences, and that much of the tension was due to financial pressures - my childhood fears seem almost funny to me now. The thing is, reading this book makes me realize that if I, as the youngest child of a strong family could have such a reaction to a tense time in life, then what of the youngest child of a familial WWIII?

When I was a child, I hated loud noises. I would run from the vacuum cleaner or the sound of someone yelling. When the vacuum cleaner was running or mom and dad were fighting, I would sit in the kneehole under my favourite mahogany desk with my hands over my ears.

Reading Alias Madame Doubtfire, I find myself looking for that mahogany desk and its welcoming darkness. I think I read through the first section, around three chapters, holding my breath and cringing. I can’t believe this book was ever made. Just about from the beginning of the first chapter, the whole story involves a bitter father with a sense of humor coping with his three kids on his nights for custody, all the while saying horrible things about her and miming various methods of homicide.

This book is painful. I don’t really know if I want to finish it. I keep expecting there to be signs of a change of heart, but it’s nowhere in sight. It’s such a horrible cycle and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be so graphic about such a relationship as this one in a book. On the other hand, I’m sure it’s nice for kids who are really facing this situation at home to look into a situation they relate to and see some humor. Unfortunately, I find the humor quite gallows and mostly too weak and not appropriate enough to overcome the painful circumstances. I can only feel so sorry for those kids! Maybe it’s my background betraying me - I’m not sure I could fathom being shuttled from one parent to another, having to choose between two bitter people and deal with their distance and lack of reason.

Even though I already know what the storyline is from having seen the movie as a kid, I’m still shocked at the sheer mean-spirited nature of the adults in this book and their careless attitude about what it does to the kids. This is not a book I would either read to children, nor want to teach with it. This book is the unsanitized, less-funny version of the movie, so far.

For the past several years in my church, people have been warily looking to parliament to see how the passing of bill C-250 would affect the rights of people of faith as pertains to the marriage of same-gender couples. Originally a bill called An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), this bill was meant to add sexual orientation to the list of differences that we are protected from discrimination on the basis of. I support it completely. But when people in my church got nervous and felt that our rights as people of faith would conflict with the rights of same-gender couples to be protected from discrimination (ie married if they want to be), I scoffed. I felt that since the amendment had also called for protections for religious people so that they would not be compelled to go outside their beliefs because of this, I believed them.

Yesterday, in BC:

VANCOUVER - A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men’s group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday.

“The hearing is sure to further inflame passions over the issue, given that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.
CBC News”

The back story is that the couple tried to rent a hall owned by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s service club. When the group found out that it was a same-gender marriage, they cancelled the booking and refunded the money.

Let me clarify by saying that I support bill C-250 100%. I support human rights for all people.

Tonight my dad, brother and I spent more than two hours debating discussing the issue of evolution and intelligent design.

It wasn’t as bad as it sounds.

My brother is an atheist. And not just a regular, “I’m-to-cool-for-religion” kind of atheist, the hostile kind who just lives to find a way to argue his way through any objection. I’m pretty sure he would agree with this assessment. Anyway, somehow we got into a discussion about ID vs. evolution and whether ID was a legitimate science or a theological philosophy hijacked by conservative religious leaders to protect their own scientific legitimacy. It’s a worthy argument, and one we’ve never made it into, much less through.

Needless to say, I really wasn’t sure what would happen.

From a recent e-mail I sent to Vancouver’s major municipal electoral parties, COPE and NPA, in response to this article: (what do you think about this issue?)

This e-mail is to express my extreme disgust at Tim Louis’ proposal to start a city-owned, “break-even” brothel to protect vulnerable sex trade workers. While this proposal addresses some significant issues about the sex trade and its connection to the illegal drug trade on the DTES that cannot be ignored, I believe that it is misguided. There is no way that facilitating the unsafe sexual activity of sex-trade workers - many of whom are carriers for diseases such as TB, HIV, and hepatitis - actually will protect them in the long run.

I am such a big fan of Canada’s best known political export, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Louise Arbour. She is a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice who worked as a prosecutor for war-crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia (i.e. Slobodan Milosevic) and for Rwanda. She is so amazing to me as a woman who went far beyond the constraints of her profession to change the world - even a little bit - with her skills. I’m listening to an interview with her on CBC Radio’s Ideas right now and she is full of amazing statements. I want to have coffee with this woman. I want to hear what she thinks. I want to watch her in action.

I hope that in my career I act with such conviction and justice as she does.

Jocelyn’s needs: (found conveniently by typing “[your name] needs” into google and recording the first ten statements that return)
1. Jocelyn needs a family that would love and support her and remain deeply committed
to taking care of her needs.
2. Jocelyn needs a nap during her commute, says her mom… She needs to be nurtured…(??)
3. Jocelyn needs help with the committee. (what have I volunteered myself for now?)
4. Jocelyn needs a hot drink (I’m not arguing this…)
5. Jocelyn needs a faster life than the one I can give her, and Byron’s shallow life
is light speed.(NOOoooooo!!!!)
6. She prefers to stay in Houston where her son Hunter from her first marriage lives
and be available if her troubled daughter Jocelyn needs her. (so apparently my mom is a big influence…)
7. there is a lot more truth that needs to come out,” said Jocelyn. (Oohh, mysterious!)
8. Jocelyn House needs
your financial support to continue to make this choice available for Manitobans.(again, I’m not arguing this point. Then again, see previous post. Although I don’t know how my financial needs relate to manitobans…)
9. Jocelyn’s increasing support needs means that she needs additional assistance to
continue being a parent and raising her sons. (I have kids???!?)
10. Jocelyn just needs more game action. (I swear I didn’t make this up)

And believe it or not I turned up two other bloggers doing the same “jocelyn needs” thing. What is it about jocelyns and blogging?

I hate it when I read an article that makes me feel like I have to defend brothers and sisters in the faith to myself. I find it so offensive when I read about the “religious right” in the US “targeting” another group of people as somehow unclean and punishing those who have any affiliation with them. In the 70’s, it was people who were divorced or divorcing. Back in the 80’s, it was people with AIDS, no matter how they got it. And from the 90’s until now, it has been Liberals and homosexuals - and God save you if you are a Liberal homosexual! Sometimes it’s the homeless, sometimes drug addicts… sometimes even Canadians - for our “liberal” ways….

This article describes a boycott on the Ford Motor Company from a group called the American Family Association “because of Ford’s support for the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage .” The Jaguar and Land Rover brands had been caught advertising in Gay and Lesbian media.

I’m sick of this.