Self-Reflection and Change In an X-Wing Character

In my last post, I criticized a "female empowerment" scene, so it's only fair that I criticize a male-centric scene. Why not?

Saying this now so that nobody misses it: Unlike the topic of my last post, I don't think the author meant the reader to think this character is right. I don't think you're supposed to think his conclusion is anything other than ego-driven mistakenness.

Also unlike the topic of my last post, I don't find this character to be a bad person, per se. I find him sympathetic and understandable. What I'm criticizing him for... well, it's mostly avoidable, but it hurts him, and no one else. He's suffering from something that he really doesn't need to suffer from.

I've been on a bit of a Star Wars Expanded Universe kick recently. I do not remember at all what started it... I think my curiosity about the original writers' vision for Han and Leia's children? Yeah, that sounds right. Anyway, the series I've read the most of is called X-Wing, and there's a trilogy that used to be part of it but is now its own series called Wraith Squadron. (As opposed to the Rogue Squadron books.) The premise is that Wedge Antilles wants to make a pilot squadron that also has more clandestine skills for infiltrations or special missions, and the three books are about their training until they become fully-fledged elite pilots and saboteurs. 

All of the Wraiths are either screwups or dealing with some serious personal baggage (even Wedge, although none of the others know that). This makes them sympathetic characters overall, and when a lot of them die, it is pretty sad. But there's this one character whose tragic backstory has some serious problems in it, and that's what I wanted to critique. 

The character in question is Ton Phanan. He was a surgeon serving the Rebellion until the Battle of Endor, when the medical frigate was attacked (that's in the movie) and he suffered severe injuries. Because he was allergic to the panacea of the Star Wars galaxy, he couldn't have his wounds properly treated, so instead he got prosthetic replacements for some of his limbs and one of his eyes. After this, he was so bent on vengeance that he stopped caring about saving lives and only wanted to kill Imperials. He became a pilot, but he wasn't great at it, so he ended up with the Wraiths. He spends most of his time being annoying, witty, rather inappropriate, snarky, and generally egotistical. 

Partway through the second book, he's having dinner with another Wraith, a new recruit named Lara, a woman he was partly responsible for bringing to the Wraiths. Through the eyes of Phanan's best friend, Face, we see them having a pleasant conversation, then Lara gets up and leaves, and Phanan suddenly looks utterly defeated. When Face approaches him, Phanan tries to act like he normally does, but Face can tell something is wrong. Later, Face tracks Phanan down, and Phanan, somewhat drunk, reveals that Lara was the last in a long line of women who displayed absolutely no romantic interest in him. He believes this is because the day he was first injured, his future died. Here's the dialogue:

"She wasn't interested, Face. In me."

"Lara?"

"Yes, Lara. Well, actually, at various times, Falynn, Tyria, various ladies on Folor, Borleias, and Coruscant, then Shalla, Dia, and most recently Lara."

Face snorted. "Maybe you need to work on your technique. What sort of invitation did you make her?"

"Ah, that's just it. I didn't make any sort of invitation. I just sat with her, and talked with her, and read her eyes... She liked me, I think she did. But... other than that... nothing. I held no appeal for her. And that's the way it's been for quite some time... One minute I'm helping a pilot with a concussion, the next minute that pilot's been dead for two weeks and I'm just waking up with a mechanical half a face and a mechanical leg. Ever since then, no woman has looked at me with any sort of serious interest."

"It's not the leg or the face, Ton."

"I know that, you moronic nerf." Phanan glared at him, the glowing optic that served him as a left eye making the expression malevolent. "But something died when I was hit in that medical ward, and I think it was my future. I think people, maybe only women, can just look at me and say, 'There's no future in him.'" (Iron Fist, page 150, eBook).

It's a very sad exchange, and I think it's the first time in the books Phanan has been this vulnerable and honest. It serves as a kind of counter to the classic Beauty and the Beast story, and not in a hopeful way. Earlier scenes make it clear that this is a breaking point for Phanan. On my first readthrough, I just felt awful for him. He's at his limit. 

But even in my first readthrough, before I went back and thought about it, there was one serious detail that struck me as odd: Lara should absolutely not have been the breaking point for him, and as a surgeon, he must know that. You see, right before he met Lara and recruited her into the Wraiths, she had been imprisoned on an enemy Star Destroyer as a perpetually-drugged-up sex slave. (She actually hadn't been, but Phanan didn't know that was all a lie.) There had also been another officer who beat her up so badly that she ended up in the medical ward. Maybe--just maybe--a young woman who had recently been the victim of severe sexual and physical trauma wouldn't be interested in a man for... you know, other reasons? Lara, as he knew her, should not have been any of his data points, much less the data point that made him give up. 

I went back a little while later and reviewed the list of women he named, and realized that only one of them was really a valid option. Falynn was already in love with a different man--which Phanan was the first to guess--so, she was taken. Tyria, likewise, although Phanan did spend most of the first book pursuing her romantically (I think? Or was he joking? It's hard to tell with him), was already in love with another man. Dia, a former slave dancer (like the girl who dies in Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi), had already demonstrated that she wasn't interested in any man. So, four out of the five women he named had other reasons for not being interested. And we never hear anything about the fifth one's romantic interests, I don't think. 

So maybe--just maybe--the data that theoretically backs up his hypothesis is skewed?

And then it occurred to me that he somehow thinks it's plausible that half the adult population, including the nonhuman population, is clairvoyant. Really? 

It was at that point that I asked myself, What would I think if Phanan approached me? Although female, I am severely lacking in the whole female intuition department; I can barely pick up signals on what's happening now, and I certainly can't predict what's going to happen in anyone's future. So does that mean I would like Phanan?

There's a line where he tells one of those aforementioned women that he quit being a doctor because he "didn't care for patching up people I don't care about and do enjoy killing people I hate" (Wraith Squadron, page 71, eBook). 

Um. 

Best case scenario, that's a creepy sense of humor. Worst case scenario, that's understandable but certainly not someone I'd want to be in a relationship with. 

Contrast that, if you will, with Faramir's classic line from the books: "War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend" (The Two Towers, 656). This is a difference between a man who had the chance to kill and rage in war, but didn't, and the man who had the chance to leave war and build a life, but didn't. 

Tyria's reaction to Phanan's statement, by the way, was to shudder and back away. There's another point when he's being entirely inappropriate, and she looks distressed and tells him he has bad manners. Maybe, just maybe it's those bad manners and the comments that obviously make women uncomfortable that is your problem, Phanan, not some kind of fortune-telling about your undefined future that all women somehow possess. 

It is pretty obvious that a lot of Phanan's behavior isn't sincere. He's trying to amuse himself, amuse others, and mostly hide the pain he's in. But that doesn't make his behavior appealing or attractive. 

One way to really highlight the unsavoriness of Phanan's character is to juxtapose him against a different male character named Myn Donos. Donos had recently been in command of a squadron that was completely wiped out except for him, and he was carrying the guilt, grief, and trauma from that... but Fallyn, one of the women who wasn't interested in Phanan, still fell head over heels in love with him. At one point, most of the Wraiths, including Phanan and Fallyn, were making an effort to get Donos out of his shell and connect with him. He talked a bit but still retreated from the group fairly quickly. Phanan makes some snide comments about Donos, and Fallyn instantly leaps to Donos' defense and says, among other things, “Ton, what’s it like to be constantly making fun of people better than you?” (Wraith Squadron, 88, eBook). Now, two important details: First, Phanan has already taken and even encouraged jokes at his own expense, and nothing he says about Donos is worse than what anyone has said about him; and secondly, Fallyn is completely overreacting because she fancies Donos. But even in an overreaction, there is some insight. What, precisely, makes Donos better than Phanan? Throughout the series, Donos is polite; when he comes across his squadmates and recognizes they're struggling (which isn't often, as he's a little oblivious), he offers to help without being snide or gross; he talks several times about how uneasy he felt about unfair fights in his past, even though he knew the right person won those unfair fights; and he continually, repeatedly, consistently demonstrates how much he cares about protecting others, even his droid. Donos repeatedly demonstrates virtues that Phanan usually doesn't, or if he does, he does with a very strong undercurrent of creepiness. I think Fallyn sensed that, not some magical vibe about their "future".

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think you're supposed to be comparing Phanan to Donos; maybe Donos is, in the books, where Phanan was immediately after the Battle of Endor. The choices that Donos faces in the books may be akin to the choices that Phanan once faced. Only Donos, throughout the books, chooses more wisely than Phanan did. (And Donos was not done being beaten and battered, oh no, no, no. He just gets pummeled throughout the trilogy.)

As I said earlier, I find Phanan to be a sympathetic character. He's hurting, he's lonely, and he fights so hard to hide it. He is a good friend and a good teammate. For all that he makes fun of others, he has no problem taking a joke at his own expense. He does go out of his way to help his friends twice (but he makes a point of not letting any women find out about that). When it comes to being a good romantic interest, he's all kinds of wrong, and he doesn't seem to be able to analyze the reasons for that very well. 

It's not the leg or the face, Ton, and it's not that women have some mystical foresight into your future. It's not something beyond your control. It's the attitude and actions that you frequently present. 

As I was working on this post, little things popped up across my internet that suggested to me Phanan bears some resemblance to a lot of young men these days. First of all, between starting this and ending this, the Tate brothers returned to America--two men famous for telling men to do this, that, and the other thing to get women in the age of feminist women who don't want men. Then, a little closer to home, someone I went to high school with posted online about a major life achievement done very well, "yet still no bitches". Yes, those were his exact words. My guy, my friend... I don't know if anyone told you, but publicly complaining about women online is going to make you less likely to get a woman, at least the kind of woman you want. This is a simple thing to not do. (My brother has recently told me that this was a common joke when he was in high school. Even knowing that, I don't think this is the kind of humor that's going to appeal to ladies.)

I know for me, self-reflection is difficult. I really struggle to identify simple things that are in my power to change; usually, my attempts at self-reflection devolve into identifying entire swaths of my life that I loathe but can't alter. I imagine it's harder for guys, when, let's be honest, Hollywood and most media prefer to portray them as broken or problematic, rather than humans who have room to grow. But I think Phanan's story illustrates how important that kind of self-reflection really can be. 

Let's Talk About That Last House of the Dragon Episode... and one serious "female empowerment" issue

 So I've been watching House of the Dragon. I never thought I would willingly give a penny to HBO, but then Rings on Prime came out, and I decided I was interested enough to try out its rival. And... I have some thoughts. 

Obviously it's a superior show to Rings, which I barely have the patience to designate an actual show, but I'm genuinely worried by all the excess praise it's been getting. HotD is not an ideal show; it is not a standard by which to measure up to. That was Lord of the Rings, not a show, I know, but superior storytelling and gold standard media. I'm a little worried that people will forget that. I'm worried that HotD is going to become the view of a "good" show, of the best there can possibly be. 

It isn't. It's undeniably the best show in production right now, but it has some serious problems. 

So I bring my complaints, not with the intention of making anyone dislike the show (I don't), but with the intention of reminding people that we have had better. Just... nothing to be excited for right now. 

The biggest issue I have with the show--and maybe this is the point, but it doesn't quite feel that way--is its portrayal of protagonists. I am well aware that, in the standard of Martin's stories, there aren't really any heroes, but some of the characters that are portrayed as "epic" go way past "not hero" into "selfish, callous, evil villain". Daemon murdering his first wife and grooming his niece comes to mind strongly, I won't lie.

But I think the best example of this was the last scene in the last episode. At Aegon's coronation, Rhaenys was stuck in the crowd at the Sept, but she managed to slip downstairs to get to Meleys, her dragon. Then, as the crowd--who, by the way, were all forced to be there--start changing to Aegon, the floor suddenly collapses and Meleys and Rhaenys emerge from the rubble. 

 As Rhaenys destroys the floor, she kills dozens of--possibly a hundred--innocent common people who were forced into that place. She kills them because... why? It's not because she had no other escape. Meleys had to have gotten in somehow, so there had to be a door for them to leave through. She chose breaking through that floor instead of going out a door--knowing there were people there, knowing she would kill them. 

But girl boss! Yaas!

The scene gets worse. The people run toward the door, fighting to get out and away from the dragon. Otto Hightower--you know, the villain--shouts for the City Watch to open the doors, so that the people can get away and Rhaenys and Meleys can leave (instead of killing everyone). (For whatever reason--maybe they can't hear him, maybe they're waiting for Aegon's order--the City Watch doesn't open the doors, so the people are stuck there.) Rhaenys turns Meleys to Aegon, but Alicent--the other villain--runs in front of Aegon to try to save him from the dragon. Then Rhaenys, who had no problem whatsoever killing innocent people, decides she won't kill Alicent, so she won't kill Aegon or Otto either. She just turns Meleys around and leaves. 

Now, pray tell me, what was the point of that? What was the purpose of her erupting through the stone floor and killing all those people? You can't even make the argument that she was trying to avoid a civil war that would have killed more of them. Apparently, her purpose was just to scare the Hightowers and emphasize that she's ruthless. Or was she completely willing to kill all the innocent people, but Alicent was just one too far? 

That, or the screenwriters came down with whatever disease is infecting the Rings on Prime writers, because there is no rhyme or reason for that scene otherwise. 

And she's supposed to be someone we're sympathetic to. She's the Queen Who Never Was, the sad, pitiable, tough, wise, "correct" character. Ugh. 

In the third episode, something similar happens with Daemon. He is fighting the Triarchy, who have kidnapped a bunch of Velaryon sailors. The episode opens with the perspective of one captured Velaryon sailor who is being crucified on the beach to be eaten by crabs. He screams in pain, he yells that House Velaryon will avenge them all, and begs for his life. Then we see Caraxes, with Daemon riding, and the poor sailor yells to Daemon, first words of encouragement and pride and then begging Daemon to save him. At first it looks like Daemon will save him, but then Caraxes lands on that sailor, killing him. It's the same situation--in the fight between the Targaryens and their enemies, they have no problem stepping on the innocent people they're supposed to defend. 

The sharp difference between Daemon and Rhaenys is that, in Daemon's case, we have a lot of time with the perspective of that one poor sailor, so that we have an opportunity to become connected to him and therefore truly understand his pain; we feel that Daemon is indifferent. That doesn't happen with Rhaenys. In all the scenes when we had a chance to become connected to one of her victims, when she's being hurried along with the crowd, we always see the crowd from her perspective. We're never given a chance to connect to the people who die, so their deaths and their loss doesn't feel as strongly to us. Instead, we get the epic shots of Rhaenys' emerging from the dust and smoke and then staring down the Hightowers. The focus is instantly on Rhaenys' power. 

In a story where a central theme is women fighting for their rights against sexism, it bothers me tremendously that one of these women is so callous about innocent lives. 

It's made even worse by an earlier scene: Alicent told Rhaenys deliberately that a good queen must always think of the cost to her people, at which Rhaenys scolded her for always serving the men in her life. Alicent, who has been repeatedly described as refusing to throw of the patriarchal system in which she is trapped, had the kindness and sacrifice to think of the innocent people she needed to protect. The "put yourself on the Iron Throne" woman deliberately killed them. 

Am I really supposed to be rooting for that kind of female empowerment? Did no one stop and consider how bad that makes the message look? 

Maybe--just maybe--that's the showrunners' point? That women being able to be rulers like men isn't the same thing as honoring the innate rights of all people? But I haven't noticed a lot of reviewers pointing that out, and I strongly think it needs to be noticed. 

A Fisk on an NPR Article About School Boards and Curriculum

I sometimes think that the great Edward R. Murrow did more long-term harm than good, because he seems to be one shining example of journalism amidst a horde of terrible parasites who have convinced themselves that they're all acting like him. 

Murrow stood up against slander and against lies. Most journalists seem to deal shamelessly or obliviously in both. 

Which brings me to the "controversy" surrounding Maus. Now, to be crystal clear, all of my contempt in this fisk is aimed entirely at adults, not at the children who are now buying and reading this book. They're kids--they shouldn't have to navigate stupid stuff like this yet. The adults, though... 

I came across this article at NPR, and it got on my last nerve, so I decided it called for a fisk--not just because it was painful, but because it seems like very few other people are dealing with this appropriately. Larry Correia was good enough to treat this situation with the appropriate reaction, but many others weren't. So, I decided it was time to throw my take into the mix. 

Backwards from the last one. My comments are in italics, and the original article is in plain text. 

Why a school board's ban on 'Maus' may put the book in the hands of more readers

 

Couldn’t be because journalists portrayed the idea dishonestly or disingenuously to whip up a frenzy against any sort of restraint in school curriculum and therefore garner more clicks and social clout? Nah.

To be honest, I was going to ignore this whole thing until I saw Count Dankula picked this up. Then I decided I had to comment on this, because the articles around this are so disingenuous. Dankula has shown himself to be a stalwart defender of free speech, but this is not an attack on free speech. It’s not an attack.

A Tennessee school district's controversial ban on the Holocaust graphic novel Maus appears to have spurred efforts to get copies into the hands of more readers nationwide.

Aaannd, we’re already off with a stupid take. The Tennessee school removed the book from their library and from their eighth-grade curriculum because of unnecessary swearing and naked mouse pictures. I don’t mean naked mouse pictures like normal art, a la the mouse Scar almost eats in The Lion King—it looks more like the naked cats in the 2019 Cats movie. You know, the one that everyone was universally creeped out by because the CGI was freaky and the cats were too human-like. It’s in that vein.

Wikipedia has a really eyebrow-raising picture from inside the book. It’s the first picture you’ll scroll down to at this link. Oh, and here are some more from Rebel News.

Eighth graders. This was required reading for eighth graders.

Now, it would be one thing if the local government of this district had banned the book from the entire area, forbidden adults from reading it or forbidden kids from reading it on their own time. That’s one thing. But that is not what happened. It was just simply made that the school would not provide it for kids to access. Schools. Can. Do. That. Schools are not obliged to provide the same services as bookstores. Schools are allowed to limit the activities and materials on their campuses. Especially for eighth graders.

News of the McMinn County School Board's unanimous vote to remove Maus from its curriculum

What?! Is that an honest phrase there? Not that they banned it, but that they removed it from the curriculum?

 — and replace it with something else —

According to the School Board’s (admittedly retroactive) statement, that “something else” would “accomplish the same educational goals in a more age-appropriate fashion” (the entire statement is worth reading).

earlier this month made headlines last week as the world was preparing to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

If those headlines include the word “ban”, they were disingenuous. But we all know that headlines don’t have to be accurate.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning book tells the story of author Art Spiegelman's relationship with his father, a Holocaust survivor, by depicting Jews as mice and Nazis as cats. The school board reportedly objected to eight curse words and nude imagery of a woman, used in the depiction of the author's mother's suicide.

"Reportedly" objected to eight curse words and nude imagery? Another article says those objections came from the publicly available minutes from their meeting. How is that "reportedly" objecting to the curse words and nudity?  Or did this NPR journalist just not go to the minutes?

Also, schools are perfectly allowed to ban books with those words and images. It may be only a few, but schools can still do that. It’s their curriculum. Unless the students aren’t reading a single book outside of what the school requires them to read (which is a different problem entirely), they can still get their hands on this book.

Spiegelman told NPR and WBUR's Here and Now that the board's decision is "not good for their children, even if they think it is."

Oh, okay, if he says so. Meanwhile, those people who actually know their kids and live in that district—they can’t know as much as this author whose parents survived the Holocaust.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP and other groups have criticized the ban,

It’s not a ban.

noting the important role the book — which was originally published in serial form beginning in the 1980s — plays in teaching students about the Holocaust.

When I was in eighth grade, I read Night by Ellie Wiesel, who survived Auschwitz. I think there may have been a little swearing, and there was definitely some description of nudity, but it wasn’t visible.

Alternatively, there’s The Hiding Place, which has a description of Ravensbruck, and a description of being forced to walk naked without actually showing it.

Maus now appears to be in even greater demand, and, in some cases, supply, in Tennessee and beyond. Online sales are skyrocketing, and multiple bookstores are giving away free copies to students.

It doesn’t bother me that students (who definitely already know what those things are) are reading these books. It bothers me that people are sooooooo offended that students aren’t required to read that at school. It bothers me that people seem to believe it is necessary for kids to read this specific Holocaust book.

Spiegelman told CNBC that he was heartened by the response, noting it's not the first of its kind.

"The schoolboard could've checked with their book-banning predecessor, [Russian President] Vladimir Putin," he wrote. "He made the Russian edition of Maus illegal in 2015 (also with good intentions — banning swastikas) and the small publisher sold out immediately and has had to reprint repeatedly."

That is a false analogy. There is a huge difference between a national leader banning the book in his entire country for all people there and a school board deciding that the students couldn’t get that book from the school itself and maybe couldn’t bring that book into the school.

Backlash to the ban has spurred book sales and donations

It’s not a ban.

As criticism of the ban spread across the internet, it appears that many readers rushed to order copies for themselves.

It’s not a ban.

The Complete Maus had been the No. 1 bestseller on Amazon's online bookstore on Monday morning, moving up from the seventh spot on Friday. The top three bestsellers in the "Literary Graphic Novels" section are The Complete Maus, Maus I and Maus II.

Other booksellers are taking steps to get the book and its important message into the hands of more readers.

Night had the same message. The Hiding Place had the same message. But those just don’t count because…?  

Ryan Higgins, the owner of a California comic book shop, offered via Twitter to donate up to 100 copies of The Complete Maus to families in the McMinn County area. Illustrator Mitch Gerads and screenwriter Gary Whitta have made similar offers.

Are you implying that parents can’t just go buy the book in their own county because the school isn’t having it as part of their curriculum? That’s rather condescending…

Fairytales Bookstore and More in Nashville is partnering with school librarians to give away free copies of Maus to local students, and patrons are encouraged to donate to the cause at a discounted price.

Does anyone remember that scene in The Order of the Phoenix, when that magazine with Harry’s interview was suddenly all over the school? It was all over the school simply because Umbridge banned it. But, if you remember the scene correctly, you’ll note that Umbridge said, “All students in possession of the magazine The Quibbler will be expelled.”

We’re getting the same reaction, but to a completely different situation. The book wasn’t banned. Students aren’t expelled just for having it. As far as I can tell, they aren’t even being punished for having it even in school. It was only removed from the required reading.

Nirvana Comics in Knoxville announced last week that it had started a program to loan or donate a copy of the book to any student who requests it and, within a day, had received donations from all over the world.

Wow. This isn’t overkill at all, no…

Imagine, for one moment, that this kind of reaction came in response to Macbeth being replaced with Richard III…  

It later started an online fundraising page to support the purchase of copies for students locally and nationwide, and has nearly quadrupled its financial goal with more than $79,000 raised as of Monday morning. Organizers said all extra funds will go to local and state organizations to help support untold stories.

Wow, there are a lot of people who don’t read past headlines!

“Help support untold stories.” The Holocaust is nothing like an untold story! There are other options to tell this story. The mere fact that this specific Holocaust book isn’t required reading for eighth graders doesn’t mean that it’s banned!

As most of this article keeps proving!

Do you remember this story about removing another book from an elementary school curriculum? I bet you don’t, and in all probability have never even heard of it. This was the appropriate response. This was appropriate reporting. The nonsense over Maus is entirely overblown.

"We thought this would be a local support to help a magnificent piece of literature stay in the hands of students in the McMinn county," they wrote on Saturday.

Because it’s no longer required reading, it’s no longer in the community?!

"But ... this has become a global priority!"

I couldn’t possibly ask for a better sentence to prove that people’s reaction is total overkill. Making it no longer required reading for kids in one grade in one tiny county in one state is now spreading this to kids all around the country.

Rich Davis, who owns Nirvana Comics and has led the campaign, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that because the county is only home to about 50,000 people, the outpouring of support could potentially make it possible "to donate a copy of 'Maus' to every kid in McMinn County."

As I said, overkill. And why are they donating these books?

I’m sorry, but just think about where all this money could have gone.

Educators and community institutions are also taking action

Others are making an effort to help the community grapple with the lessons of Maus and what its removal from the curriculum represents.

What… what it represents? It represents absolutely nothing! Are they no longer letting you teach the Holocaust? Is the entire subject of the Holocaust now banned? Is it utterly impossible to teach the Holocaust without this one book? Can it not be replaced with something like Night? Is there absolutely nothing else that kids could read?

Scott Denham, a Holocaust and German studies professor at North Carolina's Davidson College, is offering a free online course for McMinn County eighth-graders and high school students who are interested in reading the Maus books.

This goes to show one of two things: a) having a degree doesn’t make you smarter, or b) college professors are not above using controversy to increase their prestige or self-image.

"I have taught Spiegelman's books many times in my courses on the Holocaust over many years," he wrote on a website created for the course.

Denham referred to the course as "a work in progress" that will only be open to McMinn County students who apply. It will involve asynchronous tools like a discussion blog and video mini-lectures, as well as live spaces like Zoom meetings.

Because the one thing eighth graders need after this is more online school. I sure hope they’re keeping up in their actual assignments. And why is it only open to students from this one county? What about the hundreds of counties who don’t have this book as required reading? After all, if this book is sooooooo important for teaching the Holocaust, surely you should be worried about the counties that never had it, not just the county that no longer has it? Right?

Okay, to be fair to the professor—maybe it’s because this is just a work in progress. But why do you only care now? Why didn’t you care before this?

Denham expects the primary texts to be Maus I and Maus II but says it might also include Metamaus if there is availability at the county's E.G. Fisher Public Library, which "has begun receiving donated copies of the books thanks to many generous people."

Author Nancy Levine posted a note on Twitter that she said was from the public library, saying it had received many offers to purchase Maus and expects to see "several copies arriving in the coming days."

In lieu of additional copies, the library is asking for monetary donations in support of its "collection, educational programming and access to the internet and technology."

Alone in the foolishness of this overall story, this paragraph made me so happy. It seems as though the library has its head on straight. This book isn’t banned, and the money going to purchase and donate this specific book can be better used for other educational purposes. I’m sure the library can come up with a lot of good uses for that money that will serve the community.

If only other places had thought the same. If only other places who received money because of Maus had decided to funnel that money more effectively.

There are other community events in the works.

Spiegelman told CNBC that his lecture agent is trying to coordinate a public Zoom event for the McMinn County area, in which he will "talk and take questions about Maus with local citizens (hopefully teachers, students, clergy, etc.) in the next couple weeks."

Which just makes his earlier comparison to Putin even more ridiculous. Do you think Putin would allow for a Zoom event about a book that he banned? I can’t tell if Spiegelman is really this uncritical or if he’s just using this for publicity and book sales. (Which, I mean…)

In the meantime, St. Paul's Episcopal Church in McMinn County is planning to hold a discussion event of its own on Thursday.

If they included the word “banned” with no critical commentary, then their discussion was as useless as these headlines.

Organizers told NBC affiliate WIBR that many churches may see the events the book depicts as "not their concern,"

It is absolutely not their concern.

despite the prevalence of antisemitism in and beyond Tennessee.

What?! Citation needed! Also, again—is it impossible to teach tolerance without nudity, casual sex, and swearing? Is it absolutely essential to read this exact book in order to teach tolerance of Jews?

"We are committed to standing against hatred and harm," they said.

And apparently, we can only do that if kids read this specific book, and not Night or something else.

"Together, let's dive into this story so that we might better live out that call in our time and community."

“Let’s dive into this story”! I agree. Dive into the story. Look past the poisonous headlines. Analyze the facts. Be calm and rational. And understand that it wasn’t a ban.

Like I said at the beginning, I was going to leave this one alone, but when no one famous defended the school board or suggested that the hysteria was completely uncalled-for, I had to speak my mind, if only to get it off my chest.

Look, I get that kids know about the stuff that the board objected to. I get that it has to be frustrating for the teachers to be forced to change their curriculum, especially a long-lasting curriculum. As long as parents were properly informed about the contents of the book, then I personally don’t think this is highly inappropriate for eighth graders (especially in compared with other stuff out there).

But the way the newspapers have been treating the school board—the constant use of the word “banned”—the overkill from people who should know better—all of this is just upsetting.

A Fisk on Questionable Cooking Advice

 Approximately three years ago, the Houston Press published an article titled, "Please Stop Telling Poor People to 'Just Cook' to Save Money".  The author spends a lot of time commenting on struggles those of lower income face, and that cooking at home isn't going to save them from poverty. As someone who is not poor, has never been poor, and has no plans to ever become poor, I have no comment on how those of lower income make ends meet. 

However, the author, a Mr. Rouner, also makes comments on the lifestyles of those who are comfortably middle-class, mostly as an attempt to call out the reader for taking certain things for granted. And... well, his comments on middle-class life left me scratching my head. 

As I am now just beginning to explore my culinary limits (cooking in China was much harder than ordering delivery, and not really any cheaper), I approach cooking with the youthful naivete of an idealistic new soldier just coming to the first battlefield in defense of his country's honor. My outlook hasn't yet been sullied by cynicism (at least, not where food is concerned). And by golly, there are a few things in this article that trigger my idealism! Also, they come across as rather questionable advice even for comfortably middle-class people. 

So, here we go. Anything that I left out, you can assume I had no comment on it, or it was just journalistic flair. 

Original is in italics. My comments are in plain text. 

There’s a meme making the rounds again comparing the amount of food you can get from KFC for $20 and the amount of food you can get from the grocery store for the same price. The implication is that stupid, poor and lazy people are throwing their hard-earned tuppence away on fast food when they could be cooking at home, being healthier and richer in the process.

This line. This line, right here, is the part that shows exactly why I cringe. I've gone to that link, and it says absolutely nothing about poor people. The only way you can get that implication-- the only honest way, at least-- is if you believe that poor people are the only people who need to save money. 

See, the article opens up with this list of comments that all go back to, "It's too expensive to eat healthy." Healthy. Not home-cooked, but healthy. Eating healthy is absolutely a universal importance, regardless of your socioeconomic status. 

But if you are comfortably middle-class, does that really mean that you should give up on saving money? Does that really mean there's no need or reason for you to be careful with your costs? Why does Mr. Rouner seem to think that it's acceptable to be wasteful just because you can afford to? 

If you are middle-class, you should still be trying to save money. It's good preparation, it's wise stewardship, and it demonstrates restraint and temperance. 

Give me an absolute break.

The basic premise of the meme is correct, and by basic I mean whoever made it had half a thought and didn’t bother with the rest. It IS cheaper to cook at home than get most take-out… in the long-term. A recipe is far more than the ingredient list, and things like utensils alone can make what seemed like a simple, cheap dish into something more costly than going by the drive-thru would have been.

I've certainly spent plenty of money on getting utensils recently, as I am beginning to outfit my longterm collection, rather than the transient utensils I had in China. This gives me the advantage of looking at this issue with fresh eyes. 

Cooking is not just a trip to a grocery store. You need a basic set of cookware for starters. I’ve been on a $70 Tools of the Trade set for more than a decade, and trust me, it really wants to retire. 

To this point, I have two comments. 

First, Mr. Rouner's Tools of the Trade set has cost less than $7 per year. 

To the best of my research, Tools of the Trade is (currently, not more than 13 years ago when he bought them) a cookware set sold by Macy's. Possibly he bought his set back when it was still Bon Marche, I do not recall when the name change occurred. I went looking over at Macy's page and couldn't find anything for that price (shocking, I know). What I did find was a 13-piece set that was normally $120, but because of Black Friday was only $30! 

Now, I did some digging around and found reviews of this non-stick set which claim it will last no more than 5 years in the best conditions (even though they are better than Teflon). I'll let you know how that goes 5 years down the road, but if they're anything like my mother's set-- which are currently more than 10 years old-- they'll be fine as long as I'm careful with them. My point of all this is that Black Friday is not pure poison, sales do appear, and you can see chances to get something valuable for less. 

You’re going to need some knives for chopping, butterflying, mincing, etc. The low-end of those starts at $20, but they are absolutely essential. Of course, you’ll require a cutting board as well.

The knife set my mother bought me included a cutting board. So unless you, for some reason, need a super nice cutting board, you can find a knife set that includes the cutting board and use that. 

These things add up quickly. The dish in the headline picture is my take on the basic the McCormick Rosemary Chicken and Red Potatoes recipe. 

Second reason I had to fisk this: I have also made this dish, so I feel like I have some insight. 

It’s cheap enough and easy as pie, but do you have a 5 quart mixing bowl? 

Nope! Still made this. (I do have one now, but I didn't when I made the recipe.)

You need one if you don’t want to be chasing escaped potatoes all over the kitchen. 

What? You do need a mixing bowl of some kind (I just repurposed a saucepan - it's not as good as a mixing bowl, but it worked), but what's that line about "escaped potatoes"? Are you cutting potatoes inside the bowl, instead of on a cutting board? The bowl is there to mix the oil and rosemary and then coat the chicken and potatoes in, so a better way to say this is, "You need one if you want the oil and spices to be on your food and not on your counter". 

Another question, do you have a 15x10x1-inch baking pan, heavy duty foil, and cooking spray? All this just added another $20 onto the price of a meal if you don’t have them. 

According to the recipe, the foil is optional. It's for easier cleanup. 

Mr. Rouner included the cost of something optional as an inhibition to making food. Rather than be creative and solve problems, Mr. Rouner will only march within the suggested boundaries or give up. 

Actually, I take that back. I have no idea if Mr. Rouner is being unimaginative or not. But he is doing something worse-- encouraging others to be unimaginative. 

Again, my fisk isn't aimed at people struggling to make ends meet. No, it's aimed at the same people Mr. Rouner's was: the comfortably middle-class. Any comfortably middle-class young adult will read Mr. Rouner's article, and instead of finding words of encouragement, creativity, flexibility, and optimism, will find pessimism. Rather than being encouraged to improvise, make do, and push past their own perceived boundaries, Mr. Rouner's readers will be pushed slightly towards giving up.

I'm not enough of an idiot to think that being middle-class and having stability in your life makes you immune from defeatism. And defeatism should be destroyed at all fronts. 

The McCormick’s recipe is at least kind enough to recommend garlic powder rather than fresh garlic. Most recipes not put out by spice companies don’t. 

McCormick's recipes are all online, and they have hundreds! If you're limited to only using McCormick's recipes, then you're not really limited, because they have an insane variety. 

Better learn the fresh-to-powder ratio or buy a press. That’s another $8. 

Or just... Google? 

Also, what is this “buy a press” thing? How does this solve the problem at all? As far as I can tell, the problem is that you have powdered spice but the recipe you’re working with calls for fresh spice. The press will turn fresh garlic into fresh garlic chunks. But supposedly, you didn’t have fresh garlic, which is why the McCormick’s recipe was kinder. What you’d need in this situation is to convert spice into fresh. A press won’t help you do that. 

It’s like he switched which ingredient he thought you were more likely to have in the middle of that complaint. 

Also, I just realized he’s not talking about a spice press, which apparently is a thing. He’s talking about a garlic press specifically. A garlic press is not going to give you garlic powder—it’s going to give you smaller fresh garlic. Ergo, you still need to Google the fresh-to-powder ratio, because fresh garlic tastes less strong than garlic powder. So the actual option provided by this segment is not, “Buy a garlic press or Google the ratios”, but rather, “Buy a garlic press or use a knife”. 

How much of a rush was Mr. Rouner in when he wrote this?

Over time, this even outs, but setting up a working kitchen can easily cost as much as a used car depending on where you start from.

"Easily" cost that much? I found the Houston Press's mailing address and put their zip code into Carfax. As per the results of that search, the cheapest used car within 50 miles of their office is $1,500. Now, I'm aware that really good cookware can be expensive, but how can just the setup of a new kitchen "easily" cost $1,500?

Let's say I bought my Tools of the Trade set on full price for $120. Then, let's add my Black and Decker toaster, which was $25 ($145). Then my Black and Decker coffee maker, which looks like the $22 model ($167). I can't find my knife set online, but for the sake of argument, let's splurge and buy a $60 Cuisinart knife set from Target. Then we'll need some casserole dishes, so let's add on that classic white-ridged Corningware set for $39 (brings us to a total of $266). 

Then let's add a set of stainless steel mixing bowls, including a 5-quart, for $30 ($296) (and there were cheaper versions available). Oh, and wait a minute, that McCormick chicken recipe called for a baking pan, not a casserole dish, so let's add a set of bakeware for $20 ($316). Then we need something to stir and serve with, so let's add this cookware set for $29 (now we're up to $345). Plus some trivets to put hot things on, so let's splurge again and get two of these pretty lattice trivets for $24 each ($48, which reaches $393). 

We'll need a muffin pan at some point in the future too, so let's get a $35 Baker's Friend steel nonstick muffin pan ($428). Oh, and we need something to eat dinner on, so let's add a Stoneware dinner set for $70 (who are you having over for dinner, the president?). And finally, we need to take things out of the oven, so let's add a set of cotton and silicone oven mitts, for $29 each ($58 together; now we're up to $556). And of course, most kitchens have those cute little flour and sugar cannister sets, so let's get the most common one I've ever seen, which costs $55 ($611). And-- I know Mr. Rouner isn't in Seattle, but in Seattle, it's the law that we must have a kitchen compost bucket. A stainless steel one costs $30. Oh, and then let's add that $8 garlic press. Oh, and look, I forgot the cutting board. This set costs $15.

Adding all of that up, we have a cost of $664. We're roughly a third of the way to that used car price tag, and that was with some serious splurging. I know I haven't accounted for food yet, but exactly what food are you buying that will cost you almost $850, and yet it's still little enough that you can eat it before it goes bad?

Now, granted, Carfax only shows cars from dealers, so maybe Mr. Rouner is thinking of buying a used car from someone selling it down the street, or driving around with one of those "Car for sale" signs in the back window. Those might be cheaper, so that might be what Mr. Rouner is thinking of. Which begs the question... why does he think you can buy a used car from a neighbor or family member but not inherit second-hand cookware???

As the primary cook and grocery person in the family, I’m very used to poverty substitution games, which I am slavish to even when money isn’t tight because it’s become second nature. 

"Slavish" and "second nature" aren't synonyms. They have significantly different connotations.

You swap vegetable oil for olive oil, water for stock or broth, table salt for sea salt, etc. All of it in an effort to shave just a few more dollars off the grocery total, and all of it produces a slightly lesser version of what you’re hoping for. 

Does anyone actually notice the difference between sea salt and normal Morton's salt? And stock isn't exactly expensive. As for olive oil, unless you're dipping your Italian bread in a mixture of oil and Italian vinaigrette, who cares? 

That’s if it even comes out good and you’re not forced to order an emergency pizza to cover a cooking goof.

Now, these days for me, cooking is absolutely cheaper for virtually anything. I’ve got nearly two decades of pan, utensil and spice acquisition to prep for. 

Which just makes Mr. Rouner's earlier comment about "used cars" even more ridiculous. When you buy a used car, you must have the entire cost right away or take out a loan. You can't buy a car piecemeal. But that is completely not true about a kitchen. Even if your kitchen setup eventually cost as much as a used car, you don't need that when you're starting out! You could get by with some saucepans, some oven dishes, some old frying pans, and some used eating utensils for a while until you've saved enough to buy some really nice sets. 

The used car comparison is silly. As is all the stuff I listed while comparing it, so... who's the real fool? The fool, or the fool who wastes time and links debunking a foolish comparison? 

If I want to make turkey chili some night, I can probably do so for less than $2 a serving because odds are my spice rack is full and I have everything else I need ready to go. Again, the chicken pictured at the top? All I had to buy was the meat and potatoes. Everything else was handy because I’ve bought it piecemeal over the course of years. If you’re observant about sales and coupons, good at meal prep and have a fair-sized freezer, you might not even need to go buy those. Alton Brown has given me a lot of good advice, but the best is still “freeze the ingredients you don’t use.”

This bit here reminds me of a story I heard from an older professional lady. Apparently, the company she worked at sent around some email with tips about how to be more environmentally friendly, one of those tips being to reuse plastic bags. One of the younger workers came into that lady's office and said their mind was blown by the idea of reusing plastic bags. The older lady said nothing at the time, but she told me later that she couldn't believe someone had to be told that. 

But that brings us into a final discussion: time. You know why people go through KFC? Because, in terms of total resources it is the most efficient family meal you can provide in a 20-minute timespan. 

Granted. At time of writing, I'm planning to head to McDonald's for dinner, because this writing has cut into my meal prep time. 

Having said that, allow me to remind the reader that McCormick's website is a wonderful thing with a "Quick and Easy" section for recipes. I clicked on a few of these randomly, and none of the ones that I clicked on required more than 15 minutes prep time. 

I have three fried chicken recipes. Most of them require at least an hour or more including store and prep time. Time is, well, not money, exactly, but it is something that is precious and in short supply when you’re coming home at 6 p.m. on a Tuesday.

I realize Mr. Rouner is in Texas. The culture is different there. But outside of the South, do people actually make fried chicken at home? Doesn’t that need, like, its own special set of equipment that you don't use for anything else? I don't know, and I don't ever plan to find out. 

I buy that, and I make other entrees at home. 

Let me make something very clear. I love to cook, and it is a handy way to save money. That said, one of the ways we make that happen is that I work from home within hiking distance of the grocery store. I can pull myself away from an assignment and go get whatever we need for a spinach quiche whenever I want. 

So... old bread slices, eggs, and spinach? Isn't the whole point of quiche that you don't have to go anywhere to prepare it? 

If my wife, who works 12-hour shifts at the hospital and often doesn’t get home until 8 p.m., were doing this without me, I imagine there would be a lot more KFC in my daughter’s diet.

Also, crock pot, meat and condensed soup. They're amazing. 

Everyone should learn to cook. It’s an essential skill, but the answer is way more complicated than “just cook, you lazy poor!” 

“The answer” to a question that the meme Mr. Rouner is angry about wasn’t asking.

Like I said. I'm not saying anything to anyone in money difficulties. I'm talking to the same people Mr. Rouner is talking to. 

People with financial difficulties are not the only ones who need to save money. Those who live comfortably would also benefit from that meme. And they would benefit from being told to be creative and resourceful. You told them neither, and nothing you said gave any suggestions for how to be that. 

I’ve yet to buy a single recipe book that didn’t take at least one $20 purchase for granted as they casually told me to run something through a food processor. Cooking costs, and that’s one of the reasons some tired parent working two jobs stops by McDonald’s on the way home for the cheapest, most nutritious food in human history.

That last line might be satire, but I'm not clicking on the link. 

A food processor... okay, a giant food processor at Target costs $60. So if we add that to our existing cost, that brings us $724. Still nowhere near our used car. Oh, and I see your Alton Brown who freezes ingredients and I raise you Queen Ann Reardon, who uses plastic bags and a rolling pin instead of a food processor at 7:16. (We stan for Ann!) Granted, she's making a cake and not a smoothie or... I don't know, what else does one make in a food processor? Anything that can't be accomplished by a fork and mashing? 

Nonetheless, if there really is a recipe out there that you can't find a way to make without a food processor, then choose a different recipe. McCormick's has hundreds of simple recipes. Or, if you want to use less corporate-made recipes (not like McCormick's is more corporate than McDonalds or any other fast food), then... just Google.

Seriously! The world is full of so much beautiful creativity. People can recreate recipes from their memory and post those on different websites, and they can give you a whole host of recipes (granted, as a PNW native, I'd never ask a Southern lady for advice about how to cook salmon, but some of her other recipes look delicious!). They might not all be as equally easy as McCormick, but you'll find something you can work with and something that can make you happy to eat. There are options, and there are creative opportunities out there, so ignore the people who try to prescribe a narrow path for you. 

The Writer Who Causes Earthquakes When He Shakes His Pen, aka Larry Correia, described this lamentation as "defeatist dreck". I would have used the phrase "unresourceful slop", or maybe "unimaginative garbage", but the point stands. People may not be able to, or may not want to skimp, use creative solutions, or wait for Black Friday for everything, but the way this article was written, with no suggested alternatives like sales or basic internet searches ground my gears.