June 30, 2018

“The Expanse” Season 3 and a Michael Chabon Addendum

Posted in Interfaith, Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:46 pm by chavalah

Broader Jewish Inclusion, Not Exodus

Chabon singin’ / wikipedia

Last month I was pretty glib in denouncing Michael Chabon’s graduation speech at the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. But in seriously reading the thing, it’s not fair for me to get away with a mic drop. His words aren’t quite so self righteous as I made them out to be, as he grapples with legitimate violence and cruelty that comes out of some “separatist” ideologies of Judaism.

I do still think that he’s being alarmist. The vast majority of Jews, particularly in America, add more to their identities than the religion alone. Just check out any wikipedia page of a celebrity with Jewish heritage.

Intermarriage numbers are around 50%, and as the child of intermarried Jews and the family member to even more of them, you bet I’m peeved when my co-religionists calling it a plague. But this also furthers my resentment of the fetishization of intermarriage, too. Chabon lauds people like me as “mongrels and hybrids and creoles,” but he’s never had to stand in front of a group of Modern Orthodox Jews who look at him like he’s an alien until he explains, “no, it’s my mother who’s Jewish.” Like the award-winning novelist, I’d like to eradicate this dangerous form of wall-building (and especially to stop dismissing Jews of patrilineal descent!) But I wish he’d acknowledge the reality for intermarried Jews and their descendants before turning us into some banner for his cause.

Edmund Case, the founder of InterfaithFamily.com (disclaimer: I’ve written articles for them…also, Case is coming out with a book in 2019?! *adds to tbr*) posits the message of inclusion rather than exodus thusly:

We need to broaden our thinking about heirs to Jewish tradition and include not only those who are born Jewish or Jews by choice, but those who are in relationships with Jews. We need to adapt our concept of Jewish “people” to a broader Jewish “community” that includes everyone who is Jewishly engaged – Jews, their partners from different faith backgrounds and their children – to welcome and include all of those people as heirs to our valuable heritage.

To that end, I’d also add the Jews of Color out there. Chabon told the graduates directly: “Find room in the Jewish community for all those who want to share in our traditions.” Why dismiss Jewish pride as the purview of terrorists like Baruch Goldstein, instead of expanding it to include Jews in All Hues, Kulanu and etc? People like Shoshana Nambi, who’s studying to be the first female rabbi from Uganda? (Kol HaKavod!!) Not to mention all of the “traditional” Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who celebrate Jewish heritage but also respect and engage with others.

Finally, Chabon says, “It seemed to me then, sitting at my brother and sister-in-law’s table, that Judaism had survived for so long not because of its famous tradition but rather because of its mutability, its flexibility, its adherents’ capacity not just to behave but to feel as though they have always been what they never were before.” I’d like to find a middle ground. Change doesn’t come out of nothing; one has to engage with tradition to find it. And change for change’s sake is as reductive as blindly following rituals. The real “wall” is to be unquestioning about it all. Sometimes “divisions” are necessary. The Shabbes distinction between the “sacred” and the “profane” dictates a day of rest and reflection so that we don’t run ourselves into the ground with unquestioned work. And every time we confront human rights issues means drawing lines in the sand. Chabon has come out strongly against the Occupation in the West Bank. Hopefully, heeding his own words about flexibility, he’s empathetic to both sides while being unflappable about abuses.

I think I’ll end it there, having done, I believe, this subject a little more justice than I did in May. Now, speaking as a Jew with a decidedly un-Jewish interest… 😛


“The Expanse”…Expands in Season 3// SPOILERS!

Final season on SyFy!

Header fail. 😛 But I still think the synopsis holds up. Tl;dr–I’m still catching up on seasons one and two of “The Expanse.” I watched the first few episodes when they aired and wasn’t impressed by a few things. I (wrongfully) thought that Chrisjen Avasarala (Shohreh Aghdashloo) was a one-dimensional bad guy. But I think I had more of a point when it came to the Miller/Julie storyline. Gavia Baker-Whitelaw explains it well on the Daily Dot:

Miller’s initial storyline was genre-savvy, but not in the Buffy sense. Tracking the missing heiress Julie Mao (Florence Faivre) across a bustling space station, he was a noir cliché: a grizzled, morally ambiguous white guy in a trilby hat, increasingly obsessed with a young woman he’d never met. Beautiful missing-or-dead girls have motivated many a male antihero over the years, offering a kind of romantic mystery without requiring a real relationship. Julie Mao was the face of the show, her body floating through space on the season 1 posters and home release, but she wasn’t really a character.

All of that had changed when I randomly came across a mid-season 2 episode a year later. Bobby Draper (Frankie Adams) felt like the new Julie, but she was actually at the forefront of her story. It was all about how she was a gung-ho, nationalistic marine, but when she’s used as a pawn she starts to question the superiors who had defined her reality. This also led her to become part of the broader plot, a “Game of Thrones”-esque conceit, where the warring human politics aren’t actually as important as the supernatural lurking in the background. Well, on “The Expanse” maybe it’s even worse because humans are messing with it and causing all sorts of destruction.

That leads us into the first part of season 3, where our main (I’d argue) protagonists, a “Firefly”-like crew of misfits on board their ship, the Rocinante, are trying to save a friend’s daughter. Some nefarious scientists are trying to inject her with “the supernatural” element, the protomolecule, in order to make a weapon. They also get entwined into the Earth/Mars/Belt warfare plot, cos people can’t seem to leave them alone. 😛

Some of the audience don’t seem to like the political storyline, which is generally about the fissures between Earth, Mars, and the underrepresented people who live on space stations in the asteroid belt, mining resources for “the inners.” Much of the first half of this season’s storyline revolved around Avasarala trying to stop a war that her colleague, Sadavir Errinwright (Shawn Doyle) is keen to start for the good of Earth. He’s thwarted in part by a new character, Rev. Dr. Anna Volovodov (Elizabeth Mitchell), who offers a refreshingly human take on a religious character for a scifi show. She’s earnest, perhaps a little naive, also moral and driven. Errinwright and Avasarala are traditional politicians–often conniving but also driven by genuine ideology, not greed. Anywho, part one of the season ends with Errinwright’s arrest and the Roci friend is reunited with his daughter.

The second half is a bit of a game changer, with the war called off and everyone working together because the protomolecule is creating “a ring” in space on its own. I appreciate how the show isn’t afraid to take risks and alter course, but I do think that it messes a bit with the pacing. Something like six months passed between two episodes, and we’re supposed to feel the tension concerning the long absence of one of the Roci crew. But only a few weeks later, real time, she realized her mistake in leaving and charted a course back.

Still, this show hits me in the gut with character feels. I’m not usually much of a shipper, but Holden (Steven Strait)/Naomi (Dominique Tipper) pushes all my buttons. It’s like watching John/Aeryn on “Farscape” again (except that I was a bad fan and sometimes I shipped John with Chiana. :P) They’re just two lost souls from different cultures trying to find some love and a fresh start…*wistful sigh* Well, another reason why “Nolden” reminds me of J/A is that I’ve heard evidence of grown men shipping them too, hee. Yeah, I could watch the season three finale on repeat solely for the lovey dovey stuff.

OK, I’m being a little glib. Holden and Naomi have more going on in their personal arcs than their sexy, sexy romance (seriously *wipes brow*) but this show also does relationships well. The second part of the season focuses on the part distrustful, part respectful push and pull between two Belter leaders, Drummer (Cara Gee) and Ashford (special guest star David Strathairn!) I was a little iffy on Ashford’s antagonistic turn in the finale, but then again the stakes were high and people make stupid decisions when they’re afraid. I’m also a fan of Drummer’s surly “I don’t get what you see in him” attitude with Naomi re: Holden. 😛 She’s sort of the biggest badass in the room (in the finale she refused to let her broken spine get the best of her and walked around on mechanical legs), which is usually a turn off for me, but in her case, I’ll allow it.

Same, too, for Bobby, who at least uses her brain as much as her brawn, and it looks like she’s defected from the Martians (again?) at the end of the season? Not sure. Also a little unsure about the new relationship between Anna and Roci crew member Amos (Wes Chatham.) He’s the brutal, unscrupulous sort of watch dog character that, again, usually turns me off, though I’m contractually bound to be in Chatham’s corner for life since he’s a “Hunger Games” actor. 😛 And he brings a certain…soft determination? to his character’s convictions, which maybe makes him a good fit for Anna after all. On the surface it seems like he should find her self-righteously idealistic and naive, but instead he’s taken a shine to her. I was also a little underwhelmed by “the revenge plot” of Julie’s sister, Clarissa Mao (Nadine Nicole) but it looks like she’s along for the ride in season four, too.

I love the diversity of the cast, and all of the science, though I don’t really understand it. 😛 And since I’m still ignorant of some stuff that happened in previous seasons (I’ll be caught up next year!) I’m sure I’m missing some deeper nuance. But one of the things that intrigued me most in the second half was the reappearance of Miller (Thomas Jane)–who died in season two! 😮 He appears as an apparition to Holden, but it’s not really him; it’s more like the protomolecule is trying to find the best way to communicate with our main character. This reminded me a bit of a scene near the end of one of my favorite movies, “Contact,” where the aliens speak to Jodie Foster’s character by impersonating her dad. It’s certainly a bit weird and intrusive, but something big is going on underneath the surface. Can’t wait for the next season, Amazon! 😀

Advertisements

May 31, 2018

Thoughts on some Jewish American Writers, Anne Frank, and a OUAT Coda

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:45 pm by chavalah

Philip Roth, probably peeved at something from the American Jewish community

The other week my mother commented to me how surprised she was by the outpouring of think pieces dedicated to Philip Roth’s passing–not knowing that I intended to add my own. 😛

Philip Roth died at 85 years old on May 22, 2018, Z”L. I may be leaning into something too caustic here, but what irony that it’s the same year that the Nobel Prize for Literature won’t be awarded. Well played.

Roth has been on my periphery as I’m someone who’s invested in the Jewish literary world. I’ve read two of his novels–The Ghost Writer, which annoyed me, and Portnoy’s Complaint, which I loathed. Still, I’ve been gearing myself up to give his collection another try. I’m considering a reading project for the future where I choose from winners of the National Jewish Book Award, so for Roth that would be Goodbye Columbus, The Human Stain and another of the Zuckerman alter-ego books.

The Men Who Love Philip Roth* have told me that I should focus on his later material rather than his earlier stuff. It’s a little more political, slightly more removed from himself (though I’m under the impression that Roth rarely removed himself from the center of his work), and generally less offensive to my lady feels. TMWLPR explain that for them, Portnoy’s Complaint was a sexual and philosophical awakening into what it means to be a man.

I’m not knocking on that, even though I still believe Portnoy’s Complaint to be garbage. I’ll leave the constant and unexplored sexual abuse out of it, and ask how many writers could get away with a main character who never changes and is surrounded by a bunch of cardboard cutout stereotypes? Only one whom the literary establishment has decided is nevertheless a genius, I suppose.

Dara Horn might have the right of it (surprise surprise, the think piece I agree the most with was penned by a woman):

Philip Roth’s works are only curious about Philip Roth. Of course, most writers lead with characters like themselves, and for Roth’s contemporary Jewish readers, his warts-and-all portrayal of people like himself was an honor, inviting them into American literature. But that was the outer limit of Roth’s imagination. His strength lay in those brilliantly rendered characters and voices like his. His weakness was that those voices denigrated just about everyone else.

But I’m allowing myself to move away from empathy for The Men Who Love Philip Roth. Because, like them, I’ve identified writers who prodded my own thoughts about sexuality and what it means to be a woman/person. The first writer I had this experience with is Anne Frank. (And if anyone is writing chiefly about herself, well, obviously she’s a diarist.)

I’ve actually documented the experience of reading Frank’s sexual exploration when I was 14 years old myself. And I’ve monitored, with trepidation, the recent reveal of some hidden, racier pages in Frank’s diary. I’m just very defensive about Anne, okay? Especially in the face of our lewd, “gotcha!” culture, which likes to snicker over corrupted innocence.

Then again, maybe it’s a good thing, as this article brings up in a statement from the Anne Frank House:

“Over the decades Anne has grown to become the worldwide symbol of the Holocaust, and Anne the girl has increasingly faded into the background. These—literally—uncovered texts bring the inquisitive and in many respects precocious teenager back into the foreground.”

One thing that Frank definitely wanted for herself was to become a professional writer. It’s impossible to parse if that would have happened had she lived, or how her outlook might have changed after her experiences in the camps. Survival, after all, is only one variable of what would have been Anne Frank’s life. Still, I would have loved to see her as a towering literary figure in adulthood. Imagine what it would have been like to speak of her in the same circles as Philip Roth. Roth himself imagined Frank as an adult in The Ghost Writer, but only from the outside–she existed as a projection for the male characters. Her only real act of agency was to decide to erase herself. I certainly hope that the reality wouldn’t be so bleak. But sadly, we’re only stuck with our reality, where Frank didn’t live to be 16.

Still, to think more optimistically, as Frank herself tried to do in her diary, she did become a famous writer. I’ve been thinking for awhile about what books I might like to reread (though generally I’m overwhelmed by how many exist that I haven’t read for the first time!) The Diary of Anne Frank is definitely near the top of my list.

Though I’m not sure if I’d identify so closely with Frank’s sexual musings, now that I’m no longer 14. As an adult, I find myself drawn to Meg Wolitzer’s novels for that purpose. Her female characters have experiences, sexual and otherwise, that run the gamut of what I’ve had, want to have or will never have. But they’re still very relateable.

Anne, I saw as more of a peer, despite the fact that she was born 54 years before me. Wolitzer is a few years younger than my mother, and in my head I’ve slanted her a bit into “the mentor” role. (Especially appropriate now that she’s probed the boomer-to-millennial mentor experience in her latest, The Female Persuasion!)

I’m three books away from having read her entire backlist. So I guess, MWLPH, that she is my Philip Roth. I hope that as time goes on, my fellow bibliophiles cement talk of her contributions to the literary world.

*Yes, there’s been more than one whose approached me, though their outlook is pretty uniform

***

In other Jewish American writer news, Michael Chabon is making headlines again after his controversial graduation speech at the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. I’m not going to touch on his Israeli criticism here; it’s been widely covered elsewhere. I’m not even going to touch on his antagonistic attitude towards religion, though it does dovetail into what got my goat. 😛

I mean ostensibly, I started this blog to grapple with what it means to be a Jew from an interfaith family. And here strides in Chabon, declaring that inmarriage is “a ghetto of two.”

I’m the last person to spit on intermarriage. My parents are intermarried, after all, and I’d rather not forfeit my own life.

But I hate this brand of self-righteousness in dictating what other people should or shouldn’t look for in a marriage. There’s plenty of reasons why Jews should marry other Jews–shared interests and lifestyle choices, for one. Less tsuris over the religious identities of your children. Mutual respect for Judaism’s spiritual, cultural and historical contributions to the world. It’s a step into a larger community, not a retreat into a ghetto.

I’d assume that Chabon didn’t use this forum to air dirty laundry about his own Jewish wife, Ayelet Waldman, but this is a strange counterpoint to her own remarks that landed her in controversy.

I’m not here to pass judgment on anyone’s relationship, but if I were to get snippy about something…why is marriage often understood to be the end all, be all of everything? Particularly for those of us who are single, of course, but even for those in wedded matrimony, you can nurture other relationships. I wouldn’t exchange my Jewish and non-Jewish friends for anything. And if there’s anything that I’d like to rail against, it’s how romance is seen as uber-important, and friendships are often undervalued.


Farewell, Storybrooke.

This last bit doesn’t really fit with the others, but I couldn’t let May go by without bidding farewell to the ABC tv show, “Once Upon A Time.” OUAT was special for it’s focus on several female leads with strong storylines. It’s a show that got more convoluted with time, and this season, which became the final season, served as a reboot of sorts. I still stand by what I wrote last year about how I wish the show had ended. Season seven was overstuffed with new characters, thinly drawn storylines, and some shoddy time travel mischief. And while I’m complaining, I rather wish that “the wish realm” had stayed the sort of place where our real characters could confront their inner demons. Actually, that’s what it turned into for with Rumple, Henry and Regina for the last couple of episodes, and the show was better for it.

I still love the show’s central theme about hope conquering darkness. I can put up with a lot of magic-power opaqueness if that tenant is upheld. I also love that with Alice and Robin, the show finally gave us the fleshed out, same sex relationship that it had been promising. Of course, not all promises could be realized by the end, which is why we got a throwaway line about Lily’s revealed parentage. 😛

It was definitely time for OUAT to retire, but I’ll miss my weekly sojourn in front of the television, my chats with friends, and listening to the unofficial Once podcast. It’s been a good seven years. And remember the most powerful thing anyone can have: “Hope. Believing in even the possibility of a happy ending is a very powerful thing.”

April 16, 2018

Pesach in 5778: Wandering the Wilderness

Posted in Judaism at 10:39 pm by chavalah

My Passover care package this year. Now that the holiday is over, I can go to Panera! 😀

After my seder last year I wanted to keep going with a bang, but that’s not the way things turned out. I did go home for the first weekend of the holiday, but was largely busy with unrelated family stuff (if I squint hard enough, I can pretend that our activities paralleled the Exodus story. :P)

We ate some traditional food and my mom and I sort of hashed over the re-telling after everyone was gone for the night. I also forced her to listen to me recite some interesting-to-me passages from progressive Haggadot. Unsurprisingly, this didn’t feel too genuine or spiritual. I kept asking myself what would make my Passover experience better–how I could improve and feel like I’m doing some justice to this holiday. I don’t want to blindly follow rituals (though a little bit of incorporation is certainly welcome.) I’d like the chance to invite people over and discuss the meaning of oppression and wandering through the wilderness and the power of community, perhaps. I want to read passages from Jewish sources and novels and poetry and make everyone bring and discuss their own, like a school project. 😛

In essence, I realized over the first few days of Passover, I wanted something that I already have. Guided yet free-flowing conversation about intriguing narratives and themes–sounds a bit like my Jewish book club! :O So does this mean I’ve already found what I’m looking for? Or should I challenge myself to be more traditional, and step outside my comfort zone by offering myself as a “host” for a young professional seder? The local JCC is always seeking people to set those up.

I want my family. Passover remains, for me, the most difficult holiday in which to be a Jew on one’s own. Sitting quietly in shul just isn’t a big part of it, though the next week I did schlep into DC for the Shabbat service that fell on the eighth day. Before starting the Yizkor service for the deceased, Rabbi Alexander talked about resurrection and the song that Moses and Miriam sang at the Red Sea. He asked us to share with one another memories of our departed ones and music. And suddenly I found myself talking this other young woman who was at shul alone. I told her about this memory of playing “Greensleeves” for my mother’s mother, of blessed memory. She was visiting in Baltimore and she told me that it was her favorite song. I sounded it out on the piano and she twirled around like a ballerina.

Another fun aspect of this particular Shabbat–Cantor Brown led us in Passover melodies like Dayenu and Chad Gadya as we davened (prayed) part of the Amidah. And I realized that this is something else I could bring to my own practice, particularly with my mother–this love of song. I definitely need to get more comfortable with the Passover music. 😛

I’m not sure if I have a “point” to make with all of this, but here’s my best Pesach 5778 wrap up. #1: If you want to make something meaningful, then you have to be a leader and put in the effort. #2: You usually have most of what you’re looking for. You just have to piece it together.

I hope that all of you celebrating spring festivities had a meaningful one.

March 29, 2018

Spring 2018 Lesbian-Themed Pop Culture!

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 7:43 pm by chavalah

I can’t help but follow the trends. 😛 Lady love is hitting the landscape on the screen and on the page. Here’s a few pieces that I’m looking forward to consuming!

White Houses by Amy Bloom was released by Penguin Random House in February, and it chronicles the relationship between First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and prominent female reporter Lorena “Hick” Hickok. Historical fiction ahoy! It’s not Bloom’s first dip into the arena (for either historical or lesbian-themed fiction) but it’s certainly her most audacious. The writing might be fanciful but the characters were once real.

I’m rather intrigued to get a closer look at the life of Eleanor Roosevelt. And yet I’ve read two of Bloom’s other novels, which didn’t blow me away. But they weren’t awful, either, and she’s doing something a little new here. Maybe it’s time to give her another chance. Oy, there’s so much to read!

Speaking of which, these next two options are movie adaptations based on books I’ve already read. Well, I’m sort of fudging things a bit with this one. It’s the dramatization of the friendship and love affair between novelist Virginia Woolf and socialite Vita Sackville-West. Woolf, herself, wrote Orlando as a bit of a love letter to the other woman, but this movie, I believe, will be a more realist account of their relationship.

It’s currently in post-production and appears to be a rather small film…I hope that doesn’t keep it from coming across the pond! It’s due sometime this year, and I’m keeping my eye out.

Finally, this is another small production out of England, but it’ll be hitting US theaters in late April! It’s called Disobedience, based off of the award-winning novel of the same name by Naomi Alderman. It chronicles the relationship between a young wife and a female pariah from the Orthodox Jewish community in London.

I’m a little hesitant about this one because I loved the book (defenses up!) The trailer gives off the impression that the main conflict of the movie will be a current relationship between these two women. Perhaps that’s an odd thing to complain about in this blog entry that is celebrating relationships between women! 😛 But so much more is going on in the novel. And I’m constantly reminded that characters on the page can be more multi-faceted than characters on screen.

Still, I’m very taken with the acting abilities of my fellow Rachels. 😛 I’ll definitely be in the theater shortly after this movie opens, and I’ll be documenting my adaptation thoughts on my reading and writing blog!

I hope I’m coming off as facetious in this piece where I giggle about Lady Love. 😛 I’m serious about giving my kudos to lesbian relationships depicted in pop culture. Hopefully we’ll get a diverse set of stories into this particular type of sexuality. Onwards and upwards from here!

February 5, 2018

Retro TV: Revisiting “Six Feet Under”

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:08 pm by chavalah

“Six Feet Under” logo

I seem to be gearing up for my first season of tv-watching in 2018, or at least I’m trying to! 😛 Still no word from SyFy about season three of The Expanse. I think I’m forgoing Star Trek: Discovery on CBS All Access because I’m gonna splurge for Hulu and The Handmaid’s Tale instead. Expect a book-to-adaptation review on my reading/writing blog, soon!

I won’t be watching the Olympics, I know, it’s a shande, though I will return for season 7b of Once Upon a Time. So that just leaves my HBO regimen. The first show of interest to come on the air, this Sunday, is Here and Now, the newest project of Alan Ball.

When it comes to Alan Ball’s HBO projects, I have some unexplored feels. Not so much about True Blood, which I wrote about a few times on this blog (short version: I enjoyed that show, but it ended as a hot mess. :P) No, I’m thinking about Six Feet Under.

Exciting sidenote–another big event for me on Sunday is that an anthology where I’ll be published is having its launch event. 😀 So this is making me think about my “themes” in fiction, because I’m one of those pretentious writers who gets caught up in a certain idea. For me, it’s my fear of abandonment. There’s no greater abandonment, of course, than death.

Six Feet Under takes place around the Fisher family funeral home. Most episodes start with documenting the death of a guest star, which then lends itself to the storylines of the main cast. Much of the show has to do with the drama between the two brothers who run the joint–laid back man child, Nate Jr, and rigid and closeted (to begin with) gay man, David. We also delve into the lives of their mother, Ruth, their much younger sister, Claire, and their employee, Federico. Everyone’s also a bit haunted by the “ghost” of their patriarch, Nathaniel Sr, who dies in a car crash in the first episode.

I put “ghost” in quotation marks because this isn’t a literal poltergeist. The show is relatively neutral on the afterlife, preferring to focus on the here and now (ta da ching), and the dead appear as projections of the living. It’s a built in trick to deal with inner drama. 😛

Every now and then HBO airs a few episodes of Six Feet Under, and I get sucked in a little bit. I think that the strongest storylines revolve around Nate (Peter Krause) and David (Michael C Hall.) I also had a bit of a soft spot for Claire (Lauren Ambrose) who, though much different than me, was the same age. The show basically chronicled “our” high school and college years.

When the storylines stayed close to the family and business drama, I was hooked. But a couple of subplots went off the rails and became too melodramatic–the whole incidence of Nate’s wife’s disappearance and mysterious death, and David being kidnapped and abused. Those always kept me from getting fully engrossed in the series.

I’m also a little eyebrow archy the deaths depicted–they were almost always freak accidents or intentional killings. Statistics show that most of us in the US will die of heart failure or other afflictions in our advanced years, but most victims on the show were middle aged. I suppose I have to suspend disbelief and say that most of the Fisher clientele were elderly, but they showcased the more unusual cases to complement whatever was going on with the living people.

In a way, the show was a long treatise with how to deal with the advent of death. At the end of the first season, Nate gets a harrowing brain injury diagnosis, which he succumbs to near the end of the last season. It’s one of the only times that we get a “death montage” at the end, not beginning, of an episode. But otherwise, the presentation of Nate’s death is treated like everyone else’s. Before he dies, with David seated at his bedside, we go into this strange, psychological dreamscape with their father to probe how both of the men confront this concept.

A couple of episodes later the show ends with this future-reaching montage that depicts the deaths of all of the main characters. It always makes me tear up. It’s told from Claire’s perspective, as she literally drives through time while partaking in a cross country move. Here, most characters die of more natural causes, and I wonder if we had to see the entire show before we could appreciate the relatively normal lives and deaths of the Fishers et. al. (I also love the music and am freaked out that Claire lives to be 101. At least one of us will.)

Claire’s death depresses me to a degree because we don’t see any living family members around her (I assume Ball figured that would be distracting, seeing as she outlived all of the main cast.) Instead, we see a display of all of the pictures that she took of her family–a reminder that the finality of death cannot take away from the fullness of life. The overall show proved that for most of the characters, imho, even those who didn’t live the longest.

For more ruminations by Ball and the cast on the finale, click here. I’m going into Here and Now relatively unspoiled, though it looks like it’ll be closer in tone to Six Feet than to True Blood. Hoping it lives up.


This show isn’t airing any time soon, but I’ve also been niggling over Transparent. It’s rather obviously about a transgender and gay family, but it’s also about a Jewish family. When it comes to “Jewish,” Hollywood usually depicts one of two strands–very Orthodox or very Seinfeld. 😛 But this series is about a Reform family! Progressive (and still active) Judaism ahoy! I need to see this. I’m talking myself into it. My parents have an Amazon prime account… hmm. *wheels turning*

Hope my fellow TV nerds find something good to watch this year!

January 22, 2018

2017: A Look Back at Jewish Italy

Posted in Italy, Judaism at 11:45 am by chavalah

Depiction of Jewish communities in Italy

Depiction of Jewish communities in Italy

Before the month goes out, I’d like to start my year in blogging in the usual way! 😛 I’ve amassed a variety of news sources, mostly published to Tablet Magazine or JTA but there are some others too, that detail 2017 stories that pertain to Jews in Italy and/or Italy’s relationship with Jews. A couple of these stories are more broadly about Europe, but Italy is always mentioned specifically.

Common trends abound–leaders die, may their memories be for a blessing, the Italian Jewish community rallies in the face of national disasters, antisemitism is rife, yet so is communal solidarity. Some personal essays recount the Holocaust or controversial figures within it, some medieval Jewish ruins are unearthed, some communities in the south get a long overdue boost of Jewish culture. I’m especially excited about Sicily, as my nana was born there. She was Catholic, but I can consider the Sicilian Jews as my step family. 😛

One Italian congregation even joined the Reconstructionist movement, the small, largely American denomination that defined my childhood! :0 Most of Jewish practice in Italy is Orthodox, but perhaps the times are a-changin’.

In terms of sports and antisemitism, soccer aka football seems particularly toxic. But there’s an interesting proliferation of empathetic cycling stories, heh.

I’ve included all of this and more below; please feel free to add more stories in the comments. So, without further ado!

Read the rest of this entry »

October 30, 2017

Pet Bereavement

Posted in Judaism at 11:57 pm by chavalah

Happier times

Halloween approaches and I’m rounding out the first month, roughly, after the death of my cat, Leah. There’s so much good that I’ve been privy to as well, from the outpouring of support from my loved ones to some unrelated positive milestones in my life. But October was still a rough time.

On September 30, sitting in Yom Kippur services, I finally allowed myself to entertain the horrifying notion that my cat might be at the end of her life. She had only fallen sick, or at least noticeably so to me, during the Days of Awe. But I’d taken her to two appointments at the vet’s, had another one set up for an ultrasound, and I saw the look on the technician’s face when I explained to her what the vet had seen in Leah’s x-ray. On Tuesday, October 2, the day that I found her body, my mother was coaxing me on the phone home from work to accept this possibility.

Leah died within days of the anniversary of Chavalah, my childhood cat’s death. She also died days after a horrible mass shooting in Las Vegas, and during a time when several of my local cohort were anxiously awaiting an update from our friend in Puerto Rico (she was finally able to find a wifi connection, thank goodness). Yet my Facebook post announcing Leah’s passing was filled with love and support from all quarters. I truly feel very blessed.

My parents drove to Silver Spring from Baltimore that first night to take Leah’s body in preparation for burying her alongside the childhood cats. My sister stayed on the phone with me as I cried and babbled in confusion. When my three-year-old niece saw me a few days later she stayed by my side, complimented my hair and asked me how I was feeling.

But despite the fact that I’m surrounded by pet lovers online and off, the scope of my grief still feels unwieldy. For the first couple weeks, I scoured for virtual and in-person support groups but didn’t feel fully ready to own my feelings. I’m sure that anyone who has lost a pet feels some sort of guilt. I was spared the decision of putting Leah down, or having her die in a place that she hated, but her death was still so sudden. At 10 years old she was a senior cat, but just barely; Chavalah lived to be seven years older than her. Surely there was some sign that I’d missed, stupid ways in which I’d been distracted in the weeks and months leading up to her death. I’d failed as a cat guardian, maybe I’d even killed her. It’s taking time to learn how to forgive myself.

Naturally, I also feel the pull towards my faith. It felt awkward to be wrapped up in the end of Leah’s life during a holiday that is about human redemption. Leah (who I named after the biblical matriarch, similar to how I named Chavie, as well as this blog, after the 19th century Yiddish character) was not a Jew, but I am. Surely there’s a place within progressive Judaism to deal with the grief of losing non-humans. Yet I feel uncomfortable, and am not as involved with my synagogue as I could be. Shortly after Leah’s death the cantor emailed me as part of the flash choir to take part in Simchat Torah, but I declined. I didn’t have it in me to feel joyful.

I’m at a slightly better place now. I’m reading, preparing for NaNoWriMo, enjoying parts of life again. Now I’m guilty because I no longer expect to see Leah in the condo or need to play YouTube videos to make me fall asleep at night.

This weekend I’m finally going to an in-person bereavement session at the Montgomery County Humane Society. I’m hoping that it’ll be uplifting to be around other people who’ve recently experienced this type of pain. I’m curious about how they cope with grief, with time moving forward and the possibility of adopting new companions. I’ve found grief an impossible journey to go through alone, which is why I’m often talking about it in person and online. The bereavement group feels like a step out of quicksand and onto a solid path again.

I don’t know where this ends; in fact I’m not sure that applied to death and grief. I’m sure that I’ll ultimately contextualize Leah’s memory differently than I did Chavie’s, given the various differences in their circumstances. Leah and Chavie were two different cats, and I was a different guardian to each of them. But I want to thank those closest to me, those who checked in from afar, and those who checked in after several years, for being my support group. Grief is a strong emotion, but so too are love and compassion. I wish you all, humans and pets alike, the best going forward.

September 19, 2017

5777 in News of the Jews

Posted in Judaism at 10:06 pm by chavalah

I’d like to do a repeat, in a way, of this post from last year, but I don’t think I’ll be as thorough. Suffice to say that pretty much all of the contentious issues discussed there are still contentious issues.

Still, I have some stuff on my mind so I’ll divide into subheadings below. It’s largely a focus on the negative, but that’s often a good starting point for reflection and atonement, heh.

The United States

I’d like to touch on the increasingly polarized nature of U.S. politics and how this affects American Jews, perhaps more than any other cultural group. On the left, we have the issue of intersectional identity politics acting as a smokescreen for antisemitism, most prominently realized during the Chicago Dyke March and Chicago Slut Walk. On the right, we have actual neo-Nazis marching in the streets of Charlottesville, and the President acting as an apologist for them.

I’m in no way saying that these two extremes–verbal antisemitism and exclusion vs emulating the people responsible for Jewish genocide–are morally equivalent. But as a Leftist, a Zionist and a Jew, I certainly feel obligated to grapple with the former. You don’t talk with a neo-Nazi, with someone whose endgame is to push you into an oven. But as someone who cares about marginalized groups, here are my bullet points for certain segments of the Left.

  • Don’t let selective “intersectionality” boomerang until it resembles right wing censorship, with that division between which groups merit consideration and which don’t.
  • Whether you’re unknowingly co-opting supremacist slurs or not,
    hate is still hate.
  • Equating Israel with “white colonialism,” erases both the oppression of Jews and their right to self-determination, plus all of the non-Ashkenazi Israelis. (Not to mention that even calling Ashkenazi Jews “white,” given our history and sometimes present in Europe and the United States, isn’t a cut and dry issue, either.)
  • Realize that there’s more complexity in many human conflicts, and religious/cultural/ethnic identities, than white hats vs black hats, innocent angels vs mustache-twirling villains. “Patriarchy” and other means of oppression doesn’t just belong to one group.

I wonder, and assume that in more thoughtful corners of the Left, we realize that these toxins manifest, and must be dealt with, in all communities. You can’t talk with Nazis or other supremacy groups, but you should be able to talk with everyone else from varying backgrounds and perspectives. Empathy should be a big-tent idea.

The Personal

I need to back off of the vitriol that is the world of Facebook comments. At the very least so that I don’t have the same conversation with my mother over and over: “Mom, right wing Jews are calling me a Kapo again!” “Stop reading that crap!” 😛 I’m sure some extreme left-wing Jews are also spewing hate, but somehow I get more access to the other side. Some people who use their affinity for rightist politics and/or the current US administration to completely tar and feather other Jews. I’ve even seen the justification that neo-Nazis in Charlottesville are ok so long as their targeting “leftist Jews.” (Disclaimer: definitely an extremist fringe position!)

This isn’t the first time that Jews have allowed varying religious, political or cultural opinions lead to toxic nastiness, but it feels like virtual anonymity has led to a special type of trolling. Maybe I’m cynical in believing that they don’t actually want to communicate, but I don’t have the time or mental energy to get involved in all of that anyway. Best not to drink poison and look for more productive ways to spend my time.

Speaking of such, it’s time to acknowledge the larger, natural world and the havoc its wreaked on several communities lately in the US and abroad. As I enter the High Holidays, I need to find the means to donate.

The Israel

Speaking in my personal capacity as an American Jew, relations with y’all in the Israeli government have been difficult. 😛 Let’s go back to a bullet list.

Shana tova, everyone, and may we be inscribed in the Book of Life.

July 18, 2017

Judaism and Nostalgia in Summer Blockbuster Movies

Posted in Judaism, Pop Culture at 11:58 pm by chavalah

Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, charging into the fray

I’m not sure I’ll be going to the theater for any more blockbusters this summer. There’s the visually stunning Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets coming out this week, but my mind is already wrapped tightly around another story. 😛 (I also saw the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, too and my response is eh, cute. :P)

My interest in superhero franchises is almost nonexistent and DC properties rank lower in my mind than Marvel ones (this is probably my favorite clip of all time about Superman. And also from one of my favorite movies of all time, but I digress.) But like many other people, I took an interest in the new Wonder Woman movie. It was the first film of its kind in years with a female at the lead, and that female lead was Gal Gadot, a Jewish Israeli actress.

I’m always up for a story that focuses on a strong female character (mileage may vary on what that phrase means, but more on that later.) I was also charmed and disconcerted when my non-Jewish Wonder Woman-loving friends giddily linked to this article, say. For a brief period of time, it was like Israel could be just another place, privy to benign attraction whenever one of it’s people intersected with the broader world (and then this happened to bring me back to reality, which I suppose is even more incentive for me to live in Wonder Woman-land for a little while longer.)

The movie premise, as expected, didn’t really do much for me. DC superhero aficionados were thrilled that the cynical, bleak cast of recent Batman and Superman films had faded away to something more “old school” about a mega human choosing to fight the good fight. I’m not much of a fan of lauding fighting as an unquestionable good because I also don’t believe in a world of mustache-twirling villains (though–spoiler alert!–turns out that humans aren’t slaves to the villainous God of War after all, and are often willing participants in worldwide destruction.) I mean, this comes back to my antipathy with the superhero mythos; it doesn’t speak to me, or the issues that I like to see explored in speculative fiction. Star Wars and Harry Potter might have the “chosen one” and even a mustache-twirling villain or two, but those stories are told through the lens of fantasy, and their worlds and characters are much more developed, imho.

The human elements, as always, were the most compelling to me. Personally I think Gal Gadot and Chris Pine’s chemistry was a little hot and cold (I might be too nitpicky) but it’s obvious that she had to feel a connection to him in order to thereby be connected to all humans. The side characters weren’t developed past their archetypes, but still they stood as a reminder of a more complicated world. A world where, in 1918, a brown man fights because he can’t be an actor. And more intriguingly, a world where perhaps no group of humans are all good or all bad, because as we’re reminded, Native American Chief Napi’s people were oppressed by “good guy” Steve Trevor aka Chris Pine’s people. Yet here, in The Great War, they find common ground. That’s the optimistic message that I can get behind.

Since personally I don’t relate all that much to Wonder Woman’s kick ass physical skills (other than my mixed response to the idealized female Israeli sabra from the perspective of an American woman of the tribe, but that’s a whole other ball of wax), I’ll return to what I do connect to–Gal Gadot’s Jewishness. Among all the hoopla came a sudden controversy about whether or not Gal Gadot, and by extension all Ashkenazi Jews, are white. It’s a complicated mire, though perhaps I can distill my opinion succinctly–in considering the idea of “whiteness” as privilege, which I believe is its usual distinction, then Ashkenazi Jews have indeed been “white” in the US, Israel and elsewhere. They are certainly almost always perceived as white simply going by skin tone, unlike Judaism, which can’t always be “perceived” on sight. But Ashkenazi Jews have also been oppressed and seen as “non-white,” particularly in Europe. Gal Gadot’s own grandparents were Holocaust survivors, which means her own personal history is partially defined by persecution, marginalization and refugee status. Tl;dr–diverse representation, particularly along racial lines, is important; ethnic identity is complicated. And I wish that more people didn’t see things in simplistic terms, but maybe that’s what I get for wandering into a superhero movie. 😛

Though perhaps to end on a more conciliatory note, I’ll point out that the Nice Jewish Fangirls podcast pointed out that this whole “fight for justice” theme kind of fits in with the Jewish idea of tikkun olam, aka fixing the world. They’re big fans of the movie and have a lot of interesting stuff to say, so check them out!

***

Old fandom loves die hard

In far less critically acclaimed news, I also took a gander at the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I probably would have ignored it altogether if I didn’t ultimately get confirmation that Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly would be reprising their roles. But they were, and old fandom flames were re-ignited!

Film did a good job of tricking us in the beginning. They had Will’s young son, Henry (Brenton Thwaites), try to rescue his father from the curse of Davy Jones, only to be turned away. Obviously it was a set up for Henry to grow into a young man on a quest, but sadly that whole plot was sidelined. Instead, we were privy to the same tired jokes and slapstick humor involving Captain Jack’s (Johnny Depp) exploits, which already felt a little stale. We got a new magical maguffin, more overwrought Jack backstory (honestly, do we need to know the provenance of his hat?), a tepid romance with an underdeveloped character in Kaya Scodelario, and a completely flat attempt at an emotional arc for Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush.) Disregarding all of the contradictory information (like why was Will turning fishy if he was keeping up his end of the bargain?) why not just focus on the Turner drama?? Elizabeth didn’t even get any lines, and barely a walk on, after test audiences demanded her presence. Sigh. It was like Mark Hamill in The Force Awakens all over again. 😛

But beyond all of that, what I really wanted after a 10 year hiatus since movie three was a better, more romantic ending for Will and Elizabeth! And I got that! Well, kinda. There’s a little bit of an easter egg at the end, and…I won’t go into spoilers just in case Pirates 6 gets made. Guess that depends on box office numbers (I hear the movie made more of a splash overseas than here) and whether or not they can get Johnny back on board. Probably depends on which other celebrity he can share a cameo with. In this one, it was Paul McCartney. 😛

Either way I’m expecting it to be bad…but if Orlando and Keira are in it, you can bet your pirate monkeys I’m the sucker that Disney can cater to. :”> I’ll just go skulk off to the corner now.


But I’m going to take a little bit of a tougher stance with Disney regarding the recently released A Wrinkle In Time photos. (Now there’s a teaser trailer, too!) Storm Reid and Levi Miller look great as Meg and Calvin, but what’s with the three witches? I suppose it’s too much to ask for anything else from a slick Disney production, but their outfits are Hollywood glam. Not at all the awkward, frumpy attire of three bemused aliens stealing sheets from the line and pretending, badly, to fit in with humans. These pictures strip away the gritty realism from the book, alas. It’s not enough to make me not see the film (nor is the fact that Chris Pine looks his age, and not old enough to be the father of a teenager,) but I’m starting to think that this book can’t really be adapted. At least not by a corporation with all of their glitz and glamour. Alas. The film comes out in March 2018, and I still expect it to be much better than the 2003 mess, so there’s that. 😛 Huzzah.

June 25, 2017

Winter/Spring 2017 TV: (The Leftovers, The Young Pope, Big Little Lies, The Expanse)

Posted in Italy, Judaism, Pop Culture at 1:06 pm by chavalah

So much Christian content in my tv lately. Enough to make me wanna buy a subscription to The Jewish Channel. 😛

I’m a month later than last year in making this post, though the Game of Thrones schedule has changed, too, so I guess that’s my excuse. 😛

As is custom, HBO dominates most of my tv habits. Starting in February and ending earlier this month, I routinely watched their Sunday night 9 pm programming. And I have a little bit of a quibble. The male-centric stories–The Young Pope and The Leftovers revolve around dudes with god complexes, and are generally lauded as prestige television. The female-centric Big Little Lies is seen more like fluff. I’m not gonna leave that statement there without examining it more fully, but as a gut instinct it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mixing my metaphors here. 😛

The Young Pope

I’ll start with my least favorite. Ultimately, I don’t think this show did much for me. I loved the chance to see Italy, insofar as it was presented, as the primary backdrop, I appreciated the chance to showcase non-US or UK actors like Silvio Orlando who played a compelling Cardinal, and I was particularly intrigued by Diane Keaton’s unusual turn as the taciturn Sister Mary.

Some people liked creator/director Paulo Sorrentino’s surreal style, but I found it to be a little grating. The premise seems to be somewhat twofold–a spoiled little boy is elected Pope, throws big tantrums and makes everybody’s lives hell because his parents abandoned him and now he has the power for global payback. Then, after a remarkably racist episode set in Africa, where he schools a fictitious, unnamed country in the merits of compassion and justice, he slowly takes his own lessons to heart. Having finally “grown up,” the series ends on an ambiguous note of–did he see his folks in the crowd while delivering a homily in Venice? (And did he survive said experience??)

It’s an annoying, egotistical conceit. Jude Law can’t just be playing a random dude with abandonment issues–he has to be THE POPE. The women in Big Little Lies are dealing with similarly big life issues like adultery, spousal abuse and rape, but none of them get to be High Priestess of Avalon. Which I suppose is also a remark on the lack of women in the highest echelons of most religions, but still–their problems aren’t seen as any bigger than the problems of any normal human.

Perhaps the episode that held the most promise for me was the penultimate one, where we follow Cardinal Gutierrez (Javier Cámara) to New York where he’s arrived to apprehend a pedophile priest. We meet the priest, who of course was abused himself as a child, and also an obese sickly woman whom Gutierrez is counseling. They had the promise of being compelling characters but we spent so little time with them, and Sorrentino made so much out of melodramatic music and vague flashbacks that they ultimately felt more like caricatures.

As a Jew, I admit that the saints and miracle-workers that populated this story just aren’t my bag, baby, so maybe it’s a subjective disconnect. I found this show to be disjointed and underwhelming in theme. Holding out hope that maybe HBO will pick up another Italian project in the future–well, there’s “season two” of this, The New Pope, but I’m not sure I’ll watch. Meh.

Big Little Lies

Based on a novel by Liane Moriarty, there’s no doubt that this story is a little bit fluffy. Or maybe it’s a matter of perspective; I haven’t read the book myself, but my mother found it to be relatively beach ready after getting through the harrowing Homegoing by Yaa Gyasi.

I think that a lot of this has to do with format and setting. The format is very plot based; we start with a murder, so the question of “whodunnit?” (also “who’s the victim?”) looms large over the narrative. It’s a puzzle to be solved, which sometimes eclipses the natural progression of the character arcs. A last minute shocker reveal about two seeming strangers with an shared past proves very convenient. Also, the story takes place in a rich suburb of Monterey, and despite any real world issues, we’re constantly reminded of the privilege and frivolity that pervades these peoples’ lives. Plus, there is so much gossip and backstabbing that after awhile, I really wanted to put somebody’s eye out.

The ending is also a little pat, with all of the main characters, some of them enemies, coming together to say goodbye to the murder investigation with a picnic on the beach. Didn’t really feel deserved.

I was intrigued with how they handled the spousal abuse storyline. I’m used to the one-dimensional Lifetime approach, where an innocent woman is duped by a sadistic man who shows his true colors when it’s too late. Here, Nicole Kidman and Alexander Skarsgård have built a more complicated set of rituals and denials around what’s happening. Meanwhile the therapist calls bullshit, so the show isn’t excusing said abuse. It just feels more real–all the way down to how it affects their seemingly oblivious kids.

Shailene Woodley gives a tense and masterful performance as the vulnerable single mother and rape victim of the story, to the point that I could barely recognize her in scenes with her antagonist, Laura Dern (who also played Woodley’s own doting mother in The Fault in Our Stars. Talk about some dissociation! :P) And speaking of Woodley, her Divergent co-star Zoë Kravitz, also gets to play with a more complicated role as Reese Witherspoon’s sorta rival.

Oh, Reese. 😛 From the trailers I was afraid that her character would be the Regina George of the bunch, but actually she’s far more layered. Jealous and possessive, Type A driven, definitely flawed–and depressed about her college-aged daughter moving physically and emotionally away from her. I liked the idea that her marriage is on the rocks because she and her husband have different sexual needs and general drives, and I was disappointed when the show introduced the affair subplot. Alas.

Still, I found this to be an enjoyable miniseries. And more refreshing than male gods–we focus on the lives of female humans. 😛 I’d like more of this, please.

The Leftovers

Loosely based on the Tom Perrotta novel, The Leftovers is probably the most thoughtful, best realized show on this list (and I say this while deeply disliking aspects! :P) But in touching how abandonment and loss of faith touch a particular set of people, it’s quite powerful.

I’ve written in some depth about season one and season two, though I’ll have to rehash some bits in order to come to terms with the final season.

Quick recap: 2% of the world’s population disappears and the show revolves, sorta, around the 98% of leftovers trying to make sense of it all. I say “sorta” because in season two, I came to terms with the fact that this isn’t a maxmist story about how everyone deals, but rather a very minimalist one about a how a small sliver of familiar middle class white Christian folks deal with it. (Departure is a very flimsy cover for “Rapture.”) On the plus side, I do love delving deep into a few characters. So this season I made my peace with the Kevin=messiah mishegas, because at least his surreal journeys to the afterlife were funny, and I liked how the Australian character, Grace (Lindsay Duncan) related to that hoe down.

I’m still disappointed in all of the dropped threads–like the tense relationship between Jill (Margaret Qualley) and Laurie (Amy Brennerman), the mother who abandoned her in season one. Last season was unique for bringing in a fully realized African American family, the Murphys, but this season they were incredibly sidelined. And more generally, I dislike how the drama on this show is always pushed TO THE MAX, like how Kevin, Sr. (Scott Glenn) can’t even ask a random guy for directions without said guy setting himself on fire.

The inciting incident of this season, set seven years after “The Departure,” is that Reverend Matt (Christopher Eccleston) promises that a great Noah-like flood will come, and only Messiah Kevin (Justin Theroux) can save them. The cast ends up in Australia because Nora, Kevin’s girlfriend (Carrie Coon) wants to expose a fraud where some scientists are claiming they can send survivors to where the Departed went. Equally as likely, she wants to hitch a ride to her Departed children.

So I’ve made my peace with the Christian elements, but then this year they go off and appropriate different religious observances. In “Crazy Whitefella Thinking,” Kevin, Sr. hops around Australia recording aboriginal songs because he’s sure they will stop the flood. We get very little insight into the cultures of these real tribes. Then, in “It’s a Matt Matt, Matt World,” the show uses some Yom Kippur liturgy to bolster Matt’s character arc. Don’t get me wrong; he’s one of the more complicated characters on the show (egotistical yet vulnerable. Plus he gets a goodbye scene with his sister, Nora, in the finale that I’m desperate to have reproduced on Game of Thrones before the White Walkers kill the remaining Stark children /wibble). But obviously that liturgy is meant for a very different, very somber, very community-oriented purpose than Matt’s personal tsuris.

But I’ve come to the conclusion that Nora is my favorite character, and so the final scene is a real winner for me. One thing that I think The Leftovers does exceedingly well is dole out character-enlightening monologues. Nora’s final monologue, all about the need for and fragility of human connections, gave me major Mockingjay finale vibes. Also, her description of “the Departed” land made me desperate to reread Station Eleven. I think it’s still on my dad’s nightstand. 😛

So I dunno, if the destination and many parts of the journey are an indication, then this is the best show on here. I’m definitely glad that I stuck with it; was an interesting, if bumpy, ride.


Admittedly, I’m a sucker for taglines like this.

The Expanse

Shockingly enough, I turned away from HBO for a brief period of time–and to the SyFy Channel! 😮 I hadn’t really watched them since they were the SciFi Channel! 😛

OK, so I tried this show last year and gave up halfway through season one. I didn’t find it to be that compelling, and I think the reason for that was because of the framing story–a noir detective search for a missing girl. The girl, Julie, (Florence Faivre) wasn’t a character in her own right, but rather a spark to set off the plot. Basically: a few hundred years into the future, humans on Earth and Mars are locked in combat, and our fellows living in the asteroid belt are caught in the middle. But there’s a sudden new, scary weapon of mass destruction (discovered at the end of the Julie arc), and most of our main characters, a Firefly-like crew of diverse folks, have to speak truth to power.

But in season two the plot is in motion, and I could focus on the consequences and the other characters. We are introduced to Bobbie Draper (Frankie Adams) who has a rather age-worn character arc of being a militant who has to reassess her values when she finds out that her planet’s government isn’t as noble as she’d like to believe. But at least it’s her arc; she isn’t just part of someone else’s.

I also really liked the budding romance between Jim (Steven Strait) and Naomi (Dominique Tipper), even when I shouldn’t have because Jim’s in the midst of the standard “good boy exposed to bad situations, losing his moral compass” bit. But the end of season two ends on a far more ethically ambiguous note for both of them.

One of the reasons I wanted to watch the show in the first place was because of Shohreh Aghdashloo, who plays a shrewd Earth diplomat. She seems like a far more complicated character this year, so yay. And finally, I’m a sucker for a geeky, botanist dad (Terry Chen) trying to save his young daughter. Goes without saying that this show already has a refreshingly diverse cast.

Ultimately I’m not sure that the characters transcend the roles assigned to them by the needs of the plot, but I love the themes of this show. How much does allegiance to home planet (or Belt) define you? Where is the line between right and wrong? We might be stepping into very Game of Thrones territory here, where the consequences of war far outstrip the players.

This is based on an ongoing series of science fiction books by James S.A. Corey; one of several options that I’m quibbling about starting. Time to get out my hashtag–#SoMuchToRead! Am I a bad book nerd if I just let the television show tell the story to me? :/ Alas. It’ll be back on air sometime in 2018.

Next page