Battling Demons and Personal Responsibilities

At what point do we get to pass of our character flaws as the much more courageous sounding ‘battling of demons’? I sure would like to know, as it can turn a seemingly embarrassing or shameful thing and turn it into a somewhat admirable struggle; almost a sign of integrity, as if we are truly a virtuous person being assailed by forces beyond our control, but nevertheless susceptible to our attacks.

How can I battle this ‘I'm a slob’ demon all by myself?

I am of course bringing this up because of the recent death of Amy Winehouse*, that talented young woman who died at the curious age of 27, and yet despite the universal acclaim of her talent I can only seem to recall one slightly telling song where she was urged to go to rehab, but she said no, no, no.

I woke that day with my wife telling me Amy Winehouse had died, and I didn’t really stop to think how; it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. She must have died from some sort of drug related cause; as if there were anything she was more famous for than her voice, it was her addiction problems. This instant acceptance of such a death is something worth lamenting enough as it is, because it almost takes away the tragedy of her life and replaces it with an acceptable stereotype. It’s almost as if people don’t care as much about the death of a drugged up star because that’s pretty much what we all expect.

Lamentations aside, what truly bothers me about this affair is the way that she is described in the media, and the all too common way that in today’s society people with problems are often talked up in an attempt to mollycoddle the public, which apparently have some vested interest in those being in the spotlight retaining some form of integrity.

This is why we see drug addict footballers being referred to simply as substance abusers, actors who beat up women are labelled as troubled, racist or abusive sportsmen are actually just controversial, or other such examples. In each and every case the problem with this person is turned around to either be an external force working against them or worse; a problem with how we perceive them, as opposed to how they are. The famous person who does drugs can’t be held accountable for their actions, because they are famous for a reason, and it’s almost as if people are so unwilling to believe that people who are good in one respect (be it sports, or acting, or music)can also be so deficient in another. We want everyone to be role models, even if they only show an outward aptitude at one specific thing.

He is rather good at rugby, so surely it’s not his fault he pretended to have oral sex with a dog....

It seems to me that in the past, role models emerged out of the fray, and were acknowledge simply because they were exceptional examples of what one should strive to become. Before fame was such a simple commodity to trade as it is today, word would only spread of a person’s overall virtue if it were earned in the arena of society. Only then were such examples made clear to the world. But then again I am basing this assertion on no real knowledge, just a glimmer of a point.

I have many personal flaws which I am not proud of having, and I try to work on them as best I can. But the thing is; I don’t talk about myself as if I am some perfect human being, living in an imperfect shell. My personal flaws are my own to work on, something which I hope can be overcome by my personal virtues (whatever they may be). If I were to take the line of thinking that anything which detracts from my character is a demon I have to battle with, well then what’s the harm if I relapse at some point? I mean it can’t all be my fault now can it? Because I was putting up a fight at least, and in this round, well the demons simply won. And I might pick up the fight again, but perhaps after this nights bender is over.....

And don’t get me started on the controversial label! When a famous athlete caused a row in last year for racial slurs (alas I cant remember which one right now), they weren't being controversial in any degree worth mentioning, as there is no controversy here that holds any sway. Their views were just downright wrong in our society. If you hold that this kind of thing is controversial, then it seems to me that there is more validity added to the arguments opposing side, which in this case is a side that asserts some form of race based value judgements. Last time I check, that wasn’t an issue in Australia; it doesn’t divide the nation.

Now if you think that this kind of thing can be considered controversial because it deals with issues of free speech and what is or is not polite to say, then fine: but don’t be afraid to say so. Say the use of racial slurs as part of free speech in this country causes controversy, but don’t for a minute mistake this with the persons comments, or the person themselves, being controversial.

Rant complete....

---------------------

*This is a post I wrote back in July last year, right after the death of Amy Winehouse. The basis of the rant still seems relevant, so I figured I would chuck it up here.

---------------------

On Anapodotons

My previous post on the phrase “When the going gets tough, the tough get going” got me thinking; when does a saying get so engrained in popular society that we are able to cut off the ‘punchline’ and still get our point across?
You see it all the time; we shorten “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” to a simple “When in Rome..”. I think this one makes sense, as generally it is a prelude to an act preformed as the ‘Romans’ (whoever they might be in this case) would do it.
You’re holding on to a cooked and skewered insect in a Chinese market, and before you pluck up the courage to pop it in your mouth and munch on the tasty exoskeleton, you give the somewhat tentative remark “When in Rome”, then pop it in. Crunch!
It makes sense; if only for dramatic effect.
It can create confusion however, as if we don’t know the origins of the saying, we can’t always apply it correctly; hence the difficulties of a certain Mr Ron Burgundy.
A quick foray into Wikipedia informs me that, as is always the case, there is a name for this kind of thing:

anapodoton [noun] (uncountable)

1. (uncountable, rhetoric) The rhetorical device in which a main clause is implied by a subordinate clause, without mention.

Other examples include: if looks could kill [I’d be a dead man]; if pigs had wings [they could fly]; if the hat fits [wear it]; if the mountain won't come to Muhammad [the mountain shall come to Muhammad]; if the shoe fits [wear it]; when the cat's away [the mice will play]; and where there is a will [there’s a way].

Sometimes we even omit the first part of a saying, like how the often confused saying “If that’s what they think, they have another think coming” is shortened to simply “they have another think coming”. Though more often than not, people think the saying is actually “another thing coming”, because they haven’t learnt it through a shortening of the original saying, but rather some cultural form of Chinese whispers.

It makes me wonder: are there any other sayings out there ripe for anapodotonisation?

When the going gets tough....... What happens again?

During one of my work induced zone outs, I became befuddled at the meaning of this old saying: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going".
What was the going they were speaking of? The ability to retreat? And where do the tough go?

And what does this guy have to do with it?

My rough translation started out as "When it becomes hard to leave, the strong people retreat”, which I quickly dismissed, as that saying would seem rather pointless, and somewhat capitulatory.
Luckily my wife understands language better than me (or should I say I?), and set me straight. It’s not a saying that tells you to cut and run while the opportunity still presents itself (perhaps the saying I had in mind was ‘get while the getting’s good’), but rather a more uplifting saying about true toughness being a resilience which makes itself know during hard times.
Using the Wikipedia entry I was able to mash it into a more direct statement, ignoring those ambiguous terms that make it such a pithy saying, but also a potentially ambiguous one. In the end I had this one:
“When the situation becomes difficult, people who are strong or enduring become fully engaged”
Not as catchy as the original, but at least it is direct.

Interesting sidenote here: one possible origin for this saying goes back to Joseph P. Kennedy, father of JFK. One gets the feeling that if he had been assassinated we might be referring to him as the three lettered JPK, like we call his sons JFK and RFK; instead I remember him as a possible anti-Semite……