manic pixie dream girl

Cracked has several times in the last few months referenced a specific story character type that has been grating at me for the last few years, but didn't know had a name.  The character type is called the "Manic pixie dream girl." I will refer to this character as MPDG from here on.

I would encourage you to follow the link and click on the example movies to get an idea of what I am talking about. However, Nathan Rubin, who is the coiner of the term, describes the MPDG thusly:

"The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an all-or-nothing-proposition. Audiences either want to marry her instantly (despite The Manic Pixie Dream Girl being, you know, a fictional character) or they want to commit grievous bodily harm against them and their immediate family."

The MPDG is absolute proof that Hollywood is less concerned with realistic relationships than with idealistic fantasies that ultimately result in a painful break-up or divorce. What usually happens is a straight-laced and highly-structured male character is introduced and we find out that he is not happy with life because being structured means he obviously is broken. He meets the MPDG and decides to change his approach to life, though it varies how related and in what order these events are. Hilarity ensues. There is relationship conflict, and the conflict is resolved by the highly-structured male accepting the MPDG's approach to life and progressing in a serious relationship with her. Movies where I have noticed this are Elizabethtown, Stranger than Fiction, and (most egregiously) Yes Man.

Apart from the fact that the MPDG as portrayed in the movies would not likely exist in real life, movies do real harm in romanticizing a personality type to people with clashing personality types. I can see where in real life an MPDG would be intriguing just long enough to get into a serious relationship with that person and realize the horrible mistake that has been made. True free spirits should not typically be merged with structured people. The movies kind of get around this by implying that this is a journey for the structured male character, and he will change for his beloved MPDG, but the whole idea is ridiculous. The tendency toward being structured or free-spirited, on the whole, is not a choice. A structured or free-spirited person might force themselves to live their opposite for a time, but after a while that would be a miserable existence.

Early in our relationship Golden heard someone describe similarities between partners in a relationship as money in the bank and differences as loans that will have to be paid back with interest. I can appreciate that far more now that we have been married more than a decade. We are very similar in a lot of areas, and those similarities have limited the issues we have had from our differences. In the course of our relationship most of the differences between us have resulted in or will result in some sort of compromise. Those compromises are sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but they always require care and effort and some pain.

My theory as to why the MPDG is so frequently worked into movie plots is that the character is something of a fantasy to freelance workers like writers or directors.  This free-spirited non-existent girlfriend never pressures them to get a real job or asks whether they paid the water bill.  She doesn't get upset when he gets distracted in his work or hobbies for days or weeks at a time, and doesn't care if he spends his money frivolously because she only exists for the moment.  In truth, all the MPDG character does is romanticize irresponsibility.

There are certainly other grating character types that show up in movies a lot, but I think the MPDG has to rank among the most annoying for me.  I say that as a structured man who doesn't believe he needs fixing.

the pursuit of happiness

I have not watched any of the presidential debates in the last couple of months, but there were apparently two comments in recent debates by Newt Gingrich which resulted in standing ovations.  The more reported statement was a rebuttal to his ex-wife's accusations about the situation surrounding their divorce.  The statement that got me thinking was one that include the following sentence.

"I believe that every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness."

Gringrich went on to say that he would help poor people learn how to get jobs, so the context of this was that the key to pursuing happiness is learning how to work and getting gainful employment.  I'm not planning to comment on this assertion one way or the other. Gingrich apparently made some other comments that could be read to be agreeing with what I have to say below at some other point, so what I have to say doesn't really address what he meant in context.  It did bring me back to the earlier post I had made about the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence, though.

That a focus of debate popular enough to elicit a standing ovation in what I should expect to be one of the most God-fearing electorates in the world (South Carolina Republicans) is regarding the details of pursuing happiness is disheartening.  The concept is not Biblical at all, and it's one of those arenas of knowledge where research fairly conclusively backs up the Biblical viewpoint.  The following video exemplifies this to a degree.  If one group of people attempts to be happy and another group of people attempts to be meaningful, the "meaningful" group will always be happier than the "happy" group.



I see this same concept embedded throughout the entirety of Scripture.  It's summarized by the psalmist in Psalms 37:4, in that we receive the desires of our heart only after we have delighted in (and, by implication, sought our meaning in) God. There is almost no other purpose for Ecclesiastes other than to make this point, and the point that our only meaning is found in God.  It's found in the fruits of peace, patience, joy, et al that God grants us as we grow in Him.  It's found in the hope that we are supposed to have in Christ that should cause others to notice.

The warnings against pursuing happiness are many, though they generally take the form of warning not to fall prey to specific sins.  What is sin other than a misguided pursuit of happiness that bypasses meaning?  Greed is a good example.  Paul said that it was the same as idolatry (Col 3:5). Whether you are greedy is not necessarily tied to how much you make, but it is certainly tied to your awareness of what others make.  I would expect that it would also be negatively correlated with a drive to find true meaning.  I have noted in the past that people who attempt to climb up the social ladder beyond their level of wealth in the pursuit of happiness will almost certainly make themselves unhappy.  Chasing happiness for most people is an exercise in futility.

In summary Scripture is pro-pursuing meaning and anti-pursuing happiness.  While it appears at a glance that this is an anti-fun/anti-happiness buzzkill position for God to take, it is obvious that those who explicitly try to seek happiness fail where those who seek and find meaning succeed.

ice hotels

 One leftover result of my planning for my summer vacation last year is that I ended up on Trip Advisor's email list.  While this is slightly ridiculous considering how rarely we vacation, I do find a lot of what they send out intriguing, though.

The latest email I received from Trip Advisor hit on something that has always puzzled me.  The theme is, "Incredible ice hotels," and surely enough there are enough ice hotels that eight can be listed, but how is that possible?  I understand that ice and snow structures look cool (pun intended), but it is one thing to tour and appreciate the visual appeal of an ice structure and another to spend the night there.

The hotels are indeed visually stunning, if only because you don't see many buildings made out of ice or snow.  Links to them are below in case you want to take a look.

• Sorrisniva Igloo Hotel, Norway
• Hotel de Glace, Quebec
• Lainio Snow Village, Finland
• Kirkenes Snowhotel, Norway
• Ice Hotel Romania, Romania
• Snow Castle of Kemi, Finland
• Icehotel, Sweden
• Igloo Village, Switzerland

 I think the appeal is that this is an experience you will not get anywhere else.  It would be something to be able to say that I stayed in an ice/snow hotel once.  When I think of unique vacations, though, I don't think about trying to sleep in a room that must remain below a certain temperature so that my bed does not melt.  It simply does not sound pleasant.

What do you think?  Would the awesomeness of having the experience trump the cold?

directions and empathy

Two things that should have occurred to me sooner about the differences between men and women occurred to me in the past week or two.  Both relate to earlier posts I have made, so I am linking to those previous posts below.

First, regarding the cliche about men not wanting to stop and ask for directions, I have long figured it was about admitting weakness.  That's certainly part of it, but I contemplated the whole process of asking directions and there's more to it than that.  I think the real issue is that men in general are not all that great with step-by-step directions.

A few of the worst arguments Golden and I have had have been due to our differences in navigating our way around.  She works very well with step-by-step instructions, but if I use them there is a good chance I'm going to miss a step or forget a key detail (Was it right or left at the green street sign?  Wait, all of the street signs are green!).  With widespread GPS adoption this is becoming a moot point, but I would bet that more men would stop for directions when the situation called for it if those directions were transmitted in map form.

Second, women liking movies and situations where they get to feel empathy and emotion, I have long figured that this was about women better understanding the nuances of their emotions than men.  While I still think this is largely true, I now think there is a larger factor that is more obvious.  Women like feeling empathy and emotion and men don't.  I did kind of say that at the end of the earlier post, but I just kind of threw it in almost as an afterthought.  Unlike my previous emphasis implied, I now think that every other factor pales in comparison to the enjoyment factor.

I am a more empathetic man than most.  This is something I say that with far more embarrassment than pride as it's not a very masculine trait.  I believe I can definitively state that I do not enjoy feeling empathy.  I often like the perspective it gives me, and I still usually want to understand situations from other peoples' shoes, but the actual feeling of empathy is simply unpleasant.  Maybe there is something deeper that causes me personally to dislike how empathy feels, but I suspect that this is something I have in common with most men.

My experience is that women often get something out of feeling and sharing each other's emotions, even when they are what I would consider unpleasant emotions.  I suspect that this is similar to the excitement a man gets during the daring parts of an action movie or video game.  Being shot at or in a fight would not be pleasant, but there is something about putting yourself in the shoes of a fictional person in that situation that is paradoxically exhilarating.  Likewise, sharing an unpleasant emotion must provide pleasure on some level.

So I guess the long and short of it is, news flash: men and women are different.

craigslist killers

A recent story that has been in the news, and has some extra significance for me because one of the perpetrators is from the town where my sister currently lives, is regarding the "Craigslist killers."  I do not know all of the details, but I do know that they lured men to their deaths with a job offer for only $300 a week, plus board.  That is what stuck out to me.  The people who responded to the ad were largely men who were beyond down on their luck.

One person in particular who was killed was Timothy Kern, who was described in the earlier linked article as taking the job to try to support his three kids.  I don't know that I have much to add to this, but that thought had a significant visceral impact on me.  The guy took a job, and one that ended up being too good to be true, paying basically minimum wage to support his three kids, and that is what ended up getting him killed.  Not to sound trite, but Mr. Kern just could not get a break.

These sorts of stories make me feel very fortunate for the opportunities I have been given.  Not everyone has the opportunity to attain higher education.  Not everyone is able to find work to pay for that education and life after the education—especially not in recent years.  Not everyone has seen provision throughout the situations of their lives like I have.  A lot of people are looking at a future where their skill set is unfortunately obsolete or will be out of demand for a long while through no fault of their own.

Why would I focus on provision rather than family when being thankful?  It is not because I am unthankful for my family, but because the ability to provide for a family is the basis for most men's self-worth.  In thinking about the men in this situation the thing at the forefront of my mind is how worthless a lot of them have to feel, especially those with kids they are unable to support.  Those of us whose hope is in Christ should not place our worth in temporary and arbitrary things like that, but God's work is certainly not complete in me.

All of this being said, who really knows what the future holds.  Maybe I'll be challenged with joblessness at some point in the future.  I hope not, but I wouldn't be the only one to have gone through it if I did.  Maybe things will get bad enough that I have to look into sketchy opportunities.  Again, I hope not.  I can be thankful in the good things that God has given me now, though.  What I would hate would be to run into hard times then realize too late how little I appreciated the good times when I was living them.

As an aside, if you're looking for someone to pray for Mr. Kern's children have to be at the top of the list.  I just cannot imagine...

sabbath: revisited

Several years back, I posted on the Sabbath and my opinion on its observation. I have always had an aversion to how it was enforced when I was younger, so I didn't stop to think that it might have some benefits.

When I was a kid, what honoring a Sunday Sabbath meant fluctuated a bit, but from my perspective it almost always meant making the day more boring. Church was obviously boring for a younger boy, but as entertainment appeared to conflict with keeping the day holy, there were times when Sundays were intentionally made to be dull so as not to dishonor the Sabbath.

Now that I am an adult and have more control over how my life is run, a weekly break from work does not sound like a bad thing. My last time reading through the Bible one of the things I watched for was how the Sabbath was to be observed by Israel and what its true purpose was. It was during this reading that it occurred to me that keeping the day holy was not about putting on a show of piety on that day, but rather one of trust. Part of the point of the Sabbath was that God's people trusted Him enough that they would break from work one day out of the week even when doing so would impact them economically (like farmers during the harvest, or merchants traveling distances between cities).

A further point that I frequently heard when growing up was that workers need at least one day a week off.  Too many work days in a row will drive a person crazy.  This is something that I have always agreed with, and I still do.  Beyond that, though, I am finally at a point in my life where a Sabbath rest sounds like an appealing thing.  It just has to be on different terms than I grew up with.

Things that I think should qualify as a Sabbath rest include, but are not limited to, the following.

• An afternoon at the park
• An afternoon at the beach (no, still no real beaches in Kansas)
• An afternoon watching football
• An afternoon playing football, soccer, baseball, etc
• An afternoon watching a movie
• An afternoon reading
• An afternoon playing board/card games

While it is certainly God's privilege to expect sacrifices that seem absurd, the requirement of boredom one day a week always seemed ridiculous.  I think I would feel differently about it if I saw that doing this grew my relationship with Him, or caused me to understand Scripture better, or provided some other notable spiritual benefit.  For me it did not, and it still doesn't.  Strip away the anti-entertainment rule, though, and I am all about slowing down and having a quiet and reflective day once a week.

change

A while back I noted that I had worked at a grocery store that installed a CoinStar machine under the guise of serving customers better. Since the machine took a 7% cut of the change total, I always questioned the purpose of it. It wasn't like we turned down customers who opted to pay with coins, and at the least a bank would count and deposit coins free of charge for customers. Since the machine was providing a service that I felt the store should be providing anyway I was always a little bit cynical about that machine being used as a source of revenue. It seemed more a pointless extravagance in that situation, but I just today heard of a story that indicates that the grocery business may have changed since I was a cashier.

Apparently, a mother in Portland, Oregon, needed to buy some food for her kids but only had change. The information I have is that she had quarters, but perhaps there were smaller denomination coins there as well. The first grocery store she went to told her that they had a $5 limit on change-only purchases. The second grocery store tried to send her to their change counting machine (I don't know if it was specifically a CoinStar machine) that took a 10% cut of the money. When she pointed out that she could not afford to pay this fee and another customer offered to give her cash for the coins she had the store backed down.

This brings up a few points. First, the grocery store I worked for employed two types of people: high schoolers and the poor. Were the employees who enforced these rules all from the former category, because otherwise I would have expected them to be sympathetic to the woman's plight.

Second, apparently most chains do not have an official policy regarding how much you can pay in coins, but the stores themselves enforce these non-existent rules anyway. I am going to guess that the individual stores do not know that there is no actual policy on the matter because the chains want customers to feel the need to use their for-cost change counting machine.

Finally, this gives me pause since there has been a push over the last few years to accept the dollar coins. Why should anyone switch to using dollar coins if there is a chance cashiers may decide they are not going to accept them?