Ping: The Story of a Desperate Duck

A fun little essay that I wrote for a lit class.

In our modern day of MTV, sex-saturated advertising, and profanity-laden sitcoms, most parents expect to monitor their child’s television watching. What they do not expect, however, is to monitor their preschooler’s bedtime stories. After all, books—especially children’s books—are more or less safe, right? Not so fast. Just because of their respected “literary” medium, parents must not neglect to examine themessage of their child’s “harmless” storybooks.

Let us examine Marjorie Flack’s classic children’s tale The Story About Ping. Written in 1933, this classic story has been read to generations. The message? Less than stellar.

This excruciating tale of corporal punishment and injustice opens on a cozy, “wise-eyed” boat floating placidly on the calm Yangtze River. On this boat lives Ping, along with his mother and father and two sisters and three brothers and eleven aunts and seven uncles and forty-two cousins. Every morning the ducks disembark from the wise-eyed boat to forage for food, and every evening the Master of the boat calls them back. However, every evening the Master indiscriminately whacks the last duck to board the wise-eyed boat. Is that justice? What are our children implicitly learning—to avoid being late?

One evening, through no fault of his own, Ping arrives late. Deciding to forgo the unfair punishment, he chooses rather to spend the night in a cozy bed of reeds. So far, so good. As the following day dawns, Ping yawns, stretches, and looks about for the wise-eyed boat—she’s nowhere in sight! Undeterred, our intrepid hero sets out in search of his family. A rather unpleasant day follows. Ping is—in agonizingly vivid language—captured and almost eaten. He sits miserably in an overturned basket, gazing through the bars (bars which, I may dare to add, unmistakably hint at a prison cell—coincidence? I think not!) contemplating his fate. As the last, dying rays of the setting sun sink into the Yangtze, signaling Ping’s own imminent death (and for those who don’t believe that ducks can wax eloquent, skim Ping’s pathetically helpless monologue on pages 24 and 25), one of his captors has a change of heart, and tosses our hero back into the welcoming Yangtze.

“Finally!” the reader cheers, “This morbid book is almost finished! Everything will turn out alright in the end after all.”

But not so—no! Ms. Flack agonizingly tortures her unsuspecting readers, having Ping race desperately towards the wise-eyed boat….only to receive a whack square on his helpless duck rump. An entire day of dodging danger, only to be welcomed home with a solid wallop! But Ping is back at home with his mother and father and two sisters and three brothers and eleven aunts and seven uncles and forty-two cousins, so all’s well that ends well—right? Hardly.

What sort of twisted moral is Ms. Flack providing to her young readers? That one must blend into the crowd, become inconspicuous to escape unjust punishment? Or merely that the world, as a whole, is unjust, and living a profoundly painful experience. That—as Westley says in William Goldman’s masterpiece, The Princess Bride—“Life is Pain, Highness. Anyone saying differently is trying to sell something.” Must she so strenuously pound this fact into her innocent readers’ heads? Or is her point merely that, since life is nasty, brutish and short anyhow, seek what comfort you can amidst your cozy family circle?

To be sure, Ms. Flack’s worldview is just as disturbing and unbalanced as Disney’s sugar-coated motto, “Be whatever you want to be—just follow your heart.” And, in all justice, as part of the greater social context, Ms. Flack’s message becomes still more excusable; after all, 1933—the year of its publishing—was one of the worst years of the Great Depression. Life at that time certainly did seem unjust, and if you wanted to survive you had to rely on your close-knit community. However, though Ms. Flack’s worldview is understandable—even excusable—there is no need for another generation of innocent children to be influenced by her message. There is no need for another generation to be exposed to this excruciating “classic”, filled with agonizingly near-death experiences and haphazard, arbitrary punishment. Spare yourself the pain. Spare your children the scarring. Please…just say no.

Religion in discussion of "morality"

Hello to whatever brave and intrepid souls are still reading this! Forgive my long silence...anywho, since I haven't had the inspiration to write anything new, I thought that I'd post a long-winded post that I wrote previously for my Psych class. All of the students were presented with a moral dilemma and had to decide what the most appropriate course of action would be. Tempers soon began rising, and people started debating whether or not other people should drag their "privately-held beliefs"--ie, religion--into a "public question of morality". I mean, seriously, what do the two have in common? =) So below are my thoughts on the question. Comment if you want with your own thoughts on this area. The rest of the text was lifted verbatim.

I noticed that we've started discussing this fascinating area within the larger argument on our tough MORAL DILEMMA. How about we post thoughts up here to keep the board a bit more organized and argument-specific?

Alright, now for my thoughts on this area. As humans we all have some conception of right and wrong (however, the specific WHERE and HOW differs considerably depending on your worldview--regardless, that concept is there). And further, as human beings constantly interacting with each other and with ideas (we don't, after all, exist in a vacuum) we all get this concept of acceptable versus unacceptable behaviors from SOMEPLACE. Christians and people from other religious backgrounds receive their code of conduct from their God and religious writings and traditions. Atheist/agnostic/not-so-very-religiously-affiliated-people (what's the correct vocab, anyone?) from a more loosely-defined conglomeration of what "feels right to me" (note: these are not stylized quotation marks for the sake of quotation marks--though they are a hard-working and often under-appreciated bit of grammar--but an actual quote) or to the more philosophically-minded, whatever causes the most good to the greatest amount of people without harming anyone. (that last clause is terrifically important--otherwise you'd have non-suspecting hospital visitors being attacked all over the place and getting their organs donated to five or six needy people who would "benefit" much more from the organs than the single hospital visitor--pst, not to knock organ donation. It's a truly wonderful thing and I think we should all do it, again, just for the sake of examples.) And we are all innately impacted by our upbringing--either by accepting and assimilating it, or consciously rejecting it.

That said, we all argue from our worldviews and collection of beliefs. For Christians (and other religiously affiliated people, etc.) this just happens to be on the basis of their religious beliefs. This is really quite logical--if your religious beliefs are what you GET your moral beliefs FROM, it only makes sense that THAT is one of the main measurements in determining the morality or immorality of a certain course of action. Therefore, it is equally logical that in debates religiously-based reasoning will form a significant argument either in favor of or against a certain idea.

Now of course it must be noted that arguments based COMPLETELY in a particular belief system, whatever that may be: Christian, Buddhist, Jainist, raging atheist, etc., will not be terribly convincing to any outsiders. The logic of such an argument won't be particularly convincing to someone who doesn't ascribe to the same beliefs as the one presenting the argument. If you're trying to convince your Hindu neighbor that he should be more considerate of other people's sleep and not blare Bach's 19th symphony at 3 in the morning, all of the Torah in the world won't change his mind. So make sure to have audience-specific arguments.

Recently Americans have come up with this terrific idea called "tolerance". Perhaps originally intended to mean, "let's all respect each other as people, even if we disagree personally on certain issues", it has now come to mean "you have to unflinchingly accept my ideas or else you're biased against my race/gender/ethnicity/age/income bracket/religious affiliation/variety of preferred dog breed/favorite band, etc."--your fertile imaginations can fill in the blank. So, the playing field is sort of interesting for Christians who are on the one hand encouraged to share their beliefs, but at the same time, forbidden from sharing the specific motivation for WHY they hold such and such a belief at the risk of being labeled intolerant. Oh the irony. (irony alert: the next few sentences are rabid with it =) Why does no one harp on secular humanists for subjecting us all to their agonizingly biased belief system? Or those annoying existentialists--why does their hot air constantly infiltrate our media interviews and how can we stop them? So today's society expects us to be perfectly "tolerant" of all ideas save Christianity. Nice. Maybe we should move the definition of tolerance back towards its original definition?

Feel free to comment with your own perspectives on this issue (but please, no one use the tired old "separation of church and state"!). And let's be cordial to each other--just because you differ with someone belief-wise, that's really no reason to tear into their person. Like Ghandi said once (paraphrased--I can't remember the exact quote), if you criticize someone else's beliefs, then it sure doesn't make them look any better...but then again, it doesn't make your own beliefs look particularly appealing either.

Inspiration

A whisper trickles through my mind,

I am still.

I try to calm other thoughts and encourage this one to develop further,

It obeys me.

I start dictating--no--taking dictation,

It flaunts me.

It must have changed frequencies, I flip through,

It defeats me.

I bungle through the rest of it

Alas, I'm not as accomplished as she.

The two sections are an awkward fit,

Like a forced puzzle.

The former flowed quickly,

Like a mountain stream in Spring.

The latter crept sluggishly,

Irked at movement.

Yet they fit

However awkwardly,

And they stay that way.

Ode to Entropy

With every sunrise my house gets dustier

The grass gets longer

The piles of laundry rise

I gasp for air

Where's the pause button on life?

Unattempted brainchilds and tasks not quite completed

Clutter my to-do list

Just like the scores of unwashed dishes stacked in my sink

Patiently expressing their disapproval

Imbuing the air with a certain noxious

Perfume that declares

Oversleeper!

Unmotivated!

Shiftless!

Eccentric!

Pathetic!

Human.

Like so many steps--but not on the Yellow Brick Road

Or polite bill collectors

Paying their respects

One by One

And lodging a complaint--legitimate

But unwelcome

My apple oxidizes

My unclaimed dinner molds, languishing, in my uncleaned refrigerator

My body deteriorates,

Minute by minute my cells dizzyingly acquire mutations.

Rambley poetry

As my charming history teacher declares, "I will reform myself!" And such is my avowed intention--thus the snowballing blizzard of posts. A bit of background. This poem began with legit curiosity as to whether one could write passable poetry while munching an apple--as I was then doing: you be the judge of that. From there it morphed into a pondering on prayer, rather unimaginatively comparing it to the food I was eating, and finally, concludes with a pondry on human nature. A disjointed poem, but heartfelt; composed while lying on my family's picnic table! 

Can a poet eat?

Or are the craft of the pen 

And the need of the stomach

Incompatible?

We eat thrice a day--sometimes oftener

Snacking often

Or at least I do.

I pray less--and don't nosh between meals. 

Should we schedule our prayer

Like they schedule lunches at a cafeteria

20 minutes each--and leave your tray by the door?

Do our souls long for prayer like a marathon runner

Pants for water

And dehydrated, gasps

Do our souls 

Deprived of that necessary solitude

Wheeze and shrivel

Before our unseeing eyes?

A Beast is fully corporal, filled with very self

An Angel is fully ethereal, filled with that delightful Other

As necessary for Life as bread--more so

But quietly.

Which triumphs?

The angel's ecstasy

Or the Beast's gluttony?

Jesus was Man and God

Man is God and Beast

To which nature will I subscribe? 

To my Jekyll

Or to my Hyde?

Critique of Sarah Mally's Before You Meet Prince Charming

Hello Faithful Readers--for if you're actually reading this post, then you must be very faithful indeed! Please excuse my long silence--it shall promptly be remidied with a series of post so stunning that (insert appropriate metaphor). Anyway. I wrote this informal piece a while ago for a friend's blog about Purity. 

 I first encountered Sarah Mally’s Before You Meet Prince Charming in a Junior High Sunday School class on purity. Initially I was hesitant—what on earth was purity, and why should I be concerned about it? Expecting a list of do’s and don’ts mandating my behavior I was pleasantly surprised by her chipper writing style and off-beat suggestions. Rather than a conglomeration of rules the size of the Magna Carta and the weight of the Rosetta Stone Mally emphasizes attitude, carefully explaining why we should desire purity, offering tips on how to deal with infatuation, and reminding us that in the end chasing guys isn’t anybody’s life purpose. 

Each chapter is structured similarly. It begins with a story segment about the life of a fictitious Princess, set in some unspecified yet medievalish time. Much like the characters fromPilgrims Progress, the names of Mally’s characters—Sir Valiant, Sir Eloquence, and Flirtelia—reflect their moral fiber. After the story Mally flips to the present day, basing the chapter’s theme off of the Princess’ struggles. Through personal anecdotes, testimonies, exercises, and quirky cartoons she humorously illustrates her point. Add this to your booklist—cause this is definitely a must-read!!

            One of the first topics Mally debates is dating. This tends to be a volatile topic, since people usually have strong opinions about it one way or the other.  In a solidly logos-based argument she suggests that dating is superfluous—either a pointless emotional rollercoaster or else just plain unnecessary. Think for a moment about the purpose of dating. Most people view it as a lighthearted night getting better aquatinted with that cute someone of the opposite gender. Hummm…rethink that one. A more accurate metaphor is that of a job interview. Sounds strange? Let me explain. In a job interview both parties are checking the other out, figuring out if they have the same mission statement and would be compatible working together. Dating is a “job interview” for marriage—scoping out the other person and seeing if you’re compatible. Viewing dating in this light gives a whole other perspective. Pretend for a moment that you’re 16 (if you really are, this shouldn’t take too much imagination =) Now pick positively the soonest date you would consider marriage—no pun intended!! Lets say its 23—the year after you graduate from college.

 

23-16=7

 

Whoa! At absolutely the very earliest, you’re not planning on marriage for another seven years—doesn’t it seem a bit premature to go on a “job interview” already? Would you interview for a job as a surgeon before you even got accepted to med school? No….I think not. So in this sense, dating is an over-hasty—not to mention rather expensive—habit.

Even if you are convinced that dating is harmless, consider this: is dating really the best way to get to know someone? Anyone can act chivalrous and charming for the duration of a romantic dinner or a dreamy walk in the woods—we all like to show our best foot forward. Anyone can act wonderful for a few hours. My suggestion is to observe them under real-life circumstances. Watch how he treats his little sister. See if she goes bananas when she looses her car keys. Witness him under stress. Observe her interactions with other people. Mark if he holds the door for the woman with the wailing baby. Personally I think you can learn a lot more about someone from watching their daily behavior than from seeing the romantic mask they assume in an artificial setting.

            So if the dating relationship doesn’t work out? You break up, right? Besides being a totally unnecessarily emotional minefield, this is terrible training for marriage! I believe that generations of people accustomed to breaking off relationships when the going gets tough have led to today’s preposterously high divorce rate.

            A final suggestion: apply the same standards to your conduct that you would wish to see in your future spouse. Do you really want to hear about all the girls he kissed? Or her summer fling? Or the obsessive phone conversations? Not so much. So guard your heart—and don’t keep a double standard!

            You’re still with me? Excellent. Let’s carry on. Another issue Mally addresses is infatuation—i.e., when you can’t stop thinking about that certain someone. You’re figuring out an algebra equation, mowing the lawn, or maybe practicing the piano when suddenly—presto chango—they pop into your head again! It’s like reverse stalking—you’re shadowing yourself.

This can be very frustrating, to say the least!  Mally suggests, and I find it rather helpful, to pray for the guy (in my case) or girl. Ask God to keep his heart focused on God’s overarching purpose for his life—yes, even if you’re not a part of it—pray for his relationships with his family, and that God would strengthen his resolve during life trials.

Mally further advises praying directly for your unknown future spouse. Personally, I’ve found this to be very much an exercise in faith—a stepping out blindfolded. It has something to do with the fact that I have no idea who I’m praying for—my next-door neighbor or a guy I haven’t even met yet—and thus can’t attach a face to the mysterious someone. It reminds me to rely solely on God to bring the two of us together in His perfect timing. Because really, He knows us better than we ourselves do—He perfectly matched us, balancing our comforting similarities with our stimulating differences and causing our brief human lives to intersect for His glory. God is a divine matchmaker! Our role is simply to devote ourselves to following His will—He will take care of the rest. Any paltry efforts on our own part are unnecessary and vaguely ridiculous, because really, who can improve upon God?

This idea is echoed in one of my favorite scenes from the epic musical Fiddler on the Roof. Perchik, the revolutionary student, and Hodel, the spunky milkman's daughter, have just announced their impromptu engagement to her tradition-revering father. Naturally, he’s completely scandalized. Inwardly he debates whether he should “allow” the marriage, “He loves her. Love…It’s a new style. On the other hand, our old ways were once new, weren’t they? On the other hand, they decided without parents. Without a matchmaker! On the other hand, did Adam and Eve have a matchmaker? Oh, yes, they did. And it seems these two have the same matchmaker.”

Finally, Mally reminds us, “Marriage, in and of itself, is not what gives purpose and meaning in life, but rather fulfillment comes from walking with and serving the Lord.” How true. This concept is echoed elsewhere with, “Yet, Marriage cannot be your ultimate goal in life. You must have a life purpose bigger than marriage. If you don’t, you won’t be fully prepared for marriage.” In other words, don’t rely on the other person to complete you—you’re just two broken and very flawed humans trying to be whole. Only God can truly fill you.  Don’t expect a boyfriend/girlfriend to infuse your life with meaning—he/she can’t replace God, and will only become the false idol of your heart.

Letter to Mr. Harris

Hello Mr. Harris,

I have two main objections to your argument concerning the validity of using human embryos in stem cell research. Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that embryos are somehow less than human, and therefore fair game for exploitation. Secondly, I disagree with your systematic “ranking” of life. According to your worldview, certain varieties of life—such as human embryos—are less valuable than others, effectively condoning abortion, euthanasia, and genocide. Hitler’s comparable belief in the inherent supremacy of German Aryans over inferior Slavs/Jews/Gypsies resulted in the death of millions. Will your beliefs result in comparable carnage? 
The premise that embryos are sub-human is central to your argument. If embryos are not really human, then we must logically conclude they do not deserve any of the protection normally afforded to humans. Near the beginning of the audio clip you articulate this thesis, saying, “Let us look at the details: a three day old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,00 cells in the brain of a fly.” You go on to explore the implications of this claim by later stating, “If you’re concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.” This logic is preposterous! According to your reasoning, it is more regrettable to kill a common housefly than it is to kill a human embryo—simply because a fly's body contains more cells! Since when have civilized cultures evaluated something’s worth based on the number of cells it contains? Does our justice system find the murder of a three-foot midget to be less despicable than the murder of a seven-foot giant? Both are murders, and the murder is equally culpable, regardless of the size of his victims. 
Furthermore, you argue that because a blastocyst’s brain has not yet formed it ought to be subject to the same ethics used with brain dead humans, saying, “It is worth remembering in this context that when a person’s brain has died we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs provided he has donated them for this purpose…If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than human, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such.” I find this argument to be fundamentally flawed—you’re comparing apples and oranges. Someone who is brain dead has likely faced a huge trauma and will never recover their brain function. On the other hand, a human embryo has all the genetic material needed to create a perfectly functioning brain—all it lacks is nine months of formation. Yet despite this discrepancy you give ethical preference to the brain-dead individual, stating that it is acceptable to harvest his organs solely, “provided he has donated them for this purpose.” However, equally human embryos are given no such courtesy. They are not required to give consent or sign any forms. And although they have not legally willed their bodies to research facilities you claim that human embryos ought to be experimented upon. You claim that we must dissect future generations to solve the ills of the present generation. And yet, outraged, you call Christians “uninformed” and without “moral reasoning and genuine compassion” because they disagree with this infanticide. In your world, Mr. Harris, a paltry nine months decides whether a complex conglomeration of tissues is known as a baby or is simply viewed as a faceless and disposable blastocyst.

Sincerely,
Hanna Kahler