Hallelujah: A Story of True Love

I love reading and I have from a very young age.  The characters in the stories I read substituted for the flesh and blood siblings and companions I didn’t have as a shy, introverted only child. I like fiction, especially historical fiction and biographies--at least my public persona does. But the private part of me every so often relishes the guilty pleasures of a good old romance novel.

I was reading one of these contemporary romances when I came across the mention of a song called Hallelujah. The story utilizes many common romantic tropes. The male protagonist is the free spirited, fun loving playboy prince of a fictional kingdom, who suddenly finds himself the future king after his older brother gives up the throne to marry a commoner (shades of Edward VII and Wallis Simpson). The prince agrees to appear on a reality dating show to choose his future Queen. It is here that he sees the female protagonist, the sister of one of the contestants, hiding behind a tree reading a book, which I could identify with because it is something I would probably do. Yes,  there are the usual steamy scenes to depict the strong sexual chemistry between the two characters who are personality opposites, another trope. But unlike in most romances, where there is little real character development and the central conflict is quickly resolved to reach a happily ever after ending, this is a story about growth and transformation and a love that takes time to unfold rather than happening at first sight. It isn’t principally concerned about romantic love, either. The heroine's sister loses a drinking contest and is challenged to sing. When she refuses, the heroine steps up in her sister's place, despite her fear of public attention.

Singer Leonard Cohen first wrote Hallelujah in 1984. Various versions have been recorded by other artists since then. The story I read mentioned the version by John Cale, a shortened form of which was on the soundtrack of the movie Shrek, so I went back and listened to Cale’s rendition and compared it with the original lyrics. According to a comment underneath the YouTube video for the version in Shrek, “It comes from a place of great pain, love turned sour, and from a broken man who questions God...To him Hallelujah comes from a place that is "cold and broken."

To me, the song and the story are more about love as a transformative force for change. Cale sings, “it's not a cry that you hear at night/It's not somebody who's seen the light.”  The word “Hallelujah” is uttered out of reverence or to express an extreme emotion like relief or gratitude after having survived a severe physical or psychological challenge (the light of benediction).  In the longer version of the song, the singer says, “I did my best, it wasn't much/I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch/I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you.”  He did not have the kind of love in his life which would have made his efforts meaningful and ends up broken and unhappy so in the end, he must “stand before the Lord of Song/With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah.”   

Unlike the standard love story, which typically involves a hero-savior complex, the characters in the story I read each have some work to do on themselves before they can have a successful relationship. Henry, the male protagonist, is reluctant to assume his designated role as the future king and goes out of his way to avoid accepting the responsibility it entails because he is afraid he will fail. His flamboyant personality is a reflection of his fear. Sarah, the female protagonist, did accept responsibility for her family and suffered as a result, which caused her to become withdrawn and afraid of taking risks. As the two get to know each other, they learn to change. Love gives both of them the courage to try, despite their fear. As Sarah says, Henry’s love for her humbles him and calms him down, while her love for Henry spurs her to be more adventurous.

Both Henry and Sarah have been affected by their early childhood experiences, which influenced their perspective on love and caused them to be afraid. Cale sings, “All I ever learned from love/Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you.”   Sarah begins to work with children who have been affected by war. She realizes that “all children are the same, no matter where they live or the language they speak…they all have the enormous capacity for resilience and hope and to give and receive love” and that she too had the resilience to survive her past and the capacity to receive the love she was denied as a child. The way that the relationship is portrayed in the story struck a chord in me because it does not imply that love, whether self love or love for others, means having to suffer. However, it does mean having the courage to face and fight the weaknesses in ourselves that keep us from being the best that we can be. Near the end, Henry reflects on how love has changed his life as well, in true fairytale fashion: “once upon a time, a pitiful lad met a shy, lovely lass and together they became something more…something strong and beautiful and forever.” 

Marriage in the modern world

                Listening to the commentary, reading the opinion pages and watching the televised proceedings of the 2016 presidential election race, it occurred to me that the process of choosing the country’s leader is analogous to the process of choosing a life partner.  Both possess a set of qualities or a certain personality which appeal to an individual or the voting public, enough to single them out from the field for consideration for a more long term involved relationship.  

The more successful the individual is at highlighting their best attributes during the selection or “courting” process, the more likely they are to be selected. Sometimes that means that fundamentally better prospects are overlooked because they lack superficially desirable attributes or the ability to make the most of their strengths to attract a partner. “Love” occurs when both parties’ expectations of what they consider a suitable partner have been met, whether or not those qualities strengthen or benefit the relationship over the long term and the resulting romantic love is used as a justification for marriage. A choice based purely on an emotional response rather than a pragmatic one, however, can lead to a lack of real synergy between leader and nation or between spouses  and  a poor outcome for the country or the family unit.

                Until recent times, romantic love was never a tenable foundation for marriage. In the Hindu tradition, it was simply a vehicle for a couple to pursue the goals of dharma (duty), artha (possessions), kama (physical love) leading to the creation of children and moksha (spiritual liberation).Historically, among royalty and the aristocracy in Europe and other parts of the Western world, marriage was not so much an agreement between two individuals as a highly legalized and complex social and economic contract between two families.  Its purpose was to pass on wealth, titles and property to legitimate heirs, usually male. The poorer classes, by contrast, had nothing to give their children so the legality of their union was not an issue. 

The spouses in these contractual matches often had little or nothing in common except for a similar economic, religious or social background. Fidelity was not generally expected of men because it was the women who bore the children.  Islam allowed a man to have up to 4 wives as long as he could treat all of them equally. Brigham Young, 1^st governor of Utah and 19^th century Mormon Church leader, was the most notable polygamist, having up to 19 wives at once. Other than procreation, couples spent little or no time together and had differing interests and priorities so an intimate personal bond between them based on mutual sexual attraction, shared interests or a common outlook on life was irrelevant. Marriage provided different benefits to both parties. Women, lacking economic independence, gained financial security and a position in society in exchange for their childbearing abilities. Men cemented political alliances and increased their power with advantageous matches and also assured that their line would continue with children that were recognized by both church and state. 

Because marriage was both a religious and a secular covenant, setting aside a religiously sanctioned union that also joined two of the major imperial powers in Renaissance Europe, as Henry VIII did when he divorced Catherine of Aragon and established the Church of England, created a rupture within both the church and state.  Henry VIII’s objective in seeking a divorce was twofold. Genesis 1:28 commands the faithful to “be fruitful and multiply.” Without a lawful heir to the throne, the kingdom or “state” would fall into disarray. A barren wife or one who had no male children was therefore a liability in both worlds. The repudiation of Catherine of Aragon by Henry VIII meant that their only child, a daughter, would be considered illegitimate and would no longer be in the line of succession. Her status was restored only when her younger brother, Henry’s only legitimate son by his third wife Jane Seymour, died without producing an heir and there were no other more closely related males to inherit the throne.  

One of the most important reasons for marriage among the wealthy was to ensure the legitimacy of children. The bride’s virginity was the only way of validating paternity. Only those children who were publicly acknowledged by their fathers, and by the religion as the products of a legalized union, had the right to the title and property of their parents. In medieval Wales, a child had a right to a share of the father’s estate, as long as the father publicly acknowledged the relationship, even if the parents were not married to one another.  Illegitimate children who were not recognized by their father had no rights, either legal or religious. Bastard children were not eligible for baptism in the Catholic Church and would not be able to go to Heaven after they died.  They were outcasts in both worlds. Deprived of financial and societal support, these children had to fend for themselves in order to survive. Even though Hinduism is more tolerant of the stigma of illegitimacy, according rights of inheritance to illegitimate children in the absence of legal heirs, one of the principal duties of marriage was to have sons who would ensure the continuity of the family line and perform the funeral rites for their parents.

In America, church and state have always been separate, but in Europe they were one and the same.  This was why King Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic Church in the 16^th century had such a profound impact on the historical landscape. The question of the necessity of state regulation of marriage was raised in a January 14, 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14/why-do-we-need-to-ask-the-state-for-permission-to-get-married-anyway/ According to the article, which summarized an interview with a professor of history at Evergreen College in Olympia, WA, the state never really interfered in marriage until the 19^th century in America with the growth of Mormonism in the United States, and after the Civil War, when the government became involved in pension distribution. Prior to these developments, common law provided the basis for what constituted a valid marriage.

Another article in Western Journalism http://www.westernjournalism.com/should-marriage-even-be-regulated-by-government-at-all/ pointed to the Protestant reformation during the 16^th century in Europe as the beginning of the existence of marriage as a separate “civil contract” rather than a religious covenant. State regulation of marriage protected the legal and financial interests of dependents in a marriage.  This led to laws governing registration of a marriage with the state, the distribution of medical and pension benefits and payment of spousal and child support. Wills and trusts, prepared under state laws, provide codified instructions for the transfer of wealth to individuals who are recognized as legal beneficiaries. Advances in scientific technology led to DNA testing to help establish paternity.

Even now, legitimacy places a crucial role in national identity. Having American citizenship provides protection under US law from foreign persecution. Children born outside the US to married citizen parents gain American citizenship if at least 1 parent had lived in the US or an American territory prior to the child’s birth. If only one married parent is a US citizen, that parent had to have lived in the US for a total of 5 years prior to the birth after the parent’s 14^th birthday or had worked outside the US in an official capacity for the American government. Nguyen vs INS, a 2001 case heard by the United States Supreme Court, was an immigration case brought to determine whether it was “constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause to enforce different requirements for citizenship on an out-of-wedlock child who is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, depending upon whether the U.S. citizen is the child's mother or father.” http://www.legalmomentum.org/legal-cases/nguyen-v-ins.

Under the law, if the mother of an out of wedlock minor child was an American citizen, her child automatically became a US citizen provided the mother lived in the US for at least a year at any time during her life. An out of wedlock minor child of a father who was an American citizen had to have paternity acknowledged by the father or established by the court and also had to establish legal permanent residency before their 18^th birthday. The father additionally had to have lived in the US for 5 years continuously, 2 of those years occurring after the citizen father’s 14^th birthday, and had to assume financial responsibility for the child until the child’s 18^th birthday in order for the child to be granted American citizenship.  

The question of religious identification was critical in earlier times, so a common religious background was a prerequisite for marriage. In Judaism, for example, children derive their spiritual identity from their mother because of the physical connection between them, while the father is responsible for their tribal affiliation, the way the religion is practiced, which allows the child to become an accepted member of the Jewish community through the observance of the prescribed rituals and practices. A child born to a Jewish mother would automatically be considered a Jew, regardless of the father’s religious affiliation.

Marriage today is no longer seen as the sole societally acceptable mechanism for the propagation of the species.  Couples can and do often live together and have children without being married. The increasing number of women pursuing advanced degrees and participating in the workforce means that  they have professional status  and financial independence, and  do not need a husband’s social standing to give them status and recognition. Marriage is also no longer defined only as a relationship between a man and a woman. This change from a religious to a secular view of marriage contributed to the legalization of same sex marriage.  Advances in reproductive technology have decoupled sex from procreation, allowing same sex couples or single men or women to have children like their heterosexual counterparts. 

In the modern world, for all these reasons, we have come to consider the institution of marriage as superfluous and burdensome with its legal restrictions on individual freedom, including the expectation of monogamy and its assumption that only 1 partner can and should satisfy all of the various roles, responsibilities and desires in a relationship. What is the purpose of marriage in modern society and why does the state still retain the power to regulate what defines a marital relationship?

                The strongest argument for state sanctioned marriage in modern society comes from a quote in an article by Ryan T. Anderson (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it), who says, “Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.” Anderson asserts that “marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view of marriage that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs.” He further qualifies his statement by referring to a study by Child Trends, a nonprofit research institution focused on improving the lives of children and youth. He writes that it is the institution of marriage that connects fathers to mothers and children, and that children do best when reared in “a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” The purpose of marriage, then, appears to be not to satisfy an individual need for emotional connection and intimacy, but to serve a greater societal good by favoring the stability of the community over the desires of the individual. Perhaps Tina Turner got it right after all when she sang, “What’s Love Got To Do With It?”

The Spanish flu: Its devastation led to the birth of a nation

Edward Kosner’s book review of Pale Rider by British author Laura Spinney appears in the December 11^th edition of the Wall Street Journal. The book talks about the origins and effects of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which infected 500 million people, approximately 1/3 of the global population at the time and killed anywhere from 50 to 100 million. Without exception, it was the single most devastating cause of human mortality in history. It was not until the 1930s that Spanish influenza, as it was called, was discovered to be the result of a virus that affects the respiratory system. It  was spread through the air and by contact with anything it touched. The virus entered the lungs, causing pneumonia and eventually a slow and agonizing death. Tracing the evolution of the pandemic and its political and historical consequences for the global population of the time, the story, according to Kosner, “is a cautionary tale about human vulnerability and ingenuity in the face of peril.”

The influenza virus was found to be linked to the soldiers who had fought in World War I, or “the Great War.” In her book, Spinney makes the claim that “the outbreak, by indirectly triggering the British massacre at Amritsar in 1919, may have speeded India’s drive for independence.”  As an Indian myself, I found Spinney’s analysis to be particularly intriguing.  

1.3 million Indian troops served in the British army during the war.  In Mesopotamia, Indian Muslims under the British fought against the Muslim soldiers of the Ottoman Empire. They battled in foreign lands and struggled to adapt to adverse conditions. Indian troops were responsible for stopping the German at Ypres in 1914. With large numbers of men living in close quarters with poor sanitation, it was easy for the infection to spread.  According to Spinney, it is possible that the Indians’ success was partly due to the fact that the German soldiers had also been infected by the virus which caused the flu, so they were too weak to put up a strong offense. There were 74,187 casualties and almost as many injuries among the Indian troops. Photographs and other historical evidence document the compassion and dedication of the Indian soldiers, who fought bravely and honorably for a cause not their own.

Despite their heroic efforts on behalf of the Empire, the soldiers were unrecognized and unrewarded and felt betrayed by  the British government’s false promises.  The British had promised India independence after the war.  Instead the government enacted the Rowlatt Act, which punished any seditious or treasonous activity against the British Empire by arrest without cause.  The Indian people reacted with extreme dissatisfaction to an act they saw as unfair and punitive. An extended drought caused crop failure leading to famine, which was made even worse by the spread of influenza.  According to the website https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/ , “In India the mortality rate was extremely high at around 50 deaths from influenza per 1,000 people (Brown).” Mahatma Gandhi had himself been weakened by the same flu, leaving him unable to stem the rising tide of anti-British sentiment.

 On April 13, 1919, British troops commanded by brigadier general Reginald Dyer fired into a crowd of unarmed civilians who had peacefully assembled at Jallianwallah Bagh, a park in, Amritsar, India to protest several restrictive laws implemented by the British.  Of the 15,000 participants, nearly 1500 were killed and another 1137 injured. One of the things which agitated the protesters was the recruitment policy of the British army towards the Indians. The money for the war effort had been raised by taxing the population heavily.  

The senseless massacre of the protesters fueled nationalist sentiment in India, giving rise to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, and was one of the factors which motivated Gandhi, who had previously supported the British war effort, to seek India’s independence.  As a student of both history and science, I found it fascinating to study how their intersection had dramatic effects for humanity. A September 15th article, Pandemics, Politics and the Spanish Flu, by Crawford Kilian on TheTyee.ca, references Santayana, who observed that “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” a lesson that we repeatedly fail to learn.

Romanticism and the Law in the 21st Century

The Romantic movement flourished in Europe and America from the late 17th to the mid 19th century, bringing with it profound changes in art, music and literature. While it rejected the philosophy of the era of Enlightenment which preceded it, it also benefited from the stability and prosperity generated from the advances of that age. Among Romanticism’s principal ideologies was the emphasis on feelings, emotions, and imagination over logic and facts and the celebration of ‘"outsiders" as representatives of special worth excluded by rigid societies or irrational norms’ along with the admiration of ordinary individuals as role models of authority and legitimacy. 

There appears to be a resurgence of Romanticism in academic and intellectual circles as reflected by the Op Ed piece by Jillian Kay Melchior, “Lorde of the Flies: Why College Students Reject Reason” in the December 9th edition of the Wall Street Journal and the November 27th article by Hank Berrien, “Law Professor to Students: If You Say ‘I Feel’ Rather Than ‘I Think,’ You Must Cluck Like A Chicken.” Melchior’s article talks about the influence of Audre Lorde, a feminist black lesbian poet of the 20th century, whose writing reflected the belief that “survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world where we can all flourish.” 

Lorde had reason for her alienation. Her mother was of mixed race parentage and was favorably biased towards those of lighter skin like her own. Lorde took after her darker complexioned father. She was raised in a very rigid and rules based atmosphere. Lacking love and affection from her parents, who were too focused on establishing financial stability in the post Depression years to provide a nurturing home environment, Lorde found a creative outlet for her angst in her poetry.Those who follow her beliefs (whom Melchior describes as the modern champions of social justice) reject the foundational teachings of humanities, just as the earlier Romantics rejected the ideas of Enlightenment. A reliance on evidence to support a claim, a crucial step in the scientific method, is, in Lorde’s words, not only “a personal affront but an example of the oppressive system at work.”

I first came across Berrien’s article in a Facebook post by friends debating the merits of emotion over reason. In the discussion thread, one of my friends believed that the conflict was a generational issue, and that the suppression of emotion and reliance on logic in our generation led to an ideological backlash from the millennials. I argued that lack of clarity of purpose or understanding led to confusion and uncertainty, providing tenuous support for feelings based statements. The provision of justice in the legal system requires the application of reason to the evaluation process, which was the crux of the argument by Professor Adam McLeod, the law professor in Berrien’s article. He criticized the millenials’ (and Lorde’s) fanatic championship of “diversity and inclusion” which impairs his students’ ability to make critical judgments. Proper administration of the law rests on the awareness that “nobody is equal in all respects” but should be primarily concerned with adjudicating right from wrong, without prejudice.  The justices of the Supreme Court swear to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” 

Mcleod faces significant pushback in his efforts to reform the flawed reasoning processes of his students. Former President Barack Obama shares a similar background to Lorde as a child of mixed race parentage and appears to sympathize with her perspective. He clarified his selection process for appointment to the Supreme Court as follows: “We need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” Given his continued popularity among the supposedly marginalized segments of society, his opinion will carry greater weight than that of a professor who tells his students that if they ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” they must “cluck like a chicken.”

The dramatization of love, a cold and broken Hallelujah

Recently, I saw a link posted on Facebook to an article dated December 5, 2017 in the Paris Review titled “Opera in a post-Weinstein World” in which the author reframes his conception of opera, defining it as “a harmonization of voices wrung from women’s suffering.” The analysis is somewhat disturbing because it seems to be celebrating women as victim rather than survivor in their personal relationships.

Aida: the title character is a foreigner, an Ethiopian princess who is an Egyptian prisoner of war. She falls in love with the Egyptian general Radames. Aida’s father, the king of Ethiopia, manipulates her into getting Radames to commit treason against Egypt. He is sentenced to die and Aida chooses to die with him out of love.

Carmen: the Spanish gypsy, who craves the attention of Don Jose, the one man who has no interest in her. She uses her seductive wiles to get him to release her when she is arrested after causing a fight at the cigarette factory. He then falls in love with her and ends up in jail for helping her. By the time he is released, she has moved on to Escamillo, a bullfighter. Don Jose’s jealousy causes him to impulsively stab Carmen to death.

Madam Butterfly: the title character is a young Japanese geisha who marries a visiting American naval officer. She truly loves him and is even willing to sacrifice her religion for him, but he does not share her depth of feeling and eventually abandons her to return home and marry a wife from his own culture. When she learns about his marriage after he returns to Japan three years later, she commits suicide by stabbing herself.

Tosca: the title character is in love with the painter Cavaradossi, but is manipulated by the Chief of Police, who is obsessed with her, to believe that he is having an affair with another woman. The painter is arrested but Tosca is led by the Chief of Police that she can save his life if she tells him the hiding place of a political prisoner that Cavaradossi has been helping. Deceived and betrayed in the end, she jumps off a wall to her death.

These are just a few of the cases in which the heroine is shamed and victimized by a man, either an indifferent or jilted lover or strict father, leading to suffering and often a tragic ending.There are other examples of women in literature who make tremendous sacrifices in the name of love, either for family or a romantic partner, which doesn't always end well:  Antigone by Sophocles, who, in giving her brother a proper burial, dies because for choosing love over duty to the state. Ophelia in Hamlet, Juliet in Romeo and Juliet, Desdemona in Othello, Hester Prynne in the Scarlet Letter and the Little Mermaid, who in Hans Christian Andersen’s original version, obtains a human soul to pursue the object of her love and  throws herself into the sea when the Prince rejects her rather than killing him to regain her mermaid identity. Less esoteric are Broadway productions like Fantine in Les Miserables and  Kim in Miss Saigon.

In each instance, love, the emotion that is supposed to generate the greatest happiness, paradoxically causes the greatest damage. It’s no wonder that many women think that loving someone means losing their individual identity for the sake of the other person. In his article, Daniel Foster says that opera “encourages their passion even in the face of difficulty and defeat.” A certain amount of sacrifice is essential in any loving relationship, but not at the complete expense of the self. In Hamlet, Polonius counsels his son Laertes: “To thine own self be true/And it must follow as the night the day/Thou canst not then be false to any man.”  It was advice his daughter would have benefited from as well.

The Tug of War Between Virtue and Vice Continues...And The Results Aren't Pretty

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s the Scarlet Letter is a story about a young married woman who is punished for the sin of adultery, which has resulted in the birth of an illegitimate child. Hawthorne’s tale is set in a small 17^th century New England town populated by Puritans. The driving force behind each of the main character’s actions in the story is their response to guilt and shame.  Hester Prynne is sentenced to wear a scarlet A on her clothing as punishment for her crime. The baby’s father is eventually revealed to be the young minister Reverend Dimmesdale. He is very weak and suffers from an unknown illness, which is actually the inner guilt that he feels at his actions. Afraid that he will lose respect and social standing in the community by his failure to fulfill the responsibilities of his professional role, he refuses to admit his sin, and instead resorts to self-flagellation as a way of punishing himself.The Puritan community in Hawthorne’s tale was restrictive in many ways, stifling personal expression and emotion, but Hester Prynne and her child are the ones who pay the biggest  price for Dimmesdale’s lack of self-control.  The values of the community served to establish a moral framework that provided structure and order for its members. 

Fast forward to a December 7^th article in the Wall Street Journal, “The Death of Self-Restraint” by Daniel Henninger, reflecting on the cause of the behavior of Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and many other powerful men who have been fired from their jobs due to accusations of sexual harassment. Henninger concludes that “their acts reveal a collapse of self-restraint, causing their victims to suffer just like Hester Prynne and Pearl do.  The difference is that unlike Dimmesdale, these men operate in a society characterized by “a broader evaporation of conscience, the sense that doing something is wrong.” Yes, they are absolutely responsible for their own actions but their behavior could not persist without the complicity of “a culture that had eliminated shame and behavioral boundaries.”

Hawthorne’s tale, with its strong religious overtones, represented and reinforced the acceptable behavior for his society.  Henninger points to the debate during the 80s and 90s about whether religion should be allowed to influence contemporary American culture and the enormous pushback from the secular contingent. He quotes from Rochelle Gurstein’s book “The Repeal of Reticence” in tracing the gradual erosion of moral values in the last century as a result of the loosening of behavioral standards.  Looking at what constitutes popular entertainment today, it seems as though the boundary between basic restraint and vulgarity has completely dissolved. Art and literature have no significance unless they celebrate the deviant or the unchecked impulses of human behavior. Modern artists and writers have created a new cultural norm, in which “the functions of the body needed to be considered apart from the values of love, fidelity, chastity, modesty or shame.” Henninger says that this is the inevitable result when “conscience is demoted as a civilizing instrument of personal behavior.” 

This way of thinking has permeated social interaction and the context of relationships, a fact noted in a June 12^th article in the Wall Street Journal by William McGurn entitled “Dad Meets the Sexual Revolution.” McGurn quotes Heather McDonald, another writer, who wrote about the change in sexual mores over time. Women who find themselves unable to conform to the modern reality because they are looking for something more substantive are up against a culture that, in its own way, is every bit as punitive as the one in the Scarlet Letter,  only at the opposite end of the spectrum.  According to McDonald’s theory, “when the social default for unmarried sex was “no,” the woman didn’t have to explain herself.  “No” was sufficient. The irony is that this default meant the woman held most of the cards when it came to deciding whether a relationship would become sexual. Today, Ms. Mac Donald notes, the default has become “yes”—and the woman who resists is both on her own and on the defensive. For men, of course, this has been a most welcome shift.”  A letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal reflects, "So long as we are conditioned from an early age to believe that sex is merely a physical, recreational, transactional activity, then laws, sensitivity training, organizational policy, even Harvey Weinstein crash-and-burn stories won't deter many men because they're convinced they are different, the women are different, and it isn't about anything important, just sex. Only a culture in which the sexual act has transcendant value can make a serious dent in such predatory behavior."

McGurn would characterize the behavior of men who participate in this type of interaction as an example of dysfunctional masculinity, which fosters “perpetual adolescence.”  He looks forward wistfully to a time when once again “the heart might be taken as seriously as the orgasm” and “young men pursing young women might even rediscover the marvelous possibilities of moonlit summer evenings.” Guilt and shame, once the gatekeepers of virtue and morality, are unfortunately now relegated to the musty old hope chest of the naïve, unsophisticated or out of date. Yet without those gatekeepers, men like Weinstein and his kind will continue their merciless assault, accumulating victims like the spoils of war, until they succeed in destroying whatever is left of our edifice of civility and personal integrity.

Paradoxically, it is Madonna, the poster girl for licentiousness and exhibitionism during the 80s, who, in the lyrics of her 1989 hit song “Express Yourself”,  provides a compelling voice for female empowerment, telling women not to abandon their high standards for temporary gratification.  She counsels, “What you need is a big strong hand/To lift you to your higher ground” and encourages them to have the courage to walk away when those standards are not met. “You deserve the best in life/So if the time isn’t right then move on/Second best is never enough/You’ll do much better, baby, on your own.” Hester Prynne went on to earn a respected place in the community for her courage and strength in the face of adversity. We modern women should do no less.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: Truth or Fiction

A recent article from the New York Times examines data from a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center which seems to confirm the perpetuation of stereotypical perceptions about gender differences. The article begins with the thesis that: "Men are tough; women are in touch with their feelings. Men are providers; women are nurturers. Men should punch back when provoked; women should be physically attractive"  and goes on to investigate the effects of sexism in society, concluding that, even in the current climate of shifting gender identity, roles and expectations, masculinity is still a more desirable quality than femininity.

It's not true that men lack the capacity to be in touch with their feelings the way women do. From an early age, boys are trained to believe that expressing their softer emotions makes them weaker and less masculine, unless those emotions are expressed to their female partners, who look for emotional intimacy.

Punching back when provoked is certain to get anyone in trouble with the law but the offenders are more often male than female; there are of course women who are just as physically aggressive as males and some will use that fact to their advantage if they get into a physical confrontation with their male partners, knowing that except for those men who are conditioned to be physically abusive, the rest will not retaliate by hitting back.

Men ARE visually oriented and that comes from their early roles as hunters. They needed to be able to locate their prey quickly in the environment and figure out the most effective way of bringing it down without harm to themselves. A woman's physical attractiveness appeals to that primitive hunting instinct. Men are programmed to see women as another type of "prey" and conquering the prey means that the man is successful in his task. That may account for the recent rise in reported incidents of sexual harassment by powerful men. Motivated by power and social influence, "dominating" an attractive woman adds to their prestige, as does joining in when other men talked about women in a sexual way. That's why they are successfully able to compartmentalize the physical and emotional aspects of a relationship. Emotions weaken a man, in society's eyes and make him more vulnerable to be defeated by his "prey", so he will reserve his emotional self for a woman who meets his criteria for an acceptable match, which includes looks,chemistry, intelligence, nurturing ability, independence, social acceptance and probably a bunch of other intangible factors. Emotional intimacy is a long term investment and if, again, the man is programmed by that primitive need to spread his genes as widely as possible through multiple "encounters", it's easy to see why he would separate the physical from the emotional. Being committed to one individual limits a man's genetic potential and that's not a viable option for spreading his genes. All that's needed to establish a physical connection is looks and chemistry, aided by artful flirtation and a stimulant like alcohol which dulls the more logical portion of the brain that raises the cautionary red flags about whether that potential partner is really a good match in the long run. The more powerful or financially successful the man is, the more he is admired by society and, ironically, the more it increases a man's chances of expanding his genetic potential, again because he has a large pool of available female partners through whom to spread his genes, although the availability of birth control in the 20th century puts a restriction on his success as well.

Yes, it is very true that many women are expected to present their best selves physically in public and that has been the case since the beginning of history. Unfortunately that has often come at the expense of the training they need to be effective leaders. They are evaluated by men as prospective partners and both envied and emulated by other women according to their level of physical attractiveness. Millions of dollars are spent on advertising in the beauty and fashion industry and there is greater scope for innovation in female fashion than for their male counterparts. I'm pretty sure many women would not go through many of the rituals they undergo were it not for their need to be perceived as physically attractive, and in a youth oriented culture, the efforts only intensify. Could both skills (practical and aesthetic) be taught simultaneously? Yes, but it requires the involvement of both parents working together and supporting each other's efforts to provide the combined benefit of their individual experiences. Women are automatically expected to be involved parents, as an extension of the physical function of pregnancy and childbirth. Fathers who spend time with their children are appreciated for "helping their wife or partner" while the woman gets no such appreciation because it is seen as an expectation. The fact that Zuckerberg opted to take extended paternity leave after the birth of his second child made the news but a woman who takes maternity leave gets routinely ignored because that is simply part of her job as a mother.

Men and women are equally competent in the workplace. They have the same education for the same job, have been trained in the "technical" skills required to do the job equally and are compensated equally when they have the same track record of work history. However, they differ in their emotional responses and that is a fact of biology. Men are hardwired to look for concrete solutions to problems; merely talking about the problem without finding a resolution just isn't efficient. Women, on the other hand, find comfort in brainstorming and evaluating the various factors that may impact different approaches before finding an acceptable solution, because of their need for emotional connection. That's probably why most women tend to prefer a female physician for gynecological issues because they both share the same anatomy and another woman may understand the psychological effects of a physical problem and the way it would affect other areas of a woman's life better than a man can.

I strongly believe that girls should be encouraged to participate in the same activities as the boys if they express an interest. More importantly, they should be trained the skills that help them become self reliant, like financial and computer literacy, simple repairs and a general knowledge of the world and current events. Since girls and women are already recognized for their emotional skills, they should be appreciated for their mastery of practical skills and their intellectual aptitude rather than their physical appearance and taught how to assert themselves diplomatically and effectively through the application of reason rather than emotion because those are the skills that enable them to survive in the world like the men do. As boys are typically appreciated for their practical abilities, I also think that they should be taught effective ways of expressing their emotions which helps them become better communicators and teaches them empathy, which enhances their personal lives. An empathetic male who is intelligent, capable and confident without being brash or arrogant is just as valuable and essential to the strength of society as an empathetic, intelligent, capable and confident woman. Is it important to look your best physically? Yes, for both men and women, but it should become an adjunct for a woman, as it is for the majority of men, not the primary focus of attention.

The Voyager

The soothing timbre of the singer’s voice blended with the faint strains of the harmonium: deep, calm and measured. In the haunting lyrics, she could almost hear his voice speaking to her even though he had been gone for many years:

“…I’m leaving for distant shores/And I’ll love you always/I always will

Often in the past, they had traveled together. She had looked forward to those voyages with excitement and anticipation because he had made them comfortable and entertaining. He had bolstered her during all of her own individual forays into the world, and re-vitalized her when she returned, sometimes triumphant and sometimes despondent. But she had always returned. Now he was embarking alone on a journey to an unknown destination. Many had come to bid him farewell and ask that he remember them. They had long since gone back to their own homes and only those closest remained now, some sleeping, others standing watch as she was. The air was cold and still and seemed to listen intently for the arrival of the escort that would accompany him to his destination.His breath became almost imperceptible. As she had so often before, she laid her head against his chest, listening to the cadence of his heartbeat. Its tempo was slower and weaker now, but to give her the tangible reassurance of his presence, she knew he would will it to continue beating until it was no longer in his control to do so.  Some claimed he had said goodbye to them in a dream while they were sleeping. Even in this he had thought of her, ensuring that the shadows did not disturb her rest or rob her of the opportunity to part from him in full awareness. 

 Come to my island/Bring me your soul/I’ll give you rubies/I’ll give you gold

She craved one more day to hear his voice, one more hour to see his smile, one last minute to feel his arms close around her comfortingly and his warm lips pressed to her skin in a loving, gentle salute. These were far more valuable a treasure than the cold and lifeless metal and stones which once, long ago, had been precious in her eyes. They could not pay her passage or she would have gladly surrendered them to go with him. He had been the giver, and she had taken greedily, like the boy in The Giving Tree. Now, if she could, she would give him her soul without hesitation, trusting that he would return it, not only intact, but enriched and luminous. The words of the song said he was moving on. There would be no bargaining for more time, for the messenger was implacable in his purpose. The departure had only been delayed but could not be avoided indefinitely. She stayed beside him now so that it would not go unnoticed.

 “Keep what I gave you, close to your heart/As long as it’s with you, we’ll never part”

His was a voice never raised in demand but one which compelled compliance nevertheless because he did not use it for his own aggrandizement, but to help as many as he could. She felt unequal to the task that he laid upon her with his words but he had given her his trust as the guardian of a treasure more valuable than jewels or gold, so she would attempt to honor his instructions. She never understood why he gave so generously without expecting anything in return. Now she realized that his love was more valuable because it was not hoarded or doled out sparingly, but given freely and selflessly. She wondered if he had ever felt as alone or adrift as she did now and how he had been able to shoulder his responsibilities and discharge them with such ease and grace. She only prayed that she would have his same generosity of spirit.

Untie your heartstrings/Do as you’re told/Please don’t forget me/Or let me grow old”

She had thought her heart gone with him but then she realized that he had, in fact, left his with her. Her eyes fell on the two small slumbering forms curled on either side of her. One had his eyes, compassion, sensitivity and loyal nature, the other his smile, confidence, practicality and self-reliance. Each time she looked at them, she would always feel comforted as though he were beside her once again. Other men would leave their legacy in tangible things like buildings, empires, or works of art or music for the world to see and admire. When those were altered or destroyed, there was often no one left who remembered the person who created them.  He had never looked for that kind of legacy to mark his life. She would pass on her memories of him in the hope that he would be an example to those who carried a part of his genes of how to endure both great joy and sorrow without falling victim to the turbulent emotions aroused by either, and how to live a life of purpose and integrity. His sheltering presence had given her courage and strength. There could be no greater tribute to the life he had lived than to apply the lessons he taught so unobtrusively. If at times she doubted her ability to do so, she knew his faith in her had never faltered or diminished.

And I’ll love you always/I always will…

(The words in bold are part of an original song composed by a friend)

Learning to be happy

I sat to the side, watching as my son prepared to hit the submit button on his college application. Suddenly, I reached out and placed my hand over his. “Stop!” I ordered, “Close your eyes and pray first.” I had been raised as a Hindu and growing up, my mother had observed all the sacred days with the appropriate rituals at home and I knew my father prayed each day as well. Once a year we visited the Hindu temple a few hours away. Despite this, as an adult I didn’t continue the tradition, and my children had never seen me actively engaging in the practice of my religion, so my request came as a surprise. Obligingly, my son  did as I asked.  I closed my eyes as well and silently recited a prayer to Ganesha, the remover of obstacles and to Saraswathi, goddess of learning.  At the back of my mind, I felt a little hypocritical knowing that the final outcome would depend less on my prayers and more on whether his credentials and experience met the university’s requirements for acceptance, and that in the end, whatever happened would not drastically change our lives one way or the other.

Earlier that evening, I had had a long discussion with the mother of a student about karma and the nature of happiness, and why it was that some people seemed to live a charmed life while others struggled through repeated challenges. She attributed it to living out their karma, and asserted that living a good life and doing good in the present was the only way to erase the sins of previous lives which had caused the problems they were experiencing. I objected to her statement, saying that it was unfair to punish someone at a later time for misdeeds in a past life they had no knowledge of and that even living a good life in the present did nothing to mitigate the pain of their suffering.

The conversation then centered around happiness. My student’s mother had not been very articulate in expressing herself but her conviction was clear. God had given all of us blessings and challenges, limitations and strengths. It was no use comparing myself  to others or being envious of their lives, because it only increased my level of unhappiness and left me unable to enjoy the blessings I had. As long as my mind was filled with envy and resentment and concentrated only on what was lacking, it would not have space for the positive energy that would attract additional blessings. Happiness lay in maximizing the potential of what I was given, according to my own abilities and talents.  It was a message I had heard repeatedly from many people, one I repeated to my own children, but found it difficult to follow myself.

The next morning I received a Whatsapp message from a relative in India containing a short excerpt about the definition of prayer. It wasn’t just about putting our hands together and expecting God to fulfill our wishes, but included thinking positive and wishing good for others. Prayer was not an action, but a feeling of gratitude for the blessings we have been given and an expression of thanks to those who might have helped us in attaining those blessings.

I won’t ever be able to compete in a marathon but I could still keep my body strong and healthy on a smaller scale with less intense exercise on a regular basis.  I didn’t have an Ivy League education but I still had a good education and could use it to help others who were struggling at school.  And if I did everything I could to go out and meet a variety of people and become more involved in the social life of the community, and believed that it would happen, it would increase the possibility that I would meet someone who was the right fit for me.  My life and happiness would not be dictated by the consequences of my past actions but by the pleasure I took in each day's gifts. I would work towards my goals, but in the meantime, I could find happiness in the small pleasures of being wrapped in the comforting warmth of a thick blanket as I indulged my sweet tooth with a slice of my favorite chocolate cake as I made plans to meet up with friends over the weekend.

Who Is A Man...A Realistic View

This meme has been posted on the Internet and circulated on WhatsApp ostensibly to correct the negative impression of men created by modern day feminism. In my opinion, it only makes things worse. Men have been celebrated and venerated in different ways throughout the course of history, often at the expense of women. I believe that we do both genders a disservice by exalting one over the other. How much easier it would be to recognize that men and women are not adversaries but complements of each other and we build stronger families and more peaceful communities by working together to appreciate and bolster each other. So I decided to modify the message to make it more inclusive:

Who is a MAN?

A man is a beautiful part of God's creation who starts compromising at a very tender age...because if only one side wins, everybody loses. He is beautiful because he is born from a woman's labor and the miracle of new life is always a beautiful thing.

He sacrifices his chocolates for his sister...but he will still get to enjoy them because his sister has been taught to always share with her siblings.

He sacrifices his dreams for just a smile on his parents face...without knowing how much they sacrificed for him because their biggest dream is to see their son happy.
He spends his entire pocket money on buying gifts for the lady he loves just to see her smiling...and she is happy knowing that he has remembered to recognize her for what she has brought to his life.

He sacrifices his full youth for his wife & children by working late at night without any complaint...because that is what he was taught was the responsible thing to do when you have a family. His wife also works hard at nurturing the family while he is busy working so he can enjoy being with them when he comes home.

He builds their future by taking loans from banks & repaying them for lifetime...because he wants to have a comfortable lifestyle and it may take time and help to achieve.
He struggles a lot & still has to bear scolding from his mother, wife & boss...because achieving success and building character require hard work and his mother only scolded him because she wanted him to grow up to be a responsible man who respected others. His wife scolds him only when he is not attentive to the needs of his family and his boss scolds him if he doesn't put his best effort into his work.

His life finally ends up only by compromising for others' happiness...but he may take for granted the many times others have compromised for his happiness.
If he goes out, then he's careless...because he doesn't realize that his family may want to spend time with him.
If he stays at home, then he's lazy...if he has free time and is not helping his wife when she asks for it or finding ways to keep his family safe and secure.
If he scolds his children, then he's a monster...if his words deliberately hurt and humiliate them and make them feel worthless.
If he doesn't scold them, then he's an irresponsible guy...or one who believes that the best way to teach your children is to model the behavior that you want them to follow.
If he stops wife from working, then he's an insecure guy...or a man who knows how hard it is to juggle the responsibilities of work and home and wants to make life easier for her by easing some of the burden.
If he doesn't stop his wife from working, then he's somebody who lives on wife's earnings...only if he doesn't have a job and refuses to contribute in other ways. He knows that his wife finds validation through her work just as he does through his.
If he listens to his mother, then he's a mama's boy...or a man who knows that his mother always has his best interests at heart and her advice comes out of her love and concern for him.
If he listens to his wife, he's his wife's slave...or a man who believes that marriage is a partnership and to have a strong and healthy relationship, her opinions and feelings are just as important as his.

Comments welcome

Don't Run Away, Stay and Fight, But Do it Right

The idea that love, which should be the bedrock of an intimate relationship between two people, is equated with a battle of supremacy, where the victor gets the spoils is not a new one. In 1579, English poet John Lyly first introduced the expression in his novel "Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit." It was modified to its present form in 1850 by Francis Edward Smedley in his novel "Frank Fairleigh." The battle of the sexes, to adopt a conventional construct, is not a new idea either. But the battle has escalated to a new-and to my mind, a disturbing level. There are a number of Youtube videos about the MGTOW movement, which argue that it is the women who have the advantage in the battle, due to several technological and ideological changes.  Those who subscribe to the MGTOW school of thought won't find love, because the movement is based on the idea of relationships as a power struggle. An article on Medium.com claims that "Love is a terrible unveiling and an absence of power. This means it is inaccessible to those who can only think in instrumental terms." Proponents of MGTOW seem to believe they can still achieve their goal of finding happiness and satisfaction by not making even a token foray onto the field.

The benefits of a stable loving marriage or long term relationship are things that are impossible to put a monetary value on, like steady companionship, shared responsibility for the daily tasks of life, and emotional support, which creates a strong foundation on which to handle life's challenges. Yes, it is possible to live a happy, successful and fulfilled single life but it pales in comparison to life with a committed partner. While I sympathize with the anger and bitterness of men who make the decision to get married only to see it break down, I think that the reasons given by both men and women for not wanting to marry are rationalizations to avoid coming to terms with the fact that marriage is not a fairy tale but a binding social contract between two individuals and both sides must honor its terms for it to thrive. Needing an incentive to commit or the idea that one side inevitably gains at the expense of the other or that the obligations of the relationship come second to personal whims imply that it is nothing but a temporary business agreement that can be easily terminated if its terms are outdated or inconvenient.

It is the lack of commitment to the good of the relationship as a whole that is responsible for the combative nature of love. It becomes a selfish enterprise where each side becomes focused on personal benefit. Both partners need to have a shared vision and to continue to value the other partner in the relationship for it to work. But that requires looking through a different and more objective lens. Fairy tales rely on the superficial qualities of each partner to establish the relationship and imply that those qualities will be enough to hold it together over the long term. A compatible partner may not be aesthetically stunning, stylish, have overwhelming sexual dynamism or social cachet, but may have other qualities that are more vital to sustaining the relationship. If either partner has unrealistic expectations, the foundation is already weak.

Whether women have the greater power or men do is immaterial if that power is used not to build each other up, but to destroy and invalidate each other's worth. The current wave of feminism and the media have so completely tarnished men's images and diminished their worth that there is no advantage for men to pursue romantic relationships or permanent commitments with women, so they have given up in disgust and frustration. And their surrender is the greatest danger for the stability of society as a whole.

The Beauty Ideal

 “A woman’s beautiful face attracts a flirter/A woman’s beautiful heart attracts a lover/A woman’s beautiful character attracts a man…”

This idea may be true in theory, but falls woefully short against the harsh truth of reality. A woman’s beauty should depend not on how others judge her, but whether she believes herself beautiful and has the confidence to go out into the world every day with pride in who she is and what she has to offer.Ovid’s Pygmalion is a story of a young man who constructs a statue out of ivory and falls in love with his own creation. He created a physical ideal that no real woman could live up to, an image that has been perpetuated ever since. Today, entire industries are devoted to the marketing of female physical beauty through clothing, makeup, and diet, all of which tell women that if we don’t conform to a certain standard of attractiveness, we are valued less, no matter how many other admirable qualities we have. 

At birth, all babies are beautiful, regardless of gender. Where do women get the idea that their self worth depends on their looks? As they grow up, girls are complimented for their “style” which includes their pleasing manners and how they present themselves, while boys are praised for their intelligence, assertiveness and ambition.  Much of a women’s sense of her own attractiveness comes first from her mother and then later from her female peers and from the amount of male attention she gets. It’s a doubled edged sword. A beautiful woman is threatening to other women, because she gets attention from the male population, whether she wants it or not. At the same time, she attracts the notice of other women, who hope to be the residual beneficiaries of some of that attention. A less attractive woman by contrast has to try harder to stand out and be accepted. Just look at Sandy, from “Grease.” On her own, she was a sweet, pretty, gentle girl. But until she underwent her dramatic transformation at the end of the musical, she was ignored for her plainness and shamed for her value system. It was the change in her outward appearance that gave her the confidence to be assertive, rather than confidence in her character.

A girl or woman who is interested in math or science or more intellectual pursuits finds herself isolated from the same female peers who function as her support system. When I was growing up, dinner table conversations were always about what happened in the world or at school, about ideas and self-edification, rather than self- beautification. It was no surprise then that I preferred to spend my time with my nose buried in a book rather than curling my hair or painting my nails or trying on make up. I never felt the need to experiment with the latest styles in fashion. Not having that particular experience of “female bonding” in my youth was a distinct disadvantage because it isolated me from my female peers. As I grew older, I had to learn how to put myself together on my own for interviews or other public events and I lacked the knowledge to do it well. 

Granted, what is considered beautiful varies from culture to culture. But most of us can generally agree on a set of common characteristics that generally define physical attractiveness:  a svelte but curvy figure with symmetrical proportions, a smooth complexion, light skin, not being too tall or too short, long hair and big eyes. Add the right kind of clothes and shoes and artfully applied cosmetics to enhance those physical features and voila, a modern Galatea! The tragedy is when women begin to believe that their looks are the only thing they have of value and the only way they can achieve success in the world.While we have come a long way in dispelling some of the myths about what is considered beautiful, it is an ongoing battle against new and more sophisticated techniques aimed at undermining the foundations of female identity.

The Bonds of Loyalty

I normally never cry when I watch dramatic movies, but Kenneth Branagh's modern adaptation of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express was an exception to the rule. Seeing the movie after Thanksgiving, as families gather all over the country, uniting to celebrate with each other was particularly poignant. There have been a number of TV and film adaptations of Christie's classic mystery over the years, but from a strictly storyline point of view, this one touched an emotional chord. Anyone who has read the story is already familiar with the ending. Earlier adaptations had an all white cast. Branagh's version utilizes the amazing talents of a stellar and diverse cast to bring the tale into the 21st century. Setting aside the aspect of political correctness, at its heart, this is a story of love, loyalty and justice.

In the 2010 movie starring David Suchet as Poirot, the detective objects to self administered vigilante justice, exclaiming, "You behave like this and we become just savages in the street...the rule of law...it must be held high, and if it falls, you pick it up and hold it even higher!" The murder of an innocent child violates a fundamental notion of right and wrong and it is that superior principle which motivates the actions of the executioners. The earlier version concentrates on the contrast between sin and innocence and the struggle between the man made rule of law and the divinely sanctioned need for justice.

All of the characters are emotionally tied to the events leading to the murder that is the focus of Christie's tale. With the exception of the mother and sister, the rest of the characters are employees of the Armstrong family. Normally, there is an impersonal relationship between employer and employee. From Poirot's perspective the travellers on the train are simply "strangers pressed together for days with nothing in common but the need to go from one place to another and never see each other again." But each one of the individuals who participates has a deeper connection to the family, which fuels their desire to see justice done. The pain of their employer's loss is a personal injury, one that creates, as the 2010 version illustrates, a "hell on earth for those wronged."

Branagh's adaptation concentrates on the emotional bonds between the characters as an extended family and the way they protect and support each other in the implementation of a morally difficult task. The murder of Ratchett is the execution of a man who destroys a family with his cold and conscienceless act. The characters have united to commit an immorally pragmatic act for an emotionally righteous reason, a burden they will carry with them forever.   Each of us is imperfect and longs to find love and the acceptance of our imperfections in our families and when we cannot, living with that burden fractures the soul, much as the inability to seek justice did for the characters in Branagh's movie. Perhaps the critical message is that only by sharing our pain can we find healing for our wounds and acceptance of our flaws.