jurist-chan-blog

[jurist-chan-blog]

A Musical Mindset

For the majority of this semester, we've been talking about emo music and its effect on society -- but what about its effect on the individual person? Why did certain styles of music catch on? Music is something that applies to everyone. It ignores language barriers and often brings out more emotion in people that words can. Writing a silly song for my Rockumentary should have been just that -- silly -- but it still felt like a cathartic experience. Why does music have this effect?

An article from The University of Chicago Press mentioned that "preference for sad music was significantly higher when [consumers] had experienced an interpersonal loss (losing a personal relationship) versus an impersonal loss (losing a competition)."  I immediately thought back to the emo album I'd researched, Transatlanticism, and remembered how quiet and peaceful several of the songs were, like The Passenger Seat.

The album itself was about the singer mourning about his long distance relationship, definitely checking the box for "an interpersonal loss." The article also suggested that "consumers seek and experience emotional companionship with music […] as a substitute for lost and troubled relationships." That made me think about Dashboard Confessional, well-known in our class for its deeply emotional, acoustic guitar-filled songs. Chris Carrabba was usually the only one performing and he was shy, so perhaps his music was truly a way for him to not only have a companion, but a companion that bridged the gap between him and his audience.

It makes perfect sense that emo music finds its biggest audience in teenagers. They often feel the most alone, whether it be because of schoolwork, family problems, or relationship issues. Emo music addresses that directly and acts as the companion that many people are looking for.

Scientific American noted that “human movement has been conjectured to underlie music as far back as the Greeks.” In other words, we react to different sounds based on how similar they sound to real life events; for instance, quiet piano may sound like wind gently rustling through trees and evoke a feeling of calmness.

That may be why punk rock sounded to aggressive and explosive: both bands and listeners were fed up with the failure of 1960’s politics and music was their way of lashing out. Fast, jarring rhythms trigger excitement or anger and the signature screams definitely add to that attitude. The University of Chicago Press made a statement that applies to the punk movement: “Consumers liked angry music more when they were frustrated by interpersonal violations (being interrupted, someone always being late) than by impersonal hassles (no internet connection; natural disaster).” The failures of anti-war movements surely pissed off a large amount of the population, contributing to the rise of the type of sound punk music delivers. The same could be said right after 9/11. The solidarity Americans felt after the attack made it a loss of family and a time of mourning. Thus, people wanted to listen to quiet, sad music, especially for companionship.

Picture from Twitter

The psychology behind music seems really obvious since we all deal with it on a daily basis, but at the same time, it’s very complicated. The best explanation I came across was the one from Scientific American, saying that music mimics “human expressive movements,” which are already “rich in emotional expressiveness.” Music resonates with us at the most basic level, mixing in with tens of thousands of years of evolution and becoming more and more integral to our lives, especially with the growing popularity of streaming services that put access to every song ever in the palm of our hands.

[jurist-chan-blog]

Holden Caulfield is still a good person.

I remember when I made my last blog post that I made sure to say, “I have faith that [Holden Caulfield will] become a better person.” I specifically said that because I was about 90% sure that he would actually mature by the end of the novel just like any book I’d read in the past. Was I wrong? I don’t think so. Here’s why.

The last part of the novel -- when Holden spends time with his sister Phoebe -- really stuck with me. This was a different Holden, not the scotch and soda ordering, foul-mouthed, immature Holden we’d seen before. This was a good Holden, one that I wanted to see more of. I know that there’s no obvious change within Holden, but there was certainly some kind of change before the carousel. As Phoebe runs off, Holden says, “‘If I let you skip school this afternoon and go for a little walk, will you cut out the crazy stuff? Will you go back to school tomorrow like a good girl?’” (Salinger 270). While reading this, I couldn’t help but wonder: was Holden asking Phoebe or himself? After all, Holden’s gone out on his own “little walk,” running away from school and spending money in the city. I think Holden finally realized, at least a tiny bit, how absurd he was being by running away from his problems.

The question was for himself. And, if you don’t believe me, Phoebe’s response matches up perfectly with Holden’s response to his own problem. She retorts, “‘I may and I may not,’ she said. Then she ran right the hell across the street, without even looking to see if any cars were coming” (Salinger 270). In the last two pages of the book, when D.B. asks Holden if he’ll work harder in school, he comments, “I think I am, but how do I know?” (Salinger 276). And while Phoebe brushes the question aside and runs across the street without giving it a second thought, Holden does the same, reflecting on his thoughts of the events in the book. Phoebe and Holden have similar personalities, and I think Holden sees a lot of himself within her. That’s why he’s protective of her (like rubbing off the “fuck you” written on the wall), wants her to continue being active in school (like playing Benedict Arnold in the school play), and tries hard to make her happy (like paying for her to ride the carousel). There is one difference between Phoebe and Holden: Phoebe has Holden. She has a mentor to guide her through life. Holden doesn’t have anyone -- Allie died when he was young, D.B. was far older and moved away before Holden could really spend much time with him, and his father is never home (and never even gets a line in the book). So, at the park, Holden does become a little more mature by becoming a father-figure to Phoebe. It’s impressive (to me) for two reasons: no one told Holden to do it and no one showed Holden how to do it.

Quote from BrainyQuote

Is Holden Caulfield a good person? Yes. You can say that he has no idea how to talk to women and doesn’t adhere to social customs, but Holden hasn’t really had anyone to guide him, so of course he’s going to make mistakes. During Thursday’s class discussion, I agreed with a few other people that the book didn’t have a satisfying ending. But I was wrong. Throughout the entire book, Holden failed at being an adult. In this final scene of the book with Phoebe, he was an adult. He may not always stay that way, but who’s ever said that adulthood was an instant and permanent transition?

Salinger, Jerome D. The Catcher in the Rye. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, January 2001.

[jurist-chan-blog]

Holden Caulfield is a good person.

That wasn’t my first reaction to reading the first 100 pages of Catcher in the Rye (my first reaction being, “Who is this ‘Holden Caulfield,’ and why does he sound like an annoying, pretentious little brother I'm glad I don't have?”), but it is my reaction now. To say his actions were cringeworthy would be an understatement… but then again, weren't we all like that once upon a time? I'm sure most of us were far less rebellious and disdainful of our own educations and the opportunities given to us by our parents, but I can remember the times when my thoughts at least somewhat aligned with Holden's: -- the exaggerated waiting times, the egocentric view of the world -- but at least my parents were there to stop my thoughts from turning into action. For me, the internet was the only really plausible way to "escape" and find myself, but that wasn't a thing in the 1950's. To harshly criticize Holden's view of the world would be easy but wrong. Without anyone or anything really guiding him in the right direction, he's blind, stumbling around and trying to get a feel for life. He might not act mature all the time, but he definitely has mature qualities within him, potential for him to become a better man.

One disturbing personality that Holden is that of Stradlater, a quite despicable person whom Holden confusingly and occasionally looks up to. He calls Stradlater "a very sexy bastard" (Salinger 42) with "a damn good build" (Salinger 34), strange descriptions for a guy who forces him to do his homework and "borrows" his coat and hair gel without asking. The relationship between the two is an odd one.  I was pleasantly surprised upon seeing how much Holden stood up for himself, "[tearing] up" the homework Stradlater complained about and "[ignoring]" Stradlater's requests for him to stop smoking in the room (Salinger 54-55). Even though Stradlater is one of the few people he hangs out with, Holden doesn't follow the same ideals he does, recognizing his awful qualities: "If you knew Stradlater, you'd have been worried, too. I'd double-dated with that bastard a couple of times […] his date kept saying, 'No -- please. Please, don't. Please'" (Salinger 52, 64).

Yet in the same paragraph -- where Holden says he "damn near puked" at the sound of what was going on in the back of the car -- he actually compliments Stradlater, stating, "What a technique that guy had" (Salinger 64). Perhaps it's simply Holden's adolescence causing him to look to Stradlater as a stereotypical figure of masculinity and to describe what sounds like rape to be "[giving] that girl the time that night" (Salinger 64) I believe that it's just childhood ignorance based on two observations: Holden never describes Stradlater's actions bluntly, opting to replace "sex" or "rape" with the euphemism "snowing" instead (Salinger 64), and he feels nervous thinking about Jane and Stradlater's date based on how Stradlater has acted on past dates, having a "feeling something had gone funny" (Salinger 55). I took two things away from these two observations. First, Holden isn't mature enough or had enough life experience to feel comfortable saying things for what they are or to know exactly how to describe them. Like I said earlier, he doesn't pinpoint Stradlater as a rapist and feels strongly uncomfortable around him without specifically saying why. Second, Holden is mature enough to recognize that Stradlater is a bad person. Although he does Stradlater's homework, he's completely okay with tearing it up, and he enjoys making him mad. I realize he does that with almost everyone he meets, but I applaud Holden for not idolizing Stradlater when he could easily be manipulated into following him. However, the conversation that shows the most maturity on Holden’s part happens when he and Stradlater are talking about Jane. Holden expresses far more interest in Jane’s life and her well-being than Stradlater. He tells stories from the past about her: her dog, love for ballet, family, and even small things, like playing checkers together. Yet Stradlater doesn’t care whatsoever, an attitude that matches perfectly with his attitude on dates. In my opinion, this is the moment that shows Holden’s greatest potential to grow up. He sees Jane as a person and recognizes her feelings, worrying about her safety during her date with Stradlater and feeling “so nervous I nearly went crazy” (Salinger 45). And most importantly, he does this without anyone teaching him or telling him to do so. It sounds stupid, I know: shouldn’t everyone know to treat others with respect? Then you think about the world, and you think, “No, not everyone knows to treat others with respect.” For a 16 year old to not only do that but do it without being instructed to is something I don’t see enough nowadays and gives him the potential to be a truly mature person.

Holden is a strange guy. He’s irresponsible about his education, has little to no regard for the people who care about him (specifically, Mr. and Mrs. Spencer), and is far from respectful. But these don’t necessarily mean Holden is a bad person; he’s still young and has some great qualities. He’s independent and doesn’t replicate the actions of Stradlater, who would appear to be the stereotypical “alpha male,” and he has a good moral compass. The teenage years are all about figuring out who you are and who you want to be. Holden might still be and act like a kid, but that’s why he’s acting rebellious: to go through that teenage phase and grow up. I have faith that he’ll become a better person. Do you?

Salinger, Jerome D. The Catcher in the Rye. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, January 2001.

[jurist-chan-blog]

Is Seth Really Emo?

The term “emo” — as I’d come to understand it — required some sort of quiet self-reflection, a searching of inner emotions and thoughts. That’s why, when Seth from The O.C. was described as “emo,” I was confused; Seth seemed humorous, confident, outgoing, and not at all like the emo image I had in mind. In fact, Seth was one of the last characters I’d considered to be emo. Ryan and Marissa, two characters with far deeper personal issues than Seth, appeared more emotional and self-reflective and thus, more worthy of the title, “emo.” But the more I thought about it, and with the help of Andy Greenwald’s Nothing Feels Good, I began to realize that although we see Seth as this funny, loveable guy, his charismatic personality may just be Seth's way of searching for his inner emotions, making him an emo character.

Right off the bat, Seth is introduced as a problem solver, aiming to bridge two religions and appeasing two groups of people by eliminating the need to choose between two goods: in this case, Christmas and Hanukkah (0:00:27 - 0:00:46). This desire to make people happy is a recurring one for Seth, repeating constantly throughout the episode. With two potential dates to the Christmas party, Seth brings both at the same time, doing his best to favor both of them equally to avoid hurting their feelings (0:06:40 - 0:07:25).

(The camera at 0:20:00 does a good job of visualizing Seth’s efforts to balance the relationships.) Even when he is forced to choose one of them, he still puts them on even ground by asking both to only be friends (0:36:18 - 0:36:30). Additionally, one of Seth’s biggest goals in the episode is not just to make Ryan a “Chrismukkah convert,” but to integrate him into the family, restoring the happiness his past family lacked (0:41:26 - 0:41:30). What’s the point to all of this? Seth, throughout the entire episode, focuses his efforts in an outward way to make them feel better, contrasting him with every other character in the show. While Ryan and Marissa work on solving their own problems, Seth looks beyond just himself. (I’m definitely not calling Ryan or Marissa selfish; they have every right to wrestle with their own challenges. I’m focusing more on Seth’s desire to make as many people as he can happy.) He fulfills Andy Greenwald's definition of emo: “the act of reaching out towards something larger to better know yourself” (Greenwald 5). A love triangle, Seth’s parents’ different religious backgrounds, Ryan’s past family issues: all of these together are “larger” than Seth’s own personal life. Humor and confidence happen to be the tools he uses to help people out, and based on his statement that “I really only know how to handle rejection and ridicule,” they’re his best tools for dealing with negative emotions (0:34:54 - 0:34:56).

Even though Seth doesn’t seem like the most emotional character in the show, he, like any teenager, is still trying to understand himself, though by means different from the other teenagers. We see Seth diffusing conflict with humor, Marissa opening up about her emotions at the therapist's office, and Ryan accepting his invitation into the Cohen family. These are all very different actions, but they're the ways each character will be able to grow and figure out his or her emotions. The term "emo" — as I now understand it — doesn't require a quiet, introverted lifestyle; It's simply the lens through which one sees life. Seth just happens to observe and navigate life differently from his peers.

Greenwald, Andy. Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2003.

“The Best Christmukkah.” The O.C. Written by Josh Schwartz, directed by Sanford Bookstaver, Fox, 2003.

[jurist-chan-blog]

Is Seth Really “Emo?”

The term “emo” — as I’ve come to understand it — requires some sort of quiet self-reflection, a searching of inner emotions and thoughts. That’s why, when Seth from The O.C. was described as “emo,” I was confused; Seth seemed humorous, confident, outgoing, and not at all like the emo image I had in mind. In fact, Seth was one of the last characters I’d considered to be emo. Ryan and Marissa, two characters with far deeper personal issues than Seth, appeared more emotional and self-reflective and thus, more worthy of the title, “emo.” But the more I thought about it, and with the help of Andy Greenwald’s Nothing Feels Good, I began to realize that although we see Seth as this funny, loveable guy, there’s more that we don’t see. His charismatic personality may just be the surface; what lies below makes him an emo character.

Right off the bat, Seth is introduced as a problem solver, aiming to bridge two religions and appeasing two groups of people by eliminating the need to choose between two goods: in this case, Christmas and Hanukkah (0:00:27 - 0:00:46). This aim to make people happy reoccurs constantly in Seth’s character throughout the episode. With two potential dates to the Christmas party, Seth brings both at the same time, doing his best to favor both of them equally to avoid hurting their feelings (0:06:40 - 0:07:25). Even when he is forced to choose one of them, he still puts them on even ground by asking to only be friends (0:36:18 - 0:36:30). And one of Seth’s biggest goals in the episode is not just to make Ryan a “Chrismukkah convert,” but to integrate him into the family, restoring the happiness his past family lacked (0:41:26 - 0:41:30). What’s the point to all of this? Seth, throughout the entire episode, focuses his efforts in an outward way to make them feel better, contrasting him with every other character in the show. While Ryan and Marissa work on solving their own problems, Seth looks beyond just himself. (I’m definitely not calling Ryan or Marissa selfish; they have every right to wrestle with their own challenges. I’m focusing more on Seth’s desire to make as many people as he can happy.) He fulfills the definition of “emo” that Andy Greenwald describes as “the act of reaching out towards something larger to better know yourself” (Greenwald 5). A love triangle, Seth’s parents’ different religious backgrounds, Ryan’s past family issues: all of these together are “larger” than Seth’s own personal life. Humor and confidence happen to be the tools he uses to help people out, and based on his statement that “I really only know how to handle rejection,” they’re his best tools for dealing with negative emotions. They might not always work immediately, as seen when Ryan talks about his past Christmas experiences...

...but his amiability ends up winning out anyway when Ryan hangs his stocking on the mantel (0:42:00 - 0:42:05).

Even though Seth doesn’t seem like the most emotional character in the show, he, like any teenager, is still trying to figure out himself. The characteristics that make him appear the least emo actually contribute to his emo-ness, partly because Greenwald’s definition of emo is so loose but also because of how much of Seth we don’t see. His personable facade hardly cracks, so we don’t see his true emotions the same way we see Ryan’s or Marissa’s. The mystery around Seth’s character—amplified by my knowledge of this sole episode—brings up some interesting ideas about his true self, and I’m curious to learn about your thoughts.