On The Desecration of Beloved Characters and A Triggered Response to "Velma"

 

The definition of “adaptation” according to the authority of my word processor suggests a work which is recast in a new form, an inevitability especially with those classical characters which have long been a source of entertainment for patrons of the arts. The current adaptation of characters from the past is found in just about every genre of art, somewhere, but seems most prominent in film and TV, where it takes place with the categories of horror movies, creature features, slasher films, action, fantasy, drama, and all subgenres in between. While some reboots or adaptations reach far into the past for their source material, some are incredibly recent with remarkably little space or time between installments. The Marvel Universe or Batman movies are a couple notable examples. Some are sequels, but others are adaptations which differ significantly from a previous entry in the franchise, released perhaps even just a few years earlier. Thus, we see characters going through process of change, and this acceptable to a wide audience given certain factors. It is apparent through online discussions and revenue some general observations might be in order.

 

One of the big ones relates to the age and established attributes of a beloved character. There seems to be a relationship between how long the character has been around and the level of patience fans have for abrupt changes of the subject’s characteristics. Rather than writing a HUGE list of individual aspects which go into this matter, the length of time a character has been around implies a certain level of fandom and adoration. It goes without saying the characters who suck don’t really stand the test of time. I don’t think Jar Jar Binks is going to have a show in fifty years.

Infamy is another one. A character doesn’t necessarily need to be likable or to be memorable to appeal to audiences. Yet, it seems a despised character is a little more prone to adaptation without groaning from a section of the audience. Think Nurse Ratchet from “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.” Not exactly a beloved character, though brilliantly performed by the late Louis Fletcher (a role she took the Academy Award home for Best Actress in 1976). This character stayed in the public consciousness, so much so Netflix released their own show “Ratchet” in 2020 based on the character. With all the love-to-haters out there with Nurse Ratchet, it might be considered unacceptable to cast the role much differently from what the original portrayed. So, we see infamy may too keep a character in the public eye so even they too might get a Netflix adaptation fifty years later. Can we expect a Netflix “Binks” after all? Please no.

On the other hand, infamy and the staying power of character might be best shown in the horror genre. Halloween is finally releasing its supposedly last installment and even Leatherface might not be completely done waving his chainsaw around. In this instance, there might be a little bit more freedom with this genre for many of these story lines have enough plot holes and twists to provide plenty enough room for another person to take up the mantle.

Characters known only for a short time or which transition from one genre to another have more capability to be changed free of controversy. When I was a youth I read “Rising Sun” by Michael Crichton and was quite excited for the movie to come out. After watching it the casting confused me, particularly the character of Peter J. Smith who was portrayed in the film by Wesley Snipes. It didn’t seem like an obvious fit for me from reading the book, but the character was new, not involved in sequels or follow ups, so the shift was unexpected by not terrible by any means. However, if the book or a subsequent series of novels existed for a long period of time, and the portrayal was counter to what I was expecting it could’ve be more off-putting. Whatever the case, we can’t ignore the conceptions or ideas impressed upon a person from any story, book, television show, movie, or any other source material imprints.

Finally, let us get to this “Velma” thing now. This is the real crux of the issue. When we go see a movie, yes, we go into it with expectations. These are formed by trailers, buzz about the movie, and in some cases by what we know of the characters prior. Even so there are some characters I couldn’t give two craps about. Take this updated live-action “Little Mermaid” movie coming out. People are up in arms about the casting or such, and I get it, but I can’t really criticize it. It’s not like I can’t conceive they have presupposed notions of the character based in literature and previous re-tellings, but I don’t have any connection with the tale of the “Little Mermaid.” (Or would that be tail? groan) I was never a fan, so I don’t have the slightest connection to the fable or film and don’t give a hoot.

I’m not a fan of “Snow White” either but I know the source material around it, where there are things about the character which have been ignored completely by the makers of the upcoming film. I do find this example a bit annoying, simply because of its literary specificity. In these instances it makes you wonder if the makers care about the story or characters they are seeking to portray at all? If caring about a fictional character is a real thing.

HBO Max has come out with the splendid idea for “Velma” and I for one am rooting for it to be a ratings disaster. Considering all the things I have laid out here, let me say, I always would tell people half-jokingly I was a Scooby-Doo fan before it was popular (which is impossible since the Hanna-Barbera classic predates me by 10 or 11 years, premiering in 1969). It’s considered a staple of classic animation and television, picking up fans among both children and adults along the way to becoming a historical institution in television history. It spawned two live action movies, several animated movies, and had hosts of guest stars who were all to happy to voice and lend their likenesses to be drawn with Scooby and the gang.

Now in 2022, for some reason the characters are getting an overhaul, to which I say, “Is nothing sacred anymore?” I mean, sure, “Little Mermaid,” whatever, but “Scooby-Doo”? Now they’ve gone to far. Are you out of your mind? I am no fortune teller or delusional enough to post this hoping to keep those meddling kids from screwing up my favorite cartoon, what is done is done, but I think this is going to tank for a couple reasons. First, let us look at the target audience. Supposedly, last I heard, this Velma series was going to be for a mature audience and deal with murders, gore and all that kind of thing. Alright, out the gate not the worst premise. It isn’t enough to destroy the show, writers could perhaps do a lot with it, but the characters have been altered to resemble nothing like the original gang, and there isn’t even a dog! It is advertised to be a prequel of sorts. It will take some creativity to explain the shifts in the characters from the prequel stage to the original show, much of which wouldn’t fit if they are assumed to be in the same “universe” as “prequel” would suggest.

It being for adults, we are talking about an older audience who is probably is better acquainted and more accustomed to the classic “Scooby-Doo” formula. Velma with her Mary Jane shoes, Shaggy with his unhinging jaw evolved for the sole purpose of consuming three-foot tall sandwiches, Fred with a sailor necktie or whatever it is, and Daphne, with . . . well, another scarf I suppose. I don’t think any sexual tension between Fred and Daphne was canon, but would take research and my browsing history is bizarre enough. Oh, and of course the dog with the speech impediment. Other than the names (”Shaggy” will supposedly be referred to by his canonical name Norville Rogers), there is almost nothing similar about “Velma” to the “Scooby Doo” crew which was supposedly was its inspiration. I suppose we can argue it is a spoof, but it doesn’t seem to be what is being implied or where it is going.

It seems then the producers and every one involved in this early Saturday morning blasphemy is guilty of hijacking people’s beloved childhood institutions for the sake of pushing some P.C. dog—— well, “Scooby feces”. It be almost insulting if I was forced to watch it, which I am not, and won’t do so. I believe plenty of others will join in suit. I’m sure they will come up with some uniquely clever answer for these arguments made by applying the labels of being generally racist, often homophobic, prone to gaslighting, always patriarchal, incessantly privileged, functionally ableist, triggered, toxic conversationalists. Perhaps others also which they’ll insist on to attack and at the same time destroy the meaning or impact of their labels as they flip through their Rolodex of pop buzz words.

(Image more effective if you make the sound effects.)

It doesn’t take too much rational discipline to be able to understand the argument. The preconceived notions of a character through literature or the past are often supposed by people when they look at your movie or film and decide, according to their prerogative, if it is worth their money and time. Nobody can deny the characters in “Velma” differ significantly from what we grew up with, what we know, or what we imagine when we hear “Scooby-Doo” and its oh so catchy theme song. Even the “Mystery Machine,” not a character at all, if they were to replace it with a Dodge Dakota would just be depressing. To make the leap from acknowledging this to racism is quite the stretch, but done on a regular basis anyway. Not a rational argument, but experiential, it looks as if people would rather watch something which doesn’t violently conflict with their memories. Granted, some of us do guard our nostalgic recollections with a bit of, admittedly, jealous passion, but it doesn’t mean a buzz word applies.

Not hating on Dodge, I had a Dodge Dakota back in the day but never used it for my mystery solving adventures.

 A spoof would be acceptable. Using different characters to portray similar traits but with glaring differences, is something usually held quite acceptable. Even if you had Velma be Veronica and Shaggy voiced by, well, Shaggy, that sounds like something I might at least give a go. There have been some shows which have borrowed from the “Scooby-Doo” formula with some level of success. “The Venture Brothers” is said to give off some Scooby-vibes, and the gang is included in one episode, and “Mike Tyson Mysteries” was heavily influenced by the show. For this reason I think “Ghostbusters: Answer The Call” was acceptable. It may have been a different story piggybacking on the old, but it is still trying to make its own way. Lastly on this point, the benefit of the spoof is you can introduce a whole new cast of characters in likenesses of the originals and keep from kicking someone in the nostalgias, and might, pick up a few extra views because of it. A perfect spoof would draw viewers to the old and the new.

I have been putting off telling of all the “woke” stuff packed into “Velma,” but it takes the beloved characters a lot of us grew up with and twists them to fit some agenda instead of just providing pure entertainment. In this case, “Velma” might have another strike against it with the show being only a newly packaged heap of the regurgitated message we are constantly bombarded with anyway. If there is any cleverness behind this show, I wager it is only going to be episodic and the whole of the show is going to offer every bit as much entertainment as CNN's morning lineup.

It has been announced “Velma” is now queer in the new prequel, of course implying she must be queer throughout the show up until this point. It seems as if this is a bit of desperation to throw in this plot point. When we look at the original “Scooby-Doo”, other than then cutting a groovy rug on a rare occasion, there isn’t a lot of romance implied. Just a group of young sleuths driving around solving mysteries. What person can’t look back into their youth and relate to that? Despite this, the makers of “Velma” want to create something which was never intended or never even there to begin with. It’s like there is a desperation to make this cartoon sexual in some way. Hollywood is running with this formula now, where they apparently have a check list of all the social engineering tiers they need to visit in any production, and if it isn’t there, you better believe they will make it so. Not with just current projects, but also the one’s already finished. Now they are reaching into the past saying if it wasn’t there to begin with, we are going to “reimagine” it so.

Disney Princesses Reimagined as Cement Mixers

The interesting thing is, with some of these productions, especially as of late, the tokens of the messages they are trying to portray, aren’t pulling in the views even among those to whom these talking points would be most directed. Velma identifying as “queer”, you’d think would draw in viewers who can relate to it. Maybe I will eat my words, I don’t know, but recently these groups haven’t been turning out en masse for these reimaginings. Maybe to a degree Hollywood is getting just as transparent to these groups as it is for others. I wouldn’t be surprised, because pandering is best done in intermediate doses. If you are going to pander to a group, or push an agenda, overwhelming might not be the best course, though if your being pandered to, being overwhelming is exhilarating at first. Right before it gets boring. Especially in the scope of entertainment.

People like movies they can interject themselves into, or identify with the characters. So it is quite understandable LGBT representation would be found in movies to attract the movie goers who can place themselves in that role on a subconscious level. Yet, the longer a character has been around, the more the character takes on a personal construct of their own in the mind of the movie goer. They are unable to interject themselves into the character because the character has been fully formed in their mind. It is not malleable to the viewer, nor does the viewer suppose it is completely open to interpretation for any other.

 

On Stracist Things

This morning I sat down with my coffee and opened up Facebook to see what is going on in the lives of friends and grab a meme or two which floated by on my feed. Upon it was featured a post with an article regarding “Stranger Things” star Caleb McLaughin who plays Lucas Sinclair. In the brief article, Mr. McLaughin stated he was convinced some of the fans of the show were racist because of a lack of visitors at a convention and the amount of Twitter and Instagram followers he has in comparison to his co-stars. He went on to tell a foreign audience America is just seeped in bigotry. 

Now, for all I know maybe he is right. Maybe there are really are just millions of fans out there of the show who are secretly racist, fast forward his scenes and refuse to follow him on Twitter. I’m not omniscient so I can’t know for sure, but, and just thinking out loud here, perhaps it isn’t the first explanation we can look at regarding his measly, laughable 15 million followers (how embarrassing). I think we just might be able to conclude a few other things to into account.  It is the norm for celebrities nowadays to jump on the victimhood bandwagon, but just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend we don’t immediately look for this as an explanation. What other could there be? Hard to imagine but for the sake of this entry, let us try. 

 

For one, honestly, when it comes to this show, he isn’t the most fascinating character and, hey, that isn’t necessarily his fault. Not being sarcastic. It isn’t. His character simply isn’t the most engaging and other than the pizza guy from the last season, he probably is one of more of the “expendable” (for lack of a better word) characters especially since more and more characters have been added to the show. At the beginning of “Stranger Things” he had more of a presence, but his position has been declining as the show goes on. Again, probably of no fault of his own. It isn’t as if he or Eduardo Franco write the show. Truly, if I had Twitter or the Gram I would follow the actress who plays his sister before I followed him because her character on the show is clearly more interesting.

Argyle (Eduardo Franco) and Erica Sinclair (Priah Ferguson)

Second, and looking beyond “Stranger Things” is the fact many of the people have done projects outside of the show which have gave them more prominence in the public eye. More exposure often equals more followers. Though Gaten Matarazzo, who plays Dustin Henderson, has slightly more followers I believe, because he has a sense of humor and personality which is quite evident outside of the show; apparent in interviews and whatnot. 

 

Gaten Matarazzo

Millie Bobby Brown who plays Eleven was the recent Godzilla films, stared in Enola Holmes (and soon Enola Holmes 2, also on Netfix), and, she is a woman. This may be a shock but it’s probable a few teenage guys out there had a crush. Finally, you have Finn Wolfhard who stared in both parts of “IT” and “Ghostbuster’s Afterlife.” Although Caleb McLaughin has some film credits, the movies haven’t had the audience the others have had.

This celebrity victim mentality stars are “opening up about” is getting out of hand. Bryce Dallas Howard recently bemoaned the horrific experience she had to endure because to star in the last, purportedly awful, Jurassic Park movie, the movie-makers actually were or going to ask her to lose weight. Well, this was a distressing revelation to me. Who knew actors and actresses had to conform their bodies to the roles they are supposed to play? First the Weinstein scandal and now this.

 

I don’t think the occupation really has much room for such complaints. You are casted to act as another person, of which there is a conception in the script or mythos of and what the audience expects, and a person will be cast to fulfill the part. You are also well-paid for your time and effort. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t like Bryce Dallas Howard is a CPA and her dirt bag boss asked her to lose weight. Such a thing would be unacceptable. However, actors and actresses, when it really comes down to it, despite all the talent in the world (and often because of it), are spectacles. Yes, I said it. It is the nature of the job. It can’t be easy to conform into roles, and makeup and costumes while able to add, are unable to remove. Which one of us hasn’t been amazed at any actor who has transformed themselves for a role, particularly those method actors who strain the limits of good health to provide entertainment to the masses? From the sounds of it, most the time the actors who complain of such transformations aren’t called to do a Christian Bale-level morph.

Christian Bale in “The Machinist”

Is it unfair Hollywood works for something as superficial as sex appeal? Maybe. Yet, it is something I have noticed about the entertainment industry though: Sex sells. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Sex appeal works in bringing in money. Therefore, they encourage their actors and actresses, particularly those who are pleasing to the eye to begin with to, well, flaunt it. Maybe it is morally corrupt of our society, I won’t dispute that, but it isn’t a surprise. Yet, actors and actresses always seem surprised. Are they really?

It is so beyond the realm of believability they would be so ignorant, so stretches the imagination, my conspiratorial spidey-senses just can’t but flare up. Much like my hemorrhoids. Imagine if you will, for a moment, a governing body of folks beyond the voting booths. Imagine them standing beyond and behind the politicians, behind the podiums, behind the newscasters and Hollywood boardrooms. Imagine these folks have a dastardly plan, of painting our nation as an evil one for the expressed purpose of replacing division among the economic classes, with divisions of race and gender, or of victim and privileged, in order to create a new Marxist “utopia.” The victim the neo-proletariat and the privileged the neo-bourgeoisie. Imagine for a moment these things classes with the presence of comfortable satisfaction were waning and with it the anger. Imagine this poor utopian concept slipping further and further away from this body’s grasp. It would needs a spark. It needs a fire. It needs and inferno.

A brainstorming session then results in an ingenious plan accompanied by cackling laughter, to paint the privileged as the victim and infiltrate the victimhood school to divide and ramp up anger. Recruits are brought in from the media to press the narrative, and speak of the great pains they are suffering while lining their pocketbooks. Many shake heads, laugh, murmur, and not enough flock to their cause. The infiltrators present day-long propaganda, clogging any media with pre-approved messages and telling them their contentment is a lie and there are people right outside their door waiting to cause them harm. Waiting to objectify them. Waiting to take away their rights. Waiting to abuse them in all kinds of manner. Oh, even if these appear slight and inconsequential, it is really representative of a deeper and more profound darkness in the heart of the oppressors. Even if you have less Twitter followers, it speaks of the deep hatred just waiting in the shadows to spring out, not only supposedly onto the celeb infiltrators, but anyone who can identify with them or those characteristics which ensnare them and demote them from contented to suffering victim.

Oh, but how much more proof is needed! Not enough anger. Too many people going about their lives. Shrugging. A new strategy forms. That's it! More cackling laughter as they release crappy movies with the infiltrators staring, removing the norms from beloved tales so when they don’t make money, which they plan anyway, they can blame it on the oppressor and show the victimhood camp the proof of the ingrained hate within all the privileged. Movie studios and media channels and online platforms spending millions with no expectation of return just to get the message out. Taking the hit for the sake of the illusion.

 

 

On Criticisms Against "Thoughts and Prayers" (Updated 10/02/22)

 

Before I even begin to get into it, I want to point out this entry will both recognize and acknowledge certain circumstances when the popular criticism of “thoughts and prayers” might be warranted, but will primarily be a defense of “thoughts and prayers.” The idea there is something inherently wrong about offering “thoughts and prayers” is a idiom we are frequently confronted with nowadays from the headlines of newspapers to memes. Despite the concessions I’ve made, the overall air of the phrase is done mean-spiritedly rather than offering any real critique. When more material from the source of this mockery is available, this oft becomes evident by additional evidence.

If we assume the mockery to be non-existent motive, then it is usually used to impress upon anyone offering their cares in the form of “thoughts and prayers” a certain level of guilt which may make them change their tune on whatever issue is at hand. As if to say, “Your thoughts and prayers are useless, and something more about this issue needs to be done. Your thoughts and prayers haven’t changed anything and your inaction has lead to the issue becoming prominent in society.” Maybe, then, the target who feels guilt or pressure for what they have not done and will swap sides.

This method is, at least, conceptually accurate and one of the elements which makes it so is, often, those who pray and who believe prayer to be a powerful force in the world differ from the progressive society we find ourselves in. It is neither far-fetched in practicality due to the Christian Progressivism and Unitarian ideas creeping into the Church. Christian houses of worship are getting more and more progressive because they, in part, have been heavily influenced by progressives. It is my contention the impression of guilt upon people does, indeed, sway them as does the appeals to emotion which spur it on.

These are generalities of course, but the fissure between Progressivism and Evangelicals can be denied. As Progressivism moves forward, Evangelicals become a bigger and bigger threat. Hence, the other outcome of attacking “thoughts and prayers,” namely, to furrow the brows of those already against the people who engage in these practices. It is interesting the comfortable camaraderie people find under banners of hate. No matter what side of the aisle you fall, it is trustworthy observation. It should be noted such a method isn’t used to just present disagreement, but to vilify and make any opponent the object of utmost scorn. Unlike the concept of a “dog whistle,” where proponents get the message loud and clear while going unnoticed by others, the message is said loud and unblushingly by all.

Those motives aside, the real issue with “thoughts and prayers” and those who criticize it, is it represents a misconception on how it works to being with. Admittedly, if you see a person get injured, say, right in front of you and you swan off to keep from getting your hands dirty, or because you have something better to do, the criticism is warranted. However, in the broadest sense, it isn’t how “thoughts and prayers” work among Evangelicals. There are numerous studies which show faith is one of the determining factors in helping people, both with volunteer work, and with donations to charitable causes. Given this, faith being such an important element to increase the probability of one giving and helping, the Evangelical, or say more generally someone of faith, doesn’t have the view on “thoughts and prayers” which is assigned to them.

Let us say you yourself were homeless and a person came up to you on the street and asked you for money. You might respond, “My friend, if I had anything at all I could give you I would. But I myself have no money.” An understandable reaction since you are limited in what you could do for the said person. Sometimes in life too we are limited by proximity and nearness to be able to do anything of any physical help or worth. It just the nature of things. For instance, at the time of this writing hurricane Ian just swept across Florida and now is making landfall in South Carolina. I myself live on the west coast, and am quite limited on my power or what I could do for anyone there at this time. I can’t take them into my home. I can’t feed them. Provide shelter or any of the rest. I could certainly donate to the cause and give to those charities who are proximate to the event, yet I can’t be there to help. Nor can millions of other Americans.

If a person yet has faith and believes in the power of prayer, they might be offered up so God may protect, bless, and heal the land. Even if you aren’t a religious person, you certainly know prayer is engaged in by believers and when there are times of helplessness, as if your actions won’t or can’t change anything, then prayer is logically where the faithful would go next. One can debate the worth of prayer until they are blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact people engage and do so when they are not near to an event. I might go so far as to suggest, in this context, there is a relationship between proximity and prayer.

The practice of blessing is something to consider on our next point. Many people within the Church have their children blessed by a pastor or priest. This is a very common practice but even though it has prayer as a part of the ceremony, nobody would rationally think it excludes action. The child still needs to be reared up correctly, nourished, cared for, instructed, and all the like. Children are a lot of work and the presence of prayer and blessing doesn’t remove responsibility in any degree, nor is it expected to. Using this example, we see one of the errors made when people mock “thoughts and prayers,” for there is no extant evidence of there being a disjunction between prayer and action. “You either use prayer or you use action,” is not a valid characterization of the beliefs of those who pray and it is evident it is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy).

 

To the faithful, prayer and action go hand and hand. Prayer supplements action. Some Evangelicals pray over their day before they get out of bed. It doesn’t mean they don’t swing their legs off the bed and plant their feet firmly on the floor and take care of responsibilities, it just asks a blessing over their day so the results might surpass the efforts. This, in essence, is a common formula to prayer, that whatever our object of worship, by their hand a greater output may be experienced by what we can input. Such as, “Lord may this letter (or paper) be effective,” or “bless the work of my hands.” Yet, this always just applies to the silly faithful who are incapable of changing anything right? Not so much because the term also includes thoughts which is a consideration extending beyond faith to normal human experience.

 

 

(Hopefully you plant your feet on the floor and it is not one of “those” mornings.)

 

From the position of an atheist this should be rejected outright. The suggestion thoughts go apart from action is irrational, absurd, and even unscientific. Often times we have to think on issues before we find the best and most correct way to respond. Sometimes, we actually have to pause an action to give it thought so we may not do the wrong action or go about something the wrong way. It in no sense removes action from anything. So, both on the basis of prayer and of thought, we have a complete misunderstanding of the nature of both.

I did say, however, there is a part which is accurate. This is written unto the faithful though and I don’t think the secularist would have much use for it. First, the idiom “thoughts and prayers” used as a message of concern where there really is none is dumb. Some who mock “thoughts and prayers” are those who have seen it hash-tagged enough to where it just got annoying and a tool of gaining clout. Again, dumb. Let’s put in a Christian context where it might also be an accurate criticism.

 

Some who mock it are not going after thought as much as they are going after prayer, but since Christians are supposedly not very deep thinkers anyway, attacking thought appeals to them. This aside, let us say you have a dear friend whose family member is in the process of passing away. Or, it doesn’t even need to be a friend, just any acquaintance. They ask you, “Please pray for so-and-so” and you agree affirming to them you will “keep them in your prayers.” Then, let us say, you do not. Not because you are spiteful or anything, you just forgot with being busy, or you just didn’t have so much invested in this person passing on so it skipped your mind. As terrible as it may sound.

 

 

We can make all the excuses we want, but to say you are going to pray for someone, and you don’t, is wrong. In the end you gave someone your word you would do something and you didn’t. It is in this kind of context criticism against “thoughts and prayers” becomes applicable. It becomes a platitude which you ultimately shrug off. Indeed, I have no doubt people have used this as a platitude before, and it has a part to play in the mockery it has become.

 

 

 

In addition, you ever notice how even among the secular community, you still occasionally get a request for prayer when they are in dire need? It is a fascinating thing where someone will mock prayer at one time and ask for it another. Notice the main target of this “mob” against “thoughts and prayers” is generally the ones offering them, not the ones asking for them. If someone approaches me Online from across the country and asks for our prayer, should we say, “I can’t pray for you because I can’t do anything for you.” Of course not. Such a response would lack compassion.

This is another thing the secularists have a hard time understanding: Prayer is often an expression of compassion. Many suggest through “thoughts and prayers” we just don’t care. This is a faulty assumption because though you might conclude prayer has no value, it is not universally concluded. Those who do find prayer an appropriate response, often pray for the needy and those terrible events which confront our world and act in accordance when they can. Yet, I can’t discount, as mentioned above, the “hash-tagging” of the phrase, which is the spiritual equivalent of putting a countries flag on your profile picture when they’re facing some crisis. “Hey, look at me, I have a Ukraine flag behind my head. I really care!” It is a horrible thing to use to get clout. However, if you are sincere then more power to you. Likewise, avoid “thoughts and prayers” hash-tagging (as a platitude it needs to be removed from people’s vocabulary), but if sincere keep those thoughts and prayers coming.

It is our conclusion then the criticism of “thoughts and prayers” is irrational based on the elements within the phrase. It is absurd because neither thought nor prayer necessarily remove action or effort. Not only this, but there is nothing wrong with offering “thoughts and prayers” when a person is unable to provide effort due to not being proximate to the event, but still has great concern. These are somewhat irrelevant though since much of the criticism itself isn’t really an argument as much as it is mean-spirited anger being expressed over disagreement, which can function as a means to get clout in and of itself. 

On My Attempt To Raise Awareness of The False Virtue of Raising Awareness

It may be necessary at the start of this entry to raise the possibility and make the reader aware beforehand that this may make some people upset. As is always the case, I don’t set out to do this as a goal or end, like some sort of insatiable online troll, but it is just the nature opinion and expression given on such an open and hostile forum such as the Internet, which presents this inevitability. I am sure I have offended in my writings before, and here I likely am to do again with the reasonable conclusion that this won’t be the last time either.

Since this is more of a rant than anything else, I am going to forego lengthy introductions and simply state what I feel is true: There is nothing about “spreading awareness” in and of itself which is inherently virtuous. In fact, it has the potential for representing the exact opposite. I do not attest all “awareness raising” is immoral or lacks virtue, I only profess the current phenomenon that exists in pop culture where it seems that virtue can be expressed by a single hashtag, in fact, cannot.

"'For us to be the first [to wear braille on sports jerseys] is really cool to bring awareness to the cause,' Orioles pitcher Mike Write said."

The term “raising awareness” obviously infers there is some issue or cause that people are unknowledgeable about, or completely ignorant and unaware of, and it is regarded as necessary that recognition of the said issue be forwarded among a society so the problems and struggles that result from it may be remedied, defeated, or hindered. To use the example above, it isn’t “raising awareness” to project and promote a cause which everyone is already keenly aware of. Blindness is a condition I would suspect the majority of adult individuals who are tuning into or watching Baseball, know of. I might go even further and to say it is quite well-known the world over, and depending on how you look at it (no pun intended; well maybe subconsciously), is experienced to a degree by many who have severe vision problems. In a sense, it would be like me trying to raise awareness of, near-sightedness, male-pattern baldness, inner-ear infections, hangnails, or dry, itchy, flaky scalp. I can try to raise awareness all I want, but if everyone is already aware of the issues, it doesn’t raise much of anything at all. Other than hearing myself talk, it has no more virtue than a person posting #HowAboutThoseBlindFolks on Twitter.

In another sense, you may quickly and rightly object protesting that such things like “raising awareness” for the blind actually encourages people to give to a cause or charity, and if this is the case then I say “good!” That is great! Charity is inherently virtuous! Making people aware of a charity, and particularly volunteering for that charity, is far different than “raising awareness” that blind people exist. One is inherently virtuous, the other is not. You can quite obviously do both. Case in point, the Orioles baseball team did auction off the braille jerseys and gave the proceeds to charity, which is their saving grace in my opinion. Still seems a bit odd to me, but they still backed up statements with action. You may be of the kind where you “raise awareness” with time, effort, you give generously to charity, and therefore, to you, the term “raise awareness” is interchangeable with the promotion of giving and it all serves to that end, and if that is the case I raise no issue with you. However, I would say that you have broken away from the norm, in that you don’t serve platitudes, but back them up with action.

It seems clear that there are those who say this in a superficial sense and do so without any real effort, believe, or feel the phrase alone legitimizes an overinflated sense of personal accomplishment and charity which they enjoy with minimal or non-existent effort. It’s like a person receiving or making the argument that they deserve the Medal of Honor without ever entering a war zone or wanting to engage in combat. You need to be in the arena and on the field. A spectator shouting to another spectator or encouraging one another to cheer, and what to cheer for, in the end, neither gets credit for the touchdown nor should they. Even those on the sidelines are personally invested and ready to go at a moment's notice once the coach calls on them. A yelling spectator is far below both.

Charity and giving in a sense sound so boring though. Isn’t it better to think that you not only gave to charity but accompanied by that donation the knowledge that you are furthering a worthwhile cause and promoting “awareness”? Honestly, it certainly sounds better. To give to the blind is just charity, but to “raise awareness” means you are on some greater cause and mission. Some greater calling beckons and needs you. Yes! You! YOU must spread the word and receive recognition for your brave awareness-raising! 

All and all, as we have said, the virtue lies in efforts, in charity, in volunteer work, and in raising money, with the accumulated funds being a pool that you yourself have contributed to. “Raising awareness” is only peeing in someone else’s pool as a contribution and trying to take credit for its construction. Simple “awareness” raising, is relatively worthless. If a homeless man who just lost everything and is struggling on the street, or living in a van, he needs help to build a solid foundation to get his life back together. If a few people are simply made aware of his plight somewhere out in the suburbs, what does their awareness of his struggle mean to the man who has lost it all? Jack squat, that’s what. 

It’s hard to say that every person “raising awareness” is a person trying to leech on some moral or ethical loophole, and because it is so difficult, I am quite fortunate that it isn’t the point I am trying to make. As mentioned it may have its place in fund-raising among respectable and charitable organizations.  I live in the Pacific Northwest and here we have a number of prominent charities that are directed toward blindness and handicaps in a more general sense. A couple of these include Northwest Center and The Lighthouse For The Blind. These good people strive to collect donations in person and over the phone (telemarketers are one thing, but if you get mad that a charity calls you, even during dinner, well, I just hope you aren’t of the sort). In my recollection, they never start by saying, “Yes, hello. I am so-and-so and I am trying to raise awareness for the blind. If you could go ahead and tweet a hashtag we would appreciate it.” It was always the virtue of giving and charity which was impressed upon the person being approached. They never left saying, “Okay, please tell just one person today about blind people.” Once more, the real virtue being the focus, not a false one.

As I can’t say there is absolutely no reason for “raising awareness,” and I don’t think it should be open to mockery in all circumstances. Just because most people are aware of the existence of domestic violence doesn’t mean that they are knowledgeable of its extent in society, nor does it mean that it should cease to be a continual topic of conversation and social reflection. In this regard, “raising awareness” is akin to saying that we are keeping an issue at the forefront of social discourse that the behavior might be discouraged and rebuked veraciously as unethical and immoral. 

Rule of thumb, how do we tell the difference between a positive “awareness-raising” and a negative or neutral one? It is all reducible to where we can ascribe the virtue. Simply tweeting #DefeatMalePatternBaldness or #UrinaryTractInfectionAwarenessMonth isn’t a virtuous action, or even a virtuous statement. It can be quite empty and designed to draw attention more toward the self and a supposed self-virtue, and the feeding of a hungry pride that desires empty accolades and thumbs-ups, hearts, likes, reposts, rather than the professed cause. If that is the case, then it is more unethical than ethical. In doing so you are not “raising awareness” of anything but yourself.

“Raising awareness” can also be considered a redundancy at times. Let us say I am fed up with leaf blowers at 8am in the morning. I can simply state, “I wish people would wait until at least 10am to use leaf blowers,” and people become quite aware of my stance on that issue. #NationalEarlyLeafBlowerAwarenessWeekend doesn’t raise any more or any less than my initial statement did. That person should become aware of your impressions is something already implied, and making a statement of your concerns is “raising awareness” in and of itself. We are left with two general options, a true “awareness-raising” which promotes a cause greater than the self and is attended with virtuous action, or the “awareness-raising” of the self and empty platitudes which represent no virtue either within the self or in attending action. In the end, promoting yourself at the expense of an issue or people suffering from an issue is you taking advantage of them. Nothing more. Speaking of redundancy I should probably work on closing this entry out.

Overall, what irks me is the promotion of the self over the cause it is purporting to expose, and even using that cause as a means to inflate persona for the sake of appearance. This is all too common. You may say that I am making a mockery of the term “raising awareness,” and maybe I am a bit in being critical, but I would also respond that indulging in this term in an unethical manner, as some have done, has already accomplished this very thing.