Sunday, December 23, 2012

Santa Claus



I have a problem with Santa Claus. He’s part feel-good legend, part commercial salesman, and all lie, and we all play along. I never saw the point of Santa, but maybe that’s because I’m some kind of horrible soulless Grinch that doesn’t enjoy lying to children. Regardless, Santa Claus is culturally pervasive to the point of international, inter generational obsession with a commercial presence surpassing George Foreman and Billy Mays combined and a staying power topped only by world religions, despite the fact that Santa as we understand him does not now and never did actually exist. He sells Coca-Cola and diamond necklaces and Norelco razors. We wear Santa clothes and watch Santa movies and write on Santa stationary, singing Santa songs. He’s featured on everything from Broadway shows to Pez dispensers and of course, if you have kids the annual Santa Claus photo op is irresistible which is really weird when you think about it. I’m pretty sure most parents discourage their kids from sitting in stranger’s laps unless they are rocking pillows underneath red velour.

The whole situation appears suspect, but kids will go along with it not because they are dumb, but because they are naïve. No matter what age, people measure everything we experience against everything else that we have experienced all of the time. As new information trickles down through our neurons we unconsciously determine whether that information is consistent with what we have come to expect, or if it is different enough that we can note it and act upon it. Kids, however, do not have a fraction of the information cataloged that adults do. They think just as much as adults, but they are not yet able to determine whether the new information is a deviation or the norm. Since they have such a narrow scope of life experience they will tend to believe you no matter what kinds of ridiculous things you say. Giant lizards the size of busses and houses used to run around eating each other? That’s awesome, why not? The world is round so people on the opposite side are upside down or wait a minute, maybe we are the ones who are upside down? That’s awesome, why not!? There’s a diabetic elf who lives in the North Pole and travels via flying reindeer on Christmas Eve to deliver presents to all well behaved children? That’s awesome! Why not!?! This is why kids believe in stupid things like Santa and the Easter Bunny; it’s the same reason that they believe in other magical beings like the President or Justin Bieber. There are pictures of Santa everywhere, he hangs out at the mall, and the real lynchpin is that Mommy said he was the real deal and why would she lie? Fast forward to the time when the kid finally has enough information about the real world to determine that Santa must be, has to be, a load of crock. Otherwise a whole lot of other things don’t make sense, and the easiest way to make the world consistent is to reject the fat elf theory and adopt a new hypothesis; “I have been lied to.” Now the kid has to reconcile, whether consciously or subconsciously, the lie in light of their parents’ direct orders not to lie.

Kids are not stupid. The epiphany that they have been lied to will not break their fragile little brains, but they will learn several things. First, they will learn that Mommy and Daddy are no longer completely trustworthy. Most of the time they are, but they have pulled my leg before and maybe they will do it again. Second, they learn that there are exceptions to the rule about lying. The kid’s brain starts to work overtime figuring out why this lie was ok, but the others aren’t. Is it a special exception in cases of magical creatures that break into our houses and win our trust by offering presents and/or giant rabbits that crap out candy eggs? Or does the acceptable lie have a broader justification, permitted only when it is deemed “harmless?” What constitutes “harmless?” Is it just physical harm? What about material harm or psychological harm? These are not questions that they are going to ask out loud because half the time they don’t know that they are asking them, and the other half they are trying so hard to appear grown up and convince you that they already know, so they are trying to figure it out on their own.

Maybe I’m being a little too dramatic. Smarter people than me have addressed this issue, and research has indicated that childhood belief in Santa is not detrimental. Instead, discovery of his non existence is a rite of passage that makes youngsters feel more like adults when they are in the know. Only six percent of the kids studied felt betrayed, and when you think about it, when it comes to sacrificing the innocence of children on the altar of traditional nostalgia, six percent is more than reasonable. Unless, of course, adults aren’t the only liars in this ugly situation. It is possible that the children surveyed were lying to the adults, but why would they do that?

Children are like little prisoners with their parents as wardens. Seriously, kids are not allowed to go anywhere or do anything without their handlers being close by, ensuring that they don’t eat bugs or poke out eyeballs (theirs own or someone elses') or build a bomb out of fertilizer and household cleaning products. Everything they do is either permitted or mandated by Mommy, Daddy, or a State approved educational instructor. No, you can’t have ice cream and a brownie, pick one, you’re lucky you get either. No, we’re drawing hand turkeys, not samurai yetis. No you can’t play video games, you have to play outside, or read a book, or take a nap. Get over here right now and get dressed, we need to go to your older sibling’s play. Stand there and be quiet, keep your hands to yourself, ok you can be a dinosaur as long as you are a quiet one. Stand still, I’m trying to take your picture! Get your finger out of your nose, hold still, now hug your creepy uncle Harvey, he misses you. What are you doing, stop bouncing! Eat your peas, stand up straight, some other time honey, you’re still too little for that. Are you beginning to remember how difficult this was to put up with? As little prisoners they quickly learn to read the nonverbal signals of their wardens, and indeed, all adults. Their happiness depends on it, because if they haven’t properly interpreted the mood of their parent and ask to sleep over at the Mitchells’ when Mom was grumpy she’ll say no and then they can’t go, whereas if they had waited an hour or so Mom may have been in a more genial disposition and said yes. Smart kids learn to read adults, and are also inclined to earn their approval. Therefore, when the nice research person asks them if they feel betrayed and lied to upon the discovery that there is no Santa, they are intensely scrutinizing that adult’s face and tone and body language, instinctually interpreting all to determine what that researcher wants to hear. If the kid believes that the researcher wants to hear something specific, they will provide that answer. “Do you feel betrayed?” can be interpreted as, “You don’t feel betrayed, do you?” Even if the researcher asks “How do you feel?” the kid is going to be thinking, “What does this adult think I should be feeling right now? Because they are an adult, and whatever they think I should feel, that’s probably what I should feel. If I’m not feeling what she wants me to feel she will be disappointed, and then Mommy will be disappointed. I’m not going to disappoint them. Even if I really feel one thing, I’m going to act like I feel the way I am supposed to.”

All of this answers why kids go along with the myth, even after they learn that Santa Claus is a myth, but it doesn’t explain why we keep him around. Beyond corporations using him as an unpaid yet credible spokesman for product endorsement, I really can’t see a good reason. Tradition is a reason, but doing something just for tradition’s sake, especially lying to children, is a terrible idea. We have to understand why the tradition exists. Maybe some people do it because it’s funny, but getting away with lying to a kid is like making a Lindsay Lohan joke; it’s too easy to be truly funny. Maybe we do it for behavior coercion, but telling kids that Santa only gives gifts to good children and coal to bad ones works for maybe one year, maybe. The day junior discovers that little Scottie Schmidt who is such a poop head got more and better presents than he did, the game is up. They quickly understand that Santas' version of “naughty” must only register when you do something really crazy like steal a bajillion dollars and “nice” means “didn’t set the dog on fire.” Personally, I think that the real reason we keep Santa alive is found in our own inadequacies.
The ultimate nostalgic fantasy is to go to sleep on a dull, brown Christmas Eve, and to wake up to a brilliant white Christmas day surrounded by everyone you love the most, laughing and playing together in blissful, perfect harmony. No capriciousness, no avarice, no hurtful words or selfishness, Christmas is a day where love supersedes disappointment and bitterness. Faced with explaining why we can’t treat one another like this every day, it’s easier to give Santa Claus the credit.

There’s a problem with Santa and the magic of Christmastime; it ends. Department stores box up the decorations, the background crooning of Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong get replaced by Nickleback and John Mayer, and the Salvation Army pack in their kettles and bells for another eleven months. We go back to the old routine which is only practical. We can’t afford to travel across half the country to see Grandma and Grandpa every month, with or without presents and besides, it wouldn’t be special if we did it all the time. There are other things about Christmas that we could stand to keep all year round, though. If we all do our part to promote peace on earth every day we won’t have to use Santa as a crutch when we do it in December. Christmas won’t be quite so different from other days, so it won’t seem quite so magical, but that, I think, would be a change for the better.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Adaptation

I recently turned in my paper final for my class in literary analysis. It was about adapting a scrapbook into an e-book format and how it would be difficult to preserve the original artistic function of said scrapbook in electronic form. It was approximately 30% fluff,  80% bovine  excrement (from a male, not castrated) and 100% boring so I won't afflict you with it, but it did get me thinking about adaptation.

We've been seeing a lot of adapting recently, mostly switching books into movies. Twilight wrapped its big screen series this year while The Hunger Games debuted, we got a one off appearance from Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and I am personally eagerly awaiting Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, due out Thursday at midnight (I will not be going because I am an adult with responsibilities). Some of the old faces from Lord of the Rings are back along with some new ones, most notably Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo Baggins. You might recognize him from his role as Dr. John Watson in the BBC's Sherlock, which adapts Sir Arthur Conan Doyles' famous characters from the written word into 90 minute TV episodes. Doyle has been getting the full media treatment recently as a much different interpretation of the same characters came up on the big screen in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, not to be confused with the HBO TV series Game of Thrones which has been adapted from George R.R. Martin's excellent Song of Ice and Fire books. These are just a sampling. I could belabor the point that books are being adapted a lot, but I won't.

Every time these adaptations hit the market the age old debate flares anew; which is better, the book or the movie? Most of the argument boils down to personal preference, but I find that oftentimes movie people are dissatisfied with the characters, find multiple plot holes, and openly wonder what the big deal is. Even when they are impressed you can hear the book nerds commiserating on how much the director shortened, altered, or just plain left out, and how one of the minor characters just wasn't right. This is because you can put down a book and pick it up the next day; they have time to flesh out the details, but movies need to be consumed in a single sitting. The story has to be stripped down to the most important parts, but this has usually already been done in the books' editing process. Any stripping down for the movie leaves gaps, and it's up to the director to hide them as best as he can. That's one of the reasons that movies have started splitting single books into multiple films; they simply cannot cram all of the nuance and character development into three and a half hours. Of course we put up with it because we are either too lazy to read the book, we genuinely want to see the characters we love come to life on the big screen, or we genuinely want to give detailed complaints about how the movie was done wrong.

I do love a good movie, but when it comes down to it I think that books almost always tell the better story. They take a lot of time, it's true, but good stories are worth investing in. It's really more of a draw to me that books take longer to read because I can enjoy it longer. It is more about the journey than the destination, after all, otherwise all we'd have is "happily ever after," or if you're a Tarantino fan, "everybody's dead."

(The contents of this blog post are an adaptation of a Broadway musical based on a movie based on a book based on real life events)