On the old and new

Things just aren’t the way they used to be. Not too long ago, a poet would be able to write, “He rode an ass about the streets” without primarily provoking crooked grins. If Robin Hood and his Merry Men had been called Robin Hood and his Gay Gang, the story would have taken on a whole different twist nowadays. Or would the legend of Robin Hood have been powerful enough to retain the ancient meaning of gay as merry? As old meanings gain new counterparts, the old sometimes dies out into the backdrop and leaves mostly the new behind. And this gives the obsolete a nice new twist.

What might have worked centuries or even decades ago doesn’t quite spawn the same reaction nowadays. You don’t expect to stumble upon sexual terms in a Sherlock Holmes novel, but you can and do. Nowadays a character might exclaim things. This was true in the past as well, but then they might have exclaimed it in different terms, such as “he ejaculated”. For me at least, this comes across as a real razorblade across the eye and elicits completely unwanted images of Sherlock Holmes. But after a grin and some girlish giggling at the terrible misunderstanding, I move on and ignore it, convincing myself Sir Arthur Conan Doyle didn’t actually mean it.

Is it just me who is growing up to be a real pervert? I probably wouldn’t have interpreted things the same way ten years ago, so it is partially true. But meanings change, too, from century to century, as do ideas.

My belief is that the world was never innocent. And it certainly wasn’t innocent in the age of my parents’ youth. “But this babe,” you ejaculate, “is surely innocent! She knows nothing of sex, violence, the troubles of the world…” “This babe”, I growl, “is ignorant. It’s true she does not know the world beyond her mother’s arms or the shelter of a home, but she isn’t innocent. She’s motivated by pure greed. She screams when she’s hungry, she howls when her butt itches, she ravages her poor parents’ nerves with never-ending demands and needs.” There is no such thing as innocence, only ignorance. Of course, that is just my biased opinion, not being able to recall ever being more innocent. Perhaps it only means I have yet to lose my innocence.

I found and read the first comic Superman ever appeared in and was astounded by the senseless and sudden violence of the comic. It is true - there was no blood and there were no bruises or broken limbs, but Superman was surprisingly quick to respond to any sort of impediment with punches, intimidation, torture, or physically ripping the obstacles out of the way. Never did he try to talk his way out of a situation or show mercy. Now I grew up with the Ninja Turtles, who, I admit, weren’t exactly diplomats themselves. Sometimes there was blood, flying spit, there were mutants and monsters. But there was always a hidden friendliness somewhere between the evil Shredder and the good Ninja Turtles. They may have called each other metal-face and shred-head, or turtle-soup, but I got the feeling they enjoyed trying to outwit each other. There was none of this friendly competition in that old Superman, and he was meant to be the hero!

Which is more wrong? Sheltering children and teaching them that if you drop an anvil on someone’s head they will shuffle out from underneath pancake-shaped but otherwise alright, or that they will spatter into something a little more like lasagna? I personally find that the latter sight would make me less likely to test it out. But on the other hand, it has other consequences.

Who doesn’t remember watching the Twin Towers collapsing on television, live or as a rerun in the news? And how many of us caught ourselves thinking, “Man, those special effects aren’t too good. Buildings don’t collapse like that. Needs more explosions,” before reminding ourselves that what we were seeing was reality? Won’t a boy who is taught the whole truth of sex at a young age grow up less twisted than the poor fellow whose sexual knowledge by graduation from boarding school consists of, “Oh, by the way, you might grow lonely someday, but if you touch it, it’ll fall off”? Which is more wrong: the Disney version or the Hollywood version?

I personally like to pretend there is no clean right or wrong. I will follow fuzzy logic and believe in grades of truth. Then again, this comes from a creature who saw Blue Lagoon, was traumatized by The Thing, and accidentally discovered the alternate side of Dog as (Wo)Man’s Best Friend on a deck of X-rated playing cards, all before I’d reached the mature age of ten.