M*A*S*H - It's like an LSD - but a lot safer for internal organs, except when you have to groan at the really bad puns and jokes that take place.
What is H/M Action:
H/M is a theory...a theory which has been in the hearts of M*A*S*H fans everywhere, even before they were born. This beloved theory is:
H/M Theory, noun: Theory stating that, if given the chance, Hawkeye Pierce and Margaret Houlihan will get together after the war and have oodles of kids. I believe STRONGLY in this theory, and from it, has sparked many a fan fiction story about it (one or two shouldn't be read by anyone under 18...but it's all in the name of fun!). To every hero of the people, comes a villian. There is unfortunately one villian who stands among the crowd, waiting to despatch its evilness. Now we could have T/M (Trapper and Margaret) or B/M (BJ and Margaret) or even H/T (Hawkeye and Trapper - yes even he who is womaniser of Maine can turn out to be queer) or a possiblity of H/M/B (you can guess that), those I don't mind - of course our hero H/M theory reigns supreme. But among these lesser people comes a villan SO evil, that Macarthur himself would cower in fear (Mac the general, not the square). I fear for your life that you may know this evil cause that so many have been questioned with and a few to join, though I must tell you, so that you may not succumb to its all-round badness. This villan that I speak of with the hate of a thousand suns, is none other than the revolting, evil theory of C/M. We all by now know of whom the 'M' refers to, but the 'C'? Oh my friends...the C is the evil part. One so pure as Margaret Houlihan (now by pure - I don't mean 'virgin' pure...she didn't get the name 'Hotlips' for her swell game of poker), being taken from her knight Hawkeye and thrown into the grasp of the vicious, villanous, evil masterminded Charles Emerson Winchester the 3rd. That is the dreaded, evil C/M theory. Now please...don't be alarmed, for this theory is no match for our hero H/M! Us H/M Shippers are still the majority and we will FIGHT to keep ourselves the reigning theory.
I have not as yet answered what H/M action is have I? Well, you put the H - that's Hawkeye and the M - that's Margaret, together, lost in enemy territory, fearing for their lives, both vulnerable - mainly Margaret receiving a letter from her just-new husband that was addressed to his girlfriend - and both as scared as hell. You shake (not stir), add a bit of candlelight, the fact that they both have raging libidos (sorry - not always clinical) and raging reputations, the great fear that Margaret has of loud noises (so she joined the army why?), the fact that they aren't exactly friends...but not exactly enemies (at that stage) and that this may be the last time that they are ever 'close' to someone (by close, I don't mean just holding hands) and BOOM...you have H/M action!!!
Then of cousre a few episodes later Margaret is fearing that she is pregnant and we H/M shippers have a field day with this (she hasn't yet divorced her husband), making it she is pregnant (no - she wasn't really) and that it's Hawkeye's kid.
I guess you get it now...if not RING ME and we can have a four hour discussion about it! (So what is you live in Canada? Phone bills WON'T BE THAT BAD!)
This theory has developed as I have just found out (from Sam), to more than on-screen. No, nothing ever 'really' came of it on-screen, no major (pardon the pun) romance.
But, there has been some scuttlebutt about the actors fooling around off-screen. Why would this be such a bad thing? Personally, I think if AA (Alan Alda - played Hawkeye) and LS ever did get together - great, they look cute together and have great chemistry. LS wouldn't think it's so bad, she's single (except between 1983-1993 when she married that idiot Denis Holohan - yes I know Houlihan/Holohan is similar). However I don't think AA's wife and 3 daughters would think it's so great. Why did this come up? Well in a few interviews LS has stated that Hawkeye grew as a character because AA was a dedicated family man...or is he? LS could just be - as they say - covering their asses, or maybe it's just rumours. Another fact, AA Wrote/Produced/Directed quite a few episodes, most of them involved some kind of H/M goodness in them. Was it just an excuse to get close? WHO KNOWS? He did write a biography, I don't know if he mentioned her at all though. And LS would never say anything. She is (quote) fiercely private and no-one knows much about her before M*A*S*H, or even after M*A*S*H. Do I believe the rumours? Of course! What good H/M shipper wouldn't?
Life of the Voyeur:
Life of the Voyeur is a unique thing. Experts determine that 'they are people, watching other people to ignore and forget and make-up for feelings of uselessness and self-hatred'. Okay. Fair enough. But that's not the whole truth. A voyeurs' life can be very fulfilling, depending on what kind of voyeur they are.
*Visual voyeurs are the common and most referred to. They are also the ones that cause bad names for voyeurs of all natures. They find excitement in watching people, how they interact, if a gesture means 'G'day' or 'Fuck off you bloody dickhead' - the two being very similar. The visual voyeur finds excitement and happiness in others lives, where in there own lives...that part really sucks or is non-visable, or that person is physically unable to interact i.e. Rednecks. Naturally...the sex life of the average person is...well...crap/non existant and that is where voyeurs find their voyeuristic ways lean to most. That is also the sole reason that voyeurs everywhere are despidsed by people who actually, have a life. To determine whether a person is a visual voyeur or not: check out their porn collection.
* Audio voyeurs are the least common and are generally male. Not being sexist...that's just how it is. They find thrills in many different sounds, for instance a car buff who dreams of a 72 chevy but can only afford an 89 carolla, when hearing the elusive sound of an old, vintage, engine...finds much excitement. Another instance is much more common amongst females. Eavesdropping is another familiar word...listening in on other conversations, but never wanting/able to participate i.e Rednecks. Why this is a male-dominated voyeur is simple...nothing can make a mans heart-rate rise, like the sounds of a screaming female. Whether she's being attacked, or about to come all over another woman's face in porn for the blind. It's a fairly unknown voyeur life. To determine whether a person is an audio voyeur or not: check out their burnt CD collection.
* Imaginative voyeurs are common, but relitively unknown. They are the illusive voyeur and are also the most harmless re: privacy, usually the most intelligent and are usually loners in life. I, am such a voyeur. These particular voyeurs get their kicks from reading - therego the name. They see what isn't there, and what is there, they twist to create something else. A healthy voyeur in this instance, can make connections and find evidence to prove what they see...and most of the time it makes sense. Imaginatives dream up new and pretty much all fo the time, erotic ideas about people. Generally these people are fictional and are naturally immune to every situation imaginable. It is a truely fun experience, which satisfies every desire that the person is unable to quench themselves. They are a true breed, and unlike the visual or audio, they congregate and are drawn towards other imaginatives by an unknown web of intelligence. They are friendly people generally...but say something negative or totally against their belief, and you'd better watch your arse boy! Because they will get you! To determine whether a person is a visual voyeur or not: check out their fan fiction collection.
Voyeurs are a people person, who don't like the company of people. Pretty much all the time, the reason they become voyeurs is to play out/listen to/watch their wildest fantasies - that in their own lives they would never do - come true. Non-voyeurs as a whole think we are a degraded, degenerate, people. But singled out...we all know they just wanna experience it. For the life of a voyeur is truely, exciting.
The Horror behind the Smile
M*A*S*H does have a purpose. Not just for entertainment and FABULOUS jokes and pranks, but to show the realities of war and its consequences. I went and asked various kids at my school in various years/grades the question ‘Do you know what M*A*S*H is about?’ Many of them replied ‘A war show right’, many of whom thought it was Vietnam. Close…but no cigar. I did however find I think 10 people who avidly watch it – maybe not as much as me – but they did know it was a war and they DID know it was Korea. My old History teacher thought it was Vietnam. I could have embarrassed her in front of 30 students…but I liked her so I didn’t. Getting to the point, the show is based on real life at a M*A*S*H Unit– A Mobile Army Surgical Hospital. Usually M*A*S*H unit’s had 200+ people and a much larger medical staff. The 4077th (in the show) had around 40 people and a medical staff of 4 doctors and around 6-10 nurses. The movie probably showed this a little better – but it was more gory (love that stuff) and a little more…promiscuous. But both showed the tragedies and sorrow of war and the effect is has not only physically, but emotionally. The movie was more to do with the humour side of things. The series hit a few home truths and could be a factor as to why we haven’t had a MAJOR war since Vietnam (Iraq didn’t include half the world in combat). A good website I found on the Korean War can explain better the reasons and consequences of the War. http://www.korean-war.com/
But if you’re lazy – a quick summary is: The war started when North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel (border between North and South Korea), hoping to spread the theory of Communism (everyone shares the work, food, shelter and wealth equally). Good in theory – bad in Practise. So the dandy good ole’ Yankee-doodle Americans (yes – a mouthful of names) came and joined South Korea (democratic) to stop the spread of Communism. Both sides wanted to unite Korea as one. Unfortunately both under different political beliefs. So instead of settling it peacefully – why not blow each other’s brains out. Sorry if this offends you, but it’s how I see it. Much fighting and death later…July 27th 1953 the treaty/cease fire was signed and the fighting ended…but the war has never finished. 50 years later and no one has been declared ‘the winner’, but as I see it…there are no winners in War. I can see this is turning into a damn essay (man I hate those things) but finishing up… The saying that ‘we learn from our mistakes’, is a contradiction in terms. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, people feared communism like they do a serial killer, and stopped anything that remotely had to do with it. Communist Sympathisers were as bad as communists themselves and were seen as the scum of the earth. Anyone who remotely looked Chinese or Asian was stamped immediately as a communist, no questions asked. Now children, can anyone tell me of a similar situation happening right now? That’s right: Terrorism. What are people scared of today? Terrorism…As they were 50 years ago of Communism. What are every government doing to people who are suspected terrorists or are involved in suspected terrorism? Lock them up or ship em’ out. Anyone who agrees with the acts of Terrorism are as bad as the terrorists themselves and are seen as yes…scum of the earth. And finally anyone who looks Middle Eastern or is a Muslim, is immediately called a terrorist and are attacked or picked on for what they look like and for their beliefs. Myself being neither a Communist, Asian, a Terrorist or Muslim/Middle Eastern, can easily (and un-biased) make the statement: Whoever made the remark that we learn from our mistakes, is speaking a ‘busload of bushwah!’ And the fight against Communism is still going today – it’s just been replaced with terrorism. So bye bye and buy bonds!
In celebration of my last English assessment EVER...for it I bagged the HELL out of Shakespeare:
Seeing as I am receiving zilch for this, I’m going to be brutally honest.
Shakespeare: a bunch of texts, over 4 centuries old. Why are we still studying something written over 400 years ago? Is it because they are great works of literature? Or is it because no one has bothered to re-write the syllabus? There are many much more interesting and recent texts to study out there and by now I’m sure you can all guess which answer I agree with.
King Lear is no different to a template on which every Shakespeare play is written by. It has in it a pretentious twat – Lear, those who like him – Cordelia, Kent and Gloucester, those who don’t – practically everyone else and a fool (one with a highly original name may I add). Along with it being such a melodramatic piece of absolute…twaddle that it makes daytime soapies look like award winning performances and people dying left right and centre for no apparent need or reason: all of which should have been dead from the start so we wouldn’t be falling asleep or contemplating suicide at the mention of studying Shakespeare.
So why bother to examine what other few people who have something to say about King Lear have said? Aside from satisfying the education department by making themselves feel better about making us study something ‘intellectual’, it can be good for a laugh to see what other people who don’t seem to have a life outside this pathetic playwright, have to say.
Speaking on the first critic J.C. Oates – clearly a female, she sees Lear as the protagonist of the play. One who tries to find comfort in what other people think of him. (True if everyone told the truth straight out, he probably would have gone to his chambers and hung himself and that would have saved us all the trouble of reading the text). She sees Lear as being used by others, then when not needed anymore, thrown out in the dirt and ignored by most. As well as each of the characters representing a trait in Lear. (Shakespeare may as well have just written a one-man play that would be started and been over in one act or less…or not at all.)
Oates sees Cordelia linked with nature and as Lear becomes less natured-inclined when he banished her, the only way to bring everything in balance was to bump off whoever personified nature by acting freely - Cordelia. Oates claims that Shakespeare was ‘projecting his own revulsion for women in this play.’ (Something that only a feminist would say, although if her statement is true, it only more validates the popular belief that Shakespeare was gay – a notion I strongly support.) Yet her comment seems true, in that this is yet another trait in the template of Shakespeare: the women-hating man who wants people to kneel at his feet and kiss his ring and tell him what a great man he is…sounds kinda like the politicians of today. Finally, she sees it as a political blasting against the then King of England.
So whilst this person has a great deal to say about King Lear…it tis rather dull, intellectual, political and plain boring…something many people try to avoid.
The second critic GW. Bush sums up their view on King Lear much better. Not only was the critique short and succinct, but I thoroughly empathise and agree whole-heartedly with what they said. ‘Not only was I utterly disgusted to the brink of death by boredom, but I wondered why anyone could possibly bring themselves to read it let alone write a critic or even study it…by choice. I felt as if I had been thrown into hell wearing polyester clothing. Not even the storm scene could cool my scorched eyeballs at having read it.’ Those lines sum up what the person said. Why couldn’t there be more, less highly strung critics out there with something as valuable, not to mention as entertaining as this?
‘By an historical miracle or rather curse, King Lear was not Shakespeare’s last play and I stop to ask myself: If Shakespeare was so fond of killing off his characters, why couldn’t he go off and kill himself to save us all the trouble.’ Whilst this person is obviously blasting the hell out of Shakespeare with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it was something I loved reading and yet they had little to say about the play specifically…but with Shakespeare ‘you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all’ and honestly…the less Shakespeare the better.
So, in actually answering the questions asked:
Did I find any value in reading these critics? – No.
Did the views of others enhance your own ability to appreciate it? – More like degenerated it even more: something I thought was not possible.
Do these particular views somehow place restrictions on your ability to appreciate this text? There were no restrictions to begin with. I hated Shakespeare from the start…and I’ll probably hate him til I die.
Do you agree with these perspectives? Honestly – and remember, I said I was going to be BRUTALLY honest – I thought this to be the most pointless question out of them all, one normally I wouldn’t even grace it with an answer…but to make those in the education department happy…the first one bored and annoyed me at the fact that I wasted my time reading it. The second I utterly enjoyed and agreed with…even if it was practically useless to what was asked.
Sure, I’m biased…but I’m being honest here and this is worth 0.
The only thing I take away from all this and as people have mentioned before: is the excitement that this is the last bit of Shakespeare drivel we will EVER have to look at again – relish that thought people.
