The Warrior Gene

My Psych of Violence class, which is generally a very cool class, today discussed the so-called "Warrior Gene". Nat Geo did a piece on it, which is fantastic if you have 45 minutes to watch. But basically, the rundown is this:

The MAOA gene, which is carried on the X-chromosome, helps degrade serotonin and other neurotransmitters. Serotonin, most people know, is one of the bodily chemicals that makes you happy. However, the MAOA enzyme steps in and keeps it from getting too highly concentrated, since too much happy can turn to aggression very quickly.

It turns out that in about 1/3 of males in the Western hemisphere, the MAOA area is shortened or dysfunctional. Case studies exist where the MAOA doesn't work at all, but this is very very rare. It is believed (and there has been some research to support) that for those males with the mutated MAOA who are exposed to violence as a child, there is a significantly increased possibility of violent behavior as an adult. Because it is carried on the X-chromosome, women have a second copy and thus have one working copy of the MAOA gene. I could start a whole other conversation about the value of gene redundancy and the fascinating science involved in the Y-chromosome, but that's another post.

Obviously this is not the only determining factor in aggressive and violent behavior. Also, it is not a pre-determinant behavior. In the video, they tested a group of bikers (one of whom has a seriously violent history), MMA fighters, two (twin) former members of an LA gang, a former Navy SEAL, three Buddhist monks, and Henry Rollins (who was involved in the entire documentary). Of that, half the bikers (but not the really violent one), the twins, the SEAL, and all three monks tested positive for the mutated gene. Rather than associate the gene with violence, it is probably better to associate it with risk-taking (the former SEAL is a huge entrepreneur) and aggressiveness.

There's an ongoing debate in genetic research about how far is too far. The fear of the Nazi eugenics program hangs over everyone in the field, as well as policy makers and the public. A 2009 court case found a man not-guilty of murder and assault because of this gene. It's a touchy topic and part of the debate regarding the value of genetics in our society. No matter where things come down, I dislike the name. Warrior has a certain connotation (a positive one according to my class) that may color the view of violent behavior in someone who happens to have this gene. However the debate goes, however, I am fascinated by it. My behavioral genetics geekery is showing....

Review: Are You a Jackie or a Marilyn? Timeless Lessons on Love, Power, and Style by Pamela Keogh

 

Karina got me this book, which is published by her work, thinking I would enjoy it. She was quite right. While learning more about the personal histories of these two women, I realized that it is not an either-or situation...it is a both. I am certain most woman would find themselves with certain aspects of both of them, perhaps despite their best efforts (I aspire to be a great deal more like Jackie, but accept my Marilyn-ness).

Actually, my favorite part (other than the historical information about their lives and the look into their fashion and beauty worlds) was in the FAQ at the very end. It reads:

I would like to encourage my seven-year-old daughter to be like Jackie and Marilyn. What should I give her?

Confidence. A sense of history. And a library card.

To me, that sums these women up perfectly.

Though there are sections on living with a diva that I might have to pass off to future roommates and beaux....

Review: The Hunger Games

So I loved the Hunger Games trilogy. I read all three in about 72 hours and absolutely loved them. I was excited about the movie, but as always, a bit cautious going into an adaptation. That said, I had great faith in the cast and held out hope.

It should be said that the movie was fantastic. Jennifer Lawrence delivered another solid performance as Katniss. It had to be hard going from the indy world into one of the most anticipated big-budget movies with a rabid fan base. I thought she really embodied Katniss beautifully and look forward to seeing her in the next two movies, since Katniss goes through a really interesting character arch that I think she'll handle perfectly.

Surprise performance for me was Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. He doesn't look like I pictured Haymitch and he was the casting about which I was most skeptical. Karina, who went with me and hasn't read the books, commented that she always forgets that Harrelson is, in fact, an incredibly talented actor, and I do the same. I used Karina as my gauge on a lot of things since she was approaching it without the background and love for the books. She agreed with me that Harrelson's performance was incredibly nuanced and moving. Haymitch is not my favorite character in the book, but he might be from the movie because of this remarkable performance.

Cinna, one of my favorite characters in the book, was really well represented by Lenny Kravtiz. From the descriptions of Cinna in the book, I always pictured Alan Cumming and was skeptical of Kravtiz in the role. I'm happy to say I was wrong and he delivered a performance that was strong and soft at the same time. Also, his gold eyeliner might be my new favorite thing.

Last note on casting - the Tributes were all near dead ringers for their book descriptions as far as I can remember. I knew who each was by looking at them. Really well done.

One of the things I really enjoyed about the movie was that they were able to show things happening in the background that were only vaguely referenced in the book. We got to see President Snow more (played devilishly by Donald Sutherland) and his gentle manipulations of the Games. We got to see Haymitch lobbying for Katniss. We got to see Seneca Crane's sadistic glee in manipulating the games. It was so beautifully done, so artistically realized, that it elevated the movie from a faithful adaptation (which it was) to a truly moving piece.

Overall, I loved the movie. What I did not love was the theater full of chattering, screaming, squealing teenage girls making sounds I am certain never came out of my mouth. I was happy that the movie was good enough that it wasn't ruined for Karina by the atmosphere and it taught me an important lesson. For future releases, wait a week to see it. Less chance I'll commit homicide.

Glamour Dos and Don'ts, 5 Years Later

I've been slowly-yet-surely purging my Glamour collection. Today I was reading through the January 2007 issue. The first thing I noticed (other than the stunning Christina Aguilera cover above) is that I think of 2007 as a "couple" of years ago, not 5. My brain hasn't adjusted.

Anyway, the issue includes 50 Dos and Don'ts from 2006. I realized while reading that a gerat way to identify which fashion items are going to last the test of time is to look back. So, a few items of note from 2007:

50. Black Nail Polish is a Do!
35 and 36. Red nails and lips are a Do...and have been for ages.
27. Sweaterdress over leggings - still a Do!
27. Hip-length sweaters over leggings - still a Don't!
22. Belting the natural waist is a classic Do.
19. Platform heels - a Do especially for us shorties.
18. Bangles - always a pretty-on-the-wrist Do.
2. Crocs are an ugly Don't (unless you're gardening, in which case they are acceptable)

Disney Animated Films (and assorted others that are logically associated)

In the grand tradition of lists (I love lists...), I am beginning one for tracking my ownership of Disney animated films, which, next to musicals, are my favorite genre. They are listed in order of release (thank you to http://www.thecompletistgeek.com/ for the information). I have noted if they are owned on Bluray (the goal), DVD (intermediate) or unowned. Disney's limited release schedules may make some harder to find than others. Also, I have made some changes since this is the "to buy" list and I have removed those movies I'm not interested in, which are usually the smaller market releases (sorry, Saludos Amigos) or the never-ending sequels (Bambi II? Really?). The list does include Pixar as well given their on-again-off-again relationship with Disney.

1. Snow White (1937) - DVD
2. Pinocchio (1940)
3. Fantasia (1940)
4. Dumbo (1941) - DVD - this was my favorite as a child
5. Bambi (1942)
6. Song of the South (1946) - this has never been released for home viewing because of racist content, but if it ever is...
7. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)
8. Cinderella (1950) - DVD
9. Alice In Wonderland (1951)
10. Peter Pan (1953)
11. Lady and the Tramp (1955) - this is about to released on Bluray
12. Sleeping Beauty (1959)
13. One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)
14. The Sword and the Stone (1963)
15. The Jungle Book (1967)
16. The Aristo Cats (1970)
17. Robin Hood (1973) - my dad's favorite
18. The Rescuers (1977)
19. The Fox and the Hound (1981)
20. The Black Cauldron (1985)
21. The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
22. Oliver and Company (1988) - introduced me to the great Billy Joel
23. The Little Mermaid (1989) - DVD - Ariel is my favorite heroine because she looks like me!
24. The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
25. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
26. Aladdin (1992)
27. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) - Touchstone, technically, but has been so integrated into Disney culture that it counts.
28. The Lion King (1994)
29. Pocahontas (1995)
30. Toy Story (1995)
31. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
32. Hercules (1997)
33. Mulan (1998)
34. A Bug's Life (1998) - DVD
35. Tarzan (1999)
36. Toy Story 2 (1999)
37. Lilo and Stitch (2000)
38. Monsters Inc. (2001) - DVD
39. Finding Nemo (2003) - DVD
40. The Incredibles (2004) - DVD
41. Cars (2006)
42. Ratatouille (2007)
43. Wall-E (2008)
44. The Princess and the Frog (2009)
45. Up (2009)
46. Tangled (2010)
47. Toy Story 3

These movies aren't technically animated features, but they heavily feature Disney animation and thus are on the list.

Mary Poppins (1964)
Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971)
Pete's Dragon (1977)
Enchanted (2007)

Confessions of a Gleek

I am now officially caught up on Glee thanks to Kyle's Hulu Plus account. I know the show has lost its magic for some people, but it still speaks to me. The Santana/Brittney relationship continues to be beautiful to watch, especially seeing Santana deal with the very real reaction from her grandmother. But the story line that speaks to me the most is Emma's struggle with OCD. The show has done a really good job of addressing the struggles, stigmas and real challenges of mental illness though Emma's story, just as they have addressed other issues on the show. One of the things I like so much is that they didn't fix Emma with a pill and say it was fine. In the most recent episode, she refers to having good days and bad days, that it will always be that way and that it's simply part of her.

Emma is the character I relate to the most on Glee, and not just because of her red hair and Kate-Spade-meets-J-Crew fashion sense. While I don't have OCD, I do have PTSD and the battle with mental health is similar. There's the stigma not only with people in general but with yourself. Accepting that the diagnosis is part of who you are is a challenge that threatens your identity and can shake your security of who you are. Even once you come to terms with it, there are times when it feels like it controls your life, which generally only exacerbates the symptoms, leading to a spiral that can be hard to break. The moments of watching Emma really struggle with it, like the brief clip of her trying to stop herself from cleaning the coffee pot in "Yes/No" are the ones that resonate for me.

I think the show does a great job of balancing the humor of Emma's excessive cleaning (which is, in fact, funny) with the seriousness of what is behind it. It's made it easier to laugh at some of my own rather funny habits that are a manifestation of something more serious. They always say that being able to laugh at yourself is healthy and I've found that when I can do that, it's easier to have a good day.

Also, she has a killer wardrobe that I want very badly and would consider homicide as a matter of acquisition.

As a side note, I was preparing to post this and looked through my labels for the appropriate ones. I noticed that I had labels for fibromyalgia and medical, but not PTSD. I then realized that, despite my openness about my physical ailments, I've never talked about this. So, to be clear...I'm Jenn and I have PTSD. And now, I have a blog label for it too.

Historical Acts in Fiction

After waking up an an awful time for no good reason, I decided to catch up on TV. I started with Downton Abbey, which remains my favorite show on television and which I can watch on pbs.com since I don't have a television. If you're not watching it, you should be. First season is available on Netflix and the second on PBS.

Then I watched my second favorite show on television, Pan Am. I love that era and the jet age, so no surprise there. Sunday's episode ended with Kennedy being shot, but it only showed the initial reports, which all said the President had been shot but was alive. It closed with Maggie (Christian Ricci) stating that he would be alright, he had to be. Of course, the viewer knows its not. The viewer knows that Kennedy is dead and that Maggie, an ardent supporter of the President, is going to be crushed. The viewer knows that all those shocked faces are going to to mourn the loss of the President who was a symbol of youth and change in culture.

It got me thinking about how the viewer having knowledge that the characters don't in historical fictions gives the show a chance to make a point without having to explain it. In the first season of Downton Abbey, the very first thing that happens in that the Titanic sinks. They don't have to talk about the how and the why and they can avoid discussing the larger effects of the event because there is an assumed knowledge. I suspect something similar is going to occur in Pan Am (and has, actually, in the revolution in Cuba). They won't show us Kennedy dying - it will simply be the case because they don't need to tell the viewer that Kennedy dies. It frees them up to focus on the effects that the viewer doesn't already know about - the personal stories that were changed because of things we learn in history. It gives the viewer, most of whom aren't of an age to remember these events, a chance to feel what people were feeling through the characters. If they've done their job, the viewer is attached to the characters and cares about them, so their heartbreaks are ours. We may not, as modern viewers, understand what it means to lose an heir (explaining that is what the first season of Downton Abbey is about) but we get an idea of the suddenness of the Titanic sinking through their dilemma and response. I am not old enough to remember Kennedy being shot (in fact my parents were quite young) but I already anticipate what it will do to Maggie as a character I care about and thus can feel it on her behalf.

It's an interesting device that I hadn't really thought much about until today, but one that I apparently like since I am so fond of historical fiction (Downton, Pan Am, Mad Men, etc). The escapism to a world gone by is one part, certainly, but I think being able to relate, even artificially, with the joys and losses of the characters allows us to experience history in a way that we wouldn't otherwise be able to. It brings history off the books, as it were, and makes it something personal. And isn't that the point of fiction, in addition to entertainment, also to capture the reader or viewer and transport them elsewhere?