james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 22 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

“Alex, quickly! Who was the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?”

This was how my text message to Alex read last Wednesday afternoon, as I frantically searched through bookstore after bookstore in Trinoma for this virtually unheard-of title in the local scene. I had found out about it the previous night, on a Time magazine article, and proceeded to share my newfound knowledge to Alex, who had similar tastes in bizarro-fantasy-space cowboy fiction.

We ended up talking about it all night, which made me feel like a member of the living dead that afternoon, frenetically peering through shelves as my body longed for cushions and some coffee.

I suspect this to be the reason why the people at customer service gave me weird looks each time I asked about the novel.

Either that, or they thought I was seriously mistaken . The one at National Bookstore was nice enough to humor me: she typed “Pride and Prejudice” on her computer, and showed me that they had seven editions of the original Austen novel available.

I stubbornly insisted it was a real novel—this was where Alex’s reply came in handy—but it turns out that they didn’t have it. Neither did Powerbooks nor Fully Booked.

Yet this mash-up parody by Seth Grahame-Smith combining Austen’s unsinkable classic with elements of modern zombie fiction is already garnering fantastic reviews and followers around the Western world. Library Journal called it a must-have “for all popular fiction collections.” The book has risen to number three on the New York Times bestseller list. The Sunday Times in London reported that Hollywood has plans of turning into a movie. I’m thinking maybe it is as brilliant as people say it is.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is basically the same old plot unfolding in an alternate Victorian England where the undead rove around the countryside as annoying but deadly pests. Mr. Darcy is still your proud, dashing aristocrat, well-versed in the art of cadaver-slaying. Elizabeth Bennet is still your prejudiced young dagger-wieding heroine. The supporting characters still play the same roles, if slightly altered: the infamous Lady Catherine, for example, still plays Darcy’s haughty aunt, except her pride now extends to having her own personal cadre of ninjas (yes, you read right), and being a legendary slayer in her own right.

According to various synopses, the memorable scenes still stay the same, except with the addition of the living dead. The ball where Darcy and Elizabeth meet is assaulted by zombies. Lady Catherine still confronts Elizabeth regarding her engagement with Darcy, ending in a duel with ninjas. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth a second time, which the latter accepts, and they happily wipe out a field of zombies after.

While this may seem either incredibly fun or unbelievably retarded, don’t fret: even critics are divided as to the purpose behind the zombie mash-up. Some say that the zombies were simply an addition made by the publishers to boost sales. Others say that the zombies are integral to the plot’s social commentary.

I lean toward the latter due to a very simple question: Why zombies? Why not werewolves or demons or, the classic cool kids of horror, vampires?

Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that zombies are the epitomy of social upheaval. When the system breaks down, all hell breaks loose, and the masses collectively embrace their role as harbringers of the next apocalypse, members of a big, unruly mob. Essentially, isn’t this what zombies are all about? While vampires are sleek fiends for fairer seasons, zombies are brutally menacing hordes created to cause massive carnage.

But more on these and zombie movies and games another time.

For now, I am content to recommend this book, even if I have yet to get my hands on a copy. It reminds me of the time when I was telling people to read The Lord of the Rings series, even though I hadn’t read the novels yet—and had a blast after finally finishing it. Besides, if it convinces younger people to get interested in the classic, why not?

At last, a monster novel that is worthy of popular note, unlike that other one about vampires.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 15 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

The state of literal and moral corruption in Philippine politics has worsened so much that it has become necessary for civil society to point out the obvious.

It is a lot like having a friend who has the habit of picking his nose in public: while both of you (supposedly) understand that it’s unpleasant, you would never tell him that he is wrong to his face, but at some point it will gross you out enough to make you snap and point out that it is unsightly.

Thus, in the spirit of pointing out bad habits, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has assembled various credible members of different social sectors to form a Moral Force Movement—a League of Extraordinarily Upright Gentlemen, if you will. Their mission is to “focus on defining and electing transformational leaders in the coming 2010 elections,” and “to stop moral decadence.” And in the interests of keeping his Justice League credible and apolitical, he has told politicians to “lay off” his movement.

Sadly, I find this interesting for all the wrong reasons.

To begin with, this is not the first time we have called for a ‘moral revolution.’ In fact, they have happened before: we’ve had two People Powers, maybe three, depending on how you feel about the Erap administration. The first one was initiated primarily by the call of the Church, and the second was inspired by political gestures. The common element is that people already knew what was wrong, and were sick of it; they just needed someone to point out that the government was proverbially picking its nose.

Since then, we have put in place two female Presidents, the first of whom was an icon of virtue, but eventually lost her persuasive moral power after being involved in too much politics. She would also prove, retrospectively, that the most upright people don’t necessarily make for the best presidents. The second one is an icon of… never mind.

We have since also had a priest who ran successfully for governor—and has now declared his intentions to run for the presidency. Recently, we have had numerous bishops and civil society groups call for moral change, the latest manifestation of which is the literal Justice League led by the Chief Justice. Some movements succeed, and some don’t.

Another thing that rubs me is this whole notion of defining ‘transformational leaders.’ On the more obvious level, I believe it is unrealistic, since good leaders are more effectively identified than they are defined. Any list of important ideal characteristics inevitably fall short when measuring true-to-life leaders. Besides, it is largely a matter of image.

Which leads me to the less obvious point: definitions can be politicized. Considering how predatory our media and political culture can get, associations to particular public figures will inevitably appear. When this happens, it will either be that this movement loses its credibility, or that we elect the candidates who emerge victorious in the ensuing publicity contest.

This is why it was important for Chief Justice Puno to swear off his ambitions for the presidency in 2010. If he didn’t, I would have been suspicious of this movement. And even then, our current President has taught us that you can never trust someone who declares that he or she is not running in an election.

Finally, I question: assuming that people jump on the bandwagon, how much of an impact can it make on our choices in the next election? I am inclined to believe that genuine changes will be superficial. Change will happen in the way candidates market themselves: they will try to show that they live up to the standards. But this is what candidates do in each election, so it is only the variables of their campaign strategy that will be different.

Even that is an optimistic projection: guns and money talk louder than a list of standards do.

In light of these doubts, I find their choice of name ironic. The term ‘moral force’ has always been used to describe an efficient incentive, or a positive motivational influence. But the biggest moral force in our country has been calling for moral revolutions for as long as I can remember, and they seem to have lost enough touch for a new movement to step in. And even then, I’m not sure that the movement is an efficient incentive or a positive influence. At worst, I can see them being efficient incentives for negative influences.

Belief in superheroes is absurd because superheroes don’t exist. But I guess someone has to play the superhero, if no one else will.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 8 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

In 1729, the great essayist Jonathan Swift anonymously published an essay entitled A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.

Since Ireland was impoverised and suffering from a food crisis, guess what one of the era’s greatest minds proposed. He proposed that poor Irish families might alleviate their economic pains by selling their children as food products.

Going great lengths to prove his argument with sensationally grotesque reasoning, one might be convinced that he was serious about advocating cannibalism. He goes so far as to recommend various ways of preparing the kids as meals.

If you have not read it yet, I suggest that you do; it is one of the most artful and effective pieces of satire ever written. It was so effective that it managed to alienate an entire nation, and I mean that literally. People accused him of being a cannibal, or criticized him for “having poor taste,” and writing satire that is “not funny”—which it clearly is, because students of literature are laughing at it as we speak.

But, you know, he was kidding.

By definition, satires do not have to be funny. But they do have to be sarcastic. Hence, they have to be profoundly disturbing to those who are being attacked. Often, satirical works appear to approve of the things they wish to attack, and this often manifests itself in being politically incorrect. Despite this, there is a large propensity for satire to be misunderstood. And unfortunately, since satires can be deeply offensive, understanding is usually only something that comes in retrospect.

So it is with Chip Tsao and his article, The War at Home.

As a nation, we have never taken lightly to insults, whether real or perceived. When that single racist comment from Desperate Housewives hit national headlines (for God knows why), we demanded that they censor it. When Jay Leno made that joke, we demanded an apology. It is the same thing here. Perhaps it is only proper to apologize to someone you have offended with your jokes, unless you like getting into fights.

But jokes are jokes, and living in a culture which is so fond of them, I don’t understand why we can’t take one. We never hesitate to make racist comments about superficial qualities such as skin color or smell. We enjoy watching satirical shows like John Stewart or The Colbert Report. Yet we can’t take it when we are the ones being poked fun at—and we have the nerve to justify ourselves when we make jokes in the same spirit. I find this ironic, even bordering on hypocritical.

We have to remember that as a nation, we create our own image. When the Indian author Salman Rushdie was criticized by the Muslim world for his allegedly blasphemous references in his novel The Satanic Verses, the rest of the world talked about how perhaps the Muslim world took the references in the wrong way. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini did issue a death warrant for him.

And our very own Roilo Golez has challenged Chip Tsao to a fistfight. I wonder: if we have the nerve to stereotype Islamic people as warmongering, what then does that make us?

But more importantly, our reaction reflects the image we have of ourselves. Feeling insulted implies that you acknowledge its truth, or at least the possibility of it. As my friend Anthony Cruz deftly observed, our overreaction is more telling of the connotations we have associated to Filipinos being domestic helpers in Hong Kong. It is as if we acknowledge that what they are doing is indeed wretched and pathetic. Have we stooped so low as to belittle the heroic sacrifices that these people make?

The more painful thing is that it comes from us. Never mind what other countries think of us; is this what we think of our countrymen? That they are second-class citizens who are incapable of taking jokes and deserve no less—no more—than the pity of the strong?

Now that, I feel, is truly offensive.

Funnily enough, with our people it has always been what we don’t say that is telling of how we really are. And we never say that we are proud to be a nation of overseas workers.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the real war at home is the one we wage against ourselves.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 1 April 2009 Issue (Page E-2)

---

Earth Hour is a testament to the ability of people from all corners of the globe to unite for the greater good. Since garnering massive international coverage after its successful implementation in Sydney, Australia two years ago, cities and municipalities all over the world have started adopting this ritual to signify their support for the fight against global warming. Even in the midst of a crisis, it proves that mankind is capable of setting aside differences and transcending boundaries for a common good. It also proves that ordinary citizens are not apathetic, and are willing to be the catalysts for change.

It is perhaps the only hour of darkness that is to be seen as a message of hope.

But as soon as we turn the lights on, so too do we snap back to reality. The bigger questions that surround Earth Hour again begin to rear their frightful heads. Among them, there are two that are particularly important, and need immediate answers. These two questions are:

How many Earth Hours will it take before our leaders decide to do something?

And are we, as citizens of the world, ready to take the necessary steps beyond Earth Hour to fight against global warming?

To be utterly realistic, Earth Hour’s greatest strength is also it’s greatest weakness: it is a symbolic gesture. On the one hand, it is a moving spectacle; imagine an Earth Hour where all cities in the world participate. Imagine the whole world collectively turning their lights off. It is a striking image made more powerful by the fact that we have the power to do it. Not only does it make us aware of the problem, but also of our ability to solve it, and it is being made aware of this power that serves to make it an effective rallying point.

But as a tool for pressuring leaders to act and big businesses to change? I don’t think so; small gestures correspond to small results. I am not sure that an hour-long tantrum, even a global one at that, is enough to convince those in power to push for the changes that will truly have an impact on the environment, especially if these leaders have other interests in mind. Even if they did, corporations nowadays can become so powerful that they can dictate the way our governments behave. And corporations—think big industries and oil companies, particularly—will always seek to protect their profits.

Thus, the first question. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time. The world will continue to get exorbitantly warmer, with or without us. Throughout the course of history, mankind (or the people who represent us, at least) has demonstrated time and again that it is unable to acknowledge the existence of problems until they become too big to solve.

Also, mankind often has a penchant for stopping at gestures. If anything, Earth Hour can be appropriated as a tool for leaders to say that they are aware of the problem and are doing something about it, whether the latter is true or not.

But the question inevitably boomerangs back to those who raise it.

What makes Earth Hour appealing is that it does not demand so much. An hour is not so much to ask from anyone. If we can turn our lights off for the duration of the time we sleep, we can certainly turn our lights off for an hour.

But other, bigger acts get increasingly difficult. It becomes an entirely different question altogether. Would you give up using your car? Would you be willing to stop using your aircon (in this kind of weather)?

This is my point exactly: human beings are creatures of convenience, and unfortunately, making real strides in the fight against global warming is too much of a hassle.

In the face of that realization, it is so easy to say that a little inconvenience can be endured for the sake of saving the world. But if this is true, then movements that advocate an amalgam of little gestures to help save the environment should have gone mainstream by now. In the end, the world won’t be saved by our talking.

So, too, won’t Earth Hour—unless we are willing to move beyond it.

Otherwise, we are just kidding ourselves. Happy April Fools Day.