Annual Halloween rituals

Halloween is, among other things, an excuse for the Slacktivixen and my daughters to dress the dog up in costumes.

Willow is a patient dog, and can be bribed into complying with almost anything in exchange for a treat.

But Halloween is also, according to Herbert Hoover Fan Club President Amity Shlaes, a Pagan ritual promoting “necromancy” and the undermining of monotheistic hegemony. Jason Pitzl-Waters responds to Shlaes’ complaint that the holiday is a threat to christianamerica.

“Halloween isn’t secular. It is pagan,” Shlaes writes, assuming her readers will all share her unspoken assumption that this is a condemnation.

If she had stopped to consider that assumption — the assumption that the vast majority of people reading what she’s writing there share her general perspective on the undesirability of pagan influence in America — then she might have realized that it contradicts the claim of her complaint. If one assumes that one can simply say “Halloween … is pagan” and have everyone reading gasp along at the horror of that, then one cannot simultaneously argue that this pagan influence is widespread and becoming dominant among that same readership.

That’s not the only way Shlaes’ complaint swallows its own tail. Advocates of Christian hegemony like Shlaes have to make up their mind about holidays. If the celebration of Halloween — even as a secularized and commodified carnival of costumes and candy — exerts a subtle but powerful Pagan influence on the culture, then it must also be true that the celebration of Christmas — even as a secularized and commodified carnival of gift-giving and vague goodwill — exerts a subtle but powerful Christian influence on the culture. If the secularized and commodified celebration of Christmas has lost all sectarian meaning as an annual cultural ritual, then it must also be true that the secularized and commodified celebration of Halloween is similarly a-religious.

So pick one. You can complain about the “War on (sectarian) Christmas” or you can complain about the evil influence of Halloween. But you can’t do both.

I suppose the best way to get knee-jerk social conservatives to stop whining about Halloween would be to point out to them that all this free candy undermines Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity. By the conservative principle of reflexive opposition to all things Obama, that would probably lead to columns celebrating the true spirit of Halloween.

  • Tonio

    Part of the one-sided game is the tradition of heterosexual men lamenting the shaming of the human body, but with an obvious agenda to ogle female flesh. DC Comics recently rebooted Starfire in an oversexualized way, and critics who accuse the new portrayal of catering to male fantasies are being accused of “slut-shaming.” Offhand I don’t know of any way women can escape that stupid and cruel dilemma, except maybe to humiliate men for having expectations in the first place.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I’m not exactly surprised that some folks are trying to use that as a defense, but it’s kind of  absurd in this situation.  I don’t know all the details (I don’t follow western comics that closely, though I get some info just by osmosis ><); but from what I've heard she's basically been redone as nothing but fanservice.

    I mean if we were talking about a well written well rounded character who happened to be overtly sexual, then drew fire for being so, I think one could probably legitimately at least broach the topic of slut shaming… but that's, to my understanding, not at all what's going on here; and it doesn't seem to me that it's hard to see that (x.x)

  • Tonio

    Yes, my point is that the accusations of “slut-shaming” are not only unfounded in Starfire’s case, but miss the point of the reboot’s.

    In a related question, I wonder if any heterosexual male writer has an inherent conflict of interest if he tries to create a fully realized female character who is also overtly sexual. The problem may be more acute in a visual medium like comics.

  • Tonio

    I meant “miss the point of the reboot’s criticisms.”

  • Rikalous

    JJohnson, this http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/abydos/ may be relevant to your interests. Because I am cheap, I haven’t actually picked it up to assess the quality, but I do like the premise.

    I thought necromancy being evil was stupid for the reasons you cited, but I could reluctantly accept it as an inherent part of the magic. What I didn’t get was why poison was evil. One book I read claimed that it was unnecessarily painful, apparently in a way lighting someone on fire, hitting them with a lightning bolt, and smashing them in the face with a morningstar in the space of six seconds isn’t. Other than that, it’s evil because shut up.

  • Anonymous

    Or if you were either particularly awesome, perhaps even chip in to upgrade your gear.  Someone like Beowulf would have been raised as something seriously powerful (I’ve forgotten the name of the undead I’m thinking of >< I want to say "dread knight" but that may be wrong), and be equipped with the very best the new king's treasury can afford to give.

    Death Knight.  Although I believe those still have the original soul – they’re basically the warrior equivalent of liches.

    Yeah but the negative energy thing is kind of a weak argument since using spells like Cloudkill, which is basically mustard gas in magical form, isn’t an evil act*, and just being near the undead is not automatically harmful.  (I mean it’s different if they try to bite you or something, but just standing next to an animate skeleton is no problem.)

    Cloudkill only lasts a short time, though.  An animate undead lasts *forever* (until destroyed)

    In a related question, I wonder if any heterosexual male writer has an inherent conflict of interest if he tries to create a fully realized female character who is also overtly sexual. The problem may be more acute in a visual medium like comics.

    Or any sort of gynosexual.  But it’s only a conflict of interest if you assume that ‘sexual’ and ‘fully realized’ are in conflict.