Ronald Weasley: Remarkably Mediocre

It is the Christmas season, and this time of year my thoughts always turn to Harry Potter as I mentally and emotionally prepare to send at least three text and Facebook messages saying "Happy Christmas, Harry" and wait for the natural response, "Happy Christmas, Ron."

So last night I was thinking about Ron Weasley. As I sat there I tried to think of what Ron actually did that was outstanding, that earned him his place in the legendary tripod. In his first year at Hogwarts he played a really good game of chess. In his second year he cried about spiders and then let Harry take all of the risk and go after Ginny. In his third year he broke his leg. In his fourth year he got upset with Harry because Harry got into the Triwizard Tournament (and helped bring Fleur's sister to shore). In his fifth year at Hogwarts he used a summoning charm on a tentacular brain, nearly killing himself. In his sixth year he managed (through Hermione's cheating) to get onto the Quidditch team and performed poorly until the key game when he played remarkably well (after thinking that Harry cheated to help him). He also smooched on Lavender Brown a lot. In his seventh year (which didn't take place at Hogwarts) he abandoned his friends and then joined back up with his friends, and then watched his best friend beat Voldemort.

In the sum total of all of Ronald's Hogwarts career he doesn't do a whole lot that is noteworthy (in a good way) that is unique to him. Even Neville proved his Gryffindorhood by whipping Godric's sword out of the Sorting Hat to absolutely destroy the final horcrux (Nagini) and open the door to Harry doing his defeating Voldemort thing. What was it in Ron's life that made him so overwhelmingly mediocre? I tried for quite some time to piece it all together. Was there a moment that lead to his screaming normalcy (with mediocre wizard powers), or was it a confluence of circumstances?

Sure, he came from a large family and might have felt overshadowed, but let's look at his other siblings. Charlie became successful working with dragons, Bill successfully broke curses (and totes won Fleur's heart), Percy earned moderate success in the Ministry of Magic pretty quickly, Fred and George became wealthy entrepreneurs (before they left Hogwarts), Ginny achieved success as a Quidditch player and sports reporter. So all of his siblings did remarkably well at what they loved. Statistically the success of that family is crazy. Ron's averageness helps balance it. So if everyone else in the family is able to excel in spite of the family dynamic, and probably because of it.

Then it all came to me. All of his mediocrity can be traced back to his first train ride to Hogwarts.

First off he fell in with the famous Harry Potter. While we all say that we shouldn't compare ourselves with others, it must be hard to not do so when you meet someone who from their birth has received more attention than you have received cumulatively in your entire life. What's more, just being around Harry brought attention to Ron. Just by sticking with Harry, Ron go to go on some sick adventures, break rules, and even share in the glory of winning the House Cup. Why excel when all of your dreams are being satisfied without effort on your part? And when you add on the fact that Ron's best friend was academically challenged and shenanigan-ally gifted, Ron's behavior couldn't help but change to match.

Secondly, and I think that this played more of a role in Ron's mediocrity, was the failed spell he used on Scabbers. Let's look at this in more depth. Ron said that Fred and George gave him the spell, and after failing to cast it correctly he expresses his concern that Fred and George gave him a fake spell to screw around with him. But what benefit would Fred and George get from that? Ron was probably going to test out the spell alone. We see throughout the books that they only play tricks when they get to see the payoff. They love to revel in their own brilliance as their plots and plans come to fruition. On top of that, Fred and George are brilliant and invent magic other people have never seen (example: the Swamp in Book 5). Deep down Ron knows this, and failing to cast the spell correctly shakes his confidence to the core. From the very beginning he gets it into his head that he lacks magical talent, and this belief leads to nerves and doubts impairing his performance in every class (and life).

So why didn't that spell work? Fred and George developed it to work on rats. Was Scabbers a rat? No, he was a person, an animagus. I can only imagine that would definitely change the effectiveness of a spell. Case in point: the Cruciatus Curse and Avada Kedavra both require intent and focus to work effectively. So if you need hate in your heart to torture or kill someone with a curse, is it really that hard to think that a spell designed for a rat wouldn't work right on a human in rat form?

But then again, maybe Ron just didn't have that much potential to begin with. Dumbledore didn't seem to think so, though, and did what he could to nurture and draw out that hidden potential. Shoot, he gave Ron a stupid amount of points for playing a game of chess (and demonstrating a remarkable level of self-sacrifice), and then later he made him Prefect instead of Harry. Even Harry tried to unlock Ron's potential by tricking Ron to get out of Ron's way to become a Quidditch hero. Ron's doubts (the one's that started with failing to perform a simple spell) became Ron's worst enemy.

The final piece of evidence, and the part of the series that never jived with me. Down in the Chamber of Secrets Ron had every reason to move forward. His little sister was trapped, alone, dying in the depths of the Chamber. As a brother myself I know that nothing would have stopped me from tearing in there and throwing down on the spiritual manifestation of Tom Riddle. Now, if Ron had done that he probably would have been killed by the basilisk, but I think everyone would agree that it would have been the most understandable reaction. He chose to stay behind. He let Harry, who had no good reason other than being a friend and having an insatiable drive toward self-destruction, go in his place. Only a man crippled by his own doubts, who believed he could never accomplish his goals, would hand off his fraternal responsibility for his sister to his friend (who he had known for less than two years, and who had not even gone through puberty).

So what's the moral of the story? We should not allow one failure and the ease of following the path of least resistance to rob us of all the things we want to enjoy. When Ron looked in the Mirror of Erised he saw himself earning all of the honors that he could only hope for. And let's be honest, after that ferocious chess match I have no doubt that Ron could have earned those if he had turned his stupid, fat rat yellow and had a better, more academically inclined friend earlier on (like, before Halloween).

I Will Marry for Science!

I have determined that I must marry someone who has blond hair and blue eyes. Yeah, intelligence and tenderness and other qualities might be nice, but the important part is how they look. Some of you might (accurately) say, "Matt, that sounds really shallow." 

But let me explain how this is really for the sake of humanity. 

Anyone who has taken a basic biology course has been introduced to genetics. You've drawn your Punnett squares, determined the statistical probability of offspring inheriting certain characteristics, and read about Gregor Mendel's pea plants. 

We have been using genetics for centuries (most of the time before we knew it was genetics) to obtain favorable outcomes from crops and livestock. We needed hardier plants and animals to face increasingly harsher climates. This was great, but it is possible to move beyond useful husbandry into a realm of disastrous genetic consequences. Just look at all of those dog breeds that have crazy health problems as a result of inbreeding. When series after series of genetically similar pairs breed, the result is the destruction of a species.

Which is why I need to marry someone with blond hair and blue eyes. It would be a marriage for science. With that combination of genes I would be ensuring the greatest number of possible genetic combinations. I would be moving humanity (at least as much as I can) towards greater diversity and away from genetic inbreeding. Let me explain further.

I have brown eyes. Well, mostly brown. There's a hint of green in there, but that's mainly a result of how light interacts in the stroma. However, my father has blue eyes, and my brother has blue eyes, which means that I carry at least some of the recessive genes that lead to blue eyes (there are approximately 15 genes responsible for eye color). Therefore, if I marry someone that is full-on recessive, our children could potentially have pretty much any eye color between brown and blue.

I have brownish hair. Well, sort of a dirty blond. As a child I was a tow head if you ever saw one. Blond as could be. The presence of read hairs in my beard is also a glorious sign of my own personal genetic diversity. The amount of combinations I could have with a blond haired woman are many.

In essence, a marriage between me (a metaphorical stewpot of gene expression) and a blond-haird, blue-eyed woman (as close as one can get to a genetic blank canvas) would theoretically yield the greatest diversity. I may not be able to stop the red heads from going extinct, but I sure as shootin' can make sure the world isn't just a dark haired mass of sameness.

But wait, there's more! I also have most of the genes that lead to a sound body and mind. I have genes for the correct number of fingers and toes, for the high end of average height, for seeing, hearing, and smelling (though my smelling might be too powerful, so if my wife has a lower than average sense of smell then everything should balance), and my organs are all in the right place. I don't want anyone to think that I'm genetically perfect, though. In the spirit of full disclosure I am genetically predisposed to high cholesterol and have poor (though not the worst) vision.

So the result of a union between me and a blonde would be strong, healthy, genetically diverse offspring. I might not be able to do much for humanity, but I can do my best to ensure our survival. And if you are familiar with my dating history then you will know that I have only ever dated one blond woman. Dark hair and dark eyes are historically more my thing, so hopefully you appreciate that this will be a sacrifice. But I am willing to sacrifice for the greater good. The human species must survive.

On Guardians, Galaxies, and Heroes.

Spoiler Alert: I make no promises that I won't spoil something.

A few weeks ago I saw Guardians of the Galaxy alone in a movie theatre at 10AM on a Saturday. And I'm not complaining. I prefer to watch movies by myself. Movies, theatre, music, really anything where afterwards someone might be tempted to ask me, "So what did you think?" before I'm good and ready to respond. I need time to digest.

That's beside the point. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was, by all accounts, well done. I'll admit, I'm a bit burnt out on comic book to movie translations. Somehow one Spiderman movie became five, Superman has attempted to win everyone over multiple times, Tony Stark has done his thing thrice, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, Batman (the Bond franchise of Comic Book films), the list goes on and on. Our heroes face crazier and crazier obstacles as nefarious villains strive to conquer, destroy, steal, or corrupt various cities, America, or the World (or Universe if they're feeling ambitious). And for the most part I have enjoyed at least the first movie of each new adaptation. But I can only see so many skyscrapers tumble and innocent bystanders probably get wasted (but at least the hero or token child saved by hero is fine) before I start thinking about cost. The cost of cities being destroyed is the #2 cause of me losing focus and letting the illusion crumble around my ears.

Guardians of the Galaxy did an admirable job preventing that. The faceless masses were given faces. The cost to the multitudes was constantly present. It was not hero vs. villain for the sake of a sweet explosive showdown. It was countless people sacrificing to save families and friends, habitual enemies becoming allies with the hope that everyone can go home at the end of the day and hold their children again. And as for the Guardians themselves, it wasn't a bunch of misfits coming together. For all intents and purposes each one had their place and did quite well in their sphere. They were successful in their niches. On an individual basis they probably did better separate than as part of a group. With that said, when a need arose they did their best with what they had. That's a story that speaks to people.

At this point you might be saying, "If that's #2, what's #1?" Let me tell you. The #1 thing that ruins the magic for me is when heroes don't bleed. Not that I have to see actual blood. Metaphorically (though in the pursuit of the metaphor it could get literal). I need to see that my heroes can fail, that there is the possibility that they just aren't strong enough, or smart enough, or brave enough, or decisive enough or good enough to succeed when push comes to shove. I don't think I'm alone in this. I think it's one of the keys to winning an audience: providing an access point, a way for me to relate and say, "I have been there, and I will be there again, and we understand each other."

Two images from film for you. The first is from the Superman remake before the Henry Cavill one. Towards the beginning of the film there are some bad guys doing what bag guys do, and Superman flies in to stop them. They unload a gattling gun into his chest, but Superman continues approaching them undeterred. The shooter, not about to give up, walks towards Superman, and at point blank range he shoot Superman in the face. In slow motion we see the bullet hit Superman's eye, compress, fragment, and fall to the ground, leaving him completely unscathed. If I recall correctly this is in the first ten minutes. It's established right from the beginning, Superman will win because at the end of the day, he's invincible. He can't bleed (unless in the presence of a surprisingly rare non-earth element, but excluding outside forces he's perfect. I admit, I have problems with the concept of Superman).

The second image is from Thor. From the beginning we get that he is pretty impressive in terms of strength and battle prowess. We also see very early on that he is proud, foolish, thoughtless, manipulable, rash, and petty. But the image I truly love is this. After he has fought his way through government agents, he stands in front of his hammer ready to regain his former glory. When he tries, for all his strength and prowess, he cannot move the hammer. We see him collapse to his knees in the rain with a look in his eyes that says, "I am not good enough."

Which image speaks more to us as an audience? Which one allows for empathy and sympathy? The man who will always be the best, or the man on his knees, his hopes crushed, struggling to understand the world around him, hopeless, defeated, and alone. I will feel for the second every time, and I will cheer for him as he strives imperfectly to overcome challenges.

That's why I liked Guardians of the Galaxy. They fail so often and after so much effort that you start to wonder if success is even an option. Surely after that much sacrifice and effort they should have won. They are people trying their best, but frequently their best isn't good enough. I can relate.

So to all of you story makers and creators, please give me people on stage, on screen, on the page, etc. that let me feel for and with them. I need heroes that can bleed, that can despair, that can sorrow, that can doubt. I need living, breathing characters that expose truths of the human condition, and from what I understand it's very hard to live without blood.

And for all of you that may not have seen Guardians of the Galaxy, accept that it's probably not as good as I've talked it up to be. I don't need you being disappointed because I said it was great and you don't think so. But you should see it and judge for yourself.

Adulthood Checklist

Recently I have been checking things off of my unspoken checklist for becoming an adult in a manner both fast and furious. Let us make that unspoken list a spoken list by having you read the following list out loud. Or speak it in your mind.

1. Get a salaried job - Check. I work full-time and I've completed my training.
2. Purchase a bed - Check. And it's queen-sized. After all that time in college on a twin mattress (if you can call it a mattress) I'm going big. And it's memory foam.
3. Get a place of my own - Mostly check. I just need to finish moving in.
4. Get a college degree - Check. I don't use it, but I've got it.
5. Get my own cellular telephone - Check. And it even acts as a pedometer. You could attempt to get on my level, but don't be disappointed if you can't.
6. Get business cards - Check. They have my name on them and everything.
7. Become the greatest uncle ever - Check. Tears happen when I leave.
8. Obtain a wife and/or children - Not yet accomplished. Luckily this is more an add-on of adulthood, something that should probably not be accomplished until adulthood is within your grasp.
9. Buy a shower curtain - Check. What's so special about this? If you don't know then you've never bought a shower curtain.
10. Have health, dental, life, and accidental death and dismemberment insurance - Check. My hand is currently worth thousands of dollars if it gets accidentally removed from my arm.
11. Have a 401k and know what it is - Check.
12. Have my own wifi - Check. It's even named after me.

I don't understand how women aren't falling over themselves to partake in my maturity and adulthood. Added bonus: I am bearded, which physiologically means I have reached adulthood and which psychologically means I am strong, reliable, respectable, and erudite. I even use words like erudite. And panache.

Adulthood, it's a pleasure to meet you.

Swinging in Sunshine and Snow

For those of you that are unaware, I have graduated college. I now hold a B.A. in Theatre Arts Studies. Two weeks ago I was incredible. Now I'm credible.

Let me share an experience with you. But first you must wade through background information. The Saturday after graduation (April 26th) my housing contract expired, meaning that I moved out of my apartment into...a storage unit. No I'm not living in a storage unit, but all my stuff is. I remain homeless, living on roll-away beds and couches. I am waiting to hear about future employment, floating around the world, living a life of simplicity. I don't really worry about too much, just hanging out in limbo for a time. I've played my hand, so now it's life's turn. I can't really continue playing with her holding up the flow of the game.

But what I can do is swing. Monday afternoon, having dropped my mother off at the airport and waiting for my dear friend to be ready to go get lunch, I stopped at the local park and commenced swinging on the swings. Swinging is one of the few things in life that I hate. It is also one of the many things in life that I love. The first few moments are terrible. The rest are wonderful. For clarification, I hate back and forth motion, such as the type that can be found at amusement parks on swinging ships and in parks on swings.

Now, as I was swinging, the sun was shining, my legs were pumping, and I was reveling in the simple freedom of just swinging. Yes, reliving my childhood brings me great joy (Legos, swings, reading for days on end, walking uphill both ways in two feet of snow, etc.). Then, one of the craziest Utah things happen. There, in the middle of the sun and my childlike freedom, it began to snow. Not sticking to the ground, but dark cloud and flurries and flakes. A different type of human being (sane, stable, normalish) would have called it a day and returned to their home. Seeing as how I have no home, am not normalish, and refuse to bow to Mother Nature's fury, I continued swinging. And then, about ten minutes later, it stopped snowing. The sun, which had never stopped shining, shined brighter. The dark cloud completely vanished. And I continued swinging.

Did this actually happen? Yes. Is it a metaphor? Yes. It is also, surprisingly enough, not hyperbolated at all. If I had replaced myself with an animal it could have also been read as a fable. If I included more fish it could have been a parable. Or is it already a parable? What's a parable if not an extended extended metaphor? Is this an extended metaphor? What is the symbolism? How would I stage this? What is my concept as director? All valid questions.

But what I thought was this: you just gotta keep on doing your thing. Onwards and upwards, as Aslan says. You never reach the summit if you turn around and go back down, or if you try climbing while looking back over your shoulder. As I sat there, swinging in the snow and in the sun, the stresses and tension that I have long carried with me and which intensified throughout last week melted away. Is my future uncertain? Yes. Can I live with that? Yes. Will I end up where and when I need to be? I am confident that the answer is yes.

Should you go swing on your nearest swing set? Yes.

Friendliness

It's been some time since I updated, and with an inexplicable boost in page views over the past three days (like a "someone is reading all of my posts four times" boost) I have decided that maybe it's time to post something new.

Recently in my life it was brought to my attention that at times I am not a very friendly person. Valid. There are quite a few things I prefer to social interactions, and I can oftentimes come across as gruff, disinterested, crotchety, and surly. Or all four. Sometimes I'm just caught at the exact wrong moment (like, say, a production week). Most of the time I'm just prickly. Like a hedgehog. Don't pet a hedgehog backwards. It's a simple concept, but difficult to apply to human interactions.

Back to the actual point. So I can sometimes be less than friendly, less than approachable, and less than huggable. I accept that about me, but I have felt after that exchange that maybe I should try a bit harder to be a bit more pleasant to people. I think I'm doing quite well. Then again, I thought I was doing fine before.

I think we can all be more aware, more careful, and more loving in how we treat other people. Especially me (meaning treat me more lovingly. Joking. But not). We may think that we are jesting, but sometimes it's the tone of our voice, the inflection at the end of our sentence, or the content of our joke that makes it less of a joke and more of a harmful statement. We don't know everyone's past, we don't know everyone's future, and we don't always know the ins and outs of what people are dealing with right now.

There's that one scripture in James that talks about bridling the tongue. We should all lend some more credence to those verses. I should lend more credence to those verses. When we let our tongue run freely, when we never check what we are saying and simply spew forth whatever stumbles into our mouth then we can very easily start fires we cannot put out. Thankfully I was made aware before that happened with my dear friend, but the results could have been disastrous. Apparently that old adage, "Think before you speak," remains true in our modern era.

So if I say something thoughtless, hurtful, harmful, or just plain stupid, let me know. We can all help to lift one another to speak with the tongue of angels.

What's in a Name? Lots.

I believe strongly in the power of names. Chances are it has something to do with reading The Dark is Rising series and the Earthsea Chronicles at a young age.

But let's talk about names for a brief moment. Or rather, let's talk about the danger of avoiding names.

In LDS culture I have noticed a tendency to use code words in order to avoid the names of other things. We say challenges, trials, and struggles instead of saying what they are (Same with sin, but the public expression of how you sinned might be received differently than to say how you are challenged. Certain of the following concepts still apply). On the other end, we say blessings instead of naming how we have actually been blessed. I believe there is great danger in this. While I recognize that most of this is done in person-to-person conversations so that we don't have to necessarily "burden" someone else with our problems, or so that we don't sound like we're bragging about how awesome life is, I think we stand at the very edge of a gulf. It will only be so long until we have alienated ourselves from the problem, and therefore lose power to actually find a solution.

The same goes for blessings. The real danger in simply saying that you have received many blessings is that you alienate yourself from what those blessings are, and over time you'll cease to see how you are blessed. Shortly thereafter you won't recognize your blessings for what they are. There is a hymn entitled "Count Your Blessings" that we are all probably familiar with. And lots of times we give that advice to people. "Dude, just count your blessings if you're feeling low." "Ladies, if you would count your blessings you would see God's hand in your life." But really, the most important part of that hymn is the second half of the first line of the chorus: "Name them one by one." What is better? Saying "I have 12 blessings" or saying "The Lord has blessed me in the following ways: 1)....."?

And I'm not necessarily saying that saying you are blessed or challenged is a bad thing. Some situations call for it. And the last thing I want to do is sit through a testimony meeting where everyone enumerates their blessings (because they feel they should be grateful and focus on the positive) or their challenges (because they want you to know that God gives us our challenges so we can learn. To this train of thought I say, "Well, yes, but sometimes really terrible things just happen, and I would hesitate to say that God caused them all.").

But here's the conclusion. When we overuse the terms trial, challenge, difficulty, struggle, blessing, etc. we run the risk of making those words meaningless. I could be wrong (but I'm not) but I believe in the scriptures that Jesus tells his disciples to bear one another's burdens. So if you are dealing with some stuff, don't worry about burdening others. They've been commanded to help. No matter what, name it to yourself. If you struggle with depression, name it. Name your familial dysfunction, your addiction, your anger, your sorrow, your loss, your career success, your good grade on that test, your mother. Whatever it is, you cannot solve it or truly be grateful for it without seeing it for what it is, without naming it. Because once you know its name you have power over it. Power to share, to seek help and understanding, to feel joy, to empathize.

So yeah, that's what's in a name.

Should You Care About BYUSA?

In short, the answer is probably no. Unless you want to. I won't judge.

A point made clear (now) by the BYUSA and by fellow blog person in this illuminating post, is that they are not a student government (but rather a Student Service Association). What does this mean in as few words as possible? Their power is minimal, their authority is nil. They do hand out free food sometimes, though, so that's something.

So who do you want giving you cookies (as long as you wear a BYU shirt)? Your number of choices has grown. This go around there are three pairs running for the coveted BYUSA President/VP combo. And why shouldn't six people want to pad their resumes with what will inevitably be misinterpreted as serving in some sort of student government? You're just upset that you didn't think of it first. And by first, I mean when you came as a freshman and signed up for their mailing list in order to get a free t-shirt. Maybe you shouldn't have immediately deleted those monthly e-mails.

But they're all about the real issues this go around. Wait, never mind, one of them is still running on the "Vending Machines in the Library" platform. So, like, the security guards will ask me to not bring a Jamba Juice into the library, but they'd be totally cool with buying a chocolate milk inside. In fact, it's completely inappropriate to be eating in about 95% of the library anyway. They also want to improve Wifi across campus. Here's a secret: You could always just contact IT and tell them about a dead spot. Like you can do it right now. If enough students ask, they fix it.

One pair wants to make the BYUSA more effective at pairing you with service opportunities or organizations that you would find interesting. That's cool. Apparently they weren't telling you how to get in touch with the people before. Seems like a simple fix, right? Just give the students the information. But wait, instead of you going in and saying, "Hey, I'm interested in this sort of thing," they'll have you tell them about what your interested in and take a personality test. Yeah, it's the same, but with a personality test. It will also tell you which Lord of the Rings character you're most like.

Surely these candidates are so different that it will be easy to choose one pair that you side with most. Not really. Two sets talk about vending machines, and two talk about the BYUSA being a student involvement center. And surprisingly, I have actually seen all of their initiatives and platforms before. Part of me thinks that they just pull initiatives out of a hat (and with 3 pairs this year, they had to reuse some). No, I get it, they spend a lot of time thinking about these things. Arts cards, pre-game events, vending machines, websites, etc. All are potentially important. If you care.

According to the Universe, "According to current BYUSA President[,] Brandon Beck, 78 percent of the student body did not vote in the last election." What does this mean? Well, it means that 78% of the student body doesn't care about the BYUSA. This could potentially be seen as a massive majority of the student body voting against the BYUSA, but I guarantee that that 78% would feel as apathetic towards eliminating the BYUSA as they are towards electing a new president. To them, all of the candidates are just variations on a theme. And that theme is, "We're so stoked about the BYUSA." And that theme means, "We are happy with the BYUSA as it is."

Can you make it through 4 years without interacting much with the BYUSA? Easily. But then you miss out on cookies and free t-shirts. I have never bought a BYU shirt, and I have like 5. Not a bad deal. So should you care about who gets elected as the BYUSA President/VP? No, because I guarantee the number of cookies, the amount of hot chocolate, and the availability of free t-shirts will remain the same regardless of who gets elected. And if the initiatives you want don't happen, don't worry. They'll be the platforms next year. So during the voting period (March 3-5) feel free to vote or not vote. Your vote probably doesn't actually matter.

An Ideal Relationship

I have spent some significant time pondering this over the past few days, so now I feel it is my duty to present my non-scientific findings to the community.

I think at one point or another, especially at the BYU, many of us have spent some time pondering what would make the perfect relationship. And connected to that is the question of how do we know when we are in a, if not perfect then at least healthy, relationship. The major problem is that oftentimes when you are in a relationship wherein feelings are involved it's just about impossible to objectively evaluate that relationship. Hopefully the following thoughts will at least give us all some tools to use in our interpersonal forward progress.

Let's begin at the beginning. Here are some very key tidbits that serve as a pretty good baseline from my experience.

1) Both parties should be emotionally invested in the relationship. I don't really know if one person can be more or less invested than the other, but I imagine it can happen.
2) Both parties should express their care and affection. Now, we have probably all heard about the different love languages. I'm not sure it matters so much about how your express, but what matters is that you understand how the other expresses affection and how they feel valued and appreciated.
3) Both parties should communicate. Duh. If one or both parties keeps their feelings or thoughts completely closed off from the other, then I can say with some certainty that success is not imminent.

But all of that just sounds pretty standard in identifying a good relationship. In fact, if you are doing well on all three of those then you are probably on the right track. But there is one more thing. I don't think it's anything I've learned, but rather it is something that my experience with theatre has helped me to articulate.

When acting with a scene partner (or partners), if you focus on what you're doing, what you're saying, and your own success in the scene, then the scene will get performed. It will be mediocre and uninspiring, but it will be. What is the secret to a really great performance? Giving. If you think about what you can give to boost everyone around, what you can give to the audience, what you can give at all times, then chances are you are going to have quite an excellent scene on your hands.

I think the same goes for relationships (both romantic and non-romantic). You should be giving of yourself, your time, and your energy to the other person. You should think of their happiness, their success, and their needs. And quite frankly, they should be doing the same thing. There is very little room for selfishness in any relationship you will ever have. I would posit that the only place for selfishness is that you have every right to expect that other person involved in the relationship to be giving, too.

If the other person is extremely giving it is very easy to default to a taking position. They give and give and that giving needs to go somewhere, so you accept it. The problem is that sometimes this default means that you are not giving back. Beware of this. You should both be giving, and you should both be accepting of the emotional "gifts" that the other is giving.

So I said I would tell you how you can know if you are in a healthy and prosperous relationship. That's it. What's wonderful about it is that anyone can learn to give. It's called charity, and it's up to us to tailor that charity to yield the greatest amount of fruit in our relationships. If you feel like you are giving everything and getting nothing in return, then chances are your relationship is not in a good spot.

But here's the thing: all relationships take time and effort. If it's not perfect (because it will never be) you can talk about it. Do you wish that the other person would give more? Then talk to them about it. Any relationship worth having is worth working on, worth developing, worth cultivating. So communicate, give your "gifts," and invest. I promise you it's worth it. You'll never really know where your future will take you, but if both of you think you are on a good path then I say keep climbing.

Feelings: Apparently a Good Thing

Let's talk about our feelings today. How does that make you feel?

Now, if you know me, and I assume (potentially incorrectly) that if you are reading my blog you do, you will recognize that feelings and Matt are not generally two topics that intersect frequently. I have made a long and storied career out of keeping things to myself and carrying on with life. Yes, I have feelings, but I have become very good at not showing or sharing them. If you ask me how I am doing, the answer will probably be that "I'm fine." Hopefully we all recognize this is a Southern Fine, and can cover all feelings from terrible to fantastic. It is used because, quite frankly, you probably don't actually care, you're just being polite. I accept that and embrace it. I think the world could stand for more politeness.

The inevitable consequence of never opening up about my feelings is that quite rapidly the number of people one feels comfortable talking about feelings with decreases to just two people: My inner critic and my mother. My inner critic is rarely super pleasant, and most of the time he just tells me to man up. Valid. He has a point most of the time. My mother is fantastic, and I will be discussing my feelings with her later today.

Now, I could easily take this forum and use it to openly express my feelings, but like I said, I am extremely uncomfortable with that. So instead I will speak in generalities about feelings themselves instead of my personal feelings.

I have worked harder than many to control my feelings. But I will say, and I have learned this recently, that just letting yourself feel deeply is phenomenally liberating. There is something magnificently human about allowing those feelings to wash over and through you. And once they have run their course you are free and clean. 

Maybe it's the world we live in, but for some reason we have developed a culture of selective emotional expression. Everyone has to be happy all the time, or at least act like it. We start building dams, bottlenecking our emotions until they reach unhealthy levels, and then when they start spilling over the walls we have erected we scramble to build the dams higher, stronger, thicker.

The problem with dams is that eventually you are flooding a lot of land behind the dam that you could have been using for something else, like housing, or farming, or sheep grazing (And yes, we are still in the metaphor, but this is also true in real life). Emotional dams are dangerous. However, the far extreme is also dangerous, that of the emotional swamp where we just let certain emotions soak into everything, and we just wallow in them.

I think that the best thing to do is to just feel. If you feel sad, then let yourself feel sad for an appropriate amount of time and then carry on. Trying to smile through everything won't make you a happy person. Trying to laugh off disappointment or defeat won't really bring you joy. But allowing yourself to descend into the valley will also let you climb up the mountain. I don't think God gave us the full spectrum of human emotion and experience so that we could ignore or suppress bits and pieces of it. And let's face the facts; sometimes you just need a good cry.

Kissing Protocol

Recently a roommate and I got onto the topic of kissing. Now, I wouldn't say that we are experts, but we understand what we like, and surprisingly we share similar views on the topic. Following a small and potentially imaginary survey I decided to compile all the data to really discuss the finer points of kissing. 

First off, do not disregard this post even if you are sure as shootin' you're a good kisser. Be forewarned, creativity and quality are not synonyms. 

Secondly, some of this post will actually focus on the qualities of relationships that make kissing someone an enjoyable experience. Generally that someone is the person with whom you are in a relationship. If it is not, then I don't think my post will help you very much in your current circumstances.

Thirdly, I am not an expert. I will say upfront with pride that my kissing experience is limited to four ladies. Plus two on stage, but that's a different ballgame and really is sort of like kissing a wall. Ain't no joy in that (unless you have a thing for walls, in which case my simile fails)(Although one time that wall was very attractive and seemed to really enjoy herself). But let's get down to brass tacks.

Kissing is a wonderful thing when done correctly. We've all seen movie kisses. They range from Disney to "What on earth!?", but I think we all have our own lines we've drawn in our minds that help us determine when to say either "That is so cute and they love each other so much" or "I am so glad my mother is not here." With that in mind, I think we all understand in our own lives (unless you have never done any kissing, in which case I apologize and instead of reading this you should be out getting yourself a man or lady friend) when a kiss ceases to be an expression of love and becomes a ferocious game of face-battling. Face-battling is not good. Tender is good.

Of all those surveyed, we have all experienced a relationship where kissing ceases to be awesome and becomes a chore. You should never get that point. Here are some professional tips to avoid such a fate:

1) Do something other than kissing. That which you do the most will very quickly become boring. That's why, unless you are me, you cannot handle eating the same cereal every morning for years upon years. Have a conversation. Look at the stars. Actually watch that movie. Discuss the symbolism found within a piece of art and the emotions it evokes in you. Make (and eat) breakfast. There are a lot of things you can do besides kissing.

2) There is an elegance in simplicity. There have been kisses where I have said silently within my head, "What on earth is going on?" Not a good question to have to ask yourself. "Passionate Kissing" is not always a passionate thing, but very often is a confusing, sloppy, moist thing that boggles my mind. Never try to accomplish too much. Breath frequently. Break contact. Do not try to see if you can perform the Dementor's kiss.

3) Kiss like you mean it. In fact, I am a big fan of only kissing when you mean it. Have I always done that, not necessarily. Do I wish I had? Yes. While making out with strangers may seem exciting, it pales in comparison to kissing someone you really care about. Well, I've never made out with a stranger, so I can't exactly make that call, but I have kissed someone I really cared about before, and that was pretty great. In fact, the first time we kissed she cried, which I'm going to assume was because of overwhelming emotion and not because it was unpleasant. I guess I never asked, so it could have just been extreme disappointment, but if it was then continuing to date me for over a year really seems like the wrong choice.

Let's be honest. Kissing is really only enjoyable when it's with someone you care about. There was a time in my life where I thought just the act of kissing was awesome and failed to mentally connect it with the emotions that were already there and the deep caring, trust, and connection that permeated the relationships. If you think about it, kissing is sort of weird. We press our faces together, connecting the openings of our digestive system, and sometimes include in that connection the usage of a wet, prehensile muscle of the mouth. And yet it's oftentimes a sweet expression of love and affection.

But I promised protocol in the title. Here are my rules:

A) Understand that most of the public doesn't really want to watch. A brief, affectionate kiss is a great way to say goodbye or hello to your significant other. More than that is uncomfortable.

B) Don't kiss in Sacrament Meeting. Shoot, I don't even like when people give shoulder massages in church. Hold hands, put your arm around her shoulders, shoot, if you have to give a back scratch then do it (but make it brief).

C) "Making Out" should be a rare occurrence. 

D) Kissing on a dude or lady with the sole purpose of lengthening the time spent together should be avoided. If someone must leave, then leaving must occur.

E) Kisses on the cheek are acceptable at almost all times (except Sacrament Meeting). That's just cute, and cuteness should be encouraged. Also it's a great way to demonstrate affection if your significant other is ill. Being sick together is not romantic.

F) If I see a couple doing an eskimo kiss, or a butterfly kiss, or kissin' on each other's noses, I feel inclined to punch. You may think you're circumventing my "In Public" rules, but you are not.

G) Dental hygiene. Enough said. But I'll say more. No one wants to know what you had for dinner several hours ago, and they definitely don't want to find out mid-liplock.

H) This has nothing to do with kissing, but pet names are weird. "Honey" is acceptable, as is "Sugar." If you get more creative than that, at least spare me when I'm around.

I) Do not kiss brains out. I know, I know, I'm making a rule that contradicts my favorite post-date question.

J) I'm sure you've heard some people talk about a 3-second rule with kissing. My rule is this: Let the kiss take the time the kiss should take, but do not force a kiss to go longer than it should. Feel the energy of the situation and kiss accordingly.

K) The first time you want to kiss someone and you feel like they want to kiss you too, don't do it. Almost, but not quite. This "Not-kissed-yet" tension is a wonderful thing that will just make the actual first kiss so much more awesome. Believe me, I have never had a bad first kiss. Make that eye contact for a little bit, and then bring her in for a good, long hug. And you're welcome, the stage is set for next time.

And there you have it. Those are my thoughts and rules regarding kissing. Take what you want from it. While I'm at it I'll probably write a couple more dating posts over the next few days, sort of an informal dating week as February approaches. If you have gotten to the bottom of this post and think, "Wait, I don't even know how to kiss," here's a WikiHow article for you

Rules to Live By

If you've spent any significant amount of time around me you have heard me say, "I only live by one rule," and then state a rule. If you've spent more than that amount of time around me you've probably heard me say that followed by multiple different rules, thus proving that I don't really live by only one rule. I decided that maybe it's about time to go on record with all the only rules I try to live by.

#1 - No Double Dipping

This is the most elementary of rules and has proven to be the one I have seen violated most frequently by those around me. And I'm not just talking about the blatant disregard of this rule demonstrated by my sisters-in-law with mozzarella sticks and marinara sauce. That's right, I haven't forgotten that. I believe that it extends into metaphorical realms as well. You found Divergent to be unoriginal, poorly written, and frustratingly cruddy? A second reading will not fix those problems, and continuing with that ill-fated series will only bring you sorrow. You dated a girl, broke up with her, and are now considering getting back together with her a couple weeks later? Is she or are you a fundamentally different person now? Have the issues that led to the initial break-up miraculously evaporated? No double dipping! I am aware that you all have friends or relatives or social acquaintances that double-dipped and got hitched and are happy, but you know what? I stand by what I believe. You graduated from High School and said to yourself, "Well, that was fun, but I'm never doing theatre again," but that opportunity to audition has come up after three years of theatre deprivation? I understand, and you have my permission to double-dip.

#2 - Go Big or Go Home

Just because I frequently choose the "Go Home" option does not mean I believe any less in this rule. If you are going to do something but are unwilling to invest yourself, then don't do it. Unless you have to. And if you have to then you might as well do your best. If it's worth doing then it's worth doing well. If it's not worth doing but you still find yourself obligated to do it, then consider it practice for the next time you need to go big. In fact, most of the time my "Go Home" option is the best way to "Go Big."

#3 - Don't Knock It Until You Try It

Unless trying it would be in direct violation of the commandments of God. Then you still don't necessarily need to knock it, just stand firm in your beliefs. But when it comes to non-soul-affecting choices I live by this rule. There have been a lot of things that I have found joy in that I initially would have mocked and knocked, and even when I did not find joy in it I gained a greater appreciation for the effort and skill involved. Ballet (dance in general), hard as all get out. Mad respect. Being a vegetarian, not my cup of tea. Mad respect. Peanut butter and pickle sandwiches, better than you would think. Mad respect to anyone who decides to try one after reading this post. I have a long list of things that I would like to try so that I am able to knock those things, but I won't knock them until I have tried them.

#4 - Always Accept "No" for an Answer

Your mind is boggled because I said always instead of never. Here's why: when most people say no, they say no for pretty good reasons. If you refuse to accept that no, then you are saying you do not respect their decision making ability and instead believe you should manipulate them to acquiesce to your requests. Maybe it's just me, but if someone accepts my no with dignity then I'm much more likely to consider their future proposals and say yes. If they refuse to accept my no we very quickly reach an impasse where stubbornness reaches critical mass. And just think about it. Do you really want everyone to say yes all the time? Especially if it's a begrudging yes? And no is much better than a half-hearted yes in many instances. Dating, crazy ideas, invitations to go on sweet adventures, borrowing things. In all of these instances a reluctant and forced yes will result in complaining, poor attitudes, and enragedness. If someone is firm with a no, accept it and move on.

#5 - When in Doubt, Ask Your Mother

I don't know your mother (actually, I might have met her depending on who you are), but I definitely know my mother. And my mother is almost 100% right at least 90% of the time. Unless she is asking the question and it is either "Where is my cell phone?" or "Where are the keys?" or "Do I already own a copy of Cold Sassy Tree?" Then it's really anyone's guess. But I can say with some certainty that her counsel has been helpful in almost every major life decision I have made. She is one of maybe three people I would allow to set me up with someone. Trust your mother. She raised you. Or trust my mother. She raised me.

#6 - Respect

Now, I'm not advocating just thoughtlessly giving respect to everyone and everything you come in contact with. I do believe that people earn respect. But I also believe that it's never acceptable to act disrespectfully. Remember the old adage, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Well, it actually holds a lot of water. It's like a sponge. But even beyond saying things and speaking in respectful tones and treating everyone like human beings, rarely if ever is it acceptable to storm off, to get all huffy, to yell at folks, to claim incompetence just because you are frustrated, or to bite someone you dislike. A wise man (who I believe to be the Savior of the world) proposed a golden rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. While at times difficult (just ask about all the fun times I had in the Houston airport on my way back to Utah), it bears remembering that everyone is a human being (except for Sasquatch. He's a Sasquatch) and life isn't easy for anyone. So why not just try to not make it harder for anyone else?

Those are probably the six main ones, you know, along with the obvious "Keep the commandments" one. I do have more rules, but those are more specific to situation or circumstance. I have very strict rules regarding which pants to wear ("Is there a stain anywhere on them? If not, then wear them" and "Will your legs freeze if you wear shorts? If not, then wear shorts") and which girls to ask on dates (Is she attractive and at least mildly interesting? Might as well). My fashion rules are less hard and fast (Wear clothes if the situation would be negatively affected by not wearing clothes). Movie and entertainment rules are quite fluid (If it's interesting I'll watch it. If it has explosions I'll watch it again). All in all I try to live simply. Maybe I'll expand my rules list one day, but for now these rules pretty much cover most areas of my life just fine.

Top 5 Disney Heroines

I would like to state up front that my criteria for my selection of my five favorite heroines is shaky at best. A healthy level of sass will often be the tipping point into my top ten, but trimming it down to 5 requires finesse and a very selective process of thinking, "If she were a real person, would I have considered dating her when I was 16, 20, 25, or all of the above?" Subjective? Yes, but all favorite lists must be subjective.

MATT FIFE'S FAVORITE FIVE DISNEY HEROINES

Belle

Now, in my villain post I did say that I am listing these in no particular order, and that remains true with one exception, Belle is and will for the foreseeable future remain my #1 favorite Disney heroine. Was she the first female to have a decisive role in the plot of a Disney animated feature? Yes. Let's look at her credentials. She's smart, a booklover, sassy enough to reject Gaston, sassy enough to stand up to the Beast, loving enough to put the well-being of others first, sacrifices the possibility of being with the Beast romantically in order to care for her ailing father, breaks a decade-old spell, fights wolves, and let's not forget the time she miraculously lifted the probably 300 lbs. Beast onto her horse in a snowstorm with wolves hanging around in the woods. And she turned the cold, angry heart of the Beast into that of a refined gentleman. Now, he had that kernel within him so Belle wasn't so much changing him as nurturing the good in him, but still, an impressive feat for any woman. I mean, did you see the way he used to eat his breakfast? And on that note, she's willing and tactful enough to compromise. "So the spoon is too tiny for his giant beast hands? Well then let's compromise to tastefully drink the porridge so that he doesn't feel like an idiot." Belle, you've forever ruined me (though I no longer eat my porridge like a beast, so I'm not completely ruined).

Ariel

Is she a teenager and does it show? Yes. But wouldn't you also run to the sea witch (who happens to be your only living older female relative) if your father had just thrown a temper tantrum and blown up your carefully curated human oddities collection with his trident lasers? I would. And despite the setbacks she faces (losing her voice, entering a completely unfamiliar world, getting shot at with trident lasers by her aunt) she never gives up in the pursuit of her goals. She is fearless (have you ever jumped a gap that large in a heavy open carriage pulled by one horse?), she is talented (best voice of all of Triton's daughters), she sticks to her guns (every night she combs her hair with a fork), and she fights for what she believes in (which happens to be an end to prejudice and opening diplomatic channels between humans and merpeople). The only downside is that she's just a little bit of a hoarder, but everyone has some idiosyncrasies. And without Ariel who would the gingers have had to look up to for the past 25 years?

Jasmine

The sass level here is off the scale. She does not hold back when she finds out Aladdin has been lying to her, though unfortunately she is taken in by the more extravagant lies he uses to cover the lies he has already told. This would not have happened if Aladdin were not such a world-class liar and con-man. Another unfortunate hiccup for her character is her poor money-management. In fact, she doesn't understand money at all or how the world works. But she loves her father, believes in an end to antiquated and sexist social custom, has a pet tiger, puts her trust in the right people, is athletic enough to climb out of the palace and pole-vault from roof to roof, and maintains a bearing of confidence and authority in less-than-perfect circumstances. Yes, she kissed Jafar, but in her defense she was functioning within the system to bring down the unjust system, so we let that slide. And through all of this she doesn't just rush headlong into marriage. Aladdin has to woo her for three movies before they actually get married. Talk about courtship.

Rapunzel

I bet you thought I was stuck pre-95, but let this be proof that I am not. That girl has so much hair and so much sassyness. With her frying pan in hand she boldly and bravely steps into the unknown. The only thing that could have made her character stronger is if she had decided to cut her hair instead of Flynn doing it for her, but it was sort of a traumatic moment and I can understand that she probably wasn't thinking super clearly. One of the greatest qualities of Rapunzel is that she unflinchingly pursues her dream while treating everyone with love and respect, thus inspiring them to follow their own dreams. She is as well-read as was within her power, is quite skilled in the domestic arena, and has an artistic soul. Instead of being a domineering force in the film, the character of Rapunzel and that of Flynn worked together to form an equal partnership filled with wonder, trust, and sacrifice.

Eilonwy

I will admit up front that much of my estimation of her character is influenced by the books which were so senselessly violated in the creation of this particular film, but I believe much of the essence of Eilonwy came through. In an effort to hide their shame, Disney does not often count her amongst their Disney Princesses even though she is very clearly the last princess of Llyr. Not only that, but she is a no-nonsense type of person. Who is always there to bring Taran back to reality? Eilonwy. Who consistently saves the day? Eilonwy. Who (in the books) sacrifices her claim to nearly limitless magical power to save her friends? Eilonwy. Who is instrumental in destroying the Horned King, the Black Cauldron, Taran's pompousity, Achren's evil power, and Arawn the Death-Lord? Eilonwy. And if this is piquing anyone's interest in the novels, I will happily lend them to you. But stepping back to limiting myself to the actual Disney versions of the characters, she is good-natured, shows poor, humble Gurgi tenderness when everyone else hates him, cares deeply for her friends, and has a magical bauble. Yes, her voice in the film will get on your nerves just a little bit, but let's face the ultimate, deciding factor as to what puts her in the top 5. She is openly, unabashedly, and unreservedly Welsh.

Honorable Mentions

Two other heroines deserve mention in this list, namely Mulan and Pocahontas. Both demonstrate great courage, fortitude, and resolve in the face hardship. And Mulan went up against one of the most ruthless villains (Shan Yu, who should have been an honorable mention on my Disney villain list) without so much as blinking, while Pocahontas fought the greatest villain, ignorance and racism. Mulan should actually probably have her own entry because she did everything for her family and for China, and just about nothing for Shang, showing that it's not always about the man, but there's no shame in accepting his advances once the crisis has passed.

Conspicuously Absent

Aurora - her contribution to the film was singing, and then pricking her finger on a spindle. While probably in the top three for most attractive Disney Princesses, there is not enough character development for her to make it onto this list. The list for top 4 most attractive Disney Princesses is Belle, Aurora, Ariel, and Jasmine. Getting it to 3 is actually really hard. Feel free to disagree.

Merida - Every time someone says, "Finally, a Disney princess that's a good role-model for girls," I want to punch them in the face. Come on people, we have Belle. Why is Merida a role-model? Because she resorts to magic to get her way after throwing a hissy-fit when she refuses to listen to her mother, and then backpedals for the duration of the movie? No thanks, I'll stick to people that function on principles of love and sacrifice. Merida is not a strong character, and you can lynch me later if you want. Bull-headed? Stubborn? Disobedient? Manipulative? Disrespectful? Hot-tempered? Yes. Strong? Not so much.

Anyone from Frozen or that frog movie - I haven't seen them. I may never see that frog one.

Live-action Disney Females - I just assumed it went without saying that I was sticking to animated features. If not then the live-action Alice from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland makes it into the top ten and has a pretty good shot at making top 5 if I ignore Welshness as a determining factor. And Giselle, but that's mainly just because I love Amy Adams, though Giselle does show great determination and self-possession, rescuing Patrick Dempsey from certain death.

Top 5 Disney Villains

I've decided to attempt this. After a quarter of a century watching and re-watching Disney films I am now prepared to present my five favorite Disney villains and heroines in two separate blog posts (it's too long if it's all one). I imagine I could possibly offend some people by leaving their favorite villains off of my list. I also imagine I will offend fewer folks for my choices in heroines. And before anyone hangs me for potentially listing a non-princess, I very clearly wrote heroine and refuse to be constrained by the extremely fluid definition of a Disney princess. Please note that I am not ranking these characters because to do so would only make it more difficult for me, so they shall be collectively a top five.

MATT FIFE'S FAVORITE DISNEY VILLAINS

Scar

Not only is Scar voiced by Jeremy Irons, but he is the only Disney villain to commit murder on screen. Not only murder, but a fascinating compound of fratricide, regicide, and coup d'etat all rolled into one heartless action. Not stopping there, he convinces Simba that he is the guilty party, which guilt leads Simba to run away leaving the door open for Scar to take complete and uncontested control of the Pride Lands. Really a brilliant villain. His only real mistake (aside from cold-blooded and calculated murder) was lacking the logistical skills to give his reign longevity. If he had just understood the circle of life better (and you know his and Mufasa's dad taught it to both of them), then Nala would have never had a reason to go looking for help to overthrow the tyrant. The caution here: Know something about running a kingdom before the coup.

Ursula

Voiced by Pat Carroll, whose acting credentials make almost everyone else look inexperienced, Ursula brings the greatest level of sass to the Disney villain table. And in certain versions of the story she's King Triton's sister, which just makes her that much more sinister. She manipulates Ariel in order to get revenge on Triton using a completely legal contract. Sure Triton is the king of the ocean, but he can't just blow up legally binding magical contracts at will. She gets her evil goals by playing within the structure of the game. Not an easy task. If she had demonstrated the same patience in dealing with Ariel as she did with Triton then she'd still be queen. Just think, if she had turned Ariel into a human again, then there would be absolutely nothing Ariel could have done to stop Ursula from reigning supreme.

Gaston

He is so manly. The dude hunts, uses antlers in all of his decorating, and has his own special chair in the tavern. All the ladies love him. Though every last inch of him is covered in hair, it apparently is not enough for Belle who decides to pursue an even hairier individual. Some would argue that he is not really a villain, but he does plot to have Belle's father thrown into an insane asylum so that he can have leverage in marriage negotiations with Belle, and then when he finds out there is another suitor who happens to live in that old castle out in the woods that no one has bothered to check on in the past decade despite it being owned by like a 12 year old kid within living memory, he proceeds to knife him. While he may not be as intelligent or devious as the other villains, he, for the first time in Disney history, challenged the concept of the outward/inward beauty connection while at the same time initiating one of my favorite Disney songs ever, "Kill the Beast."

Jafar

You look at him and think, "With facial hair like that he must be evil." And he is. Manipulative in the extreme, lacking a moral compass, willing to unscrupulously use magic to achieve his goals, and full of hilarious one-liners (Perhaps you'd like to see how ssss-snake-like I can beee!!!), Jafar is such a successful villain that they made a sequel and entitled it The Return of Jafar. From vizier, to sultan, to sorcerer, to genie, this tall gangle-creature probably continues to haunt the dark corners of my mind. I'm willing to bet that many a fear of snakes has been instigated by watching Aladdin. Unlike Gaston, who makes some pretense of wooing Belle, Jafar just up and enslaves Jasmine. His great failing was his lust for power, but that's also what makes him so effective leading up to the fatal "Make me an all powerful genie" wish. He is so deceptive himself and so calculating and manipulative that he immediately smells a (street) rat when Prince Ali shows up on the scene. When he was trying to warn the Sultan about Prince Ali he was actually doing his job. Hopefully no one wishes him free anytime soon.

Maleficent

What do you do when you don't receive an invite to the social engagement of the year? I bet you don't magically appear and curse a baby to die, do you? I didn't think so. In my opinion no list of Disney villains is complete without Maleficent. She is expert in the use of dark magic, can turn into a very terrifying dragon, and took gardening classes from Satan himself. And her back up plan to counter the weakening of her original curse (death to eternal slumber with the option of release) is to capture Phillip and keep him prisoner until he's wicked old and then let him kiss Aurora. Could she go ahead and kill everyone in the kingdom while they are asleep? Yes. Does she? No, because for her it's not about ruling the kingdom or getting even. She just wants everyone to be miserable and suffer because she felt insulted. Why kill a girl when you can force her to marry her true love with a 70-year age difference? Genius. If she had hired more reliable minions, and if the good fairies hadn't cheated on the whole flying sword thing, then she would have been completely successful.

In closing on this list of villains, I would like to point something out. These Disney villains, with the possible exception of Scar, are not the true ruthless characters in these movies. Let's violently shift these hierarchies to reveal some of the underlying brokenness of the Disney moral compass. It's the "heroes" that truly hold darkness in their souls. Aladdin manipulates and enslaves Jafar, Eric impales Ursula with a ship, Phillip stabs Maleficent to death with a magic sword, Beast lets Gaston fall to his death, and Simba turns his back as Scar is brutally torn apart by hyenas. And the list goes on and on with examples of Disney hero-to-villain cruelty. If they really wanted to uphold the law then they should have subdued the individual and made them stand trial before a jury of their peers. Instead they resort to street justice, demonstrating that they are far from civilized, instead sinking oftentimes to the level or below the level of the villain in question.