No, Jason Mraz. That’s not right at all.
Jun 19th, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 13 Comments |
Speaking of people saying stupid things:
Jason Mraz’s latest, catchy, Jack Johnson-rip-off single (”I’m Yours“) includes the following mind-blowing line:
It’s our God-forsaken right to be loved.
Utterly mind-blowing.
What in the world could that possibly mean?
____
First: “God-forsaken” refers to places, not rights.
Second: If God forsakes a right (i.e., God decides to stop supporting the right, or decides to withdraw His backing from it), the right’s not a right anymore.
Why then point out that the thing you want other people to recognize as a right is something that God doesn’t recognize as a right (and is, therefore, something that isn’t a right at all)?
Not familiar with how one makes a good case or develops an argument, are we Mraz?
____
Best I can figure, Mraz is simply using the term “God-forsaken” as an intensifier because they don’t let you say “mother-f***in’” on the radio. (Same number of syllables. Fits the melody perfectly. I’m nearly positive he wrote “mother-f***in’” first, and then had to find something to replace it with later.)
But no one in the history of earth has ever used “God-forsaken” as an intensifier. Ever.
Which shows that Jason Mraz has been misunderstanding people for a very long time (ever since he first heard the phrase, “God-forsaken” in some old coyboy movie), and has now enshrined his ignorance of what everyone else in the world means by the term in a song being played all around the world, even as we speak.
____
“God-forsaken” is always used to emphasize the badness, emptiness, or barrenness of a place. When you say, “This God-forsaken town,” you mean the same as, “This terrible/tragic/sad/deserted town.”
What you definitely don’t mean is, “This totally/seriously (!!!) town.”
Which is how Mraz is using it.
____
One can just see Mraz fans coming back from a Mraz show.
Their friends who were more intelligent hadn’t gone. The non-goers ask the goers:
So, how was the show?
And the goers reply:
That was one God-forsaken awesome show, man. You should’ve God-forsakenly been there.
And the non-goers then hang their heads in despair for the human race.
____
And finally, did I mention that no one has the right to be loved?
No one.
Except husbands and wives. They have the right to be loved by their spouses.
And children have the right to be loved by their parents.
But there is no such thing as a general right to be loved.
____
To have the right to be loved, you have to first be lovable; you have to make yourself worthy of love. Husbands and wives automatically are that for each other (it’s part of the vows), and children automatically are that for their parents (it’s part of the responsibility of creating a child).
But everybody else has to earn it.
I’ve disliked Mraz for quite some time. Thanks for more fodder.
OK, I’m going to go listen to John Mayer now.
But then shouldn’t everyone have a right to be loved on account of the fact that everyone is/has been somebody’s child?
Nathan– Good choice!
Christine– Did I not make the answer to this clear in the post? Hmmm. . . . Well, best I can do is repeat myself and see if anything else helpful happens (which maybe means I’m making no sense at all):
Yes. Everyone has right to be loved by her or his parents. But no one has the right to be loved by anyone else (excepting his or her spouse) unless he or she has earned that right.
Mraz isn’t writing about our right to be loved by our parents at that point. He’s writing about a general, unearned right that everyone has to be loved by everyone (i.e., a right that if your parents and spouse aren’t fulfilling for you, someone else has got to).
Is that more helpful? I feel more clear now, at least. Feel free to offer textual evidence to the contrary though, since I have offered none. :-)
I’d noticed that goofy lyric, too.
My theory for what he means is a little different. I’m a bit of a poet, but I’m no song writer, so I could be wrong on this, but I don’t think God forsaken is much of a stand in for m-f. This is all probably quite geeky and perhaps irrelevant in terms of song writing, but when I imagine him singing the m.f. word, the timing is all wrong. I think maybe this is because even though there is 4 syllables either way, God forsaken has 1 very short syllable, a between-words pause, and three short syllables. (Each syllable is a consonant-vowel-consonant.)
M.F. is a short syllable, a VERY short syllable (just vc, no consonant in the beginning), a between word pause, a short syallable, and then a long syllable (unless you drop the “G” at the end of the word so that it’s just … in’
My theory is that he meant to say something like “God-ordained”, and though that’s the right number of syllables, Mraz either didn’t have the vocabulary to write that one, or it sounded way to churchy.
Isn’t it interesting that you sound all cool when you declare that you’re doing something God-forsaken? The grizzled old rebel in a movie is the guy who declares he’s about to go places that are God-forsaken (like the dude who scratched his nails down the black board in jaws, or the Kurt Russel character in Escape from New York)
The holier-than-thou hypocritical pastor is the one who declares things are God-ordained.
Who knows if he consciously thought it out in this way, but if you don’t actually stop and think, “God forsaken right to be loved” sounds all rebellious and cool. I’ve actually spoken with a few people who heard the song several times, and did a sudden double take when the meaning (or lack there of) of the line petrated.
Whodathunk you’d ever be involved in a redaction criticism debate about Jason Mraz lyrics. :-D
You make a fine case, Mr. Jeff. And your reading of the text has the advantage of being more charitable than mine :-)
Excellent point about the connection between “God-forsaken” and sounding rebellious/cool. If you’re going somewhere God-forsaken, you’ve got to be tough as nails, and brave as a whoa. You’re willing to go places where God can’t protect you, and where God Himself perhaps fears to tread. . . .
Vs. those who declare things “God-ordained.” Another excellent point.
Someone should do a personality study on the difference between those who attempt to make themselves look more impressive by saying they can survive in “God-forsaken” places/times, and those who attempt to make themselves look more impressive by saying that when/where/what they are (or are doing) is “God-ordained.”
I think he meant ‘godgiven,’ but didn’t know what he meant. What amazes me is that this got past so many editors & producers…
That’s a great point.
I’ve only gotten questioned about my lyrics once in my career as a recording artist. But I’ve never recorded for a big label!
I noticed something the other day. It kind-of flies in the face of what I posted before. Early in the song the following lyrics appear:
“Nothing’s going to stop me but divine intervention
I reckon its again my turn to win some or learn some”
It’s not super clear what the speaker of the song is trying to do. There’s some wierd imagery which may or may not be sexual in nature. But the idea that God is somehow against this relationship specifically and relationships in general is implicit here, and a little more spelled out with the “God Forsaken right to be loved.”
I find myself wondering if the whole thing isn’t a protracted rationalization of sex outside of marriage…
Sorry but i completely disagree with everything in this post. In my opinion we all have the right to be loved. In fact, we ARE all loved ALL the time. We’re here aren’t we? The universe is there always unselfishly providing us with situations that are exactly what we are supposed to be experiencing at that time. In other words, we always have exactly what we need at any given time in our lives. It people like you who chose to believe that the world is out to get you who cannot see this. If being constantly spoiled with what’s best for us isn’t considered undying love, then i don’t know what is. Oh, and he changed the lyrics. He now says “god intended.”
Thanks for the input, Ali.
First, the fact that we are all loved all the time doesn’t mean we have the right to be loved. You can’t move that easily from an “is” to an “ought.” (”Is-Ought Problem“). Many people are things that they don’t have the right to be (e.g., politicians or preachers or artists who are respected, even though they have no right to be because they’re actually sleazy or evil or idiots).
Second, I agree. We are here.
Third, (a) the universe isn’t the kind of thing that can be unselfish. It has no self. It’s not a person. (b) It follows from what you say here that getting murdered/raped/abused is exactly what the victims are supposed to be experiencing at the time. That is wrong. Therefore what you say is wrong. (Modus tollens.)
Fourth, tell the starving children of the world that they have exactly what they need. I think they’d disagree.
Fifth, I don’t think the world is out to get anyone. If I said that, I’m sorry to have mislead you about my opinions!
Sixth, (a) tell the victims of crime, malnourishment, abuse, etc. that they’re being “spoiled with what’s best for them.” I think they’d disagree. (b) And again, just because we are loved, doesn’t mean we have the right to be.
Seventh, if you are correct about the lyric change, that’s a significant improvement.
Thanks again!
In later versions, Mraz changed the lyrics to say “it’s our God-intended” right to be loved”. He wrote about this in a blog a few weeks back…
“Songs don’t have to be written in one sitting. I allow lyrics to evolve, or rather, reveal themselves naturally. The term “God Forsaken” is simply turning a phrase, but in fact the phrase means to withdraw or remove the right. A “God Intended right” is a more powerful suggestion implying that Love is meant for all by all and it gives us more of a lift when we shout it.”
Thanks for confirming Ali’s claim. We now have it from two sources.
I’m glad Mraz finally came to his senses . . . though maybe he should think about his lyrics a little more before he records them for the world (and posterity) to hear next time.
The official, recorded version that everyone will be hearing on the radio and their iPods for the rest of time (long after Mraz has retired from performing live shows with corrected lyrics) will have “godforsaken” in it. . . .
That’s right. People will be listening to Jason Mraz for the rest of time. You heard it here first.
Thanks for writing on this particular lyric. It was bothering me and now at least I k now I’m not the only one. I still think it’s an excellent song.