HAPPY BIRTHDAY RACHEL! My lovely fellow SRKian. Hopefully reading this post and the responses will contribute to your lovely lovely birthday.
A friend of mine recently got a tattoo that I think is really clever, the outline of the boundaries of the town where she grew up. It’s very small and subtle and will always be meaningful (even if the town changes, those are still the boundaries as of when she was growing up, and it still reflects her childhood). I am not a tattoo person and would never get one, but this started me on a thought experiment of “what is so permanent in my life that I would put it on my body?” Along with other ideas (Albie Dog, Shakespeare quote, Chicago landmarks, etc.), obviously I thought of SRK. And then I kind of stopped because I got distracted by what it means to put a celebrity based tattoo on your body.
In general, we all know it is a tricky idea to put a tattoo referencing someone else on your body. Romantic partners’ name, usually a horrible idea. Best friend, even parent, you never know what you might find out. Kids, usually safe. I have another friend who got the birthdates of her nieces and nephew tattooed on her arm, which is both meaningful and useful! Always there for reference. But then there is the idea of a tattoo that is connected to someone who is not real to you, either because they are fictional or because they are a celebrity.
Remember the Atticus Finch issue? When the sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird was published (which is a whole other issue and I am of the camp that believes it should not have been published and was against the wishes of Harper Lee for a reason), it turned out that Atticus, Perfect Father and Moral Light of the original book, grew up into a twisted ugly old man. I’ve got complicated feelings about this, on the one hand I find it totally believable that someone who was clear and brave and forward thinking in their youth eventually left that behind and became blech as they aged. On the other hand, I think there was a reason Harper Lee didn’t want to tell this part of the story, she made a decision to leave Atticus at his peak and pay tribute to the good things instead of bringing in the bad. And for me, knowing that Fictional Atticus turned into a jerk in old age does not tarnish the goodness of his youth. And for me, naming my child Atticus, or getting a tattoo, or anything else, would still be okay because it was a tribute to the (fictional) good aspects of him and I can leave the bad behind. However, I also totally understand and sympathize with people who felt suddenly horrible about their decisions, who felt they were now forever branded with a Bad Thing thanks to this fictional character they thought of as their own suddenly being turned bad, after they had already made permanent decisions to honor him.
Atticus is fictional, but there’s all kinds of ways this sort of tribute can go sideways with a real person, even more ways. Josh Whedon is currently mired in scandal, what about the many many MANY people who have lines that he has written as personal mantras, forever tattooed on their body? Michael Jackson, there’s another one, so many important moments in life tied to his work, but can you feel comfortable with him on your body?
Bringing tattoos into it is sort of art-versus-artist in the real world. Do you not care what comes out about a person because the element you are getting tattooed on yourself will forever and ever be important to you, personally? Alternatively, do you put that much faith in the person that you will commit your skin to saying “they will always be good”?
That’s where I landed with the SRK tattoo question. If I were to get an SRK tattoo, it would just be the letters “SRK” somewhere small that I could see them and no one else, like in between my fingers. I thought about something film related (his hat from DDLJ, a gazebo, the OM tattoo), or something more visual (eyebrows, hair, pose), or a quote (“picture abhi baki hai mere dost”) but really it is the essence of the person himself I would want to have, not his characters or his face or even a quote, just the initials.
And that brings me back to the “what does it mean to get that tattoo, forever?” question. It’s saying “this person will always be important to me forever”, and that’s an easy “yes”. Like my friend who got her hometown boundaries, even if I move on in life, the SRK period it is remembering will still be formative for me. But it is also saying “I will never regret affiliating myself with this person”. It is a sign of faith that this person will never do anything to let me down, will never surprise me, will never betray me.
There’s two people I might make this sort of commitment to, Abraham Lincoln and Shahrukh Khan. Lincoln, there aren’t many skeletons left to come out. I feel confident enough in my knowledge of every moment of his life that, overall, I can honor him. Shahrukh, that’s not true. He’s not dead yet, he could do anything. It’s a big BIG leap of faith, a scary leap of faith, to say “for ever and ever until I am buried, I think this person will not let me down”.
And yet, I think I want to do it. Not actually get the tattoo, yuck, but I think I can safely say “yes, I will make a commitment of faith that SRK will never let me down”. I want to have that much faith in someone, and I want that person to be SRK, with all his love and humanism and bravery and intelligence and everything else that makes him up.
So, discussion question multiple choice, where do you fall:
- Yes, it’s not even a leap of faith, I don’t care what SRK does tomorrow I still want an SRK tattoo
- It’s a leap of faith because I do care what he does tomorrow, but I also believe it will only be good things
- I can’t do it. It’s too risky.
And second question, What imaginary tattoo would you get, if you were to get one?
I already said, I would just get tiny SRK somewhere I can see but isn’t readily visible to others (inside a finger, on a wrist, etc.)
