Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Looking at an incident through a lens...in essay form (and then I degenrate into nonsense)

This is for my Academic Writing course, and the title pretty much explains the assignment I have.  We had a choice of four cheating-related incidents, and read some scholarly articles about cheating and had to pick a concept from these articles, and examine one incident using the concept as a lens.  So pretty much, how do these two things relate to each other?  At least, I hope that's what it's supposed to be, or else I'm going to be in some serious trouble....

Incident – Harvard Cheating scandal
125 students of varying years are in trouble due to alleged cheating that occurred in a Spring 2012 course taught by Matthew Platt—Government 1310: Intro to Congress. This cheating varies “from inappropriate collaboration to outright plagiarism, on a take-home final exam." (says a letter attributed to the College) As many as half of the accused are varsity athletes (which somehow makes them more special than everybody else....) For the students that graduated in Spring 2012 after completing the course, their diplomas are in jeopardy, and for the rest, they can be facing as much as a one-year suspension. Some of these students are threating to take legal action against the college if the are faced with harsh punishments, and some students also have very vocal in defending themselves, with their words appearing in news centers such as The New York Times. These students make the course sound terrible and inconsistent in both the rules and grading, they say that the requirements weren't clear. Yet according to Micheal Carmichael's article, the 'no collaboration policy' was printed right on the exam, and it was an open notes, open book and open Internet test. This issue still hasn't been resolved, although Harvard is looking into preventative measures for future events, like an honor code.
Concept – Collaboration v. Doing it by yourself
On campus, solitary independence; off campus, collective energy.” Chace points out the differing views of collaboration that exist in two settings—the 'real world' and then college. In the 'real world' collaboration is expected and teamwork skills are a prerequisite for success. In college, it is viewed as cheating, and can be punished very harshly. This is a confusing discrepancy, and it would be a good lens to approach the Harvard Cheating incident because 'collaboration' is exactly what these students are being accused of. The lens I will use is the differing views of collaboration that exist.

So I wrote this lovely little thing sitting up in the coffee house/dessert and panini serving deliciousness that lives on the top floor of my tower.  It's open mic night, and also it's Halloween, so right now I'm being serenaded by this

It's an interesting experience, I must tell you.  I have no idea where one is suppose to get a hold of a costume like that.
This is what the girl-behind-the-counter-who-refills-my-glass-of-water is wearing, and it looks incredibly comfortable.  Like a cross between a giant bag and onesy pajamas.  
Earlier today, me and two other floor-mates attacked the bathroom mirrors with some white-board markers in an attempt to be festive.  I think it worked.  There's now pumpkins and ghosts and "Boo"s and one kitty (by me) that live on the mirrors now.  It was a bit of a stroke of genius, this idea, and I hope that it catches on, because our floor does not have too much community spirit.
There's now a very attractive man playing a guitar song he wrote, and it's got some really cool chords, but I can't exactly hear what he's saying, but who needs that when I can look at his attractiveness?
Wow. 
I started off trying to actually make a decent blog post, and then I wound up talking about random guys...well, what does that say about me?  
Anyways, I think I ought to get going now, because now I'm embarrassed without anything intelligent to say.

Halloween Present!

The universe has gifted me with the return of my baby, my laptop! *insert joy here*
It is currently running on an operating system that lives on a CD (or DVD....whatever).  The hard-drive is still inaccessible and no data was able to be retrieved off of it, but most of that data exists in other place anyways.
Probably tomorrow I'll bring it back to the Repair Center and have them put in a new hard-drive.  Maybe a bit later depending on the work I have to do.  But I'm just so happy to have my baby back!
I was going to put in a clip of Gollum doing his "My Precious" routine, but I can't see youtube videos because I don't have flash-player right now.  oh well.  So I did the next best thing.
MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
So that's all for now.  And to top it all off, today is my favorite holiday ever, which is a perfect way to end my favorite month of the year.
  here's some old school spook for you
and here's something new, and very beautiful. Yay witches! They're always my favorite thing to be for Halloween.  Some about a strong and powerful woman....anywho, that's my life so far! Hopefully my laptop will be all the way healed soon!

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

I've made a discovery and now I want to share it

So, since I'm doing this whilst sitting in the library I feel like it's awfully rude to put my feet up on the desk and type with the keyboard in my lap...sad face
Anywho, since I don't want to go back up to my dorm room yet, and leave this opportunity to get my internet-fix, I'm going to sit here and tell y'all about my life.
Something that is new and that I'm in love with is the TV show RuPaul's Drag Race.  It's a contest-style reality show featuring drag queens, and hosted by Miss RuPaul herself.
 I'm not exactly sure how one is supposed to refer to a drag queen, but I'm going to go with the feminine pronouns because that's what they call each other.  So yeah, I like this show because it's full of fashion gorgeousness.
 There's a runway show in every episode, and seeing what clothes get created is my favorite part.  The picture above is when they had to create an elegant ball  dress out of fake money - think Monopoly money.  They had only a week to make these, and it's always so cool to see how their creations turn out. 
 This lovely lady won season three, which I just finished last night, and she's very different from the other girls because she is pretty androgenous, which isn't the most common or popular form of drag.  She always came up with looks that were really high fashion and super creative, and the androgeny made her look like those really skinny models who are so skinny that they don't have womanly curves in the first place.
These men are prettier than I am!  Then again, if I put on as much makeup and as fancy of dresses and outfits as they did, I'd look like a million bucks too.  I guess it's pretty inspiring to watch, because above all, a drag queen is a performer, and drag is a form of art - mixing fashion and acting - and any kind of art is always inspiring. 
Despite being infused with pop-culture shallowness (like the reality format) this show has got heart.  It's about all these talented people striving towards one goal...
getting that crown, which means that they'll get opportunities to promote themselves, a life-time supply of high-end makeup, and a cash prize, which has increased every season. 
Since what they do and since the vast majority of them are gay, a drag queen's life is filled with hardships that the rest of the world wouldn't dream of having to deal with.  I admire these ladies for their strength, creative ability, and ability to look more glamorous than I probably ever will.
RuPaul's Drag Race everybody...

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Laptop Laments and Hurricane Nonsense

So, last night I was lying on my bed with my laptop, and it slipped off and fell to the floor.  Since then I haven't been able to get it to turn on and boot up properly.  I intend to take it down to the Technology Services tomorrow morning so that they can look at it/fix it.  So I am praying that IC won't shut down campus tomorrow - thereby shutting down Technology Services - because of all this hurricane nonsense.  The most that's going to happen on Monday is rain.  Whoop-de-do.  Our campus is not going to flood because we live on a giant hill.  And all the rain is just going to run down into the giant puddle we call Cayuga Lake - no harm done.  Tuesday and Wednesday is going to bring us 30-40 mph winds.  Doesn't sound like fun, but all that's going to happen is that you'll get really winded (pun intended) if you have to walk up the stairs into the wind or that your umbrella blows out of your hand.  How horrendous.  It's not the like wind is going to blow our buildings over, or that the rain is going to drown us all - so why even bother getting all hyped up about this? 
As you can tell, I am not happy about the possibilty of cancelling classes and shutting down campus.  It's absurd, and it interferes with the healing of a piece of technology that is pretty much an extension of my body. 
So, back to the point.
My laptop is going to be out-of-comission until further notice, which means that I won't be able to check my email any time I so please, so if there is some sort of earth-shattering emergency, you should contact me via my cell phone.  If it's less important, like a social message, email it to me.  I will be in the library more often now because I need computer access to be able to do my work, so I will check email at least once a day.
May you not get blown over or drowned over these next couple days.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Personal Reactions to George Benard Shaw's "Candida"


This is the final copy of a response paper I handed in today from my Intro to Drama class.  It deals with my reactions to the titular character of George Bernard Shaw's "Candida".  This is my intellectual property and I mean it to contribute an anecdotal and personal encounter I had with this play to the current discussion.  This is not intended for someone to steal it and hand it in as their own work, and I do not condone that behavior.  With that said, enjoy:
 
One of the points of difficulty I have encountered in this class came when I read George Bernard Shaw’s Candida.  My feelings and perception of the woman Candida had been turned on their heads by the time I had finished reading the play.  I went into the play with a sort of grudge against Candida, and I came out full of respect and admiration for her.  This essay explores my thought-process for approaching her character.

            When I read this play, my expectation of a strong woman was different than the strength that Candida has—which is pretty ironic because in a lengthy past relationship, I was very much like Candida is to Morrell, and I thought that was the height of strength.  I engaged in a fair amount of self-sacrifice for the boy I loved, which I feel is what Candida does, but the sacrifice of one’s personal ambitions for someone you love is much less of a painful thing because you love them.  It was a fair trade in my mind.  This relationship ended painfully, however, and it presented an enormous challenge to my perception of the sacrifices I had made for him—I decided that it was absolute folly to make someone other than myself the priority in my life.  It simply doesn’t make sense to have anyone else at the center of your world, because you can’t ever be certain that they’re going to always be there.  So, because of my newfound attitude towards relationships I was less inclined to respect Candida as a servile type of partner.

            Another thing that affected the mindset in which I approached the character Candida is that the play I had read just before I came to Candida was Ibsen’s Hedda Gabbler.  Now, it doesn’t take much to see that Candida and Hedda are two vastly different women, polar opposites even.  In comparison with Hedda’s incredible boldness and self-centered manipulation—which I hold in great admiration—a woman like Candida pales.  Hedda’s character fell more in line with my perception of what a woman’s strength is, or should be. 

            The things Candida says in the beginning of the play, like “ten shillings for a three minutes drive!  Oh dear!”, and “Yes, onions.  Not even Spanish ones; nasty little red onions.” made me feel like she was just a shallow woman who spoke only trivial little things and was oblivious to the events in her own house.  For example, after the blowout between Morrell and Eugene, she comes back into the room after Morrell has almost struck the boy, and doesn’t appear to detect a whiff of the incredible tension that exists in that room.  Instead, the only thing she sees is the disheveled state of Eugene’s clothing; “Well, dear me, just look at you, going out into the street in that state!”  Candida seemed to me like a dumb little bird, just flitting around and spouting happy little chirps, and I can’t really respect someone like that. 

            My feelings for her started to change when she reveals that she is not unaware of Eugene’s infatuation with her.  She speaks to Morrell very wisely;

“Ah, James, how little you understand me, to talk of your confidence in my goodness and purity!  I would give them both to poor Eugene as willingly as I would give my shawl to a beggar dying of cold, if there were nothing else to restrain me.” (p. 165) 

Candida would give the same amount of immense love she provides for her husband to Eugene if not for her obligation to Morrell.  She makes no explicit mention of whether or not she loves Eugene—her only concern is “the sort of woman that will teach it [love] to him.”  This struck me as quite selfless.

            What cemented my respect for Candida was her speech to Eugene and Morrell when she chooses her husband over the poet and explains all that she does for Morrell.  This reminded me of what I used to think strength in a woman was, and I saw that Candida was absolutely full of it.  She says of Morrell;

“I build a castle of comfort and indulgences and love for him, and stand sentinel always to keep little vulgar cares out.  I make him master here, though he does not know it, and could not tell you a moment ago how it came to be so.” (p. 181)

I feel that this attitude is very much in line with the Victorian sentiment that women belong in the domestic world, and I also think Shaw is showing his audience that even in a domestic sphere, women can be incredibly powerful.  This play, or at least this scene, is an acknowledgement of the power of women that most men do not ever see or think about.  After reading this, I came to see that Candida, in her own way is just as much of a strong woman as Hedda Gabbler, and perhaps, more so.

            Candida is the height and ideal of traditional feminine strength, and now that I understand this, she is my favorite character in the play, and I understand Shaw’s reasoning behind making her name the title.  Candida is the behind-the-scenes power that fuels the play.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Honestly, my midterm grades

I'm not super thrilled, or really thrilled at all with these.  They're not bad, but they're not really good either.  I'm feeling mediocre right now.

Intro to Drama: B
Creativity and the Arts seminar: B
Sinfonietta (orchestra): A-
Intro to Developmental Pysch: A
Hebrew Scriptures: B+
Academic Writing: B+

Perhaps it's ridiculously arrogant and presumptuous of me to be a little let-down (but it's more likely the general depressed mood that's been hanging over me since I got bogged down with work).  But it's entirely my fault for procrastinating on this work in the first place.  I'm also in the midst of being all anxious over my future and stuff like that - which will be getting its own post eventually.

I put these up here so that my family (namely, my parents) can see how I've been doing, because I feel like I owe them that knowledge.  It's not like I really have anything to hide here anyways - I'm passing everything.

Interestingly enough, the class in which my professor gives these wicked tests/exams is the class in whichI have the best grade.  I am forced to do really efficient studying because I'm afraid of her tests. 

I think that there is also something to be said for the particular way in which my memory works.  What I am best at is being able to remember little details, and the gist of theories and whatnot - which is also why I feel I do well at history courses.  I understand broad concepts and can remember things that other people that would call 'nit-picking'.

That's about all I've got.

Just kidding.  I've got a confession of how much of a loser I am - the reason my Creativity and the Arts isn't an 'A' is because I forgot to go to one of these 'mandatory' events, and as a consequence, my grade was dropped a whole letter.  I figured out what I had done about four hours after the event started, I was going to send an email to that professor, but then I figured that it wouldn't make any difference. 

Monday, October 22, 2012

I write poetry about taking naps because I'm an intellectual....

So I was tasked with writing a poem.  Not too bad, because I do that for fun normally.  But then my professor decided to open my mind a little bit and she said our poem had to be a pantoum, which totally threw me off.
Anywho...
The basic idea of a pantoum is that you repeat the same line (or general idea of that line) in different stanzas, and it makes the whole thing nice and continuous.  It doesn't have to rhyme, and the letters here correspond to lines and not to patterns of rhyme.

A
B
C
D

B
E
D
F

E
G
F
H

G
C (or something new, if you want to keep going)
H
A (or something new, if you want to keep going)

The idea that popped into my head immediately after being given this assignment was a snotty little poem about how I don't like using specific forms and rules to write poetry.  But then I realized how ridiculously arrogant and childish  that would sound (and how absurd that attitude is for someone who is in college to learn creative writing)..........
So I put it away, and then returned to the idea a few days later, at about 3 or 4 in the afternoon, when I felt in dire need of a nap.  I wrote the following pantoum

Beneath the eyelids—

a time spent in stasis,

blissfully unaware

of the noises in the hall.


A time spent in stasis,

immune to the scurrying world

and the noises in the hall—

drowning in comfort.


Immune to the scurrying world,

hidden from the light,

drowning in comfort—

it’s a secret world.


Hidden from the light,

blissfully unaware,

in my secret world

beneath the eyelids.
Actually, that's not true.  I just finished re-writing pretty much the entire thing, and I like it a lot better now.  The only line I don't like is the first and the last - "eyelids" is a little freaky and awkward, because it reminds me of a scene from The Haunting in Connecticut where the eyelids of dead bodies get cut off.  And if that isn't graphic enough for you I even found a picture!

ewwieeee
so I'll probably change it again to something more along the lines of "consciousness".  At first it was something about blankets, but then that sounds like I'm talking about something entirely different.
"Consciousness" gives a light to these words other than what I had originally intended.  What's most powerful about naptime, at least for me, is being awake enough to appreciate how warm and snuggly you are.  You can't really do that if you're asleep.  If I started off like that it would feel more like a third party is telling this story/experience, not the person who's napping.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it's just something I hadn't anticipated.  Yeah, let's go with "consciousness"...or at least some variation of it.
I'll be back eventually with a new-and-improved version of the first and last lines.  But that most likely won't be for a while.  Unless of course I get inspired while pulling my static-y laundry out of the dryer...

Sunday, October 14, 2012

IC Symphony Concert

I'm going to copy the program so you know what I'm ranting about.  Yay.

Anna Clyne's "Rewind"

Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe, Suite No. 2
  Lever du jour
  Pantomime (Les amours de Pan et Syrinx)
  Danse generale (Bacchanale)

Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 in E minor
  I. Adagio - Allegro molto
  II. Largo
  III. Scherzo: Molto Vivace
  IV. Allegro con fuoco

It was a good two hours of music, and I can only imagine the pain some of these players were in after they were finished.  Especially violists and violinists.  It is pretty tiring to hold your arms up in the air for two hours.  I know that my shoulders would be on fire (but that's probably because I play a 16.5 inch viola and I slouch....)  Anyways, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the stamina that this ensemble displayed.
There were so many basses!  It was like a bass army out there!  I kept hearing these really low string notes and I was like how are the celli playing that? and then I realized it wasn't celli, it was basses.  It was a magical moment and it happened about ten times.  Being a former bass player, it's pretty cool to have a bass section that can actually be heard.  There were nine of them.  Nine.  They were a massive wooden instrument barricade.

That's what nine basses look like.  You don't mess around with them.
Anyways, now let me describe the actual music they played.
First off, it was Anna Clyne's "Rewind" which, the program notes say, is centered around the idea of an analog tape, one of these things,
being rewound.  Admittedly, I had to look it up to know what an analog tape was.  I thought it was talking about the tapes you play in a VCR.  Generational gap...
With the idea of a VCR in my head I made the deduction that it was some sort of apocalyptic horror movie being rewound.  One with lots of jump-out-and-scare-you moments.  I felt kind of like I was fighting the piece because I didn't to get all wrapped up in it because it was too unsettling.  I was watching the orchestra like a hawk so that I knew when they would do the loud percussive thing that made me jump when I wasn't prepared.  I thought it was odd, because I don't think something as simple as rewinding a tape should be that disturbing.
But the fact that I had such a strong reaction to the piece shows how good it was.  I remember hearing the concertmaster of the RPO (Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra), Juliana Athayde, saying that the purpose of music is to make the listener feel something - and I definitely felt something.  A neutral reaction, that is to say no reaction, to a piece of music is the worst reaction.
It's pretty obivous that the beauty of this piece isn't in its ear-pleasing (or soul-pleasing for that matter) quality, but rather how the mood and nature of this piece is achieved.
That noise that sounded like feedback from a microphone - that I thought was some electrical/sythesized noise is actually made by using a bow
on these things called crotales, which are like tiny little bell-things that look like symbols.  They produce a high ringing sound when hit with a mallet, and when you use run a bow along the side of them they sound like feedback.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video of that in action, but here's crotales with a mallet:

 this was too perfect to resist.
 
That strange sounding recording that played at the end was actually a recording of the piece played backwards at high speed.  I didn't hear any Satanic messages, did you?
 
The next piece the IC Symphony (made up entirely of students by the way) played was this beautiful suite from a Ravel ballet.
The ballet is based off of a Greek love story from around 200 AD.  The general plot is that Daphnis, a shepherd, loves Chloe.  Chloe, in the midst of a ceremony in honor of the Nymphs, gets abducted by pirates.  Daphnis figures this out and prays to the Nymphs for help.  They get the god Pan to help out, and he frightens off the pirates.
After a night of despair over the loss of his beloved, Daphnis awakes to see that Chloe has been rescued by some shepherdessses (with the help of Pan).  They mime the tale of Pan and a woman he loved (who got turned into a set of reed pipes) and it's a happy ending.

Suite 2 is the part from Daphnis waking up in the morning till the end. 
Lever du jour (daybreak) made me think of a tropical island somewhere, where all the birds are starting to wake up and call to each other.  It's got white sands, of course, and the sunrise is golden.  Sometimes, certain pieces of music make me think of a certain color - that's where I got golden.  It's also got a sky blue color that doubles as the ocean.  It's cool and lush, and nothing short of gorgeous.  Kind of like the Neverland from the Disney movie. (pirates and mystical-y creatures)
I got the strongest picture/emotion from the first part of the suite, definitely.  Ravel really hit the nail on the head with the morningtime feeling.  I wonder why that is.  What is it about this certain set of sounds that made me think "morning".
Speaking of Disney movies, I'm not sure why Chloe was so upset to be kidnapped by pirates.  If you get the right pirate, things can be pretty great...
 c'mon, being kidnapped by him would be a dream come true                                          
Yeah.  You've got to get the right pirate.
Oh, here's some more Johnny referenes for you.  The low, slide-y, chromatic thing in the basses/celli(?) in the very beginning of the lever du jour reminded me of the music that appears in the Roman Polanski's movie The Ninth Gate, in which our dear friend Johnny plays a rare book dealers who stumbles on a strange, Satanic murder mystery.  The music is great and it's where a lot of the atmosphere comes from.  It was composed by Wojciech Kilar, and it's pretty cool, and by that I mean really cool.

Anyways....
The last piece in the program was the Dvorak's New World Symphony, written while he was in America, and he tried to create the American version of nationalistic music - which was a big trend in Europe that drew on folk tunes and motifs for inspiration.  Dvorak used the Native American music he heard in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show, and apparently, did not question the authenticity of his source.  He heard "Negro Spirituals" from a black student of his and based his melodies and motifs from these. 
This piece was my favorite from the concert, and I'm pretty sure that the reason for that was that I've played the fourth movement of it before.  There is some sort of connection that occurs when you play a piece of music, and you cannot get it unless you play it.  It's somewhere between reading a book and writing the book.  It's the performance I suppose. 
Performance is especially awesome when you're in such a formidable an ensemble as a symphony.  You are your fellows can produce a massive amount of sound. 
This piece is more special to me because of how and where I performed it.  Two years ago, in April, I traveled to Ireland with the youth orchestra I was in, HYSO (Hochstein Youth Symphony Orchestra)., and it was AWESOME.  The last movement of the Dvorak symphony was one of the pieces we played when we toured around Ireland.
And look what I found!  Our Tour Blog!!  I had totally forgotten about this.  I think that now I'm going to look through the whole thing and cry because it's over.....

Okay, I'm back.
 Look, there's me, in the back right corner!  Me and my jet-lag face...                            
I got no sleep on the flight over the Atlantic, and I think that my left eardrum still hadn't adjusted to the pressure change at the time this picture was taken.  Good times...
Anyways, the most memorable performance of mvt 4 from the New World Symphony we did was in this old church in Galway.  The beginning of the piece echoed like we were playing in a cave.  But I guess we were, because it was this cavernous stone church, and it was (really hard to stay together) awesome an echo.  I found a picture of us in the church, but it doesn't at all do justice to the size of the church.  You're looking at the front door area, the back of the pews is where we were.
 I'm in this one too, good luck finding me

That's my cool story.


Sunday, October 7, 2012

Questions raised by the biblical Cain and Abel story


 This is the draft of what I'm going to be editing and handing in Tuesday for my Hebrew Scriptures class. Again, this is my intellectual property, and you have no right to claim it as your own, especially if you're attempting to steal this and hand it in for a grade. I am posting this so that I may add my own voice to the discussion about this passage. Also, it is a draft at this stage, and has all of the faults and rough edges associated with drafts.

There are many strange and puzzling tales in the book of Genesis, but perhaps none as well known or as troubling as the story that exists in Genesis 4:1 through 4:18.  It is commonly known as the story of Cain and Abel.  The first part of this essay will deal with issues raised by, and through the reading of the text, where the second part will attempt to determine the source—according to the Documentary Hypothesis—of this portion of the text.

The first question that I have about this story is why did God prefer Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s?  God says to Cain “If you do well, will you not be accepted?”, since Cain obviously hasn’t been accepted, what has he done wrong?  One idea that was brought up in class discussion is that Cain isn’t the son of Adam, but rather of Satan, who was the serpent in Eden that seduced Eve and made her eat the fruit.  This theory is supported by the fact that a snake can be a phallic symbol, and the serpent is a tempter, like Satan.  Cain’s unholy parentage is then the reason that God does not accept his sacrifice.

The commentary in The New Oxford Annotated Bible makes no attempt to answer this question, but has a rather interesting thing to say about the name “Abel”.  The same word appears in translation in the book of Ecclesiastes as “vanity” or “emptiness”, “His name anticipates his destiny” says the commentary.  This, to me, was cryptic and confusing.  Was Abel destined to be killed all along?  If he was vain, wouldn’t God have preferred the sacrifice of the other brother?  Did Abel actually commit the sin of vanity? 

There is a case to be made for the interpretation that God knew Cain would murder his brother before it happened.  God says to Cain “sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”  This sounds like a warning.  God seems to know that Cain will have the urge to murder his brother, and God wants him to overcome it.  Perhaps Cain is the one that has been chosen by God, and Abel matters less to Him.  After all, Cain is the one who has the chance to make a decision and has the opportunity to prove himself.  Abel doesn’t have to earn God’s ‘favor’, so that may make him less important. 

The second burning question is, after Cain leaves, he settles down and marries.  Who does he marry?  Eve is the only other woman on Earth at this time in history, or at least she’s supposed to be.  Are there other people that exist independently of Adam and Eve, and their sons?  If so, when were they created, and why wasn’t their creation mentioned?  One possible answer that was mentioned in class discussion is that Cain and Abel each had a twin sister, and it was one of those sisters that Cain married. 

But then, after the sentence about Cain’s marriage, comes a description of him as the builder of the first city.  Since a city isn’t built just for one family—that is, Cain’s family—it reinforces the implication that there are other peoples in existence on the Earth.  This brings back all the questions that I mentioned above about the origins of these people.  My answer as to who these people are is based on the lack of knowledge that the ancient writers of the Pentateuch had about the theory of evolution.  I would say that human beings evolved, and spread out into their own little groups across the land.  Cain has simply encountered some of these people and married into their society.  But then wouldn’t the writers of this have mentioned the creation of these other groups of people along with Adam and Eve?  There seems to be no relation between the people Cain finds and the family he comes from.  Another theory, from my own head, involves the myth of Adam’s first wife, Lilith.  This myth says that she left Adam and went away to a land where she had many children by demons that lived there.  After this incident, God created Eve with the hope that she would be a better wife.  Perhaps Lilith’s children are the people that Cain found. 

Even before Cain leaves to wander the Earth, however, he seems to have knowledge of other people in existence; he says to God, “…anyone who meets me may kill me.”  He would have no reason to say something like that if there weren’t other people around.

This story, I believe, comes from the J source. The way that God acts in this story is characteristic of the J source—he speaks and interacts directly with the humans.  In other sources, God conveys his messages through angels or dreams (Coogan, 45).  God speaks directly to Cain after the sacrifice and after the murder, and even engaging in argument with Cain when He says “Not so!  Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.”  This is a very humanlike trait—it’s so unlike a deity to need to argue with a lesser creature like a human.  This type of characterization is typical of the J source.

Another reason that I think this is from the J source is that the God character is referred to as “the Lord” and that only occurs in the Yahwist source.  In the Yahwist source, God is referred to by His personal name, “YHWH”, as opposed to the other sources, in which He is called “Elohim” or some variant of that. 

Close readings of the Biblical text often raise more questions than it does answers, but I hope that the answers and interpretations presented here may help further the discussion about this section of Genesis.

Tragedy and Comedy in Anton Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya"


 This is the draft of what I'm going to be editing and handing in tomorrow for my Intro to Drama class.  Again, this is my intellectual property, and you have no right to claim it as your own, especially if you're attempting to steal this and hand it in for a grade.  I am posting this so that I may add my own voice to the discussion about this play.  Also, it is a draft at this stage, and has all of the faults and rough edges associated with drafts.

There are two different plays inside Uncle Vanya—one that is utterly frustrating and tragic, and one that is sarcastic and bitterly funny.  The difference between tragedy and comedy comes from how the audience members react to the impotence of the characters.

For example, Yelena is married to a sickly, repulsive and obnoxious old man, and will not find a lover that is more suitable for her.  She is described as being incredibly beautiful and also young—that is, she has her whole life ahead of her.  Of her marriage, Yelena confesses to Sonya, “I married him for love.  I was drawn to him.  A famous man.  A man of learning.  I was captivated by it.  And it was not real.  The love was not real.”  She knows that she is trapped in an unhappy marriage to a man she does not love.  Both Vanya and Astrov recognize the jarring difference between husband and wife, and cannot fathom why Yelena won’t have an affair with someone closer to her own age, or someone that she actually likes.  Vanya makes abundantly clear his strong affections for her, and she rejects his every advance.  Yelena thinks that she is ‘noble’ for staying with the Professor, which indeed is admirable.  Yelena also confesses to Sonya that she loves Astrov, and, after Vanya begs her to take action in her life, she decides that she will make advances on Astrov.  She seems to have fallen from her nobility in that she wants to be disloyal to her husband.  But when Astrov responds enthusiastically and rather inelegantly to her advances, she hurriedly rejects him.  It’s like she thinks she wants to take a swim, and then as soon as she puts a toe in the water, she hates swimming. 

            Yelena can be seen as a tragic figure because she is wasting herself by being with the Professor.  She’s a young and beautiful woman, whose life ended on her wedding day.  She has the means to escape from her situation, but because of either cowardice or nobility—or both—she stays in the trap she’s made for herself.  Vanya calls it ‘a tomb’.  She has been foolish, and will pay for that mistake for the rest of her life.  Or, one can interpret Yelena as a very strong woman who is devoted to the commitment that is marriage, even though she does not love her husband.  She values the wedding vows she’s taken and, no matter what, will not turn from them.  She is sacrificing her personal happiness in order to remain true to the oaths that she has taken.

            You may pity Yelena’s situation and admire her strength for staying with an old man she doesn’t love.  You may see her as brave and her moment with Astrov as a moment of weakness that she overcomes.  Or you may view her as a fool who ought to do what will make her happy, and is simply too much of a coward to do otherwise.  You can look at her rejection of Astrov as a moment of cowardice and as something contemptible.  You may see her as stricken with impotence in regards to her own life.  She is unable to do anything, and that is why she can be both a tragic and comic figure.

            Another element of the play that can be either tragic or comic is the monologue that Sonya has at the close of the play.  All the family is settling back into their old routines after the departure of the Professor and Yelena.  The ripples that the couple has caused are subsiding, and they are all going back to their work.  The central theme of her monologue is that, because of all that they have suffered in life, when they die and go to Heaven, they will be rewarded there.  This, depending on your view of the afterlife can be beautiful and comforting, or utterly absurd.

            The idea that people can’t do anything to improve their lot in life, and will simply have to wait until they die to find happiness was popular before the Renaissance and the rise of humanism.  It’s very medieval, and so it seems a bit strange that anyone at the close of the 1800s would believe so strongly in it.  It seems a bit backwards.  This would be the view and support for one who finds this comedic.  It’s a dark humor though, and you’d laugh because Sonya is such a fool for believing this.  If you would chose to see the closing monologue as a beautiful thing, you would notice that it is said by the only person who cannot really do anything about her life.  Sonya is kind-hearted and would make a wonderful wife for someone—but she is ugly.  Her physical appearance cannot be changed and thus, the girl is doomed.  But by delivering such an uplifting and hopeful speech, especially because it’s the last thing that is said, it places heavy emphasis on her ‘inner beauty’.  She is tragic because she won’t be loved as she ought to be, and she sounds something like a martyr at the end. 

Sonya and her family seem to define themselves by the work that they do, because it’s the only thing they do.  Vanya says “back to work” and it feels like everything is going back to the way it should be.  Also, the characters are miserable when they aren’t at work—when the Professor and his wife disturb things with their visit.  Defining oneself by the boring, rather meaningless work that you do is a tragedy.  The drudgery they define themselves by is a waste of human vitality and spirit.  But at the same time their conviction to it is admirable—and thus a bit tragic—it’s all they’ve ever known, and that’s sad.

            The overall effect of this blending and blurring between tragic and comic is that it forces the audience to think about the play as they’re experiencing it.  As some audience members around them begin to laugh, they have to think about their feelings for the characters.  It makes the audience think more about how they feel about what they’re seeing.  They have to analyze what their reactions to the characters are and figure out which emotion—pity or contempt—dominates their view of the characters.  Is Yelena noble, or just weak?  What keeps Vanya from finishing off the Professor?  Is it cowardice? Or is it the realization that he can’t change the past, and cannot take back all those years that he slaved for the ungrateful old man—that killing him now won’t do any good?  Is Sonya a fool for accepting her lot in life, or brave for it?  Questions like this, which Chekhov leaves unanswered, are what the audience has to figure out for themselves in order to know how they should react to the play.  They’re going to wind up with a confused tangle of feelings that they have to sort out before they know whether to roll their eyes or to fight back tears. 

            Chekhov, however, intended the play to be a comedy, and so he worked to create situations that would jar the connections and sympathy that the audience wants to have with the characters.  He does this through a basic understanding of how humans feel about each other.  If one sees a character he likes in an unhappy situation, he will root for the character to get out of it and to become happy—it’s our social instinct.  He is almost expecting to see Yelena have an affair with Vanya or Astrov, and when Yelena backs away, he has been disappointed by her.  Through her own doing, Yelena has robbed the audience member of the happiness he would get by watching her be romantically involved with a man she loves.  This makes him less likely to feel sympathetic with her in the future.  The connection between Yelena and the audience member has changed.  Obviously, she is not the woman he thought she was—it’s mistrust.  Now the audience member has to rework his understanding of her.

            The best example of this connection-change is when Vanya shoots at the Professor.  The moment feels like it’s going to be a great triumph—the energy in the play is at its peak—and Vanya gives up.  It’s an enormous anti-climax.  It’s a disappointment, and it’s Vanya’s fault.  This failure to take action, to once and for all get rid of the Professor, is where Vanya’s deepest colors show through—he is no more than an empty pistol—outwardly threatening, but ineffective and harmless. 

            So, the point of making it hard to differentiate between what is sad and what is funny is to force the audience to think, and also to lend a dark humor to Uncle Vanya. 

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Strengths-Finder

So, I took the online assesment for the new book Strengths Finder 2.0, which tells you what you're good at so you can focus on it and improve it instead of focusing on your weaknesses.  It's got a bit of a slant towards the workplace envoronment, which is slightly irrelevant for me because I'm a student. 
It ranks your top five qualities.  I got:
1) Strategic
2) Empathy
3) Intellection
4) Harmony
5) Input
And the link up there, up yonder ^ is to the PDF of my results, where it elaborates on what I'm good at and what I bring to the table when I work with others. 
I think I know myself pretty well, so I wasn't too surpised by my results.  I know I'm good at empathizing with people and it is definitely one of my strengths, I know I'm decently smart, so Intellection wasn't a shocker, Harmony, I guess, goes along with Empathy, Input I guess is like Intellection. 
But what I didn't see coming is my number one strength - Strategic.  I don't think of myself as being too good with strategies and problem solving.  I think of myself as pretty awful with problem-solving actually.  If it's a people-problem, I can deal with it and work through it, because people in general are reasonable and I know how to reason with them when I need to, and I know how to let them get all worked up and stop associating with me if they are causing too much of an issue.  I guess that last part isn't problem solving, but come on, some people are just irritating.
Driven by your talents, you periodically identify problems others fail to notice. You might create
solutions and find the right answers. Perhaps you yearn to improve certain things about yourself,
other people, or situations. Maybe you are drawn to specific kinds of classes, books, or activities.
Why? Maybe they promise to give you the skills or knowledge you seek. Chances are good that you
might have a knack for identifying problems. You might generate alternatives for solving them.
Sometimes you consider the pros and cons of each option. Perhaps you factor into your thinking
prevailing circumstances or available resources. Maybe you feel life is good when you think you may

be choosing the best course of action. Because of your strengths, you may see solutions before other

people know there is a problem. You might start formulating answers before your teammates,
coworkers, or classmates understand the question. Sometimes you generate numerous ideas before
sorting to the one that makes the most sense in a particular situation. It’s very likely that you may be
inclined to examine the basic elements of certain types of problems. You might attempt to understand
how and why things work or fail to work. These insights might stimulate your thinking. Then you try to
generate a few alternative plans. Considering prevailing circumstances, available resources, and time
constraints, you might narrow down your options. Perhaps the plan that offers the best chance of
solving the problem naturally reveals itself. Instinctively, you may notice that multiple solutions to

nagging problems just pop into your mind. Sometimes you study each option from many different

angles. Perhaps you carefully evaluate the entire situation, then choose the alternative that makes the
most sense. Why? Maybe you aim to outscore or outperform your rivals.





I have no idea why there's a giant space right there. 
That's what the paragraph on "Strategic" said for me.  It doesn't really say anything about problem-solving.  Maybe that's its own category.  I haven't really thought of myself too much in this way, as being able to think of things before other people do, but I guess it's true.  Sometimes I know where a teacher is going before they get there, and before the rest of class gets there.
I highlighted the parts of myself that I recognized in there
Chances are good that you fondly recall the attention or care given to you by an educator or coach.
The individual probably encouraged you as a youth. Consequently, you have an easy time
establishing a rapport with others. Your personable style and optimistic attitude attract people. It’s
very likely that you might educate yourself about the basic facts surrounding certain types of issues or
situations. To reduce the possibility of conflict, you may consider everyone’s point of view. Perhaps
you help some individuals see where they are in agreement with others. Now and then, you can move
specific individuals toward consensus — that is, a judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.
Instinctively, you might have adopted a practical outlook on life during childhood. Perhaps you figured
out how to avoid “rocking the boat” — that is, how not to cause trouble or disrupt an otherwise stable
situation. Maybe this was true in your relationships with not only children but also adults. Today, you
may have a knack for treating everyone the same. You sometimes want everyone around you to
behave in a predictable, calm, and cordial manner. By nature, you might search for facts when coping
with uncertain situations. By taking a problem apart piece by piece, you occasionally discover its
glitches — that is, its minor problems that cause temporary setbacks. Once in a while, your objective
investigation benefits individuals, particularly those who become emotional when confronted with
difficulties. Perhaps your insights into what is factual enable them to view things a bit more matter-offactly.
Maybe this is one way you help some people agree on how to deal with unpleasant
circumstances or overcome obstacles. Because of your strengths, you might not want any one thing
to consume every minute of your day. For practical purposes, you may choose to handle some
personal or professional problems matter-of-factly or deal with information unemotionally. Perhaps
you minimize conflict between people by not taking sides. Instead, you try to make certain individuals
aware of things as they actually are. Maybe you emphasize what they have in common.
 
This sounds a lot more like me, to me.  This seems to be more like a personality trait than the "Strategic" did.  I guess it's a side of myself that I am more familiar or acquainted with.  I like the results of this.  It makes me sound smart, and nice.  Which I suppose I am, but it's always better to hear compliments from someone other than yourself.
I guess, by pointing out the good things about me, my self esteem has gone up a bit. 
Now I'm going to go and kill it by grabbing a cookie.


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Man from Nebraska

For my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will attempt to describe to you a play that you may or may not have ever seen!

About three hours ago - from when I first started writing this - I was walking up to IC's Dillingham building to see "Man from Nebraska".  I was decently excited, when I sat down in my seat my excitement spiked.  The theater, a small one I guess, was set up with the stage in the middle of the room.  Around it were four sets of bleacher-like seats that went up about six or seven rows.  I suppose I shouldn't say "stage" - it really was the floor.  Lines like a stone walkway had been drawn on it, and the room was dark.  There must have been some sort of misty stuff in the air because the spotlights were perfect cones as they shined down on the actors. 
This was the most intimate theater I've ever been in (which isn't saying much), and I feel like it made a big impact on how an audience member connects and experiences the play.  At least, it did for me.
I love seeing a play, reading a book, or watching a movie - even listening to a really good piece of music.  You become so wrapped up in what is going on that you forget yourself.  It's like you don't exist for a while - you've been reduced to a pair of eyeballs that forget they can look away.

As soon as the lights went down and the play was done, somebody near me immediately started clapping.  He probably thought he was being supportive and showing how much he liked it, but I think it was really quite rude.  It was quite jarring to me - I was in the process of coming back to reality and this guy's obnoxious clapping was like a slap in the face.  It was like he was completely unmoved by what he had seen.  But, then again, somebody has to be the first to clap.  Maybe it made him feel brave, maybe he resurfaces quicker than I do...

Anyways...well since now I'm feeling like ranting I guess I'll continue on.  The one thing that bothered me about IC's rendition was the voice of the girl who played Tamyra, Jasmine Harris.  Tamyra lives in London, but the accent she had this evening was not right.  It was a mix of the straight, proper British accent that you'd expect from the Queen or something, and it slipped sometimes like she wasn't quite sure what she was doing.  It was just bizarre - not something you'd expect from a Bohemian bartender struggling to make ends meet.

Another thing that was odd (but really couldn't be helped) was that everybody looked a whole lot younger than they were supposed to be, but then again, the actors were all college kids, and grey wigs on twenty-year-olds look cheap.

Now, onto how awesome the show was!
A quick summary: Ken and his wife, Nancy, are good practicing Baptists who live a dull and repetitive life.  Then, one night, Ken realizes that he doesn't believe in God.  Nancy can't understand him, and the Reverend Todd recommends that Ken go on vacation.  Ken decides to go to London, where he (it is implied), after a steamy encounter, has an affair with a forceful woman he met on his flight over.  He befriends the bartender at his hotel, Tamyra, and takes lessons in the art of sculpture from her druggie rommate, Harry.  Back in America, Nancy is distraught, and is being told, from her daughter - who disowns Ken over a heated phone call - and from the Reverend's father (who is very much flirting with her) that Ken has left her for good.  Ken's sickly mother dies, and he makes the trip back to America for her funeral.  Nancy shares that she feels they don't have a marriage anymore, but the play ends with Ken stretching out his hand towards her, and with Nancy cautiously accepting.

The idea of Ken's 'crisis of faith' sturck something in me, and I connected really strongly with him and his problem.  His late-night breakdown in the bathroom was what got me - I'm not sure why.  Maybe it was the commonplace location of such a serious and deep questioning, whatever it was, it was such a powerful scene, definitely my favorite.  Ken's acting in that scene was also very good, although I thought he could have seemed a little more distraught.  I would have liked to see some tears, both in the bathroom scene, and when Ken sees Harry's sculpture.  The dialogue between him and Nancy in that scene was intense, and I could understand both of their feelings at the same time.

Something about Ken's crisis, and the almost...horror of his daily monotony I found very powerful and strong.  I feel like that's a challenge of modernity that we all have to come to terms with.  Maybe it's something that happens most often to Americans.  Maybe it's because our culture isn't founded on ancient traditions and things.  American history is so brief and we don't really have an identity (or a good one anyways).  I'm not sure, at least that's what I feel like. 

I think there's something in the human soul, deep down somewhere, that rebels against materialism and modern life, while the rest of ourselves is addicted to it.  I felt like that had a hand in Ken's crisis.  He was looking for God and the divine in his life, and couldn't find it anywhere.  That, to me, is the most powerful and sucessful thing in Man from Nebraska.