I apologize if you don't care to read old dead white dudes' poetry, but I read this poem for class this past week and really liked what it had to say on religion. It lines closely with my own beliefs.
If you do choose to read this rather long poem, then I hope you enjoy it.
From Satires: Satire 3
Kind pithy chokes my spleen, brave scorn forbids
Those tears to issue which swell my eyelids;
I must not laugh, nor weep sins, and be wise,
Can railing then cure these worn maladies?
Is not our mistress, fair Religion,
As worthy of all our soul's devotion,
As virtue was to the first blinded age?
Are not heaven's joys as valiant to assuage
Lusts, as earth's honor was to them? Alas,
As we do them in means, shall they surpass
Us in the end, and shall thy father's spirit
Meet blind philosophers in heaven, whose merit
Of strict life may be imputed faith, and hear
Thee, whom he taught so easy ways and near
To follow, damned? O if thou dar'st, fear this;
This fear great courage and high valor is.
Dar'st thou aid mutinous Dutch, and dar'st thou lay
Thee in ships, wooden sepulchers, a prey
To leaders' rage, to storms, to shot, to dearth?
Dar'st thou dive seas and dungeons of the earth?
Hast thou courageous fire to thaw the ice
Of frozen north discoveries? And thrice
Colder than salamanders, like divine
Childern in the oven, fires of Spain, and the line,
Whose countries limbecks to our bodies be,
Canst thou for gain bear? And must every he
Which cries not "Goddess!" to thy mistress, draw,
Or eat thy poisonous words? Courage of straw!
O desperate coward, wilt thou seem bold, and
To thy foes and his (who made thee to stand
Sentinel in his world's garrison) thus yield,
And for forbidden wars, leave the appointed field?
Know thy foes: the foul Devil, whom thou
Strivest to please, for hate, not love, would allow
The fain his whole realm to be quit; and as
The world's all parts wither away and pass,
So the world's self, thy other loved foe, is
In her decrepit wane, and thou, loving this,
Dost love a withered and worn strumpet; last,
Flesh (itself's death) and joys which flesh can taste,
Thou lovest; and thy fair goodly soul, which doth
Give this flesh power to taste joy, thou dost loathe.
Seek true religion. O where? Mirreus,
Thinking her unhoused here, and fled from us,
Seeks her at Rome; there, because he doth know
That she was there a thousand years ago;
He loves her rags so, as we here obey
The statecloth where the prince sat yesterday.
Crantz to such brave loves will no be enthralled
But loves her only, who at Geneva is called
Religion, plain, simple, sullen, young,
Contemptuous, yet unhandsome; as among
Lecherous humors, there is one that judges
No wenches wholesome by coarse country drudges.
Graius stays still at home here, and because
Some preachers, vile ambitious bawds, and laws,
Still new like fashions, bid him think that she
Which dwells with us is only perfect, he
Embraceth her whom his godfathers will
Tender to him, being tender, as wards still
Take such wives as their guardians offer, or
Pay values.Careless Phrygius doth abhor
All, because he cannot be good, as one,
Knowing some women whores, dares marry none.
Gracchus loves all as one, and thinks that so
As women do in diverse countries go
In divers habits, yet are still one kind,
So doth, so is Religion; and this blind-
ness too much light breeds; but unmoved thou
Of force must one, and forced but one allow;
And the right; ask thy father which is she;
Let him ask his, though truth and falsehood be
Near twins, yet truth a little elder is;
Be busy to seek her, believe me this,
He's not of none, nor worst, that seeks the best.
To adore, or scorn an image, or protest,
May all be bad; doubt wisely; in strange way
To stand inquiring right is not to stray;
To sleep, or run wrong is. On a huge hill,
Cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will
Reach her, about must, and about must go;
And what the hill's suddenness resists, win so;
Yet strive so, that before age, death's twilight,
Thy soul rest, for none can work in that night.
To will implies delay; therefore now do.
Hard deeds, the body's pains; hard knowledge too
The mind's endeavors reach, and mysteries
Are like the sun, dazzling, yet plain to all eyes.
Keep the truth which thou hast found; men do not stand
In so ill case here that God hath with his hand
Signed kings' blank charters to kill whom they hate,
Nor are they vicars, but hangmen to fate.
Fool and wretch, wilt thoug let thy soul be tied
To man's laws, by which she shall not be tried
At the last day? Oh, will it then boot thee
To say a Philip of a Gregory,
A Harry, or a Martin taught me this?
Is not this excuse for mere contraries
Equally strong? Cannot both sides say so?
That thou mayest rightly obey power, her bounds know;
Those passed, her nature, and name is changed; to be
Then humble to her is idolatry.
As streams are, power is; those blest flowers that dwell
At the rough stream's calm head, thrive and do well,
But having left their roots, and themselves given
To the stream's tyrannous rage, alas, are driven
Through mills, and rocks, and woods, and at last, almost
Consumed in going, in the sea are lost:
So perish souls, which more choose men's unjust
Power from God claimed, than God himself to trust.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Nature in a Video Game
For my major paper in my Ecocriticism class, I have narrowed down my possible topics to be a focus on one game (and possibly its supporting material) and it's interpretation of the relationship between man and nature. I'm looking at either Final Fantasy VII or Pokemon (Red/Blue/Yellow).
I think it would be a lot of fun and really interesting (and difficult) to work on Final Fantasy VII. I think the way nature is portrayed/interacted with in that game is much more complex than it is in Pokemon. This makes it more interesting, but also less likely that I could actually explore it in any depth in a ten-or-so page paper. Not to mention, I don't have the time to play through the game again, and despite beating it twice, there's still a lot I don't know or understand. After reading (read: skimming) Ents, Elves and Eriador, I think it would be possible and interesting to write a book on it. I feel like a book would be more feasible than an article at this point.
Pokemon, on the other hand, isn't quite as complex, but does seem to have an interesting and unique take on humanity's relationship with nature, particularly in relations with animals. I'm not sure what I would say right now, but I know that, looking at the game through a ecocritic-lens, I'm going to come down on the side of the game reinforcing poor cultural considerations of nature. There's definitely a man-over-nature aspect to the series that wouldn't allow me to approve of it as an ecocritic.
An ecocritic (which I have to pretend to be for the paper) would disapprove of the game's domination of the 'wild' by people. Nature is only valuable based on its usefulness. Tall grasses and the like are valuable because they allow the trainer to capture new pokemon or force their pokemon to fight and become stronger. There is definitely a "dog-fighting" type ethic to this game, which was touched on in the live-action Pokemon movie spoof trailer. However, despite the fact that the character is participating in this domination over animals for his own ends, there are still criminals, Team Rocket, whose cruelty to pokemon must be stopped. So one question I would need to explore in my paper is where the line is drawn.
The TV show could be useful for a backstory to the game, with a character treating and interacting with pokemon in a certain way. The game implies that your character has the same kind-heartedness that Ash does in the show, but there is no ostensible proof of this. Other characters in the game comment that your pokemon like you no matter what you do. The closest there is to a guide for how you are treating your pokemon is the expressions of Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow, and even then, they are pretty much guaranteed to improve as long as you keep Pikachu in your party, and usually conscious. The importance of the feelings of your pokemon became more important in later series, but the fact still remains that the game implies that pokemon (read: animals) are best off under the protection and control of a person (or really, a ten-year-old kid).
While I still have plenty of questions on how I'm going to write this paper, at this point, I've learned that if I don't have questions, my paper will probably not be very good.
All the best to you and your,
-TES
PS. I know, I'm a huge dork, but you should know that already.
I think it would be a lot of fun and really interesting (and difficult) to work on Final Fantasy VII. I think the way nature is portrayed/interacted with in that game is much more complex than it is in Pokemon. This makes it more interesting, but also less likely that I could actually explore it in any depth in a ten-or-so page paper. Not to mention, I don't have the time to play through the game again, and despite beating it twice, there's still a lot I don't know or understand. After reading (read: skimming) Ents, Elves and Eriador, I think it would be possible and interesting to write a book on it. I feel like a book would be more feasible than an article at this point.
Pokemon, on the other hand, isn't quite as complex, but does seem to have an interesting and unique take on humanity's relationship with nature, particularly in relations with animals. I'm not sure what I would say right now, but I know that, looking at the game through a ecocritic-lens, I'm going to come down on the side of the game reinforcing poor cultural considerations of nature. There's definitely a man-over-nature aspect to the series that wouldn't allow me to approve of it as an ecocritic.
An ecocritic (which I have to pretend to be for the paper) would disapprove of the game's domination of the 'wild' by people. Nature is only valuable based on its usefulness. Tall grasses and the like are valuable because they allow the trainer to capture new pokemon or force their pokemon to fight and become stronger. There is definitely a "dog-fighting" type ethic to this game, which was touched on in the live-action Pokemon movie spoof trailer. However, despite the fact that the character is participating in this domination over animals for his own ends, there are still criminals, Team Rocket, whose cruelty to pokemon must be stopped. So one question I would need to explore in my paper is where the line is drawn.
The TV show could be useful for a backstory to the game, with a character treating and interacting with pokemon in a certain way. The game implies that your character has the same kind-heartedness that Ash does in the show, but there is no ostensible proof of this. Other characters in the game comment that your pokemon like you no matter what you do. The closest there is to a guide for how you are treating your pokemon is the expressions of Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow, and even then, they are pretty much guaranteed to improve as long as you keep Pikachu in your party, and usually conscious. The importance of the feelings of your pokemon became more important in later series, but the fact still remains that the game implies that pokemon (read: animals) are best off under the protection and control of a person (or really, a ten-year-old kid).
While I still have plenty of questions on how I'm going to write this paper, at this point, I've learned that if I don't have questions, my paper will probably not be very good.
All the best to you and your,
-TES
PS. I know, I'm a huge dork, but you should know that already.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Oppression of Literary Studies
I recently found out about a website called The Book Buzz. This website was established by a group of high school parents from Richland, Washington who demanded that the language arts teachers at first one, then a second high school in the area, hand over their syllabi and reading lists. Those who refused were informed that their syllabi and all other teaching materials were in the public domain, presumably because they are government employees. Aside from the horrendous rights infringements of such a statement, the parents then compiled a list the books being taught and set about grading their "content and themes" and supposedly did not presume to judge "the literary merit of the books."
Of the expansive list of books, only eight were judged as deserving an "A" for content and themes. Presumably this would mean that these books are the only ones appropriate for high school students. While my count was a cursory thing, I couldn't help but notice that two of the books given "A"s were The Lord of the Rings and The Giver. I would hope both are more than appropriate, considering I read them both in middle school, if not before.
Interestingly, of the ten Shakespeare plays listed (Hamlet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest) only one, Romeo and Juliet, was rated, receiving a "B." Now I'm not going to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it seems to me that trysting teenage lovers who end up both committing suicide for their love is not exactly appropriate for these apparently fragile minded children they have in high school in Richland, Washington.
From the standpoint of evaluating books on their content and themes, and not their literary merit, I don't think it would be difficult to give "D"s to any of Shakespeare's plays (these parents have also decided that giving a book an "F" is either too harsh, because no one should fail, or it is likely to make them appear unreasonable). Hamlet's themes include suicide, fratricide, incest, murder, insanity, and plenty of dirty jokes along the way (not that students would ever catch them, let alone most parents). How about Macbeth, Othello, or King Lear, the other three of Shakespeare's masterworks? Well, there's certainly plenty of murder, scheming against authority, insanity, and so on, once again, with a bunch of dirty jokes thrown in.
More on their grading scale, they claim that the grades are associated with the MPAA rating scale, with A = G, B=PG, C=PG-13, and D=R or NC-17. Interestingly, the youngest grade with books rated in this website is 9th grade, were students are presumably 14 when they enter. By their own rating scale, a C and above is appropriate for all classes, with all of their grades being appropriate for seniors and progressively for juniors. So while, ostensibly, the "grade" of a book is solely a way of gauging it's audience appropriateness, then why not stick solely with the MPAA rating scale they seemingly based the grades off of?
The most obvious answer is that saying a book should be rated PG-13 doesn't carry nearly the same weight as giving it a "C." A "C" seems to question its use in the classroom, while rating it PG-13 would not, since all students should be about that age range or above. However, it's pretty clear to me that this grading does not always follow such a grading scale. Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. As a movie adaptation it received a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Now, granted, the movie had graphic depictions of warfare and the books aren't necessarily as detailed, but there is still considerable amounts of violence and threatening violence that there is no way I think it could be rated G.
On the other hand, Ender's Game, an ostensibly young adult novel, received a "C" or PG-13 rating. The rating was based on "language, primarily crudeness but some profanity." The most frequently used profane word was bastard "(over 13 times)," and the most serious curse word, shit, was used three times. However, it was used three times, repeated in one sentence, so only in one instance was the word used: "Shit-talking, shit-talking, shit-talking!" The primary "potentially objectionable theme" was "Derogatory/disrespectful religious comments," in particular, statements such as "people do strange things for religion." Now, for anyone who has read the Ender series, there is a pretty extensive discussion of religion going on. The books criticize entirely faith based religion. That is, numerous characters are depicted as taking actions based on blind faith which have horrendous consequences. However, other characters who think about their faith, and examine their faith and situation critically, are shown to be more in keeping with their faith. Characters who think about faith follow the message and meaning of their faith, while those who follow faith alone without thinking follow only the word and not the meaning.
This is an aspect of literature that makes it impossible to simply excise pieces of text and use them to criticize the book as potentially offensive or objectionable. By doing so, you are failing to examine the literary reasons why the author included such language and themes. By avoiding a discussion of literary merit, this group excuses themselves from actually thinking about these books. A piece of literature, any literature, is not thousands of words used at random to tell an arbitrary story, and the implication that themes are unrelated to literary merit and thus effort, is an insult to the dozens, if not hundreds of authors in this list, and the millions of people who have read these works and invested time into examining the elements of the themes and content. The words and usages in books are put there purposefully by the author, not at random.
By judging and questioning the choices made by the underpaid men and women who see it as their duty to give the best possible education to their students, the parents who formed this website are questioning the very merit of the people teaching their children. The reason to send children to school, ostensibly, is to allow them to learn from people who know more about subjects than the parents do. The biggest reason children need to go to school is so that they are exposed to the thoughts of people outside their family unit and are allowed to develop critical thinking skills that will give them the best opportunity to be successful.
Socrates said that "the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." Compared to all the knowledge out there, known and unknown, any knowledge you can develop in your lifetime is as infinitesimal as to be nothing. I believe that a parent's goal should be to hope that tiny little bit that his or her child knows is just a little greater than his or her own.
The greatest tragedy of growing up is to no longer ask "why?" to every answer.
-TES
Of the expansive list of books, only eight were judged as deserving an "A" for content and themes. Presumably this would mean that these books are the only ones appropriate for high school students. While my count was a cursory thing, I couldn't help but notice that two of the books given "A"s were The Lord of the Rings and The Giver. I would hope both are more than appropriate, considering I read them both in middle school, if not before.
Interestingly, of the ten Shakespeare plays listed (Hamlet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest) only one, Romeo and Juliet, was rated, receiving a "B." Now I'm not going to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it seems to me that trysting teenage lovers who end up both committing suicide for their love is not exactly appropriate for these apparently fragile minded children they have in high school in Richland, Washington.
From the standpoint of evaluating books on their content and themes, and not their literary merit, I don't think it would be difficult to give "D"s to any of Shakespeare's plays (these parents have also decided that giving a book an "F" is either too harsh, because no one should fail, or it is likely to make them appear unreasonable). Hamlet's themes include suicide, fratricide, incest, murder, insanity, and plenty of dirty jokes along the way (not that students would ever catch them, let alone most parents). How about Macbeth, Othello, or King Lear, the other three of Shakespeare's masterworks? Well, there's certainly plenty of murder, scheming against authority, insanity, and so on, once again, with a bunch of dirty jokes thrown in.
More on their grading scale, they claim that the grades are associated with the MPAA rating scale, with A = G, B=PG, C=PG-13, and D=R or NC-17. Interestingly, the youngest grade with books rated in this website is 9th grade, were students are presumably 14 when they enter. By their own rating scale, a C and above is appropriate for all classes, with all of their grades being appropriate for seniors and progressively for juniors. So while, ostensibly, the "grade" of a book is solely a way of gauging it's audience appropriateness, then why not stick solely with the MPAA rating scale they seemingly based the grades off of?
The most obvious answer is that saying a book should be rated PG-13 doesn't carry nearly the same weight as giving it a "C." A "C" seems to question its use in the classroom, while rating it PG-13 would not, since all students should be about that age range or above. However, it's pretty clear to me that this grading does not always follow such a grading scale. Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. As a movie adaptation it received a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Now, granted, the movie had graphic depictions of warfare and the books aren't necessarily as detailed, but there is still considerable amounts of violence and threatening violence that there is no way I think it could be rated G.
On the other hand, Ender's Game, an ostensibly young adult novel, received a "C" or PG-13 rating. The rating was based on "language, primarily crudeness but some profanity." The most frequently used profane word was bastard "(over 13 times)," and the most serious curse word, shit, was used three times. However, it was used three times, repeated in one sentence, so only in one instance was the word used: "Shit-talking, shit-talking, shit-talking!" The primary "potentially objectionable theme" was "Derogatory/disrespectful religious comments," in particular, statements such as "people do strange things for religion." Now, for anyone who has read the Ender series, there is a pretty extensive discussion of religion going on. The books criticize entirely faith based religion. That is, numerous characters are depicted as taking actions based on blind faith which have horrendous consequences. However, other characters who think about their faith, and examine their faith and situation critically, are shown to be more in keeping with their faith. Characters who think about faith follow the message and meaning of their faith, while those who follow faith alone without thinking follow only the word and not the meaning.
This is an aspect of literature that makes it impossible to simply excise pieces of text and use them to criticize the book as potentially offensive or objectionable. By doing so, you are failing to examine the literary reasons why the author included such language and themes. By avoiding a discussion of literary merit, this group excuses themselves from actually thinking about these books. A piece of literature, any literature, is not thousands of words used at random to tell an arbitrary story, and the implication that themes are unrelated to literary merit and thus effort, is an insult to the dozens, if not hundreds of authors in this list, and the millions of people who have read these works and invested time into examining the elements of the themes and content. The words and usages in books are put there purposefully by the author, not at random.
By judging and questioning the choices made by the underpaid men and women who see it as their duty to give the best possible education to their students, the parents who formed this website are questioning the very merit of the people teaching their children. The reason to send children to school, ostensibly, is to allow them to learn from people who know more about subjects than the parents do. The biggest reason children need to go to school is so that they are exposed to the thoughts of people outside their family unit and are allowed to develop critical thinking skills that will give them the best opportunity to be successful.
Socrates said that "the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." Compared to all the knowledge out there, known and unknown, any knowledge you can develop in your lifetime is as infinitesimal as to be nothing. I believe that a parent's goal should be to hope that tiny little bit that his or her child knows is just a little greater than his or her own.
The greatest tragedy of growing up is to no longer ask "why?" to every answer.
-TES
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Guilty Writing
The title (and the motivation for starting this post) is mostly guilt: guilt over the fact that I said I was going to start writing more regularly and then haven't posted in 24 days or something like that.
One of my larger concerns recently has been dealing with administration at Radford (not for the first time). This time I'm dealing with departmental policies I wasn't aware of but that could make my final semester worse than it needs to be. Each semester, the English department offers about seven or eight graduate courses at the 600 level (which are the ones we're supposed to take). Of these, at least two have the course number 680, which is broadly classified as Special Topics in English. That said, they're usually extremely diverse and completely unrelated.
Due to limited course options, each semester, I've elected to take one of the 680s. The first was Shakespeare and Film, the second, this past spring, was Creative Nonfiction, and then the third, which I am currently in, is Ecocriticism. About two weeks ago, I was told that you can only have two 680s count toward your required credits for graduation.
The program I'm in requires 33 credits to graduate, and 9 credits per semester to keep my GTA position. If you do the math, that's 36 credits over four semesters. However, we're allowed to take a course that isn't really a course, in order to maintain 9 credits. This course, of course, doesn't count toward the 33 required credits. So, to clarify, I was planning on taking this essentially fake course next semester, requiring me to only take two courses in the spring.
However, with this current problem, unless I get one 680 changed in the records to something else, I will have to take three credits, in addition to taking my Comprehensive Examination at some point, and applying for jobs.
My adviser, eventually suggested that I could petition to change my current 680 to a 698 (Directed Study). However, you can only take one directed study, and I'm planning on taking one in the spring. So that wouldn't work.
I do have a plan of attack, but I have no idea about its feasibility at this point. My plan is to petition to change my Creative Nonfiction 680 to 611, Creative Writing. Both are electives within the English department. Creative Nonfiction was a much more work intensive course than 611 is according to their syllabi.
Now, in order for my petition to have a chance, I have to give reasons why the course should be changed other than my own convenience. Looking at the courses offered last spring, I was happy to discover that none of the courses fell directly into the category of British lit. That is, there are three generic course numbers for British lit that are supposed to be offered one each semester. In the spring, none was offered however, and a women's lit course, that could count as either American or British lit was offered.
However, my argument will be that, considering the fact that I was on the British literature track, and since no ostensibly British Literature courses were offered (outside of another 680), then I should not be punished for taking that particular 680, and would have taken a Brit lit course had it been offered. I can demonstrate that this semester I am taking it, and next semester I will be taking the British literature offered courses.
We'll see how it goes.
One of my larger concerns recently has been dealing with administration at Radford (not for the first time). This time I'm dealing with departmental policies I wasn't aware of but that could make my final semester worse than it needs to be. Each semester, the English department offers about seven or eight graduate courses at the 600 level (which are the ones we're supposed to take). Of these, at least two have the course number 680, which is broadly classified as Special Topics in English. That said, they're usually extremely diverse and completely unrelated.
Due to limited course options, each semester, I've elected to take one of the 680s. The first was Shakespeare and Film, the second, this past spring, was Creative Nonfiction, and then the third, which I am currently in, is Ecocriticism. About two weeks ago, I was told that you can only have two 680s count toward your required credits for graduation.
The program I'm in requires 33 credits to graduate, and 9 credits per semester to keep my GTA position. If you do the math, that's 36 credits over four semesters. However, we're allowed to take a course that isn't really a course, in order to maintain 9 credits. This course, of course, doesn't count toward the 33 required credits. So, to clarify, I was planning on taking this essentially fake course next semester, requiring me to only take two courses in the spring.
However, with this current problem, unless I get one 680 changed in the records to something else, I will have to take three credits, in addition to taking my Comprehensive Examination at some point, and applying for jobs.
My adviser, eventually suggested that I could petition to change my current 680 to a 698 (Directed Study). However, you can only take one directed study, and I'm planning on taking one in the spring. So that wouldn't work.
I do have a plan of attack, but I have no idea about its feasibility at this point. My plan is to petition to change my Creative Nonfiction 680 to 611, Creative Writing. Both are electives within the English department. Creative Nonfiction was a much more work intensive course than 611 is according to their syllabi.
Now, in order for my petition to have a chance, I have to give reasons why the course should be changed other than my own convenience. Looking at the courses offered last spring, I was happy to discover that none of the courses fell directly into the category of British lit. That is, there are three generic course numbers for British lit that are supposed to be offered one each semester. In the spring, none was offered however, and a women's lit course, that could count as either American or British lit was offered.
However, my argument will be that, considering the fact that I was on the British literature track, and since no ostensibly British Literature courses were offered (outside of another 680), then I should not be punished for taking that particular 680, and would have taken a Brit lit course had it been offered. I can demonstrate that this semester I am taking it, and next semester I will be taking the British literature offered courses.
We'll see how it goes.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Science Fiction/Fantasy and the Environment
One of the classes I'm taking this semester is "Ecocriticism." I honestly didn't have the slightest idea of what to expect from the course other than that I would be expected to read Walden at some point (and we have). I won't lie, the first few weeks of the course were pretty unexciting for me. However, recently we began working on the role of apocalypse narratives in ecocriticism.
Unsurprisingly, I deeply enjoyed reading a speculative fiction book on the apocalypse. The example of apocalypse we used for the course was Margret Atwood's Oryx and Crake. I was pleasantly surprised by the depth and complexity of the apocalypse envisioned in the novel. This apocalypse is not brought about by a singular event, occurance, or discovery, but instead, a chain of interrelated causes, varying from proliferation of science and technology, consumerism, triviality of society, and more.
In class, our professor wanted to try to pin down the biggest causes of the apocalypse Atwood envisioned. Quite frankly, I thought it was impossible, everything was related. Obsession with sex leads to desire for health products to maintain youth. These people provide a willing market for scientific corporations to exploit. The money they bring in leads to the power to advance technology, but also breeds intense competition between corporations, leading to acts of terrorism (often bio-terrorism). Companies gain technological advancements that would allow them to cure disease, but they dare not allow the product to be perfect, because if it was, they would destroy their own market. Economy drives the engine of a vicious cycle.
Another upcoming assignment for the course was to pick any book dealing with ecocriticsm and read it independently, providing a report to the class on the new view we discovered. A search in the library using simply the term ecocriticism linked me to numerous books with mostly uninteresting titles. One caught my eye though: Ents, Elves, and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Jackpot.
While mostly ignored recently, my interest and fascination for fantasy and science fiction had begun resurfacing as a legitimate area of inquiry for my studies when I began Oryx and Crake. Finding a book on the environmental vision of Tolkien solidified the occasional wandering thoughts I'd been having about the genre. In particular, I began thinking of how much science fiction and fantasy (a little more so the latter than the former) depicts nature as a friendly, benign force that we must appreciate and embrace. Additionally, kids movies and stories seem to often be rich in environmental propaganda (if you'll forgive the term).
Think Fern Gully and Peter Pan. In both, man and technology are to a greater or lesser degree, evil, and must be defeated. In The Chronicles of Narnia, the preservation of the natural world is tantamount, with God/Jesus taking the shape of a lion and bestowing sentient life on animals as well as tree and water spirits (not to mention interesting in the blend of Christianity and paganism).
In Final Fantasy VII, you fight to save the world, first from the economic and technological powers that would seek to suck the world dry of all its value, and then from an alien/psychotic who seeks to destroy the world. At the end, the power of Holy is not enough to stop the destruction of the earth by itself, but the Lifestream, an embodiment of the natural world (as glowing green tendrils, in case the connection wasn't clear enough) intervenes, helping Holy to stop the apocalypse and simultaneously overrunning the largest city with green plant-growth.
I'm finding the possibilities for this subject that I was grudging to engage in very exciting (and a little overwhelming). For the end of the semester, I have to write a sizable research paper on some topic within the field. Before I was worried about what I could possibly write that wouldn't bore me to tears. Now I'm worried that I will struggle to define a topic that I can write only ten to fifteen pages on.
Unsurprisingly, I deeply enjoyed reading a speculative fiction book on the apocalypse. The example of apocalypse we used for the course was Margret Atwood's Oryx and Crake. I was pleasantly surprised by the depth and complexity of the apocalypse envisioned in the novel. This apocalypse is not brought about by a singular event, occurance, or discovery, but instead, a chain of interrelated causes, varying from proliferation of science and technology, consumerism, triviality of society, and more.
In class, our professor wanted to try to pin down the biggest causes of the apocalypse Atwood envisioned. Quite frankly, I thought it was impossible, everything was related. Obsession with sex leads to desire for health products to maintain youth. These people provide a willing market for scientific corporations to exploit. The money they bring in leads to the power to advance technology, but also breeds intense competition between corporations, leading to acts of terrorism (often bio-terrorism). Companies gain technological advancements that would allow them to cure disease, but they dare not allow the product to be perfect, because if it was, they would destroy their own market. Economy drives the engine of a vicious cycle.
Another upcoming assignment for the course was to pick any book dealing with ecocriticsm and read it independently, providing a report to the class on the new view we discovered. A search in the library using simply the term ecocriticism linked me to numerous books with mostly uninteresting titles. One caught my eye though: Ents, Elves, and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Jackpot.
While mostly ignored recently, my interest and fascination for fantasy and science fiction had begun resurfacing as a legitimate area of inquiry for my studies when I began Oryx and Crake. Finding a book on the environmental vision of Tolkien solidified the occasional wandering thoughts I'd been having about the genre. In particular, I began thinking of how much science fiction and fantasy (a little more so the latter than the former) depicts nature as a friendly, benign force that we must appreciate and embrace. Additionally, kids movies and stories seem to often be rich in environmental propaganda (if you'll forgive the term).
Think Fern Gully and Peter Pan. In both, man and technology are to a greater or lesser degree, evil, and must be defeated. In The Chronicles of Narnia, the preservation of the natural world is tantamount, with God/Jesus taking the shape of a lion and bestowing sentient life on animals as well as tree and water spirits (not to mention interesting in the blend of Christianity and paganism).
In Final Fantasy VII, you fight to save the world, first from the economic and technological powers that would seek to suck the world dry of all its value, and then from an alien/psychotic who seeks to destroy the world. At the end, the power of Holy is not enough to stop the destruction of the earth by itself, but the Lifestream, an embodiment of the natural world (as glowing green tendrils, in case the connection wasn't clear enough) intervenes, helping Holy to stop the apocalypse and simultaneously overrunning the largest city with green plant-growth.
I'm finding the possibilities for this subject that I was grudging to engage in very exciting (and a little overwhelming). For the end of the semester, I have to write a sizable research paper on some topic within the field. Before I was worried about what I could possibly write that wouldn't bore me to tears. Now I'm worried that I will struggle to define a topic that I can write only ten to fifteen pages on.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Malachi
This morning, we finally had to put Mally to sleep. He started having seizures on Friday night and hadn't been able to walk basically at all for a few days before that. On Saturday night, I drove up to Charlottesville to pick up Anna and head home. When we got home and saw him lying there, it was pretty heartbreaking. His breathing was erratic and when he had his eyes open, he had little control over them, but they looked frightened. I felt awful for him, and worried that maybe we selfishly put this off for too long. But that's a real hard call to make, and I'll never be sure.
We stayed up for a few hours, just hanging out with him and petting him a bit. The next morning, we carried him out to the car and I sat in the back seat with his head on my lap on the way to the vet. I carried him in and they weighed him. He was 45 pounds. When he had been healthy he'd been around 60. Then we carried him in to one of the rooms and set him on the table. They took him back in the back to insert his catheter, and then brought him back and gave us some time with him. Once we were ready, the vet came in with three syringes. She explained that the first was saline to flush the catheter. The second was a relaxing agent to calm him and basically put him to sleep. The last syringe was to stop his heart. She explained that it was valium based and would be completely painless, knocking him out and overloading his system, shutting down his heart.
We gave our OK and she gave the three injections. It seemed so fast. I had my hand on his chest and could feel his heartbeat fade away. She then left us there, telling us we could leave when ready and they would take care of him after we left the room. Seeing him on that table was surreal. The whole situation was surreal, and so contradictory. On one hand, I didn't want Mally to be in pain anymore. It was past time. On the other, I still didn't want to say goodbye.
The vet is associated with a cremation service, so we will get his ashes in a week or two. I'm not sure what to do with them. Mom suggested spreading them around the lake near our old house, but I feel a little selfishly against that. I would like to keep at least some of his ashes with me wherever life takes me, at least for the next few years. Admittedly though, it's still fresh, so I want to keep something to hold on to.
I think you can never get over your childhood pets, and honestly, your childhood dog in particular. Not that you should. Mally will always have a special place in my heart, and I will miss him.
Rest in peace Malachi, I will always miss you and love you. May angels guide you home.
-TES
We stayed up for a few hours, just hanging out with him and petting him a bit. The next morning, we carried him out to the car and I sat in the back seat with his head on my lap on the way to the vet. I carried him in and they weighed him. He was 45 pounds. When he had been healthy he'd been around 60. Then we carried him in to one of the rooms and set him on the table. They took him back in the back to insert his catheter, and then brought him back and gave us some time with him. Once we were ready, the vet came in with three syringes. She explained that the first was saline to flush the catheter. The second was a relaxing agent to calm him and basically put him to sleep. The last syringe was to stop his heart. She explained that it was valium based and would be completely painless, knocking him out and overloading his system, shutting down his heart.
We gave our OK and she gave the three injections. It seemed so fast. I had my hand on his chest and could feel his heartbeat fade away. She then left us there, telling us we could leave when ready and they would take care of him after we left the room. Seeing him on that table was surreal. The whole situation was surreal, and so contradictory. On one hand, I didn't want Mally to be in pain anymore. It was past time. On the other, I still didn't want to say goodbye.
The vet is associated with a cremation service, so we will get his ashes in a week or two. I'm not sure what to do with them. Mom suggested spreading them around the lake near our old house, but I feel a little selfishly against that. I would like to keep at least some of his ashes with me wherever life takes me, at least for the next few years. Admittedly though, it's still fresh, so I want to keep something to hold on to.
I think you can never get over your childhood pets, and honestly, your childhood dog in particular. Not that you should. Mally will always have a special place in my heart, and I will miss him.
Rest in peace Malachi, I will always miss you and love you. May angels guide you home.
-TES
Sunday, September 26, 2010
My Dad
I've found myself thinking a lot about my dad recently (in the past year or so). In my Creative Non-Fiction class, I wrote a piece about him that, last I read it, I really liked, though I would like to add some things to it and work on it some more. Just a couple weeks ago I was struck with the need/desire to write a little poem focusing on my dad (which I will post a draft of below). And just the other night, I found myself thinking back to the summer of 2007, and how I wish I had done some things differently.
The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the last time I saw him. Anna, Kirsten, and I visited him at Georgetown Hospital. It was the day before I was leaving for Leadership Academy in Bethany, WV. Carl greeted us as we came to the floor he was on and was clearly agitated. I know he talked to us, but I can't remember anything of what he said. Then we went in to Dad's room. He looked bad and he was complaining about the doctors and how everyone working there were a bunch of idiots. I didn't say much. I told him I loved him, and hugged him on his bed, then I left the room. I don't think I was in there for more than a few minutes.
I don't know why that was. Looking back, I can see he was clearly scared. He knew what was happening and I feel like I didn't do enough to assure him that I loved him, that I forgave him for all his faults, that I was still proud of all the things he had taught me, and that he would always be my Dad. I wish I could have apologized for being intimidated by his problems, for avoiding him, for not spending enough time with him when no one else would.
Looking back, I feel like I dismissed the seriousness of the visit. I knew very well that he would probably never walk out of that hospital, but yet, I didn't spend much time with him when I was given one last chance to. And I don't know why.
He died the next morning, probably while I was in the air from D.C. to Pittsburgh. I got a call from Carl while I was on the bus from Pittsburgh to Bethany. It wasn't a shock, but it still wasn't pleasant. I felt so alone in that week.
The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the last time I saw him. Anna, Kirsten, and I visited him at Georgetown Hospital. It was the day before I was leaving for Leadership Academy in Bethany, WV. Carl greeted us as we came to the floor he was on and was clearly agitated. I know he talked to us, but I can't remember anything of what he said. Then we went in to Dad's room. He looked bad and he was complaining about the doctors and how everyone working there were a bunch of idiots. I didn't say much. I told him I loved him, and hugged him on his bed, then I left the room. I don't think I was in there for more than a few minutes.
I don't know why that was. Looking back, I can see he was clearly scared. He knew what was happening and I feel like I didn't do enough to assure him that I loved him, that I forgave him for all his faults, that I was still proud of all the things he had taught me, and that he would always be my Dad. I wish I could have apologized for being intimidated by his problems, for avoiding him, for not spending enough time with him when no one else would.
Looking back, I feel like I dismissed the seriousness of the visit. I knew very well that he would probably never walk out of that hospital, but yet, I didn't spend much time with him when I was given one last chance to. And I don't know why.
He died the next morning, probably while I was in the air from D.C. to Pittsburgh. I got a call from Carl while I was on the bus from Pittsburgh to Bethany. It wasn't a shock, but it still wasn't pleasant. I felt so alone in that week.
A Father Son Sport
My father taught me the game
before I wore real pants.
A drainspout was home
backyard corners bases
and every hit a full lap.
My father whispered at my door
inning by inning updates.
I heard his tears
as he described a child like me
Robbing a city's dream.
My father called for clearance
before visiting the house
The basement my remains of home,
one of many rooms
With a glove long outgrown.
My father suddenly called often
to my home away from home.
As he always had
he awaited the heat
ending school and beginning.
My father died that summer
when LOVE was reintroduced.
Why did I rekindle an old flame
and never bring him
to one last game?
before I wore real pants.
A drainspout was home
backyard corners bases
and every hit a full lap.
My father whispered at my door
inning by inning updates.
I heard his tears
as he described a child like me
Robbing a city's dream.
My father called for clearance
before visiting the house
The basement my remains of home,
one of many rooms
With a glove long outgrown.
My father suddenly called often
to my home away from home.
As he always had
he awaited the heat
ending school and beginning.
My father died that summer
when LOVE was reintroduced.
Why did I rekindle an old flame
and never bring him
to one last game?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Motivation
So, it's been a little over a year since I've posted in here. A lot has happened but I haven't seem to have had the desire or the time to write about it here. And maybe it's just because I would prefer to do this than my copious amounts of homework, but I've (obviously) decided to write something new.
Courtesy of Anna, I recently found this video.
It is a truly amazing and inspiring story. It's a slice of the American dream; someone decides they're not happy with something in their life so they do something about it and are rewarded with positive results.
Seeing Ben's story made me reflect on my own health. He still weighs about 60 pounds more than I do, but he's certainly in a hell of a lot better shape than I am. I mean, for god's sake, he's run a marathon. I lose my breath climbing a few flights of stairs.
I don't want to take anything from Ben's achievement, it is amazing, but part of me thinks it is a lot easier to lose a lot of weight (once you start) than it is to lose just the 10-20 pounds you are overweight. By that I mean that, once he started, Ben could chart his achievements rather quickly. He could see his progress spelled out for him. It's easier to stay motivated when you see that you're getting somewhere.
But in the end, not having numerical support and motivation is just an excuse. The fact of the matter is that I always put off working out. I'm busy, I have too much on my plate as it is. I have workouts designed specifically for people who have busy days, and yet I still make excuses to not do a half hour workout, or a twenty minute one, or now a ten minute one. Obviously I'm bullshitting myself if I'm saying I don't have time for a ten or twenty minute workout every day. I'm writing this aren't I?
But there's still that feeling of frustration at not getting anywhere. I've been trying for several years (off and on) to lose about ten pounds. And I've never broken back under 180. It reminds me of my Junior year in college when I had the exact opposite problem.
That summer, Matt convinced me to start working out with him (and Jim had been talking me into it from 500 miles away). I worked a physically demanding job and worked out at the gym fairly regularly over the summer, trying to bulk up from my scrawny 160 pounds. When I moved into my dorm as an RA at Tech, after a summer of protein shakes and fast food, I was still at 160.
That year, I went to the gym at least four times a week, if not five, and did workouts designed for football players (albeit, with much less weight, I was still 160 pounds after all and fairly stick-like). From August to April, doing only weight training, very little cardio, eating 5-8 meals a day plus several protein shakes, I had gained a whopping five pounds. I struggled the entire year to break over 170. I would flirt with it, getting to 168 or so after chugging a water bottle.
The following summer, I worked at a restaurant, ate one meal a day on average, and didn't work out at all. I ballooned (sort of I suppose) to over 180, and have been stuck there since. For a while, it was hard for me to figure out what I wanted from workouts. After working so hard to ADD weight, I was suddenly trying to do the opposite.
Matt was helpful: "Run." I tried. For about a week I would go to the track and run for twenty minutes a day. But then I had to take a day or two off for whatever reason. I went back and ran a couple more times, but I never got into that rhythm. When I was going to the gym regularly, I felt anxious if I didn't work out. But that dependence on working out requires establishing a habit first, and that's been my biggest self-defeating problem. I try this, that, or the other, and for about a week I'm religious to the practice. Eventually though, the soreness convinces me to take (just a day or two) off. And next thing I know, I haven't worked out in weeks.
This is all things I know, but, as a writer, I'm hoping that by really thinking about it, analyzing my bullshit excuses and putting it down on paper (or in type), that I can better see through my own self-delusions. I'll see if it works and if I establish a pattern.
In the mean time, all the best to you and yours, especially if you read through all my bitching.
-TES
Courtesy of Anna, I recently found this video.
It is a truly amazing and inspiring story. It's a slice of the American dream; someone decides they're not happy with something in their life so they do something about it and are rewarded with positive results.
Seeing Ben's story made me reflect on my own health. He still weighs about 60 pounds more than I do, but he's certainly in a hell of a lot better shape than I am. I mean, for god's sake, he's run a marathon. I lose my breath climbing a few flights of stairs.
I don't want to take anything from Ben's achievement, it is amazing, but part of me thinks it is a lot easier to lose a lot of weight (once you start) than it is to lose just the 10-20 pounds you are overweight. By that I mean that, once he started, Ben could chart his achievements rather quickly. He could see his progress spelled out for him. It's easier to stay motivated when you see that you're getting somewhere.
But in the end, not having numerical support and motivation is just an excuse. The fact of the matter is that I always put off working out. I'm busy, I have too much on my plate as it is. I have workouts designed specifically for people who have busy days, and yet I still make excuses to not do a half hour workout, or a twenty minute one, or now a ten minute one. Obviously I'm bullshitting myself if I'm saying I don't have time for a ten or twenty minute workout every day. I'm writing this aren't I?
But there's still that feeling of frustration at not getting anywhere. I've been trying for several years (off and on) to lose about ten pounds. And I've never broken back under 180. It reminds me of my Junior year in college when I had the exact opposite problem.
That summer, Matt convinced me to start working out with him (and Jim had been talking me into it from 500 miles away). I worked a physically demanding job and worked out at the gym fairly regularly over the summer, trying to bulk up from my scrawny 160 pounds. When I moved into my dorm as an RA at Tech, after a summer of protein shakes and fast food, I was still at 160.
That year, I went to the gym at least four times a week, if not five, and did workouts designed for football players (albeit, with much less weight, I was still 160 pounds after all and fairly stick-like). From August to April, doing only weight training, very little cardio, eating 5-8 meals a day plus several protein shakes, I had gained a whopping five pounds. I struggled the entire year to break over 170. I would flirt with it, getting to 168 or so after chugging a water bottle.
The following summer, I worked at a restaurant, ate one meal a day on average, and didn't work out at all. I ballooned (sort of I suppose) to over 180, and have been stuck there since. For a while, it was hard for me to figure out what I wanted from workouts. After working so hard to ADD weight, I was suddenly trying to do the opposite.
Matt was helpful: "Run." I tried. For about a week I would go to the track and run for twenty minutes a day. But then I had to take a day or two off for whatever reason. I went back and ran a couple more times, but I never got into that rhythm. When I was going to the gym regularly, I felt anxious if I didn't work out. But that dependence on working out requires establishing a habit first, and that's been my biggest self-defeating problem. I try this, that, or the other, and for about a week I'm religious to the practice. Eventually though, the soreness convinces me to take (just a day or two) off. And next thing I know, I haven't worked out in weeks.
This is all things I know, but, as a writer, I'm hoping that by really thinking about it, analyzing my bullshit excuses and putting it down on paper (or in type), that I can better see through my own self-delusions. I'll see if it works and if I establish a pattern.
In the mean time, all the best to you and yours, especially if you read through all my bitching.
-TES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)