Coming back home is, once again, an odd feeling. I think it'll grow more and more odd until, finally, I just give up and start coming home more and more irregularly. (I think that's what my brother has started to do).
This is also the first college break I've had where I've got plans for at least half of the week (not all-day plans, just afternoon/ evening ones), but it's strange nonetheless. It's also the only time I've come home and all of my high school friends are also on break, so there goes me visiting my school before May. Nonetheless, it's strange to come back and have fun stuff to do. That never happened in high school - I either had a rehearsal or I had an afternoon of homework.
I think that's one way college has changed my look on things - in high school, if someone asked if I wanted to do something on a Wednesday at around 8:00, I would tell them I had homework and secretly wonder why they wanted to get together on a Wednesday night. Who does stuff on Wednesdays? Now, I can if I want to. That's partly the benefit of not having class until 9:50 on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but it's also the benefit of not having class after 12:30 on Wednesdays. If I'm not done with at least most of my homework by 8:00, I'm doing something wrong (that 'something wrong' could be procrastinating, and it usually is).
Now, I have no class at all, but I do have some homework. I really don't like break work, though I guess it's a necessary evil. There could be worse things in life, like not having proper food and heating and whatnot.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
How to Defeat a Dragon
I've discovered something that can be kind of interesting if used right.
My play for FYEC is going to involve dragons and people who contemplate suicide. I know that much for certain. However, I making my main character, who attempted suicide multiple times, also fluent in Old Draconic (like Old English for dragons), which brings up the interesting point: will she kill the dragon, negotiate with the dragon, or talk to the dragon in Old Draconic and win it over? (I'm not telling you this. I already know. I've already written that part).
But this proposes an interesting alternative to dragon-slaying.
Yes, yes, I know, fantasy is supposed to teach us that dragons can be beaten. But 'beaten' does not mean 'killed.' 'Beaten' means foiled, quashed, clobbered - not killed.
As the (modified) saying goes, there's more than one way to clobber a dragon. Just some of the ways are more difficult than others. The easy way out is just to kill it (though, considering it's twelve times your size and can breathe fire, might not be that easy); the more difficult way is to talk it out with the dragon; this may be only more difficult because the dragon is older and larger and smarter than you, and a battle of the wits is one of many situations where a Dragon of Old benefits from having a larger brain than you (it means it has plenty of room to think about gold and also clobbering humans).
Of course, talking to the dragon is dumb, according to every movie and fairy tale ever. Who talks to dragons? Who gets along with dragons? WHO CARES ABOUT THE DRAGON'S OPINION?
The dragons care about their opinion, thanks very much.
My play for FYEC is going to involve dragons and people who contemplate suicide. I know that much for certain. However, I making my main character, who attempted suicide multiple times, also fluent in Old Draconic (like Old English for dragons), which brings up the interesting point: will she kill the dragon, negotiate with the dragon, or talk to the dragon in Old Draconic and win it over? (I'm not telling you this. I already know. I've already written that part).
But this proposes an interesting alternative to dragon-slaying.
Yes, yes, I know, fantasy is supposed to teach us that dragons can be beaten. But 'beaten' does not mean 'killed.' 'Beaten' means foiled, quashed, clobbered - not killed.
As the (modified) saying goes, there's more than one way to clobber a dragon. Just some of the ways are more difficult than others. The easy way out is just to kill it (though, considering it's twelve times your size and can breathe fire, might not be that easy); the more difficult way is to talk it out with the dragon; this may be only more difficult because the dragon is older and larger and smarter than you, and a battle of the wits is one of many situations where a Dragon of Old benefits from having a larger brain than you (it means it has plenty of room to think about gold and also clobbering humans).
Of course, talking to the dragon is dumb, according to every movie and fairy tale ever. Who talks to dragons? Who gets along with dragons? WHO CARES ABOUT THE DRAGON'S OPINION?
The dragons care about their opinion, thanks very much.
Monday, March 18, 2013
On writing things
I'm pretty sure I'm brain-dead for ideas right now, and it's not fun. I have to write a script for my First-Year course, as I mentioned, and five pages are due later this week.
The five pages aren't the problem. The problem lies in the fact that I'm not really sure where I want to go from those five pages. I have a general idea of where I want to go, but I keep wanting to change it and fix it and make it not suck as much as I sometimes think it does.
This, I believe, is what is called the 'creative process.' Or, rather, 'procrastinating on the creative process.' Once you get the idea, go for it, I'd say. If you stop, you start to doubt yourself.
So, as a piece of advice for all those who are undertaking any sort of major writing project in the immediate future: start, don't stop, and keep going at all costs. Your muse will thank you later. Even though your sleep cycle may be messed up (as mine currently is, thanks to a Greek test), and your writing might suck, it's easier to work on continuity and such if you have everything there.
On that note, I need to go to the library and study some Greek and write a play.
The five pages aren't the problem. The problem lies in the fact that I'm not really sure where I want to go from those five pages. I have a general idea of where I want to go, but I keep wanting to change it and fix it and make it not suck as much as I sometimes think it does.
This, I believe, is what is called the 'creative process.' Or, rather, 'procrastinating on the creative process.' Once you get the idea, go for it, I'd say. If you stop, you start to doubt yourself.
So, as a piece of advice for all those who are undertaking any sort of major writing project in the immediate future: start, don't stop, and keep going at all costs. Your muse will thank you later. Even though your sleep cycle may be messed up (as mine currently is, thanks to a Greek test), and your writing might suck, it's easier to work on continuity and such if you have everything there.
On that note, I need to go to the library and study some Greek and write a play.
Friday, March 15, 2013
On Wording
In my First Year course, we have to write plays as our final project. It's not supposed to be a long play, but it's supposed to have some sort of meaning.
That's not what I'm getting at, however.
What I'm getting at is that today in class, the drama professor went over wording: he emphasized that what you say is greatly affected by how you say it.
For example, if you have someone say, "I should probably pee," that means that their bladder is only half-full but they're in for a long stretch in a situation where relieving one's bladder is socially unacceptable. However, if they say, "I NEED TO PEE!" that means that they really shouldn't have drank that two-liter bottle of Ginger Ale half an hour ago. (drinking an entire two-liter bottle of ginger ale in one sitting is questionable under any circumstances, but that's irrelevant).
It goes beyond the situation of someone's bladder, though. How you phrase a monologue can imply whether Beka wants Fuze to be happy, or whether Beka thinks Fuze should be happy. What's the difference? If Beka wants Fuze to be happy, it can carry the implication that Fuze's unhappiness is a matter of great concern to Beka. If Beka thinks Fuze should be happy, it implies that Beka is rather concerned about Fuze's unhappiness, but it's also driving her up the wall. In short, it can define whether Beka wants Fuze happy for his own sake or so that he'll stop complaining to her and stop irritating her so much. It shows whether Beka is concerned more for Fuze's sanity or for her own.
That's not what I'm getting at, however.
What I'm getting at is that today in class, the drama professor went over wording: he emphasized that what you say is greatly affected by how you say it.
For example, if you have someone say, "I should probably pee," that means that their bladder is only half-full but they're in for a long stretch in a situation where relieving one's bladder is socially unacceptable. However, if they say, "I NEED TO PEE!" that means that they really shouldn't have drank that two-liter bottle of Ginger Ale half an hour ago. (drinking an entire two-liter bottle of ginger ale in one sitting is questionable under any circumstances, but that's irrelevant).
It goes beyond the situation of someone's bladder, though. How you phrase a monologue can imply whether Beka wants Fuze to be happy, or whether Beka thinks Fuze should be happy. What's the difference? If Beka wants Fuze to be happy, it can carry the implication that Fuze's unhappiness is a matter of great concern to Beka. If Beka thinks Fuze should be happy, it implies that Beka is rather concerned about Fuze's unhappiness, but it's also driving her up the wall. In short, it can define whether Beka wants Fuze happy for his own sake or so that he'll stop complaining to her and stop irritating her so much. It shows whether Beka is concerned more for Fuze's sanity or for her own.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
On Religion
As someone who knows that interfaith interaction, especially between Christians and Muslims, is super tense a lot of the time, I was kind of surprised to read this article. For those of you who decided not to follow the link, it's basically an article on a letter that Mohammad, founder of Islam, sent to an Orthodox Christian monastery; basically, the letter said that Mohammad would protect and honor the Christian's religious choice, and that this sentiment should be in effect forever.
It's kind of interesting, then, how much everything has changed. There are Christians who really don't like Muslims, and I know there are some Muslims who really don't like Christians. Strife between faiths is inevitable.
At the same time, I think Mohammad had it right - not only should we live and let live, we should live and help others live their choices. Letting others be is not enough - if persecution is going to happen, then there has to be someone that's going to fight back.
I think freedom of faith is an important part of US culture, even if some people don't realize it. There are some who think that the US was founded on Christian principles; Thomas Jefferson specifically said that it wasn't. Some say that the US is a Christian nation, which is complete bullcrap. There are so many faith communities in the US that calling it a Christian nation is almost insulting. Sure, there are a lot of Christians, and a lot of Christian denominations that people follow, but that doesn't mean that this is a Christian nation. That means that we have the freedom to practice Christianity - but also the freedom to practice Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Atheism, Agnosticism, or any sort of homebrew combination that explains what someone's individual view is on the status and existence of a higher power.
And, to follow Mohammad, we have an obligation to protect everyone's right to follow whatever faith they want or need to follow.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Snow! (and still classes)
Well, we have snow right now. See? (that bar thing in the middle is the frame of my window).
The most irritating thing about this (aside from the fact that it is MARCH and it is SNOWING) is that classes aren't officially canceled. I mean, I only had to go to one class, but I didn't get the email about the cancellation of the other two - that is, until I walked halfway across campus.
Still, those were the only three classes I had today. MORE TIME TO WORK ON HOMEWORK! (or procrastinate, write, or other things). There are also no clubs (most likely), so I'm probably going to get an extra hour out of that.
Anyway, have a good non-snow-day.
Still, those were the only three classes I had today. MORE TIME TO WORK ON HOMEWORK! (or procrastinate, write, or other things). There are also no clubs (most likely), so I'm probably going to get an extra hour out of that.
Anyway, have a good non-snow-day.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Singing and Greek Philosophy
The Greek language is one that will eternally frustrate me - not necessarily because verb conjugations and noun declensions are particularly difficult (though that is a majorly contributing factor) but because of the damn philosophy of it (also, I can no longer say or type 'philosophy' without thinking 'philo sophia' - 'I love wisdom'). It's quite interesting, don't get me wrong, and we had quite an interesting discussion this morning about it, but still - sometimes it's too philosophia-y for its own good.
For example, the Ancient Greeks had no past tense. The aorist tense is what we would normally translate as an -ed verb (I walked), but that is not necessarily the case. The difference between the aorist tense and the present tense is a one-time action versus a continual one - the difference between paying rent for one month one time and paying it several times over the course of the year.
And then there's the difference between the active voice and the middle voice (I walk versus I am walking). Many verbs don't get philosophia-y, but there are some that do. The verb for "I obey" is "I persuade" in the middle voice, for example; at its heart, "I obey" is really "I am persuaded." Though this sort of philosophy is kind of cool, it gets frustrating when translating stuff.
This afternoon/ evening, I also had the amazing pleasure to work with Deen Entsminger and the chamber singers from Belmont University (it's in Nashville). Let me say this: THE CHOIR IS F*CK*NG AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!! Their blend was awesome, and they do all of their pieces a capella - they're actually training to be able to find a pitch from a single note.
But Entsminger. That man is a 70-something-year-old ball of happy, excited, wonderful, positive energy; he's the sort of man who seems like he has a good thirty or forty years left, and he probably does, even though it'll put him past age 100. He dances when the music dances; and feels when the music feels. I'm pretty sure he might not actually have real emotions, but just feel through music. When he does feel, it's almost always some form of joy. He composed a piece for the R-MC Concert Choir a few years ago, and he worked with us today on it - and it was the most unbelievable thing I've experienced, possibly ever. There was such an energy in the room - you can't get it at just any time or just anywhere.
For example, the Ancient Greeks had no past tense. The aorist tense is what we would normally translate as an -ed verb (I walked), but that is not necessarily the case. The difference between the aorist tense and the present tense is a one-time action versus a continual one - the difference between paying rent for one month one time and paying it several times over the course of the year.
And then there's the difference between the active voice and the middle voice (I walk versus I am walking). Many verbs don't get philosophia-y, but there are some that do. The verb for "I obey" is "I persuade" in the middle voice, for example; at its heart, "I obey" is really "I am persuaded." Though this sort of philosophy is kind of cool, it gets frustrating when translating stuff.
This afternoon/ evening, I also had the amazing pleasure to work with Deen Entsminger and the chamber singers from Belmont University (it's in Nashville). Let me say this: THE CHOIR IS F*CK*NG AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!! Their blend was awesome, and they do all of their pieces a capella - they're actually training to be able to find a pitch from a single note.
But Entsminger. That man is a 70-something-year-old ball of happy, excited, wonderful, positive energy; he's the sort of man who seems like he has a good thirty or forty years left, and he probably does, even though it'll put him past age 100. He dances when the music dances; and feels when the music feels. I'm pretty sure he might not actually have real emotions, but just feel through music. When he does feel, it's almost always some form of joy. He composed a piece for the R-MC Concert Choir a few years ago, and he worked with us today on it - and it was the most unbelievable thing I've experienced, possibly ever. There was such an energy in the room - you can't get it at just any time or just anywhere.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
On Shakespeare
I have just finished reading The Taming of the Shrew, which is my least favorite of the Shakespearean plays that I have read so far. In Othello, I was really irritated by Emilia's death, sure, but at least Othello had a compelling (albeit depressing) plot. In Midsummer Night's Dream, even though the females acted stereotypically, everyone was being rather ridiculous, so the result was a lot of lunacy. In Romeo and Juliet, there are fights and a lot of tension; that's enough to keep me happy.
In The Taming of the Shrew, however, the entire plot is about how Bianca wants to get married and how Petruchio wants to tame Katherine, just because he wants to see if he can do it. And then he does. Then he shows off how he's tamed Katherine. THAT IRRITATES ME SO MUCH.
I think my irritation mainly stems from the taming of strong female characters. Bianca and Katherine make an interesting contrast, sure, but everyone likes Bianca because she's pretty and nice and sweet and submissive, whereas Kate frequently resorts to smacking people when she's mad at them. At least Kate dares to get mad, though. That can't be said for Bianca.
Additionally, I feel like it should have been either mostly Kate's story with a bit of Bianca's, or mostly Bianca's story with a little bit of Kate's. Not both, evenly split. That irritates me a lot, too.
Still, in all, I'm kind of glad it's happened. It's introduced me to a story I can rage at.
I mean, really. Why can't Katherine tame Petruchio? Why can't they tame each other? Why can't Petruchio get fed up with Katherine's crap and go off to hit on Bianca?
In The Taming of the Shrew, however, the entire plot is about how Bianca wants to get married and how Petruchio wants to tame Katherine, just because he wants to see if he can do it. And then he does. Then he shows off how he's tamed Katherine. THAT IRRITATES ME SO MUCH.
I think my irritation mainly stems from the taming of strong female characters. Bianca and Katherine make an interesting contrast, sure, but everyone likes Bianca because she's pretty and nice and sweet and submissive, whereas Kate frequently resorts to smacking people when she's mad at them. At least Kate dares to get mad, though. That can't be said for Bianca.
Additionally, I feel like it should have been either mostly Kate's story with a bit of Bianca's, or mostly Bianca's story with a little bit of Kate's. Not both, evenly split. That irritates me a lot, too.
Still, in all, I'm kind of glad it's happened. It's introduced me to a story I can rage at.
I mean, really. Why can't Katherine tame Petruchio? Why can't they tame each other? Why can't Petruchio get fed up with Katherine's crap and go off to hit on Bianca?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)