On archaeology

Sometimes I wish that my archaeology lab was a bit more reminiscent of Indiana Jones. I know how to use a whip (meaning that I learned one afternoon during lunch in 12th grade), and we're doing /actual/ archaeology - we pulled up a lot of brick fragments today. With my whip experience and my ability to dig and also to take very detailed notes, I'm sure I'm equipped to fight Nazis and traitorous Amazonian trail guides. Right?
Of course, there's a few types of archaeology. There's the type of archaeology where you dig a lot in a meter-square box in bright sun and get several 19th-century fragments of brick, glass, and nails. And then there's Indiana Jones. To be honest, I don't think neo-Nazis are much interested in bits of glass that were thrown out 200 years ago.
I have a feeling, though, that finding bits and pieces of brick are much more common than finding some groundbreaking new type of pottery or relic (see what I did there? Because archaeologists DIG... I've been in the sun too long). After all, everyone needed some kind of structure, and brick is very common.
I also have a feeling that the likelihood of pottery sherds is also dependent on where you're digging. We haven't found much pottery, because we're digging outside the kitchen house of a plantation. Not a lot of pottery being used, unless you count the China ceramics that one group has found. If we're excavating a place where the ancient culture is known for its pottery, people would probably be surprised NOT to find some pottery sherds. I wouldn't know what you'd supposed to find at the Agora, aside from a whole lot of marble. I suppose that's why they're still excavating it.

Being careful is also important. There was one man who was trying to find and excavate Troy - the city that sent 1000 ships after Helen. He wasn't careful. He thought he'd found Troy, though - at the very least, his team excavated SOMETHING. The city they found, though, was later dated to MUCH earlier than Helen's Troy was. While it's interesting to study the progression of how cities are built up, the dating of this Troy meant that Helen's Troy was literally thrown out with the rest of the dirt.

I guess the moral of these stories is this: don't make bad puns, Indiana Jones is not representative of all archaeologists, and don't throw out Helen's Troy because you think you're in the right layer.

On An Exegesis

I spent two and a half hours in the library today, doing preliminary source-searching and getting a bit of information for a paper/ presentation. I'm doing research for an exegesis - an in-depth analytical study of a certain passage (in this case, the Greek version of the death of Judas from the book of Matthew in the New Testament).

Also, it's not due for three weeks.

Usually I'm not so excited about paper topics. I will freely admit that I have started writing papers within 24 hours of the due date. Not every paper, but... some.

The abnormal thing about this is that I very rarely begin the researching process three weeks before the deadline. 10 days is usual for me, if it's a research-heavy topic. Three weeks is pushing the limit of what I consider a 'normal paper-writing time frame.'

So what's different about this paper?

LET'S MAKE A LIST!

1. Exegesis-writing is not to be messed with. I've never written an exegesis. My professor handed around a "general outline of basic exegesis-writing goals" in class. The outline had four sections, each with a few bullet points of Things You Should Say About This Section. The outline, with bullet points, easily fit on one side of the page. In my notes for the outline, I gave each section a full page in my notebook, for five pages total. I might need more pages for notes from my sources.
2. The page count is nerve-wracking. When the "exegesis-writing outline" was handed out, the professor didn't specify any minimum or maximum page count. He was very vague when other people asked about the page count; eventually, he said that if you write fewer than five pages, you're not giving the topic enough depth. This should not be a problem, especially if I'm doing two weeks of research and one week of writing. Given that I only got three books with a few pages of information among them, hitting the minimum page count may be worrying.
3. I've never written a paper on a language topic before. I'm surprised I made it this far, because many of my peers in modern languages have had to do papers in and on the language. I've done a few essays about Greek works, including how Xenophon's Anabasis fits into the historiographic tradition. I've never done a paper where I've had to take a close look at seven verses and concluded something about them.
4. 5 pages of analysis on 10 lines of prose is intimidating. Usually, I don't have to do a paper on so short a passage. HOWEVER, a good exegesis is comprised of a lot of research into linguistics, history, and culture of the time in which the passage was written. When was Matthew writing? Why did he include Judas's suicide? Why is he the only one who talks about Judas dying, except for Acts, which says he keeled over from internal disease? These are the things that I need to talk about.

On Consent

I found a fantastic consent metaphor here that I would like to share. CONSENT.

I'm modifying the terms so it's not total plagiarism, but the blogger cited above DID first come up with the metaphor. ALL CREDIT FOR THE ORIGINAL IDEA GOES TO THE LINK ABOVE. The only thing that I'm changing is that I will be talking in terms of coffee, but tea DOES make an appearance.

So sexual consent is like coffee. Say you're with someone and you say, "hey, do you want coffee?"

The other person could have a number of different responses to this question.

They could say, "OH MY GOD YES I NEED COFFEE. COFFEE IS GREAT. PLEASE MAKE ME SOME COFFEE."

Obviously, this person wants coffee. You should definitely make some coffee. DO THE THING.

They could say, "ummmmm maybe? Is it decaf? I can only drink decaf. If you have decaf, I'd love some coffee." In this case, you can make them decaf, and enjoy a pleasant span of time with the other person and the non-headache-y levels of caffeine.

If they ask for decaf, you can make a cup with full caffeine. HOWEVER, if you DO make them a cup with full caffeine, do not be offended if they hesitate to drink it, or if they only drink half. Do not force them to drink it. Do not open their mouth and pour it down their throat. You are making them uncomfortable. You are forcing a hot beverage down their throat, and also you will give them a massive headache later. They DEFINITELY told you that they could ONLY HANDLE DECAF. They did not want full caffeine.

If they take three sips of the full caffeine coffee, it's NOT safe to say, "Well, you had three sips and didn't get a headache, why can't you have the rest of the mug, too?" Maybe they're starting to get a headache already. Maybe suddenly they just really don't feel like the rest of their coffee. Maybe they just don't like the amount of milk you put in, and are just sipping at it to be polite. Don't push it. Again, don't pour it down their throat. You will only make the situation worse.

If someone says, "No coffee for me, thanks," then don't make them coffee. Or do make them coffee, but see above about not pouring it down their throat if they don't want it. They definitely just told you that they didn't want coffee. Maybe get them water instead. Maybe ask if they want cheese instead.

If they say, "No coffee, thanks, but if you have tea, I would love some tea," then you can either make them some tea, or you could make them coffee and then NOT GET OFFENDED ABOUT THE COFFEE WHEN THEY DEFINITELY ASKED FOR TEA. If you are morally opposed to tea-drinkers, that's something you should reflect on before inviting over tea-drinkers. Do not try to tell the person that they haven't had the right coffee blend yet. Espresso is not going to make a coffee-drinker out of a tea fanatic. A fantastic Peruvian blend of coffee is not going to immediately convert a tea-drinker. If they come to coffee in their own time, it's not because they were never really a tea-drinker; they probably will still love a good herbal blend. Maybe they just realized that they could appreciate both coffee and tea, and also sometimes Red Bull.

If someone is unconscious when you ask them about coffee, see above about not pouring it down their throat. That will make the situation worse, because they cannot swallow the coffee and may be prone to choking. If someone is unconscious, call an ambulance. Their safety is more important than you making them a cup of coffee.

If they say, "Sure, coffee sounds good," and then pass out in your living room while you're still boiling the water, then put the coffee DOWN. Would you rather have a healthy friend or a well-used cup of coffee?

If you have coffee with someone on a Sunday afternoon, you could then invite them the next Sunday afternoon for some more coffee. You should NOT force the coffee down their throat on Sunday night because they didn't want to have coffee with you. Either find a different friend to have coffee with, or don't have coffee, or just have coffee for one, or maybe try water.

Having coffee is definitely better if you have someone to have it with, but it's definitely worse if you drag the person over and force hot coffee down their throat. Again, that's rude, and you should NOT put that much effort into a simple cup of coffee.

On Scary Things

Sometimes I don't understand why I get scared of some things.

One time, I was on a run in a park and I nearly got run over by a deer. If you have never been charged at by a buck, I do not recommend it. It is terrifying. It also helps you with sprinting practice.

This is a logical thing to be afraid of. I have nothing against deer now, but if one is running RIGHT AT YOU, it's terrifying.

Somehow, writing things can also be super terrifying. I don't know why. My professor is there to grade me in order to help my writing improve. Critiques will help; even if my grade suffers, my writing will improve.

I don't have any research for this, but in my limited experience, running on trails results in more injury than getting a writing critique. Professors should not be threatening.

So what's the difference? I like my professor. She has decades of valuable experience to impart. What's the big deal?

The big deal, I think, is that writing critiques are more personal than a deer. I'm probably never going to see that deer again. It was three years ago; according to the internet's estimate of the average lifespan of a white-tailed deer, the adult animal that nearly ran me over has probably died already of natural causes. A professor is someone you have to interact with at least once a week. There's a greater chance that you would interact with the exact same professor multiple times a semester than you will interact with the exact same deer that nearly ran over you.

Running

I think it's safe to say that not many people find distance running particularly easy. Sure, certain distances are easier for certain people. A marathon runner is probably more qualified to do a 10-mile race than I am, because the longest I've ever gone is nine and a half.

I do think the challenge is necessary, though. There are always going to be marathon runners, and there are always going to be people who barely keep up. There will be people like my roommate, whose one-mile time is a minute and a half better than my one-mile time, because she's six inches taller and has longer legs. She doesn't do distance running, though, and I'm working on that. Neither is better or worse, it's just different.

Long-term challenges suck for everyone, but everyone has to learn how to find their stride. My one-mile time is around 10 minutes when I'm only doing 3 miles on the track. My time is around 11 minutes when the distance gets above 7 miles. It's endurance - a slower burn of energy over a longer period of time. Long-term challenges are similar - slower burns for longer outcomes. 

BOOK HAUL!

I love books. My reading list is long, and I really should not be adding to it when I have a bunch of other books I need to finish first.
My actions do not wish to comply. I only bought four books today, and only one of them is a sit-down-and-read-this-thoroughly book.

First, I bought Beowulf, an edition translated by Michael Alexander. This edition is part of a Penguin Classics series about "Classics that Inspired The Hobbit."
Beowulf is one of the oldest works in the English language, and was originally composed as a tale to be sung, as The Iliad and The Odyssey were. Like those works, Beowulf is, most simply, about a man who kicks mythical butt and takes mythical names, until he is defeated. A lot more than that happens, but you should go find the summary for yourself.
I studied Beowulf briefly in the first half of British Literary Traditions when I was a freshman. This was one of the first clues that I think really old things are really cool. I didn't read it very thoroughly then, so I'm going back to read it properly now. (My next goal is to read it in Old English, but that probably won't happen for many years. I need to learn Old English first.)

I also bought Grace's Guide: the art of pretending to be a grown-up by Grace Helbig. This is basically what it sounds like: a guidebook on How To Do Adult Things, but funnier and more relatable than a wikiHow article on How To Apply For A Job. I follow Grace on YouTube, and I've wanted to get this book since it came out last year. I've been trying to limit my book purchases, but now I regret not buying it sooner. It provides Actual Life Advice similar to what my mom always tells me, but it's written like someone closer to my age than my mom. (This is nothing against my mother. It's just that Grace Helbig is closer to me in age.)

Next up is Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and David King. This is the only one I haven't opened yet, but is probably the one I most need to open. I'm in the process of editing my 2011 NaNoWriMo novel, and I need all the help I can get in editing this and future novels.

Last, I got a jokey sort of book: Pengin Classics Mad Libs. If you don't know what Mad Libs are, you need to find your preferred search engine and look it up. Penguin Classics Mad Libs is just what it sounds: Mad Libs and Classic Literature. Excerpts from Pride and Prejudice, Romeo and Juliet, Jane Eyre, and The Portrait of Dorian Gray all make appearances. I'm excited.

On "Friends"

Over Spring Break, I utilized my free month of Netflix to watch "Friends." I didn't necessarily binge-watch it; I got to about halfway through the second season by the time I came back to school.

"Friends" is sort of interesting as a culture study to me; I am only five months older than the show is (My birthday is in April, and the show aired in September), but it was cancelled in 2004, when I was in 4th grade. Scattered through middle school are vague memories that yes, "Friends" is a thing that happened. I never saw an episode until my senior year of high school, when it was on while my friends and I were hanging out in our hotel room during the music trip. I didn't know the context of the episodes, but it's a sitcom that can be understood out of context. (Having seen episodes back-to-back, however, I think it can be understood out of context, but enjoyed as a marathon, when everything is still linear.) It was one of those shows that everyone knew about, but I doubt I'm the only one my age who is only just discovering the show properly.

The culture study is interesting because of how much has changed since the show aired. In "The One Where No One's Ready" (aired at the start of Season 3), Monica repeatedly checks the answering machine for her ex-boyfriend to call, and hacks into his answering machine to make sure she doesn't sound stupid when she leaves a message. Most kids these days probably won't have landlines to do this, so they probably have less of a clue what's going on. t's also a much bigger breach of privacy if someone can remotely hack into someone's answering machine, mostly because "answering machine" is now "voicemail" and "voicemail" is probably just "texting." Personally, I had no idea that you could remotely access answering machines if you knew the right codes.

There are also more subtle things that can still be considered issues, but hopefully less so. In the first season, Ross's ex-wife Carol is pregnant with his child; Carol wants the baby's last name to be hyphenated between hers and her (female) partner's, while Ross wants the baby to have his last name (or triple-hyphenate). Though this involves a funny exchange, it also raises a few questions: what should be the father's role in the naming process, if he and the baby's mother are no longer in a committed relationship?