There's been some uniquely funny stuff up on the Honors Program's Introduction/Meet the Freshmen board this year. Like this:
Katherine (in her introduction): ...I also love playing the flute...
Allen: Hurray for flute! If you ever want some piano accompaniment for anything you may be playing, feel free to ask.
Augie: I'll be bringing a horn...
Hannah S.: I play a mean kazoo. Might compliment nicely.
Rebekah: Haha. May I join you on that kazoo action, Hannah? I guess I'm unusual here, but I don't play any musical instruments except the cd player. :-)
Allen: I'm sure there's some crazy composer at Hillsdale who could write something for our little ensemble. Two kazoos, a flute, a horn, and a piano. It would sound atrocious, but it'd be worth a good laugh or two.
Finn: I'll write it! It will be based on the lesser known proverbs of Nietzsche, with each movement having one of his proverbs as a title. It will be an ambitious work, an ironic epic that portrays the pitiful state of the pathologically soft democratic man.
The flutes, in their impotence, will reflect both the democratic man and women in general. The ones who must be trodden underfoot by the ascendancy of the rude, blaring horn--the ubermensch! The kazoos would be the unfortunate masses crushed by necessity under the mighty heel of progress, and the piano will represent the universe--tinkly, beautiful nonsense that serves only to further the climb of the superman beyond mere mortality, morality, and religious considerations.
It will be hailed as a work of genius.
Elsa: Better add a second flute, Finn. No way am I missing out on this one.
Marianne: I'm sorry, but there can be no work of genius, Finn, without a bassoon.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Thursday Next
In my three weeks or so away from the computer, I've done quite a bit of reading...here follows the first of a few SHORT reviews. (No more 10-part theses I can't finish!)
Out of the Thursday Next series (by Japser Fforde), I read Lost in a Good Book and The Well of Lost Plots. These are actually books 2 and 3 of the series, not books 1 and 2; I misremembered the titles when I was ordering them over interlibrary loan. But Lost in a Good Book has a solid introduction to the Thursday Next world, so I think I managed all right.
These are absurd, hilarious, enormously enjoyable books. And rather hard to explain. They are set in 1985 in an alternate universe. The Crimean War has been going on for 120 years. The gleefully ruthless Goliath Corporation has a monopoly on pretty much everything, including cloned dodos. The SpecOps organization keeps close tabs on tax fraud, time travel, pasta, and vampires. People are fanatical about classic literature. Thursday next works for SpecOps department 27, which prosecutes "literary fraud."
Thursday can also "book jump," and she thus winds up working for Jurisfiction. Essentially the SpecOps of the literary world, it polices the goings-on in published (and unpublished) books. Duties include eradicating grammasites, regulating the Character Exchange Program, preventing plot-tampering, and making sure the Pro-Catherine faction doesn't kill Heathcliff.
I liked book 2 better than book 3 -- it had a more varied and interesting plot, taking place in both the real world and the book-world. (WoLP is wholly centered in the book world, and some of the humor falls a bit flat after a while). But both were still highly fun to read. Some favorite parts included Thursday’s freelance work with SpecOps-17 (vampire/undead division) to pick up extra cash; Miss Havisham's addiction to horribly written romance novels; Miss Havisham; Thursday's father (who is a rouge time traveler, technically never existed, and keeps having to prevent Armageddon); Thursday’s uncle, Mycroft (an inventor; hides out in the Sherlock Holmes canon after he retires); the ending of Lord Jim; the decision to preserve the endangered "u" by eliminating its use in various words in a certain geographical location (labour/labor...); and the many uses of the footnoterphone.
Some possibly objectionable stuff...the main denomination is the 'Church of the Global Standard Deity'(something of a parody of everybody worshipping whatever sort of god they want to); Thursday’s older brother is in a homosexual relationship; some references to premarital sex Thursday had when she was a teenager. Might be some language, too. I'd rate it PG-13.
Out of the Thursday Next series (by Japser Fforde), I read Lost in a Good Book and The Well of Lost Plots. These are actually books 2 and 3 of the series, not books 1 and 2; I misremembered the titles when I was ordering them over interlibrary loan. But Lost in a Good Book has a solid introduction to the Thursday Next world, so I think I managed all right.
These are absurd, hilarious, enormously enjoyable books. And rather hard to explain. They are set in 1985 in an alternate universe. The Crimean War has been going on for 120 years. The gleefully ruthless Goliath Corporation has a monopoly on pretty much everything, including cloned dodos. The SpecOps organization keeps close tabs on tax fraud, time travel, pasta, and vampires. People are fanatical about classic literature. Thursday next works for SpecOps department 27, which prosecutes "literary fraud."
Thursday can also "book jump," and she thus winds up working for Jurisfiction. Essentially the SpecOps of the literary world, it polices the goings-on in published (and unpublished) books. Duties include eradicating grammasites, regulating the Character Exchange Program, preventing plot-tampering, and making sure the Pro-Catherine faction doesn't kill Heathcliff.
I liked book 2 better than book 3 -- it had a more varied and interesting plot, taking place in both the real world and the book-world. (WoLP is wholly centered in the book world, and some of the humor falls a bit flat after a while). But both were still highly fun to read. Some favorite parts included Thursday’s freelance work with SpecOps-17 (vampire/undead division) to pick up extra cash; Miss Havisham's addiction to horribly written romance novels; Miss Havisham; Thursday's father (who is a rouge time traveler, technically never existed, and keeps having to prevent Armageddon); Thursday’s uncle, Mycroft (an inventor; hides out in the Sherlock Holmes canon after he retires); the ending of Lord Jim; the decision to preserve the endangered "u" by eliminating its use in various words in a certain geographical location (labour/labor...); and the many uses of the footnoterphone.
Some possibly objectionable stuff...the main denomination is the 'Church of the Global Standard Deity'(something of a parody of everybody worshipping whatever sort of god they want to); Thursday’s older brother is in a homosexual relationship; some references to premarital sex Thursday had when she was a teenager. Might be some language, too. I'd rate it PG-13.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
A Rant on Boycotts
This has been a week of running into boycotts. First this article about the Southern Baptists and Disney, then this post here about Tom Cruise.
The resulting train of thought:
a) I never got to go to Disney World as a kid. Nutso boycott.
b) War of the Worlds looks like a rather stupid movie.
c) Minority Report was awesome -- remind me to buy it when I have money.
Boycotts are evidently a sometimes-efficacious way of raising support and awareness for a cause, so I can't categorically label them as stupid. Plus, after giving them a bit more thought, I can't really say that any boycott is stupid. The Almighty Dollar reigns in America -- it's one thing that just about everybody pays attention to, and cutting off a good chunk of its flow can go a long way toward affecting change. Connotations, symbols, and Bach Preludes got mixed up with my thoughts on that matter, too, but that might just be due to the fact that I scribbled notes on this while practicing piano. Bear with me.
I. Boycotts are stupid. I apparently have no sense of moral and civic duty.
I go to movies to see cool movies. Cool movies involve varying levels of the following:
a) cool acting
b) cool music
c) cool cinematography
d) cool ideas
e) cool plot
NOWHERE on here do you see "cool ideas and causes that the actors and/or film studio thinks and supports in real life."
Conversely, I avoid movies that are lousy. Lousy movies have varying levels of the following:
a) lousy acting
b) lousy music
c) lousy cinematography
d) lousily-put-together ideas
e) lousy plot
And just as I don't choose to watch movies because of any cool causes and ideas that the actors/filmmakers think and support in real life, I don't avoid movies because of the lousy causes and ideas that the actors/filmmakers support in real life. (And because I am sick of typing out all of those words, and because I like neologisms, someone's "Causes And Ideas Thought And Supported In Real Life" will hereafter be referred to as their caitasirli.)
When I go to see a movie, I am saying with my $7.00 "This is a cool movie -- make more movies like it." Or maybe "You do an awesome job acting! Keep it up!" Or maybe "Dude -- the cinematography in this was awesome!" Or, "Whoa! Awesome way of making me think about this subject!" I am not, in any way, trying to say, "Dude -- I support that personal crusade and ideology that you keep talking about on TV -- here's my way of donating some money to your righteous cause, man."
The same goes for music, and the same goes for books. When I purchase a product, I am making a statement about its inherent coolness or lousiness, not the coolness or lousiness of its makers' caitasirli.
If I wanted to support the guy's righteous cause, I'd make a donation.
Purchasing things on the basis of inherent coolness or lousiness, not the coolness or lousiness of its makers' caitasirli, has proved a quite freeing principle. I've successfully avoid lots of lousy books and music and films, and been able to watch/read/listen to a lot of cool ones.
I'm not paying good money to see Left Behind, because I'm pretty sure it's a lousy movie. The Veggie Tales movie was lousy. Most Christian music, apparently, has pretty lousy musicianship. In no way do I feel compelled to go buy that stuff just because the people making it have caitasirli I pretty much agree with. Or even because the caitasirli have infected the product.
::Searches for converse example...:: Oy. Ok. I like Babylon 5. It's cool. Does it bug me that the director is an atheist, and that some of those ideas infect the product, and that he probably donates stuff to causes I don't like? No way! I'm still buying it when I have money. I also think Phillip Pullman's books have awesome worldbuilding and "feel" and playing with ideas.
With actors in movies, you've got even more degrees of separation. Actor X donates money to missionary organizations and talks at Republican conventions. Umm...OK. Good for him? But if he's a lousy actor in lousy movies, I'm not going to watch them. Actor Y donates money to abortion clinics and talks at Democrat conventions. Boo! But if he's a cool actor in cool movies, I'm still going to see them.
I have no clue if the Dixie Chicks make lousy music or cool music. But my decision to listen to them wouldn't have anything to do with their political posturing. And Bach Preludes are awesome, regardless of whether he was a Republican/Democrat/Nazi/liberal/conservative/Christian/atheist.
Why does "me going to see War of the Worlds" = "me supporting scientology"? Or me going to Disney World = me supporting gay marriage?
This can honestly get pretty ridiculous. Look! I can play the game, too!
II. Boycotts are not stupid. The almighty dollar reigns. Informal social controls rule. This section is rather incoherent.
Money talks, apparently. If you want someone's caitasirli to change, cutting their income until they change their caitasirli to something more of your liking tends to be a good way to do that. If you want certain caitasirli to get less money, cutting off the income of people who support said caitasirli does wonders.
Making Cruise a liability to film companies by having lots of people boycott every film he's in will make film companies either say "shut up and stop being a liability" or "you're fired." Refusing to buy things from companies with discriminatory policies will make them rethink their policies.
Sometimes just plain disapproval works. But throwing monetary discomfort into the mix makes even people who don't care about disapproval listen.
If it's not OFFICIALLY illegal to say certain things and have certain policies, we can still make it unthinkable and impossible.
Here follows the "I-am-lazy-and-am-going-to-let-some-famous-dead-guy-be-dramatic-for-me" quote:
Ok...so my sister says that the democracy-master sounds like an evil mastermind giving a really lousy monologue.
"AND SO -- BWAHAHA! I SENTENCE YOU...TO LIVING DEATH!!!"
(hero scratches head) "So -- um...you're not killing me?"
"ARRHG! DIDN'T YOU HEAR WHAT I'VE SPENT THE PAST 23 MINUTES TRYING TO TELL YOU??!!"
But the appearance of informal social controls in the absence of formal ones (apologies if my terminology isn't exactly correct) is a pretty standard phenomenon. Or at least an unavoidable one, as far as I can tell.)
III. Symbols are important. And we're a culture of connotations.
It's rather unavoidable, however, to separate items from people from caitasirli. Especially when so many producers of goods don't want us to.
We have bake sales to raise money for causes. We have companies who say, "we donate 5 cents of every dollar spent on these shirts to cancer treatment!" We have advertisements saying, "You'll be cool like these people if you buy this (lousy) product." Or "You'll be a good citizen if you buy this (lousy) product." We show our coolness by wearing "cool" brands. We demonstrate our patriotism by buying and flying US flags. We show our support for AIDS research or US troops or any other conceivable cause by buying bumper stickers. Or by buying one of those "5 cents of every dollar" products.
We're TOLD to buy their products because of caitasirli. We buy stuff all the time not based on inherent value, but based upon the connotations and significance and caitasirli and connections it has. Woot for brand name logos splashed all over things. Woot for 10% of my purchase being donated to save baby woodchucks in Mongolia! Does it make it an inherently better shirt or cup? NO!!!
Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? Did this culture of connotations gives rise to boycotting, or did some genius realize that you could reverse the boycott effect to make money?
::headwall::
The resulting train of thought:
a) I never got to go to Disney World as a kid. Nutso boycott.
b) War of the Worlds looks like a rather stupid movie.
c) Minority Report was awesome -- remind me to buy it when I have money.
Boycotts are evidently a sometimes-efficacious way of raising support and awareness for a cause, so I can't categorically label them as stupid. Plus, after giving them a bit more thought, I can't really say that any boycott is stupid. The Almighty Dollar reigns in America -- it's one thing that just about everybody pays attention to, and cutting off a good chunk of its flow can go a long way toward affecting change. Connotations, symbols, and Bach Preludes got mixed up with my thoughts on that matter, too, but that might just be due to the fact that I scribbled notes on this while practicing piano. Bear with me.
I. Boycotts are stupid. I apparently have no sense of moral and civic duty.
I go to movies to see cool movies. Cool movies involve varying levels of the following:
a) cool acting
b) cool music
c) cool cinematography
d) cool ideas
e) cool plot
NOWHERE on here do you see "cool ideas and causes that the actors and/or film studio thinks and supports in real life."
Conversely, I avoid movies that are lousy. Lousy movies have varying levels of the following:
a) lousy acting
b) lousy music
c) lousy cinematography
d) lousily-put-together ideas
e) lousy plot
And just as I don't choose to watch movies because of any cool causes and ideas that the actors/filmmakers think and support in real life, I don't avoid movies because of the lousy causes and ideas that the actors/filmmakers support in real life. (And because I am sick of typing out all of those words, and because I like neologisms, someone's "Causes And Ideas Thought And Supported In Real Life" will hereafter be referred to as their caitasirli.)
When I go to see a movie, I am saying with my $7.00 "This is a cool movie -- make more movies like it." Or maybe "You do an awesome job acting! Keep it up!" Or maybe "Dude -- the cinematography in this was awesome!" Or, "Whoa! Awesome way of making me think about this subject!" I am not, in any way, trying to say, "Dude -- I support that personal crusade and ideology that you keep talking about on TV -- here's my way of donating some money to your righteous cause, man."
The same goes for music, and the same goes for books. When I purchase a product, I am making a statement about its inherent coolness or lousiness, not the coolness or lousiness of its makers' caitasirli.
If I wanted to support the guy's righteous cause, I'd make a donation.
Purchasing things on the basis of inherent coolness or lousiness, not the coolness or lousiness of its makers' caitasirli, has proved a quite freeing principle. I've successfully avoid lots of lousy books and music and films, and been able to watch/read/listen to a lot of cool ones.
I'm not paying good money to see Left Behind, because I'm pretty sure it's a lousy movie. The Veggie Tales movie was lousy. Most Christian music, apparently, has pretty lousy musicianship. In no way do I feel compelled to go buy that stuff just because the people making it have caitasirli I pretty much agree with. Or even because the caitasirli have infected the product.
::Searches for converse example...:: Oy. Ok. I like Babylon 5. It's cool. Does it bug me that the director is an atheist, and that some of those ideas infect the product, and that he probably donates stuff to causes I don't like? No way! I'm still buying it when I have money. I also think Phillip Pullman's books have awesome worldbuilding and "feel" and playing with ideas.
With actors in movies, you've got even more degrees of separation. Actor X donates money to missionary organizations and talks at Republican conventions. Umm...OK. Good for him? But if he's a lousy actor in lousy movies, I'm not going to watch them. Actor Y donates money to abortion clinics and talks at Democrat conventions. Boo! But if he's a cool actor in cool movies, I'm still going to see them.
I have no clue if the Dixie Chicks make lousy music or cool music. But my decision to listen to them wouldn't have anything to do with their political posturing. And Bach Preludes are awesome, regardless of whether he was a Republican/Democrat/Nazi/liberal/conservative/Christian/atheist.
Why does "me going to see War of the Worlds" = "me supporting scientology"? Or me going to Disney World = me supporting gay marriage?
This can honestly get pretty ridiculous. Look! I can play the game, too!
- Me buying a Steinway piano = me supporting the KKK! Woot! (Three of employees in the factories donate 1% of their income to them! ::gasp!::)
- Me buying a loaf of tasty Harvest Delight bread = me supporting misogyny! (um...Amish-grown wheat comprises 25% of the flour?)
- Me buying an SUV = me supporting Al-queada! Oh...wait... (though the makers were obviously a little fed up with absurd connections, too).
Money talks, apparently. If you want someone's caitasirli to change, cutting their income until they change their caitasirli to something more of your liking tends to be a good way to do that. If you want certain caitasirli to get less money, cutting off the income of people who support said caitasirli does wonders.
Making Cruise a liability to film companies by having lots of people boycott every film he's in will make film companies either say "shut up and stop being a liability" or "you're fired." Refusing to buy things from companies with discriminatory policies will make them rethink their policies.
Sometimes just plain disapproval works. But throwing monetary discomfort into the mix makes even people who don't care about disapproval listen.
If it's not OFFICIALLY illegal to say certain things and have certain policies, we can still make it unthinkable and impossible.
Here follows the "I-am-lazy-and-am-going-to-let-some-famous-dead-guy-be-dramatic-for-me" quote:
The authority of a king is physical and controls the actions of men without subduing their will. But the majority possesses a power that is physical and moral at the same time, which acts upon the will as much as upon the actions and represses not only all contest, but all controversy. [...]
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-fe, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.
Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments that tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of our age has perfected despotism itself, though it seemed to have nothing to learn. Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression; the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as the will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of one man the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; but the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: "You shall think as I do or you shall die"; but he says: "You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death."
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Bk. 1 Chapter 15)
Ok...so my sister says that the democracy-master sounds like an evil mastermind giving a really lousy monologue.
"AND SO -- BWAHAHA! I SENTENCE YOU...TO LIVING DEATH!!!"
(hero scratches head) "So -- um...you're not killing me?"
"ARRHG! DIDN'T YOU HEAR WHAT I'VE SPENT THE PAST 23 MINUTES TRYING TO TELL YOU??!!"
But the appearance of informal social controls in the absence of formal ones (apologies if my terminology isn't exactly correct) is a pretty standard phenomenon. Or at least an unavoidable one, as far as I can tell.)
III. Symbols are important. And we're a culture of connotations.
It's rather unavoidable, however, to separate items from people from caitasirli. Especially when so many producers of goods don't want us to.
We have bake sales to raise money for causes. We have companies who say, "we donate 5 cents of every dollar spent on these shirts to cancer treatment!" We have advertisements saying, "You'll be cool like these people if you buy this (lousy) product." Or "You'll be a good citizen if you buy this (lousy) product." We show our coolness by wearing "cool" brands. We demonstrate our patriotism by buying and flying US flags. We show our support for AIDS research or US troops or any other conceivable cause by buying bumper stickers. Or by buying one of those "5 cents of every dollar" products.
We're TOLD to buy their products because of caitasirli. We buy stuff all the time not based on inherent value, but based upon the connotations and significance and caitasirli and connections it has. Woot for brand name logos splashed all over things. Woot for 10% of my purchase being donated to save baby woodchucks in Mongolia! Does it make it an inherently better shirt or cup? NO!!!
Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? Did this culture of connotations gives rise to boycotting, or did some genius realize that you could reverse the boycott effect to make money?
::headwall::
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)