Out of all the ridiculous trends to spring forth and take the earth by storm, hashtags are one of my least favorite. Don't get me wrong. There is a time and a place for hashtags, and we'll cover that in this blog post, but the vast majority are completely ridiculous. Take this made-up example of typical hashtag (ab)use: "I can't sleep!!! #theresaspiderundermybed" With that in mind, let's examine what is so wrong about this.
Why did hashtags even come about in the first place? The hashtag is a way to make content easily searchable. It is essentially identifying a keyword that connects it with related content so that one can search for that keyword and find numerous posts that connect with that same idea. It allows us as human beings to fill 2 needs--to find belonging, because we have joined ourselves to all the others who have posted on the same subject, as well as to have our voice be heard, in that we have now contributed our two cents worth. This isn't necessarily evil.
Now, however, things have gotten out of hand. Hashtags are meant to connect your content to others' as well as to make it easily searchable--and therefore hashtags should be used things that will be searched. In our example above, the person has for some reason decided to take an entire phrase and turn it into a hashtag, possibly thinking, as one of my roommates said, that it's a concise way to express your thoughts and opinions. Internet, let me educate you: #theresaspiderundermybed is less, not more, concise than "There's a spider under my bed." English writing has evolved with word breaks. That's the way we write. It's not the way the whole world writes, but it is the way we write in English. Therefore, itisharderforanenglishreadertoreadsomethingwithnocapitalizationandnospaces than to read a normal sentence that contains the normal breaks. Getting rid of spaces just makes your thought less accessible--exactly the opposite of what hashtags are intended to do.
What's more, the person has created a hashtag out of thin air. He or she has arbitrarily put his or her thought into a hashtag. Let me tell you something: no one is ever going to search for theresaspiderundermybed. Really. And if they do, it likely won't be to see your thought that you can't sleep. If you want to use #sharegoodness, go right ahead. That's a recognizable trend. Your thought actually connects and adds to the collection (as long as it actually is a good thing, of course) and therefor makes sense. But creating a completely new and arbitrary hashtag is pointless--and it doesn't get you any more internet points if you add a dozen of them. It actually gets you more internet points to add one legitimate hashtag than a dozen random phrases with a pound sign in front.
And if that weren't bad enough, then we decided to move hashtags beyond the internet. We started using them in speech--newsflash people: your spoken words aren't, as of yet, searchable. Using a hashtag in spoken language just identifies you as an internet junkie. Listen to yourselves, people. Saying hashtag in front of what you are going to say only wastes your breath. It doesn't make you cool, hip, or trendy. It is only trendy on the internet, because trends are exactly what hashtags are about on the internet. Last week, Brigham Young University's campus newspaper, The Universe, had printed hashtags on teasers to articles listed at the top of the front page. I have lost what respect I had for the paper.
Most of all humans recognize that even good things become detrimental when taken to the extreme. Please, let us wake up and realize that hashtags have become that way, and stop the madness.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
The Hobbit
Before reading this post, please note the following disclaimer: I haven't, as of writing, actually seen any of the three movies in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. This is based on what I've gleaned from the chatter, both on the interwebs and personal communication.
The Hobbit trilogy is not the abomination everyone makes it out to be.
Now, hear me out. Those of you who know me well realize that I'm a staunch advocate of books over their derivative film adaptations. Books allow our imagination to see things however we want to based on the limited description provided by the author. Our minds are unfettered--for the most part--by visual and audio representations of the textual work. Which means that we get to take part in the creative experience with the author. Movies we just experience what the creators give to us, because the experience is at once visual and auditory. Which means that for the creative mind, a book will always be superior to a movie. It was true for the Lord of the Rings movies. They are still the top three movies on my list--which probably needs some updating, but not a lot, since I've been home--but they aren't as good as the books. It is also very true for the Hobbit movies, I'm sure.
However, there is a key difference that is apparent between the book and the movies. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is fun-story fantasy. The Hobbit by Peter Jackson is epic fantasy. (If you're confused, see here) Everyone complains about how Peter Jackson put all these different things that aren't in the book into the movies. There's a lot to be said about that. It's quite true. A lot of that stuff isn't in the books at all. That doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't things that could have happened. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is a bedtime story--not to be told in one sitting, but a bedtime story. As you read the novel, it becomes apparent that is so. As such, there are all kinds of holes and details that could be fleshed out--but this is fun-story fantasy so there's no need to. It in fact doesn't deserve to all be written in--that's part of what keeps it at the fun-story level. Peter Jackson took the liberty of fleshing out the story and turning it into an epic. Does that mean every addition is OK? Not necessarily. I'm sure I'll have my fair share of complaints when I see the movies. But I can now approach them with the right mind-set.
If you are looking to the trilogy of movies as representations of the book, you will come away sorely disappointed. Simply the fact that it's a trilogy of full-length films can tell you that. However, if you can separate them from each other a little bit and recognize that the films are a epic fantasy rendering of the fun-story fantasy novel, the changes and additions begin to make sense.
The Hobbit trilogy is not the abomination everyone makes it out to be.
Now, hear me out. Those of you who know me well realize that I'm a staunch advocate of books over their derivative film adaptations. Books allow our imagination to see things however we want to based on the limited description provided by the author. Our minds are unfettered--for the most part--by visual and audio representations of the textual work. Which means that we get to take part in the creative experience with the author. Movies we just experience what the creators give to us, because the experience is at once visual and auditory. Which means that for the creative mind, a book will always be superior to a movie. It was true for the Lord of the Rings movies. They are still the top three movies on my list--which probably needs some updating, but not a lot, since I've been home--but they aren't as good as the books. It is also very true for the Hobbit movies, I'm sure.
However, there is a key difference that is apparent between the book and the movies. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is fun-story fantasy. The Hobbit by Peter Jackson is epic fantasy. (If you're confused, see here) Everyone complains about how Peter Jackson put all these different things that aren't in the book into the movies. There's a lot to be said about that. It's quite true. A lot of that stuff isn't in the books at all. That doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't things that could have happened. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is a bedtime story--not to be told in one sitting, but a bedtime story. As you read the novel, it becomes apparent that is so. As such, there are all kinds of holes and details that could be fleshed out--but this is fun-story fantasy so there's no need to. It in fact doesn't deserve to all be written in--that's part of what keeps it at the fun-story level. Peter Jackson took the liberty of fleshing out the story and turning it into an epic. Does that mean every addition is OK? Not necessarily. I'm sure I'll have my fair share of complaints when I see the movies. But I can now approach them with the right mind-set.
If you are looking to the trilogy of movies as representations of the book, you will come away sorely disappointed. Simply the fact that it's a trilogy of full-length films can tell you that. However, if you can separate them from each other a little bit and recognize that the films are a epic fantasy rendering of the fun-story fantasy novel, the changes and additions begin to make sense.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Exciting, Bold New Colors!
There's some changes that need to be made, here. If I'm going to start blogging again--due to the idea of starting a blogging network that includes these fine gentlemen as the ringleaders--then obviously some updates need to happen. Since it's inception, I've never heard anything but complaints about the visual aspect of my blog. Alright, fair enough. Thanks to my good friend, and our--as far as I know--only regular reader outside of the United States, ឡេង ធារី, we've updated our style. She wanted a change in color scheme. Following this blog's tradition of bowing to reader requests (that's how it got started in the first place) I've decided to update it. Feeling that would not be fair to the many other readers who have before suggested I change the blog, I decided we'd make a little bit of a game out of it. Here's how this is going to work:
We're going to do a color scheme of the month. This color scheme will be decided by you, the readers. Towards the end of every month, a short post will come out, and I will indicate to you to post color scheme suggestions in the comments. Assuming we actually have any readers that put suggestions in, on the first day of the month, a poll will be put up as to which color scheme should be adopted for the following month, which readers will then vote on. That poll will close on the same day that I post to start receiving color scheme ideas. Beginning the new month, whichever scheme has the most votes on the poll will be put up as the color scheme for the blog.
Any questions? Feel free to ask. Oh, and we'll go ahead and start accepting ideas for the new color scheme now. Put them in the comments below!
We're going to do a color scheme of the month. This color scheme will be decided by you, the readers. Towards the end of every month, a short post will come out, and I will indicate to you to post color scheme suggestions in the comments. Assuming we actually have any readers that put suggestions in, on the first day of the month, a poll will be put up as to which color scheme should be adopted for the following month, which readers will then vote on. That poll will close on the same day that I post to start receiving color scheme ideas. Beginning the new month, whichever scheme has the most votes on the poll will be put up as the color scheme for the blog.
Any questions? Feel free to ask. Oh, and we'll go ahead and start accepting ideas for the new color scheme now. Put them in the comments below!
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Where's the Argument?
You (Americans) probably know, and may have forgotten from your consciousness by now, about the Supreme Court decision to ignore the cases made by several states concerning laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In a sense, they just dismissed what is probably currently the largest social policy issue of our day as not being worth their time. This infuriated me. I couldn't believe how they could just dismiss the case. You won't even give the states the right to defend themselves in this--a foundational social policy matter?
I guess the biggest think that irks me about it is that I don't even see where any sound argument in support of gay marriage comes from. The only thing I could think of that would make a law preventing gays from marrying would be the 14th amendment, in particular the 1st section:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I will refer you to the religious argument, since that is a major part of my belief on the subject. Yes, I do allow my religious views to shape my political views. In The Family, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, marriage is definitively defined as between a man and a woman. It goes on to describe several other details about how family should be run. I won't go into all those details here, but I invite you (even you readers who are members of the church) to read through this Proclamation to the World here.
Above and beyond that, however, is the very root of why the government is involved in marriage as a civil institution in the first place. Ryan Anderson articulates this better than I can, so I'll turn you to this video. It is an hour long, though, and should be followed up with the 30 minute Q&A session that follows--understanding that you don't necessarily have an hour and a half at your disposal, I'll do my best to summarize. Anderson talks about the reason government is invested in marriage--basically, why should the government care about tracking and legalizing marriages? Government's interest in marriage, he argues, comes from wanting to support the most basic and vital social unit. Government doesn't care about contracts between consenting adults to be exclusive sexual partners. Rather, government cares about supporting the best institution that allows for procreation, and the best environment for helping the children to become responsible adults. That institution is marriage--between a man and a woman. Married couples get federal benefits, not because they've agreed to be sexually exclusive partners, but because a married couple has been proven by social science to be the best environment for bearing and raising children. He also debunks the myth that a gay or lesbian couple is just as effective. The government has no reason to want to grant the same benefits to a gay or lesbian couple as a marriage.
What I've been trying to figure out now, is where's the argument? What support does any argument for laws banning gay marriage have? I haven't been able to figure it out.
I guess the biggest think that irks me about it is that I don't even see where any sound argument in support of gay marriage comes from. The only thing I could think of that would make a law preventing gays from marrying would be the 14th amendment, in particular the 1st section:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Let's examine where this would supposedly come into the debate over gay marriage. My assumption is that they are referring to the final clause "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The argument then being that a law that makes gay marriage illegal denies gay persons equal protection of the laws. This is all just my guesswork, since I haven't actually heard the arguments in court. But it's kind of the general idea I've heard floated before. If any of you have any insight on what the actual argument is, I'd love to hear it. Because this version of the argument is absolutely indefensible.
Traditional marriage laws afford perfectly equal protection. Anyone who chooses to, as long as they are consenting adults, can get married. Nothing is stopping them. Homosexuals can get married. Nothing in a law that prevents people of the same sex getting married to each other denies any person the right to get married. No part of the 14th amendment is violated. And as far as I can see, no other part of the Constitution is either. So what right does any court of America have to declare such a law unconstitutional?
I could see some sort of argument presented in which they claim that the definition of marriage is ambiguous, and therefore have some sort of ground to argue the equal protection clause. It's a narrow ground at best, and it disappears when we look at the history of this debate. In 2008, the voters in the State of California chose to vote in favor of an amendment to their state constitution that cleared up any ambiguity by stating that marriage could only happen between a man and a woman. The courts declared this amendment unconstitutional--with such an amendment, the only way it could be declared unlawful is if it directly violated the federal constitution. Trusting Wikipedia on this subject, the Supreme Court again dismissed the case when it was appealed to its level--at least this time based on the fact that the proponents had no legal right to appeal in federal court rather than just dismissing the case altogether. The argument that it violates equal protection clauses is only based in a flawed understanding, then, of what marriage is.
I will refer you to the religious argument, since that is a major part of my belief on the subject. Yes, I do allow my religious views to shape my political views. In The Family, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, marriage is definitively defined as between a man and a woman. It goes on to describe several other details about how family should be run. I won't go into all those details here, but I invite you (even you readers who are members of the church) to read through this Proclamation to the World here.
Above and beyond that, however, is the very root of why the government is involved in marriage as a civil institution in the first place. Ryan Anderson articulates this better than I can, so I'll turn you to this video. It is an hour long, though, and should be followed up with the 30 minute Q&A session that follows--understanding that you don't necessarily have an hour and a half at your disposal, I'll do my best to summarize. Anderson talks about the reason government is invested in marriage--basically, why should the government care about tracking and legalizing marriages? Government's interest in marriage, he argues, comes from wanting to support the most basic and vital social unit. Government doesn't care about contracts between consenting adults to be exclusive sexual partners. Rather, government cares about supporting the best institution that allows for procreation, and the best environment for helping the children to become responsible adults. That institution is marriage--between a man and a woman. Married couples get federal benefits, not because they've agreed to be sexually exclusive partners, but because a married couple has been proven by social science to be the best environment for bearing and raising children. He also debunks the myth that a gay or lesbian couple is just as effective. The government has no reason to want to grant the same benefits to a gay or lesbian couple as a marriage.
What I've been trying to figure out now, is where's the argument? What support does any argument for laws banning gay marriage have? I haven't been able to figure it out.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Welcome Back!
When last we wrote on this here blog, I was about to head out for my mission. I didn't know if this blog would continue to get posted on. I never got around to having my mom post up my mission letters on the blog--she probably would have forgotten how to do it anyway, bless her heart. Anyway, I actually left, fully intending to never bring this back up again--which is why I haven't bothered to post in the last 3 months since I've been home. But one thing has led to another, and here I am, back into the blogosphere.
The interesting thing about being back, though, is that I don't really want to be back. And by that, I don't mean blogging again; I don't want to be home from my mission. I know that my mission is over. I can acknowledge the fact that it is divinely appointed to be over, that there is a lot that I need to be doing here. I even love what I'm doing here at home--working at the MTC, back in school studying neuroscience--but that does little to fight off this hole that keeps looming of being finished with my mission. The difficulty of transition to RM has been different for me than from what I had heard--people talk about companion withdrawals, awkwardness around girls, being "normal" instead of talking to everyone you see about the gospel. Those things haven't been a problem for me (I was always awkward around girls, so you can't hold that one against me). I've gotten over that stuff pretty quick. But I haven't, not in the slightest bit, gotten over Cambodia.
For 21 months (3 were spent in the MTC), I lived in a foreign country. I lived in a place that was very different from me in all kinds of ways, a culture and a lifestyle completely different from my own. And I fell absolutely, completely, 100% in love. Words just simply can't express it. I'll try, but I'll fail miserably. There is no other way to say it than just pure, abiding love. I'm taking a class that is designed for helping teachers at the MTC understand how language teaching goes on in that institution compared to what the academic field prescribes. During the first class, our teacher asked us to turn to each other and truly share about who we are--not just the "what's your name, where are you from, what's your major" fluff we usually share on first meeting new peers. During that time, I realized something: there's nothing for which I am more passionate than Cambodia. As I shared, I had to keep my emotions in check. I quickly moved on to sharing about my major, and that was when I realized it. I love neuroscience. It truly is my passion--that's why I'm planning on making a career out of it. But even neuroscience takes 2nd chair to Cambodia. It's not even a question.
My roommates here at college are busy pursuing dating--as they should be. They are return missionaries. Their first priority should be finding an eternal companion. But as they talk about which girls they are finding interest in and discuss going on dates (and actually going on dates), I am left wondering. Who is there to love that can take the place of an entire country?
The interesting thing about being back, though, is that I don't really want to be back. And by that, I don't mean blogging again; I don't want to be home from my mission. I know that my mission is over. I can acknowledge the fact that it is divinely appointed to be over, that there is a lot that I need to be doing here. I even love what I'm doing here at home--working at the MTC, back in school studying neuroscience--but that does little to fight off this hole that keeps looming of being finished with my mission. The difficulty of transition to RM has been different for me than from what I had heard--people talk about companion withdrawals, awkwardness around girls, being "normal" instead of talking to everyone you see about the gospel. Those things haven't been a problem for me (I was always awkward around girls, so you can't hold that one against me). I've gotten over that stuff pretty quick. But I haven't, not in the slightest bit, gotten over Cambodia.
For 21 months (3 were spent in the MTC), I lived in a foreign country. I lived in a place that was very different from me in all kinds of ways, a culture and a lifestyle completely different from my own. And I fell absolutely, completely, 100% in love. Words just simply can't express it. I'll try, but I'll fail miserably. There is no other way to say it than just pure, abiding love. I'm taking a class that is designed for helping teachers at the MTC understand how language teaching goes on in that institution compared to what the academic field prescribes. During the first class, our teacher asked us to turn to each other and truly share about who we are--not just the "what's your name, where are you from, what's your major" fluff we usually share on first meeting new peers. During that time, I realized something: there's nothing for which I am more passionate than Cambodia. As I shared, I had to keep my emotions in check. I quickly moved on to sharing about my major, and that was when I realized it. I love neuroscience. It truly is my passion--that's why I'm planning on making a career out of it. But even neuroscience takes 2nd chair to Cambodia. It's not even a question.
My roommates here at college are busy pursuing dating--as they should be. They are return missionaries. Their first priority should be finding an eternal companion. But as they talk about which girls they are finding interest in and discuss going on dates (and actually going on dates), I am left wondering. Who is there to love that can take the place of an entire country?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Fairy Tales
We've all heard them since we were kids. They all follow the same basic plot: "Once upon a time....They lived happily ever after. The end." The stuff in the middle changes, but it's all really basically the same. Especially if you limit it to just the fairy tales about princesses. Then they really are almost exactly the same story. Snow White may have had her seven dwarfs and Sleeping Beauty her 3 fairies, but they boil down to the same idea. As we grow up, we realize how fantastic the elements of the stories are, but instead of discarding them we cling to these stories. These fairy tales we've been told since our childhood through various media stick with us. They can, in fact, become a source of reassurance and comfort to us. The stories are simple and one-dimensional. There are good guys, and there are bad guys. There aren't any gray areas. In the end, the good guys win, and the bad guys lose--as it seems should always be the case in life. These stories offer hope of a better world, a better life. Real life is so much more complex than in the stories, and the lives the characters in the stories live just seem so much more ideal than our own. We look to these stories for hope--someday we too may slay the dragon and have peace and harmony throughout the kingdom.
And yet, sometimes I find these stories bring me despair. For who is it that is always marrying the princess and living happily ever after? It's Prince Charming, of course. Good for him. Unfortunately, I've never felt too much like a Prince Charming. The prince aspect I can sometimes manage to fit to myself, but never the Charming. First off, my last name is Sorensen, not Charming. But mostly, the actual adjective doesn't really fit me. While I do have a way with words, it never has been a charming way. More a dry and sarcastic way. My looks certainly aren't charming. I've never considered myself attractive enough or suave enough to be a Prince Charming. And if I'm not Prince Charming, what hope have I of ever marrying one of these princesses that are all around me? I might as well give up the quest.
In those times, however, it is important to remember those differences I brushed aside in the introductory paragraph. You see, it isn't always Prince Charming who rides in and saves the day. In some of the stories, it's just a knight in shining armor. He still gets to marry the princess and live happily ever after. Being a knight in shining armor instead of Prince Charming doesn't really make all that much of a difference. It is perfectly alright to be a knight in shining armor, which is a part I can see myself playing, and have been able to for awhile now (if I had access to it, I would post here a picture of me as a young 5-year-old in my knight in shining armor costume). Being a knight in shining armor is still not an automatic task, but it is much more achievable than being a Prince Charming.
So, for the boys that read this: remember that you don't have to be a Prince Charming to win the heart of the princess. You still can live happily ever after by being a knight in shining armor. Don't wallow away in misery because you weren't born heir to the Charming throne. Live the best life that you can live; live it honorably, and in kindness and service to those around you. Someday, you'll find a princess and marry her.
In your turn, girls: don't be so caught up in looking for Prince Charming that you miss the knight in shining armor. You are all princesses, and you do deserve to live happily ever after, but maybe it won't be with Prince Charming.
As a last note, realize that everything I've said about guys should also be followed by girls, and vice versa. I realize that it isn't just girls always looking for the Charming ones and missing out on other opportunities. Guys do it as much, if not more. And it isn't just guys who get downtrodden feeling they have to be Charming; girls have that problem too. I am, however, a guy, and so this has been written from the perspective of a guy.
And yet, sometimes I find these stories bring me despair. For who is it that is always marrying the princess and living happily ever after? It's Prince Charming, of course. Good for him. Unfortunately, I've never felt too much like a Prince Charming. The prince aspect I can sometimes manage to fit to myself, but never the Charming. First off, my last name is Sorensen, not Charming. But mostly, the actual adjective doesn't really fit me. While I do have a way with words, it never has been a charming way. More a dry and sarcastic way. My looks certainly aren't charming. I've never considered myself attractive enough or suave enough to be a Prince Charming. And if I'm not Prince Charming, what hope have I of ever marrying one of these princesses that are all around me? I might as well give up the quest.
In those times, however, it is important to remember those differences I brushed aside in the introductory paragraph. You see, it isn't always Prince Charming who rides in and saves the day. In some of the stories, it's just a knight in shining armor. He still gets to marry the princess and live happily ever after. Being a knight in shining armor instead of Prince Charming doesn't really make all that much of a difference. It is perfectly alright to be a knight in shining armor, which is a part I can see myself playing, and have been able to for awhile now (if I had access to it, I would post here a picture of me as a young 5-year-old in my knight in shining armor costume). Being a knight in shining armor is still not an automatic task, but it is much more achievable than being a Prince Charming.
So, for the boys that read this: remember that you don't have to be a Prince Charming to win the heart of the princess. You still can live happily ever after by being a knight in shining armor. Don't wallow away in misery because you weren't born heir to the Charming throne. Live the best life that you can live; live it honorably, and in kindness and service to those around you. Someday, you'll find a princess and marry her.
In your turn, girls: don't be so caught up in looking for Prince Charming that you miss the knight in shining armor. You are all princesses, and you do deserve to live happily ever after, but maybe it won't be with Prince Charming.
As a last note, realize that everything I've said about guys should also be followed by girls, and vice versa. I realize that it isn't just girls always looking for the Charming ones and missing out on other opportunities. Guys do it as much, if not more. And it isn't just guys who get downtrodden feeling they have to be Charming; girls have that problem too. I am, however, a guy, and so this has been written from the perspective of a guy.
Monday, March 26, 2012
What if Dave Barry Was A _______?
So kind of a cop-out post today. I haven't been able to post for a while, since my laptop's hard drive died and I really don't like using the library computers enough to write blog posts on them. However, I feel obligated to give you something, and this popped into my head. It was a term project for a class I took last semester. Meaning I wrote it in less than a day. It really isn't that great, but good enough that I felt it deserved a larger audience than just that professor.
Dave Barry is a now-retired weekly humor columnist for the Miami Herald. He took elements from daily life in Miami, as well as general American society. Such writings are not uncommon in contemporary society. We don’t, however, have many documents that portray humor-based writing from ancient civilizations. Outside of Greek comedies, not much humor is to be found. I think it unlikely that people didn’t satirize elements of their societies, and so the purpose of this paper is to try and recreate what ancient humor columnists might have made fun of. Due to the lack of concrete evidence about how exactly life was like and the relatively large gaps in between historical details, some liberty has been taken in putting together elements of history that were not actually contemporary to each other, but no doubt the individual instances would have been treated much the same. With that introduction:
What if Dave Barry Was an Egyptian?
My wife and I recently decided to look into moving. Apparently, sharing the bed with crocodiles that crawl up from the river is getting to be too much for her, especially with a kid on the way. I suspect it’s largely just one of those weird pregnancy cravings, but I’m willing to humor her, which is why the other day we took a trip up the Nile to see what we could find.
The first city we stopped in was actually quite nice. A thriving economy, good access to administrative services, plenty of flood-plain--it had everything you’d want in a capital city. We got around talking to the residents, and it turns out there were actually plenty of job openings to be found. Sounds like they’ve got some big construction project going on that they need a lot of laborers. Unfortunately, to get the job, you have to be a slave, and that doesn’t exactly feed the family. Besides, I was told they were using some sort of wooden framework to try and build the huge pyramid that the king wants. I had to laugh at that. How on earth could wood hold the weight of that much rock? Even kids playing in the sand know that it’s easier to build a ramp than to lift something straight up. You have to wonder where they come up with these fantastic ideas.
Next, we came to a decent city, and they actually had a really good plot of land for sale. Far enough back from the river to not get washed away, but close enough to have a nice backyard pool during the floods. I was all for it, but my wife was a little leery of the hippopotamuses out in the river. I told her they were perfectly safe, and even went out to pet one to demonstrate it to her. I don’t think my running back screaming like a girl after it began to charge did anything to reassure her. Of course, I wasn’t convinced to leave until I met the people next door. The father of the family was actually a really good guy, despite being a priest. His kid, though, was absolutely out there. He kept claiming that some god had talked to him and told him that he shouldn’t be sacrificed. As if. What would the gods do without young innocent hearts to munch on? Boy was he loony. I couldn’t live next to him.
So, the search for a new house goes on. If you have any openings in your area, let me know. Right now I have to go feed the crocodiles so they stop gnawing on my legs.
What if Dave Barry Was an Athenian?
So if you’ve been awake at all the last week, you’ve probably heard about the trial of Socrates. His student Plato’s kind of made a big deal about it, going as far as to record an account of the trial and certain events leading up to it. One conversation he records between Socrates and Euthyphro and how Socrates questions Euthyphro to try and understand the definition for piety. Euthyphro, by the way, utterly failed at proving himself a religious expert. Everybody knows that in order to be a religious expert you have to say “no” to logic.
The trial ended today. By a mere 30 votes, Socrates was sentenced to death. So few votes can be the turning point to cut a thread short. Of course, even worse than that, Socrates was only 30 votes away from being fed free the rest of his life. How could they even consider that? Don’t these people realize what would happen as a result? All the free food I get would be split in half between us, and then where would we be as a society? It wasn’t 30 votes between life and death; it was 30 votes for one man to die so that an entire civilization (read that: me) could live.
Word is, though, that Plato plans to continue in Socrates’s work. He’s even planning on forming a school so people can be formally instructed instead of just following a guy around like a dog chasing a squirrel. It’s kind of a scary thought. Instead of one bratty old man roaming free, we’ll have a whole generation of bratty youngsters running around. Now they’ll start questioning things like whether or not we actually need humor columnists, and what good that Parthenon is doing standing empty all the time. Next thing you know, and we’ll be back to the days of barbarism and tyranny. We need to stand up and take a stand against this sort of behavior. Well, you do. I have to go pick up my shipment of food.
What if Dave Barry Was a Roman?
Last week, I decided to take the wife and kids to a gladiator fight in the Flavian Amphitheater. I thought it would be a good opportunity to spend some quality time with my family while watching other human beings do their very best to rip each other to shreds. Plus, it was a tax deductible expense (our local tax collector was involved in one the fights that day; we wanted to heartily cheer on his opponents in hopes that he would be killed and unable to collect our taxes).
I’d heard that a Roman was not a true Roman until he’d been to an event in the Flavian. I never realized that being a Roman involved so much standing in lines and confusion over where you were to supposed to sit. Virgil never talked about standing around in a crowd trying to get to where you can sit around in a crowd in The Aeneid. I don’t recall Livy telling any stories about trying to differentiate between archway XLII and XLIII and how heroic people are who confuse them. I guess I must have missed those chapters. If only they would print the tickets a little clearer so I could tell if I was supposed to sit in archway XLV section CXX seat XIV or if it was archway CXX section XIV seat XLV. If they don’t have the budget to make that change, why do I have to spend a week’s worth of wages to get in?
Of course, I don’t want to complain too much. The Flavian really does have some excellent features, and a very proud history, almost as proud a history as the sport which it displays. Gladiator fights date back to the Horatii brothers, and their famous battle with the Curiatii. Ever since their shining example, we’ve been trying to prove our true manhood to each other by seeing who was the best at beating the others into a pulp. With that kind of tradition, it’s no wonder the Republic fell.
My family and I really did have a great time at the Flavian Amphitheater, though. It was a great venue, once you got past the feeling that it was going to collapse at any second because there isn’t a solid wall in the whole building. We enjoyed watching the animals they brought in, and the lions were fun to watch too. Next time you have some money to burn (and by some, I mean more than I’m going to get for writing this), you should take your family and go watch a fight at the Flavian. Just don’t blame me if you can’t find your seat.
What if Dave Barry Was a Serf in Middle Age England?
King Alfred has done it again. He lead hundreds of our brother, fathers, and husbands to glory against the Viking invaders over the weekend. Praises be to him. I think he has the talent and ability to lead the whole country to greater heights. Or deeper depths, depending on whether we’ve paid our indulgences or not. Alfred really does a great job leading our soldiers into battle. I just wish he was slightly better at leading them back out of battle, but that may be asking too much of him.
In all reality, I’m not sure why we need to fight the Vikings at all. Sure, I’ve heard the stories of the sacking of Rome, and I know they’re pagans. I’m just not sure I’d be so quick to label them as barbarians. A couple of weeks ago, a band came through town here. I met one, by the name of Olaf the Oaf-icious. We had a nice conversation. He told me about his family, and how many people he needed to kill in order to be sure to feed his family. He sounded just like any other low class person, struggling to make ends meet and doing whatever it takes to provide a good life for his family. Plus, he spared my life and killed Joe up the street, so he’s got pretty good judgment, I’d say. I’m actually thinking of starting up a collection to help supplement his pillaging. If you’d like to help support Olaf and his family, go to the nearest consignment station and join the army. That way, Olaf will be able to kill you and get a bigger bonus. Any size donation accepted, as long as they can wear a helmet and wield a sword.
Of course, there’s always the chance that Alfred will someday be victorious against the Vikings, leaving the door open to conquest by another group. That’s the problem with living on an island: even if you repel people from one shore, there’s plenty of other coastline to land a ship on. Makes you wonder why we don’t have a stronger navy, the better to repel would-be invaders. Maybe Alfred gets seasick.
What if Dave Barry Was A ______?
Written by:
David Sorensen
Dave Barry is a now-retired weekly humor columnist for the Miami Herald. He took elements from daily life in Miami, as well as general American society. Such writings are not uncommon in contemporary society. We don’t, however, have many documents that portray humor-based writing from ancient civilizations. Outside of Greek comedies, not much humor is to be found. I think it unlikely that people didn’t satirize elements of their societies, and so the purpose of this paper is to try and recreate what ancient humor columnists might have made fun of. Due to the lack of concrete evidence about how exactly life was like and the relatively large gaps in between historical details, some liberty has been taken in putting together elements of history that were not actually contemporary to each other, but no doubt the individual instances would have been treated much the same. With that introduction:
What if Dave Barry Was an Egyptian?
My wife and I recently decided to look into moving. Apparently, sharing the bed with crocodiles that crawl up from the river is getting to be too much for her, especially with a kid on the way. I suspect it’s largely just one of those weird pregnancy cravings, but I’m willing to humor her, which is why the other day we took a trip up the Nile to see what we could find.
The first city we stopped in was actually quite nice. A thriving economy, good access to administrative services, plenty of flood-plain--it had everything you’d want in a capital city. We got around talking to the residents, and it turns out there were actually plenty of job openings to be found. Sounds like they’ve got some big construction project going on that they need a lot of laborers. Unfortunately, to get the job, you have to be a slave, and that doesn’t exactly feed the family. Besides, I was told they were using some sort of wooden framework to try and build the huge pyramid that the king wants. I had to laugh at that. How on earth could wood hold the weight of that much rock? Even kids playing in the sand know that it’s easier to build a ramp than to lift something straight up. You have to wonder where they come up with these fantastic ideas.
Next, we came to a decent city, and they actually had a really good plot of land for sale. Far enough back from the river to not get washed away, but close enough to have a nice backyard pool during the floods. I was all for it, but my wife was a little leery of the hippopotamuses out in the river. I told her they were perfectly safe, and even went out to pet one to demonstrate it to her. I don’t think my running back screaming like a girl after it began to charge did anything to reassure her. Of course, I wasn’t convinced to leave until I met the people next door. The father of the family was actually a really good guy, despite being a priest. His kid, though, was absolutely out there. He kept claiming that some god had talked to him and told him that he shouldn’t be sacrificed. As if. What would the gods do without young innocent hearts to munch on? Boy was he loony. I couldn’t live next to him.
So, the search for a new house goes on. If you have any openings in your area, let me know. Right now I have to go feed the crocodiles so they stop gnawing on my legs.
What if Dave Barry Was an Athenian?
So if you’ve been awake at all the last week, you’ve probably heard about the trial of Socrates. His student Plato’s kind of made a big deal about it, going as far as to record an account of the trial and certain events leading up to it. One conversation he records between Socrates and Euthyphro and how Socrates questions Euthyphro to try and understand the definition for piety. Euthyphro, by the way, utterly failed at proving himself a religious expert. Everybody knows that in order to be a religious expert you have to say “no” to logic.
The trial ended today. By a mere 30 votes, Socrates was sentenced to death. So few votes can be the turning point to cut a thread short. Of course, even worse than that, Socrates was only 30 votes away from being fed free the rest of his life. How could they even consider that? Don’t these people realize what would happen as a result? All the free food I get would be split in half between us, and then where would we be as a society? It wasn’t 30 votes between life and death; it was 30 votes for one man to die so that an entire civilization (read that: me) could live.
Word is, though, that Plato plans to continue in Socrates’s work. He’s even planning on forming a school so people can be formally instructed instead of just following a guy around like a dog chasing a squirrel. It’s kind of a scary thought. Instead of one bratty old man roaming free, we’ll have a whole generation of bratty youngsters running around. Now they’ll start questioning things like whether or not we actually need humor columnists, and what good that Parthenon is doing standing empty all the time. Next thing you know, and we’ll be back to the days of barbarism and tyranny. We need to stand up and take a stand against this sort of behavior. Well, you do. I have to go pick up my shipment of food.
What if Dave Barry Was a Roman?
Last week, I decided to take the wife and kids to a gladiator fight in the Flavian Amphitheater. I thought it would be a good opportunity to spend some quality time with my family while watching other human beings do their very best to rip each other to shreds. Plus, it was a tax deductible expense (our local tax collector was involved in one the fights that day; we wanted to heartily cheer on his opponents in hopes that he would be killed and unable to collect our taxes).
I’d heard that a Roman was not a true Roman until he’d been to an event in the Flavian. I never realized that being a Roman involved so much standing in lines and confusion over where you were to supposed to sit. Virgil never talked about standing around in a crowd trying to get to where you can sit around in a crowd in The Aeneid. I don’t recall Livy telling any stories about trying to differentiate between archway XLII and XLIII and how heroic people are who confuse them. I guess I must have missed those chapters. If only they would print the tickets a little clearer so I could tell if I was supposed to sit in archway XLV section CXX seat XIV or if it was archway CXX section XIV seat XLV. If they don’t have the budget to make that change, why do I have to spend a week’s worth of wages to get in?
Of course, I don’t want to complain too much. The Flavian really does have some excellent features, and a very proud history, almost as proud a history as the sport which it displays. Gladiator fights date back to the Horatii brothers, and their famous battle with the Curiatii. Ever since their shining example, we’ve been trying to prove our true manhood to each other by seeing who was the best at beating the others into a pulp. With that kind of tradition, it’s no wonder the Republic fell.
My family and I really did have a great time at the Flavian Amphitheater, though. It was a great venue, once you got past the feeling that it was going to collapse at any second because there isn’t a solid wall in the whole building. We enjoyed watching the animals they brought in, and the lions were fun to watch too. Next time you have some money to burn (and by some, I mean more than I’m going to get for writing this), you should take your family and go watch a fight at the Flavian. Just don’t blame me if you can’t find your seat.
What if Dave Barry Was a Serf in Middle Age England?
King Alfred has done it again. He lead hundreds of our brother, fathers, and husbands to glory against the Viking invaders over the weekend. Praises be to him. I think he has the talent and ability to lead the whole country to greater heights. Or deeper depths, depending on whether we’ve paid our indulgences or not. Alfred really does a great job leading our soldiers into battle. I just wish he was slightly better at leading them back out of battle, but that may be asking too much of him.
In all reality, I’m not sure why we need to fight the Vikings at all. Sure, I’ve heard the stories of the sacking of Rome, and I know they’re pagans. I’m just not sure I’d be so quick to label them as barbarians. A couple of weeks ago, a band came through town here. I met one, by the name of Olaf the Oaf-icious. We had a nice conversation. He told me about his family, and how many people he needed to kill in order to be sure to feed his family. He sounded just like any other low class person, struggling to make ends meet and doing whatever it takes to provide a good life for his family. Plus, he spared my life and killed Joe up the street, so he’s got pretty good judgment, I’d say. I’m actually thinking of starting up a collection to help supplement his pillaging. If you’d like to help support Olaf and his family, go to the nearest consignment station and join the army. That way, Olaf will be able to kill you and get a bigger bonus. Any size donation accepted, as long as they can wear a helmet and wield a sword.
Of course, there’s always the chance that Alfred will someday be victorious against the Vikings, leaving the door open to conquest by another group. That’s the problem with living on an island: even if you repel people from one shore, there’s plenty of other coastline to land a ship on. Makes you wonder why we don’t have a stronger navy, the better to repel would-be invaders. Maybe Alfred gets seasick.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Countdown to the Finish
As of when I am typing this, there are 81 days, 16 hours, 50 minutes, and 50 seconds until noon on the day I enter the MTC (I can't have an exact timer for when I enter the MTC because I don't know when that will be yet). That's not very long. There have almost been breaks between posts on this blog that were that long, and I'll bet none of those breaks felt very long. 6 more weeks of classes, 1 week of finals, and then 5 weeks later I'm gone. Which means this blog may come to an end. It may continue on as a place to put emails I send home to my family, but probably not. More than likely, I'll just compile a list of email addresses for my mom to forward those on to. And, honestly, I don't foresee rejuvenating this blog after I get home. I barely get any readership now; a two-year hiatus will just make it worse. Admittedly, I haven't put any effort into garnering readers. I've only posted a link for it publicly one or two times. The template is horrendous, the color scheme more so, and the writing only marginally better (seriously, I just reread through all my previous posts, and I am amazed some of you have stuck to reading this). I do think I've accomplished my goal with it, however. "Rants and Raves and Maybe Some Deep Thoughts" I've certainly had rants, and I've had a few raves. Hopefully, I've expressed some somewhat deep thoughts. I certainly was able to do the writing I wanted to when I wanted to do it, which was the real purpose for this. Well, that and placating Dania Frandsen, but she's practically admitted to me that she's stopped reading this. I may have a few good posts left in me, and rereading what I have written has given me some ideas as to what I could write on. Thanks for being willing to participate with me in this experiment. I hope you enjoy these next two years as much as I plan to.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Obligatory Title
100% obedience. I hear it so often from all my missionary friends. Realize you may never get there, but strive for perfect obedience to the mission rules. I think there is a fair number of missionaries with that same attitude. They recognize that life is actually better when you follow all the rules, not just the ones you like or that are convenient or easy. Sure, you may not get to listen to Vocal Point's absolutely beautiful voices sing brilliant harmonies and create mind-blowing sounds, but what you get is worth so much more than that.
It's interesting, however, that such an attitude on a mission doesn't necessarily carry over into normal life. I see, for example, a young man that tries to uphold certain rules a large group of people have agreed to live by for a period of time. He goes about it in terrible fashion, but his public ridicule is not due to his method so much as his intention. Now, could this young man find someone violating the rules in more fragrantly? I'm sure of it. It probably wouldn't have taken much searching to do so. The target of his attempt at constructive criticism was certainly not the person at the time going farthest outside the rules, but what has been glossed over--and many times denied entirely--was that she was, in fact, outside the rules: "Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee length or longer." Seems like a pretty cut and dried rule to me. The dress of the young woman who was the recipient of the criticism quite clearly did not meet that requirement. Whether the top was cut low enough to be "revealing" is up for debate (I personally fall on the side that it was), but it's pretty hard to debate that a dress is knee-length when it isn't.
Now, I recognize that it can be difficult and sometimes very inconvenient to find clothing that fits this standard and is cute. It is inconvenient and expensive for me to be clean-shaven every day, yet I strive to do so. Until recently, I would forgo shaving on Saturday because my facial hair really wasn't that long, and after all it is Saturday, and I like to be freshly shaved for church on Sunday, and shaving every day really is overkill for how much/fast my facial hair grows, so I either shave two days in a row or don't shave Sunday if I shave Saturday, and neither option sounds very good. The last few weeks, however, I've taken a step back to look in the mirror, and decided that the hair really was long enough that I couldn't fit the clean shaven bill. Yes, it means I'll spend more money on shaving cream and razor blades because I'll use them more often, but it's a small price to pay to be a little bit closer to 100% obedient.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Life. Go Ahead and Talk to me About Life
A week ago yesterday, we had a funeral for my Grandma Sorensen. It still is difficult to write this post. I was able to write one for Grandpa Cobabe much easier. Partially, it's because I liked Grandma Sorensen a little bit more, even though I loved them both equally. Mostly, though, I think the way in which they died has a lot to do with it. Grandpa Cobabe was taken suddenly. He'd had heart and blood problems for a long time, but I'd gone to see him the week before he died, and he still seemed very strong. The suddenness of it kept me from thinking about his condition and reflect on the life he had lived. Grandma Sorensen was different. She struggled with Alzheimer's for several years before she died. It was hard to see her slowly forget so much. It became clear around Christmas that she was coming to the end of her life, and that she probably wouldn't live long enough to see me go on a mission. I got to observe her slowly slipping away, and, as backward as it seems, that makes it more difficult.
What do I remember about Grandma Sorensen? I remember going up to her house fondly. I remember playing with all the toys that they had, especially doing so with my cousins. I remember running my fingers up and down and all around the sculpture she had done, just feeling the interesting texture. Most of all, I remember Grandma pulling me into her lap to read a book. As much as my parents nurtured a love of reading, I think it was Grandma Sorensen who planted that love in me. It was never Grandma reading to me. It was always reading with Grandma, even when I couldn't actually read the words. She freely shared her library with us, even if we were just a bunch of rowdy boys. She understood that books were meant to be read and loved, not kept prettily on a shelf.
Another love my Grandma Sorensen passed on to me was of BYU sports. She was one of the biggest Cougar fans I've ever known. We used to go up to my Aunt and Uncle's cabin for Thanksgiving, and the BYU-U. of U. rivalry football game often falls that weekend as well (or at least it did when they were in the same conference). I can distinctly remember one year listening to it on the radio up at the cabin and my cousin David, who is a Utah fan, coming out in all his Utah gear and cheering loudly for the Utes. Grandma wasn't going to sit quietly for that; she went up and put on her BYU sweatshirt and called out "Go Cougars!" As much as I looked up to David, I loved Grandma more. That moment was the beginning of my now full-fledged Cougar fanship. I remember going to numerous football and men's basketball games with Grandma Sorensen. Our parents kept buying season tickets for them even as Grandma got older. It was one thing she enjoyed even as she forgot other things, and she went as long as she was able to. She may not have been able to steer all her grandchildren onto the correct sports path, but she certainly helped this one.
I love my Grandma Sorensen. It was very hard to watch Alzheimer's overwhelm her life, especially in the last month or two of it. I know, however, that she is now continuing her life of love and service. I know that didn't stop when her mind and body failed her. As sad as I am to see her go, I know the truth of the resurrection, and I know I will see her again.
What do I remember about Grandma Sorensen? I remember going up to her house fondly. I remember playing with all the toys that they had, especially doing so with my cousins. I remember running my fingers up and down and all around the sculpture she had done, just feeling the interesting texture. Most of all, I remember Grandma pulling me into her lap to read a book. As much as my parents nurtured a love of reading, I think it was Grandma Sorensen who planted that love in me. It was never Grandma reading to me. It was always reading with Grandma, even when I couldn't actually read the words. She freely shared her library with us, even if we were just a bunch of rowdy boys. She understood that books were meant to be read and loved, not kept prettily on a shelf.
Another love my Grandma Sorensen passed on to me was of BYU sports. She was one of the biggest Cougar fans I've ever known. We used to go up to my Aunt and Uncle's cabin for Thanksgiving, and the BYU-U. of U. rivalry football game often falls that weekend as well (or at least it did when they were in the same conference). I can distinctly remember one year listening to it on the radio up at the cabin and my cousin David, who is a Utah fan, coming out in all his Utah gear and cheering loudly for the Utes. Grandma wasn't going to sit quietly for that; she went up and put on her BYU sweatshirt and called out "Go Cougars!" As much as I looked up to David, I loved Grandma more. That moment was the beginning of my now full-fledged Cougar fanship. I remember going to numerous football and men's basketball games with Grandma Sorensen. Our parents kept buying season tickets for them even as Grandma got older. It was one thing she enjoyed even as she forgot other things, and she went as long as she was able to. She may not have been able to steer all her grandchildren onto the correct sports path, but she certainly helped this one.
I love my Grandma Sorensen. It was very hard to watch Alzheimer's overwhelm her life, especially in the last month or two of it. I know, however, that she is now continuing her life of love and service. I know that didn't stop when her mind and body failed her. As sad as I am to see her go, I know the truth of the resurrection, and I know I will see her again.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Yes, I am Just Sending you Somewhere Else
Quite a bit's been going on in my life this month. I actually have stuff to right about. Instead, I'm just going to post a link tonight. I intended to write a few words, and I'm sure I will, but for now I'll let you read some writing that's actually good from someone who knows the source a whole lot better than I do:
m-mortality.blogspot.com
I'll have my own words to add soon, I'm sure. For tonight, my dad's words are enough for me.
m-mortality.blogspot.com
I'll have my own words to add soon, I'm sure. For tonight, my dad's words are enough for me.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Harry Potter...Again
Yes, yes, I know. You've heard it before, and you're sick of it, but I need to write about something. Besides a distressing lack of snow, not much has gone on in my life. Well, I guess there was Thanksgiving, finals week, my birthday, and Christmas, but there isn't a whole to write about it in there. I could also talk about BYU sports (heart-breaking basketball loss to Baylor, blow-out at St. Mary's, stunning comeback in the Armed Forces Bowl) but I get the feeling that most of you who read this aren't big sports fans. I think I am safe in a assuming, however, that a very large percentage of you are Harry Potter fans. You can read previous posts (here and here) that demonstrate my general disregard for the series. Last night, however, in the midst of a Star Wars, it was brought up again that I don't like Harry Potter. I have thought about it for awhile now, and I think I have one more reason why I am opposed to the book that I have yet to state clearly that should be stated.
In the genre of fantasy, to me, there are two basic sub-genres: epic fantasy and, for lack of a better term, fun-story fantasy. Fun-story fantasy is not meant as a derogatory category (i.e. it's not meant in the "it's just a fun story" sense); I would classify C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia as fun-story fantasy. Narnia is a series of loosely connected stories that occur in the same world. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is epic fantasy: it deals with one central plot line, and everything contained in it is connected to that central plot line. The first four books of the Harry Potter series are fun-story fantasy. The first four books are a series of stories surrounding Harry Potter. They do not really advance a central plot. The events of one book do not have a very large impact on the events of the next book. It's just a well-written series of exciting stories about Harry Potter and his friends, which means I ate it up.
After the fourth book, with Voldemort revived, J.K. Rowling decided to take the series in a new direction. She decided to make it an epic story about Harry Potter vanquishing the Dark Lord. It was, by my estimation, a good decision. In order for the stories to be good, Voldemort had to come back at some point. Once he's back, you can't ignore him, and you can't continue to have the same sort of isolated battles as were present in the first four books. An evil that powerful can't stay in obscurity. Unfortunately, that good decision had very poor execution. First of all, the decision wasn't even clearly made in the fifth book. You had epic fantasy in the underlying elements of the plot, but the confrontation with Umbridge and creation of Dumbledore's Army that was such a central part of the book was really just a continuation of the type of stories that were depicted in the first four books. The ending of the fourth book set up a transition; you didn't need a whole book dedicated to switching sub-genres. Rowling could have picked up the fifth book and started straight in with epic fantasy, but she didn't. Mostly, however, she just didn't know how to write epic fantasy for the Harry Potter world. She didn't seem to have it set up very well for how the story would progress. She knew that she should rely on details from earlier books, so she included them, but she didn't have an overall picture of how to make it work. Instead of dealing with previously learned knowledge about the way the Harry Potter world works, she invented entirely new explanations. Good epic fantasy should not leave readers saying a confused "wait, what?" or "where on earth did that come from?" There can be newly revealed tricks, rules, or magics, but they should be based on the foundation that is already laid. I haven't read the seventh book, so I don't know if it violated the rule (based on what I've heard from Daniel, it does, by the way), but the idea of Horcruxes in the sixth book basically came from out of the sky. J.K. Rowling fell into the great trap of magic: she made it practically infinitely expandable. That works just fine for fun-story fantasy; it doesn't work for epic fantasy.
In the genre of fantasy, to me, there are two basic sub-genres: epic fantasy and, for lack of a better term, fun-story fantasy. Fun-story fantasy is not meant as a derogatory category (i.e. it's not meant in the "it's just a fun story" sense); I would classify C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia as fun-story fantasy. Narnia is a series of loosely connected stories that occur in the same world. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is epic fantasy: it deals with one central plot line, and everything contained in it is connected to that central plot line. The first four books of the Harry Potter series are fun-story fantasy. The first four books are a series of stories surrounding Harry Potter. They do not really advance a central plot. The events of one book do not have a very large impact on the events of the next book. It's just a well-written series of exciting stories about Harry Potter and his friends, which means I ate it up.
After the fourth book, with Voldemort revived, J.K. Rowling decided to take the series in a new direction. She decided to make it an epic story about Harry Potter vanquishing the Dark Lord. It was, by my estimation, a good decision. In order for the stories to be good, Voldemort had to come back at some point. Once he's back, you can't ignore him, and you can't continue to have the same sort of isolated battles as were present in the first four books. An evil that powerful can't stay in obscurity. Unfortunately, that good decision had very poor execution. First of all, the decision wasn't even clearly made in the fifth book. You had epic fantasy in the underlying elements of the plot, but the confrontation with Umbridge and creation of Dumbledore's Army that was such a central part of the book was really just a continuation of the type of stories that were depicted in the first four books. The ending of the fourth book set up a transition; you didn't need a whole book dedicated to switching sub-genres. Rowling could have picked up the fifth book and started straight in with epic fantasy, but she didn't. Mostly, however, she just didn't know how to write epic fantasy for the Harry Potter world. She didn't seem to have it set up very well for how the story would progress. She knew that she should rely on details from earlier books, so she included them, but she didn't have an overall picture of how to make it work. Instead of dealing with previously learned knowledge about the way the Harry Potter world works, she invented entirely new explanations. Good epic fantasy should not leave readers saying a confused "wait, what?" or "where on earth did that come from?" There can be newly revealed tricks, rules, or magics, but they should be based on the foundation that is already laid. I haven't read the seventh book, so I don't know if it violated the rule (based on what I've heard from Daniel, it does, by the way), but the idea of Horcruxes in the sixth book basically came from out of the sky. J.K. Rowling fell into the great trap of magic: she made it practically infinitely expandable. That works just fine for fun-story fantasy; it doesn't work for epic fantasy.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Let's Have Some Definitions
That's right. 2 posts in the same week. You might want to go to the nearest pig farm and make sure that they are all still firmly grounded.
Anyway, this post has to do with something very near and dear to my heart: snow.
I love winter. I was made for cold weather. I mean, all you have to do is see the not-insignificant amount of insulation (i.e. fat) I have on my body to see that I was built to thrive in a cold environment. One of the best things about winter is snow. Unlike most people, I rarely "get tired" of snow. Maybe if it was snowy for 8 months of the year, I might start getting tired of it, but probably not.
However, I do want to set one thing straight when it comes to snow. You see, my beloved brother and roommate (my mom occasionally reads this and so I had to put that "beloved" in for her benefit) walked outside today and gleefully exclaimed "It's snowing!" As much as I love him, he erred in making this statement, but at least he has an excuse after being in South Korea for two years on a mission. It was not, in fact, snowing. There were occasional little white dots that one could halfway see floating on the wind, but that is not snowing. Much like it's not "raining" just because you feel one drop of water hit your head, it isn't snowing just because a few flakes happen to fall. In order for it to be "snowing," it has to be a consistent, significant rate of precipitation. Similarly, the first snow of the year has some criteria associated with it: it has to be snowing, as I have just defined it; it has to stick and accumulate on the ground; and it has to be at your place of residence. As such, I have not yet experienced the first snow of the year, and I doubt that any of you reading this blog that attend BYU have either. Snowing on the mountains does not count, as beautiful as it is and as much as I love it. The "snowing" that I've heard rumors about doesn't count, either, because not only does each case fail to meet the definition for "snowing", but they have all failed to accumulate on the ground. I can't wait to experience the first snow of the year, but let's not water down the experience by slacking on our standards like we have with words such as "epic."
Why are these definitions so important? Because they are related to the Christmas Music Rule. I love Christmas music just as much as the rest of you. I really do. And you can make all the arguments you want about how we need to have the Spirit of Christmas all year round, etc. but it doesn't change the Christmas Music Rule. The Christmas Music Rule states:
Anyway, this post has to do with something very near and dear to my heart: snow.
I love winter. I was made for cold weather. I mean, all you have to do is see the not-insignificant amount of insulation (i.e. fat) I have on my body to see that I was built to thrive in a cold environment. One of the best things about winter is snow. Unlike most people, I rarely "get tired" of snow. Maybe if it was snowy for 8 months of the year, I might start getting tired of it, but probably not.
However, I do want to set one thing straight when it comes to snow. You see, my beloved brother and roommate (my mom occasionally reads this and so I had to put that "beloved" in for her benefit) walked outside today and gleefully exclaimed "It's snowing!" As much as I love him, he erred in making this statement, but at least he has an excuse after being in South Korea for two years on a mission. It was not, in fact, snowing. There were occasional little white dots that one could halfway see floating on the wind, but that is not snowing. Much like it's not "raining" just because you feel one drop of water hit your head, it isn't snowing just because a few flakes happen to fall. In order for it to be "snowing," it has to be a consistent, significant rate of precipitation. Similarly, the first snow of the year has some criteria associated with it: it has to be snowing, as I have just defined it; it has to stick and accumulate on the ground; and it has to be at your place of residence. As such, I have not yet experienced the first snow of the year, and I doubt that any of you reading this blog that attend BYU have either. Snowing on the mountains does not count, as beautiful as it is and as much as I love it. The "snowing" that I've heard rumors about doesn't count, either, because not only does each case fail to meet the definition for "snowing", but they have all failed to accumulate on the ground. I can't wait to experience the first snow of the year, but let's not water down the experience by slacking on our standards like we have with words such as "epic."
Why are these definitions so important? Because they are related to the Christmas Music Rule. I love Christmas music just as much as the rest of you. I really do. And you can make all the arguments you want about how we need to have the Spirit of Christmas all year round, etc. but it doesn't change the Christmas Music Rule. The Christmas Music Rule states:
- Music having to deal with the Christmas, snow, the "Holidays", or other such material is henceforth designated to be termed Christmas music
- Christmas music, as defined in (1), is not to be played outside the month of December, with the following exceptions:
- The day of the first snow of the year
- Following Halloween (Oct. 31), Christmas music can be played on days when it is snowing
- Following Thanksgiving (fourth Thursday of November), Christmas music can be played if there is snow on the ground, or if there is less than 4 days until December
- If one must play Christmas music at time not included by (2) or it's subsections, one must provide sufficient reasoning for why they are playing the music (e.g. learning a song to be performed during the month of December)
- There are no sufficient reasons for a general body (e.g. Seminary class or ward) to sing Christmas music at a time not indicated by (2) and it's subsections
- Failure to comply to these rules will result in ridicule by the Tower of Terror
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I Owe You Something
So that idea I had about posting regularly again? Yeah, that didn't work out so well. The problem is the whole "life experiences" thing Dania originally wanted me to create this blog for doesn't happen so often. I'm in kind of a rut right now, in large part because of my own apathy, but also partially due to my situation in life. It's all about a waiting game for me right now, as I prepare to serve my mission. It's a great opportunity for me to get some preparation in, but it doesn't offer much in the way of anecdotes.
Anyway, an interesting thing actually did happen to me the other day. I was looking at my face in the mirror (which may come as a surprise to some of you; I do actually look in the mirror and still go out in public the way I do), when I noticed a slight change. Always before, the face staring back at me has looked rather boyish. There's still the puppy fat there, that facial hair is mostly fuzz and not scruff, and it's just got a boyish feel. It's always surprised me that people tend to think I'm older than I am. When people who don't know me learn my age they respond with disbelief. I just don't see it though. Until Sunday, when I caught a glimpse of it. I still don't buy it wholly, especially because I got that glimpse of it in a dimly lit room that was illuminated from one side only, but it was there. I'm not just a kid anymore, a realization that's been coming through more and more lately. Time to start making long-term decisions in addition to the short-term ones. Thank goodness I've got a couple of years to step back and take stock before I proceed too far in any of those decisions.
Anyway, an interesting thing actually did happen to me the other day. I was looking at my face in the mirror (which may come as a surprise to some of you; I do actually look in the mirror and still go out in public the way I do), when I noticed a slight change. Always before, the face staring back at me has looked rather boyish. There's still the puppy fat there, that facial hair is mostly fuzz and not scruff, and it's just got a boyish feel. It's always surprised me that people tend to think I'm older than I am. When people who don't know me learn my age they respond with disbelief. I just don't see it though. Until Sunday, when I caught a glimpse of it. I still don't buy it wholly, especially because I got that glimpse of it in a dimly lit room that was illuminated from one side only, but it was there. I'm not just a kid anymore, a realization that's been coming through more and more lately. Time to start making long-term decisions in addition to the short-term ones. Thank goodness I've got a couple of years to step back and take stock before I proceed too far in any of those decisions.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Regular Posting Again? Also, Sports
It could happen. You never know. The problem is now compounded beyond what it was when I first started this blog (that of having nothing to write about). Now I just forget that I even have this thing. I might start posting on it though. It'll at least give me something to do.
Anyway, I haven't had a good rant in a while. Let me think for a second here...Oh, I've got the perfect thing. The behavior of fans when their team is losing. Take, for instance, the latest chapter in the BYU-Utah football rivalry. Coming into the game, all the fans were pumped. People expected BYU to come out of that game with a win. I, myself, was one of them. BYU has a good team this year--not excellent, but good. With the intensity of the rivalry game, I honestly believed we should have expected to win that game. The stadium was full of BYU pride. By the end of the game, it was hardly anywhere to be found. Now, I get it that it is difficult to cheer for a losing team, especially one that makes as many stupid mistakes as BYU made that night. However, I also think it can be done a lot better than the BYU population did that night. When you start to turn on your own team, you sow the seeds of it's destruction. I have no problem with the chorus of "Riley Nelson" that came up over the course of the game; Jake Heaps was performing poorly, we weren't going to win by that point, and Riley Nelson might have done a better job. I do have a problem with the general feeling that the team was horrible and we might as well give up on the season--losing 6 fumbles is an aberration, not a sign of things to come. I do have a problem with people asking, even in jest, for a red shirt to wear. And I certainly have a problem with people complaining that they paid to watch the team win. In reality, you paid to watch the team. You might as well cheer for them, and you might as well stay the whole time and get your money's worth. Think about it: Would you ever walk out of a movie theater just because you could tell what the ending was going to be? Do you even walk out just because it's a bad (as in quality, not appropriateness) movie? Most people would answer no. You already paid the money, so you might as well get what you can for it. Stay to the end of a game for crying out loud. Is it any wonder that the team gave up 24 points in the 4th quarter alone? A third of the fans had already left by that point, and more were leaving. I can imagine it would be pretty disheartening as a player to see that. Why even bother trying? No one cares and it's not gonna make a difference. Have a little true team spirit, please. "Loyal, strong, and true/Wear the white and blue" (emphasis added). Let's make that reality, instead of just something we sing when our team is winning.
Anyway, I haven't had a good rant in a while. Let me think for a second here...Oh, I've got the perfect thing. The behavior of fans when their team is losing. Take, for instance, the latest chapter in the BYU-Utah football rivalry. Coming into the game, all the fans were pumped. People expected BYU to come out of that game with a win. I, myself, was one of them. BYU has a good team this year--not excellent, but good. With the intensity of the rivalry game, I honestly believed we should have expected to win that game. The stadium was full of BYU pride. By the end of the game, it was hardly anywhere to be found. Now, I get it that it is difficult to cheer for a losing team, especially one that makes as many stupid mistakes as BYU made that night. However, I also think it can be done a lot better than the BYU population did that night. When you start to turn on your own team, you sow the seeds of it's destruction. I have no problem with the chorus of "Riley Nelson" that came up over the course of the game; Jake Heaps was performing poorly, we weren't going to win by that point, and Riley Nelson might have done a better job. I do have a problem with the general feeling that the team was horrible and we might as well give up on the season--losing 6 fumbles is an aberration, not a sign of things to come. I do have a problem with people asking, even in jest, for a red shirt to wear. And I certainly have a problem with people complaining that they paid to watch the team win. In reality, you paid to watch the team. You might as well cheer for them, and you might as well stay the whole time and get your money's worth. Think about it: Would you ever walk out of a movie theater just because you could tell what the ending was going to be? Do you even walk out just because it's a bad (as in quality, not appropriateness) movie? Most people would answer no. You already paid the money, so you might as well get what you can for it. Stay to the end of a game for crying out loud. Is it any wonder that the team gave up 24 points in the 4th quarter alone? A third of the fans had already left by that point, and more were leaving. I can imagine it would be pretty disheartening as a player to see that. Why even bother trying? No one cares and it's not gonna make a difference. Have a little true team spirit, please. "Loyal, strong, and true/Wear the white and blue" (emphasis added). Let's make that reality, instead of just something we sing when our team is winning.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
"Awesome" "Amazing"...Why?
So, devout readership, this post is less of a monologue than my typical drivel. It actually requires some input from you. You see, I've been thinking over the last little while, and I've come to some self-realizations. One of those I'll get to in a minute. Anyway, basically with this post, I'm trying to get an answer to a question I've been wondering about for a while now. You see, I have plenty of conversations with people in which they assert that I am "awesome" or "amazing" or some similar adjective. It has become so common that I question why, exactly, people say this about me, which is where you come in, as readers of this blog comprise a large portion of those who make such statements. One hypothesis of mine (that I think is probably the most accurate) about why I receive such compliments so frequently is that it's just a general trait of friends of mine to freely give such compliments. It's not that I'm necessarily that great of a person, but just that to my friends, most people are awesome.
Now, before you start getting all worried that I'm having low self-esteem, or I'm being self-effacing, don't. I'm just fine. I'm quite comfortable with who I am, and I think I'm pretty much on the right track. I guess I just want to know why I am seen the way I am by others, even more so now than I was before that self-realization I mentioned. You see, several weeks ago, Dania said something to the effect of "You're great at everything you do, David." Now yes, partially that's just due to her tendency to exaggerate. I don't think she really ever thought that I am great at everything I do, but the comment bothered me because she was assigning me superhuman abilities that I just don't have. I couldn't figure out why should we even think to say something like that about me. Thinking about that, in conjunction with several similar experiences accumulated throughout my life, made me wonder why people think I'm so great and so good and so near to being perfect. It hit me, then, that I actually project that image. It's human nature to do so to an extent, I believe, as we want people to think better of us than we think of ourselves. I actively hide flaws even more than most people do, I think, though, because being a perfect genius has become my identity. It's become what makes me unique. If I were to lose that, there would be no compelling reason to be my friend (Yes, I know that's not actually true, I'm explaining my subconscious thought processes, not my actual beliefs), so I hide my flaws, which is actually a really stupid thing to do because then they don't ever get fixed. Anyway, that was my self-realization that contributed to making this a post. Please, any feedback you have I'd love to hear it.
Now, before you start getting all worried that I'm having low self-esteem, or I'm being self-effacing, don't. I'm just fine. I'm quite comfortable with who I am, and I think I'm pretty much on the right track. I guess I just want to know why I am seen the way I am by others, even more so now than I was before that self-realization I mentioned. You see, several weeks ago, Dania said something to the effect of "You're great at everything you do, David." Now yes, partially that's just due to her tendency to exaggerate. I don't think she really ever thought that I am great at everything I do, but the comment bothered me because she was assigning me superhuman abilities that I just don't have. I couldn't figure out why should we even think to say something like that about me. Thinking about that, in conjunction with several similar experiences accumulated throughout my life, made me wonder why people think I'm so great and so good and so near to being perfect. It hit me, then, that I actually project that image. It's human nature to do so to an extent, I believe, as we want people to think better of us than we think of ourselves. I actively hide flaws even more than most people do, I think, though, because being a perfect genius has become my identity. It's become what makes me unique. If I were to lose that, there would be no compelling reason to be my friend (Yes, I know that's not actually true, I'm explaining my subconscious thought processes, not my actual beliefs), so I hide my flaws, which is actually a really stupid thing to do because then they don't ever get fixed. Anyway, that was my self-realization that contributed to making this a post. Please, any feedback you have I'd love to hear it.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Hello, boys (and girls)! I'm back!
If you can name the movie from which the title of this post--minus the part in parentheses, that's why it's in parentheses and not to be diminutive of my female readership--comes, then you've watched a good movie which is a good enough reward in and of itself. Fitting, though, that I totally coincidentally chose that movie to pick a line from on this particular weekend (and if you've seen the movie and that hint doesn't give it away, shame on you).
Anyway, yes, it's true, members of the blogosphere. I am in fact posting once again. Please, contain your excitement. I'm not sure it will ever again be a regular occurrence for me to post on my blog. I was never all that into it in the first place. We'll see what happens, though. I guess it's not fair for me to read the blog posts of others and not post my own so that they too can get some measure of pleasure, though I'm sure it is pretty small in the case of reading my posts.
My recent hiatus has been due to the fact that, minus my job, pretty much everything of consequence in my life recently I've already posted about. I didn't think you wanted to read another rave about Brandon Sanderson, as good as he is (and, if you haven't read any of his books yet but you are reading this blog post right now, I order you to stop, turn off your computer, acquire a copy of some work authored by him, and read that instead; it'll be a much better use of your time). I actually thought about posting last week after Sean Kang's farewell, but a tribute to Sean Kang, as amazing and wonderful as he is, wasn't necessary like it was for Shane and Nick and would basically be comprised of the same things I said about them.
Of course, there is my job, but there really isn't a whole lot to say about it. I sit around all day answering people's questions, so it feels a lot like high school except that it's all the same subject, the people who ask the questions aren't my friends, and a lot of them are angrier about it than my friends in high school. There is, however, the occasional Australian or funny older lady that makes the job enjoyable for a time. I'm very, very grateful to have a job, it's just not that exciting to talk or write about.
I guess what really has been the object of my thoughts lately has been the changing of the guard, so to speak, going on in my life. With the egress of Elder Kang into the MTC, most of my best friends from high school that have Y chromosomes are out on missions. An interesting effect of living in Provo is that a lot of your friends from high school go on to BYU, so you get to see them pretty regularly. It meant that there wasn't a major shift in the people I spent time with between high school and my freshman year in college. I was still close to many of the same people. Now, however, all the guys are going on missions. Another interesting effect of living in Provo is that pretty much all the guys leave on missions for two years. Being a year younger than most of my classmates, they've all left a year or so before I will. Basically, that means my group of male friends has shifted to the class immediately younger than me (that means you, '11ers). This is not a bad thing, as there are many fine men (read "studs") in that class. It was just something that was made apparent to me last week at Sean's farewell and, I'm embarrassed to admit, that I initially reacted poorly to. Since then I've had some time to think, however, and I am excited by the prospect. As superior as my friends I've bid farewell to over the last few months are, these guys I find myself associating more and more with are spectacular in and of themselves, and it's gonna be great to get to know them better.
I've also reflected quite a bit on where I am this year compared to where I was last year. Who I am today is not the same as I was last year on July 3rd. It's been a good year, and the next few look to have even more in store. Another year of college, two years on a mission, the rest of college, graduate school. I'm starting to get really excited, as daunting as it seems.
Yes, sir, the outlook for David Sorensen over the next year does not look bad at all. I look forward to experiencing it with you.
Anyway, yes, it's true, members of the blogosphere. I am in fact posting once again. Please, contain your excitement. I'm not sure it will ever again be a regular occurrence for me to post on my blog. I was never all that into it in the first place. We'll see what happens, though. I guess it's not fair for me to read the blog posts of others and not post my own so that they too can get some measure of pleasure, though I'm sure it is pretty small in the case of reading my posts.
My recent hiatus has been due to the fact that, minus my job, pretty much everything of consequence in my life recently I've already posted about. I didn't think you wanted to read another rave about Brandon Sanderson, as good as he is (and, if you haven't read any of his books yet but you are reading this blog post right now, I order you to stop, turn off your computer, acquire a copy of some work authored by him, and read that instead; it'll be a much better use of your time). I actually thought about posting last week after Sean Kang's farewell, but a tribute to Sean Kang, as amazing and wonderful as he is, wasn't necessary like it was for Shane and Nick and would basically be comprised of the same things I said about them.
Of course, there is my job, but there really isn't a whole lot to say about it. I sit around all day answering people's questions, so it feels a lot like high school except that it's all the same subject, the people who ask the questions aren't my friends, and a lot of them are angrier about it than my friends in high school. There is, however, the occasional Australian or funny older lady that makes the job enjoyable for a time. I'm very, very grateful to have a job, it's just not that exciting to talk or write about.
I guess what really has been the object of my thoughts lately has been the changing of the guard, so to speak, going on in my life. With the egress of Elder Kang into the MTC, most of my best friends from high school that have Y chromosomes are out on missions. An interesting effect of living in Provo is that a lot of your friends from high school go on to BYU, so you get to see them pretty regularly. It meant that there wasn't a major shift in the people I spent time with between high school and my freshman year in college. I was still close to many of the same people. Now, however, all the guys are going on missions. Another interesting effect of living in Provo is that pretty much all the guys leave on missions for two years. Being a year younger than most of my classmates, they've all left a year or so before I will. Basically, that means my group of male friends has shifted to the class immediately younger than me (that means you, '11ers). This is not a bad thing, as there are many fine men (read "studs") in that class. It was just something that was made apparent to me last week at Sean's farewell and, I'm embarrassed to admit, that I initially reacted poorly to. Since then I've had some time to think, however, and I am excited by the prospect. As superior as my friends I've bid farewell to over the last few months are, these guys I find myself associating more and more with are spectacular in and of themselves, and it's gonna be great to get to know them better.
I've also reflected quite a bit on where I am this year compared to where I was last year. Who I am today is not the same as I was last year on July 3rd. It's been a good year, and the next few look to have even more in store. Another year of college, two years on a mission, the rest of college, graduate school. I'm starting to get really excited, as daunting as it seems.
Yes, sir, the outlook for David Sorensen over the next year does not look bad at all. I look forward to experiencing it with you.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Two Tower and Return of the King
So I didn't make a separate post for Two Towers after I finished it. Sorry about that. It deserves it's own post, but I was just too eager to keep reading. I actually finished reading Return of the King on Monday, but I've had work, and I realize not everyone loves Lord of the Rings as much as I do so not everyone loves to read about it as much as I do. (By the way, they started filming for The Hobbit on March 21st, I think I haven't mentioned that yet. So excited for it).
Anyway, since I did just do that marathon of the films at Andrew Woodruff's a little bit ago, I found myself noting several interesting differences between the movies and the books and finding things I hadn't remembered but that I didn't like. One of those things is the characterization of the rulers of men, both Theoden and Denethor. In the movies, Theoden is portrayed kind of as a coward, fleeing to the refuge of Helm's Deep with his people in opposition to the advice of Gandalf. Later, he's rather fatalistic, believing there's nothing left for it except to die an honorable death. In the books, however, once Grima is gone he listens wholeheartedly to Gandalf. He is not at all reluctant to ride to the aid of Gondor, like he is in the movie. Instead, he is a courageous and wise king of men. I think largely they changed this in the movie to set up for Aragorn's reign. They didn't want to make Theoden incapable, but they also wanted to highlight that Aragorn was the natural and rightful king. The other thing they did was to villainize Denethor (a.k.a. Susan). While Denethor does not just submit to the wisdom of Gandalf in the books, he does have wisdom and power of his own. He is not the bad, rotten guy they make him out to be in the movies. They set him up as that to provide the full spectrum in the family, with Denethor and Faramir on the ends and Boromir in the middle. It shows that men are not perfect, and they do have their challenges. The changes to both rulers make sense in the context of the films, and both are understandable and acceptable.
The two changes I've always had a problem with, however, are the degradation of Faramir and Frodo chasing away Sam. Faramir of the movies is not the amazing, wonderful person he is in the books. As great as he is in the movies, he's better in the books. This is one change I don't think was necessary. I think they could have been well served to make Faramir as good as he was in the books. There was no reason that Faramir should have taken the hobbits to Osgiliath, and that really bothers me. Even if it does set up my favorite line of the movies, when Sam says "By rights we shouldn't even be here," followed by his excellent speech. That excellent speech, by the way, is an adaptation from one given in the book which I think is even better. As bad as that side-trip is, however, having Frodo force Sam away is just wrong. Sure, Frodo was more trusting of Gollum than Sam was, but he never trusted Gollum more than Sam. He was always aware of the danger Gollum presented. I understand that they needed to show in some way the struggle Frodo was having with the ring and the corrupting influence it was having on him, but that doesn't mean I like it. I think there are better ways they could have achieved the same thing.
By no means is this post meant as a rant against the movies. They are my favorite movies of all time, and, as far as I have seen, the best book to movie adaptations ever. They manage to stay true to the spirit of the books, even as they change these and many other details. You really cannot just make a movie that exactly mirrors a book, because the rules of the media are different. But that's OK, because I love both. If you haven't seen the movies, do so. If you haven't read the books, stop wasting your time reading my stupid blog and go read them. They are worth it. They are really just excellent. Not the best books ever written, but they are pretty high up there on the list.
Anyway, since I did just do that marathon of the films at Andrew Woodruff's a little bit ago, I found myself noting several interesting differences between the movies and the books and finding things I hadn't remembered but that I didn't like. One of those things is the characterization of the rulers of men, both Theoden and Denethor. In the movies, Theoden is portrayed kind of as a coward, fleeing to the refuge of Helm's Deep with his people in opposition to the advice of Gandalf. Later, he's rather fatalistic, believing there's nothing left for it except to die an honorable death. In the books, however, once Grima is gone he listens wholeheartedly to Gandalf. He is not at all reluctant to ride to the aid of Gondor, like he is in the movie. Instead, he is a courageous and wise king of men. I think largely they changed this in the movie to set up for Aragorn's reign. They didn't want to make Theoden incapable, but they also wanted to highlight that Aragorn was the natural and rightful king. The other thing they did was to villainize Denethor (a.k.a. Susan). While Denethor does not just submit to the wisdom of Gandalf in the books, he does have wisdom and power of his own. He is not the bad, rotten guy they make him out to be in the movies. They set him up as that to provide the full spectrum in the family, with Denethor and Faramir on the ends and Boromir in the middle. It shows that men are not perfect, and they do have their challenges. The changes to both rulers make sense in the context of the films, and both are understandable and acceptable.
The two changes I've always had a problem with, however, are the degradation of Faramir and Frodo chasing away Sam. Faramir of the movies is not the amazing, wonderful person he is in the books. As great as he is in the movies, he's better in the books. This is one change I don't think was necessary. I think they could have been well served to make Faramir as good as he was in the books. There was no reason that Faramir should have taken the hobbits to Osgiliath, and that really bothers me. Even if it does set up my favorite line of the movies, when Sam says "By rights we shouldn't even be here," followed by his excellent speech. That excellent speech, by the way, is an adaptation from one given in the book which I think is even better. As bad as that side-trip is, however, having Frodo force Sam away is just wrong. Sure, Frodo was more trusting of Gollum than Sam was, but he never trusted Gollum more than Sam. He was always aware of the danger Gollum presented. I understand that they needed to show in some way the struggle Frodo was having with the ring and the corrupting influence it was having on him, but that doesn't mean I like it. I think there are better ways they could have achieved the same thing.
By no means is this post meant as a rant against the movies. They are my favorite movies of all time, and, as far as I have seen, the best book to movie adaptations ever. They manage to stay true to the spirit of the books, even as they change these and many other details. You really cannot just make a movie that exactly mirrors a book, because the rules of the media are different. But that's OK, because I love both. If you haven't seen the movies, do so. If you haven't read the books, stop wasting your time reading my stupid blog and go read them. They are worth it. They are really just excellent. Not the best books ever written, but they are pretty high up there on the list.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Ride Your Bike
Today I got out on my bike for the first time in about eight months. For a guy who rode a bike 12 months out of the year for four years, that was a very long break. It felt good to get in and give the bike a good tune up. Get my hands dirty again. While mechanics are not totally my thing, it feels good to just dig in every once in a while and make something run smoothly. I recommend it to you all, yes even the girls. It's worth it. You don't have to make it an all-time everyday thing, but just give it a whirl.
Even more important than tuning my bike up was taking it for a test spin to make sure everything worked properly. I've heard a lot of people talking about how much they love running. Often, they'll talk about getting a runner's high. Well, I'd like to introduce you to the idea of a biker's high. I just got out there and pedaled, and I just felt pure joy. I may not have made it up to Timpview and back in my fastest time ever (eight months off the bike tends to lead to a little bit of deterioration of the muscles involved) but that was one of the favorite times I ever remember doing that ride. I plan on biking the Provo trail sometime next week. I think I'm going to be biking a lot this summer. It just makes me happy.
Even more important than tuning my bike up was taking it for a test spin to make sure everything worked properly. I've heard a lot of people talking about how much they love running. Often, they'll talk about getting a runner's high. Well, I'd like to introduce you to the idea of a biker's high. I just got out there and pedaled, and I just felt pure joy. I may not have made it up to Timpview and back in my fastest time ever (eight months off the bike tends to lead to a little bit of deterioration of the muscles involved) but that was one of the favorite times I ever remember doing that ride. I plan on biking the Provo trail sometime next week. I think I'm going to be biking a lot this summer. It just makes me happy.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Fellowship of the Ring
I recently began rereading the Lord of the Rings series. If you haven't read these books, you need to. They belong right up there with all the good classics. There is a reason these books are basically the founding of the fantasy genre, and why so many following books are basically reworks of them. I've just been reminded of these reasons as I've read them.
Today, I finished The Fellowship of the Ring. What a fine example of writing. Tolkien has a way with the English language. And all languages, actually, seeing as he completely invented at least one of his own in Elvish. Tolkien is a true master of taking you out of your own world and into someone else's. Which is the goal of almost all books, if you think about it. Writing is about exposing people to new thoughts and ideas; new perspectives. It takes us from the world we know, and replaces it, at least temporarily, with a new world. The only thing the fantasy genre does different is change more of the rules in the transported world. I get why the fantasy genre gets such a bad rap; let's be honest, there is a lot of really poorly written fantasy out there (Twilight and some Harry Potter books anyone?). But at the same time, there are some truly superb fantasy writers who, I feel, don't get their due in the English canon. Far too few curricula include a foray into Tolkien or Lewis. It's not just a matter of being published for long enough; plenty of books written afterwards have made it into the canon.
Sorry, I really meant to focus on the awesomeness of the Fellowship in this post. But "Rants and Raves" is the title of this blog, so you really can't be surprised that I didn't stay on topic. Truly, though, the Fellowship of the Ring is one of the best books I have ever read. If you haven't read it, you need to. Go out and acquire a copy and read it. It's worth it. It is for fantasy books what the movie made from it is for fantasy films: the standard that makes it no longer just a joke or merely an escape.
Today, I finished The Fellowship of the Ring. What a fine example of writing. Tolkien has a way with the English language. And all languages, actually, seeing as he completely invented at least one of his own in Elvish. Tolkien is a true master of taking you out of your own world and into someone else's. Which is the goal of almost all books, if you think about it. Writing is about exposing people to new thoughts and ideas; new perspectives. It takes us from the world we know, and replaces it, at least temporarily, with a new world. The only thing the fantasy genre does different is change more of the rules in the transported world. I get why the fantasy genre gets such a bad rap; let's be honest, there is a lot of really poorly written fantasy out there (Twilight and some Harry Potter books anyone?). But at the same time, there are some truly superb fantasy writers who, I feel, don't get their due in the English canon. Far too few curricula include a foray into Tolkien or Lewis. It's not just a matter of being published for long enough; plenty of books written afterwards have made it into the canon.
Sorry, I really meant to focus on the awesomeness of the Fellowship in this post. But "Rants and Raves" is the title of this blog, so you really can't be surprised that I didn't stay on topic. Truly, though, the Fellowship of the Ring is one of the best books I have ever read. If you haven't read it, you need to. Go out and acquire a copy and read it. It's worth it. It is for fantasy books what the movie made from it is for fantasy films: the standard that makes it no longer just a joke or merely an escape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)