There's this thing I'm doing. I haven't told very many people about this thing, and I don't want to. During this post, I'm going to call it "thing". Forgive me for being the person who uses vagueness to raise interest, but when this thing finishes, I want it to be as much of a surprise as possible.
I've got reasons for doing this thing. A plethora of reasons. I've given out a few of them when people asked, but there's one I haven't given yet. The main reason. Not the best reason, perhaps. Definitely a selfish reason. But it's the one that, out of all my motives, pushes me the most.
Anybody who's read the blog before knows full well how I feel about being average. It's stupid. Data sets are great if you want to draw conclusions. If you're searching for validation or identity though, being near the center sucks. I'm not trying to be mean here. It's simple fact that I absolutely hate being part of what's considered "normal". I long for nothing more than to jump Tukey's fence. But that's not my motive. I don't want to be better than everybody.
What my motive is is more refined than that. It's not a struggle for some sort of reward. There are plenty of honors laying around, waiting to be picked up. What I'm doing the thing for is to prove I can. Perhaps a bit toward others, but mostly toward myself. Again, it's a bit of a selfish quest, but I think there might be a bit of collateral happiness. If I used emoticons, there'd be a semicolon followed by a left concave parenthesis where this sentence is.
Ever since the beginning of high school--heck, ever since I was 13--I've been told, "Eli, you're part of the bell curve now. This thing could not possibly happen to you." This is still happening. My friends, supportive in every other respect, keep turning against me in this issue. That's fine. I'm not going to break any friendships, but I'm not giving up on the thing either. The reason why I'm not stopping? I've discovered that I can accomplish nearly anything, so long as I'm willing to freaking ask. I've thrown inhibitions to the wind, and I'm throwing everything I can into the thing.
I am fairly confident I will succeed. I'm counting on it. I've devoted the last two months to it, and I'm betting the rest of my life on it. The funny thing about the thing is that I've tried similar endeavors on a smaller scale, and they always fall flat. Other opportunities come up, still small, but I either ignore these or I'm completely unaware they're available. I'm confident with my success in this thing is because I am proving I CAN, I can do hard things. I've never done this before. I've only approached such measures with nervous apathy. But I am resolved to succeed.
Peace out, readers.
PS: Have fun speculating over the thing. You're wrong.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Thoughts From a Sunday Afternoon
My sister is making a pizza for dinner. Six of us like combo, and two pepperoni. Since she is in charge of making the pizza, though, the split is 50:50. This is how government works.
A lady from the singles ward spoke in church today. She moved to Spokane in July, not because she had a family or a job here, but because she wanted to. That's pretty cool.
If two people make a deal with each other, it is only enforced if both sides stay true to their word. If one person lies, the other person suffers. We should be honest not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others.
Sometimes, I think that I hate a lot of people. It's healthy to occasionally sit back and count the people you like.
Procrastination isn't a good thing, but neither is front loading. The real joy is having power to schedule yourself in a way that lets you do what you want, when you want to.
I find that the books or tv shows I like usually have fandoms I don't like. (there's a post about this somewhere in the archives.) I have nothing against either Romney or Obama, but their fan clubs drive me crazy.
Peace out, readers.
A lady from the singles ward spoke in church today. She moved to Spokane in July, not because she had a family or a job here, but because she wanted to. That's pretty cool.
If two people make a deal with each other, it is only enforced if both sides stay true to their word. If one person lies, the other person suffers. We should be honest not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others.
Sometimes, I think that I hate a lot of people. It's healthy to occasionally sit back and count the people you like.
Procrastination isn't a good thing, but neither is front loading. The real joy is having power to schedule yourself in a way that lets you do what you want, when you want to.
I find that the books or tv shows I like usually have fandoms I don't like. (there's a post about this somewhere in the archives.) I have nothing against either Romney or Obama, but their fan clubs drive me crazy.
Peace out, readers.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Observations From First and Third Period
There are two sorts of people who make class discussions a pain, turning what could be perhaps the best way to learn into a taxing chore.
The first kind is when you have somebody who is genuinely brilliant. Somebody who has a thousand great thoughts flying through their head, but don't want to share them, because the butthole in the back of the class will respond by saying something invariably stupid. These people then stop participating in class discussions, which is horrid because it gives room for the other type of person.
This guy is one of the most annoying types of people on earth. Instead of having a lot to say, but remaining silent, this person has nothing to say, but says it anyway. Over and over again. These sacks of human beings enter the discussion with the sole purpose of getting called on at least half the time. This gets particularly bad when there are two of them. Their goal is not learn from the various viewpoints of their peers, but to assert theirs on the rest of the class. This asserting usually turns into a force feed, and in some particularly amusing/annoying situations, end up in a shouting match with the teacher.
The biggest problem with these people is that although they talk the most, they are perhaps the least qualified to do so. Almost without exception, the views expressed by these sorts tend to be very commonplace ones, without any new insight. This can be explained. The uninvited orator feels the absolute need to prove that they were smart enough to reach the answer, even though that's the expectation for the group as a whole. As a whole, very annoying.
This post really has no moral. I just needed to vent, because I listened to too many stupid comments today. That is all.
Peace out, readers.
The first kind is when you have somebody who is genuinely brilliant. Somebody who has a thousand great thoughts flying through their head, but don't want to share them, because the butthole in the back of the class will respond by saying something invariably stupid. These people then stop participating in class discussions, which is horrid because it gives room for the other type of person.
This guy is one of the most annoying types of people on earth. Instead of having a lot to say, but remaining silent, this person has nothing to say, but says it anyway. Over and over again. These sacks of human beings enter the discussion with the sole purpose of getting called on at least half the time. This gets particularly bad when there are two of them. Their goal is not learn from the various viewpoints of their peers, but to assert theirs on the rest of the class. This asserting usually turns into a force feed, and in some particularly amusing/annoying situations, end up in a shouting match with the teacher.
The biggest problem with these people is that although they talk the most, they are perhaps the least qualified to do so. Almost without exception, the views expressed by these sorts tend to be very commonplace ones, without any new insight. This can be explained. The uninvited orator feels the absolute need to prove that they were smart enough to reach the answer, even though that's the expectation for the group as a whole. As a whole, very annoying.
This post really has no moral. I just needed to vent, because I listened to too many stupid comments today. That is all.
Peace out, readers.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
False Idols
Here is a post that I've been meaning to write for a while. It has nothing to do with religion, so chill your charged opinions. I merely chose this name because it is a wonderfully convenient one.
No, what I'm talking about today is people. This is another "social science according to Eli" post. People. Specifically those we hold in high regard. The ones that seem so much better than us, we don't consider them people. This is something I'm very guilty of. There are a good number of people who I've done this to, and I still very much like these people. Even so, I've come to the opinion that this sort of behavior is unhealthy. The reason is twofold.
The first is on the behalf of our opinion of the person we are idolizing. I'm not talking celebrities here, I'm talking the ones on the local level. The genius in math. The incredible artist. The undefeated athlete. The very fact that we find them so amazing is what is wrong. Yes, they are very good at something. But they are also only human. The way we idolize people makes us forget that. By putting them on a pedestal, we alienate them. This is a bad thing. Treating somebody as more than they are is bad, and it affects more than just them. It affects us. By believing them to be somebody they're not, we miss the opportunity to learn who they are.
The other problem is perhaps even more self-detrimental. The same way we exaggerate the greatness of idols, we tear down ourselves. We see them as something we could never be, and feel mediocre in comparison to their greatness. Sometimes, this is inevitable. I'm not going to be the quarterback. But I don't care about that, because I don't man crush on football players. But I digress. Although it is inevitable that most of these people will remain better than you, that's not a good way to think. When we see these idols as who they are, it becomes significantly easier to reach their level of prowess. As a matter of fact, it is this manner of thought that I'm living by right now.
Moral: don't view other people as better than you. View them as a challenge.
Peace out, readers.
No, what I'm talking about today is people. This is another "social science according to Eli" post. People. Specifically those we hold in high regard. The ones that seem so much better than us, we don't consider them people. This is something I'm very guilty of. There are a good number of people who I've done this to, and I still very much like these people. Even so, I've come to the opinion that this sort of behavior is unhealthy. The reason is twofold.
The first is on the behalf of our opinion of the person we are idolizing. I'm not talking celebrities here, I'm talking the ones on the local level. The genius in math. The incredible artist. The undefeated athlete. The very fact that we find them so amazing is what is wrong. Yes, they are very good at something. But they are also only human. The way we idolize people makes us forget that. By putting them on a pedestal, we alienate them. This is a bad thing. Treating somebody as more than they are is bad, and it affects more than just them. It affects us. By believing them to be somebody they're not, we miss the opportunity to learn who they are.
The other problem is perhaps even more self-detrimental. The same way we exaggerate the greatness of idols, we tear down ourselves. We see them as something we could never be, and feel mediocre in comparison to their greatness. Sometimes, this is inevitable. I'm not going to be the quarterback. But I don't care about that, because I don't man crush on football players. But I digress. Although it is inevitable that most of these people will remain better than you, that's not a good way to think. When we see these idols as who they are, it becomes significantly easier to reach their level of prowess. As a matter of fact, it is this manner of thought that I'm living by right now.
Moral: don't view other people as better than you. View them as a challenge.
Peace out, readers.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Crime and Punishment, Part II
This is the assignment proper. I cannot print off my notes, so instead I am putting them here. My notes independent of the assignment can be found a few posts back. These are the ones designed to fulfill the requirements of the summer assignment, rather than for personal understanding or interpretation, divided exactly as the assignment said to.
Allusion
The main example of allusion in this book, and the one that is most relevant, is that toward the story of Lazarus in the NT. The story acts as a parallel toward Raskolnikov's own struggle, with his crime being his death, and his self-conviction and punishment serve as rebirth.
The other frequent allusion is toward Napoleon, through which Raskolnikov makes his justification. He uses him to promote a utilitarian viewpoint, and states that he could be a Napoleon, circumstances permitting.
Diction
There is nothing about diction that serves as a plot device, but it does help with establishing our opinion of the author. Though using a mostly commonplace lexicon, the author occasionally throws in a wrench like "tacit" or "apropos".
Connotation
An important device in this tale, but only picked up on by reading supplementary material. In the original Russian, "Punishment" did not imply the harsh bleakness that it does through our American version of the word, but rather, also carries another meaning, closer to "redemption". Raskolnikov spends maybe five pages of the book in formal punishment, but the punishment stated in the title applies throughout the book: a trip to redemption.
Irony
Perhaps under "Irony" is not the best place to put this example, but Raskolnikov's comparison to other characters, particularly Svidrigaïlov. While they follow strangely similar paths, Raskolnikov's crime is much more severe and bloody, as well as being driven by what superficially appears to be a much more selfish cause. The irony comes in when you realize that karma messed up its job pretty badly. Raskolnikov, despite being in a position that should make him despicable, is still the protagonist, and perhaps one of the more woobie characters in the book.
A more straightforward example can be found concerning dramatic irony. When we find that Svidrigaïlov was sitting on the other side of the wall, the author creates a sense of drama that he leaves hanging for like seven freaking chapters.
Tone
Tone is a strange word to describe the way the author writes, with perhaps "style" being more appropriate. The way the author writes very effectively communicates the frenzied mind of Raskolnikov. Though the viewpoint is third person, we still experience Raskolnikov's feels. The writing feels quick and fragmented, filled with a plethora of ellipses. Additionally, Raskolnikov's mood toward other characters is reflected in the writing of the passages. Porfiry's dialogue is filled with "ha, ha!"s, while the writing seems to slow down and become peaceful around Dounia.
Syntax
See the above paragraph.
Paradox
The character of Raskolnikov himself, though not a true paradox, certainly qualifies. He simultaneously is the most charitable and base character in the book. The irony here (oh look, another literary device) is that both are driven from his insane desire to become a little Napoleon.
Euphemism
A surprisingly prevalent device. Though the book touches on some very adult themes, including alcoholism, pedophilia, prostitution, murder, and suicide, the author seems to almost go out of his way to avoid talking about them directly. To an extent, having to infer what the author is talking about almost makes the truth more shocking. The most memorable example is Svidrigaïlov's "on my own" chapter, in which he keeps asserting that he's "going to America". The oddness of the euphemism plus the shock of what happens in the end adds toward the harrowing experience provided by the chapter.
Simile
Raskolnikov is like Svidrigaïlov, Sonia, and Lazarus. That enough simile for you?
Author's purpose
There's quite a bit to say on this one, but I'll keep it laconic. On the surface, the main purpose is to tell the story of a man who killed an old woman. But dig three inches deeper, and many more meaning come to the surface. The tale is one of the poverty Drotovesky himself found while writing it. It is a filibuster toward current Russian politics. It is a study of how a man can come to think of himself as more powerful than those around him, and an investigation of the tugs of guilt. It's a parable showing how what good people can be bad, and how bad people can be good. It is a story of rebirth, and a call to Christianity.
Alright folks, that's all. I've fulfilled the assignment with exactness, I hope you enjoyed it.
Peace out, readers.
Allusion
The main example of allusion in this book, and the one that is most relevant, is that toward the story of Lazarus in the NT. The story acts as a parallel toward Raskolnikov's own struggle, with his crime being his death, and his self-conviction and punishment serve as rebirth.
The other frequent allusion is toward Napoleon, through which Raskolnikov makes his justification. He uses him to promote a utilitarian viewpoint, and states that he could be a Napoleon, circumstances permitting.
Diction
There is nothing about diction that serves as a plot device, but it does help with establishing our opinion of the author. Though using a mostly commonplace lexicon, the author occasionally throws in a wrench like "tacit" or "apropos".
Connotation
An important device in this tale, but only picked up on by reading supplementary material. In the original Russian, "Punishment" did not imply the harsh bleakness that it does through our American version of the word, but rather, also carries another meaning, closer to "redemption". Raskolnikov spends maybe five pages of the book in formal punishment, but the punishment stated in the title applies throughout the book: a trip to redemption.
Irony
Perhaps under "Irony" is not the best place to put this example, but Raskolnikov's comparison to other characters, particularly Svidrigaïlov. While they follow strangely similar paths, Raskolnikov's crime is much more severe and bloody, as well as being driven by what superficially appears to be a much more selfish cause. The irony comes in when you realize that karma messed up its job pretty badly. Raskolnikov, despite being in a position that should make him despicable, is still the protagonist, and perhaps one of the more woobie characters in the book.
A more straightforward example can be found concerning dramatic irony. When we find that Svidrigaïlov was sitting on the other side of the wall, the author creates a sense of drama that he leaves hanging for like seven freaking chapters.
Tone
Tone is a strange word to describe the way the author writes, with perhaps "style" being more appropriate. The way the author writes very effectively communicates the frenzied mind of Raskolnikov. Though the viewpoint is third person, we still experience Raskolnikov's feels. The writing feels quick and fragmented, filled with a plethora of ellipses. Additionally, Raskolnikov's mood toward other characters is reflected in the writing of the passages. Porfiry's dialogue is filled with "ha, ha!"s, while the writing seems to slow down and become peaceful around Dounia.
Syntax
See the above paragraph.
Paradox
The character of Raskolnikov himself, though not a true paradox, certainly qualifies. He simultaneously is the most charitable and base character in the book. The irony here (oh look, another literary device) is that both are driven from his insane desire to become a little Napoleon.
Euphemism
A surprisingly prevalent device. Though the book touches on some very adult themes, including alcoholism, pedophilia, prostitution, murder, and suicide, the author seems to almost go out of his way to avoid talking about them directly. To an extent, having to infer what the author is talking about almost makes the truth more shocking. The most memorable example is Svidrigaïlov's "on my own" chapter, in which he keeps asserting that he's "going to America". The oddness of the euphemism plus the shock of what happens in the end adds toward the harrowing experience provided by the chapter.
Simile
Raskolnikov is like Svidrigaïlov, Sonia, and Lazarus. That enough simile for you?
Author's purpose
There's quite a bit to say on this one, but I'll keep it laconic. On the surface, the main purpose is to tell the story of a man who killed an old woman. But dig three inches deeper, and many more meaning come to the surface. The tale is one of the poverty Drotovesky himself found while writing it. It is a filibuster toward current Russian politics. It is a study of how a man can come to think of himself as more powerful than those around him, and an investigation of the tugs of guilt. It's a parable showing how what good people can be bad, and how bad people can be good. It is a story of rebirth, and a call to Christianity.
Alright folks, that's all. I've fulfilled the assignment with exactness, I hope you enjoyed it.
Peace out, readers.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Thoughts From The Car
My dear brother is making excellent use of his car time to do his summer assignment. The assignment is simple enough: a single essay. The prompt: Describe the culture of Spokane.
What a stupid prompt.
This assignment would have been a good one say, 100 years ago, but it's absolutely undoable today. The reason for this, of course, is that we live in televised, instant-communication, standardized America. Because of this, the "culture" of Spokane is indistinguishable from the culture of the rest of the USA. Asking students to isolate bits of culture that are uniquely Spokanite is a nearly impossible task. The shoes we wear? The popular clothing brands? The music that makes its way to the top of the chart? It's the same all across the country.
The other beef I have with this assignment is that even if Spokane does have some relatively unique facets of culture--dominating political views, local attractions, etc.--They are a pain to identify. It's easy to spot the culture of another country, even another city, but it's impossible to define your own. Like the smell of your house, "local culture" is something we become immune to noticing.
A city is perhaps the most awkward level to analyze culture on. As I've previously stated, a nation has a culture, perhaps a state has a culture, but not a city like Spokane. A city falls in the bracket of being too small to be national, but too large to be intimate. Within small groups of friends, even in a group as large as a school, it is perfectly possible for culture to develop. The little inside jokes we share with our compeers becomes part of our language, mannerisms start being duplicated, and the group grows together. There is a debate culture. There is a Startalk culture, there's a Spokane Stake culture, there's even a bit of a Ferris culture. But there is no Spokane culture. I have nothing in common with the folks downtown, cannot hope to relate with the kids in the valley.
As for culture on the city level, it is merely a smaller model of national culture. This essay is pointless because we cannot pinpoint a culture unique to Spokane. Rather, we can only see the way the country's trends are emulated by a town pretending to have significance.
End rant.
Peace out, readers.
What a stupid prompt.
This assignment would have been a good one say, 100 years ago, but it's absolutely undoable today. The reason for this, of course, is that we live in televised, instant-communication, standardized America. Because of this, the "culture" of Spokane is indistinguishable from the culture of the rest of the USA. Asking students to isolate bits of culture that are uniquely Spokanite is a nearly impossible task. The shoes we wear? The popular clothing brands? The music that makes its way to the top of the chart? It's the same all across the country.
The other beef I have with this assignment is that even if Spokane does have some relatively unique facets of culture--dominating political views, local attractions, etc.--They are a pain to identify. It's easy to spot the culture of another country, even another city, but it's impossible to define your own. Like the smell of your house, "local culture" is something we become immune to noticing.
A city is perhaps the most awkward level to analyze culture on. As I've previously stated, a nation has a culture, perhaps a state has a culture, but not a city like Spokane. A city falls in the bracket of being too small to be national, but too large to be intimate. Within small groups of friends, even in a group as large as a school, it is perfectly possible for culture to develop. The little inside jokes we share with our compeers becomes part of our language, mannerisms start being duplicated, and the group grows together. There is a debate culture. There is a Startalk culture, there's a Spokane Stake culture, there's even a bit of a Ferris culture. But there is no Spokane culture. I have nothing in common with the folks downtown, cannot hope to relate with the kids in the valley.
As for culture on the city level, it is merely a smaller model of national culture. This essay is pointless because we cannot pinpoint a culture unique to Spokane. Rather, we can only see the way the country's trends are emulated by a town pretending to have significance.
End rant.
Peace out, readers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)