The Clancy

Clancy at Occupy Wall Street

2012-01-15T22:45:00.000-07:00

Since Anthony and I were in NYC on Sunday, we decided to go down to Zuccotti Park, formerly the site of Occupy Wall Street. Of course, there were no longer tents there--the police had done away with that some time ago--but there were police. Lots of police. Though there were only a handful of officers visible, the mobile command tower and the numerous vans parked in the area provided the park with that after-dinner totalitarian flavor that American will most definitely come to taste more and more.

People were apparently free to walk through the park, but I did not see anyone actually do this. Everyone kept to the edges. As Anthony and I skirted our way around, we came across a single protester--an old cop. He stood alone, in uniform, with a cardboard sign telling us that we should watch Inside Job.

The true sign was what we found around the New York Stock Exchange. Surrounded by rows and rows of police barricades, the building loomed not like an impregnable fortress, but like a maltheistic temple. Indeed, there was an unholy reverence in the place, and I half-expected, if I squinted hard enough, to read these words above the entrance: Lasciate ogne speranze, voi ch'entrate.

FunStuff: Movie Trailer Overload!

2011-12-20T22:20:00.003-07:00

FunStuff: Dark Knight Rises/Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Mashup

2011-12-02T14:28:00.001-07:00

Pretty self-explanatory. Someone has taken the kinetic pacing of the trailer for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (complete with Trent Reznor's cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song") and applied it to Christopher Nolan's Batman movies.

FunStuff: Star Wars Identities

2011-11-22T07:27:00.001-07:00

This is one of those we're-not-going-to-tell-you-what-the-hell-the-thing-we're-advertising-actually-is ads.

<p>&amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;gt;h</p>

FunStuff: Legend of Zelda Medley

2011-11-19T11:20:00.001-07:00

Oh great... this isn't going to help people who still can't distinguish Link from Zelda.

Cast Announced for Remakes of Original Star Wars Trilogy

2011-09-16T13:32:00.000-06:00

Well, sort of.

Though I have been sulking over George Lucas's non-stop tinkering with the Original Trilogy (especially the ill-conceived changes present in the new, blu-ray versions of the films), this clip got me thinking about the potential for an even more drastic change to the "holy trilogy": a remake.

In my mind, it is only a matter of time. Maybe that period of time will be several hundred years, but someone, somewhere, will eventually remake Star Wars. But what if I were doing it? Who would I cast? Who would direct?

Here's what I would do (Please post your own cast in the comments. And you can guess if I am trolling or not) :

Luke Skywalker: Jim Sturgess

Han Solo: Jon Hamm

Princess Leia: Zoe Saldana

R2-D2: Nick Frost

C-3P0: Simon Pegg

Chewbacca (motion capture): Pau Gasol

Darth Vader (voice): Javier Bardem

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Jeff Bridges

Yoda (voice and motion capture): Andy Serkis

Emperor Palpatine: Christoph Waltz

Lando Calrissian: Idris Elba

Grand Moff Tarkin: Michael Fassbender

Wedge Antilles: Sam Rockwell

SMUGgie

2011-09-13T22:03:00.001-06:00

The wearable blanket for literary snobs!

As seen in my column, "Clancy's Fancies: Horribly Academic Ideas We Hope Never Happen," in The Scrivener!

P.S. I really hope someone makes this one day. The tweed would probably itch though.

If Britney Spears Had Pursued a Doctorate in English

2011-08-26T22:19:00.005-06:00

According to this article on Yahoo, Britney Spears would have pursued a career in teaching if she hadn't found success as a... as a... whatever. It goes on to state that she would have focused on either reading or history, but let me suggest an even more drastic alternative: critical theory. Here is a list of articles she probably would have written had she ascended to the ivory tower.

My Loneliness Is Killing Me: The Murderous Intentions of Personified Isolation in Emily Dickinson's "I'm Nobody! Who are You?"
Sometimes I Run. Sometimes I Hide: "The Most Dangerous Game" Revisited
You Drive Me Crazy: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Don't You Know That You're Toxic?: Male/Female Dynamics in the Works of Stephanie Meyer
You're Nothing But a Womanizer: Don Draper's Ontological Adultery
I Must Confess/I Still Believe: Derrida and Atheism Without Atheism
Oops...I Did It Again: The Ethical Conundrum of Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence
I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman: Puberty and Transgender
If You Seek Amy: The Reception of The Joy Luck Club
1, 2, 3--Peter, Paul, and Mary: Sexual Practices of Early Christianity

Can you come up with some more?

The Film "Howl," or Why Kristin Matthews is the Female Jon Hamm

2011-08-13T08:42:00.007-06:00

Last night I finally sat down and watched "Howl." This film didn't see wide release; I think it might have come to SLC at The Broadway, but I don't remember exactly. Anyway, I was able to find it in, of all places, the library in Gila, New Mexico. I guess that is one of the advantages of living in an area with so many retired hippies.

For those of you not in the know, IMDB provides a nice synopsis of the piece:

As Allen Ginsberg talks about his life and art, his most famous poem is illustrated in animation while the obscenity trial of the work is dramatized.

The passages focusing on Ginsberg are superb. Obviously, everyone loves James Franco, right?(Personally, I have admired his work ever since he appeared in that low-budget, sleeper hit, Spider-Man 3.) But Franco's prowess lies in his ability not only to make us believe that he is Ginsberg, but in his ability to make us believe that the words of the poem burst forth from his soul, the soul we see on-screen, as well.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the animated representation of the poem. After having read a review on Slate, which described

Forests of penis trees burst from the ground, then shoot forth spermatozoa that wriggle up into the sky and turn into stars,

I was a little worried about how everything would play out. But I think that everything, sperm stars included, works to make sure that the poem holds center stage (although at times I did catch myself thinking about the animated segment in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One). In this sense, I would have to agree with Stanley Fish's assessment that the literature, and the act of literary interpretation, are the real stars of the film:

After a movie you usually want to talk about the actors or the direction or the cinema-photography, but when you leave this movie what you want to do is go directly to a bookstore and buy a copy of “Howl” so that you can do some literary interpreting yourself; and then you want to go back and see the movie again (as I did) in the hope that this time you have something of your own to offer.

Finally, the lawyers in the film provide two points on which to anchor the history of my own interactions with the poem. My American Heritage teacher, Matthew Holland, is like the desperate prosecutor in the film, Ralph McIntosh (David Strathairn). McIntosh inadvertently created more interest for the poem through the obscenity proceedings. Similarly, Dr. Holland was the first person to introduce me to the poem; he played an clip of Ginsberg reading it as an example of the despair and angst of the Beats. I found my notebook from that class and all I had written on the matter was a simple

The Beat Generation--inner city--wacko.

What a great takeaway.

I think I would have had more respect for Dr. Holland if he, like McIntosh, would have admitted that he didn't get the poem. He could have even gone further than that, too. For example, he could have stood in front of the class and said, "You know, I don't think I grasp the symbolism of this poem. It's not exactly to my taste. But we shouldn't cower from the depravity and desperation depicted inside and use it as some excuse to pat ourselves on the back for our supposed righteousness. To do so would be to let a sincere act of communication from our brothers and sister fall on deaf and unchristian ears. Censorship should never be used as a social flyswatter."

But he didn't. And you would think that he would be more savvy when it comes to censorship. I mean, Dr. Holland is a man who told us that he was forced by his father to replace the words "whiskey and rye" with "triscuits and pie" whenever he would sing Don McClean's "American Pie" on road trips.

On the other side of the spectrum is one of my English professors, Kristin Matthews--the Jon Hamm of all of this. Now she didn't go toe to toe with Holland in a courtroom (although that is an interesting fantasy), but she did use the poem in our seminar on 50s lit--even though a few doe-eyed students would have rather discussed The Talented Mr. Ripley. My notes on this are much more extensive and deal with the idea of obscenity. In fact, one line in my notes reads:

Obscenity is American.

I can't really make out the rest of what I have typed, but I think that thought comes from Norman Mailer. Regardless, what I was able to take away from "Howl" in Dr. Matthews' class amounted to much more than depravity and despair. I think that she effectively made the case that we can't just stop when something puts us out of our comfort zone. Obscenity forces us to recognize those unseen and marginalized elements of our world that, thought structurally necessary for the status quo, must remain unseen for polite society to maintain any illusion of legitimacy.

I can't help now but think that a line from Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried would be an appropriate finish:

If you don't care for obscenity, you don't care for the truth...

New Design... No New Ideas

2011-08-11T20:10:00.002-06:00

I changed things up a bit. No reason.

FunStuff: Han Solo Freaks Out

2011-07-29T10:11:00.002-06:00

You've probably already seen this:

No Kids Allowed

2011-07-27T10:03:00.003-06:00

Saw this article on Yahoo today. Couldn't believe it.

It's obviously a massive conspiracy on the part of babysitters.

There Are Three Things I Love About Britain...

2011-07-17T18:30:00.007-06:00

The Beatles: The Best 60s Rock and Roll Band to come out of Liverpool in the World!

The Bugle: The Best Podcast featuring John Oliver and Andy Zaltzman in the World!

(listen to it now)

And Harry Potter: The Best Magical-Boarding-School-Themed Book/Movie Series in the World!

(hypothetical Penguin book covers)

(hypothetical Criterion Collection covers)

More on my other feelings about Britain later...

FunStuff: "I'm Such a Nerd"

2011-06-20T20:58:00.000-06:00

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (and Robin Williams)

2011-06-15T17:44:00.003-06:00

In between building barbed-wire fence and herding my niece and nephew around the house, I have been playing through my favorite video game again: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

My family is not a video game family by any stretch of the imagination. We had an NES, but did not upgrade to the Super NES. My parents got me a Nintendo 64 when I entered junior high, but by then the PlayStation was already beginning to come onto the scene and Nintendo was more and more a kid's toy. I think I only ended up owning four N64 games in the end, one of which was Ocarina of Time. I haven't bought a game console since. My buddy Dale is currently trying to convince me to get a Wii. I think I might get an X-Box instead, but alas there is no Zelda on X-Box. Actually, I think I will just pass on video games for the moment.

But as long as I am in New Mexico, I am going to work on beating Ocarina of Time one more ti... err... again. Still, sometimes playing Zelda is a lot like the following video:

In other words, Link is something of a tool.

As it so happens, Nintendo is rereleasing this game for the 3DS. Here are some snippets from their ad campaign. Please note that Robin Williams is such a huge The Legend of Zelda fan that he named his daughter after the princess.

My Journey South

2011-06-02T23:00:00.003-06:00

I hate hate hate hate travel blogs. If I wanted to know about your every move while you're on vacation, I would have just gone to x with you. I don't want to see photos of the food or of your face in front of some famous place in x. Seriously people. Did you travel halfway around the world just so you could blog about yourself?

That being said, I only have the following to report: My buddy Bill and I traveled from El Paso, Texas, to Panama City, Panama, using only buses (and a water taxi or two).

We did take a few photos since one of our close friends gave us disposable cameras. These are available on Facebook and are mostly of a Mountain Dew can that we brought along with us.

If you have any questions, feel free to post them in the comments or ask me in person the next time I see you.

That's all you really need (and probably want) to know.

FunStuff: Existential Star Wars

2011-05-18T09:07:00.001-06:00

I found this as I was surfing the net. Enjoy.

Books Completed in March

2011-04-03T19:27:00.003-06:00

I slacked a bit this month, mostly because I spent so much time reading Snow Crash and Living in the End Times (still not completed with either) and reading most of Uncle Tom's Cabin and Last of the Mohicans for class.

Death Comes For The Archbishop by Willa Cather (297 pages)
The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy by Raj Patel (194 pages)
Goodbye, Columbus by Philip Roth (298 pages)
Peyton Place by Grace Metalious (372 pages)
Waiting For Godot by Samuel Beckett (109 pages)
Examined Life: Excursions With Contemporary Thinkers edited by Astra Taylor (222 pages)

Daily Headache: Conquistadors

2011-02-28T22:03:00.013-07:00

Let me start my discussion of the "Conquistador" headline of today's DU by saying that this will not be a tirade in favor of political correctness or racial sensitivity. While some will no doubt question whether it is appropriate or not, on the basis of race, to describe the victory of our basketball "team" over the San Diego State Aztecs in terms of Spain's decimation of the historical Aztecs (and one could even talk about the correctness of SDSU having the Aztecs as a mascot at all), I want to take this opportunity to look at the unclever headline in terms of economic violence, both temporal and spiritual.
In Violence, Slavoj Žižek describes the difference between acts of subjective violence and objective or systemic violence. Subjective violence is those acts that we can easily see because they disrupt our everyday experience (like a mugging, a murder, a war) while objective ones structurally support our everyday experience (like the economic violence enacted on the Third World in order to maintain our standard of living).

Žižek provides some interesting examples of how this works on a larger scale:

Our blindness to the results of systemic violence is perhaps most clearly perceptible in debates about communist crimes. Responsibility for communist crimes is easy to allocate: we are dealing with subjective evil, with agents who did wrong. We can even identify the ideological sources of the crimes--totalitarian ideology, The Communist Manifesto, Rousseau, even Plato. But when one draws attention to the millions who died as a the result of capitalist globalisation, from the tragedy of Mexico in the sixteenth century through to the Belgian Congo holocaust a century ago, responsibility is largely denied. All this seems just to have happened as the result of an "objective" process, which nobody planned and executed and for which there was no "Capitalist Manifesto." (The one who came closest to writing it was Ayn Rand.) (14)

Of course, we can point to actual individuals involved with an event like the conquest of Mexico (e.g. Cortés), but Žižek's point here is we don't hold them responsible for genocide because they don't seem to be masterminds. They aren't a Hitler. Hitler was a case of subjective violence. He was an "agent who did wrong" and we can see the clear connections between him and his crime-- and we would never see a team called the San Diego State Jews and we would never, ever celebrate our victory over them with the headline "Holocaust!"

And there is a clear economic point here--those things seem objective which benefit us.

The conquest of Mexico just happened, then. Or at least it seemed to... to the likes of the Daily Universe. And to the likes of Dr. Matthew Holland, who taught the freshman American Heritage course here at BYU (I didn't know what "jingoism" meant until i took his class). Not only did the conquest seem to happen without agents, it was necessary for our present-day way of life! To listen to Dr. Holland lecture, you would think that any sort of atrocity was okay if it lead to the founding of America. Because America is God's nation.

Which reminds me of yet another discussion of the conquest of Mexico during my undergrad career, in one of my Book of Mormon classes taught by Brother Merrill. Merrill justified the Spanish's actions by discussing the "darkness" of the Aztecs, apparently drawing on Bernal Díaz's account of men being fattened up in cages before being cannibalized. The Aztecs, as degenerate Lamanites, had it coming, in other words. They were on the wrong end of God's economics, as explained in the Book of Mormon: keep the commandments and you will prosper in the land--break them and you will be wiped out so that someone else (usually someone whiter) can come in and give it a go. God wiped them out so Europeans could come and take hold of the blessings of the land.

Either way, whether it be political or spiritual (and here at BYU it is often hard to see the difference), the message is clear: the destruction of the Aztecs was necessary (as opposed to the unnecessary extermination of the Jews). And since it was necessary, why should it be such a big deal. Right? Lighten up--it's just a headline.

Books Completed in February

2011-02-28T21:43:00.003-07:00

Still maintaining my desired pace.

Che Guevara: A Manga Biography by Kiyoshi Konno and Chie Shimano (172 pages)
The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien (246 pages)
The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga (276 pages)
The Final Solution: A Story of Detection by Michael Chabon (131 pages)
Batman: Arkham Asylum by Grant Morrison and Dave McKean (216 pages)
War Music: An Account of Books 1-4 and 16-19 of Homer's Iliad by Christopher Logue (215 pages)
The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro (245 pages)
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison (581 pages)
Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahnuik (297)

The Justin Bieber Shooting

2011-02-20T18:37:00.002-07:00

My buddy Ed posted this on facebook. I don't know, but I am beginning to think that this kid has a good sense of humor about himself.

Why I Love El Gallo Giro

2011-02-18T10:12:00.007-07:00

Every Thursday and Friday, Bill and I go to El Gallo Giro (346 North University Avenue) for lunch. Let me tell you what keeps bringing us back.

The Food. If you are tired of the one-step-above-Taco-Bell flavor of a bourgeois restaurant like Los Hermanos, then El Gallo Giro can offer you a fair approximation of the cuisine from Mexico City and the surrounding states. I particularly enjoy the tostadas de tinga that they have every now and then.
The Price. With complimentary chips and salsa and beans and rice included with almost everything, you won't find a better way to eat through $6 or $7.
The Crowd. If you eat at El Gallo Giro frequently enough, you will probably run into large portions of the BYU English department. Not only have I had three awkward encounters with Kristin Matthews there (awkward because I knew who she was, and she knew who I was, but we hadn't really been introduced... plus I was on a date and I don't like my professors or students to know that I have an existence outside of class), but just last week Bill and I saw Trent Hickman, Dennis Cutchins, Eric Eliason, Brett McInelly, and Nick Mason come in together as if they were all part of some sort of not-so-secret society. Seeing who will walk through the door next is half of the fun.
The Service. If you have a thing for Latinas, then El Gallo Giro is probably heaven. Right, Bill?

FunStuff: VW Vader

2011-02-04T10:55:00.001-07:00

Funny, but kind of lame.

Books Completed in January

2011-01-31T21:26:00.002-07:00

Divisadero by Michael Ondaatje (290 pages)
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho (167 pages)
The Stranger by Albert Camus (123 pages)
The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon (152 pages)
V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd (288 pages)
Dark Empire by Tom Veitch and Cam Kennedy (152 pages)
Youth in Revolt by C.D. Payne (499 pages)
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit by Sloan Wilson (276 pages)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers by Jack Finney (216 pages)
Monsters, Mushroom Clouds, and the Cold War: American Science Fiction and the Roots of Postmodernism, 1946-1964 by M. Keith Booker (196 pages)

Daily Headache: Jimmer, J.J, and Mormon Self-doubt.

2011-01-27T14:33:00.005-07:00

Today's Daily Universe contains another gem from our friend, J.J. Despain. Though the article bears the title "Why We Love Jimmer: Spotlight on Fredette Reflects on Church," only the last quarter or so actually deals with anything of Mormon import; most of the article is an odd and sycophantic regurgitation of sports statistics. When Despain finally does begin to ease into religious matters, he does so with what smacks of a "prosperity gospel" approach to basketball--Fredette's shooting is described as "unbelievable" and "divine." Here is the thrust of the argument:

While “The Jimmer Show” is definitely deserving of attention from sports fans nationwide, most of Cougar Nation has another reason to root for Fredette’s ever-increasing success: He has done it all as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
If there’s one thing we Mormons love, it’s a famous Mormon. At least part of the Mormon community’s support for Mitt Romney, Stephenie Meyer, Steve Young, Fredette and others is because their place in history legitimizes our religion and culture.

Here, Despain suggests an extremely uncritical and shallow Mormon populace. By insinuating that Mormondom will support a celebrity solely on the basis that that person is LDS, Despain makes Church membership out to be a group more devoted to cronyism than discernment, ignoring those of us who are skeptical of Romney's political prowess and even more skeptical of Meyer's talent as an author.

More troubling, though, is his claim that famous Mormons somehow give legitimacy to our beliefs. He says

We can prove to the world that if a Mormon can run for president, write a best-selling book, win a Super Bowl and (we hope) take a college basketball team to the Final Four, the world shouldn’t consider us weird anymore.
And that’s a major reason why we love Jimmer. Because when he is featured on SportsCenter, in Sports Illustrated or The Wall Street Journal, he represents each of us.

I think Despain actually (though inadvertently) highlights a key issue here: a portion of the Mormon population is extremely insecure.

And looking to the world for legitimacy further betrays this profound insecurity not only about the Church but about "the World" as well. Perhaps these Mormons do not actually believe what they profess with as much certainty as they would like to let on. Perhaps they must constantly be "proving" how true the One, True Church is in order to keep believing it.

All of this reminds me of something I blogged about previously: the mixing of empirical epistemology and faith. This is another Turin Shroud moment: with Fredette, Despain seems to place the locus of truth on Jimmer's standing with the world (or Romney's or Meyer's) and not on faith. He sounds like any number of Mormons who spout the latest archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon in Gospel Doctrine class. Their faith is based on evidence of things seen.

So, why do Mormons like J.J. Despain love Jimmer? Because their lack of faith demands it.

My Mad Friends

2011-01-24T13:26:00.005-07:00

Here are the results of my friends' efforts to Mad Men themselves:

Bill

Skoticus

My Buddy Dale

Mom

Aimee (sans dog)

Dad

Kelsy

Tim

The Alchemist and Sleeping Bags

2011-01-18T11:18:00.004-07:00

Now, I had been warned by Jeremy Walker that Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist is a stinking pile of allegorical, self-help crap. Nevertheless, I wanted to know for myself, so I set out to read it. After finishing it, I can say that yes, it is a stinking pile of allegorical, self-help crap, but I also see why some people find it so appealing. I mean, who doesn't want to believe that "when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it"? (22). And frankly, it would be nice to see omens in the world, pointing you towards your Personal Legend. Plus, it is an easy read. No big words.

But my beef with the book doesn't center so much on the writing or the vocabulary as it does on Coelho's philosophy. Take an experience I had yesterday as an example. When I went to Cabela's yesterday to buy a sleeping bag for my trip to Central and South America, the perfect bag for me just happened to be called the "Silver City" bag. Where did I grow up? In a little town by Silver City, New Mexico. Isn't that an omen that this trip is part of what I need to do with my life?

The Alchemist would say, "Yes." I would say either "No," or "Who cares?" Books like The Alchemist lead to a dangerous method of living. By reading signs into everything, we not only erase nuances of experience, but we become incredibly utilitarian: people and things are useful inasmuch as they are omens or tools to help us reach our Personal Legend. In fact, since the Personal Legend is the telos of all things, they are truly valuable only if they have reached that end. This attitude might play out very well in the pages of a simplistic fantasy, but it doesn't hold up so well in something as multifaceted as "real life"--whatever that is.

I am glad I read the book, if only to see how truly troubling its ideas are. But who knows. When I get back this summer, maybe I will have found my Personal Legend.

Go Mad Men Yourself

2011-01-13T11:43:00.004-07:00

This is probably really old news, but I just discovered the "Mad Men Yourself" feature at AMC's website for my favorite TV drama, Mad Men. Now I don't have to imagine what it would be like to be part of the show; I can see it for myself.

Ah yes. Now I know what it looks like to live in a world where appearance is everything, everyone self-medicates, sexuality is repressed, women are forced to stay in the home, and men are worried about their jobs and status and money. Oh wait...

If you happen to go to the "Mad Men Yourself" site, please send me a copy of your picture. I will probably post it if I get enough.

One Step Closer

2011-01-10T11:15:00.002-07:00

This is a Kelty Durango 5100. On Saturday, I went up to Cabela's and bought me one. Why? Because once the semester is out, I am out of here. I'm packing this bad boy and heading south. Way south.

An Interesting Juxtaposition: Žižek and BYU.edu

2010-12-31T07:59:00.004-07:00

First, from How to Read Lacan by Slavoj Žižek:

For both liberal cynics and religious fundamentalists, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while sceptical cynics mock them. No wonder that religious fundamentalists are among the most passionate digital hackers, and always prone to combine their religion with the latest findings of science. For them, religious statements and scientific statements belong to the same modality of positive knowledge. The occurence of the term 'science' in the very name of some of the fundamentalist sects (Christian Science, Scientology) is not just an obscene joke, but signals this reduction of belief into positive knowledge. The case of the Turin Shroud (a piece of cloth that was allegeldy used to cover the body of the dead Christ and had stains of his blood) is instructive here. Its authenticity would be a horror for every true believer (the first thing to do would be to analyse the DNA of the bloodstains and resolve empirically the question of who Jesus's father was), while a true fundamentalist would rejoice in this opportunity. We find the same reduction of belief to knowledge in today's Islam, which abounds with hundreds of books by scientists that 'demonstrate' how the latest scientific advances confirm the insights and injunctions of the Quran: the divine prohibition of incest is confirmed by recent genetic knowledge about the defective children born of incest. The same goes for Buddhism, where many scientists play on the motif of 'the Tao of modern physics,' of how the contemporary scientific vision of reality as a substanceless flux of oscillating events has finally confirmed the ancient Buddhist ontology. One is compelled to draw the paradoxical conclusion that in the opposition between tradtional secular humanists and religious fundamentalists, it is the humanists that stand for belief, while fundamentalists stand for knowledge. This is what we can learn from Lacan about the rise of religious fundamentalism: its true danger does not reside in its threat to secular scientific knowldege, but in its threat to authentic belief itself. (117-118)

And now, a sample from BYU's website (those familiar with the site will know that many such blurbs appear throughout the year):

Good things come to those who wait, research shows.

A new study published by a journal of the American Psychological Associations found a number of benefits for couples who delay sex until marriage.

First as Tragedy, Then as Farce... Animated!

2010-11-15T11:15:00.003-07:00

This is self-explanatory:

FunStuff: The Oddest Music Video You Will Watch Today

2010-11-13T16:44:00.003-07:00

My roommate Tim was kind enough to share this with me. Don't ask me how he found it.

FunStuff: Rediscovering Return of the Jedi

2010-11-10T12:11:00.003-07:00

As part of "Star Wars Sunday," my roommates and I watched Return of the Jedi. This has always been my least favorite episode of the OT (Original Trilogy or Old Testament), hands down. I actually prefer The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith to this Ewok-laden installment.

Anyway, I came across this post on the subject by my friend, Kelsy Chesnut. Go check it out!

Blogs Are People Too

2010-10-25T12:25:00.003-06:00

As I read through my friends' blogs (and as friends read mine), I wonder if I approach these people in the same way I approach their blogs. Thinking about this has lead me to a few questions/comments.

Some people seem intimidated by long, intricate posts--are we really not all that interested in what friends have to say? Are we just sort on time? In real life, when someone is talking about an idea they have, do we really give a crap?

Some people like short, energetic and happy posts--do we revel in superficiality? Do we demand entertainment from our friends?

Some people don't think blogs are the place for rants or negative things--do we just want to be friends to the extent that it isn't messy? Do we honestly not want to be there for people?

Thoughts? Comments?

SNL: Mom's On Facebook

2010-10-13T20:17:00.001-06:00

I tease my mom about being on Facebook all the time. Good one, SNL.

I Will Gladly Have A Bollywood Night If We Can Watch This Movie...

2010-09-25T08:28:00.002-06:00

Don't ask me to understand it because it will just make me more confused...

Starburstmancy: The Art of Divination Through Fruit Chews

2010-09-22T15:37:00.002-06:00

I love eating Starbursts, especially when they come in the fun-sized packets. Two Starbursts are just the right amount of fruity juiciness to lift my spirits.

As I have aged, I have often pondered the metaphysical significance of the color combinations inside of these packets. What does it mean when there are double colors? Why do I hate yellows so much? After much study into the arcane, confectionary arts, I am pleased to reveal to you a guide to Starburstmancy, the art of divination through fruit chews.

RED-RED

The Red-Red combination is the most favorable of all possibilities. The strength of Red is an indicator of impending success in all ventures. If you are feeling especially unconfident, eat both Starburst. However, if you are afraid that you run the risk of arrogance by consuming so much awesomeness, eat one and give the other to a friend.

RED-PINK

While not as favorable as a Red-Red, Red-Pink still is a sign of happiness and success. The Pink Starburst brings with it the power of romantic love, making your day full of possibility. More importantly, the power of Pink can temper the fierce thriving for success inherent in Red. This sort of balance is necessary to create and maintain a day full of synergy. Pursue your goals with confidence and prudence.

PINK-PINK

While there is some debate about the potency of this combination, Pink-Pink is still regarded by most Starburstmancers as signaling the inevitable approach of love, especially romantic love. The Starburstmancers in Mexico, for example, refer to this combination as Los Ojos de Cupido (or, in coarser circles, Las Tetas de Afrodita). A new partner is looking for you. If you find this combination, smile and await your new lover.

RED-ORANGE

Red-Orange is a warning against complacency. If you have achieved high levels of success, be on your guard against impending failure. If you are stuck in a rut, this is the universe's way of saying, "Hey, Stupid. Change the way you're living your life!" Take five minutes to evaluate the direction your life is headed.

PINK-ORANGE

Quite similar to the Red-Orange combination, the Pink-Orange signals that your romantic life is at a crossroads. After serious reflection, you should consider leaving a stagnant relationship and pursuing an exciting, new partner. Or, you might consider trying to reignite the flame in your current relationship. Either way, now is the critical moment.

RED-YELLOW

The juxtaposition of opposites, the Red-Yellow combination signals that your day will be one of extremes. However, the order in which you eat these Starburst can significantly alter the outcome of events:

If you eat the Red one first, your day will begin well and end poorly.
If you eat the Yellow one first, your day will begin poorly and end well.

Plan your day accordingly.

PINK-YELLOW

Finding a Pink-Yellow combination can be extremely devastating since it signals the advent of a breakup. The positive energy of the Pink Starburst is no match for the malignant forces latent in Yellow-ness. Upon finding this combination, brace yourself for bad news--your romantic relationship is over.

ORANGE-ORANGE

Orange-orange is the portent of a metaphysical doldrums. Nothing special will happen today, but nothing bad will happen either. You will neither succeed nor fail. Prepare for mediocrity.

ORANGE-YELLOW

Orange-Yellow buzzes with the energy of "The Close Call" since it is so close to being a Yellow-Yellow. Accordingly, it contains an element of hope. While you should prepare for hardships, you should know that the universe acknowledges your struggle and will prepare a road for your ultimate success.

YELLOW-YELLOW

Also known as "The Double Deuce" or testiculi diaboli, Yellow-Yellow is the worst possible combination. It signals not only the approach of a terrible, terrible day, but that the powers of the universe have combined against you. If you pursue romance, you will be rejected. If you play the lottery, you will lose. If you eat a meal, you will choke and die. Yellow-Yellow is the universe's way of saying to you, "Today, I wish you had never been born." If you open up your packet to find this combination, DO NOT EAT THEM. You must dispose of them in the following manner:

Unwrap both yellow Starbursts
Tear each Starburst into four equal pieces
Place each piece in a different trash can (preferably as far apart as possible)
Refrain from opening more packets

Rooftop Concert Series

2010-09-11T19:54:00.005-06:00

Went to it. Loved it.

You can read more about this particular concert and the whole concert series on the organizer's blog, cjanerun.com. I knew nothing about this event; and, if it weren't for Amy and Emily, I probably wouldn't have gone. It was nice and chill, even if it did seem to call in all the indie kids.

Of the two acts, Benton Paul was definitely the best. He's talented, funny, and has just enough bastard in him to not seem like a total douche. Plus, he wears awesome skinny ties.

But, I think I was more inclined to like Benton because of how milquetoast Nik Day was.

Nik Day published a description of himself on his facebook page:

Singer/Songwriter from Provo, Utah. Writes music about love, hate, board games, and third-world countries. Born in Japan, which makes him half Japanese, basically.

But that's not how I would describe him. I think Mr. Hold-on-while-I-go-get-my-guitar-from-my-room, Mr. Sit-here-while-I-play-the-piano-in-the-Wilk, or Mr. You-like-Michael-Buble-too?-OMG!!!! are better. In my book, he is only slightly more talented than every tool in Provo that thinks playing the guitar for girls in his apartment qualifies as entertaining guests. Day's sound is imitative and he lacks versatility--if you've heard one song you have heard them all. So go ahead and listen to that one song, but spare yourself the monotony of having to live through the rest.

Theory Boy

2010-09-05T19:43:00.004-06:00

I feel the need to point out this passage from Gregory Colon Semenza's Graduate Study for the 21st Century before any of my classmates do:

Theory Boy or Girl: Almost always a graduate student, any individual who has determined absolutely that "theory" should be routinely misunderstood, distorted and then adopted as part of a personal conduct code. Theory boys and girls are rarely seen wearing the same outfit twice, and often they are overheard explaining to forlorn-looking individuals that relationships are useless since desire and affection are social constructs. You may choose to chat with one or two of these persons from time to time, but you should never date them (27).

Blood, Nietzsche, Zarathustra, and Žižek

2010-08-30T15:28:00.004-06:00

As part of my attempt to read “theory” over the summer (and, in part, make up for what I feel was a less than adequate undergraduate theory course [452]), I bought and started to read Slavoj Žižek’s Violence. If you don’t know much about Žižek, he is something of a rock star in the world of theory (and his wife is a wife befitting a rock star).

Anyway, as I was reading the first section of his book, I came to a part where he began to discuss some ideas that my ol’ buddy Nietzsche had in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Now, I had read On The Genealogy of Morals and The Birth of Tragedy for Matt Wickman’s 451 class, but I hadn’t ever cracked open TSZ. So, I decided to check it out so I could stop feeling like a poser.

Let me just say that it, so far, it has been a cocktail of weirdness and 180-proof awesome. I have an inclination towards things of a quasi-mystical nature (which is paradoxical, given my even stronger love of metaphysics-destroying deconstruction), so Nietzsche’s version of Zarathustra and his “speeches” intoxicate me like no other (is paradoxicate a word? It should be).

One speech in particular, “On Reading and Writing,” really set my mind ablaze. This speech’s opening words are portentous:

Of all that is written I love only that which one writes with his blood. Write with blood, and you will experience that blood is spirit.

Now, it would be easy to dismiss this sort of aphorism as a worn-out maxim along the lines of the quote attributed to Samuel Johnson:

What is written without effort is in general read without pleasure.

But I think there is more than just advice about writing with effort here. In fact, I don’t, as far as writing advice goes, think I would readily recommend this section to anyone (particularly my students... even though I did...) because Nietzsche goes on to say that

It is not easily possible to understand the blood of another: I hate the reading idlers. Whoever knows the reader will do nothing more for the reader. One more century of readers – and the spirit itself will stink. That everyone is allowed to learn to read ruins not only writing in the long run, but thinking too. Once the spirit was God, then it became human and now it is even becoming rabble. Whoever writes in blood and proverbs does not want to be read, but to be learned by heart.

I think that, based on the disdain for both those that “know the reader” (which I take as those that seek to make things so obvious that there is no possibility for misunderstanding--in short, those that soften ideas and nuance) and those that cause the spirit to stink by being “reading idlers,” this idea of bloodless writing and stinky spirit has to do with an idea that Nietzsche brings up earlier in his work—the Last Man (der letzte Mensch).

The Last Man is the opposite of the Übermensch or “Overman.” The Last Man has no room within him for creation, or life, because he seeks a sort of nihilism in balance:

I say to you: one must still have chaos in oneself in order to give birth to a dancing star. I say to you: you still have chaos in you.

Beware! The time approaches when human beings will no longer give birth to a dancing star. Beware! The time of the most contemptible human is coming, the one who can no longer have contempt for himself.

Behold! I show you the last human being.

This chaos and lack of self-contempt (self-contempt is what I constantly refer to as being in flux, as constantly deconstructing the “self”) leads to a sterile, safe world--a world without blood or spirit. In Violence, Žižek describes the Last Man, the man responsible for this state of the world, as

Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security, an expression of tolerance with one another

and then balances his analysis with a these words from Nietzsche’s text:

One has one’s little pleasure for the day and one’s little pleasure for the night: but one honors health.

“We invented happiness” say the last human beings, and they blink.

The happiness of the Last Man is passive nihilism, a resignation to his own inconsequentiality. He still seeks pleasure, but in moderation. There is no excess in life or in love. There is no blood--no spirit--because there is "no point" in the mind of the Last Man. And worse, the Last Man does not hold himself in contempt. He does not seem himself as worth overcoming because, let's face it, he thinks that he is awesome. His invented "happiness" is a blindfold he has wrapped around his head in order to keep himself from the reeking stagnation of his own existence.

Žižek, of course, attaches the label of Last Men to those bourgeois sorts in gated communities that think they have it all figured out. These people give to charity and pat themselves on the back. They don't hold themselves in any sort of contempt or question their modus operandi. In fact, I would say that his critique extends towards people like me (self-proclaimed literati that think they are being somehow analytical about themselves and the world). I welcome this criticism--it helps me know what parts of myself I need to overcome. It points out the areas of my life that I should abhor and hold in contempt.

Me aside, I also see a lot of bloodless Last Men on campus. They are the men and women who either are not following their passion, or have none. But yet they pat themselves on the back for doing what they "should." They do what their parents want them to do. They are afraid to live. They are afraid to learn. They are afraid to love.

These are the men and women that have no amor fati, or a love of one’s fate. This type of love is an acceptance of everything that happens in one’s life, including the most horrible things, as “good.” This is an attitude that is extremely difficult to maintain, especially in the face of constant and brutal setbacks. It is difficult not to want to play the victim, to not curse God and die. Believe me, I know. But Nietzsche’s Zarathustra defiantly proclaims,

I want to have goblins around me, for I am courageous. Courage that scares off ghosts creates its own goblins – courage wants to laugh.

Whoever climbs the highest mountain laughs at all tragic plays and tragic realities.

Courageous, unconcerned, sarcastic, violent – thus wisdom wants us: she is a woman and always loves only a warrior.

You say to me: “Life is hard to bear.” But why would you have your pride in the morning and your resignation in the evening?

Life is hard to bear: but then do not carry on so tenderly! We are all of us handsome, load bearing jack- and jillasses.

The first question that went through my mind upon reading this is “how?”. How is it possible to love a horrible life, to bear it like a beautiful jack ass? It seems like sometimes life is so bleak and pointless and arbitrary that nihilism is the only defensible position. It seems like the position of the Last Man, creating little pleasures where you can and not sticking your neck out, is logical! How is it possible to want to confront life head-on? Nietzsche has an interesting answer:

It is true: we love life not because we are accustomed to life but because we are accustomed to love.

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.

I would only believe in a god who knew how to dance.

And when I saw my devil, there I found him earnest, thorough, deep, somber: it was the spirit of gravity – through him all things fall.

Not by wrath does one kill, but by laughing. Up, let us kill the spirit of gravity!

Where is the blood? How can one bear his life? Through the madness of love and laughter. Through an unyielding affirmation of life in the full light of death, despair, and defeat. Blood is more than effort and more than passion. Blood is realizing that your fate, be it good or bad, is embraceable precisely because it is unembraceable and horrific. Blood is loving the unloveable life. Only then, embracing the star-froming chaos, will you overcome yourself. Or, as Nietzsche concludes,

I learned to walk, since then I let myself run. I learned to fly, since then I do not wait to be pushed to move from the spot.

Now I am light, now I fly, now I see myself beneath me, now a god dances through me.
Nataraja

FunStuff: Honeywagon's Cover of Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel"

2010-08-30T12:18:00.004-06:00

I heard about this on the radio as I was driving home yesterday. These guys have a whole tribute album to MJ called Songs from Neverland or something.

If you like what you hear, check out their blink 182 covers.

PS: A real blogpost is on the way.

When Alliteration Attacks: Lindisfarne's "Fog On theTyne"

2010-08-17T21:25:00.005-06:00

My roommate Tim is into all sorts of music, but not in that way some people are into all sorts of music in order to appear to be hip. He has more instruments than anyone I know (none of which are a guitar) and, even as I sit here blogging, he is sitting next to me playing some sort of... thing (probably a mandolin or a oboe or something).

Anyway, he just showed me this video, which I find to be comical on many levels (language, hair, teeth). Enjoy!

PS You must watch until the last verse, it is especially bizarre.

Daily Headache: Calling J.J. Despain A Hack Would Be Giving Him Too Much Credit

2010-08-15T22:01:00.008-06:00

Well, I guess the Daily Universe wouldn't be the Daily Universe if it didn't make me reevaluate the capability of this generation of twenty-something Mormons to think critically and engage complicated social issues with the degree of competence one would expect from individuals receiving a university education. Heaven forbid that I read something from the DU staff that makes gives me hope. I am not presumptuous enough to think that anyone there reads my blog (and if they do, they must not have reflected on any of my criticism because, let's face it, they ain't getting any better), but I think they are baiting me sometimes. I think they do this to me on purpose.

Okay, I really don't think that. But August 10th's viewpoint by J.J. Despain seems to be just the sort of semi-readable garbage that the editors of the DU must know people like me can't swallow. It's like they pulled J.J. aside and said, "Listen, we want you to write the most illogical, shallow, ludicrous thing imaginable. It will drive those critical thinkers nutty!"

What was so bad? Well, let me tell you about it. The viewpoint is entitled "Another proclamation on the family: 'As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord'" and is typical of the sort of combative victimization so prevalent among Mormons these days. He starts out by decrying the current attack against traditional marriage and goes on about how even in his lifetime, he has witnessed the "rapid erosion of family ideals and values," namely thr push for gay marriage.

This is his description of the current state of modern families:

Chastity before marriage is almost unheard of. Premarital cohabitation is an alternative to marriage that is not only tolerated but encouraged. New methods of birth control packaged as medical advances allow increasingly hedonistic lifestyles. If the wedding day ever does arrive, it is not until after education, career, money, travel and many other materialistic distractions have taken precedence. And after the honeymoon is over, there is a 40 percent chance the marriage will end in divorce.

Ok. I think we have heard this sort of thing before. But what is his brilliant response?

Thank heavens we have the restored gospel. Without it, we would probably be just as complacent with the decline of marriage as the rest of the world is.

Yes, Mr. Despain, thank goodness that we aren't like The World, which includes all of those other, Non-Mormon Christian sects that believe in chastity and fidelity and family (You see... they have this book called The Bible...) But seriously, does J.J. honestly think that Mormons somehow own the rights to indignation about this sort of thing? Does he think that its only us versus the big, bad world?

Well, apparently the answer is yes. And we all know that one part of that great, big, mean, ol' world is science, especially the soft type like social and political science. That's why Mr. Despain takes on a book called Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone (I mean just look at that title. It has "philosophy of men" written all over it. It even uses a colon).

But Mr. Despain admits that

To be fair, I have not been able to get my hands on the book and read it cover to cover. But just by reading the introduction to the book available on Amazon.com, I found plenty of Babylonian bias in Cahn’s and Carbone’s claims.

Ah yes, Babylonian bias. Is that something like forming opinions based on preconceived notions and incomplete facts? No wait. That's Provo prejudice (see, anyone can alliterate). Seriously, one might think that the authors of this book were biased too if he or she read only what Mr. Despain decided to include in his article. I have included the full passage below. The parts that are bolded and red'd are what J.J. includes and uses to back up his claim of bias (It is long but worth it).

In this book, we go behind the overblown rhetoric and political posturing of the family values conflict. What whe have found is that the new information economy is transforming the family—and doing so in ways that create a crisis for marriage-based communities across the country.

The “blue families” of our title are one one side of the cultural controversy. These families have reaped the handsome rewards available to the well-educated middle class who are able to invest in both their daughters’ and sons’ earning potential. Their children defer family formation until both partners reach emotional maturity and financial independence. Blue family champions celebrate the commitment to equality that makes companionate relationships possible and the sexual freedom that allows women to fully participate in society. Those who have embraced the blue family model have low divorce rates, relatively few teen births, and good incomes. Yet, the ability to realize the advantages of the new blue family system appears to be very much a class-based affair. Women who graduate from college are the only women in American society whose marriage rates have increased, and they and their partners form the group whose divorce rates have appreciably declined.

The terms of the successful blue family order—embrace the pill, encourage education, and accept sexuality as a matter of private choice—are a direct affront to the “red families” of our title and to the social conservatives who see their families in peril. Driven by religious teachings about sin and guilt and based in communities whose social life centers around married couples with children, the red family paradigm continues to celebrate the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation. Red family champions correctly point out that the growing numbers of single-parent families threaten the well-being of the next generation, and they accurately observe that greater male fidelity and female “virtue” strengthen relationships. Yet, red regions of the country have higher teen pregnancy rates, more shotgun marriages, and lower average ages at marriage and first birth. What the red family paradigm has not acknowledged is that the changing economy has undermined the path from abstinence through courtship to marriage. As a result, abstinence into mid-20s is unrealistic, shotgun marriages correspond with escalating divorce rates, and early marriages, whether prompted by love or necessity, often founder on the economic realities of the modern economy, which disproportionately rewards investment in higher education. Efforts to insist on a return to traditional pieties thus inevitably clash with the structure of the modern economy and produce recurring cries of moral crisis. (1-2)

Call me what you want to, but I don't see any sort of malicious bias here. I see authors that are trying to explain the strengths and weaknesses of two positions. Mr. Despain, however, simply see's an attack. Here is a sample of J.J's victimization:

Cahn and Carbone say red states are all about “control,” and blue states are all about “equality.” To these law professors, red families are victims of an oppressive power based on medieval ideals while blue families are intellectual and forward-thinking. Blue families have evolved while red families refuse to let go of the past. Red families can learn a thing or two from the more “successful” and “progressive” blue families.
In other words, the way to save families is to join the side that is attacking them.

Who is attacking who here, again? I am not exactly sure how Mr. Despain arrived at this conclusion (actually, I am very sure. It is just a matter of putting words into your opponents' mouths). If I understand J.J. right, he is claiming that blue families, which are successful families, are attacking the institution of the family with their success. Yes. That makes sense... in other words.

His pity party continues:

The two professors do briefly mention the anomaly of Mormons, who have more education, lower teen pregnancy and yet a younger average age at marriage than most red families. But they and other experts would probably think my family is doomed to fail.

I think it is a stretch to get "anomaly" out of the authors' description of Mormons as "quintessential red families" (11). Perhaps, in Mr. Despain's dictionary, quintessential has a different meaning.

J.J. finishes by proudly proclaiming that

These experts, however, are forgetting one important factor. Just like many families at BYU and in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we trust prophetic counsel and personal revelation. We formed our family based on the Lord’s terms and not the world’s. We may be “children” in the eyes of the world, but are not “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). Our family, and the charity, service and love we will experience, is a priority higher than any worldly appeal because we know our family will last. Covenants will strengthen us. Truth will prevail.

Quite a fitting rebuttal to authors who not only plead for sincere discourse about the family, but that predict that

Genuine engagement also requires a recognition that leadership couched in the terms of one paradigm may needlessly antagonize the other. (3)

In other words, Mr Despain is little more than a hack. He is a poor and uncritical reader, a shallow and fallacious thinker, and his doctrinaire ramblings (which cannot in good conscience be called analysis) reek of the foulest sort of bourgeois, pat-yourself-on-the-back-because-your-an-intellectual ideology. He has done little more than attempt to portray Mormon families as victims, when the authors of this book have seemingly not sought to directly attack anyone. And this is a stance that is helpful neither to members of the Church nor to those "brothers and sisters" that we profess to reach out to (you know, The World). Mr. Despain mentions (though possibly by accident) the authors' economic argument, but either cannot or will not engage it. He has backed himself up against the wall of faith on his own accord. His inability to do more than appeal to his testimony in a conversation in which discourse in non-confessional terms is not only a possible path but probably the responsible one for a member of the Church, shows that the sheepskin that is most indicative of his level of thinking is his seminary certificate, not his college degree.

I demand his immediate and unconditional resignation from his position at the Daily Universe.

FunStuff: LEGO vs Television

2010-08-08T23:54:00.004-06:00

So, I stumbled upon these ads as I was surfing the internet. I don't know if they are legit (I suspect that they aren't), but they are interesting/disturbing, none-the-less. They were accompanied by this description:

The television, although a great source of entertainment, it’s also known as the idiot box. And in recent years, its influence on children, due to the content, has become a growing concern among parents.
However, as parents, we can’t stop children from watching television, but we can offer an alternative form of entertainment. One that builds their minds and imagination.

Time Wasted

2010-08-06T11:57:00.003-06:00

Once upon a time in rural New Mexico, my friends and I used to get together in the school's computer lab to play a game called StarCraft. Now, I am not a huge gamer (with the exception of RockBand with friends and MAYBE a round of Halo or Call of Duty once every few months), but I enjoy real-time strategy games. They present a nice opportunity to get together and wage war on each other. But since the games usually last a few hours (considerably less than wars in real life), I often felt that some of my time could have been better spent.

Anway, StarCraft II finally came out the other day, twelve years after the original. Even though I probably will not buy the game in the immediate future, all the hype made me a bit nostalgic. Here's a trailer for the game, but I must warn you that it contains the following cliches:

Emo music accompanied by an ambiguously ethnic-sounding music vocalizing (c.f. Gladiator)
Slow motion shots for dramatic effect
Repeated shifts in music from "intense" to "more intense"
Lines like "Tell me why I shouldn't kill you right now?" "Because the one thing I know, is that some things are just worth fighting for" and "The answers you seek lie within."
Really quick cuts of intense imagery at the end of the trailer, followed by one long cut of something awesome after the title.

To Seem, Rather Than To Be

2010-08-02T20:15:00.006-06:00

As I was watching The Colbert Report, I couldn't help but notice the Latin motto engraved over Stephen's fireplace: VIDERE QUAM ESSE.

For all of you who don't spend time studying so-called "dead" languages, that phrase in an inversion of the popular motto ESSE QUAM VIDERE (Latin looks more majestic in all caps), which means "to be, rather than to seem." Colbert's little maxim would, of course, mean "to seem, rather than to be." What else would you expect from our favorite SCILF, right?

But, drawing the line between seeming and being is sometimes quite difficult if not impossible, and I am not just talking about those acquaintances that I have that still cling to the believe that Stephen Colbert is a conservative. I mean that the question of "Is this real, or does it just seem that way?" is often impossible to answer. This is a point reiterated throughout postmodernism and, more recently, in films like The Matrix (more particularly in the sequels) and Inception (please, please click here, here, here, here and here).

But the Latin mottos are usually used in reference to people and their comportment, not to metaphysics and questions of ultimate reality. "To be, rather than to seem," is a call to not just put on appearances, but to actually exist as something. For example, if you are going to be a friend, you had better be a friend through and through, not just appear to be one. Still, I find that these questions of self and being are equally metaphysical (and I am not breaking new ground here).

What is the self? How can it be something? What does it mean to be?

If I were trying to have a "professed profundity," as my good friend Jeremy Walker would say, I would take credit for these questions and revel in their depth. But these are and should be common questions. They are ones that have been keeping me in flux for the past year. The philosophical road that I have taken has been one starting at the assumption that the self is ultimately inaccessible--some sort of transcendent signified that only exists in constructions. That's not to say that it is not "real," it is just that I would have no way of interacting with it (think of the Derrida's "event"). What I am left with, are the things that are observable, with constructions of self, so to speak:

The self is not any of these things. Like Tyler Duerden says, "You are not your job." I am not my actions. I am not my body. I am not my spirit. I am "made a question unto myself," as Augustine would say. I simply do not know what I am.

This is why I find concepts like self-esteem and self-love to be sort of bogus, especially when it comes to things such as affirmations. I could tell myself, "I am a smart, confident man," but I am only adding more rings, more constructions, around that question of self (a question that cannot and shouldn't be answered). I am not smart--I can simply perform intellectual tasks with a level of ease. I am not confident--I simply do things with a level of confidence. I am not a man--I simply have a male body. If any of those things were to change (say I got in a horrible accident), would I still be me? A good question. It might be easy to say that I am Clancy regardless of whether I am confident or not, but what about whether I have a body or not? Or a spirit or not? Or a blog or not? This has to be the ultimate deferral of identity.

Things get even trickier when I try and interact with others. Who are they anyway? Aren't their selves equally problematic? Yes. Hell yes. This is where the "esse quam videri" thing becomes irrelevant: regardless of if what they seem to be is or isn't "true," it isn't who they are anyways. That person who may be or may only seem to be my friend isn't either of those. They are a question, like me. Their friendship with me is not a part of their "self." It is only something they do.

So how do you actually come to care about someone when you can never engage their self, when you are only engaging those mutable, outer rings? I don't know. I have pretty much failed at that again and again. You could try to just cast the net of caring wide to encompass all that the self could be (like that Sermon on the Mount thing suggests), but people don't respond well to that. People, even me, want to be validated on the level of those outer rings. We want to know we are handsome. We want to know we are smart. We want to know we are good workers. We even want to be confronted with our own shortcomings because we are skeptical of unconditional love, love that provides space for the question of self. If affection (or criticism) is not grounded in those observable constructions, we don't know why it should exist. If I can't see a reason to be loved, I am not going to think I am loveable, even though I know that you can't be loveable. Sigh... I live in a constant battle against my own ideas of myself and my self.

I don't really know where I am going with all of this. I have kind of lost the point, I feel. Maybe there really is no self and people are only what they seem to be (which, if you look at people in a shallow way, would not be a lot). Looking at it from the other perspective (that you are your body, actions, etc) might be something worth doing. But no one has been able so far to convince me that that is the less problematic road.

Thoughts on New York City and Literature

2010-07-28T10:38:00.006-06:00

This is not going to be a travelogue. I really don't like those. Plus, I don't want to be one of those "World Traveler" types. You know... like "Well, in New York blaa blaa blaaa." In brief, I went to Manhattan last weekend with my cousin Zach and had a great time.

The main thing I want to say by mentioning my trip concerns fears. You see, all my life I have wanted to go to New York City, but somewhere deep down I always thought that it would be impossible to make it there. I always thought it was beyond me--too expensive, too dangerous, too difficult. The same applies for making it over to Europe.

But, going to NYC was surprisingly easy. Sure, it required some saving, but it wasn't horrendous. Not once did I feel in danger. And it was fairly easy to get around.

My long-standing fears were not justified. In fact, they were a bit silly.

These silly fears influence much of the way we live our lives. As I was flying home, something in the Chuck Palahniuk novel I happened to be reading stuck out to me. One of the characters, now at the end of her life, laments:

I spent my life attacking everything because I was too afraid to risk creating anything...

A common, if not epigrammatic sentiment to be sure (oh the irony of this sentence), but not one without teeth. I don't want this sort of fear to drive what I do in my professional life. More and more, I feel less and less excited about literary criticism as a profession and more longing, more lust for getting my hands dirty in the clay of ideas. I am not bored with literary theory or with philosophy (that's the clay and often times the sculptor), I am talking about the sort of scholarship that seems and feels like merely this:

View the ideas in the writing of person x through lens of the ideas in the writing of person y.

Yes, this sort of thing can produce the occasional interesting insight, but it ends up being very dull most of the time, as if these scholars are just sort of part of an academic piggyback ride. It strives for a vantage point above both philosophy and literature--a vantage point impossible to achieve. It is more like literary anthropology than anything else.

Maybe I am being unfair, or just basing this claim off of the sort of ideas I encountered in my undergraduate career (from both faculty and peers), but criticism as a genre could be a lot more like fiction, I think. Or poetry. It could embrace itself.

I don't know what I am talking about right now. I am rambling and making generalizations. All i know is this: I don't want to be the professor who applies Derrida to a text in an article. I want to be Derrida. Anything else will be allowing my fear of creating to force me into a life of settling for mediocrity.

BYU Writing Center Ad: The Garage

2010-07-08T10:17:00.000-06:00

This one has genuinely creeped people out.

Daily Headache: Romanticizing Romance

2010-07-01T11:07:00.007-06:00

I usually don't give J.J. Despain's viewpoint's a second glance. I think that's mostly because of the spectacle he makes of himself. He's probably a nice guy, but its hard to tell. Instead of simply keeping his articles titled "viewpoints" like my beloved Samantha Strong (who I sincerely miss each time I pick up the DU), Mr. Despain calls his column "J Squared," as if the Daily Universe were something like his personal blog. As if that weren't enough, Mr. Despain actually includes a link to his personal blog at the end of each column, as well as an invitation to follow him on Twitter. And, he also includes his photograph, complete with a pencil tucked behind his ear, smack in the middle of his column as well. Whereas Samantha Strong actually had a certain smacking of personality in her columns, Mr. Despain clumsily tries to pass himself of as a personality. Someone needs to send in an op-ed entitled "Sorry, But You're No Dave Barry."

Anyway, today's viewpoint was just plain ridiculous. He laments the state of romanic comedies and makes some rather contradictory comments about film in general:

My wife and I rented “The Proposal” this week, and it became the latest in a string of movies that go for supposedly more romantic plotlines when something more sensible would have been just as easy to script and act. And would have left me more satisfied.

Now, I can't speak for The Proposal, as I have not seen it (but isn't Sandra Bullock a lot older than Ryan Reynolds?). But note the first part of Mr. Despain's film theory: more sensible = more satisfying. Remember this.

After he outlines the plot of The Proposal, pointing out its apparent absurdity, he states:

I know a movie is not meant to be a literal interpretation of reality. But I have seen enough movies to understand the rules and norms they have created for themselves, the kind that allow Indiana Jones to punch hard enough to reach high decibel levels yet never break his hand. But even within that suspended reality, the transformation from hate to love is hard to pull off.

Let's break this down. Movies (and "genres" within movies) establish their own rules that apparently offset reality. If a movie doesn't obey the rules of reality, at least it can obey genre conventions. I have to assume though, given Mr. Despain's sensibility fetish, that the less a film has to suspend belief, the better. Remember this.

Next, Mr. Despain talks about his disgust with Sweet Home Alabama because Reese Witherspoon chose the "Alabama hick" over the son of the mayor of New York. This isn't sensible (You should always marry the man with the most power, of course.) He also praises My Best Friend's Wedding for being more realistic than other rom-coms.

But here is the real kicker. Remember how Mr. Despain was all about sensibility? Remember how he says he didn't like outlandish things? Well, look at this:

When it comes to great romantic comedies, they just don’t make ’em like they used to.

Audiences with any number of X chromosomes should check out either “Some Like It Hot” or “It Happened One Night.”

Just in case your memory of black and white movies is hazy, the plot of Some Like It Hot is as roughly as follows, according to my memory and a little bit of Wikipedia:

Two musicians (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon) witness a mob murder and are forced to hide out with an all-girl band. This means, of course, that these two men are forced to cross-dress and fool a whole lot of women, including Marilyn Monroe, into thinking that they are not, in fact, men (and I have a hard time just convincing women that I am a man). The band goes to Florida where Curtis, wanting to impress Monroe, pretends he is a millionaire, thus having to maintain two disguises. Lemmon's disguise, on the other hand, attracts the attention of an actual millionaire. There is a lot of wooing and comedy and the mob finally shows up again and puts them all in danger. As everyone speeds away safe and happy, Curtis reveals to Monroe that he is not a millionaire (she loves him anyways) while Lemmon reveals to his millionaire that he is, in fact, a man. The millionaire only responds that "Nobody's perfect" and the film ends.

What could be more sensible than that? I think it is the most realistic portrayal of reality that I have ever seen, really.

But as if that weren't enough, Mr. Despain says this:

A main purpose of movies is to allow fans an escape from reality and a way to vicariously live out their fantasies. But if moviemakers make the ideal winner fail instead, then everyone is a loser.

Well, which is it? Are movies supposed to be sensible or escapist? Are things supposed to be ideal or realistic? We may never know.

Here's my advice to J Squared: spend less time thinking about your image and more time thinking about your columns.

Back to the Future?: Meeting My Parents In Their Prime

2010-06-30T10:20:00.009-06:00

So, I was doing some reading on Wikipedia, as I sometimes do when I want to throw away hours of my life, and came across the entry for the film Back to the Future. Now, I love this film, and this little tidbit about the development of the script made me love it even more:

Writer and producer Bob Gale conceived the idea after he visited his parents... Searching their basement, Gale found his father's high school yearbook and discovered he was president of his graduation class. Gale thought about the president of his own graduating class, who was someone he had nothing to do with. Gale wondered whether he would have been friends with his father if they went to high school together. When he returned to California, he told Robert Zemeckis his new concept. Zemeckis subsequently thought of a mother claiming she never kissed a boy at school, when in reality she was highly promiscuous. The two took the project to Columbia Pictures, and made a development deal for a script in September 1980.

This got me thinking about my own parents, and whether or not I would have been friends with them if I encountered them in their prime (the plot of Back to the Future) or they, in their prime, encountered me now (the plot of 17 Again).

Let's take my dad, Lloyd, for example:

He's a pretty cool-looking dude--like something out of a Cormac McCarthy novel (though he is doesn't enjoy killing people in bizarre ways. Or scalping.) If I time-traveled back to meet him, I think we would get along, but he would definitely think I was some sort of city-folk. I mean, my dad makes saddles and boots and he is a cowboy. I don't mean a team roper; I mean a real, honest-to-goodness cowboy. While I can ride a horse with some degree of competence, I am nowhere near where he is in terms of cowboying skill. I think he has castrated more animals with a pocketknife than some vets. Maybe if I went back in time dressed like this...

If young Lloyd somehow came to present-day Provo, I don't know what would happen, honestly. I don't see him sitting around playing video games with my roommates.

Now, I only have the vaguest of impressions of what my mom, Marilyn, was like as a young woman. I know she graduated in 1975 (I remember a class reunion full of shouts of "one nine seven five, still the greatest class alive!"). I remember her telling me about how she liked the Beatles' early stuff, but not their later works (really, Mom?). She was super active and stuff. Also, her twin brother freaked her out really bad after watching The Exorcist. Other than that, I really don't have a clear indication of what her day to day life was. But she looks fun enough (and I am not saying that in relation to my previous post. I'm no Oedipus)!

If she were to time travel to today, I think we would hang out (in groups with plenty of other girls present). I think she would fit in nicely with all of my female friends nowadays. She's a fun-lover. I don't think she would be into Lady Gaga or Glee as some of my friends are, though.

I really need to get my parents to write their life story.

Daily Headache: Blame My DNA

2010-06-28T21:04:00.010-06:00

I used to think that being shallow was some sort of character flaw, but the study discussed in today's DU apparently absolves me of all any sort of defect. Men, you see, can't help themselves; we are genetically predisposed to be shallow.

In her regurgitation of this "new study," Wendy Andstead states that

men can tell whether or not they are attracted to someone within milliseconds. Men are naturally more interested in pretty women because of an ancient instinct that correlates beauty with fertility. For the study, men and women had to perform tasks while being shown images of the opposite gender; some beautiful and some ugly.
The men were instantly distracted when they were shown images of beautiful women, while the women were able to complete the tasks without flinching.

This is why science is so great--it, like the Daily Universe, is completely objective. Experiments like this are based on facts, not on opinion. Beautiful and ugly are as concrete of terms as they get. If you don't believe me, just walk around WAL*MART on a Saturday afternoon. Now, I know some smart-ass people might ask, "Um... why doesn't the reporter point out that this is flawed and sexist science?" But before you judge these claims to be sexist, keep in mind that the study also discusses why women aren't so quick to jump on things:

women generally take a lot longer to decide if they are interested in someone. This is because they are looking for qualities in men like reliability and trustworthiness. Just as men are genetically programmed to find attractive women, women are hardwired to find men who will protect and provide for them.

How can you argue with such comprehensive conclusions? You can't. Science yet again proves that women are not only weaker than men, but aware of this weakness on a genetic level. On the level of DNA, there are no feminists. These truths are self-evident and therefore beyond dispute.

In case you doubt the validity of these findings, I have included a flowchart, detailing how this millisecond-long process works in my own brain (click to embiggen):

Artwork: Write Something

2010-06-21T20:22:00.001-06:00

Found Faces, Aliens, and Suspicious Trees.

2010-06-20T19:56:00.009-06:00

I have a fascination with found faces. You know, objects that you see in everyday life that kinda sorta look like a human face. I recommend that you give this page a glance if you have no clue of what I am talking about (and even if you DO have an idea, it is still pretty fun).

Are we, as humans, really so anthropocentric that we have to mask our face onto everything? Is it something hardwired into us? Do we have to humanize something to interact with it? If someone doesn't have a face, are they less human? Would we treat them so? I don't posit these questions as if they were something mind-blowing or anything (as in some of the "Look at me. I am so deep. I think about crap."-type comments I have seen on other blogs). I just think we should think about this more (or, in English 150 terms, "Something must be done!").

I mean, look at this thing. It looks like a face! How cool is that? But really, how can you think the implications of personifying inanimate objects (or reifying humanness) when there is an awesome face staring back at you whenever you walk to check the mail? (Actually, I think that it isn't really awesome, but rather mopey. He looks like he has a really long nose, which is a sign of the mope. Science has proven this. People with long noses have mopey spirits. People with happy, righteous spirits are beautiful. It's all very technical.) Its a face for crying out loud. There are faces everywhere! Its like a conspiracy or something.

Which reminds me of my theory of aliens. Do I think that aliens are extraterrestrial visitors? Projections of our subconscious akin to incubi and succubi? Just bad dreams? The Devil trying to fool us into thinking the world is more than 6,000 years old and that fossils were something the Jews buried in 1924?

No. No. No. And No.

They are noses! Plain and simple. And Another type of found face.

I think that all the people who think that they got abducted by little, green men (or women. Aliens would be probably be more egalitarian in the way they ran things), were actually just staring up at their spouse/roommate/sibling's nose as they were passing through some sort of hypnagogic state. Since abductees, like the rest of us, somehow like finding faces in random things, they simple take the gaping, hairy holes to be eyes of some otherworldly creature (Since aliens are nosey, they are, by deduction, mopey beings).

But aliens are the least of my problems. I have to walk past this jerk everyday on my way to work.

Look at him. He's got his eyes all a-slant like he is suspicious or something (or like he is from Hyperbole and a Half, particularly this image). And the moss or whatever makes him look like he has a mustache around his little mouth. You know who else has a mustache? The police officer who gave me my first ticket. He, like this tree, could not be reasoned with. And every morning it is like I have to justify myself to him as I walk up the hill to campus. That's the last thing I want to do. I mean, who the hell does this tree think he is? He's not my mother. I don't owe him a thing. And neither do you, gentle reader. Not a dang thing.

Which brings me back to where I began: anthropocentrism. Don't think about what you can do for trees; think about what trees can do for you! They will never have a face or a soul until you give them one (the same for cars, faucets, etc)... so they are eternally in your debt. Without you, their just a thing. And a thing, is no-thing.

BYU Writing Center Ad: The Nap

2010-06-17T19:24:00.001-06:00

So... we made this this afternoon.

Mormon Church Marquees

2010-06-10T15:12:00.002-06:00

This fictional exchange between Catholic and Presbyterian marquees inspired me to visit a certain website called churchsigngenerator.com. Besides being amusing to no end, it got me thinking about what sort of things Latter-day Saints (and particularly those at BYU) would possibly display if they too had marquees. Of course, each ward would be different since the each marquee would be under the jurisdiction of the different bishop. Here are some possibilities.

This one would accurately advertise a typical fast and testimony meeting in a BYU singles' ward:

From some of the comments I hear in Sunday School, this one seems about right:

In a married student ward, all you would have to do with this one is change the name every week:

Though I try and avoid it, it feels like this happens too often when I open my mouth in Elders' Quorum:

Of course, this is the lesson that I have always wanted to teach:

And finally, I got to thinking about what would happen if our Church were completely different. You know, more personality-based and not so uniform. This is what came to mind:

Well, after thinking it over, I am definitely glad that the Church doesn't operate this way.

BYU Writing Center Ad: The Loo

2010-06-10T15:08:00.000-06:00

We made this today during staff meeting.

Artwork: Inspired by "Bulls on Parade"

2010-06-05T01:07:00.003-06:00

Yes. I am feeling a bit angsty.

BYU Writing Center Ad: The Date

2010-06-02T10:16:00.000-06:00

Yeah... we made this a few weekends ago.

10 Types of People Who Study Literature At BYU

2010-05-28T18:34:00.024-06:00

The illustrious Matt Wickman once said that people who study literature are "functioning neurotics." Having been at BYU for a while now, I can definitely say that his observation is still spot on for those of us in The Bubble (well, I don't know about the "functioning" aspect).

But without accusing all of us of having legitimate psychological issues, I wanted to see if there was a way to break down and classify the people who study literature on this campus. My boss at the Writing Center allegedly said that there are only two types of English majors: the arrogant and the lazy. And a friend of mine, herself an English major, said that the men in the major are all weird and the women are all high-strung and freaks in the sheets. Now, I honestly don't know about all of that, but what follows is my attempt to classify the world of literature-enthusiasts at BYU (and inadvertently offend all of my friends and coworkers)

The World Traveler

Identifying Features
* Spent a semester abroad in Paris/London/Jerusalem
* At least one article of clothing purchased from a street vendor/Bedouin
* Keffiyeh
* Other items of clothing from Anthropologie
* Facebook photo album entitled "Paris"/"London"/"Jerusalem"

Behavior
* Prefaces comments in class with "X is so much better in Paris/London/Jerusalem
* Thinks like a boutique multiculturalist
* Tends towards New Historicist approaches and other approaches based in place and time
* Finds literary theory "intriguing" and frequently discusses "mind-blowing" revelations with non-literary roommates
* Can cook several "authentic" British/French/Israeli meals
* Thinks Iron and Wine is romantic music
* Probably will serve a mission, but not in London/Paris/Jerusalem

On Their Bookshelf
* Norton Anthology of British Literature
* British movies/tv shows (Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Love Actually, The six-hour Pride and Prejudice, Dr. Who, etc)

The Pre-Professional

Identifying Features
* White shirt and tie
* Professional haircut
* Laptop

Behavior
* Usually teaches at the MTC
* Professes a love for the classics
* Has not read the classics
* Thinks that Shakespeare is English at its finest
* Quotes the classics in sacrament meeting talks to sound well-read
* Sticks to formalist approaches out of suspicion of Marxism, Feminism, and the like
* Going to law or business school

On Their Bookshelf
* Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
* A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
* How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
* Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
* Preach My Gospel

The Awkward Mormon

Identifying Features
* Parted hair with fresh gel
* Old Navy polo
* Denim pants (one size too small) in winter/Denim shorts in summer
* White tennis shoes
* Livestrong bracelet or imitation

Behavior
* Probably will switch majors soon
* Gravitates towards fantasy to relieve the inherent sexual frustration of Mormonism
* Has probably written at least one draft of a fantasy novel
* Likes to think in Manichean terms
* Is made nervous by Obama
* Thinks that literary theory is a philosophy of men (and may ask, in the middle of class, why someone like Gloria Cronin is allowed to stay at BYU)

On Their Bookshelf
* The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
* Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
* Several books by Brandon Sanderson
* The Quadruple Combination

The Book Clubber

Identifying Features
* Simple hairstyle
* Multiple tops from Shade
* Jeans
* Look of confusion/distance during class discussion
* Glasses when appropriate

Behavior
* Likes to read
* With the exception of teaching high school English, has only the vaguest of career goals
* Doesn't like to argue about ideas
* Willing to argue about which version of Mr. Darcy is the best looking.
* Discussions of literature quickly turn to discussions of men and their specific parts (eyes, smiles, hair)
* Thinks literary theory has no practical applications
* Says things like, "Atonement would have been good if he hadn't kept telling the same story from different points of views."

On Their Bookshelf
* At least three books by Jane Austen
* Life of Pi by Yann Martel
* The Alchemist by Paolo Coelho
* The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

The Intellectual

Identifying Features
* Blazer and T-shirt combo
* Moleskine journals
* I-defy-the-Honor-Code hairstyle
* Pedantic vocabulary

Behavior
* Smugly dismisses other types of English majors, especially those that hold themselves to be intellectually rigorous
* Desires to intellectually complicate everything
* Refuses to see urgency in grades, deadlines, and decorum
* Laments BYU, yet refuses to leave
* Can't take a step without pondering the meaningfulness/meaninglessness of the action
* Believes in deconstructing everything, yet somehow is still a member of a church that emphasizes orthodoxy and hierarchy
* Prefaces comments with phrases like "That's problematic because...," "Your view privileges...," or "In 'Structure, Sign, and Play' it says...."
* Will either worship a public intellectual (Derrida, Caputo, etc) or a BYU professor (Matt Wickman, Gloria Cronin, etc)
* Blogs about the types of people that study literature at BYU

On Their Bookshelf
* Writing and Difference by Jacques Derrida
* The Order of Things by Michel Foucault
* Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
* Several works by Cormac McCarthy, Don DeLillo, Michael Ondaatje, and Toni Morrison

The Hipster

Identifying Features
* V-neck shirt that may or may not cover garments
* Skinny jeans
* Hoodie
* Horrible mustache (optional)
* General appearance of an American Apparel model
* Ridiculous sun glasses and thick-rimmed reading glasses

Behavior
* May or may not actually be paying attention in class
* Probably has lived or currently lives in Alpine Village
* Never is clear about why they are studying literature
* Openly adores Lady Gaga
* Probably talks about Glee more than they do about novels
* Takes notes on their laptop (usually a Mac)
* Probably plays the guitar around the campfire

On Their Bookshelf
* The Fame by Lady Gaga
* Seasons One, Two, and Three of Arrested Development

The High-Strung

Identifying Features
* Crisp and classy clothes
* Intricate notebooks
* Heels
* Bags under eyes from all-nighter

Behavior
* Engaged in several extra-curricular activities
* Cares more about getting grades than getting an education
* Annotates syllabi and rubrics
* Does everything by the book (whichever book that is) and within the box
* Likes to argue
* Has definite career goals
* Always complains about being "screwed"
* Hints at being somehow emotionally or sexually frustrated
* Idolizes Brandie Siegfried or Kristen Mathews

On Their Bookshelf
* Library books... lots and lots of library books
* Daily Planner

.

.

The Feminist

Identifying Features
* Pants
* Simple hairstyle
* Long-sleeved shirt
* Pleasant yet snarky expression

Behavior
* Complains about Relief Society
* Likes to discuss the Family Proclamation
* Dislikes the engagement ring ads in The Daily Universe
* Frequently points out the distinctions between different types of feminism and how some are still compatible with LDS doctrine
* Either hates or feels sorry for freshmen girls that get married
* Actually reads and appreciates literary theory
* Makes their roommates nervous
* Has definite career goals (which usually involve having a family)

On Their Bookshelf
* The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine
* The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan
* Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher

The Editing Minor

Identifying Features
* Clothes that look like they were taken from the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet
* Simple hair
* Nice, silky voice

Behavior
* Keeps a low profile in class
* Is on the lookout for an internship at Deseret Book or with The Ensign
* Maintains normal, healthy relationships
* Always discusses "usage"
* Knows how to use InDesign
* Has an intricate and frequently updated blog
* Tries to make peace in heated discussions

On Their Bookshelf
* The Chicago Manual of Style
* Proofs from their CHum project

The Creative Writer

Identifying Features
* Clothing choice indicates intentional creation of a distinct look
* Frequent profanity
* Scowl
* Possibly from Nepal or Columbia

Behavior
* Is super opinionated
* Has diverse and strange interests (bear attacks, zombies, etc)
* Faithfully attends the Reading Series
* Either loves or hate Pat Madden and creative non-fiction
* Focuses on one area (the South, Columbia, etc) for their stories
* Plans to get an MFA

On Their Bookshelf
* Quotidiana by Patrick Madden
* The Art of the Personal Essay by Phillip Lopate
* The Best Creative Nonfiction by Lee Gutkind
* Any number of novels in which a writer is the protagonist

Some things that I love, or why visiting Jeremy was so great.

2010-05-22T23:18:00.004-06:00

So, Anthony and I went out to Colorado to visit our buddy, Jeremy. Now I should tell you up front that this post is not a travelogue. If you want something along those lines, check out my facebook page for photos. In brief, we went to just hang out together.

The thing I love most about these two slobs is that we can sit for hours at a time and just talk. About anything, really. And I know that I will never, ever be judged for the radical things I say. I also don't have to worry about either of them somehow taking offense at my words, even if the subject pertains to them personally. I hope they feel that same security when they talk to me because I really like the weird places our conversations go.

For example, in Colorado we stayed up until 2 a.m. talking about the post-human implications of the use of motion pictures and automation in religious ritual. Heady, right? Don’t worry, we also talked about the really important issues, like girls and such (I accuse Jeremy and Anthony of trying to live vicariously through me, since they are both happily married... but really all they usually do is tell me how much of an idiot I am for doing x or y). At various points during our conversation (the heady one), each of us found ourself disagreeing with the others.

And it wasn’t just a simple case of “Oh, well that’s your opinion” –we actively interrogated each other’s views. I honestly can’t get enough of this. We disagreed, called each other names (academically-bounded insults don’t really have the same sting though), and went at each other with all of our intellectual resources and pedantic vocabulary. There's nothing I love like a good argument.

I feel that this sort of conversation is hard to come by and I have been trying to think why this is the case. Any discussion of conversations makes me remember this line from Kwame Antony Appiah's Cosmopolitanism:

Conversations across borders can be delightful, or just vexing: what they mainly are, though, is inevitable.

Inevitable. Inescapable. Hide yourself in the clefts in the rocks, but conversation is still going to be there (more on that in a future post). Conversations across borders, the intersecting of two different ideas or values, is not something to be avoided--it is to be embraced wholeheartedly. But why is it rare? I mean, I strive for this sort of interaction every day, but many don't want to argue. Maybe it's just a function of my narcissism/solipsism, but I feel that this type of conversation confirms and expands ones (i.e. my) humanity. Maybe others don't feel the same way. I honestly don't know what others think when they resist rigorous conversation, but here are some of the possibilities I have arrived at:

Fear of Being Exposed. I think some people are just afraid of looking dumb when they don't know something. Or maybe they actually really respect the person they are talking to, and don't want to slip a few notches on the scale of coolness (i.e. "How can I impress you if you keep making me look like an idiot?").
Fear of Inarticulateness. Perhaps some people don't feel they can articulate themselves well in the heat of the moment and will end up looking like a blabbering fool. They're afraid that they might "lose" an argument (who says you have to win?) because they just couldn't get the right words to come out.
Fear of Contention. I really believe that some associate lively debate with the sort of angry quibbling over doctrinal points described in 3 Nephi 11.
Inability to Disengage Personal Worth from Ideas. Now this is a kicker. I think some people are so invested in their ideas, in what they have learned, that they view any sort of disagreement as a personal attack. This is the worst way to live. They seem to take arguments as an opportunity to get angry and hurt and, consequentially, retreat further away from any possible risk of having their faulty sense of self shaken.
Inability to See Value in Other Perspectives. I think that some people just think that others really don't have anything worth listening to. They think that arguments aren't worth the effort because there isn't a valuable return on the investment of their time. How rational of them!

I don't know. I am just trying to work this out. Someone please tell me that I am wrong!

How To Avoid Falling In Love With A Jerk

2010-05-11T08:48:00.004-06:00

My buddy Dale is a pretty subtle guy (as in "And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made"). So, I wasn't surprised that, as I was contemplating getting engaged back in 2008, he presented me with a book entitled How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk.

Now, it was clear to me the message he was sending then--he didn't like that girl, or rather, that relationship dynamic. The funny thing is that Dale somehow managed to hold on to the book through everything and decided to give it to me again yesterday (this time he actually let me keep it). I wonder what his message is this time?

Regardless of my buddy Dale's machinations (and that's exactly what they are... he could give Machiavelli a run for his money), I am not yet sure how to deal with this book. You see, if I were going to write a book like this, I would call it How to Avoid Falling in Love ~~with a Jerk~~ . My point is that everyone is a jerk. Like a very wise man once told me, "In the end, the ones that cause us the most pain are those closest to us." My love of theory has only reinforced this. Yet, it's not a carte blanche for treating the Other with complete disrespect; it is a recognition that any interaction with the Other is going to require some pain (although it might be very, very mild in some cases).

That's why it is hard for me to see a chapter title like "Healthy People Make Healthy Choices" and not think of Foucault and it is even harder, given my love of Derrida and, more particularly, Caputo, to see chapters like "You Can't Marry Jethro Without Gettin' The Clampetts" and "If I Scratch Your Back, Will You Scratch Mine?" It just doesn't jibe with the concept of love that I have derived from post-structuralism and the New Testament. I mean, what is more beautiful than this passage from Caputo's, What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

Love is its own why; love for its own sake. It does not demand a further or external reason. When I do something for the love of my spouse or child or friend, that is an expenditure made without expectation of return, even though we understand that in fact the circle of return is always there. The force of deconstruction in this context is to preserve the ‘madness’ of gift giving, the expenditure that is made madly on behalf of the other, and to delimit the rigorous—as in rigor mortis—rationality of cost accounting in our life. There is, there ought to be, something that we do in life that is not for a return but just because what we are doing is life itself, something a little mad. That is the gift. (72-73)

That is a hard sort of love. That's Christ-like. I particularly love Caputo's attack on what he calls the "rationality of cost accounting." It is clear to me that love, if there is such a thing, is not a safe endeavor. It is always a risk. Interacting with the Other is, by nature, a leap into the unknown. And that is damn hard. Caputo quotes Derrida as saying

To surrender to the other, and this is the impossible, would amount to giving oneself over in going toward the other, to coming toward the other but without crossing the threshold, and to respecting, to loving even the invisibility that keeps the other inaccessible. (80)

That invisibility is the most difficult thing. It drives me crazy! Though the past three years (since I returned off my mission) have taught me the importance of being okay with not knowing, I still like to know what's going on inside the Other's head--I want to see that universe. I guess that's the impatient human in me. Ha ha... is it possible to want a conversation with the Other but not expect the Other to speak back? I guess so. Now THAT's hard.

I guess that's why there's such a thing as forgiveness. I will close with this passage from Caputo:

Then what would it mean to forgive someone? It would have to mean something uneconomic—like a gift—something unconditional, something unaccountable, something mad. But the New Testament turns on just such unaccountables—like loving your enemies. If you love those who love you, what good is that? It makes perfect sense. Even the mafia does that. The unaccountable excess of love is felt when you love your enemies, when you love the unloveable—those whom it is unreasonable to love—which is the madness of the kingdom, which follows the nonprinciple of nonsuffiecient reason! Just so, the unaccountable excess of forgiveness is felt when we forgive precisely those who do not meet some or all of the four conditions, who are not sorry, do not repent, and do not intend to mend their ways. That is, genuine forgiveness is offered unconditionally, not subject to meeting any or all of these four conditions, exactly the way Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Roman soldiers. Just so, we often speak of things that are unforgivable—the Holocaust, say, or the atrocities of American slavery or apartheid, or the several attempts at genocide we have witnessed in the past century. But would not such unforgivable things be the very subject matter of genuine forgiveness? (74)

That's Not Cool.Com

2010-05-05T11:08:00.006-06:00

You will see why this post is ironic (c.f. Alanis Morissette) in a moment.

So, I was on facebook, looking at the "most recent" entries on my news feed and noticed that my buddy, ChrisTaylor (one word, not two), had posted something about "Call Out Cards". The little blurb on the link provided the following description:

Is someone disrespecting you? Making you or someone you know feel uncomfortable? Tell'em to back off with a callout card.

This sounded like a wonderful idea! Now I can further alienate people, but since I am doing it digitally, it is all tongue-in-cheek, right?

Actually, when I followed the link, I found that these call-out cards are part of That's Not Cool.com, one of those websites with the AdCouncil logo (meaning it wants me to live better or some crap) that has a mission statement like this:

Your cell phone, IM, and social networks are all a digital extension of who you are. When someone you're with pressures you or disrespects you in those places, that's not cool.

The site discusses the abuse of this new media. The dominant theme is knowledge (at least I think so). People are controlling when their knowledge is incomplete. They turn possessive in their quest for total epistemic dominance of their friends. And, as the site says, that's not cool.

The videos and call-out cards are actually pretty cool, though. Here are some of those Call-Out Cards.

And here are some of what they call "2 Sided Stories" for your viewing pleasure. (PS Be sure to select an answer at the end.)

I think this problem is symptomatic of the larger condition of the endemic loneliness and detachment of my generation. In large part, it seems that the physical community has given way to the virtual one (which isn't necessarily bad), but without the same set of social codes that governed the geographic neighborhood. Space has been obliterated, and time is has adjusted accordingly. Our neighbors are now omnipresent and we expect their immediate response and attention. Is it the same as showing up at your neighbor's house, uninvited, at all hours and knocking on their door? Maybe. Maybe not.

When society changes, codes have to change with them. Codes are not transcendent; mores need to be reassessed and deconstructed. What then, is the proper way to be a neighbor, or a boyfriend/girlfriend, in this new digital community where we our houses are our profiles and our neighborhoods gated by a some communal fable of privacy?

I don't have the answers. I know that I have had some extremely lonely points in my life, especially in the past year, where I have tried to reach out to friends through texts, for example. Some were more receptive than others. Also, Gchat, is sometimes the only way to communicate with some of your friends (like someone who is on duty at the library). But these forms of communication must still be communication. I think communication, actual conversation, requires a lot of work and thought. It requires acknowledging the space between you and the other. And that space is sacred. The minute you cross it you are constructing the Other in your own image (which you will do anyways).

Social networking and the new media are great and helpful, but like any act of communication, we have to be okay with the ambiguity that comes with utterance.

The Weird World of Writing Center Promotional Videos

2010-04-28T10:49:00.002-06:00

So this summer I have the task of creating some new videos for the BYU Writing Center. We just got an awesome new camera and, since Spring/Summer is always slower than any other time of the year, we will have plenty of time to fool around with it. I hope everything works out because Ryan and Maddie already set the mark pretty high with this cool video:

To see what other things had already been done, I went to YouTube and was amazed to find that there is no shortage of videos about university writing centers. But they are really, really odd.

This first one is set to Justin Timberlake's "Sexy Back." Why? I'm not quite sure. Also there is a dog.

The there is this one, a version of Rihanna's "Unfaithful."

And of course you can't leave out the Fresh Prince. In all fairness, this one is from a high school writing center:

Moving out of the realm of music, it seems that a lot of Writing Centers like black and white (or sepia):

This one starts out in black and white, but just goes nowhere from there:

I think that the biggest problem I can see with these videos is that all of the neurotic people that work at Writing Centers (myself included) think that everyone in the world shares their same, esoteric brand of humor. You would think that people who work on writing and rhetoric all day would be more aware of audience!

Be that as it may, I did stumble upon one school's page, where they have some awesome promotional videos about all sorts of issues with tutoring and such. Check these out:

This one is my favorite though:

The Obligatory Graduation Post, or "Holy Crap! I Still Have Six to Eight Years of School Left!"

2010-04-26T10:18:00.004-06:00

No sobbing. You know who you are.

In the face of two more years of MA and four to six years of PhD, all I really have the energy to say at this point is that I think that I look much more mature as a college graduate than I did as a high school graduate:

Perhaps by the time I am dubbed "Doctor Clawson," (and not falsely presented as "Stephen Claney Clawson," as I was on Friday), I will have gotten it down.

Wordboner.com is a Bit Angsty

2010-04-20T12:53:00.016-06:00

So, I was over at dweebist.com and saw that one of his links was to a site called wordboner.com. After a little hesitation over the name, I went to the site and saw that it was one of those trendy, Helvetica-dominated, typography sites. There are a lot of cool designs there, especially the ones that play with words within words to give sentences contradictory meanings. But, with a little scrutiny, I noticed certain trends in most of the designs. I am pretty sure that many of pieces are created by jaded, love-scorned twenty-somethings. I submit the following as evidence:

(i.e. Why won't you go out with me?)

(i.e. Sorry for tasering you and trying to put you in a box.)

(i.e. You like a guy with self-confidence, right?)

(i.e. I am finding new reasons to think you are a horrible person.)

(i.e. Sometimes, the most important thing is that my friends think that you and I are totally making out all the time.)

(i.e. You could date me if you really wanted to.)

(i.e. The only reason I let you get away with so much is because you are so freaking hot.

(i.e. I could fall in love with anyone with a heart like yours, provided it was housed in a chest like yours.)

(i.e. I like to consider myself something of a badass)

(i.e. If you don't date me, you will die alone.)

(i.e. I will also settle for "acquaintance.")

I rest my case. Does the defense have anything to say?

FunStuff: Harry Potter = Evil

2010-04-14T09:50:00.002-06:00

Someone should do a rhetorical analysis of this. That's all I have to say.

FunStuff: 8 bit Pink Floyd

2010-04-13T15:14:00.004-06:00

As I was trying to find some music on YouTube the other day, I stumbled upon "Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon arranged for NES by Brad Smith." Yes, NES as in Nintendo Entertainment System. And yes, it is the entire album, exactly as it would sound if it were the soundtrack to a really old video game. Honestly, I don't know how much time it took him to do it, but more power to him. Enjoy some samples:

My April Fool's Day Joke

2010-04-08T14:08:00.005-06:00

Once upon a time there was an inside joke at the Writing Center. It simply went like this: Hillary really, really likes Danny. While it wasn't true, this joke still provided many laughs whenever the rest of us saw the two interacting/disagreeing/standing remotely close to each other. I mean, it made sense, right? She dresses well. He dresses well. She... um... he... well, there were more commonalities back when this thing first started.

So, I decided to make a fake wedding announcement for them on April Fool's Day and post it on the bulletin board of the WC staff room. It was generally well-received. This is the photo from it:

Now, what is really funny is that the photo that I used for the basis of my prank actually seems to have been someone's engagement photo. The photographer is pretty talented (if I do say so with my utter and absolute lack of knowledge about photograpy), but paper links just aren't my thing.

I also don't quite understand this image, which is what greets you on the photographer's website:

Hopefully this isn't another engagement photo. I think that would just be kind of weird. I mean, I wouldn't know what to wear to their wedding. Camouflage perhaps? I do think, however, a better caption would read: "One new Republican family under God."

Toilet Monster

2010-03-24T21:13:00.004-06:00

I was walking around the grocery store the yesterday and overheard a little boy explain the following to his younger brother:

The toilet monster doesn't like it when you look at it.

I am at a loss here. Either his parents are teaching him not to admire his own feces or they own something that looks like this:

Either way, I think it's weird.

Daily Headache: March Sadness

2010-03-18T20:33:00.004-06:00

Today's Daily Universe featured the following image in its opinion section:

In case you can't tell (the image is kind of crappy), the boy is filling out his NCAA bracket while the googly-eyed girl is filling out a bracket with mens' names. Maybe it's all of the radical French feminists that I have been reading for my literary theory class, but I find this image degrading to both men and women for the following reasons:

It reinforces some strange sort of binary, namely one of sports/love. Sports is the domain of women as much as it is the domain of men. And the same goes for love.
It implies that women have no interest in March Madness. Au contrare, many, many women fill out NCAA brackets. I just lost a bet with one of them, in fact.
It implies that women are petty. While I have known my fair share of girls who frequently resort to petty anatomization of men on a somewhat regular basis, it is downright sexist to ascribe this behavior to women in general. The stereotype this image creates is troubling in the sense that the girl here sees men as a sort of game, as objects that must compete for her affection. Sure, such girls and guys exist (they are called players), but they are definitely not numerous enough to be the analog to a male bracket-maker.
It reinforces the idea that awareness of sports is an element of manhood.
It seems to reinforce a stereotype that the role of woman here at BYU is to get married. Now, this may be a stretch, but I really can't see any other feasible end result for the girl's bracket. The man who beats out everyone else gets to be her husband. Men can win championships, but women only get to be wedded and bedded.

You know, it's these little things--these tiny reinforcements of outdated, sexist stereotypes--that make me worry about the state of women here at BYU. I know many strong women who are willing to break out of the box, but there are so many that are content to live in it. And what is sad is that they don't even know that that is what they are doing.

If I Were Going to Play a Rooftop Concert....

2010-03-15T14:08:00.004-06:00

The other day I was rewatching the Beatles' famous rooftop concert and musing on how I would go about such awesomeness if I ever got the chance. Here are my thoughts.

THE PLACE: Top of the Joseph F. Smith Building at BYU.

THE BAND: Well, since I don't really know how to play an instrument, I guess I would have to sing or beat a tambourine or something. I would definitely want my buddy Dale to be there. My cousin Zach's a pretty talented musician. I know Jeremy and Anthony both play some sort of instrument. And Emily Golightly's got some real musical talent too. That would be pretty awesome.

THE TIME: During the 12:00 pm class change.

THE SET LIST: I think the following is a good mix for a BYU audience.

"Black Dog" --Led Zeppelin
"Bulls on Parade" --Rage Against the Machine
"Another Brick in the Wall Part Two" --Pink Floyd
"Revolution" --The Beatles
"Testify" --Rage Against the Machine
"I've Got A Feeling" --The Beatles

THE PURPOSE: What not?

THE ORIGINAL: Check it out!

"Only God Can Make A Tree"

2010-03-10T21:27:00.004-07:00

The title of this post comes from an obscure poem by an obscure poet: "Trees" by Alfred Joyce Kilmer. My friend, Wikipedia, says that

Though a prolific poet whose works celebrated the common beauty of the natural world as well as his religious faith, Kilmer is remembered most for a short poem entitled "Trees" (1913), which was published in the collection Trees and Other Poems in 1914. While most of his works are unknown, a select few of his poems remain popular and are published frequently in anthologies. Several critics, both Kilmer's contemporaries and modern scholars, disparaged Kilmer's work as being too simple, overly sentimental, and suggested that his style was far too traditional, even archaic.

Valid as the criticism may be (and if you read the whole poem, you will see how simple and sentimental it is), the last couplet, the one which provides my title, is particularly interesting:

Poems are made by fools like me,

But only God can make a tree.

Now, I could ramble on and on about how poets can makes trees (because the world is made of language) or how God can make a poem (c.f. the closest beautiful woman), but instead I want to use this line as a sort of set up for this image:

In my last post, I was very excited about having made a very large, very swirly tree in my room. Sadly, due to the some force beyond my ken (like sweaty walls or the constant air stream from our vent), my glorious and trendy tree has fallen. But I knew this was going to happen even as I was creating this piece of art; it was a constant battle to keep the upper limbs from slowly peeling off the roof. Why then did I do it? Was this merely a case of ars gratia artis?

No. The motivating force was what John D. Caputo tries to describe in What Would Jesus Deconstruct when he talks about the Derridian notion of the gift:

The force of deconstruction in this context is to preserve the ‘madness’ of gift giving, the expenditure that is made madly on behalf of the other, and to delimit the rigorous—as in rigor mortis—rationality of cost accounting in our life. There is, there ought to be, something that we do in life that is not for a return but just because what we are doing is life itself, something a little mad. That is the gift. (73)

I made the tree anyways precisely because it wasn't the rational thing to do. It was a bit mad, but only a bit, I think. I simply refused to submit myself to the calculus of results and returns. And you know what? It felt great.

Perhaps God Himself would have to escape that "rigorous rationality of cost accounting" too if there were to be any justification for trees in this world. Or for fools' poems. Or for anything really.

My Room

2010-03-06T19:45:00.003-07:00

I finally decided to make my room a little bit more... mine. Here's what I did:

Cool, eh? That's electrical tape and vinyl contact paper. It really goes with my roommate's brain charts. I wasn't really going for an Odyssey reference, but as I looked at it more and more, I couldn't help but be reminded of Penelope's riddle.

FunStuff: I Am A Stuffed Animal

2010-02-27T21:55:00.004-07:00

I am constantly accused of being either vain or self-centered. That sort of criticism has never bothered me though because I know that the people who say those sorts of things are just jealous that they aren't as great as I am. Not even close, actually. Be that as it may, I don't think that I would ever buy this outrageous product:

Yep, "I Am A Stuffed Animal" is a company that makes custom dolls based on you. You apparently send them photos of yourself (or whoever you want I guess...) and from those they create this... thing. Here is one of the many examples from their gallery:

If you are thinking that it is a little creepy, I think I will agree. The company's "About Us" page is a little creepy too:

Through the magic of Leprechauns,
Papa Smurf, Michael J. Fox, and
all other things small, we make
wee-sized, delightful stuffed
animal versions of you.

Even though I wouldn't buy one, I can think of several people who would probably want their very own "The Clancy." Probably for voodoo though.

Têtes à claques

2010-02-25T10:52:00.001-07:00

My French teacher showed us this creepy video. I don't know what to make of it and I am not sure what it says... except that it mentions Pop Tarts.

I've Been Hooked On fun. Lately

2010-02-22T22:15:00.005-07:00

I really hope that everyone in the world knows who fun. is by now. In case you don't, it is Nate Ruess' (of The Format, may they rest in peace) new band. fun.'s first album, Aim and Ignite, came out last August, so, if you are into music, you have probably have heard at least a track or two from it.

Anyways, even though this album is old news, I have been listening to it over and over again recently. It's probably a result of it being in my "Most Recent Downloads" playlist, right there with Beyonce, MGMT, Pitbull, and some Timbaland.

Enjoy this track:

Artwork: Judge Holden from Blood Meridian

2010-02-16T22:59:00.003-07:00

Signs of the Times: Edward Cullen Pillow

2010-02-16T13:59:00.005-07:00

I... I don't think I have anything to say about this Edward Cullen-shaped body pillow, which is described in the following manner:

Description
Manllow: half man, half pillow.

For all the twilight crazed lonely women in the world, Edward Cullen is finally here to be with you and only you. Sleep with him, cuddle with him, use him as a neck rest, the Edward Manllow is there to be your man and pillow all in one.

Made of soft cotton jersey, screen printed face, polyester stuffing and love.

Hillary, I know you are a Twilight fan, but please tell me that you would never, ever buy this.

Poetry: The Most Beautiful Thing She Ever Read

2010-02-12T07:54:00.002-07:00

Note: I presented this for the first time at last night's Love/Hate Poetry Reading.

The Most Beautiful Thing She Ever Read

Before dancing cesium marked the seconds,
Time was for man
The trickling of water
And the whirling of shadows;
The draining of sand
And the descent of flame down a wick.

But well beyond the ken of human eyes,
Water and sand and shadow and flame
Have always looked beyond themselves
To reckon the hours;
They look only to you and me—
We are the clock at the center of being.

And me-loving-you-while-you-hate-me
And you-loving-me-while-I-hate-you
Are the start and finish
Of a grinning pendulum swing.
And moving, moving, always moving,
We shrug and call ourselves “star-crossed”
As if such an allusion has a holy power
To suture the memories with which we are wounded.

But there are moments when I can tell
By the way you look up from the chess board
Or by the way you say “come over”
That time has come to stand still.

Because we are still.

Yet, these concourses of elements,
Fearful of our atemporality,
Reach inside with adroit malignance
And wind us tight again
With revolutions of fear and offense
Till, swinging again in gaping arcs,
Either I am sending you messages
With no hope of response
Or you are planning on dragging me
To the east coast against my will.

Still I know that we are not merely cogs
Impelled by the batteries of fate
To mesh together with the least of our circumference
Only to push one another off and away again.
For I have often shriven the past
And, in-between dreaming and spare time,
Rearranged memories and hopes so that
Our first hug, longed-for more than sex,
Comes after teaching Caitlin to read or Dallin to dance
And so that I can look forward again
To a night spread out on the hill
Where I made a game of laughing
And tickled you with sultry, white flowers.

If we can bend the hours and days so,
Let us stop speaking in the conditional tense
And make time the blank pages
Of a book bound by nothing
So that, with ink laid down
By our synchronized hands,
We answer only to ourselves
And our dreams.

Papers Attack

2010-02-07T13:34:00.004-07:00

Yesterday, my coworkers and I were working on a film for the BYU Writing Center. That made me think of this promotional video that we did last summer.

Enjoy the wonderful acting talents of the dashing Anthony Garret and the lovely Rebecca Peterson. Special effects provided by Clancy Clawson.

Carl's Jr's "The Big Carl"

2010-02-01T15:07:00.005-07:00

I love this hamburger, let me just get that out of the way. And since they lowered its price to $1.99, I don't think there is a better way to get half of your recommended daily allowance 0f calories (920/2000) in one sitting. I mean, a Wendy's Junior Bacon Cheeseburger only has a pathetic 310 calories in comparison.

You know what I also love? How this burger is also a blatant rip off of the Big Mac. Apparently Carl's Jr got ticked off that McDonald's introduced its "Angus Third Pounders," which they saw as a knock-off of their "Six Dollar Burger," so they decided to make their own Big Mac. In my mind, there is no comparison: the Big Carl is much, much better.

You can read Carl's Jr's press release about McHype here, or just watch the funny videos below.

My New Roommate and the Power of Silence

2010-01-31T12:31:00.004-07:00

So. I came home the other day to find that one of my roommates had brought home this life-sized, cardboard cutout from his work. Now, having just read Cormac McCarthy's Child of God the day before, the whole idea of having a non-living, non-speaking woman around as decoration just made me want to get onto Craigslist and sell my contract.

But, much to my relief, no one has started dressing it in actual clothing, nor have any of my roommates started to walk around in womanly attire (well, at least outer-wear). The thing that they HAVE done, though, is put up a piece of paper which they write little messages on. Right now it says, "Alyssa, watch your back," but I foresee phrases like "You guys are the coolest" and "I wish all men were like the men in #103."

But let's be honest, that woman doesn't actually talk to us. She is giving the whole apartment the silent treatment and we are only putting words in her mouth (or slightly to the left of her face, actually).

And the silent treatment is no laughing matter. One blog (take it with a grain of salt) calls it a "very destructive behavior" and says

When someone is administering the silent treatment they are trying to show that they are dominant over you. The silent treatment (when it becomes a mutual one) is a power struggle in pain tolerance…whomever the winner is, cares less.

So basically, me and my roommates are living with an emotionally abusive woman. She won't talk to us, and that just plain hurts. Don't think that just because she is cardboard she can get away with it. No one should ignore another person or punish them with silence. As someone who has been on both the receiving and giving end of that type of punishment, I can say that it is no bueno. That's Spanish for "it hurts like Hell and you will want to go and shove a screwdriver through your temple because you feel like such a dirtbag." If cardboard woman wants to stay in our lives, she needs to treat us better and get to gabbing.

Back In New Mexico...

2010-01-30T16:50:00.002-07:00

Different Values... or Something

2010-01-27T20:54:00.003-07:00

So, several of my roommates and I were sitting around, watching the State of the Union Address, when, out of nowhere, one of my particularly vociferous (and Portuguese-love-song-inclined) roommates asks, "Dude, when's this over?"

"You got something you need to do?" I asked, pointing to our priapic TV with my eyes.

"The BYU game."

Moral: Diversity is what makes America great. Or something.

My Biggest Worry...

2010-01-26T22:31:00.001-07:00

FunStuff: How My Coworkers Probably See Me

2010-01-22T19:32:00.000-07:00

Artwork: Stuck on a Paper

2010-01-22T19:27:00.003-07:00

This is part of an ad I did for the Writing Center. I went onto Anthropologie's website to find trendy clothes. She will be out of date next fall, probably.

FunStuff: NBC and Interpersonal Relationships

2010-01-22T19:09:00.000-07:00

FunStuff: BookBook Hardbound Laptops

2010-01-22T18:51:00.006-07:00

I found this on Holycool.net. Isn't it awesome?

The website says that

BookBook is a one-of-a-kind, hardback leather case designed exclusively for MacBook and MacBook Pro. Available in Classic Black or Vibrant Red, BookBook brings three levels of security to your prized Mac. First, the hardback cover and spine provide solid protection from the rigors of the road. Second, the vintage book design disguises MacBook for superior security. And third, the stylish case protects you from being like everyone else because BookBook is totally original, just like you.

You can buy it here. If you want. I mean, I'm not going to do it.

Artistic Representations of Things I Learned Last Semester: Part Two

2010-01-17T19:45:00.002-07:00

Artistic Representations of Things I Learned Last Semester: Part One

2010-01-08T20:09:00.004-07:00

All The Guidance a Dictionary Can Provide

2009-12-30T23:03:00.003-07:00

As I sat in my dad's leather shop and labored away on my personal statement, I couldn't help but notice this blurb on the back of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Special information sections offer extra help and guidance.

After reading this, I wondered, "What the hell? What sort of guidance can a dictionary possibly give me?" I flipped through the entries, expecting to find something like:

mur*der vb 1: to commit a murder; also: to kill brutally 2: to put an end to 3: to spoil by perfoming poorly <~ a song> mur*der*er n. ---YOU SHOULD NOT DO
THIS!

en*gi*neer* n 1: a member of a military unit specializing in engineering work 2: a designer or builder of engines 3: one trained in engineering 4: one that operates an engine. ---YOU MIGHT CONSIDER BECOMING ONE.

but alas, there was no such guidance for me. I don't know what I will do now.

FunStuff: Hamlet As It Could Have Been

2009-12-11T09:11:00.001-07:00

Daily Headache: Mad Max(im)

2009-12-02T18:24:00.007-07:00

When I heard Max Hall make his now infamous comments about the University of Utah, I was overjoyed--I knew that the Daily Universe would surely have something to say about it. But, to be completely honest, their response in yesterday's paper was nothing short of pathetic.

The article (which represents the opinion of the whole editorial board) starts out with a blanket statement that

Athletes’ bad behavior has always
garnered attention

before moving on to group Max's comments with Serena William's antics and the BYU-UNM soccer game slugfest (a move which is very questionable in my opinion). While acknowledging that each incident was different, the Daily Universe say that the common thread is that each of the offenders

issued a statement expressing regret and
pointing to the “heat of the moment,"

Then, of course, they offer excerpts from each of the three statements.

After doing all of this, and not really saying that much, the Daily Universe finally expresses their real opinion:

Almost anyone who has
participated in athletics
will tell you that aggression
fuels performance.
But there are better ways
to express (or to suppress)
strong feelings in the
“heat of the moment.”

Yes, that's right. After all of that set up, after equating Max Hall's words with Elizabeth Lambert's punches and hair-pulling, all the Daily Universe can say is that "there are better ways." Now, pointing out problems without offering solutions is valuable (and maybe the only possible stance to take) some of the time. But pointing out problems and then appearing to offer solutions is something else entirely. It is both morally presumptuous and lazy.

It is no surprise then, that the rest of the article is filled with trite maxims (the epitome of moral presumption and laziness). For example, the Daily Universe sets up a behavioral dichotomy for these situations including concrete negatives and epigrammatic positives . We can either

become displeased,
irritated, antagonistic,
angry. Or we can
school our feelings and
rise to the occasion.

These maxims really don't amount to much. They are the intellectual easy way out. If the Daily Universe had a problem with what Max Hall said, why don't they just come out and say "Or we can not sully our victories by making problematic generalization about a large and diverse body of people"? That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

And in the end, all the Daily Universe can conclude is that

In any competition, even in a rivalry as
heated as this one, athletes should display
some grace under pressure.

I am sorry, but the Daily Universe is simply being sloppy and irresponsible at this point. A quick Google search will reveal a little about the phrase, "grace under pressure." It seems to have originated with none other than Ernest Hemingway, and was the way he described the concept of having "guts." It is also tied to the code of conduct of the so-called "Hemingway Hero," especially to the way these men face death. If this sort of ideal is anything like that which shows up both in Hemingway's life and in his writing, then it most decidedly is not referring to only making sure you don't offend others. Heaven knows that Hemingway himself burned bridges right and left and that his heroes do the same. I doubt that the Daily Universe is insinuating that these athletes, especially Max Hall, need to be like ol' Ernie.

But I don't really expect the Daily Universe to understand Hemingway. Hell, I find him hard to get sometimes. Regardless, I still expect them to actually say something once in a while. Maybe I am asking too much.

FunStuff: Tiger Woods

2009-12-02T18:15:00.000-07:00

Poetry: Roots

2009-11-19T12:56:00.004-07:00

Daily Headache: Worthy of News

2009-11-11T14:20:00.003-07:00

Here's a gem from Heather Wrigley, the new Samantha Strong. Heather wrote yesterday about why the Daily Universe chose not to cover a march of handcart-pulling, LGBT people to the Church Office Building. She is of course, making it an issue by writing about it. But she tries to be sneaky-sneaky. Take a look at her little rhetorical strategy here:

Without touching on the offensive nature
of drawing an analogy between the LGBT
community’s trials and those of the handcart
pioneers, without mentioning the twisting
of sacred LDS history and symbols to suit a
political agenda, there are reasons why The
Daily Universe prints what it prints.

I am sure she called the rest Daily Universe staff into her cubicle to point out how clever she is. "You see, I say that I am NOT mentioning this stuff, but I really am! No one will ever know the difference." Perhaps, if we were eighth-graders. But some of us actually think about what we say and how we say it and try not to leave gaping holes and unanswered questions in our arguments.

For example, why is the use of a handcart the blasphemy that you say it is? Why is any history, LDS or not, worthy of being privileged as sacred? If the "pioneers" of my family had been baptized in the 1950s and crossed the plains in a studebaker, would that mean that I should revere that particular model of car? On what scale do you rank the sacrifices people make?

Be that as it may, she does say something that I can agree with:

Here’s a newsflash: The Daily Universe is
a news organization...

I must admit, the DU had me fooled for a very long time. I must have forgotten that stories about "dear john" letters are news. Perhaps I was confusing the Daily Universe with a social magazine, like Square. But Heather anticipates my suspicion, and continues:

It is a news business, whose mission is to provide
readers with interesting and relevant information
about current events, “newsworthy”
events. Think about the meaning of that
word: “worthy of news.”

Yes, let's think about that word. Or rather, all three of them. It really is the kicker--"worthy of news." The OED suggests that the word "worth" ultimately goes back to denoting something of monetary value and that "worthy" means something justifiable, like an expense. This connection to the pecuniary paradigm is more telling than Heather realizes. Yes, the Daily Universe is a news business, and its "news" is merely a product that it peddles. If it it isn't going to sell, it doesn't print.

But Heather likes to portray her product as something more Platonic:

Every beginning journalism student
learns what makes something worthy of
being in the news: Proximity — how close,
physically, or metaphysically, is the news
to the readers? Timeliness — how recently
did the event take place or how soon will it?
Importance — the prominence or impact of
an event. Along with these, drama, conflict,
variety, human interest and humor can make
a story more newsworthy.

I am not going to mention how the handcart march was close, timely, and important. That would be too clever and obvious. Instead I want to talk about metaphysics. First off, I am sure Heather's knowledge of metaphysics is somehow related to shopping at Plato's Closet. Second, why is metaphysics even an issue? If she is going to be dropping philosophical buzzwords to try and sound intelligent, why doesn't she show awareness of the current state of philosophy. Instead of denying the entire philosophical conversation since Nietzsche and claiming that news itself is apparently something transcendent, why not show a little bit of interest in ethics? Why boast that

newsworthiness is inherent
in real news — the passing of key, albeit
tedious, legislation, for example, or the
outcome of a major sports event.

when she could be using the news in way that takes into consideration that Others might not share her view that the only things important in life are politics and sports. But I guess she would rather conclude that

If it’s not real news, we’re not interested.
And if there’s not a “so what?” to the story,
why would anyone care about it?

Which is, clearly, impeccable logic. I mean, if Heather can't find a "so what," how could ANYONE care? I know I sure wouldn't.

Please write more, Heather. I have been oh so bored.

FunStuff: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler

2009-11-11T09:09:00.002-07:00

Amen.

FunStuff: RM Daily Planner

2009-11-09T11:40:00.006-07:00

Who can count the times that I have sat at home and lamented the fact that I no longer had my official missionary planner to tell me what to do? Well, I don't have to lament anymore because someone invented a product (c.f. Mitch Hedberg on plant watering)!

That product is the RM Daily Planner. The official website boasts that now you can

Keep up the habits that made your mission the best experience of your life with the new Returned Missionary Daily Planner. It’s designed closely after the planner full-time LDS missionaries use with a few adaptations for “civilian” use. Now that you’ve completed your valiant full-time service, it will help you continue to make great use of your time and energy as you begin a brand new chapter of life!

Really, this is the perfect product for those who have left the mission but can't leave it alone. Now they can keep track of their MTC teaching schedule, their speed dating, and their three religion classes with Brother Bott. And all in one place!

FunStuff: BYU vs UNM Soccer Fight

2009-11-09T11:28:00.003-07:00

Old news, yes. But still ridiculous.