"...if Christ is to be presented to men as a challenge to their thinking and living then he must be offered without compromise." -Cornelius Van Til, "The Defense of Faith"
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
What happens when your red blood cells hold lots of oxygen
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
What happens when you have a semantic debate about censorship in a Shakespeare class
The word censorship is defined way too broadly. The dictionary defines it as, "The removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." This definition is talking about two very separate issues. It is talking about the way that writers want you to define censorship. This is adding on the connotation of human rights violations so as to make argument against crap writing a sin. The second is actual definition of penalty not censorship or even persecution for that matter.
Writers, these days, use the word censorship to make excuses for crappy writing. I can't believe that censorship is anything more than group or body not allowing you to perches a particular manuscript. Likewise, censorship is not allowing a person to publish a manuscript even though the author has the financial means to endorse the publishing of their manuscript.
The dictionary definition assumes that human are obligated to hear (or in this case read) anything ever written. It is up to the writer to produce a product worth reading. If the public doesn't want to read the manuscript, it can still be written. I find that a large amount of "writers" want to complain that because a large group of people don't want to pass on or interact with the information or ideas presented in their manuscript, they are being censored. No, that is merely penalty. Think of a penalty in a football game. You roughed that passer so you get something taken away from you that would otherwise want in order to succeed. “Writers” use the word censorship to explain the penalty that a large group of readers impose because of their common dislike for the manuscript’s content.
Penalty is not always bad. In fact, in most cases it can be used to stop an action that is harmful. Think of the roughing the passer analogy. Just to be clear, I am defining censorship as a penalty not as a punishment. The writer is being penalized by the public. The public is not going to give him their support, both monetarily and morally, because they don't want to. I want it to be clear that I am not defending censorship. I am redefining it as a monetary and moral penalty. Then I am saying that my redefined censorship can be used to weed out bad writing.
The dictionary definition of censorship assumes a moral homogeny. Another words, it does not take into account the antithesis. It assumes that there is no one truth. This is the same old tune that pagan relativistic ninnies try to foist onto the world. They do this so that they can pretend that their crappy writing means something. The most annoying use I have ever read of this is Jonathan Safran Foer commenting on his book Extremely loud and Incredibly Close. He told an interviewer, “Why do people wonder what's "OK" to make art about, as if creating art out of tragedy weren't an inherently good thing? Too many people are too suspicious of art. Too many people hate art.” –Jonathan Safran Foer, on why he wrote a 9/11 book. Here we have an author calling his work, “Art”. So if you dislike his book then you dislike art. Foer is interpreting dislike for his book as artistic persecution. He even uses the word hate. It a real asshole thing to do.
The definition also assumes a communistic society. How might it assume a communist society? Well it’s simple. In the society we live in it is impossible not to hear any information. True or false, all information is jammed into our senses. We are made to sleep with it and told that it is good and warm and tender. Just as soon as we realize that we are in bed with a lie, we are told not to worry because some of it is still true.
Today I heard the stupidest thing ever. I was educated (at $357.49 per credit nonetheless) that there exist such a thing as self censorship. This is when an author feels that what he or she is writing will bring persecution upon themselves; so they don’t write it. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. I would like to see one example in the last 100 years of an English language writer that silenced themselves because they were afraid of the consequences. You would have to go to
In my opinion if a writer does not have boulders large enough to say what is true then he shouldn’t be saying it at all.
Monday, October 15, 2007
What happens when you turn the sound down
What happens when you have a child
Toady I watched my child from noon to 3:00 while her mother was sleeping. We went to cougar country and ate fries and a a burger. She got full and wanted to leave so she just started shoving the fries in my mouth. She would take a fry dip it in ketchup lick off the ketchup then dip it again and eat the fry. I realized that for the first time in her 17 months of existence she realized that things have multiple purposes. In this scenario a fry was both a spoon and a thing to eat. But really, she was just being cool. She was just eating fries with her dad.
Friday, October 12, 2007
What happens when the universe speaks
This is all beside the point. Watch this movie about Enceladus and this movie about Titan too.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What happens when you are have no subtlety.
What happens when you are icredibly loud and extremely close to an ok book
Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Extremely loud and Incredibly Close is indeed extremely loud and incredibly close to a good book. This book follows a boy named Oskar Schell through his adventures around the five boroughs of
Foer has an uncanny ability to describe vividly
Foer organizes his book in an entirely original way. However, some of the actual context and story line, like the love between two characters or the inner turmoil with one, take a back seat to his order. This hierarchy of style is usually in balance, but it can sometimes become very obvious, repetitive and loud
One of the main criticisms of this book is that the main character, Oskar, is not believable. Would you find Oskar in the real world? Most critics of the book would say no. However, Oskar does fit very well in the world Foer has created. This leads to the question, “Is the world that Foer created believable?” The world that Foer is describing is a post 9/11
Foer’s world is believable because the very nature of the subject he is writing about is almost fantastic. It is not the fantastic you get when you clean you floors of finish a project, it is the fantastic you get when you read fairytales and legends. The story shocks and startles you into an unknown right in you back yard. Readers don’t have much of a context to judge the psychosomatic effects of a tragedy like that of 9/11. Foer also uses sub-stories like the carpet-bombing of
As the reader follows young Oskar through his excursions through the five boroughs, he is presented with the very heart of the existential dilemma. What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? Foer answers these questions through the characters. He answers these questions in a completely original way; for instance, Foer answers his questions through different story lines. Specifically speaking, Foer uses the story line of Oskar’s grandmother and grandfather to answer questions of existence and being that a child might not be able to understand. Grandma and grandpa can delve into questions surrounding an intensely confusing sex life that has been present for several years.
Throughout the novel, the story of a sixth borough acts as another story line that Foer uses to answer the overarching question. How does a community like post 9/11
At the books end, all of the questions are answered. Foer has limited his aspects of his novel with his artistic organization. With themes surrounded by pictures and repetition, this novel lacks a certain level of subtlety. Themes are repeated not just with words, but also with items like pictures, letters, and business cards. The themes tend to stack and crescendo into falling roar. The novel becomes a little too extremely loud and incredibly close on occasion. Themes of loss and victimization come across so strong that it is hard to separate them from their sentimental roots. However, taken with a grain of salt, this aspect of the novel is also fitting with its overall theme. Tragic attacks are loud and close and not at all subtle. Most importantly, this book is a relief to finish but a pleasure to read.