.
Just found this old text file of poems. Either it's really experimental or certain software standards have changed.
========================================================
ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ % ' þÿÿÿ $ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á 3 ð ¿ ® jbjb ^ ^ h< h< ® ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ l Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô Ô , , , , , 8 , ê X X X X X X X X Ô Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö , ! F Ô X X X X X ¨ Ô Ô X X X ¨ ¨ ¨ X " Ô X Ô X Ô ¨ è "
" Ô Ô Ô Ô X Ô ¨ , ¨ Ô Ô Ô Ô L ¦èã½ , , z . Ô Ô Ô g ¨ g Ô ¨ à å Morning
by Eric W. Jepson
The chain catches with its miniature
industrial clash as her thigh
makes the first inroads against
Newton’s law; the wind
rises from the early still, moving
aside her curtain of hair and revealing
a new, agile world to her renewing eyes.
Bbbbb
by Eric W. Jepson
Ran over
an aluminum can
And became a motorcycle
Potency
by Eric W. Jepson
Recent research suggests that all that
pressure on the perineum caused by
riding on your typical bicycle seat may
lead to, ah, impotence.
(Ah, impotence!)
Now, ah, “potence” is really only good
for one thing.
I need not mention it.
Now, the man whose perineum is so, ah, impacted
by his bicycle seat must, I need not mention,
have a more time-heavy relationship with his
bicycle than, ah, the partner of his potency.
Thus: why should this be cause for worry….
(Worry.)
The man nodded,
tugged at his latex shorts,
shook the doctor’s hand,
and stood to leave.
$ Y b s ® ýøò øò ø >* OJ QJ OJ QJ >* B ` € — º â % & / ? @ X a b t u Á é ý ý ý û û û û û û û û û ö ö ö û û û û û ö ö ö û û û û û $ a$ B ` € — º â % & / ? @ X ` a b c e s t u Á é ; J a b ’ À í G H Q R c ™ ® ýýý ûûûûûûû 5 ; J a b ’ À í G H Q R c ™ ® ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý ý °Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %°
i 4 @ñÿ 4 N o r m a l CJ OJ PJ QJ mH < A@òÿ¡ < D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t 0 >@ ò 0 T i t l e $ a$ >* OJ QJ ® ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ z™ ÿÿ z™ ÿÿ z™ Y ® ® ®
® m s ° b d ° ÿÿ S y s t e m s 4 T N I 0 2 : T e m p o r a r y I t e m s : A u t o R e c o v e r y s a v e o f D o c u m e n t 1 S y s t e m s " T N I 0 2 : D e s k t o p F o l d e r : b i c y c l e p o e m s S y s t e m s " T N I 0 2 : D e s k t o p F o l d e r : b i c y c l e p o e m s ÿ@ € s s @§Y s s
® @ @ G T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 € S y m b o l 3 A r i a l 3 T i m e s q Œ ðÐ h çkŒ&/lŒ& B , þ ! ð ¥ À ´ ´ € >0 d 7 ò ð ÿÿ M o r n i n g S y s t e m s þÿ
à…ŸòùOh «‘ +'³Ù0 P ˆ ¬ ¸ Ä Ô ä ð
$ 0 8 @ H ' Morning orn orn orn Normal Systems 2 st Microsoft Word 9.0 d@ X8 @ B®ëláÄ @ ÚŒkváÄ , þ þÿ
ÕÍÕœ. “— +,ù®0 ð h p | „ Œ ” œ ¤ ¬ ´
¼ Ð ' TNI 7 Ï Morning Title
þÿÿÿ
þÿÿÿ þÿÿÿ ! " # þÿÿÿýÿÿÿ& þÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿR o o t E n t r y ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ À F —q3áÄ ( € 1 T a b l e ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ W o r d D o c u m e n t ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( ÿÿÿÿ D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ C o m p O b j ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ X ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ þÿ ÿÿÿÿ À F Microsoft Word Document þÿÿÿNB6W Word.Document.8
.png)
2011-08-04
2011-08-03
It's Wednesday. And you know what that means: a call to duty.
.
When I need
everyone to take their
dang time (not
now), I'll ask
everyone to notnotnot
stop what they're
doing but just keep up their
asinine activities. But now?
Yes. Stop what you're doing.
When I need
everyone to take their
dang time (not
now), I'll ask
everyone to notnotnot
stop what they're
doing but just keep up their
asinine activities. But now?
Yes. Stop what you're doing.
2011-07-20
A surreal dream (because everyone enjoys reading about other people's dreams)
.
Since the parenthetical of this post is obviously a lie, let me introduce this post by saying it's not the dream that's important, but one wonderfully surreal moment therein. Normally, dreams --- or at least my dreams --- are fairly realistic. The surreality is in how events are structured together etc but not the actual images themselves. This dream I had last night (when I had the dream, I'm posting this over a week later), though? It had a truly surreal image.
Now, the dream was the sort I would want to talk about anyway, what with how it ended with me being a drugged-out zombie making bombs so this army of plant-wearing middle-aged men could kill everyone (which drugged-outedness made it VERY difficult for me to get up the next morning), but the image that's actually worth recording happened earlier.
Context:
The Actor and I met the actor who would be playing Doctor Doom in a new Marvel movie. The actor was in costume and dancing around in a silly way. The costume had googly eyes and really wasn't very scary at all, what with the prancing and so forth. But somehow I figured out, even with the cloak and body armor, that the actor was Anne Hathaway. (She was disappointed I was able to guess.)
Anyway, that wasn't the surreal image I'm interested in. A bit more setup, then the image:
We're in this small prisonlike space. Anne and the Actor both have stepped out for a while. He comes back first with a bowl of cantaloupe cut into very very very small pieces. Why? Because the cantaloupe is a Love and Other Drugs cantaloupe and he cut it up small to hide all of Anne's nudity. He doesn't want her to recognize the cantaloupe and be embarrassed because we can see her naked as we eat it.
Now that I'm awake, I don't know how a cantaloupe and a movie can be the same thing.
The sad part is, I don't even like cantaloupe.....
Since the parenthetical of this post is obviously a lie, let me introduce this post by saying it's not the dream that's important, but one wonderfully surreal moment therein. Normally, dreams --- or at least my dreams --- are fairly realistic. The surreality is in how events are structured together etc but not the actual images themselves. This dream I had last night (when I had the dream, I'm posting this over a week later), though? It had a truly surreal image.
Now, the dream was the sort I would want to talk about anyway, what with how it ended with me being a drugged-out zombie making bombs so this army of plant-wearing middle-aged men could kill everyone (which drugged-outedness made it VERY difficult for me to get up the next morning), but the image that's actually worth recording happened earlier.
Context:
The Actor and I met the actor who would be playing Doctor Doom in a new Marvel movie. The actor was in costume and dancing around in a silly way. The costume had googly eyes and really wasn't very scary at all, what with the prancing and so forth. But somehow I figured out, even with the cloak and body armor, that the actor was Anne Hathaway. (She was disappointed I was able to guess.)
Anyway, that wasn't the surreal image I'm interested in. A bit more setup, then the image:
We're in this small prisonlike space. Anne and the Actor both have stepped out for a while. He comes back first with a bowl of cantaloupe cut into very very very small pieces. Why? Because the cantaloupe is a Love and Other Drugs cantaloupe and he cut it up small to hide all of Anne's nudity. He doesn't want her to recognize the cantaloupe and be embarrassed because we can see her naked as we eat it.
Now that I'm awake, I don't know how a cantaloupe and a movie can be the same thing.
The sad part is, I don't even like cantaloupe.....
2011-07-17
Svithing the Holy Ghost
.
In about an hour I'll be giving a talk on the Holy Ghost at the baptism of two men I think are pretty great. These are my notes.
D&C 46
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to the Church, at Kirtland, Ohio, 8 March 1831. In this early time of the Church, a unified pattern for the conducting of Church services had not yet developed. However, a custom of admitting only members and earnest investigators to the sacrament meetings and other assemblies of the Church had become somewhat general. This revelation expresses the will of the Lord relative to governing and conducting meetings.
10And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.
11For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
15And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.
16And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.
17And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.
18To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.
19And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;
20And to others it is given to have faith to heal.
21And again, to some is given the working of miracles;
22And to others it is given to prophesy;
23And to others the discerning of spirits.
24And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues;
25And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.
26And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God.
What does a “burning in the bosom” mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word “burning” in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity. That is the witness many receive. That is the way revelation works. (Dallin H Oaks
I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. (Boyd K Packer)
Also from Elder Oaks:
1. The testimony or witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ and that the gospel is true is a revelation from God.
2. Prophecy is another purpose or function of revelation.
3. A third purpose of revelation is to give comfort .
4. Closely related to the feeling of comfort is the fourth purpose or function of revelation, to uplift .
5. The fifth purpose of revelation is to inform .
6. The sixth type or purpose of revelation is to restrain us from doing something.
7. A common way to seek revelation is to propose a particular course of action and then to pray for inspiration to confirm it.
8. The eighth purpose or type of revelation consists of those instances where the Spirit impels a person to action.
In about an hour I'll be giving a talk on the Holy Ghost at the baptism of two men I think are pretty great. These are my notes.
D&C 46
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to the Church, at Kirtland, Ohio, 8 March 1831. In this early time of the Church, a unified pattern for the conducting of Church services had not yet developed. However, a custom of admitting only members and earnest investigators to the sacrament meetings and other assemblies of the Church had become somewhat general. This revelation expresses the will of the Lord relative to governing and conducting meetings.
10And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.
11For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
15And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.
16And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.
17And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.
18To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.
19And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;
20And to others it is given to have faith to heal.
21And again, to some is given the working of miracles;
22And to others it is given to prophesy;
23And to others the discerning of spirits.
24And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues;
25And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.
26And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God.
What does a “burning in the bosom” mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word “burning” in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity. That is the witness many receive. That is the way revelation works. (Dallin H Oaks
I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. (Boyd K Packer)
Also from Elder Oaks:
1. The testimony or witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ and that the gospel is true is a revelation from God.
2. Prophecy is another purpose or function of revelation.
3. A third purpose of revelation is to give comfort .
4. Closely related to the feeling of comfort is the fourth purpose or function of revelation, to uplift .
5. The fifth purpose of revelation is to inform .
6. The sixth type or purpose of revelation is to restrain us from doing something.
7. A common way to seek revelation is to propose a particular course of action and then to pray for inspiration to confirm it.
8. The eighth purpose or type of revelation consists of those instances where the Spirit impels a person to action.
2011-07-15
Controversial nonsense
.
The pig is through my sense of now.
No it's not!
My heart is rampant in the sheds.
No it's not!
Love has spoken in noodley excess.
No it hasn't!
Your need has crawled through my ear into space unknowable.
No it hasn't!
I have spoken in salmon and reaped the printed work.
No you haven't.
St. Stephen lost his pocketwatch in the wart of a seaman's dingo.
Shut up. Just. Just. Just. Shut up.
The pig is through my sense of now.
No it's not!
My heart is rampant in the sheds.
No it's not!
Love has spoken in noodley excess.
No it hasn't!
Your need has crawled through my ear into space unknowable.
No it hasn't!
I have spoken in salmon and reaped the printed work.
No you haven't.
St. Stephen lost his pocketwatch in the wart of a seaman's dingo.
Shut up. Just. Just. Just. Shut up.
2011-07-12
Two books of pictures, one fiction, one non
.
052) The Influencing Machine by Brooke Gladstone and Josh Neufeld, finished July 8
I found this book through Scott McCloud. Upon reading his plug, I immediately went and requested it at my library. They hadn't processed their copies yet, but once they had, I became the first person in my library system to get the book.
In case you don't know, Brooke Gladstone is cohost of On the Media, a great show I don't listen to nearly often enough.
The book is in the tradition of McCloud's Understanding Comics --- extended nonfiction essay in comics form. It's well put together --- Gladstone and Neufeld (the artist) clearly made a good team --- and I would highly recommend this book to, say, Advanced Placement English Language and Composition courses. I would love to get a couple sets for some of the classes I teach.
For me, though? I'm not so sure I'm the target audience. Because the book curtails rather closely with many of my interests, a sizable percentage of the book is stuff I already knew. At one point about, say two thirds in, I even considered not finishing because I was a little bored. But I DID finish and I'm glad I did. The book had enough new stuff and interesting takes on old stuff that ultimately it was worth my time.
If you're not as entrenched in media studies as geekme, you have to read this book. Like, twice.
Get on it. This stuff is important and defines our lives.
(The book is better.)
TIME
===========================================================
051) Wilson by Daniel Clowes, finished July 6
I've known about this book for a while, but wasn't going to seek it out. I'm not a big Clowes fan. Don't get me wrong! I thought Ghost World was good! But I liked his movie better than his book. And I'm excited to have him design Fantagraphics's Barnaby books! The only reason I picked this up is because I happened to see it on a shelf at the library of books set to return to another branch. So why not?
I like the structural conceit of Wilson. Each page is a Sunday-strip-esque piece, six panels, self-contained yet part of the larger story.
I like how, depending on the nature of the story, each page may use a different set of characters from the highly cartoony to the fairly realistic.
Sometimes it's funny and this cantankerous character experiences real growth and it talks about baseball.
It's well made and a good read.
It's also loaded with vulgarities and limited by the very elements I liked about it.
Not a great book. But certainly my favorite Clowes to date. Not that I seek all his stuff out . . . .
couple weeks
===========================================================
Previously in 2011 . . . . :
052) The Influencing Machine by Brooke Gladstone and Josh Neufeld, finished July 8
I found this book through Scott McCloud. Upon reading his plug, I immediately went and requested it at my library. They hadn't processed their copies yet, but once they had, I became the first person in my library system to get the book.
In case you don't know, Brooke Gladstone is cohost of On the Media, a great show I don't listen to nearly often enough.
The book is in the tradition of McCloud's Understanding Comics --- extended nonfiction essay in comics form. It's well put together --- Gladstone and Neufeld (the artist) clearly made a good team --- and I would highly recommend this book to, say, Advanced Placement English Language and Composition courses. I would love to get a couple sets for some of the classes I teach.
For me, though? I'm not so sure I'm the target audience. Because the book curtails rather closely with many of my interests, a sizable percentage of the book is stuff I already knew. At one point about, say two thirds in, I even considered not finishing because I was a little bored. But I DID finish and I'm glad I did. The book had enough new stuff and interesting takes on old stuff that ultimately it was worth my time.
If you're not as entrenched in media studies as geekme, you have to read this book. Like, twice.
Get on it. This stuff is important and defines our lives.
(The book is better.)
TIME
===========================================================
051) Wilson by Daniel Clowes, finished July 6
I've known about this book for a while, but wasn't going to seek it out. I'm not a big Clowes fan. Don't get me wrong! I thought Ghost World was good! But I liked his movie better than his book. And I'm excited to have him design Fantagraphics's Barnaby books! The only reason I picked this up is because I happened to see it on a shelf at the library of books set to return to another branch. So why not?
I like the structural conceit of Wilson. Each page is a Sunday-strip-esque piece, six panels, self-contained yet part of the larger story.
I like how, depending on the nature of the story, each page may use a different set of characters from the highly cartoony to the fairly realistic.
Sometimes it's funny and this cantankerous character experiences real growth and it talks about baseball.
It's well made and a good read.
It's also loaded with vulgarities and limited by the very elements I liked about it.
Not a great book. But certainly my favorite Clowes to date. Not that I seek all his stuff out . . . .
couple weeks
===========================================================
Previously in 2011 . . . . :
46-50
050) Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut, finished July 1
049) Housekeeping vs. The Dirt by Nick Hornby, finished June 25
048) The Light Princess by George Macdonald, finished June 22
047) Half a Life by Darin Strauss, finished June 17
046) Babymouse: Cupcake Tycoon by Jennifer L. Holm and Matt Holm (siblings), finished June 16
42-45
045) Ender in Exile by Orson Scott Card, finished June 10
044) Writings from The New Yorker 1927-1976 by E.B. White (edited by Rebecca M. Dale), finished June 7
043) The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin, finished May 31
042) Unnamed book by unnamed client (MS POLICY),
finished May 27
33-41
041) Scott Pilgrim's Finest Hour by Bryan Lee O'Malley, finished May 14
040) Scott Pilgrim Versus The Unverse by Bryan Lee O'Malley, finished May 14
039) Scott Pilgrim Gets It Together by Bryan Lee O'Malley, finished May 13
037) The Code of the Woosters by P.G. Wodehouse, finished May 11
036) Scott Pilgrim Versus The World by Bryan Lee O'Malley
035) Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life by Bryan Lee O'Malley
034) The Complete Peanuts 1975-1976 by Charles M. Schulz, finished May 1
033) Asterios Polyp by David Mazzucchelli finished approximately April 27
32
032) Golden Gate by Seth Vikram, finished April 20
27-31
031) Batman: Year 100 by Paul Pope, finished April 18
030) The Polysyllabic Spree by Nick Hornby, finished April 9
029) iZombie: Dead to the World by Chris Roberson and Mike Allred, finished April 2
028) A Sense of Order and Other Stories by Jack Harrell, finished April 1
027) Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard, finished March 30
26
026) The Black Dogs by Ian McEwan, finished March 21
23-25
025) Stitches by David Small, finished March 20
024) Arkham Asylum: Madness
023) Hamlet by William Shakespeare, finished March 18
21-22
022) Red Rocket 7 by Mike Allred, finished March 10
021) Missile Mouse: Rescue on Tankium3 by Jake Parker, finished March 10
20
020) The Hotel Cat by Esther Averill, finished February 28
18-19
019) Wonderland by Tommy Kovac and Sonny Liew, finished February 21
018) Redcoat by Kohl Glass (MS POLICY), finished February 18
14-17
017) Best American Comics 2010 edited by Neil Gaiman, finished February 12
016) Little Bee by Chris Cleave, finished February 10
015) Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck, finished February 2
014) Cursed Pirate Girl: The Collected Edition Vol. I by Jeremy Bastian, finished January 31
13-9
013) Sweet Tooth: In Captivity by Jeff Lemire, finished January 30
012) Sweet Tooth: Out of the Woods by Jeff Lemire, finished January 30
011) Essex County: The Country Nurse by Jeff Lemire, finished January 30
010) Essex County: Ghost Stories by Jeff Lemire, finished January 29
009) Essex County: Tales from the Farm by Jeff Lemire, finished January 29
8
008) Magdalene by Morah Jovan, finished January 27
7-6
007) Knightfall Part Two: Who Rules the Night by a slew of DC folk, finished January 23
006) Bayou by Jeremy Love, finished January 17
5-1
005) Mr. Monster by Dan Wells, finished January 10
004) The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane, finished January 6
003) The Mystery of the Dinosaur Graveyard by Mary Adrian, finished January 5
002) Batman - Judge Dredd: Judgment on Gotham by John Wagner and Alan Grant and Simon Bisley, with lettering by the famous Todd Klein; finished January 4
001) Batman: Venom by Dennis O'Neil et al, finished January 2
2011-07-11
My eyes. My eyes.
.
NOTE: Amazon no longer pays me for your clickthroughs. I haven't decided what I'm going to do instead though so, as of now, my book links still go to Amazon. Don't buy anything though. Out of spite.
.
050) Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut, finished July 1
I finished Timequake this morning then picked back up Nick Hornby's Shakespeare Wrote for Money in which he immediately suggested that you should NEVER revisit the most important books and movies of your past because their importance suggests that they came to you at Just the Right Moment and that circumstance can never be repeated and thus you are doomed to disappointment.
I mean: I liked the book and much of what I've always said about it remains true, but I'm not convinced it's a great novel. Honestly, if it had been written a few hundred years ago it would be filed as nonfiction. Really, it's an extended essay with some fictional points built in.
So . . . take that as you will. Probably not the book for a Vonnegut novice, but still a must read for the Vonnegut fan.
five days
===========================================================
049) Housekeeping vs. The Dirt by Nick Hornby, finished June 25
After enjoying the first of Nick Hornby's what-I-read Believer columns so much, I greatly wanted to buy the other two. And discovering them on McSweeney's bargain-because-damaged page, I did. (This volume is still there for a mere three bucks.) And they came with less damage than many "undamaged" books have arrived from Amazon over the years.
Once again, we spend some time chatting with Nick over what books he's read and the time he's had reading them and we laughed together and snarled in agreement and just had a dandy time. If you don't have a book club (or, like me, the only one nearby is a girls-only thing), then hang with Nick and make it a club of two.
a week
===========================================================
048) The Light Princess by George Macdonald, finished June 22
My copy was illustrated by Maurice Sendak in what I think of as his Bat-Poet style (although the baby looks a lot like Mickey). The book is a delightful children's book written by this guy:
Clearly the sort of person children love.
Anyway, the story is of a princess who, like Sleeping Beauty, was cursed by someone unhappy at not being invited to the christening, but instead of falling asleep, her gravity is removed. The earth has no hold upon her. So of course it's the story of how she meets a prince and gets her gravity back.
And the book is funny. I lolled a number of times. It's swift and fun and charming and pretty darn funny. Check it out.
(Also, I learn from the Wikipedia article,) it will soon be a musical with music by Tori Amos. Tori Amos! How about that?
two days or about twenty-four hours
===========================================================
047) Half a Life by Darin Strauss, finished June 17
What a remarkable book. I'm not sure how to talk about it in a way that would make even me want to pick it up and read it, so let me start by saying that it's under 200 pages and that includes a goodly number of blanks and plenty of additional whitespace. It won't take you long to read. So it's not much risk to take my word on this one.
But here's the skinny:
Have his life ago, the author killed a girl. Her bike swerved in front of his car and everyone agreed there was nothing he could do, but still: he killed a girl. He was a senior, she was a junior --- he barely knew her, but for the most recent half of his life, he has lived with her. He cannot escape thoughts of her. And he's not sure how he feels because he also have to feel what he's supposed to feel and what he wishes to feel and what he thinks others expect him to feel. And so he's trapped in concentric circles of guilt and uncertainty and this is how his life is lived.
Honestly, I'm not sure why I ever expressed interest in something so clearly awful to read, but somehow I did and I'm so glad I did. I'm not sure how I feel about his book, but I think that's exactly how I should feel. It's how he felt.
Good stuff.
(Note: I received a free copy of this book through Librarything's Early Reviewer program.)
under a week
===========================================================
046) Babymouse: Cupcake Tycoon by Jennifer L. Holm and Matt Holm (siblings), finished June 16
I picked this up at the last second from the new-books shelf while checking out at the library. I started reading it last night while the kids were getting ready for bed, but Large S joined me and asked me to read it aloud and Big O joined not long after. Today they wanted me to reread it, but I insisted O just read it himself to the both of them. (This is how I teach love of reading, ha ha.)
Ends up this is the thirteenth in a series. This book is in lovely pink monochrome and is a good introduction to Walter Mitty, smarmy postmodern narration, and cutting cuteness. Quite a fun and charming book. Utterly silly, but not in a Captain Underpants-esque overwhelmery.
In brief, I liked it. I did not love it. And I don't know what to think that there are fourteen of these and only two Missile Mouse books. Go buy some Missile Mouse today and lets get Jake Parker a contract extension.
maybe fifteen minutes max
===========================================================
Previously in 2011 . . . . :
NOTE: Amazon no longer pays me for your clickthroughs. I haven't decided what I'm going to do instead though so, as of now, my book links still go to Amazon. Don't buy anything though. Out of spite.
.
050) Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut, finished July 1
I finished Timequake this morning then picked back up Nick Hornby's Shakespeare Wrote for Money in which he immediately suggested that you should NEVER revisit the most important books and movies of your past because their importance suggests that they came to you at Just the Right Moment and that circumstance can never be repeated and thus you are doomed to disappointment.
I mean: I liked the book and much of what I've always said about it remains true, but I'm not convinced it's a great novel. Honestly, if it had been written a few hundred years ago it would be filed as nonfiction. Really, it's an extended essay with some fictional points built in.
So . . . take that as you will. Probably not the book for a Vonnegut novice, but still a must read for the Vonnegut fan.
five days
===========================================================
049) Housekeeping vs. The Dirt by Nick Hornby, finished June 25
After enjoying the first of Nick Hornby's what-I-read Believer columns so much, I greatly wanted to buy the other two. And discovering them on McSweeney's bargain-because-damaged page, I did. (This volume is still there for a mere three bucks.) And they came with less damage than many "undamaged" books have arrived from Amazon over the years.
Once again, we spend some time chatting with Nick over what books he's read and the time he's had reading them and we laughed together and snarled in agreement and just had a dandy time. If you don't have a book club (or, like me, the only one nearby is a girls-only thing), then hang with Nick and make it a club of two.
a week
===========================================================
048) The Light Princess by George Macdonald, finished June 22
My copy was illustrated by Maurice Sendak in what I think of as his Bat-Poet style (although the baby looks a lot like Mickey). The book is a delightful children's book written by this guy:
Clearly the sort of person children love.
Anyway, the story is of a princess who, like Sleeping Beauty, was cursed by someone unhappy at not being invited to the christening, but instead of falling asleep, her gravity is removed. The earth has no hold upon her. So of course it's the story of how she meets a prince and gets her gravity back.
And the book is funny. I lolled a number of times. It's swift and fun and charming and pretty darn funny. Check it out.
(Also, I learn from the Wikipedia article,) it will soon be a musical with music by Tori Amos. Tori Amos! How about that?
two days or about twenty-four hours
===========================================================
What a remarkable book. I'm not sure how to talk about it in a way that would make even me want to pick it up and read it, so let me start by saying that it's under 200 pages and that includes a goodly number of blanks and plenty of additional whitespace. It won't take you long to read. So it's not much risk to take my word on this one.
But here's the skinny:
Have his life ago, the author killed a girl. Her bike swerved in front of his car and everyone agreed there was nothing he could do, but still: he killed a girl. He was a senior, she was a junior --- he barely knew her, but for the most recent half of his life, he has lived with her. He cannot escape thoughts of her. And he's not sure how he feels because he also have to feel what he's supposed to feel and what he wishes to feel and what he thinks others expect him to feel. And so he's trapped in concentric circles of guilt and uncertainty and this is how his life is lived.
Honestly, I'm not sure why I ever expressed interest in something so clearly awful to read, but somehow I did and I'm so glad I did. I'm not sure how I feel about his book, but I think that's exactly how I should feel. It's how he felt.
Good stuff.
(Note: I received a free copy of this book through Librarything's Early Reviewer program.)
under a week
===========================================================
I picked this up at the last second from the new-books shelf while checking out at the library. I started reading it last night while the kids were getting ready for bed, but Large S joined me and asked me to read it aloud and Big O joined not long after. Today they wanted me to reread it, but I insisted O just read it himself to the both of them. (This is how I teach love of reading, ha ha.)
Ends up this is the thirteenth in a series. This book is in lovely pink monochrome and is a good introduction to Walter Mitty, smarmy postmodern narration, and cutting cuteness. Quite a fun and charming book. Utterly silly, but not in a Captain Underpants-esque overwhelmery.
In brief, I liked it. I did not love it. And I don't know what to think that there are fourteen of these and only two Missile Mouse books. Go buy some Missile Mouse today and lets get Jake Parker a contract extension.
maybe fifteen minutes max
===========================================================
Previously in 2011 . . . . :
42-45
045) Ender in Exile by Orson Scott Card, finished June 10
044) Writings from The New Yorker 1927-1976 by E.B. White (edited by Rebecca M. Dale), finished June 7
043) The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin, finished May 31
042) Unnamed book by unnamed client (MS POLICY),
finished May 27
33-41
041) Scott Pilgrim's Finest Hour by Bryan Lee O'Malley, finished May 14
040) Scott Pilgrim Versus The Unverse by Bryan Lee O'Malley, finished May 14
039) Scott Pilgrim Gets It Together by Bryan Lee O'Malley, finished May 13
037) The Code of the Woosters by P.G. Wodehouse, finished May 11
036) Scott Pilgrim Versus The World by Bryan Lee O'Malley
035) Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life by Bryan Lee O'Malley
034) The Complete Peanuts 1975-1976 by Charles M. Schulz, finished May 1
033) Asterios Polyp by David Mazzucchelli finished approximately April 27
32
032) Golden Gate by Seth Vikram, finished April 20
27-31
031) Batman: Year 100 by Paul Pope, finished April 18
030) The Polysyllabic Spree by Nick Hornby, finished April 9
029) iZombie: Dead to the World by Chris Roberson and Mike Allred, finished April 2
028) A Sense of Order and Other Stories by Jack Harrell, finished April 1
027) Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard, finished March 30
26
026) The Black Dogs by Ian McEwan, finished March 21
23-25
025) Stitches by David Small, finished March 20
024) Arkham Asylum: Madness
023) Hamlet by William Shakespeare, finished March 18
21-22
022) Red Rocket 7 by Mike Allred, finished March 10
021) Missile Mouse: Rescue on Tankium3 by Jake Parker, finished March 10
20
020) The Hotel Cat by Esther Averill, finished February 28
18-19
019) Wonderland by Tommy Kovac and Sonny Liew, finished February 21
018) Redcoat by Kohl Glass (MS POLICY), finished February 18
14-17
017) Best American Comics 2010 edited by Neil Gaiman, finished February 12
016) Little Bee by Chris Cleave, finished February 10
015) Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck, finished February 2
014) Cursed Pirate Girl: The Collected Edition Vol. I by Jeremy Bastian, finished January 31
13-9
013) Sweet Tooth: In Captivity by Jeff Lemire, finished January 30
012) Sweet Tooth: Out of the Woods by Jeff Lemire, finished January 30
011) Essex County: The Country Nurse by Jeff Lemire, finished January 30
010) Essex County: Ghost Stories by Jeff Lemire, finished January 29
009) Essex County: Tales from the Farm by Jeff Lemire, finished January 29
8
008) Magdalene by Morah Jovan, finished January 27
7-6
007) Knightfall Part Two: Who Rules the Night by a slew of DC folk, finished January 23
006) Bayou by Jeremy Love, finished January 17
5-1
005) Mr. Monster by Dan Wells, finished January 10
004) The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane, finished January 6
003) The Mystery of the Dinosaur Graveyard by Mary Adrian, finished January 5
002) Batman - Judge Dredd: Judgment on Gotham by John Wagner and Alan Grant and Simon Bisley, with lettering by the famous Todd Klein; finished January 4
001) Batman: Venom by Dennis O'Neil et al, finished January 2
2011-07-07
A few thoughts about baseball
.
I was raised a Pirates fan. I'm not sure why my father, raised in Nephi, Utah, was a Pirates fan or how a man who never watched sports managed to pass that on to his son, but I am a Pirates fan. I watched the early-90s playoff games from my Tehachapi, California tv, mourned the firesale when the team got rid of all its best players and then lost its manager, then stopped reading the sports section when they went on the longest losing-season streak in American pro-sports history.
My boys are Oakland A's fans. This is because, hey, they're the local team. My kids have somehow made themselves into baseball nuts and the Atleticos are their team. I have no problem with this (although seriously: the American League?) and it's been fun to be reintroduced to baseball. We go to a few games a year and we have a good time. My only real memories of the A's from my childhood though are the Battle of the Bay tshirts and that earthquake.
The A's this year are not terrible-terrible. Yes, they're currently last in their division, but they're not so far back they could get caught up. Although it's getting harder and harder to imagine that happening.
The Pirates on the other hand are not only above 500 for the first time in almost 20 years, they're only a game and a half out of first place in their division. I almost can't wrap my head around it.
But if either team makes it to the playoffs, it will be a miracle against money. Consider that the Yankees pay a salary of $202,689,028 (that's an average of $6,756,300 per player, $2,100,000 median). Last year's champs the Giants? $118,198,333 ($4,377,716, $2,200,000). The A's on the other hand: $66,536,500 ($2,376,303, $1,400,000). And the Pirates a measly $45,047,000 ($1,553,344, $450,000 --- just 36 grand over minimum wage).
Now look. I'm a school teacher. You don't have to tell me those wages make little sense, but that's not the point. The point is the Yanks can buy anyone they want (well, almost anyone) and the Pirates can't, so when the Pirates make a run for the playoffs, it's big freaking news.
If you'll remember the title of this post, I'm just sharing a "few thoughts" here. I'm telling you that now in case you're expecting this post to gel at some point while, in fact, I'm about to take another tangent.
According to this article, with the new success, the Pirates are getting more people in the ballpark after years of "a steady erosion of the ballclub's fan base". Yet the numbers they threw out surprised me. According to the article, they're averaging "22,695 [fans] a game, up from 19,919 last season" and on "On Monday, the Pirates played in front of a fourth consecutive home sellout".
Compare this to the A's. I heard earlier in the week that a home game had eleven-some thousand. And Wednesday (when they sell $2 tickets, which sold out), they only sold nineteen-some. This for a team that, at the beginning of the season, had real hopes of winning their division. In fact, before that nasty ten-game losing streak, they were #1 for a couple days. Yet their average must be below the Pirates' last year when they were pretty much guaranteed to suck. (To match last year's record, this year's Pirates can't win more than 13 more games the rest of this season.)
In fact though, the A's are averaging nineteen-something this year (probably because of the sold-out Giants games....) --- 2,000 higher than last year, which, in turn, is 2,000 less than the Pirates averaged last year.
There's been a lot of chat around here about The A's Need a New Stadium!!!! but I don't like that talk. First because I probably can't afford to take my kids to nearly as many games at a nice new (expensive) part and second because I like the old park. I like the history (four World Series wins!). I like it's old-school charm.
But it's also true that sold out, the A's sell about 9,000 fewer tickets than the Phillies sell to an average game.
But I don't like hearing about a new stadium for another reason. Viz. I don't want my kids team to move to some ungodly place like San Jose.
(Incidentally, this is punk too. When it looked like the Giants were going to have to move to Florida, the A's gave --- gave! --- San Jose to them as part of their area which somehow made their staying here possible. Now the A's want to move to San Jose and the Giants won't give it up. Punk. But, that said, I don't want the A's to move there anyway.)
I don't want to drive to San Jose! It's too far away! And now that my kids have picked a team, I don't want them to attend mostly Giants games. (Not that they would. I can't afford that. School teacher.)
And that's another thing! Summer baseball is supposed to be egalitarian! Something for all Americans! But not many stadiums are offering two-buck tickets. I feel pretty confident guessing that.
And while we're on the subject. Why are the A's games only on cable! What the crap is that? If I don't subscribe to Comcast (or mlb.tv online) I can't get tickets? I bought an antennae for my laptop just so my kids could watch the A's but of the 2,000-plus MLB games played each year, only a spattering appear on broadcast tv. So much for the proletariat.....
Anyway, of all the sports, baseball is the only one I've ever successfully cared about.
So thanks for letting me vent. I may add more in the comments in the coming weeks, but I don't plan on writing another post like this for a while.
Okay. One more thing. Why does the Pirates logo suck so much. I mean: look at this!
What is that crap? I mean --- I like the idea of using a, you know, pirate, but what's this guy?
On the brighter side, they also use this:
Anyway, click on either of those logos to see the highs and lows of Pirate logo-design over the years. It's quite a range.
The A's this year are not terrible-terrible. Yes, they're currently last in their division, but they're not so far back they could get caught up. Although it's getting harder and harder to imagine that happening.
The Pirates on the other hand are not only above 500 for the first time in almost 20 years, they're only a game and a half out of first place in their division. I almost can't wrap my head around it.
But if either team makes it to the playoffs, it will be a miracle against money. Consider that the Yankees pay a salary of $202,689,028 (that's an average of $6,756,300 per player, $2,100,000 median). Last year's champs the Giants? $118,198,333 ($4,377,716, $2,200,000). The A's on the other hand: $66,536,500 ($2,376,303, $1,400,000). And the Pirates a measly $45,047,000 ($1,553,344, $450,000 --- just 36 grand over minimum wage).
Now look. I'm a school teacher. You don't have to tell me those wages make little sense, but that's not the point. The point is the Yanks can buy anyone they want (well, almost anyone) and the Pirates can't, so when the Pirates make a run for the playoffs, it's big freaking news.
If you'll remember the title of this post, I'm just sharing a "few thoughts" here. I'm telling you that now in case you're expecting this post to gel at some point while, in fact, I'm about to take another tangent.
According to this article, with the new success, the Pirates are getting more people in the ballpark after years of "a steady erosion of the ballclub's fan base". Yet the numbers they threw out surprised me. According to the article, they're averaging "22,695 [fans] a game, up from 19,919 last season" and on "On Monday, the Pirates played in front of a fourth consecutive home sellout".
Compare this to the A's. I heard earlier in the week that a home game had eleven-some thousand. And Wednesday (when they sell $2 tickets, which sold out), they only sold nineteen-some. This for a team that, at the beginning of the season, had real hopes of winning their division. In fact, before that nasty ten-game losing streak, they were #1 for a couple days. Yet their average must be below the Pirates' last year when they were pretty much guaranteed to suck. (To match last year's record, this year's Pirates can't win more than 13 more games the rest of this season.)
In fact though, the A's are averaging nineteen-something this year (probably because of the sold-out Giants games....) --- 2,000 higher than last year, which, in turn, is 2,000 less than the Pirates averaged last year.
There's been a lot of chat around here about The A's Need a New Stadium!!!! but I don't like that talk. First because I probably can't afford to take my kids to nearly as many games at a nice new (expensive) part and second because I like the old park. I like the history (four World Series wins!). I like it's old-school charm.
But it's also true that sold out, the A's sell about 9,000 fewer tickets than the Phillies sell to an average game.
But I don't like hearing about a new stadium for another reason. Viz. I don't want my kids team to move to some ungodly place like San Jose.
(Incidentally, this is punk too. When it looked like the Giants were going to have to move to Florida, the A's gave --- gave! --- San Jose to them as part of their area which somehow made their staying here possible. Now the A's want to move to San Jose and the Giants won't give it up. Punk. But, that said, I don't want the A's to move there anyway.)
I don't want to drive to San Jose! It's too far away! And now that my kids have picked a team, I don't want them to attend mostly Giants games. (Not that they would. I can't afford that. School teacher.)
And that's another thing! Summer baseball is supposed to be egalitarian! Something for all Americans! But not many stadiums are offering two-buck tickets. I feel pretty confident guessing that.
And while we're on the subject. Why are the A's games only on cable! What the crap is that? If I don't subscribe to Comcast (or mlb.tv online) I can't get tickets? I bought an antennae for my laptop just so my kids could watch the A's but of the 2,000-plus MLB games played each year, only a spattering appear on broadcast tv. So much for the proletariat.....
Anyway, of all the sports, baseball is the only one I've ever successfully cared about.
So thanks for letting me vent. I may add more in the comments in the coming weeks, but I don't plan on writing another post like this for a while.
Okay. One more thing. Why does the Pirates logo suck so much. I mean: look at this!
What is that crap? I mean --- I like the idea of using a, you know, pirate, but what's this guy?
On the brighter side, they also use this:
Anyway, click on either of those logos to see the highs and lows of Pirate logo-design over the years. It's quite a range.
2011-07-02
Svithe: George Albert Smith
.
These are my prepped materials for Lesson 26: George Albert Smith: A Mission of Love. Just throwing them out to the ether, here.
=========================================================================================
Smith v Truman
CHARACTERS:
Intro (stage-setting know-it-all)
JFS (Joseph F. Smith, not the prophet one)
Narrator (George Albert Smith, president of the Church, later in life)
Smith (George Albert Smith, president of the Church)
Truman (Harry S Truman, President of the USA)
Wiseguy (another know-it-all)
Intro: The results of the Second World War were ugly. It had lasted for more than five years. More than fifty countries had taken part in the war. An estimated fifty-five million people had died. It had cost over a trillion dollars. Millions in Europe and Asia were without adequate food, shelter, and clothing. Sorrow, hatred, and despair stalked through nations and homes. In one way or another, World War II had touched the lives of nearly everyone on earth. On May 21, 1945, at a time when the full extent of carnage and devastation was just becoming apparent, George Albert Smith became President of the Church. Now, one of President Smith’s greatest attributes was the love he showed for the entire human family. Consider this statement by Patriarch Joseph F. Smith, the grandson of President Joseph F. Smith.
JFS: It is not for me to say what particular mission President George Albert Smith has ahead of him. This I do know, however, that at this particular time in the world’s history, never was the need for love among brethren so desperately needed as it is today. Furthermore, I do know this, that there is no man of my acquaintance who loves the human family, collectively and individually, more profoundly than does President George Albert Smith.
Intro: In November 1945, after World War II had ended, President Smith called on Harry S Truman—president of the United States. President Smith described the visit this way:
Narrator: When I called on him, he received me very graciously—I had met him before—and I said
Smith: I have just come to ascertain from you, Mr. President, what your attitude will be if the Latter-day Saints are prepared to ship food and clothing and bedding to Europe.
Narrator: He smiled and looked at me, and said
Truman: Well, what do you want to ship it over there for? Their money isn’t any good.
Smith: We don’t want their money.
Truman: You don’t mean you are going to give it to them?
Smith: Of course, we would give it to them. They are our brothers and sisters and are in distress. God has blessed us with a surplus, and we will be glad to send it if we can have the co-operation of the government.
Truman: You are on the right track. We will be glad to help you in any way we can.
Narrator: I have thought of that a good many times. After we had sat there a moment or two, he said again:
Truman: How long will it take you to get this ready?
Smith: It’s all ready.
Narrator: The government you remember had been destroying food and refusing to plant grain during the war—
Wiseguy: Okay, look. That doesn’t make any sense. But, baby, I looked it up and here’s the thing. Just as World War II was ending, America had too much grain which meant the price of grain was dropping to, like, nothing which meant all the farmers were going to be poor so the government was buying up all the extra grain and paying people not to plant and stuff even though half the world was starving. After all, money’s more important than poor foreigners. That’s life, baby. Get used to it. Anyway. Please. Continue.
Narrator: So I said to him:
Smith: Mr. President, while the administration at Washington were advising the destroying of food, we were building elevators and filling them with grain, and increasing our flocks and our herds, and now what we need is the cars and the ships in order to send considerable food, clothing and bedding to the people of Europe who are in distress. We have an organization in the Church that has over two thousand homemade quilts ready.
Wiseguy: Yeah! What do you think of that, Truman?
Narrator: Please.
Wiseguy: Sorry.
Intro: The end.
Wiseguy: ’Sup.
=========================================================================================
Compare the following paragraph about President George Albert Smith to 3 Nephi 17:11-22
A large faction had broken away from the Church and established their own church. They were disgruntled with some leaders and presumed to take matters into their own hands. President Smith made a historic visit to this group in 1946. He met with them and shook their hands, spoke to them, and prayed and wept for them. They were touched by his presence. He looked and acted like a prophet. They acknowledged that he was a prophet. Twelve hundred people, feeling the radiant love of Christ reaching out to them through the Lord’s anointed, returned to the safety of the Church from which they had strayed.
* * * * *
And it came to pass that [Jesus] commanded that their little children should be brought. So they brought their little children and set them down upon the ground round about him, and Jesus stood in the midst; and the multitude gave way till they had all been brought unto him. And . . . when they had all been brought, and Jesus stood in the midst, he commanded the multitude that they should kneel down upon the ground. And it came to pass that when they had knelt upon the ground, Jesus groaned within himself, and said: “Father, I am troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel.”
And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him. And after this manner do they bear record:
"The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father; and no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father."
And . . . when Jesus had made an end of praying unto the Father, he arose; but so great was the joy of the multitude that they were overcome.
And . . . Jesus spake unto them, and bade them arise. And they arose from the earth, and he said unto them: “Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full.”
And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.
And when he had done this he wept again . . . .
=========================================================================================
New International Version of the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians
(slightly altered and with a few verses missing)
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind.
Love does not envy, does not boast, is not proud.
Love does not dishonor others; it is not self-seeking; it is not easily angered; it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.
Where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away—because now we see only a reflection as in a mirror
So, now, in these three remain: faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love.
=========================================================================================
These are my prepped materials for Lesson 26: George Albert Smith: A Mission of Love. Just throwing them out to the ether, here.
=========================================================================================
Smith v Truman
CHARACTERS:
Intro (stage-setting know-it-all)
JFS (Joseph F. Smith, not the prophet one)
Narrator (George Albert Smith, president of the Church, later in life)
Smith (George Albert Smith, president of the Church)
Truman (Harry S Truman, President of the USA)
Wiseguy (another know-it-all)
Intro: The results of the Second World War were ugly. It had lasted for more than five years. More than fifty countries had taken part in the war. An estimated fifty-five million people had died. It had cost over a trillion dollars. Millions in Europe and Asia were without adequate food, shelter, and clothing. Sorrow, hatred, and despair stalked through nations and homes. In one way or another, World War II had touched the lives of nearly everyone on earth. On May 21, 1945, at a time when the full extent of carnage and devastation was just becoming apparent, George Albert Smith became President of the Church. Now, one of President Smith’s greatest attributes was the love he showed for the entire human family. Consider this statement by Patriarch Joseph F. Smith, the grandson of President Joseph F. Smith.
JFS: It is not for me to say what particular mission President George Albert Smith has ahead of him. This I do know, however, that at this particular time in the world’s history, never was the need for love among brethren so desperately needed as it is today. Furthermore, I do know this, that there is no man of my acquaintance who loves the human family, collectively and individually, more profoundly than does President George Albert Smith.
Intro: In November 1945, after World War II had ended, President Smith called on Harry S Truman—president of the United States. President Smith described the visit this way:
Narrator: When I called on him, he received me very graciously—I had met him before—and I said
Smith: I have just come to ascertain from you, Mr. President, what your attitude will be if the Latter-day Saints are prepared to ship food and clothing and bedding to Europe.
Narrator: He smiled and looked at me, and said
Truman: Well, what do you want to ship it over there for? Their money isn’t any good.
Smith: We don’t want their money.
Truman: You don’t mean you are going to give it to them?
Smith: Of course, we would give it to them. They are our brothers and sisters and are in distress. God has blessed us with a surplus, and we will be glad to send it if we can have the co-operation of the government.
Truman: You are on the right track. We will be glad to help you in any way we can.
Narrator: I have thought of that a good many times. After we had sat there a moment or two, he said again:
Truman: How long will it take you to get this ready?
Smith: It’s all ready.
Narrator: The government you remember had been destroying food and refusing to plant grain during the war—
Wiseguy: Okay, look. That doesn’t make any sense. But, baby, I looked it up and here’s the thing. Just as World War II was ending, America had too much grain which meant the price of grain was dropping to, like, nothing which meant all the farmers were going to be poor so the government was buying up all the extra grain and paying people not to plant and stuff even though half the world was starving. After all, money’s more important than poor foreigners. That’s life, baby. Get used to it. Anyway. Please. Continue.
Narrator: So I said to him:
Smith: Mr. President, while the administration at Washington were advising the destroying of food, we were building elevators and filling them with grain, and increasing our flocks and our herds, and now what we need is the cars and the ships in order to send considerable food, clothing and bedding to the people of Europe who are in distress. We have an organization in the Church that has over two thousand homemade quilts ready.
Wiseguy: Yeah! What do you think of that, Truman?
Narrator: Please.
Wiseguy: Sorry.
Intro: The end.
Wiseguy: ’Sup.
=========================================================================================
Compare the following paragraph about President George Albert Smith to 3 Nephi 17:11-22
A large faction had broken away from the Church and established their own church. They were disgruntled with some leaders and presumed to take matters into their own hands. President Smith made a historic visit to this group in 1946. He met with them and shook their hands, spoke to them, and prayed and wept for them. They were touched by his presence. He looked and acted like a prophet. They acknowledged that he was a prophet. Twelve hundred people, feeling the radiant love of Christ reaching out to them through the Lord’s anointed, returned to the safety of the Church from which they had strayed.
* * * * *
And it came to pass that [Jesus] commanded that their little children should be brought. So they brought their little children and set them down upon the ground round about him, and Jesus stood in the midst; and the multitude gave way till they had all been brought unto him. And . . . when they had all been brought, and Jesus stood in the midst, he commanded the multitude that they should kneel down upon the ground. And it came to pass that when they had knelt upon the ground, Jesus groaned within himself, and said: “Father, I am troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel.”
And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him. And after this manner do they bear record:
"The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father; and no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father."
And . . . when Jesus had made an end of praying unto the Father, he arose; but so great was the joy of the multitude that they were overcome.
And . . . Jesus spake unto them, and bade them arise. And they arose from the earth, and he said unto them: “Blessed are ye because of your faith. And now behold, my joy is full.”
And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.
And when he had done this he wept again . . . .
=========================================================================================
New International Version of the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians
(slightly altered and with a few verses missing)
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind.
Love does not envy, does not boast, is not proud.
Love does not dishonor others; it is not self-seeking; it is not easily angered; it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.
Where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away—because now we see only a reflection as in a mirror
So, now, in these three remain: faith, hope and love.
But the greatest of these is love.
=========================================================================================
2011-06-30
Grow or die (in defense of marriage?)
At a meeting with my investment club earlier this week (we are in the beginning stages and drafting our charter), I pointed out that if we didn't have a method for adding new members, eventually our group would die. Anything that is closed off to growth dies. It's called entropy.
Add that to the recent events in New York and it seems timely to write this post that I've been thinking about for a month or three now.
One of the reasons I often hear for keeping same-sex marriage extralegal (if you will), is that to allow same-sex couples to wed would damage "the sanctity of marriage."
The longer I live with this idea, the more difficultly I have accepting it.
Consider the following:
a) We as a society already don't treat marriage with much sanctity. Almost half of American marriages end in divorce. No matter the breakdown between legitimate divorces and lazy divorces, no matter who's at fault and who's a victim, the sheer number of divorces suggests we don't view marriage as terribly sacred.
b) Marriages are not only ending in divorce, but they're getting less common period. Fewer people are getting married. And they're getting married later.
So straight people aren't exactly doing the sanctity argument proud. So really the only question is how would letting them gays git hitched make things any worse?
The argument I used to hear all the time (and which I suspect is still in a lot of people's minds) is that gay people are in it for the sex and are incapable of settling down with one partner for long. Even assuming that's true, let's just remember the hetero track record (see above) before we start throwing stones. But (the argument continues) they don't take marriage "seriously"! Well, why should they? What's their motivation to take it "seriously"?
As it ends up, those arguments are problematic anyway as it's pretty clear gay people want to get married. They want to make the same till-death commitment that differing-sex couples want to make. So what would happen if they were allowed to? Here's one possibility:
Now we're about to get to the data that's the true impetus of this post in the first place.
Ultimately, I think what is meant by the word "sanctity" in the phrase "sanctity of marriage" is "seriousness" --- "seriousness of marriage". People want marriage to be treated as a serious thing. A big deal. And I completely agree with that desire. I have it myself. But I fear that limiting marriage to differing-sex couples is having the opposite effect.
Now keep in mind that all the evidence I'm about to present is anecdotal; nothing scientific at all with what I'm about to say.
At the high school I teach at, marriage has lost its seriousness among the student body. Now, granted, they're still kids and marriage is not something they're apt to be thinking about seriously anyway. And the casualness and ubiquity of declaring others one's husband or wife just struck me as an amusing piece of campus culture. But then I started picking up other undercurrents that make me think there's something rather important going on.
I should say that while among part of the Little Hill student body there is still some rabid homophobia, generally, the students here have left that behind. All sexualities are created equal (more-or-less). The idea that some people can marry who they want and others can't is patently absurd to them. Laughably hilarious. Like the way they chortle unbelieving at whites-only drinking fountains or how Athenians looked down on Corinthians. These biases are so far from their own understanding that they can't take them seriously. (I'm not joking. I observed a US History class once and when a photo like this went up, all the students, white and black and other, openly scoffed it and doubted its veracity, even though they were studying the Civil Right Movement; on the one hand, yay! progress!; on the other hand, srsly?)
Anyway, here's the thing. Because marriage as currently constituted makes about sense to these kids as not allowing a Corinthian to date your daughter, they just can't take marriage seriously. In other words, restricting marriage to those of differing sex is lessening the seriousness of marriage for the upcoming generation.
In other words, it is lessening the sanctity of marriage.
And here's the thing. If marriage is so all-fired important (and it is), then shouldn't we want its sanctity to grow? Shouldn't we want as many people to buy in to this society-bedrocking institution as possible? And isn't something that makes people dismiss marriage as a silly anachronism counterproductive?
Because I fear that will ultimately be the primary legacy of a long, drawn-out war against same-sex marriage.
Less marriage and less respect for marriage.
So if we want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, we need to fight this entropy. And what better way to do that than to get as many serious, committed people married as possible?
Either way of course we'll have unintended consequences. But the one's I'm seeing now are worrying.
What think ye?
2011-06-25
Svithe: preview of tomorrow's talk on the Book of Mormon
.
This is the rough draft of my introduction. It's a thousand words, so I will feel absolutely okay about speaking as quickly as I can. I do feel a little weird about not saying Jesus once in the entire talk, but I think he will forgive me. If I accomplish my goal, it will work out.
=====================
I haven’t often been asked to speak in church about controversial Broadway musicals—mostly, I think, because I don’t really like most musicals. I mean—Wicked about bored me to tears. And so I hope Frank won’t mind.
I’m just kidding of course. The musical’s supposed to be entertaining and everyone knows the real Book of Mormon is boring, or, in the words of Mark Twain, chloroform in print. Or, to quote the New Yorker review of the musical, “The actual Book of Mormon, whose hieroglyphs Smith ‘translated’ while peering at peep stones in the bottom of his hat, lives up to Edmund Wilson’s estimation of it as ‘a farrago of balderdash.’”
But let me tell you something: you bring that attitude to me and I will slap you. And I can do it. Unlike when I’m teaching school, no one can fire me if I slap you here. Because here’s the thing: the Book of Mormon is not boring. If you find it boring, you’re reading it wrong. But don’t worry. I’m here to help.
First, let me say that we generally find what we’re looking for when we read a book. Edmund Wilson—the guy who called the Book of Mormon “a farrago of balderdash” also dismissed Tolkien as “juvenile trash” and Lovecraft as “hackwork.” He lacked the capacity to read work outside his established tastes. And most haters aren’t likely to have taken the book seriously on its own merits. If you think Mark Twain read even 10% of the Book of Mormon you are nuts.
So this is my thesis. While sure, yes, the Book of Mormon is the the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion and you’ll get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, okay, that doesn’t do you any good at all if you don’t read it. Think of Parley P. Pratt. The first time he held the book in his hands, “I read all day; eating was a burden, I had no desire for food; sleep was a burden when the night came, for I preferred reading to sleep. As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that the book was true, as plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that he exists.”
So look. I don’t want to take away from that. From Moroni’s promise that when you read it God will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Nothing I say will be more important than that. You have to read, you have to pray, etc, but FIRST YOU MUST READ.
And I want to help make that happen.
First, you should know I’m not a big rereader. As I was preparing this talk, I realized this may be Harry Potter’s fault. I got so sick of trying to reread them in time for each new release that eventually I called it quits. And I’ve hardly reread anything since. Yet I keep working on the Book of Mormon. Mostly, sure, because it’s supposed to be good for me, but that reasoning hasn’t gotten me to read Proust yet. If I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t be able to convince myself.
Yet—let’s face it—no matter how compelling a book, you can burn out on it. Especially if it’s a chore—at-least-one-chapter-a-night. That will never work.
Now join me in 1998. I’m off my mission, living in a Provo apartment. I’ve read the Book of Mormon at least half a dozen times by this point and kinda feel like I got it. You could give me any chapter in the Book of Mormon (Alma 12! Ether 6!) and I could tell you what it was about. Probably can’t do that anymore, but I sure could then.
Result being? I was in dire risk of getting bored.
Then I happened across an article about how Maori Saints read the Book of Mormon. And guess what? They read it completely differently than we do. They ignore those chapters and verses and read it for epic generations-spanning story. This idea was wild to me. I was taught to look at the verses as necessary and inspired breaks in the action. After all, when we read scriptures in Church, don’t we say read chapter x verse y and not worry so much about the surrounded verses or story? You bet we do.
Yet the chapters and verses as they exist in our current edition have nothing to do with the Golden Plates or the original translation. It’s just something Orson Pratt came up with in the 1870s. And, while I’m on the question of design, what’s the font? This font doesn’t look like fun at all. It looks . . . well, it doesn’t look “fun” anyway.
Anyway, so I tried to read the Book of Mormon Maori-style. As fast as I could so I wouldn’t get caught up on the chapters and verses. And you know what? It was a different experience.
Because unlike Parley P Pratt, we’ll never have the experience of coming to the Book of Mormon without ever having heard of it before. Whether you grew up with it or came to it later in life, you did not come to it without any bias. You can’t have that experience. You already think something about this book and the trick in enjoying reading it now is to somehow move beyond all we already know and come to it somehow fresh, somehow willing to experience something new.
For the rest of my talk, I’m going to share with you examples. I’ve got them all here and I’ll move through them until we run out of time. At which point I will stop. I don’t know what order I’ll go it and I don’t know how many I’ll get through. But through them all, I want you to remember that the Book of Mormon can absolutely be an enjoyable read.
========================
Some addition reading for examples I plan to be using:
The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice?
The Book of Mormon, Redux
Could Feminism Have Saved the Nephites?
Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide
The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition
And as long as I'm selling books in this svithe (generally something I NEVER do), here are two excellent novels I was thinking about using for examples of Card's ideas:
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell: A Novel
Possession
And, in closing, you may also flit off to the last svithe posted.
This is the rough draft of my introduction. It's a thousand words, so I will feel absolutely okay about speaking as quickly as I can. I do feel a little weird about not saying Jesus once in the entire talk, but I think he will forgive me. If I accomplish my goal, it will work out.
=====================
I haven’t often been asked to speak in church about controversial Broadway musicals—mostly, I think, because I don’t really like most musicals. I mean—Wicked about bored me to tears. And so I hope Frank won’t mind.
I’m just kidding of course. The musical’s supposed to be entertaining and everyone knows the real Book of Mormon is boring, or, in the words of Mark Twain, chloroform in print. Or, to quote the New Yorker review of the musical, “The actual Book of Mormon, whose hieroglyphs Smith ‘translated’ while peering at peep stones in the bottom of his hat, lives up to Edmund Wilson’s estimation of it as ‘a farrago of balderdash.’”
But let me tell you something: you bring that attitude to me and I will slap you. And I can do it. Unlike when I’m teaching school, no one can fire me if I slap you here. Because here’s the thing: the Book of Mormon is not boring. If you find it boring, you’re reading it wrong. But don’t worry. I’m here to help.
First, let me say that we generally find what we’re looking for when we read a book. Edmund Wilson—the guy who called the Book of Mormon “a farrago of balderdash” also dismissed Tolkien as “juvenile trash” and Lovecraft as “hackwork.” He lacked the capacity to read work outside his established tastes. And most haters aren’t likely to have taken the book seriously on its own merits. If you think Mark Twain read even 10% of the Book of Mormon you are nuts.
So this is my thesis. While sure, yes, the Book of Mormon is the the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion and you’ll get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, okay, that doesn’t do you any good at all if you don’t read it. Think of Parley P. Pratt. The first time he held the book in his hands, “I read all day; eating was a burden, I had no desire for food; sleep was a burden when the night came, for I preferred reading to sleep. As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that the book was true, as plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that he exists.”
So look. I don’t want to take away from that. From Moroni’s promise that when you read it God will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Nothing I say will be more important than that. You have to read, you have to pray, etc, but FIRST YOU MUST READ.
And I want to help make that happen.
First, you should know I’m not a big rereader. As I was preparing this talk, I realized this may be Harry Potter’s fault. I got so sick of trying to reread them in time for each new release that eventually I called it quits. And I’ve hardly reread anything since. Yet I keep working on the Book of Mormon. Mostly, sure, because it’s supposed to be good for me, but that reasoning hasn’t gotten me to read Proust yet. If I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t be able to convince myself.
Yet—let’s face it—no matter how compelling a book, you can burn out on it. Especially if it’s a chore—at-least-one-chapter-a-night. That will never work.
Now join me in 1998. I’m off my mission, living in a Provo apartment. I’ve read the Book of Mormon at least half a dozen times by this point and kinda feel like I got it. You could give me any chapter in the Book of Mormon (Alma 12! Ether 6!) and I could tell you what it was about. Probably can’t do that anymore, but I sure could then.
Result being? I was in dire risk of getting bored.
Then I happened across an article about how Maori Saints read the Book of Mormon. And guess what? They read it completely differently than we do. They ignore those chapters and verses and read it for epic generations-spanning story. This idea was wild to me. I was taught to look at the verses as necessary and inspired breaks in the action. After all, when we read scriptures in Church, don’t we say read chapter x verse y and not worry so much about the surrounded verses or story? You bet we do.
Yet the chapters and verses as they exist in our current edition have nothing to do with the Golden Plates or the original translation. It’s just something Orson Pratt came up with in the 1870s. And, while I’m on the question of design, what’s the font? This font doesn’t look like fun at all. It looks . . . well, it doesn’t look “fun” anyway.
Anyway, so I tried to read the Book of Mormon Maori-style. As fast as I could so I wouldn’t get caught up on the chapters and verses. And you know what? It was a different experience.
Because unlike Parley P Pratt, we’ll never have the experience of coming to the Book of Mormon without ever having heard of it before. Whether you grew up with it or came to it later in life, you did not come to it without any bias. You can’t have that experience. You already think something about this book and the trick in enjoying reading it now is to somehow move beyond all we already know and come to it somehow fresh, somehow willing to experience something new.
For the rest of my talk, I’m going to share with you examples. I’ve got them all here and I’ll move through them until we run out of time. At which point I will stop. I don’t know what order I’ll go it and I don’t know how many I’ll get through. But through them all, I want you to remember that the Book of Mormon can absolutely be an enjoyable read.
========================
Some addition reading for examples I plan to be using:
The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice?
The Book of Mormon, Redux
Could Feminism Have Saved the Nephites?
Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide
The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition
And as long as I'm selling books in this svithe (generally something I NEVER do), here are two excellent novels I was thinking about using for examples of Card's ideas:
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell: A Novel
Possession
And, in closing, you may also flit off to the last svithe posted.
2011-06-22
Theric and the Hippies
.
I'm at a retreat right now with the English department. We're hashing out curriculum for next year and other equally exciting things. The nice thing is being three days in Point Reyes and getting paid for it. That is good. The bad thing is spending three days of my summer vacation without Lady Steed. That's a total bummer.
Yesterday was the summer solstice and just down the road from us is a nonadvertised but famous-among-NorCal-hippies solstice party at a commune with "Solstice" in its name. One of my fellow teachers is an annual attendee since the early days of the party. Back when you could park at the party. Not when you had to park a couple miles away and take a shuttle in.
Anyway, she was stoked that she could do both the retreat and the party and invited us to attend with her. I was happy because this meant I would get to stay alone at our house and get some editing done. Somehow I ended up going instead. Not sure how I decided to do that. I guess a lifetime of spoilsporting is finally catching up with me.
Anyway, we get there, park, cram into a van (total occupancy: 23 people), pass a cop who pointedly looks away, arrived at the party. Learn this thing costs twenty bucks. Well forget it. I don't pay to go to parties. For a number of reasons. 1. I don't like parties. 2. I don't like lots of people. 3. I don't do booze nor week. 4. I've never paid for a party in my life. 5. Twenty bucks? Are you kidding me? 6. I'm not fun and will not be having fun and I could be having fun more productively for free. 7. I could go on.
Anyway, because my fellow teacher is a longtime attendee or whatever, somehow I get in free. I first go to the drum circle which is a bunch of hippies and nearhippies surrounding a fire and listening to drums and guitar and digerridoo and singing about Mother Earth as the spirit strikes them. I like drums. This is okay. It's just another religion and I try to attend other religion's services now and then.
The three teachers I'm with find me at the drum circle. We leave and pass the Goddess of Pee (a special tent built over a trench for ladies to pee in) and go into the house where we take off our shoes and meet the guys who had just uploaded this video to Vimeo and submitted it to a film festival. As we were leaving the house, we discovered that the band had started playing (called, I believe, Hansoleia --- clearly a Mos Eisley Cantina houseband coverband). They were good and they were loud and I pretty much got the idea.
Then we passed by the food (mostly raw vegan, but also a venison stew) to the hot tub where people were trying to get stoned and drunk enough to take their clothes off. (This finally happened about ten minutes later, just as we were about to leave the area.) We hit the drum circle one more time then split with our guide and waited for a shuttle to take us back. While we waited we hung with the firemen who had come with their ambulance to check out some dude's chest pains.
Then I drove us back (yes: you had better believe *I* drove us back) so we could get enough sleep to get our final ten hours of work in tomorrow.
And that's pretty much the story.
And I have to say: parties are so boring. I just don't get the appear. Noise and crowds and this desperate need for fun. My favorite part? Coming back into our place with two other guys I like and talking about music and film and teaching for an hour or two. That's my idea of a party. People I like.
(Incidentally, Lady Steed attended just such a party this same night with people I like even more. Wish I could have been there.....)
I'm at a retreat right now with the English department. We're hashing out curriculum for next year and other equally exciting things. The nice thing is being three days in Point Reyes and getting paid for it. That is good. The bad thing is spending three days of my summer vacation without Lady Steed. That's a total bummer.
Yesterday was the summer solstice and just down the road from us is a nonadvertised but famous-among-NorCal-hippies solstice party at a commune with "Solstice" in its name. One of my fellow teachers is an annual attendee since the early days of the party. Back when you could park at the party. Not when you had to park a couple miles away and take a shuttle in.
Anyway, she was stoked that she could do both the retreat and the party and invited us to attend with her. I was happy because this meant I would get to stay alone at our house and get some editing done. Somehow I ended up going instead. Not sure how I decided to do that. I guess a lifetime of spoilsporting is finally catching up with me.
Anyway, we get there, park, cram into a van (total occupancy: 23 people), pass a cop who pointedly looks away, arrived at the party. Learn this thing costs twenty bucks. Well forget it. I don't pay to go to parties. For a number of reasons. 1. I don't like parties. 2. I don't like lots of people. 3. I don't do booze nor week. 4. I've never paid for a party in my life. 5. Twenty bucks? Are you kidding me? 6. I'm not fun and will not be having fun and I could be having fun more productively for free. 7. I could go on.
Anyway, because my fellow teacher is a longtime attendee or whatever, somehow I get in free. I first go to the drum circle which is a bunch of hippies and nearhippies surrounding a fire and listening to drums and guitar and digerridoo and singing about Mother Earth as the spirit strikes them. I like drums. This is okay. It's just another religion and I try to attend other religion's services now and then.
The three teachers I'm with find me at the drum circle. We leave and pass the Goddess of Pee (a special tent built over a trench for ladies to pee in) and go into the house where we take off our shoes and meet the guys who had just uploaded this video to Vimeo and submitted it to a film festival. As we were leaving the house, we discovered that the band had started playing (called, I believe, Hansoleia --- clearly a Mos Eisley Cantina houseband coverband). They were good and they were loud and I pretty much got the idea.
Then we passed by the food (mostly raw vegan, but also a venison stew) to the hot tub where people were trying to get stoned and drunk enough to take their clothes off. (This finally happened about ten minutes later, just as we were about to leave the area.) We hit the drum circle one more time then split with our guide and waited for a shuttle to take us back. While we waited we hung with the firemen who had come with their ambulance to check out some dude's chest pains.
Then I drove us back (yes: you had better believe *I* drove us back) so we could get enough sleep to get our final ten hours of work in tomorrow.
And that's pretty much the story.
And I have to say: parties are so boring. I just don't get the appear. Noise and crowds and this desperate need for fun. My favorite part? Coming back into our place with two other guys I like and talking about music and film and teaching for an hour or two. That's my idea of a party. People I like.
(Incidentally, Lady Steed attended just such a party this same night with people I like even more. Wish I could have been there.....)
2011-06-18
39dollarglasses.com: a review
.
I had never imagined buying glasses online before reading this New Yorker article. It seemed crazy. Crazy! Yet . . . . They were happy with 39dollarglasses.com and 39dollars? That's cheap. Crazy, hella, wildly, worth-the-risk cheap. So I decided to do it (though months passed before Little Lord Steed destroyed by scratchless glasses and forced my hand).
I stayed up late April 26, finally pressing order just after midnight into April 27. The receipt email came and I didn't bother looking too closely. Just archived it and went to bed. Which was a shame because when my glasses finally arrived (later than I expected, but that would only be a problem if I were blind without my specs; they shipped May 3), the second pair (the sunglasses, luckily), had the wrong prescription. I have no idea how this happened as I'm quite certain I only entered one prescription during the ordering process, but the initial email they sent me listed different prescriptions for the two pairs, so if I'd been a little more paranoid, I might have noticed before they mailed me my order. I refuse to accept blame for this of course (of course), but it's worth mentioning.
I received the lenses and wrote them back about the wrong pair promptly:
Having sent the sunglasses back, things began to get interesting. Here's our exchange (minus intros and outros):
But the same day I received that last email, I also received a new receipt email for the new order of the original glasses. And June 14 I received an email saying they had shipped. And I received them on June 16. Happy ending.
Mostly. It was, of course, fifty (50) days between placing the original order and getting the second pair of glasses, which seems an unconscionably long time. And they didn't, you know, offer to upgrade my lens package for the inconvenience.
But I've thought it over and decided I don't mind. After all, it was midnight. There's some room for reasonable doubt over whether or not the screwup was my fault. And, on top of that, they threw in some of the nicer hardshell cases I've ever received, a nice microfiber cloth for each pair (since I didn't send this back, I ended up with three of these), a nice keychain glasses screwdriver set (ditto here), and a bag for keeping the glasses in which I love (except that they are the most invisible beige color I've ever [not] seen --- I lose my glasses even more often than usual, now).
Plus, the two pairs of glasses, combined, cost me $70.95 (most glasses at the site are $39, but not all, including, as in my case, tinted-lens packages). Which is utterly unbeatable.
So in the end I am a satisfied customer. I've always wished I could afford to own several pairs of glasses.
It appears I may have finally arrived.
I had never imagined buying glasses online before reading this New Yorker article. It seemed crazy. Crazy! Yet . . . . They were happy with 39dollarglasses.com and 39dollars? That's cheap. Crazy, hella, wildly, worth-the-risk cheap. So I decided to do it (though months passed before Little Lord Steed destroyed by scratchless glasses and forced my hand).
I stayed up late April 26, finally pressing order just after midnight into April 27. The receipt email came and I didn't bother looking too closely. Just archived it and went to bed. Which was a shame because when my glasses finally arrived (later than I expected, but that would only be a problem if I were blind without my specs; they shipped May 3), the second pair (the sunglasses, luckily), had the wrong prescription. I have no idea how this happened as I'm quite certain I only entered one prescription during the ordering process, but the initial email they sent me listed different prescriptions for the two pairs, so if I'd been a little more paranoid, I might have noticed before they mailed me my order. I refuse to accept blame for this of course (of course), but it's worth mentioning.
I received the lenses and wrote them back about the wrong pair promptly:
- Hello. First, thanks for the terrific shopping experience and the good-looking glasses that came in the mail yesterday and the handy little bags for keeping them in. Those I was not expecting.
-
I do have an issue I need help with though. The prescription on one of the two pairs (the sunglasses) is wrong --- makes things look like I'm underwater.
-
Can you help me get those fixed?
-
Thanks.
Having sent the sunglasses back, things began to get interesting. Here's our exchange (minus intros and outros):
- June 7 Thank you for choosing 39dollarglasses.com. Your order was inspected by our lab and has passed inspection. If you feel that the prescription was made in error, please advise. We can return the glasses to you with a Prescription Verification Form to take to your doctor to have inspected. If you would like to change your frames or your lens package, please advise us of your new selections. Please contact us on how you would like to proceed with your order. You can contact us at 800-672-6304 or through Live Chat Support or E-mail at contact@39dollarglasses.com.
- June 7 You've got to be joking. You sent me two pairs of glasses. One pair works. I'm wearing it every day. The other pair made me feel like I was under water. So the problem is not the prescription (both glasses have the same precription), the problem is the lenses. Please check again.
- June 8 Thank you for contacting us. The prescription that is entered on your order from online order placement was correctly processed through our lab. We have noticed that the prescription on the second pair (Tivoli) is different then the prescription that you ordered on the first pair (Gramercy). Please advise if the prescriptions are supposed to be the same. If so, we can process a no cost remake and remake the glasses for you in to the correct prescription. Please advise.
- June 8 Thank you. They are meant to be the same. Since I only entered one prescription when making my order, I'm perplexed how the mixup happened and thank you for the correction.
- June 9 Thank you for choosing 39dollarglasses.com. We do apologize. We have noted your account. You should receive your new order number shortly for the remake of your order. Once the new order is placed, production will take about 4-6 business days for completion, pending final inspection.
But the same day I received that last email, I also received a new receipt email for the new order of the original glasses. And June 14 I received an email saying they had shipped. And I received them on June 16. Happy ending.
Mostly. It was, of course, fifty (50) days between placing the original order and getting the second pair of glasses, which seems an unconscionably long time. And they didn't, you know, offer to upgrade my lens package for the inconvenience.
But I've thought it over and decided I don't mind. After all, it was midnight. There's some room for reasonable doubt over whether or not the screwup was my fault. And, on top of that, they threw in some of the nicer hardshell cases I've ever received, a nice microfiber cloth for each pair (since I didn't send this back, I ended up with three of these), a nice keychain glasses screwdriver set (ditto here), and a bag for keeping the glasses in which I love (except that they are the most invisible beige color I've ever [not] seen --- I lose my glasses even more often than usual, now).
Plus, the two pairs of glasses, combined, cost me $70.95 (most glasses at the site are $39, but not all, including, as in my case, tinted-lens packages). Which is utterly unbeatable.
So in the end I am a satisfied customer. I've always wished I could afford to own several pairs of glasses.
It appears I may have finally arrived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)