Sure Thing! I'll Do a Special Post for 12/9

For my post I chose a short play that we read at the very beginning of the semester, Sure Thing by David Ives.

1) What is the play about? The two main characters in this play are Betty and Bill. They are both in their late twenties and happen to meet at a cafe. Bill comes over looking for a place to sit and asks Betty if he can sit at the table with her. Every time either of them says something that won't lead them down the path of "marital bliss" (if you wish to call it that). The bell rings when they talk about sitting down, a book, college, Bill's motive for sitting down, etc. etc. etc. It doesn't seem very promising but, at the end of the play and after many ringing bells, they end up headed down that path of "bliss" and promising to love each other forever.

2) Why does this need to be interpreted? Well, I think it may be difficult to understand why the author might want to write this play in the first place. I know that I had to read it more that once to get ideas. I think that, the more you read it, the more plausible explanations you come up with. I'm not saying that I have the answers, there are probably very few who do. The author, God, and maybe a couple more actually know why the author wrote this play. I am just here to give my personal interpretation of it.

3) What is my interpretation? Due to the number of times the characters cause the bell to go off, I think that the author might be laughing at the complexity of relationships. You say one thing wrong and ding! the bell goes off and they start over. And it isn't just what is said wrong, it is also about what someone may have done "wrong" in the past. I went to Oral Roberts University ding! I didn't go to college, I partied ding! I went to Harvard. Correct answer! And now we move on to the next topic in which something can go wrong. Some people might think that it would be nice to have a bell that goes off when you mess up, starting things over. They might say it could be useful. I think it would be horrible! ding! I think I can see why they would think that, but it could undo everything you are as a person. It could undo your relationship status. It might undo where you went to college. Those things make up YOU. I don't think ding! I would never want to trade who I am just because one person isn't impressed with me. While I read this play again, I realized that there could also a positive side to this story. It might help you see how lucky you are to have found that person in your life that accepts you for you. They wouldn't make a bell ding! to change you. If you haven't found that person, maybe you'll know what to hope for. But, for those who have, you have beaten the odds! You got through to the end of the play, that time of happiness with a hopeful future stretched out before you, without having to go back because of a ding! and redo it all again. Sure, sometimes maybe we wish we could but where is the fun in that?

4) What from the text supports this? Well, concerning the laughing-at-relationships bit, I think the whole play is proof. It is a comical play about relationships and all of the things that could go wrong. When it comes to the changing-a-person thing there is a lot of support. On the third page of the play, Bill changes college status twice times to please Betty. On the fourth page, Betty changes the place she lives from Pakistan to wherever this cafe is. Betty changes relationship statuses a few times, she was even married once and gay once. Bill changes his pick-up lines. And the lucky-in-love thing? I think the proof for that is how many times that bell went off before things worked out. We don't have that bell.

5) Why does my interpretation matter? Um, I think I pretty much covered that in number three but I'll see what I can do. As I said, I believe that it can help us appreciate our ability to go through life without the use of a bell to help us out. In fact, by not using the bell we learn from our mistakes anyway and we grow from that. If we had those bells, I don't think anybody would ever make any progress in life. We would always be busy trying to figure out, "Could I have said that better?" or "Could I have done that more efficiently?". Yes? ding! Let's try this again! It seems like it would be an obnoxious, unproductive, and never-ending process. So, what? You messed up. Big deal. We all do it. We need to just appreciate who we are and where we come from. It has made you who you are today. And somebody, now or sometime in the future, will appreciate you too. And you will appreciate them. Sometimes you would want to make the bell ding! for them, but you wouldn't actually do it. It is those times when you wish you had the bell but then think and say, "Nope!" when you get stronger. It could make a relationship stronger. Or maybe just make you stronger. Either way, I think we can get a lot out this play. It was definitely more than I had expected. But, I am sure there is even more that I didn't catch.

And So the Miraculous Becomes the Despised

Before I get into talking about the actual text, there is one thing I noticed about the story right away. It is a translation. I was kind of annoyed by this. Usually translations aren't as good or as meaningful as the original. Some meanings get lost in translation due to the lack of a proper substitute for a word. Other problems are differences in culture. Something in the story could be significant to the author's culture and have no meaning to use. Look at the Bible, for a perfect example. That is just something I needed to express. Now to the good stuff.

In her blog, Victoria says "When you think you’ve read the most intriguing, confusing, weird story ever written.. Professor Corrigan assigns another one." Well, I couldn't agree more. This story was just... odd. I am not even sure if I liked it. You can tell there is a lot of meaning to this story. I just can't figure out what it is. And it says "A Tale for Children". Are you kidding me? This might scare a kid. Maybe the author is talking about someone with the mind of a child, one that is open and accepting.

In this world, it seems like they are used to seeing the "miraculous". People flock to it, stand in awe of it, question it, mock it, and then move on to the next big thing. This angel (an angel!) is found on a beach after a storm and they put it in a chicken coop, just like an animal. They charge admission for people to come and see him. There were two reactions to the angel (other than that of the family who found him) that I found very interesting. The old woman's was the first. She knew immediately what he was and what he was probably there for. She thought he was there to take the sick child. If I understand correctly, she was also the one who said to club him to death. How tempting would that have been for the family, knowing that the angel was there to take the child? The second reaction was that of the priest. He didn't think the old man could possibly be an angel. The old man was dirty, had garbage in his wings, was decrepit, and the language he spoke was not the language that the religious of this world had deemed as the heavenly language. I also couldn't believe that the family who found him despised him! The woman was so happy that the "annoyance in her life" was gone!

What is this story supposed to communicate? Is the author somehow talking about our own world? Many people hear of the miraculous and flock to it, stand in awe of it, question it, mock it, and then move on to the next big thing. Sound familiar? But do we despise it as the family who found the angel did? Or is that just the next step in the direction some people are headed?

I Hope I Would Walk Away from Omelas: Post for 12/2

I'm going to try something a little different for this post responding to Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. It's a first-person narrative of a girl in Omelas who is exposed to the child in the closet. I don't really know if it works, but here it goes!


I am eleven. I live in Omelas. Things are nice here. I am happy. I do good in school. I like art. Mom says I am really good. I like living here. Everyone is so carefree. Everyone smiles so easily. I can't be sad while I am in Omelas.

Mom is calling me right now. She says she has something to tell me. She says she thinks I am old enough to understand. I wonder what it is. I go to find out.

I found out. Mom thought I would understand but I don't. She talks about a child in a closet. One who is only a little younger than me. One who suffers. One who has to suffer so we can be happy. I thought everyone was happy in Omelas. But not the child. The child sees no sun when I see it every day. It is starving when I am full. It is not clothed when I have clothes in my closet I never wear. Mom and Dad are taking me to see it. I don't want to go. They make me.

Horrible. I feel... compassion. I feel... pain. I feel. Guilt. The forbidden emotion. I hide it.

I am home. I cry for the child.

Why?

It has been five years since I have seen the child. Terrible. I still feel guilt. I think of the child every day. I will visit the child today.

I went. Guilt.

Today in class I got up and left. I could take it no more. I left my books. My sketchbook. I left everything. I don't go home. I walk through the city gates.

I keep walking. Will I stop? Will I turn around? Will I return to Omelas? Or do I keep going? I think of the child. I do not stop.

The Famous Figurative Language Disappearing Act: Post for 11/30

While reading a piece of literature, be it from the Bible or not, we never really look for figurative language. We get so used to it being there and interpreting it instantly that it almost disappears. The only times we ever really notice it are when they take time to process or you don't get the connection right away. At least, that is how it works for me. When I went to read Paul's letter to the Philippians it was difficult for me to find figurative language. I had to slow down a lot and try to process the material differently. Even reading at a snail's pace, I didn't find a lot of figurative language. I'm not even sure what figurative language we are supposed to be looking for. Or even if some things I found are figurative language. For example, "... having been filled with the fruit of righteousness". Is that figurative language? I know that righteousness is not literally a piece of fruit. So is it figurative language? What kind?

Other than some of those types of statements, I really didn't find a lot of figurative language. I found a few uses of simile, but that was just about it. I found as simile that stated, "...among whom you appear as lights in the world..." referring to the saved in a world full of sinners. Paul also says, "...even if I am being poured out as a drinking offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith...". When Paul was speaking of Timothy he said, "But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father" to show how Paul was Timothy's mentor and spiritual father. I'm sure there were more examples of figurative language, but I either missed them or didn't know what they were.

I think understanding figurative language is a necessary part of reading literature, especially the Bible. The Bible has many examples of figurative language, all of which helps us get a better understanding of teachings, God, and other things. Figurative language might provide a concrete explanation for an abstract concept or relate a lesson to something that we would understand. If we looked at the Bible, and many other literary works, without a basic knowledge of figurative language I think we would just be confused.

Items of Importance: Make-Up Post for Alliance for Independence

This is my make-up assignment for not being able to make it to the Alliance for Independence. All I can say is that I spent much more time on these than anybody spent on the field trip. I guess that's what I get for not making it there? I chose to paint three pictures, each representing a character in the play The Boys Next Door. I didn't actually paint them, I decided to paint items in their lives that were significant. For Arnold I painted popcorn because he works at the theater, a polished shoe because a man at his work makes him polish his shoes, and a map of Russia because he continually threatens to go to Russia. For Norman I drew a doughnut because he is eating them all of the time, keys because he is obsessed with his keys, and Sheila's phone number because they are "dating" (even though I don't think she actually gave him her phone number in the play). Last, for Lucien I drew books because he was always checking them out, a library card because he was so proud of his, and a spiderman tie hanging out of the book because he wore one to see the "State Sneck". Well, here you go.

Everyone is a Temple: Post for 11/18

I really enjoyed Flannery O'Conner's short story A Temple of the Holy Ghost. I know that we are supposed to talk about symbolism for this post but I'm not sure what to talk about. I'm not the type of person that can spout off symbolic facts like, "This is what the girls being at a convent means!" or "The author wanted to convey this by giving the child braces! Ah-ha!" I can't do that. Is there even anything I could get from that? I haven't figured out yet if I over-think things or I don't think about them enough. Could it be different for each situation? Maybe.

This story began to remind me of the imago dei discussion in Dr. Fettke's essay. At least at the end when the girls (who should not have seen this in the first place, they're only fourteen) saw the intersex person at the fair. At the beginning of this short story they were taking the "I'm a Temple of the Holy Ghost!" statement from the nun very lightly, to the point where they were mocking it. Everyone started to say, "You're a Temple!" to others and so on. Did they think the same thing when they saw the intersex person? Probably not. They were so disgusted by it that it never even would have crossed their mind. At the end of the story priests went to the fair, inspected it, and had the police shut it down. Do they believe that person is a Temple of the Holy Ghost? They are from the same religion that the nun was from that told the girls about everyone being Temples, right? So then, why did they have the place shut down? In no way am I condoning an intersex person displaying the good china for everyone who walks into that tent. But, were the priests offended by the person showing themselves? Or were they offended that the person claimed that God had made them that way and they were okay with it? Maybe the priests thought, "Surely this person can't be a Temple of the Holy Ghost"? But isn't everyone supposed to be a Temple? I hope this kind of discussion is what we were supposed to do for this post.

The Man Who Didn't Actually Want to Be at Dinner: Post for 11/16

I went to see The Man Who Came to Dinner today, Sunday, at the Polk Theatre. I brought a friend from my hometown with me and we both enjoyed ourselves. At first the play didn't seem like the comedy it had been advertised as, but then Sherry Whiteside came in with his witty and intelligent comments. I kept the program from the show and I noticed a quote on the front cover, "Is there a man in the world who suffers as I do from the gross inadequacies of the human race?" I think this quote is a great representation of the Sherry character. He sees different inadequacies in everyone else. Maggie is inadequate because she fell in love. Miss Preen, the nurse, is inadequate because she does not get to him quick enough when he calls. Dr. Bradley is inadequate because he thinks he is a wonderful writer but isn't. What Sherry fails to see is that the inadequacies the he is truly suffering from are his own, the foremost being his selfishness. The statement on the cover does ring true, just in a different way than Sherry meant it. He reminded me a little of Orson Welles, director of Citizen Kane and the man who radio broadcast War of the Worlds. He was a very well-known radio-show host, just as Sherry was. He was also known for indulging in selfish pleasures at the expense of those around him.

There were also a few other characters that I enjoyed more than others, as well. Miss Preen, the nurse, had a small but comical part. She didn't have many lines but her facial expression and body language made her scenes enjoyable. Another character that made me laugh was Beverly, Sherry's Hollywood friend. The actor who played Beverly was very talented and portrayed the character in a way that had the entire audience laughing. There was another character, Banjo, that Sherry had kept referring to. Throughout the first two acts, I had been hoping that Banjo would make an appearance. I almost gave up, but in the third act he showed up. He had a very different comic style than the rest of the characters. He did more slap-stick comedy, which I am a big fan of. I liked his character. All-in-all my experience with the play was positive, entertaining, and enjoyable.