Again, I do have better things to do, but I just ingested my first cup of coffee in several weeks (in anticipation of turning in the code release of my website), so now I'm wired and disinclined to be productive for the next ten minutes.
Firstly, hoodies. I've got a new one that says "Michigan Archives." It's awesome because it is too long for normal people -- i.e. perfect for me. I just chuckle evily that they get to wear ill-fitted clothes for once. The pouches seem so organic compared to backpacks, purses, and even pants pockets. It's so easy to slip cellphones, keys, pepper spray, etc. in and out of them. Like a kangaroo. Of course, one must be careful not to acquire the pregnant look (Do pregnant women look inherently victimized to anyone else, or is it just me?).
Secondly, I locked myself out of my apartment today while I was going to work out. Since I was just going downstairs, I didn't have my laptop or cellphone. All I had were my IPOD and the wrong keys. It made me realize I had no coping skills sans electonics.
Normally, I would call my roommates, or one of the dozens of people in my cellphone, who would look online for the emergency number for the office, who would come let me in. I don't really know my neighbors--my community, except for the people I come in contact with daily because I live or work with them, exists digitally. It's not like Seinfield where people are walking in and out of each other's apartments. In addition, I don't know any numbers even if I got up the guts to ask to use someone's phone, since my numbers are all programmed in my cell. So, not knowing where to go for help, I sat outside my door and played pong on my IPOD until my roommates showed up. (Yes, my my my...it's all about me).
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Reevaluation of the New Pride and Prejudice
I watched the 2005 Pride and Prejudice again last night, and my opinion has become more favorable.
I had always thought that the setting was particularly good. The roughness of even middle-class British citizens is better revealed. The materials that the Bennett girls wore in the 1995 version are worn only by the Bingleys and their peers. The Bennett's home is more obviously a working farm, complete with mud and pigs. Mr. Bennett (well played by Donald Sutherland) is quite clearly a farmer. The scenery is as good or better than the '95 version.
I have also decided that Macfadyen makes a tolerable Darcy. He is agreeably disagreeable in the first scene. My only complaint is that he begins to look besotted too soon and retains a puppy-like visage for the duration.
Rosamund Pike is a lovely Jane, Wickham is scuzzy yet appealing, Lady Catherine de Bourgh is frightening, and Charlotte Lucas is likeable and plain. I think I actually agree with the more sympathetic portrayal of Mrs. Bennett and Mary. The family is much less dysfunctional than in other interpretations.
The two things that originally turned my stomach yet remain:
Knightley's portrayal of Elizabeth is much different than Jennifer Ehle's. She is less mature, more emotional and transparent. She actually seems to have a lot of strange twitches and grimaces.
Too bad they had to edit so much of the book out of the screenplay, but I thought the dialog they did put in to cover this up was appropriate and blended seamlessly with the original. EXCEPT for the last scene! Ahhh! Keep the cheesy, anachronistic, sentimental fantasies in your own warped, 21st century mind Moggach!
I had always thought that the setting was particularly good. The roughness of even middle-class British citizens is better revealed. The materials that the Bennett girls wore in the 1995 version are worn only by the Bingleys and their peers. The Bennett's home is more obviously a working farm, complete with mud and pigs. Mr. Bennett (well played by Donald Sutherland) is quite clearly a farmer. The scenery is as good or better than the '95 version.
I have also decided that Macfadyen makes a tolerable Darcy. He is agreeably disagreeable in the first scene. My only complaint is that he begins to look besotted too soon and retains a puppy-like visage for the duration.
Rosamund Pike is a lovely Jane, Wickham is scuzzy yet appealing, Lady Catherine de Bourgh is frightening, and Charlotte Lucas is likeable and plain. I think I actually agree with the more sympathetic portrayal of Mrs. Bennett and Mary. The family is much less dysfunctional than in other interpretations.
The two things that originally turned my stomach yet remain:
Knightley's portrayal of Elizabeth is much different than Jennifer Ehle's. She is less mature, more emotional and transparent. She actually seems to have a lot of strange twitches and grimaces.
Too bad they had to edit so much of the book out of the screenplay, but I thought the dialog they did put in to cover this up was appropriate and blended seamlessly with the original. EXCEPT for the last scene! Ahhh! Keep the cheesy, anachronistic, sentimental fantasies in your own warped, 21st century mind Moggach!
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Advice to Ringling Bros. Circus
Feel privileged, O readers, after three days without a wireless connection (ack! the withdrawals from slashdot), I choose to commune with you rather than fix a routing error in my rails homework.
The topic for today is not Thanksgiving. I shan't describe the feast, for it is traditional, which means unchanging. I shan't gossip about familial friction because it i'n't prudent. I shan't boast about the genetic superiority displayed among my beauteous relations, because I don't currently have photographic evidence to back it up. I shan't talk about the 11 hour drive to and from Frontenac, MN, because...well...that would just be boring.
So today I am going to give advice to the Ringling Brother's Circus.
Get some nostalgia, guys. I don't mean nostalgia for the 1990s, of which the spiffy sneakers and glaring colors were reminiscent. Most people don't like crass commericalism; it makes them feel like dupes. Take a lesson from the Cirque du Soliel, but keep the elephants. Special effects don't wow people in the days of X-Box 360s and IMax theaters. When people see a live show they are looking for artistry, connection, the human touch (no matter how corny). You should never have replaced the big canvas top, the peanuts crunching under foot, and the fat lady with sports arenas, dippin' dots, and lame plastic gimmicks. There are only so many five-year-olds in the world, but you could appeal to a wider audience.
The topic for today is not Thanksgiving. I shan't describe the feast, for it is traditional, which means unchanging. I shan't gossip about familial friction because it i'n't prudent. I shan't boast about the genetic superiority displayed among my beauteous relations, because I don't currently have photographic evidence to back it up. I shan't talk about the 11 hour drive to and from Frontenac, MN, because...well...that would just be boring.
So today I am going to give advice to the Ringling Brother's Circus.
Get some nostalgia, guys. I don't mean nostalgia for the 1990s, of which the spiffy sneakers and glaring colors were reminiscent. Most people don't like crass commericalism; it makes them feel like dupes. Take a lesson from the Cirque du Soliel, but keep the elephants. Special effects don't wow people in the days of X-Box 360s and IMax theaters. When people see a live show they are looking for artistry, connection, the human touch (no matter how corny). You should never have replaced the big canvas top, the peanuts crunching under foot, and the fat lady with sports arenas, dippin' dots, and lame plastic gimmicks. There are only so many five-year-olds in the world, but you could appeal to a wider audience.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Thanksgiving, Marriage, and Why I Might Vote for Hillary
Emily said that if I wanted people to comment I had to be frivolous. I thought road signs and police brutality were frivolous. But I will try to increase my frivolity.
Thanksgiving and Marriage: Oppressing Academia Everywhere
Thanksgiving. It poses a problem for my people. We're supposed to blithely trek home across the country for a period of three days or less--in the middle of paper-writing season. So we can communally gnaw on a turkey carcass and watch the Macy's Day Parade. Most of us are vegetarians for crying out loud! A little respect for the academic lifestyle, here!
But...NOOOOO....It's a FAMILY TRADITION. Really, I see similarities to the whole marriage metanarrative. If someone isn't "home" for Thanksgiving, just like if someone doesn't have a spouse/partner/friend by the time they're 25, they are objects of societal sympathy. The sympathy is a disavowal of the fact that there may be people out there who would PREFER to be in the library studying by themselves. That would be unthinkable...strange...we'd have to lock those people up because they are outside the norm.
In case you're wondering, yes, I am making sacrifices to societal folly and participating in the annual pre-winter fattening festivity. No, I will not sacrifice my happiness or my ulcer-inducing student lifestyle for the sake of fulfilling societal expectations in other areas.
Why I Might Vote for Hillary
She said "hortatory." I don't think most Republicans could even spell it. So if there are two, in my opinion, equally corrupt and slimy candidates, and if someone drags me screaming to the voting booth, and if there are no third party candidates, will I vote for Hillary because she has the better vocabulary? Indubitably.
Thanksgiving and Marriage: Oppressing Academia Everywhere
Thanksgiving. It poses a problem for my people. We're supposed to blithely trek home across the country for a period of three days or less--in the middle of paper-writing season. So we can communally gnaw on a turkey carcass and watch the Macy's Day Parade. Most of us are vegetarians for crying out loud! A little respect for the academic lifestyle, here!
But...NOOOOO....It's a FAMILY TRADITION. Really, I see similarities to the whole marriage metanarrative. If someone isn't "home" for Thanksgiving, just like if someone doesn't have a spouse/partner/friend by the time they're 25, they are objects of societal sympathy. The sympathy is a disavowal of the fact that there may be people out there who would PREFER to be in the library studying by themselves. That would be unthinkable...strange...we'd have to lock those people up because they are outside the norm.
In case you're wondering, yes, I am making sacrifices to societal folly and participating in the annual pre-winter fattening festivity. No, I will not sacrifice my happiness or my ulcer-inducing student lifestyle for the sake of fulfilling societal expectations in other areas.
Why I Might Vote for Hillary
She said "hortatory." I don't think most Republicans could even spell it. So if there are two, in my opinion, equally corrupt and slimy candidates, and if someone drags me screaming to the voting booth, and if there are no third party candidates, will I vote for Hillary because she has the better vocabulary? Indubitably.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Hayden White
"In a seminal study published in 1980, 'The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality,' Hayden White deconstructs the conventional view of history as a story of some kind, suggesting instead that events in themselves, prior to their finding a place in the historical record, are lacking in narrative value. White hypostasizes historical reality as 'mere sequence' (24), and he suggests that the annalist, with his reliance on chronological order, comes closest to rendering its unorganized truth. For us, by contrast, he argues, for whom narrative form has become so deeply naturalized and internalized that we unthinkingly accept it as the mark of the real, history is properly historical only when it achieves the shape and closure of a story."*
Ah...I'd forgotten White...and how much we all embraced him in historiography...and how much that disturbed Dr. Sanders. Such a long, long journey into existentialism.
*Eakin, Paul John. Touching the World: Reference in Autobiography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Ah...I'd forgotten White...and how much we all embraced him in historiography...and how much that disturbed Dr. Sanders. Such a long, long journey into existentialism.
*Eakin, Paul John. Touching the World: Reference in Autobiography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Notes from Zizek: Why Atheists Are the Only True Believers
Last week I went to hear the Lacanian cultural critic Slavoj Zizek speak. Surprisingly, I could understand most of what he was saying, if I could not always follow the connections between his points. Here is a basic outline of his discussion, with my thoughts in italics:
The first part of Zizek's speech seemed the most difficult to engage. He spoke of the scene in Hitchock, where there are generic clothes hung on the line but viewers think they see underwear because of the context. The generic clothes are hung instead of underwear because of the censors. Leading Zizek to wonder: if everyone automatically thinks "the worst," who are we trying to protect? In the same way, he brings up the Soviet Encyclopedia. After Beria was killed, everyone was ordered to replace the page on him with a page on the Bering Straits. Why this meticulous subterfuge, if everyone knew Beria used to be there? According to Zizek, Sovietism is a sort of religion.
He next spoke of the recent rash of 9/11 movies. He posited that we would have reacted differently if the WTC had collapsed because of an earthquake. He sees an underlying theological dimension. When the plane crashes into the tower, we never see the plane, but a shadow, what he considers to be symbolizing angels of death, the apocalypse, divine retribution. He notes that both the religious right (Falwell) and Islamic fundamentalists explicitly believe that 9/11 was a judgment. Yet he argues the ultimate point of these movies is that 9/11 was a blessing in disguise--it "brought out the best" in us. The catastrophe was a distraction that allowed the message of social solidarity to come forward. Zizek considers this implicit message manipulative and underhanded: if we want social solidarity, we don't need to have a "cover" for it.
He believes that Christianity and the "religions of the Book (particularly OT)" are actually a corrective for the judgment theory. He argues that the Book of Job denies us the justification to read meaning into catastrophe. Job's response to his 3 friends is to deny that suffering has meaning rather than that he merely doesn't deserve it. Yet we ignore this message because people would rather have a bad meaning than no meaning.
He considers the "big picture" mentality towards disasters to be "obscene". Here he connected it to Christ's death somehow...He said that Christianity is the only religion in which "God at one point doesn't believe in God," where Christ finds himself in the position of Job.
He condemned Rumsfeld for saying "there are no unknowns." Zizek categorized epistemology into "unknown unknowns"--things we don't know that we don't know; and "unknown knowns"--things we don't know that we know, i.e. the unconscious, fantasies.
Zizek believes that most people don't fully believe in what they say they believe in. Atheists will project their belief onto someone else--a child or parent whose "innocence" they are protecting. He quoted Asimov: "either we are alone or we are not alone," and said humans find either option equally horrible. So we compromise and don't truly believe either. We don't like externalizing our beliefs or discussing them. Rituals are ways we internalize. We also engage in fetish disavowment. An example of this is global warming and the environment. We know empirically that we are destroying the earth, yet because the birds are twittering and the sun is shining, we are unable to truly "believe" and act upon it at an elementary level. Our senses contradict it. We are embedded in a life. Zizek says we must cut the links of our embeddedness to truly believe. In Q&A, he gave an example of escaping from embeddedness as the Japanese movement towards "playing" with technology in order to free ourselves from it.
What holds our society together are the explicit rules we don't use--"empty gestures." These are the unknown knowns embodied. Our ability to torture a person in front of us is an evolutionary regression. We bypass the "unknown known" through technology.
Zizek discussed the biblical concept of "neighbor" in relation to the "other." We fear the abyss between us and the other will disappear with our "neighbor." Our politics are against the Neighbor--we are mobilized by fear. Liberals now rephrase all problems in terms of tolerance. But, for example, the problem of racism used to be a question of equality rather than just generic tolerance. This is ludicrous, for example, in relation to feminism: women don't want their husbands to tolerate them: they want to be treated as equals. Now all proper economic problems are turned into administrative problems--there is no true struggle. He likes Wendy Brown, who wrote a book saying that tolerance is evidence of a post-political society.
Zizek objects to solving problems by "always listening to the other side's stories." Hitler was our enemy not because we didn't listen to him, but because he was evil. The stories we tell ourselves are not ourselves. The story Hitler told himself, and would have told us, was a lie. Religions of the Book can be a corrective against this destructive form of liberalism. Zizek says he agrees with Fukayama here and disagrees with the liberalism of Rorty, who says we can live in harmony with different ideas.
The only true respect for Otherness is not to impose your universality on it, according to Wendy Brown. Zizek says she is too Marxist/classist here. Even if universality is false, even if we create it, it is taken up by others. We are not aware how our particularity affects universality. Once a society experiences capitalism, etc., it is no longer part of the original culture. There are problems in all societies, so the only solution is struggle. The Book allows us to bypass our particular culture to universality. There is universal truth, but it is attained dialectically. There must be struggle, cut, negativity.
So those notes probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. But I think the lecture raised valuable questions for me:
Can we really escape our embeddedness? How? If not, how can we ever believe?
Do we agree that there must always be "struggle"? What is the place of tolerance? Is tolerance a valuable concept?
Is there a way to re-engage true politics in our post-political society (i.e. how do we encourage people to break away from all thinking the same basic thing)?
I think I agree with him that by "tolerating" a society engage with, we will change it to some extent, but I'm not ready to throw out Rorty yet.
Oh--and he never did explain why atheists are the only true believers.
The first part of Zizek's speech seemed the most difficult to engage. He spoke of the scene in Hitchock, where there are generic clothes hung on the line but viewers think they see underwear because of the context. The generic clothes are hung instead of underwear because of the censors. Leading Zizek to wonder: if everyone automatically thinks "the worst," who are we trying to protect? In the same way, he brings up the Soviet Encyclopedia. After Beria was killed, everyone was ordered to replace the page on him with a page on the Bering Straits. Why this meticulous subterfuge, if everyone knew Beria used to be there? According to Zizek, Sovietism is a sort of religion.
He next spoke of the recent rash of 9/11 movies. He posited that we would have reacted differently if the WTC had collapsed because of an earthquake. He sees an underlying theological dimension. When the plane crashes into the tower, we never see the plane, but a shadow, what he considers to be symbolizing angels of death, the apocalypse, divine retribution. He notes that both the religious right (Falwell) and Islamic fundamentalists explicitly believe that 9/11 was a judgment. Yet he argues the ultimate point of these movies is that 9/11 was a blessing in disguise--it "brought out the best" in us. The catastrophe was a distraction that allowed the message of social solidarity to come forward. Zizek considers this implicit message manipulative and underhanded: if we want social solidarity, we don't need to have a "cover" for it.
He believes that Christianity and the "religions of the Book (particularly OT)" are actually a corrective for the judgment theory. He argues that the Book of Job denies us the justification to read meaning into catastrophe. Job's response to his 3 friends is to deny that suffering has meaning rather than that he merely doesn't deserve it. Yet we ignore this message because people would rather have a bad meaning than no meaning.
He considers the "big picture" mentality towards disasters to be "obscene". Here he connected it to Christ's death somehow...He said that Christianity is the only religion in which "God at one point doesn't believe in God," where Christ finds himself in the position of Job.
He condemned Rumsfeld for saying "there are no unknowns." Zizek categorized epistemology into "unknown unknowns"--things we don't know that we don't know; and "unknown knowns"--things we don't know that we know, i.e. the unconscious, fantasies.
Zizek believes that most people don't fully believe in what they say they believe in. Atheists will project their belief onto someone else--a child or parent whose "innocence" they are protecting. He quoted Asimov: "either we are alone or we are not alone," and said humans find either option equally horrible. So we compromise and don't truly believe either. We don't like externalizing our beliefs or discussing them. Rituals are ways we internalize. We also engage in fetish disavowment. An example of this is global warming and the environment. We know empirically that we are destroying the earth, yet because the birds are twittering and the sun is shining, we are unable to truly "believe" and act upon it at an elementary level. Our senses contradict it. We are embedded in a life. Zizek says we must cut the links of our embeddedness to truly believe. In Q&A, he gave an example of escaping from embeddedness as the Japanese movement towards "playing" with technology in order to free ourselves from it.
What holds our society together are the explicit rules we don't use--"empty gestures." These are the unknown knowns embodied. Our ability to torture a person in front of us is an evolutionary regression. We bypass the "unknown known" through technology.
Zizek discussed the biblical concept of "neighbor" in relation to the "other." We fear the abyss between us and the other will disappear with our "neighbor." Our politics are against the Neighbor--we are mobilized by fear. Liberals now rephrase all problems in terms of tolerance. But, for example, the problem of racism used to be a question of equality rather than just generic tolerance. This is ludicrous, for example, in relation to feminism: women don't want their husbands to tolerate them: they want to be treated as equals. Now all proper economic problems are turned into administrative problems--there is no true struggle. He likes Wendy Brown, who wrote a book saying that tolerance is evidence of a post-political society.
Zizek objects to solving problems by "always listening to the other side's stories." Hitler was our enemy not because we didn't listen to him, but because he was evil. The stories we tell ourselves are not ourselves. The story Hitler told himself, and would have told us, was a lie. Religions of the Book can be a corrective against this destructive form of liberalism. Zizek says he agrees with Fukayama here and disagrees with the liberalism of Rorty, who says we can live in harmony with different ideas.
The only true respect for Otherness is not to impose your universality on it, according to Wendy Brown. Zizek says she is too Marxist/classist here. Even if universality is false, even if we create it, it is taken up by others. We are not aware how our particularity affects universality. Once a society experiences capitalism, etc., it is no longer part of the original culture. There are problems in all societies, so the only solution is struggle. The Book allows us to bypass our particular culture to universality. There is universal truth, but it is attained dialectically. There must be struggle, cut, negativity.
So those notes probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. But I think the lecture raised valuable questions for me:
Can we really escape our embeddedness? How? If not, how can we ever believe?
Do we agree that there must always be "struggle"? What is the place of tolerance? Is tolerance a valuable concept?
Is there a way to re-engage true politics in our post-political society (i.e. how do we encourage people to break away from all thinking the same basic thing)?
I think I agree with him that by "tolerating" a society engage with, we will change it to some extent, but I'm not ready to throw out Rorty yet.
Oh--and he never did explain why atheists are the only true believers.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Police Brutality in UCLA Campus Library
Story in Higher Ed, Library Journal, International Herald Tribune. This video of the incident is really viscerally repulsive. Maybe it's because I identify with the student and something like this happening in the UM Library seems so unthinkable.
First: What sort of police society assumes that people are going to always have ID with them? "Where are your papers?" -- Hmmm....remind anyone of Apartheid South Africa/Nazi Germany/Soviet Russia....? I certainly don't always have my student ID when I'm in the library
Second: Library administrators agree, fairly universally, that libraries should be open-access--a public university library, in particular, should not feel like there are "no trespassing" signs. The UM library is restricted to students after midnight, but that is mainly because there is not enough staff to keep it open to everyone.
Third: Repeatedly tazing a student after he has already been handcuffed (while trying to leave the building), when he couldn't possibly fight back, just because he won't stand up, is simply brutal. I wouldn't want to go with a couple of police officers who wouldn't identify themselves, either.
Fourth: I, personally, find racial profiling repulsive. I know many Americans disagree with me.
Fifth: Thank goodness for cell phone cameras.
Ultimately, it seems the cops just didn't like the attitude to authority the student was displaying. My brother thinks most cops go into the business because they are power-hungry and dumb. Maybe he's right. No one should get tazed because of an attitude.
First: What sort of police society assumes that people are going to always have ID with them? "Where are your papers?" -- Hmmm....remind anyone of Apartheid South Africa/Nazi Germany/Soviet Russia....? I certainly don't always have my student ID when I'm in the library
Second: Library administrators agree, fairly universally, that libraries should be open-access--a public university library, in particular, should not feel like there are "no trespassing" signs. The UM library is restricted to students after midnight, but that is mainly because there is not enough staff to keep it open to everyone.
Third: Repeatedly tazing a student after he has already been handcuffed (while trying to leave the building), when he couldn't possibly fight back, just because he won't stand up, is simply brutal. I wouldn't want to go with a couple of police officers who wouldn't identify themselves, either.
Fourth: I, personally, find racial profiling repulsive. I know many Americans disagree with me.
Fifth: Thank goodness for cell phone cameras.
Ultimately, it seems the cops just didn't like the attitude to authority the student was displaying. My brother thinks most cops go into the business because they are power-hungry and dumb. Maybe he's right. No one should get tazed because of an attitude.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Oh, What a Wonderful, Wonderful Day!
Dark chocolate shown to be as effective as aspirin for preventing blood clots and heart attacks!
Yes, I think about food alot. That's because I am a glutton.
Yes, I think about food alot. That's because I am a glutton.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
$160,000 Truffle
1.5kg truffle bought by a Hong Kong businessman for 125,000 euros. Mmmmmm.... Seriously though--think how much good wine and chocolate you could buy for that! I think the redistribution of wealth happens naturally because wealth seems to breed stupidity in spending habits.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Peeping Tom
Julio is an anomalous cat. He shares most of my personality disorders, but especially the narcissism. He also likes running water (most cats, actually, prefer to drink from running water because, unlike dogs, they prefer clean water in nature, which would usually come from a river or a stream). So we often let him in the bathroom with us while we shower and he will bat at the water or sit on the sink. But yesterday he just sat right in front of the shower and WATCHED me like some Victorian gentleman at the Moulin Rouge. (I think I've mentioned before that our shower curtain at home is clear). Very unnerving.
You will note that, for modesty's sake, I represented myself as the typical female symbol in crosswalks, etc. (I was not actually wearing a tulip skirt). I think I may start a campaign to represent women in more realistic attire. How about a school girl in jeans with a ponytail? Or a businesswoman in a suit? Also, note that when only one figure is represented, it is always male.
You will note that, for modesty's sake, I represented myself as the typical female symbol in crosswalks, etc. (I was not actually wearing a tulip skirt). I think I may start a campaign to represent women in more realistic attire. How about a school girl in jeans with a ponytail? Or a businesswoman in a suit? Also, note that when only one figure is represented, it is always male.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Oh Dear...I Really Need to Watch My Waistline
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Third Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Moderate |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very Low |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | High |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Moderate |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | Moderate |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | Low |
| Level 7 (Violent) | Low |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Moderate |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Moderate |
Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test
Yes, I do have better things to be doing...
Which perhaps indicates that I am NOT obssessive-compulsive. Did anyone else get diagnosed as "high" in four areas?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The Concert
So when I went to Cedar Point I said that I doubted the experience measured up to recreational drug use. Not so with the Decemberists in Pontiac. Initially it was similar. Getting lost trying to find it, standing in line with a bunch of tobacco-puffing, disease-ridden suburban teenagers, being branded like criminals according to age, crowding into a building populated by hawkers of alcohol and promotional paraphernalia. And then there was the waiting....and waiting...and waiting....Mother always told me that I would have to wait a lot in life, but I never used to believe her.
The venue was Clutch Cargo's in Pontiac. From the pictures of former online, I was hoping it was a shabby, slightly dangerous warehouses in downtown Detroit. But Pontiac is a sleepy little suburb by a lake, and Clutch Cargo's is a renovated church. It was not at capacity, which made me slightly discontent that Ticketmaster had gotten 11 smacerkoos from me in convenience charges.
I have never been more pleased with my stature--we stood about 15 feet from the stage and I had a panoramic view over the heads of the undermenchen. We were also equidistant from the stage and the speakers, which, according to heresay, is the ideal location.
As I said, we were waiting...about 8:00 Alasdair Roberts, from Glasgow came out to open. They were good--very Scottish, very folksy, but they didn't make me forget that I was getting too warm and had been standing on cement for an hour surrounded by a homogeneous group of young people in fake vintage t-shirts drinking beer out of plastic cups (SO frat boy).
Then we had to wait some more while the crew tuned the Decemberists' many, many, many instruments...I think that they are squandering their newfound wealth on progressively more wonderful instruments. There were also beers (NOT in plastic cups) set out for everyone but the drummer, who, it appeared, got a whole bottle of wine.
Finally Colin's voice came over the speaker system, commanding us to greet our neighbors and admire the architecture. They came out, dapperly-attired, and started playing with a big sound that shook the cement floor.
They played a fair mix from all of their albums, not necessarily in the following order:
Shankhill Butchers (appropriate for post-Halloween and Election Day), July, July!, I'm an Engine Driver, O Valencia, Legionnaire's Lament, Sons and Daughters, 16 Military Wives...a lot from the Crane Wife, but I don't have all the numbers down yet--I'm not sure if it was Crane Wife #1, 2, or 3. I was disappointed they didn't play Grace Cathedral Hill.
At one point, they had the audience chant "bombs fade away." Nice sentiment, it probably won't be terribly effective to sing them away, but what the hell, I thought, it couldn't hurt.
They finished up with the Cautionary Tale, and Chris, John, and Mary wound through the crowd with percussion instruments and re-enacted the beheading of Anne Boleyn. Finally, Colin finished with Red Right Ankle.
The beat was loud and infectious, but the lyrics were still discernible. We were amazed by the proficiency of all the musicians with nearly all the instruments. Chris would pick up Colin's mandolin, Jenny played everything that had keys, John fiddled around with the hand organ. Nate mostly stuck to bass...but someone has to do it.
One of the most versatile musicians up there was Mary--who is evidently not "officially" a part of the band. She played viola, keyboard, and rocked with a guitar. If she is on trial, they should definitely add her. I think they had a bigger sound with six, and that's not just because of the speaker system.
The venue was Clutch Cargo's in Pontiac. From the pictures of former online, I was hoping it was a shabby, slightly dangerous warehouses in downtown Detroit. But Pontiac is a sleepy little suburb by a lake, and Clutch Cargo's is a renovated church. It was not at capacity, which made me slightly discontent that Ticketmaster had gotten 11 smacerkoos from me in convenience charges.
I have never been more pleased with my stature--we stood about 15 feet from the stage and I had a panoramic view over the heads of the undermenchen. We were also equidistant from the stage and the speakers, which, according to heresay, is the ideal location.
As I said, we were waiting...about 8:00 Alasdair Roberts, from Glasgow came out to open. They were good--very Scottish, very folksy, but they didn't make me forget that I was getting too warm and had been standing on cement for an hour surrounded by a homogeneous group of young people in fake vintage t-shirts drinking beer out of plastic cups (SO frat boy).
Then we had to wait some more while the crew tuned the Decemberists' many, many, many instruments...I think that they are squandering their newfound wealth on progressively more wonderful instruments. There were also beers (NOT in plastic cups) set out for everyone but the drummer, who, it appeared, got a whole bottle of wine.
Finally Colin's voice came over the speaker system, commanding us to greet our neighbors and admire the architecture. They came out, dapperly-attired, and started playing with a big sound that shook the cement floor.
They played a fair mix from all of their albums, not necessarily in the following order:
Shankhill Butchers (appropriate for post-Halloween and Election Day), July, July!, I'm an Engine Driver, O Valencia, Legionnaire's Lament, Sons and Daughters, 16 Military Wives...a lot from the Crane Wife, but I don't have all the numbers down yet--I'm not sure if it was Crane Wife #1, 2, or 3. I was disappointed they didn't play Grace Cathedral Hill.
At one point, they had the audience chant "bombs fade away." Nice sentiment, it probably won't be terribly effective to sing them away, but what the hell, I thought, it couldn't hurt.
They finished up with the Cautionary Tale, and Chris, John, and Mary wound through the crowd with percussion instruments and re-enacted the beheading of Anne Boleyn. Finally, Colin finished with Red Right Ankle.
The beat was loud and infectious, but the lyrics were still discernible. We were amazed by the proficiency of all the musicians with nearly all the instruments. Chris would pick up Colin's mandolin, Jenny played everything that had keys, John fiddled around with the hand organ. Nate mostly stuck to bass...but someone has to do it.
One of the most versatile musicians up there was Mary--who is evidently not "officially" a part of the band. She played viola, keyboard, and rocked with a guitar. If she is on trial, they should definitely add her. I think they had a bigger sound with six, and that's not just because of the speaker system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
