Evil or not evil? That is the question...

Wow. Another lame title. But that's ok because I'm doing two posts in one day. Mostly out of boredom, but also out of a measure of excitement over Harry Potter madness! First of all-Dan-you hate Ron? Sad day! Why on earth would you hate Ron? I could understand a certain level of annoyance with his movie counterpart-one of the biggest flaws I see in the movie is the transformation of Ron from bearer of wizard culture wisdom to comic sidekick. But hate Ron? That's rather depressing.

I had some friends over tonight to join me in a bit of Robin Hood love from the BBC-(yes, I've continued my mission to corrupt others) and one of my friends declared that he has read all of book seven via some very clever hacker friends. Hmm. I think I'll echo Kuzco from The Emperor's New Groove here for a moment-"Riiiiight". Would Scholastic really be that ridiculous and easy to tap into? Or Bloomsbury? I doubt it. He kept going on about "oh...but I can't tell you that. It's in the next book", etc. Good gravy. People are so gullible around Harry Potter time. Last time the book came out I was working at B&N and had several very confused people ask me the difference between the regular and deluxe box set versions of the book-they seemed to think that the deluxe edition had deleted scenes or an alternate ending or something. I wanted to very rudely remind them that books are not movies and they don't have deleted scenes or alternate endings outside of the Choose Your Own Adventure world.

On to the next question, then!

Is Snape Good or Evil?

Good. Ish.

In terms of plot development, Snape has to be good or Harry has been right about him the whole series. If that's the case than it's a bit anti-climactic. If Harry's been right the whole time and finally proves himself right it's much more anti-climactic for his character development than if Snape is really good and proves himself, and Harry has to come to terms with it-it's another symbolic way that he would rise above the point his parents were at when they were killed.

Let's look at Snapes' track record. I'm really fond of looking at this via. the second chapter of book 6: Spinner's End. I'm using this chapter because Liz has already addressed this same question with my same conclusion using other text for back up. Let's break things down by looking at the chapter:

In the chapter Bellatrix and Narcissa show up at Snape's rather bleak house because Narcissa is worried about a promise that Draco has made. The promise is never fully explained, but we know that it deals with Voldemort. We assume that the task Draco was given is to kill Dumbledore (as seen later on in the book). Since this is never stated directly it's still in the strongly assumed category (unless Jo said it directly in an interview...I can't remember. Draco more or less confirms it in Chapter 27). That's not the point. Narcissa is worried because her son is headstrong and foolish (he's a teenager, in other words), and she thinks that Draco is in over his head. She doesn't think he'll be able to complete the task. She's come asking for help from Snape for a few obvious reasons: he's in a convenient position to look out for him as a teacher at the school, and she trusts him as an old friend. Bellatrix isn't so sure. She states forcefully that she does not trust Snape (US, 25). Snape asks Bellatrix why she doesn't trust him.

"A hundred reasons!" she said loudly, striding out from behind the sofa to slam her glass upon the table. "Where to start! Where were you when the Dark Lord fell? Why did you never make any attempt to find him when he vanished? What have you been doing all these years that you've lived in Dumbledore's pocket? Why did you stop the Dark Lord procuring the Sorcerer's Stone? Why did you not return at once when the Dark Lord was reborn? Where were you a few weeks ago when we battled to retrieve the prophecy for the Dark Lord? And why, Snape, is Harry Potter still alive, when you have had him at your mercy for five years?" (US, 25)

She definitely gives us something to think about. One interesting question to consider is not so much why did Voldemort trust Snape from the beginning, but why he still trusts Snape. Snape is never very clear about all of that in this chapter. He just says that the Dark Lord understands, that Voldemort shouldn't feel the need to share all of it with Bellatrix to pacify her...etc. etc. It's a bit cryptic. Especially considering how good Voldemort is at Legilimency. Snape must be really really good at Occlumency. And then there's the question of why Dumbledore trust's Snape-that's even more ambiguous (which makes it more exciting plot-development wise for Harry and crew to discover why it is! More proof!)

Anyway. I'm not going to detail the whole chapter. Snape gives counterpoints for each of Bella's claims. He suggests that Voldemort has asked him each one of these questions as well and has accepted his answers. He also says something rather interesting- "You think he (Voldemort) is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?" (US, 26). Well. That'd make for an interesting plot twist. Most of what he gives Bellatrix from this point on seems like relative truth (in the "from a certain point of view" way ala. Obi Wan). Where the conversation gets meaty is when he addresses the last part of her question-why he allowed Harry to live. Snape's been doing pretty well up to this point, but here his answer gets a little weak. He says that he didn't kill Harry because he is Dumbledore's favorite and killing him would put him into Azkaban. Really, Snape? Wouldn't killing any student put him into Azkaban? He also says that it was apparent that he (Harry) had no extraordinary talent. Now, we know that Harry, whatever he is, isn't Snape's favorite student but this is going a bit far. Snape knows that Harry is a good student. He's not the best, but he has already managed to thwart Voldemort four times in person-more than any other full grown wizard save Dumbledore perhaps, but even Dumbledore hasn't survived a killing curse-he competed in the Triwizard tournament, he can produce a coporeal patronus, he can withstand the Imperius curse-no. Even Snape cannot deny that Harry is incredibly talented in unique ways. (Dense perhaps at times, but that's what makes him human and interesting as a character). Harry is not, as Snape claims to Bella-"mediocre to the last degree".

A few questions then-

1) Why didn't Dumbledore give him the Dark Arts job until this year? Was it because of the curse? Because he knew it would bring out the worst in Snape? Because he wanted to keep him on staff as long as possible to keep a close watch on him and didn't want him in the cursed post? And why did he give it to him this year? My guess?: Because Dumbledore anticipated what was going to happen at the end of the year-he knew that his days were numbered. Snape is very talented in the Dark Arts and would be a good challenge to Harry's already high skills in what it would take to defeat Voldemort in the end (Snape is still teaching Harry in the end-he tells him that he must learn how to keep his 'mouth shut and his mind closed' to be any match in a real duel). I also find it interesting that what bothers Snape the most in that last confrontation is when Harry calls him a coward. Wow. That's a nerve.

2) How much about the situation did Snape understand during this scene with Bellatrix and Narcissa? My guess? Not at the beginning. He was probably just guessing. But with Narcissa in her weak, crying state-he may have perceived her thoughts through Legilimency. Perhaps Dumbledore thought something like this might happen and told him the correct action to take in such a situation?

Pay attention to the last two and a half pages. This whole unbreakable vow thing is ridiculously important. Snape's expression is so unreadable-so stoic here. Of the three things he promises-the last one is the one that gets him. His hand twitches and he hesitates in a way that he did not hesitate with the first two questions. He has no problem watching over Draco or protecting him-it's completing the task Draco's been given that worries him. Couple this along with the conversation Hagrid overhears and his hesitance on the tower and his anger at being called a coward and you have a veritable mess of proof to the contrary. Snape is good. Or on the side of good. As I said earlier, I think it's safe to assume that Snape will never be Godfather to any of Harry's children. He isn't likely to start nicknaming any of his children Severus, I don't think-but he is on the side of good, working for the same cause. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out.

So there it is. Snape is good. Joni is good. Joni is tired. Joni is going to go to bed.

It's a Wendy Bird!

Lame title, I know. But I was trying to think of something unexpected and happy (I hope) to kick off my first post in the aftermath of my England experience that was more interesting than what this blog is actually going to be about for the next little while: A place to write about my Harry Potter predictions (not without much bribery and tugging from the Liz corner). We had grandiose ideas about a tag team blog/discussion of sorts at one point when we were in Paris but the draw of the city and a bunch of museums was just too much, oddly enough.

Quick sum-up of the England experience: (I'm debating on whether or not it's worth trying to write about two months of experience in here or not. I think I'll just post bits and pieces from my essays)-Yes, it was amazing, no it didn't change my life, yes, it did give me some new perspectives on myself, yes I miss it, yes I would go back, no I wouldn't do it any time soon, yes I'm glad to be living out of a wardrobe again, no I don't miss the Metro, yes I do miss the tube, no I'm not married (that's for all the people in my ward who thought I'd have time to find someone on the trip *eyeroll*), yes, I enjoy being single, yes, I would like to publish the great American novel about England on the Fourth of July just for kicks.

Phew.

On to Harry Potter. As Liz explains on her blog (if you read it through), Scholastic Publishing has posted a series of questions for people to answer in poll form leading up to the publication of the seventh Harry Potter book next month. The polls themselves are a bit ridiculous. For example, at last count, Voldemort still had 73% (ish) of people convinced that he was going to live. In fact, his was the lowest. Meaning that roughly 73% of people don't think anyone is going to die in the next book (including those in the "other" category). This is, of course, absurd. Jo has told us repeatedly that people will die in this book. Dare I use the word delusional? However, the questions spark decent blog posts, so they aren't completely worthless. I'm not sure how I plan on going about this, but we'll just run with the feeling for a while.

So without any further ado, I proudly present:

Who will live and who will die?

Harry Potter: Live

Does there really need to be a debate about this? Sigh. Alright. Here we go: As the hero of the story, Harry kind of has to live for the story to work. The journey of a hero is represented by a circle. Harry enters the journey with the death of his parents who don't complete their journey because they are killed before they are able to break the chain. Harry must break free of this pattern or the story ends where it begins. That's a lot of ink/paper/time wasted to end up where you started. Yes, I know Jo has said that Harry could die but-let's be honest-would anyone have considered that possibility if she hadn't brought it up in the first place? Noooooo...she started that rumor and we've all lapped it up like thirsty dogs. Well, I haven't. But lots of people have. Harry has to win in the end because, as Dumbledore has said, the greater challenge is in living, not dying. Harry's greater challenge will be in finding a way to live after all this is over. I will say one thing for the Harry dying theory-if anyone can find a way to pull this off and make me believe it, it's Jo. I trust her as a writer to make me believe that if he does end up dying, it's the only way it can work.


Lord Voldemort: Dead. Dead. Dead.

Here's another one of those 'duh' questions. Seriously. Does anyone really have a good reason for Voldemort to live? The whole point of the series is to destroy him. If he's not destroyed then we've wasted a lot of time and money on a franchise.

Ron Weasley: Live(ish)

It's almost against my better judgment to mark Ron as a 'live' but I'm going to. A strong part of me says that of anyone in the trio has to die, he would be it. It's half-foreshadowed in the chess match from book one that Ron will pull the self sacrifice card. It's hard to believe that everyone in the trio will live. All the same though, I'm going to mark him as a live because I don't know that Ron's death would do anything for the plot. What is there to be gained in the metaphor with Ron dying? I don't know. It would be sad of course, but I don't know that it would do anything. Besides that, there's been a bunch of Hermione/Ron build up and stopping it short would make it all kind of wasted. And it would be nice for the trio as a whole to break the tradition of James/Sirius/Lupin/Peter-in dying. (Well, for two of them. Or three. I'm still waiting for Peter to kick it).

Hermione Granger: Live


If I'm struggling to find a point in killing Ron, I'm struggling even more to find a point in killing Hermione. She's the source of knowledge and wisdom to the trio-Ron's death would at least be symbolic. Killing Hermione...no. Just no.


Ginny Weasley: Live

I agree with Liz on this one. Jo has said many times over that Ginny is a very powerful, clever witch. She's Harry's equal in many ways-they've both been put through similar tests over the years. If you parallel the Cho/Cedric and Ginny/Harry storyline, Cho became the weepy (annoying) left over girlfriend to the dead Cedric-Ginny's too strong for that (and so is Harry, for that matter). No-Ginny's storyline has just begun. It wouldn't make any sense to kill her now. Not after introducing her and promising some great things from her. Plus. She has to marry Harry and have lots of cute red headed children. (And they can, you know-if Harry carries that red headed gene from his mother. Isn't it so nicely set up?!)

Neville Longbottom: Dead. More than dead.


Face it, he's a gonner. His death would fulfill the same purpose as Harry's since their lives are paralleled in so many ways. Yup. Neville's done for. Poor kid. He'll build up though and go down a hero. Take down Bellatrix. Do his parents proud. Then move on to the happy little corner in the sky reserved for people like Neville.


Luna Lovegood: Live

Again, where's the point in doing away with Luna? She's not vital enough to die, really. She's a more ethereal form of Hermione-she provides different kinds of wisdom. She's like a less grounded version of Galadriel. She'll help Harry come to terms with people who do die and go on to be a really great Quidditch commentator for the Wimbourne Wasps or something.

Hagrid: Die

I'm going to disagree with Liz and say that Hagrid could die. I mean-my ratios are a little off. I've got most of the main people living and someone has to go-so Hagrid could work. He's the last of the mentors (except Lupin but I'll talk about him in a bit). One of my friends pointed out something about the order in which Harry met people compared to the order they die in-he met Hagrid, then Dumbledore, then Sirius, then Cedric, and then Cedric died, Sirius-etc. I would contend that the theory has a flaw-well, he technically met Sirius earlier than this, and if you don't count that, then Harry "met" Cedric before Sirius through Quidditch-and even then the theory feels really contrived. Harry meets lots of people. All the same though, Hagrid's death could be somewhat symbolic. Ok-all these reasons are lame. I could see Hagrid living too. I'm saying that he'll die mainly to give myself a main character cushion. Because they can't all live, and Hagrid is a nice option for death. I'm heartless...

Dumbledore, Sirius, Cedric, Harry's Parents, all other dead people: Still dead. Check.

Snape/Malfoy: Livead


Here's where I've got a little wonderment going on. I don't think they'll both die. They would both be faced with a similar challenge to Harry in living after all this is over. If I had to pick right now I would say Snape would die and Draco would live (since he's kind of on the anti-hero's journey-the failed journey), but ask me again in five minutes and I'll change my mind. There is redemptive power in one of them turning to the good side and then dying, but it goes the other way as well. So I'll mark them as Livead because they could go one way or the other and still serve a good purpose for the message Jo seems to be working towards. And while we're talking about baddies-even if they live they won't be godfather to Harry's children any time soon. All those people who think that the entire wizarding world will hold hands and sing about perfect harmony with some coke after all this is over ...they're nuts.


Others-


Lupin and Tonks will live and get married and be happy (Lupin has to live for sake of carrying on the legacy of Harry's father and crew-another one of those 'break the trend' things). Other various members of the Order have to die-maybe Mad Eye will finally kick it. Kingsley. Someone we know about/care about for sake of emotional drama. McGonagall could die. A few other Hogwarts teachers. A Weasley or two (my vote is on Molly-maybe a twin-Percy). Papa Malfoy is dead. Bellatrix is dead. Greyback is dead. Moaning Myrtle is already dead. You know. Death dying destruction.


Coming soon: other answers to more pressing questions! Ohhhh boy...

Grab Bag

It's Friday, and I'm at work, and I've got lots on my mind so today is a bit of a mixed bag-order of business: My time to vent, my time to talk up my mother, my time to comment on one of Liz's posts...

And look at all the pretty tabs I have now! Yay for tabs.

So before I wax sentimental-I think I'm going to (once again) steal Liz's thunder and blog over conference. This is, of course, assuming that I have Internet this weekend, and (once again) assuming that I actually have readers who care. My blog is certainly not as widely read as hers is (for obvious reasons), but it'd be a nice way to pay attention and it'll keep me awake.

Thank heaven for this weekend. I've been needing this weekend for ages. I've been really crabby and stressed the last few weeks. I've been blaming school but it really isn't school-my classes this semester are pretty enjoyable and easy, so I can't complain there. What I can (and will) complain about though is my roommate situation and how much I can't wait for the year to end. I'm feeling so suffocated and trapped with the situation I'm in. Half the time I wish I was living with the same girls next year, and the other half of the time I want to pack up my bags and live on the street until the end of the semester to get away. More than half the time for the latter, I think. I don't even know why it's bothering me so much. It probably has something to do with me letting the quirks my roommates have drive me up the wall. I don't like being governed by our system. I'm tired of being told what to buy every week for food and when to do dishes. I've started feeling rather rebellious about it all. I'm glad I've found a better situation for myself next year.

That being said, I don't hate my roommates. I get rather frustrated with a few of them, but I don't hate them. I don't like hearing them talk about what's going to be so fun next year and how they're all living together-it's awkward. I've seen what's happened with Katie-our roommate who moved out last year. I've seen her about three times since last year. Everyone talks about how we'll all eat dinner and see each other and whatever next year but it's all a load of junk. The real reason I've felt horrible is because I can't, no matter what I do, shake the feeling of loneliness I have. Not that I'm not excited to live with Liz-but I'm still like an outsider coming in. All I know right now is that I'm desperate for change that won't come. There are so many things that I want for my life and I don't know how to get them. Or-to quote Jo March "I want to change but I just can't and I know I'll never fit in anywhere!" I don't feel quite so tragic as that but I can certainly relate to the first half of the quote. Thank heaven for Marmee's rebuttal-"You have so many extraordinary gifts. How can you expect to lead an ordinary life?" I don't know about my "extraordinary gifts", but I know I can't expect to lead an ordinary life. At this point I'm just surviving until the end of the semester when I can "bashing around London" (and the rest of England) and get all this weight off my chest.

On to brighter things. My mom has joined the blog-force! Being the activist that she is, she's written a few letters to the editor of our local paper in the last year, and one of the women in our stake (who works for the paper) asked her to be part of a group of mothers who blog about different topics that are relevant to mothers in our area and on motherhood in general. I think it's pretty exciting-not just because I love blogging but because it's just further proof that my mother is incredible. I love that she can take on these new challenges and projects. I can't wait to see what comes of it. Stay tuned-I'll post links when I can.

Alright-I thought I would offer another point of view on the Sexuality at BYU post that Liz made recently. Growing up outside of Utah, I feel like I've got a different perspective on it-or at least on how sexuality should be handled in public education. I agree with Liz-the majority of BYU students are mature enough to handle it. It's when you start dealing in extremes that it gets to be a problem. Granted-all this is coming from the girl who is completely freaked out by physical affection and once stated "I don't want my husband touching me!" It's not true-I'm not against physical affection-I just haven't met anyone I'm comfortable with in that way yet. For details-see my mother. It's all her fault.

From what I understand talking to my Utah friends, the majority of high schools don't have sex ed in High School. They'll do basics (boys and girls are different), but don't discuss too much into STD's, how sex actually "works", or issues surrounding sexuality in general. This is a pretty stark contrast to my public school system, where we spent nearly an entire semester in eighth grade science class discussing nothing but STD's. We gave presentations on them. We had to videotape a song about them. I was on gonorrhea. I spent so much time making handouts and jingles and posters on gonorrhea it was complete overkill. We watched a movie about a naked woman giving birth. We studied it again nearly every year in every science class. It got to be a bit of a joke. Even the teachers didn't really take it seriously. They'd preface everything with "abstinence is the best way, but next to that..." and then list all the facts about using protection and the odds of "success" there (meaning, odds of not getting pregnant or getting an STD). It's a complete polar opposite from schools in this part of the west. Here, it's a famine, there it's a complete flood.

I don't think either way is the best way to go when it comes to sex-ed. It's like Alma says to his son Shiblon-we are supposed to bridle our passions. We don't want to starve the horse (that will kill it), nor do we want to let the horse run wild without any hold on the reins (that will kill us). We are to bridle passions. Control them. And in order to control them, you have to recognize them and know what they are. You can't control something you know nothing about.

I'm not quite sure what the best method of sex education is. I think it's important not to talk too much about it, but the streams of communication should be open. There is, obviously, a level of sacredness. From my experience, though-it's probably best that schools do some of the educating (the scientific part), and parents do the rest (the moral part). If there isn't communication, then kids will find out about sex from other sources-it's not like the sources aren't available.

Then of course, there's the issue when it comes to sexuality and gender affiliation but I don't even want to look at that road right now. I've seen the Readers Forum in the Daily Universe. The debate is too extreme at the moment to cause any headway no matter how many bloggers post on it.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Cover Art

What with all my excitement over England, I've half forgotten that Harry Potter is ALSO coming out this summer! I don't know how I'll find room to be excited for both. It's going to be incredible. And for those of you who aren't aware (everyone but Liz, I'm sure), Harry Potter 7 cover art was released today-(see The Leaky Cauldron). What I see first hand (through British/American combonation)-in the American one we see Voldemort and Harry *both* reaching for something (not at each other) in what appears to be some kind of graveyard (what Jo mentioned during the filming of the third movie perhaps?) and Harry wearing a certain necklace...with a snake on it...(nudge wink). The UK kids edition has Ron/Harry/Hermione blasting backwards (look at the direction of the hair) through what looks like some kind of portal away from a pile of treasure (many of them are embelished by snakes). On the back is the UK version of Hogwarts (Ha. I knew it was coming back), and an image of Harry's patronus on the inside cover (plus a little bitty blurb about Harry waiting for the order to get him from Privet Drive. *yawn*. Last time they gave us so many more hints). The most interesting part though is the house elf behind Harry-pretty menacing from the looks of it-(bets on Kreacher) holding what looks like the sword of Gryffindor. And the gleam in Harry's glasses-going after a Horcrux, perhaps? The adult version just has the snake locket. Well. I'm going to go change the wallpaper on my computer and spend some time squeeling over the excitement of Harry 7...

You're too open/closed minded

Here I am again, sitting in my Biology class and not paying attention. I'd feel bad, but I got 100% on the last test so I don't care much. That and he's lecturing on dinosaurs and those won't be on our test so I don't feel the need to pay attention when I could update my blog!

Exactly one month from now, I'm going to be kissing the ground that JK Rowling has walked on by exploring Edinburgh, Scotland. Just thought you'd all like to know :P

So based on different discussions I've had over the last few days, I've been thinking quite a bit about righteous judgment, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. BYU had a recent uproar with the Soulforce visit (well, maybe not an uproar, but at least a few discussions and arrests). It's been a somewhat interesting experience. I've done enough theater to know several individuals who are gay. Some of them are really happy about it, others aren't, but they live that way whether they like it or not. So-thought number one is this: I find it incredibly ironic that we live in a world that punishes people who are closed minded, which seems to be a code for "you don't believe what I believe and are therefore wrong". Think about what Soulforce wanted in visiting our campus-it's like Liz said in her blog. They don't want discussion. They want to educate us on their point of view and expect us to agree with them. (Which is of course exactly what many people around here want in reverse).

Which brings me to point number two: people who just accept what they're given and don't question it. Moroni's promise is the scientific method. The Lord doesn't want us to be lukewarm-He wants us to question the gospel (with the right spirit of course) and test it for validity. We have to know. Part of this involves finding out what other people believe. Going back to the discussion on homosexuality-I think it's a little too simple for people in our church (and out of it) to say that it's all a choice. As with other mental disorders-manic depression, for example- we don't really know how much of what they feel is a choice, how much of it is driven by what society tells them, and how much of it is driven by some kind of chemical/hormonal imbalance. No, I don't think that God sent anyone here to fail. However, I also think that he takes into account the mentality of the individual-and that is something that none of us have the ability to fully understand, because we are not God.

Unfortunately, the ideal world doesn't exist, and many students on this campus (and outside of it) are just as closed minded as those who claim to be more open minded. Why can't we all just be 'minded'? Why can't we respect differences even when we don't agree with them? Yes-absolute truth is out there. The gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored and the church is true-I'm not debating that. What I find sad is that we forget that other people believe in their God as fervently as we do ours, and with good reason. I have a testimony that this church is true, but others have that same feeling for the church/belief they follow. It's about respect.

So my feelings on Soulforce to wrap things up-I think the theory behind the idea is somewhat admirable. I think it is a good idea to make people aware of the oppression, particularly on a campus like ours where tolerance is occasionally as Andrew Mecham said in the Readers Forum of the Daily Universe today-condescending tolerance. However, I think the underlying reason behind Soulforce is bad both for them, and for us. It makes us look even less tolerant than usual, and it makes them look like people who don't want any more dialogue than we do. The purpose is lost entirely. No one wants discussion, because both sides are full of very vocal people without respect for the other side. Few people bother to research the other side and become slightly more open minded.

Anyway-this didn't end up being the grandiose statement on society I intended it to be (name one of my posts that really did end up being what I wanted it to be-), but I think it's probably because there is no solution. It's like we've been talking about in my Study Abroad class recently-it's all about finding different centers of self, and for anything to work there has to be work done on both sides.

17 Minutes

I'm in an extremely boring class right now and the only cure I can think of is more blogging. The cow bell phenomenon was lost on me.

Thank heaven for spring! I've had a really horrible last few weeks. I've felt really lonely and frustrated with life in general, and I still feel traces of that now but the weather has certainly taken the edge off. I don't think I could ever live in a place where there was no spring, or even a place where there was a kind of spring all year. It's why I scoff at people who think that Southern California is the only good place on earth. There is something about the first day of spring when you can take off your coat and just feel the warm weather after a long, seemingly endless winter.

I hate money. I hate it. My last study abroad payment is due today and I'm going to watch the money in my savings account go from a comfortable four digits to a slightly less comfortable two. I have to keep reminding myself that I did know this was coming. I knew that it was coming. It's why I worked two jobs over the summer-so that I could watch my hard earned money go towards England but still. I will continue to echo Jo March in Little Women: "I hate money".

I do however love babysitting. I know. Some people think I'm nuts or don't miss it at all, but I love babysitting. I think it's probably the next best thing to being a grandparent-you get to be there for a few hours, enjoy a kid who thinks you're incredible because you sneak them cookies and then go home. I get to babysit my perpetually happy cousin tonight and I'm really excited. Seriously-I've met some happy kids in my life but this boy is always happy. The last time I saw him he was sick as a dog and still running around with this massive grin on his face. That being said-I like babysitting but I would never be a nanny again. I spent one summer as a nanny and I'd never go back. At least not without a car. I sat in that house every day for three months and only had a car for a few hours once a week when my mom wasn't using it-we couldn't really go anywhere and there's only so many times you can run through the sprinklers or walk to the park before it gets old.

Tomorrow is the best holiday of the year-if you aren't Irish I feel bad for you. I love my Irish heritage. My ancestors were bards which means, according to one of my professors, that they were more than just writers and poets. Bards used to be sent by the lord of the manor to the front of a battle line to taunt the enemy into submission to avoid fighting. They'd shame the enemy so that they couldn't fight because they were so worthless. Yeah. My ancestors are amazing.

You'll excuse the eclectic post-I don't have anything incredible to say except thank heaven for weekends. I don't think I could go another day this week without suffering some kind of melt down. I have had enough. I'm going to go sit outside for hours and let the sun re-energise me. Like Superman.

Reflections on Womanhood

Well if that isn't a daunting title! I'm about to embark down roads that most of you who read this will probably already agree on. Seeing as my reading base isn't that wide, and most of the reading base I do have consists of females who are pursuing higher education, but I feel the desire to write in order to avoid homework, and this has been on my head so-enjoy if you so feel the desire.

We've been reading David Copperfield in my study abroad class. It's not my favorite Dickens novel. Partly because it feels so much longer than the other novels of his that I've read, and partly because I don't like David at all. He's obnoxious. He has high ideals but doesn't live up to them (ok, so he's human...or as human as literary characters can be). He does exactly what I hate in men-marry the pretty ignorant girl because he's so in love with her because she's so cute and naive and whatever else is exciting about it. She can't do a thing and she knows it and she doesn't try to improve herself at all and he doesn't care. I've been thinking about how much I can't stand women who don't try and make something of themselves. Who live for makeup and parties and social life and being cute and have no higher aspirations for themselves. Yes-I like to look nice. I make an effort to do so. I keep my clothes clean and I do my hair and a bit of makeup in the morning because I like to look like I feel. I want to get married. But I have goals for myself outside of marriage that I intend to meet.

Not that I think the church is wrong-President Hinckley has said that he wants women who are intelligent-he comments on how the best thing the church can do for their women is to let them be and give them space to do what they will with it. But I think that some parts of church culture have gone to a bit of an extreme when it comes to creating cutsy girls. Relief Society lessons that I've been to (not necessarily in my ward here), have turned into frilly, light, pat on the back kind of things that are formulated to make women cry. Sweet, sugar coated cotton candy like fluff. There is something to be said for a nice, feel good lesson, but there is also something to be said for a lesson that teaches and motivates and instructs. I'm tired of modesty lessons, for example, when the teacher apologises for saying that certain clothes aren't acceptable. Don't apologise! It's the truth. Leggings and mini skirts are not appropriate. Period. Sometimes I think girls are so afraid of hurting another person's feelings that they don't come out and just say things. Sure, there's something to be said for tact, but don't excuse boldness (use boldness, not overbearance).

That may not have been the best example. What I'm trying to say is that yes-homemaking is good. I take pride in my cooking abilities and I'm glad that I know how to keep a house clean. When I have my own house, I feel fairly certain that I'll be able to manage the cooking and cleaning. Beyond that though, I want to have hobbies that exist beyond the home. My mother has always been an example to me of someone who knows how to run a household and teach her children, but is able to have something for herself as well. And it isn't selfish-it's completely necessary. What I don't like are women like Dora in David Copperfield who are nothing more than little kittens to be paraded around. I want a life outside scrapbooking and fawning over my husband.

All this being said, however, one thing I respect most is my mother putting aside her career to stay home and raise us. She still has hobbies and pursuits outside of us-we aren't her world, just part of it-but a woman who can do both things is a woman that I want to be.

All things bright and beautiful...

I had the opportunity to be in sunny St. George over the weekend. It was so nice to be away from school and regenerate a bit. I think I'm like Superman-occasionally I can take power from the sun. (Fortunately I still love rain). But the warm weather was welcome.

I went down with all of my roommates and yesterday we went to Zion National Park to go on a hike before we went home. It was absolutely incredible. I'd never gone before-I thought it was just some park that you drive through and go home, I didn't know hikes were involved. But we hiked Emerald Pools. It's one of the easier hikes but I enjoyed it. My roommates blazed ahead of me and I ended up about twenty minutes behind them (not because I can't hike, but because I'm picture obsessed). I'm glad I stayed behind-partly because it gave me a chance to practise my photography skills again, and partly because taking the hike slowly on an empty trail allowed me to really enjoy God's creations. It's incredible. It's beyond incredible all that God has made. I took pictures of acorns on trees and logs that had twisted and fallen and leaves and waterfalls and mountains of a hundred different colors and textures. We're lucky here in Utah to live so close to the mountains-I've seen other places where the majesty of God's work is less "in your face", but the mountains are hard to ignore.

Enjoy the pictures...(since I figure out how to add them. Yes. I know it's obvious), and slow down and just enjoy the day.

Group essays are against my religion

Two whole posts in one week! I must not have enough to do (ha!).

I got my first essay back from my Anthropology professor today. She told us on the first day of class that the average grade she gives for the first essay is a D-, so when I got my B I was pretty pleased with myself. She pointed out a few flaws in my argument that I already knew existed so I'll turn in another copy of my essay, get my A and move on with life. I love being above average...*sigh*

Our next essay for this class is a group essay. Now...I hate group work in general. I can see the benefit of it but I still hate it. I prefer to work on my own when it comes to my grade. I should clarify-I can see the benefit for group projects where a little collaboration is a good thing. I don't see the benefit in group essays. Too many minds working on what is supposed to be the product of one, unified voice. What a disaster. It's hard as it is because the class is so huge and I didn't even know the names of my group members when I signed up. Maybe it's just because I'm an English major and I have essay writing euphoria, but this whole project seems like a disaster to me. It's a melding of different writing styles and techniques and levels. I've never seen so many "we's" in an essay before. Or passive verbs. Gah! Fortunately for me I got my grubby little essay writing fingers on the essay before we had to submit it, which will give me ample time to do a sufficient amount of research and correcting of bad usage before the blasted thing is turned in on Friday. I hope my group doesn't mind what I've done to it, but it really is in a sorry state. The things some people find acceptable in writing...it's a huge piece of wordy mess that doesn't actually say anything earth shattering or relevant.

This being said, I hope none of them read my blog. And I hope that people forget to show up to our meeting today so that I won't feel guilty when I massacre the essay tonight with my research skills. Either that or hope they won't care that I've taken over the essay. *shutter*. I'm glad that I have at least some kind of competence when it comes to writing...

UPDATED: We got an A. I believe one person in the group made the comment: "I've never got an A on a paper before!" You're welcome.

Life and the Hero's Journey

This is it. The big one. The one we've all been waiting for...

Actually I just wanted to say that because I was listening to Harry Potter this morning. I figure if I listen to book one this month, book two next month, book three in April etc. etc. etc. I'll have listened to all of the books again by the time book 7 comes out. It's rather appropriate, and very kind of Jo and her publishers to arrange this for me. I tip my hat to them.

So while I was outside enjoying the marvelous weather on the top of the JFSB, I started looking at the mountains...which is rather hard not to do from the top of the JFSB. The mountains are pretty much the only thing you can see. But mountains make me think of a few things and one of them is the Sound of Music. And after I smiled at the thought of the Sound of Music, I remembered that I needed to watch that movie for my ASL class (with captioning and no sound-which I promise to do until the Captain sings, at which point I can't promise a thing. Christopher Plummer-you stud). And then I started thinking about the rest of the movies in my collection...and maybe it was the connection with the mountains but I started thinking about Lord of the Rings...which made me think about Narnia...etc. etc. etc. Basically this is just a long, extended paragraph to tell you why I'm thinking what I'm thinking.

I own about...what...thirty movies? Maybe? A fair amount. Unless you want to group several copies of Pride and Prejudice together, and all of my Anne movies, and my copies of TV series' like Road to Avonlea together-either way. It's a wide selection. Same thing goes with my books. (This is going somewhere, I promise). Based on a conversation I was having with myself I was also thinking about how much I would love to be a writer-and how what holds me back is my fear of failure and my fear of not having anything original to say. How in the world could I come up with a character as real as Anne Shirley? Or characters as funny as Fred and George Weasley? A story more tragic and beautiful than The Lord of the Rings? And even if I could-who would want to read it? What does it matter? Why do we read anyway? There is no dark ring on this earth. Avonlea doesn't really exist. My broom will never be able to fly.

When I start thinking cynical (and depressing) things such as this, I naturally start to justify. I mean-I am an English Teaching major. I could no more stop reading and writing than I could stop breathing. It's part of who I am. So why does it matter? Because I think that-to a degree-our life really is the hero's journey. Not exactly an original or unique statement I suppose, most people in my major have thought about this at one point or another, but I think it's really important for us to imagine life like the hero's journey for several reasons.

First-our lives really are journeys. We go places. We do things. We travel and experience. Life is active. At the beginning of a hero's journey (let's take Lord of the Rings-it fits well into the mold and it sounds more scholarly than Star Wars)-the hero-Frodo (or Sam. I prefer thinking of Sam as the hero-) begins in a place where there are no huge adventures. Adventures are frowned upon really. But either way, his life is at "normal". It's hit a kind of every day stride. It's still active, but it's certainly not as active as going to destroy a huge evil ring of power. Life is like that sometimes. It's summer vacation. But the point here is that we go places. We are forced into situations that we don't always want to be in where life throws that ring of power around our necks and says-alright Frodo, go destroy it.

But we don't go on these journeys alone. We always have people there. Anyone who reads this is free to correct me, but I can't think of a single example of a person being entirely alone for a whole life. Not unless they choose to be (or have it forced on them by abusive parents-I heard of a girl once who was locked in a room for seven years, but then even she had contact with her dad and-I'm getting away from my point). Every hero has his Sam.

And then every hero has his Gandalf the Grey. The one who has power-obvious connection here with the Savior who dies, overcomes death, and becomes more powerful (Gandalf the White).

I don't need to go through all of this. We know how it goes. They leave home, they get friends, they get a talisman for help, people die, the old wise one will die and come back, after lots of trouble the ring is destroyed and we have the tying together of all loose ends and things are happy until someone else decides to create another ring of power.

My point is that thinking of our lives in this way is useful, because in many ways it's true. We are trying to overcome things. We do have the old wise guy to help us. We have our problems. We tell our Sam's to go away (and they come back). People die. We struggle, we fight, we lose, we lose over and over again until we do win because that's what heroes do. It's why Harry won't die in Deathly Hallows-because in this genre-the hero MUST defeat the villain and he must LIVE afterwards. He will have to go into the last battle completely alone physically, but he won't be alone emotionally because of everything else that has happened to bring him to this point. He will be changed. He might run off to the Grey Havens to find peace in a world that can give him none-but he survives. It's the whole point of the book-to make the hero fight for his life to live. It is what we do. We see mountains we cannot climb and we climb them. It's how we're programmed. It's how I'm programmed anyway. I suppose I can't speak for the rest of the world. But I don't know many people who are content to let outside forces dictate on them forever. Not people who are happy for long at any rate. It isn't a happy state to be in. It's not proactive.


So there you have it. Go destroy your rings of power now. No one wants to be Gollum. Well...I take that back. My twelve year old brother does. But it's just because of the cool voice and the loin cloth. Don't ask.

The end of the world as I know it...

Here comes a post that is far from the prophetic heights I normally reach for, but indulge me a little because I'm about to wax sentimental...

Years ago, a little, strange looking-braces wearing Joni was going to Junior High School. In the middle of the year her English teacher handed out a book order that contained an offer for some very bad, and some very good books. Joni saw a few books that looked interesting...they had pretty covers...so she ordered them. Several weeks later Joni had in her backpack Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Joni read...Joni loved...Joni bought the first book and read it as well. She waited months for the fourth book, years for the fifth, and ages for the sixth...she theorized, she ranted, she scared people with her obsessiveness...

And now the end of that era is about to come, because ten years later, the last book of the series is finally coming out. Now, people who don't really know me all that well probably won't understand, but those of you who *do* know me well will understand that when I obsess about something, I *really* obsess about them. I don't hold back at all. I learn anything and everything on the topic of choice. Over the years I have become a walking encyclopedia on the Romanovs, or the sinking of the Titanic, or the history of Lucy Maud Montgomery or-as this post is about-Harry Potter. Harry Potter really has defined my years growing up. When I started reading the series I was a girl on the verge of teenager hood and by the time this book comes out I will have officially moved beyond that stage of my life.

As sentimental and sappy and unoriginal as it sounds, Harry Potter really did help me out growing up. Hermione especially taught me that it was alright to be smart. Really, in the first few books we don't see Hermione with a lot of friends other than Ron and Hermione. It isn't until book four/five that we see her spending time with Ginny as well and even then she's not the most popular girl around. I could relate to that. I'm not saying I'm the smartest person in the world, but I do know what it is like to be made fun of for being the teacher's pet. I know what it's like to hear people saying horrible things about you. Most people do. These books are incredible really-they got my brother reading again. They got half of America reading again. They've taken the world by storm and if you haven't read them you've probably seen the movies, and if you haven't done that then you're probably one of the groups of people out there who think they'll turn into witches for reading them (or who aren't reading them out of rebellion against pop culture, but I'm here to tell you-I liked them before they were a huge hit, so everyone can get in line behind me for book 7).

Anyway. I don't have time, and I'm sure you don't really care, to hear any more about Harry Potter-but let's just say that today has made me think a bit about what's in store for a world after Potter. I've been (ugh, not to quote Hillary Clinton) living history as I've watched all this unfold, and it's exciting. It's *really* exciting.

Only...six months and twenty days to go :) And I'm telling you all right now-Harry won't die. If you want *that* rant, then just tell me that you think he will, and expect a six page long post about the history of the hero's journey.

Re-Evaluating

I've been doing a bit of self evaluation the last day due to an experience in my Brit Lit class that effected me more than it probably should have. It really wasn't that big of a deal-but for the sake of everyone (but Liz who was there), here's how it happened-

We've been reading Pride and Prejudice and yesterday after having finished the book, our professor and TA lined a few of us up based on character traits we share with different people in the book, and I was brought up by the TA as Jane Bennett. *double take*. Jane? Jane's sweet. And completely innocent. And doesn't judge anyone, and she's shy and modest etc. etc. etc. I can see parts of myself in a few other Austen heroines but never Jane. For the obvious reason that I talk and she doesn't and I see her as being prettier than I see myself, and she doesn't judge others.

I'm probably taking the little exercise a little too seriously, but I've been thinking about Jane and, as a result, Elinor Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility today more than I've been paying attention in classes. I see Elinor as Jane version 2.0-she's still more reserved when it comes to how she feels, but she's witty. She judges others, but is able to forgive. She has a little more pluck, but she's still just as loyal to duty. In other words, I guess I've finally decided that even though I'm probably just as outspoken as Elizabeth is, my real hero is Elinor. All the die hard Pride and Prejudice fans will hate me for it, but Sense and Sensibility is officially my favorite book by Austen, and I think Elinor is a more valuable heroine, and a more dynamic heroine than Elizabeth is. Elizabeth is funny, and though she does undergo some change which makes her dynamic, I value Elinor's strength even more.

I suppose I could formulate this into an interesting essay someday-but for now, just know that I've been doing some self evaluation (if you care), and I'm posting in my blog when I don't have time (to please Liz :P), and I'm in love with my British Lit class, for finally doing what lit classes are supposed to do-Hold up that mirror to the reader and force you to see beyond the nice romance or the morbid revolution, or the entertaining comedy-and look back at yourself with the questions "So what? What have I learned from this, and how am I going to change?"

Dedicated to an old friend...

And by old I mean *really* old. That's right-this post is dedicated to my dearest friend in the entire world: Liz! Her birthday is tomorrow and she's turning 21. Oh boy. And I can do it here because I know she'll read it, and this is a more creative birthday post than something through facebook.

Liz and I have been friends since we were about five which means, if you do the math, about fifteen years. I think it's pretty safe to say that I know her pretty well. I know that her heart is definately the softest in the world-she puts up with my begging for rides all the time, for instance. I know that when she dedicates herself to something she really dedicates herself to it in a way that I admire. I know that tomorrow she could legally drink if she wanted to but she won't ;) I also know that I am incredibly fortunate to have her as a friend. She has been there for me a thousand times over, probably at times when she couldn't afford to waste any emotional energy on me but did anyway-so, Liz-this one's for you (because I still have tons of Pride and Prejudice reading to do and don't have time to elaborate), Happy Birthday tomorrow! You're incredible.

Because there is still good in this world...

Happy Christmas Eve to everyone! My Christmas gift to all of you, being the extremely poor person that I am, is a blog post! Huzzah! (Virgin) Drinks all around! I hope that all of you, my dear blogging friends in the void, have a very happy Christmas and that you enjoy this wonderful time of the year.

I've got two main things to talk about tonight and one of them kind of leads into the other so here it goes. I went to church with my grandparents today because I'm staying with them (and the rest of my family) until just after new years. Coming from a student ward in general it's a bit of a shock to the system-much more noisy. My grandma's ward is in two extremes: there are the really young new families and the really old couples. Discussion in relief society was pretty non existent and (I'll be honest), I wasn't paying much attention to it. The discussion was something about how we need to be disciples of Christ and what that means. Everyone was giving the standard "do your visiting teaching" "do your best" kind of answers so I kind of tuned it out in favor of this adorable baby a row across from me who kept making cute faces. Near the end of the lesson (or was it the end of Gospel Doctrine? Shows how much I was paying attention), the speaker made reference to a quote (Maxwell?) about how we will some day have to answer the question about what Christ means to us. So in light of the Christmas season, I'll propose that we all think a little more about what the Savior means to us as individuals.

Personally, I started thinking about why we celebrate Christmas at all. Not to be cynical-I love Christmas as much as the next person-but we place so much (albeit, commercial) importance on Christmas, and virtually none on the events surrounding Easter. After thinking about it for a while I thought about how glad I was that Easter isn't as commercialized. Wouldn't it be terrible if the focus of the holiday was put on more than just a bunch of jelly beans? Back to Christmas-I started thinking about A Christmas Carol after that and why it's a Christmas story at all beyond the fact that it takes place at Christmas. Now, I'm sure many have had this thought before me but it really hit me today in light of the question that was asked in church that the reason we celebrate Christmas is because the birth of the Savior was the dawn of a new brightness of hope in a world that had none. The birth of Christ led to the death of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ after that. There is a reason why Christmas is such a joyful time of the year. It is because it is a celebration of life, and hope of better days to come through His light.

This optimistic thought in mind, I really enjoyed the rest of today. We had a lovely family dinner and watched a movie together and just enjoyed one another's company. Later after most of the kids were off either in bed or watching a movie in the den, we started as adults (ha! I call myself an adult. Well-I'm not a kid) to talk about the past year and eventually got on the subject of how sad it is that schools aren't allowed to celebrate Christmas any more. There's a school district in Minnesota that doesn't allow kids to wear red or green during the month of December, for example. My elementary school at home can't have a Christmas program any more, they have a "winter" program, even though the school is at least 90% Christian. In light of that and several other things that have come up in the last year (a co-ed sleep over in my brother's show choir, for example), my dad has become fairly pessimistic about the condition of the world, especially for teenagers. And who could really blame him? There is so much evil in the world. It is available everywhere we turn. One need only open a newspaper and read the front page to see it. Turn on the internet or open a magazine and all you see is scantily clad celebrities with insane love lives. And these are the role models for youth? Even at my apartment complex-a place that is sponsored by BYU-we hear loud parties every night with at least 90% of the songs about sex and drugs. The 13th Article of Faith talks about finding things that are virtuous, lovely, of good report and praiseworthy-but finding such things in the world is hard. I'm not saying it's impossible. Anyone who knows me really well will know that the absurdity of my movie knowledge knows very few bounds. I'm just commenting for the sake of conversation that the world is bleak. Teens are presented with options for little outside of sex and drugs (and usually both).

However terrible the world is-I refuse to lose sight of my optimism. President Hinkley is one of the most optimistic men on this earth, and one of the very few men on earth who is able to comprehend the evil in the world. We are told that men are that they might have joy. I was watching Lord of the Rings the other day and thinking about Sam's quote about why they are still fighting to destroy the ring when Middle Earth is full of such evil-he says it is because there *is* still good in the world, and that good is worth fighting for. The way I see it (and the way Sean Astin sees it too if you watch the commentary), the word fighting should be in quotes. Fighting doesn't necessarily mean through violence. I see it as men striving to do good in a world that may reject it no matter what the odds are.

Throughout history there are examples of men who made a difference as an individual. Hitler, for example, was able to pull an entire nation down because he was a terrible, selfish leader. On the other hand, men like Gandhi were able to pull thousands of people out of despair and into a better life. No matter how evil the world is, it will never be so evil that we should stop looking for the joy in it. There are so many good people left in the world. I will not give up. God has promised that he will not remove the church from the earth again. If I have the gospel in my life, then I have hope. And if I have hope, then I truly can find happiness in a world that lives in a state of misery (whether they know it or not). Tolkien really did have it right-the good that is left in this world is worth fighting for, even if we are fighting a losing battle.

The great thing there, of course, is that we know we'll win the war, so losing all the battles doesn't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. All the best wars were like that (Revolutionary War, for example)...

Merry Christmas everyone! I hope that you are able to find joy no matter the circumstances.

SHE LIVES!

The writer in me (and the Liz in me) is pretty upset that it's been almost a MONTH since I said anything. But trust me when I tell you that I've had very few spare moments open to write-and the spare moments I did have were either dedicated to sleep, or to the now religious watching of BBC's Robin Hood (curse them for not having season 2 until next October!). But I have returned, oh ye faithful readers-never fear.

So today has definitely been the complete reverse of a Jonah Day. Not only did I finally manage an A on a Brit Lit 291 test (her tests are beastly), but I finished my last paper/project for British Lit, I attended my last American Lit class (thank heaven), and I got officially accepted to my study abroad program. Could more things go right?! I suppose I could meet the man of my dreams but I think I'll be alright settling for a nap that I'm going to take later today when I get home from work. Furthermore-I'm not setting my alarm. I'm going to get up when I darn well please tonight. Talk about victory!

Alright, now on to business. My latest rant. Oh boy!

We were talking in (what else but my British Lit class) about the different kinds of love (again) in respect to Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen. I have a fair amount of Marianne in me-anyone who has known me long enough would know this-but when it comes to love I am definitely more Elinor. I dream like Marianne, my reality is Elinor. Anyway-we were talking about how the book never really comes to a consensus on what kind of love (sensible, platonic love or romantic love with lots of feeling) is better. The novel clearly favors Elinor over Marianne, but in the end it is Marianne who marries the real hero (Brandon). Both girls have to take on the characteristics of each other in order to find their matches. In the end, I kind of came to the conclusion that the book promotes sense in order to fall in love (Elinor and Edward at the beginning of the book and Marianne's epiphany later), and sensibility in order to stay in love (the scene where Elinor reveals her love for Edward and the comment about Marianne never loving by halves). Whether or not there is any real truth to that, I don't know (having very little experience myself. And by very little I mean none). But I can see the merit in the idea-we need to have a bit of logic when it comes to choosing a partner. We can't not think about the important things (shared value system, for example) in favor of a spur of the moment romance. But romantic love is important too-it's what keeps a relationship full of the respect, admiration, and service needed to maintain a love.

Anyway. There it is. I'm off to go do something exciting and thoroughly NON school related to celebrate my end of term catharsis!

The Legend...

Of Robin Hood! That's right my readers (I know there are at least three of you). I am dedicating an entire blog entry to the wonderful new BBC TV series on Robin Hood. I'm not exactly sure what incredible things I can say about it that would do it justice but I will attempt to not make this little bit of "well mannered frivolity" a waste of your reading time!

There was a time when American's produced shows like this. Great, (usually western) shows that promoted good values and had horse riding and sweeping landscapes and beautiful music scores. And then the WB (now CW) phenomenon took over and we were treated to shows with different family values. Shows like 7th Heaven where every week there was a new boyfriend (the girls were about 13), or a new drug addiction. Gilmore Girls and Smallville which (I admit) to watching until recently when all of the fun turned to sex and drugs and dark themes and arguing nonstop. Or crap like That 70s Show. And these are the shows American's watch. Soap operas and crime investigation and hospital dramas and American Idol.

Whatever happened to clean, good natured sitcoms like Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman?! Now, I know that those kinds of shows aren't everyones cup of tea. However, it would be (in my opinion anyway), hard to deny that finding decent, family entertainment on TV is hard any more. There just aren't many options. You can watch the never ending drama of reality TV where the "bad" guys usually win (see Survivor) and the cut-throat and dishonest people win the million, or you can watch sex-driven trash.

This is where something remarkable happens-the BBC! I love the British. Granted-not all of their shows are that good either. In fact, most of British television is worse. But the BBC (thankfully) still manages to produce nice little TV shows and Robin Hood is one of them. The plots are fairly contrived, the humor is usually too cheesy to be true, but none of that really matters. The point-is that (like the other Robin's that have gone before), the good side does win. (With a bit of arrogance, it's true-Robin is flawed), but for the last few days I have enjoyed watching that show a great deal. Regardless of dorky plots and the occasional historical error (Marian's clothes are sometimes quite modern-and did they even have the word 'strike' in reference to the work force?) the show is great fun.

So all you poor, sad, unfortunate souls who have not yet been graced by the presence of Robin of Locksley, shoot me an email and we'll watch them.

Going along with the Robin theme, I really enjoy they way they portray Marian in the show. The basic premise of the series is what happens after Robin comes home from fighting in The Holy Land for five years. He and Marian had been childhood sweethearts but he left, and the Sheriff of Nottingham changed from Marian's father to the icon we all know of, and now she's bitter. But beyond that, she's doing something about it. Her storyline is almost more interesting to me than Robin's, because everyone knows what will happen with Robin. He'll come off on top because he's Robin Hood! He has to! But Marian isn't (exactly) a damsel in distress. She is a damsel, and she is occasionally in distress, but by the time Robin comes back she's already up to her ears in her own plans to stop the Sheriff. Fast forward a few episodes and she's in very deep. Unfortunately I still have to wait until the next episode to find out what happens...*grumble*, but...anyway. I'm rambling a bit now.

All I have to say, is that if you can get your hands on it, do. It's nice, good fun.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Stagelight Moth

I had my performances of The Importance of Being Earnest yesterday. I have a call back for another show on Saturday. And as a result, I've been thinking of my "career" as an actress. It's been going on for as long as I can remember, and I've been trying to figure out why exactly I do what I do-why do I put myself through hellish auditions and sleepless nights? What do I get out of it? Do I perform for recognition? Or for some other reason? So this will be an entry run primarily on stream of conscious thought-work with me here.

My first real play was when I was five. I was always a performer though. Ask my mother. I would act out TV shows in my living room. I had Charlotte's Web memorized. Since my early beginnings as a bird in Cinderella-I've risen to more mediocre roles and a few good parts here and there- and based on comments from friends and directors and judges when I did competitive drama, I'm not half bad at what I do. I'm not brilliant-but I do have occasional moments of greatness on stage.

Of course, I also have occasional flops. Or not even flops-but moments of failure. I have been thoroughly torn apart at auditions. I have let my hopes get so high at times, that not getting a part crushes me. Last year at Thanksgiving. A month later. I auditioned for four shows last year, and I made two. One of which doesn't count, because it was a High School production that everyone was cast in. This year, I was put through five hours of a call back for A Christmas Carol before I was sent home hoop-skirtless. It is a hard business. Hard because at least 75% of the time, whether or not you get cast depends on how you look. Or how the other people who audition look. Directors don't cast individuals, they cast ensembles. Everyone has to be able to work together at a similar level. It's hard. People who don't handle failure and disappointment well should never be in theater. It would crush them.

So why do I do it? Why do I subject myself to it? I think-for me anyway-it goes back to a nature/nurture debate. Was I just born this way? Was I-for whatever reason-predestined to stage-work? That's something I'll have to get back to you on after I die. I would imagine that I was though-in a way. Because working on stage has, over the years, given me confidence that I need to handle speaking in church, for example (though I've never really been afraid of that). Speaking in public in any venue then. I don't get afraid of speaking in front of people.

Taking on different roles also helps me change and evolve. There are bits of me in every character I've played. Not all of me-I'm not Polish, or mad, or a professor, or a pig. But I do like to take charge. I enjoy loud spurts of laughter. I'm aspiring to be a teacher, and sometimes I'm too innocent and naive for my own good. When I find parts of me in the characters I've played-I learn something about myself. For me-it's a process of refinement. I question who I am and see how I can alter my flaws or enhance my strong points to become a better me. There are ways to do this outside of theater-but theater is where I have grown.

Then of course, there is the highly superficial part of me that loves the costumes. And the recognition. There are very few professions where you get almost instantaneous responses to a job well done. In live theater-you will know if an audience liked a show. You will know because you will see it in their faces when they leave. You'll hear the laughter or feel the sadness or sense any other emotion that will let you know after two hours of work that you did something good. (Or bad). I love that feeling. I love knowing that for two hours I have given someone something to smile about, or cry about, or feel something for a while.

I do theater because I love going to theater as much as I love doing it. I understand what kind of work goes into making a show successful, so I love imagining the evolution of a show I never saw. The boring first-read of a script...blocking and re-blocking...costume day (which can be very frightening if you have a bad costumer...)...I appreciate it all a little more than those who come and don't think about the time that was put into the show. I love observing a show that can move me just as much as I like performing in one that would move others.

You know...none of this is very clear. I don't think I could pin point exactly why it is that I overload myself with stress. I don't know why I feel desperate and almost more stressed when I'm not in a show. I'm not sure there's an answer at all. But-there you have it. My eclectic attempt to describe why it is that I love theater.

Simple

I've had an interesting last week or so with things going on at home. They're too personal to discuss in a public forum type location here, so just take for granted that certain things I never thought I would hear. Let's just say that today I am glad that I am worthy. I'm glad that I can honestly hold a temple reccommend and have the spirit in my life to help me. It's so important to have that connection. CS Lewis was right when he said that God is holding his arms open to us. He wants us with Him. But that chance won't last forever. So today I don't really have anything remarkable to say, except I am so glad to be worthy to have the companionship of the spirit in my life. I'd be lost without it.

Why I could never be a politician...

I'm going to wax lyrical for a second. Or something like it. I've been thinking about politicians recently and how they work. Most of this is because of a project I'm working on for my Pen and the Sword class where I'm comparing rhetoric of politicians and seeing exactly what it is about a speech that moves a crowd. I'm using two speeches from the same war (Peloponnesian War) on opposite sides, and a speech from Churchill and Hitler in World War II for the analysis. And I've been thinking about reasons why I could never enter politics as a result.

One reason is that I'm just not competitive enough. I like competition-sure. Ask anyone who has ever played me in a game of Harry Potter trivia. I'm a menace. But stuff like that (I can't believe I'm saying this!), doesn't really matter. Out trivia-ing someone doesn't really make a difference in the universe and politics can. I'm competitive, but only in things that don't really matter.

Going along with that is my desire to see both sides of an argument. This happens when you're an English major. You're taught to see both sides of an argument so that you can successfully crush your opponent to dust in a debate or a paper, etc. My problem for major arguments is that I can see that both sides have a valid point and I can't pick which one is better. (Guess this means I couldn't be a lawyer too). I end up using the typical "it depends on the circumstances" routine (which I guess would make me a decent modern politician, wouldn't it?) Either way-I'm not very decisive. I take the middle ground more often than not and I don't think I really want to be adopted into either party because of the extremes.

The last, and probably biggest reason is one that everyone knows about-the mud slinging campaigns that have become the trend. I find it so ironic that politicians spend so much time attacking the character of the opponent. Shouldn't a viewer of a commercial/ad/whatever find it funny? I do. Politicians are, essentially, making themselves seem petty while they try and make their opponents look that way too. (Or at least their campaign managers are). How often do we hear politicians discuss actual issues without pointing fingers? It's ridiculous. And most people agree on this, but no one is really willing to change it so my soap box here is completely wasted. I do think, however, that it is unfortunate.

And I'll keep you updated on the report I'm doing. I think it could be kind of interesting. I may have to modify my comments afterwards...

I wish...

I had more free time. Have you ever said that? I know I have. On this board, actually.

Today (once again in my Brit Lit class), we took a break from 17th century lit to discuss what it is, exactly, that a good education should consist of. We talked about class sizes, and about how we shouldn't have one specific major but be able to focus on lots of different things and see the connections, and lots of other things that make me want to go to Oxford (though I never thought I'd say that). Then someone mentioned the importance of free time, and we got into a fairly interesting discussion that I thought I'd write about here for my topic of the day.

First of all-America is a work-a-holic nation. There's a phrase we use here that says we are "working like dogs". Well, in all of Europe, they say "working like an American". We are work obsessed. Most of our education is geared towards getting a job. Going to school isn't a luxury any more-it's almost a necessity in American society if you intend to make money. And there is some merit to that-but think about this:

In Europe, (England in particular, for the point of my discussion), workers are only allowed to work a certain amount of hours/drive a certain amount of kilometers/whatever their job requires. It's limited. And if a manager thinks they are working too hard, they can send them home. They have required vacation days. American's are always wishing for free time but, honestly-what do we do with our free time? Most of us are so work obsessed that when we get free time we don't know what to do with it. Rather than take time off from work to learn something, or go to a museum, or experience life in some way, we sit around at home and wait for ...whatever we're waiting for.

There was a study done in Europe of couples that were filing for divorce a while ago. These were couples who weren't just thinking about divorce, they were set on it. They had filed the papers and were ready to call it quits when the governments of these countries kind of pooled together in a study of divorcing couples. They offered to pay them if they would help with an experiment for six months. The first third of the people were put through traditional marriage counseling-and about 20% decided not to get divorced. Another third was given money to cover any financial struggles they were having, and a little more than 20% of that group decided not to go through with the divorce. The last third-and this is crazy- were paid to spend time together for six months. They had to be with each other on paid leave of work and everything else for six months. 96% of those couples decided not to get divorced. Just because of time.

So now I've started thinking-I'm always complaining that I don't have enough time in the day. I spend all day trying to get through class, and work, and rehearsal, and homework, and I talk about how there aren't enough hours in the day, and my roommates do it too, but what if we're spending more time doing homework, for example (I can't exactly cut back on work hours or class hours), because we don't take time to do something to enrich our minds away from schoolwork. Something besides sleeping (though that can also help).

I've started a list. I have books I want to read, things I want to do, movies I want to see, poems I'd like to write-I even (get this, Liz), have considered going online and finding a bunch of math problems to solve just for the sake of doing something with my time that can be more beneficial to me in the long run.

I'll get back to you on how it goes-but I'll bet something good comes of it. Because education shouldn't be divided into subjects that never touch each other. Education should be about finding connections between things you never thought possible. Subjects that aren't divided into water-tight bulkheads (see Dorothy Sayers' article The Lost Tools of Learning, available online), but should be like a river, moving forwards and mixing together into something that feeds the land around it.

Standing on my head

I've been reading Milton for my Early British Literature class lately. Paradise Lost, to be more specific. It's a bit frustrating to read, let me tell you. It's turned ideas on their head for me.

For those of you who don't regularly read old English literature, the premise (of the first part of Paradise Lost, anyway), is describing the fall of Satan from Satan's perspective. It's interesting. CS Lewis does it in a way in Screwtape Letters, which I love, so the idea isn't new to me. What was frustrating was the way Satan is described as a fallen hero. This semester I have read an *insane* amount of old texts and they've all started to blend together because Satan is described in virtually the same terms as many other fallen heroes in Greek lit and Roman lit and even American lit. He is described as a man (well, man-ish), who was suppressed by an angry monarch for using his words against the power of that monarch.

Isn't that pretty much what America did to gain independence? Comparing Satan to a fallen hero bothers me because, from a literary standpoint, he is. Something in my psyche really wants to argue against that, but I can't do it.

In reference to this, we talked in class about the quality different actions or feelings. Milton believed quite firmly that in order to know good, you must know evil. Mormons understand this. Most of the people in Milton's time didn't quite get it. (Heck, lots of people now don't get it as evidenced by all the "Adam and Eve are evil" backlash). The way Milton saw it, a quality has a good side, and a bad side. The bad side isn't the opposite of the good side, necessarily. For instance, the quality of generosity. The bad quality of generosity isn't selfishness, it's giving so much that you have no time for yourself. It's giving so much that you spend more than you make. It's giving for the recognition. You're still giving in all of these, but for bad reasons. Milton believed that the most dangerous form of evil wasn't exactly pure evil or even just the absence of good: it is the perverse version of an otherwise virtuous quality. The thing that seduces someone the most is being faced with the dark side of something virtuous. Look at the religious zealots, for example, who see the dark side of faith. Or what about the good side of lust? Aren't we supposed to be physically attracted to the people we marry? I know I want to be. I don't think I could spend the rest of my life (not to mention eternity) with someone I didn't find attractive.

This professor is always going on about how she wants us to be scholars and not just students and today I feel like a scholar. This is definitely something to think about.

Amusing

Most of the time I use this place as a springboard for venting. Today I have something much more entertaining for you. Well-I thought it was entertaining anyway.

Last Friday I was walking towards the HFAC past the library on my way to rehearsal for The Importance of Being Earnest. It was about four thirty so most people were in class and campus was pretty empty. I passed a girl leaving the library who (believe it or not, and cover your ears if you get offended)-she swore. Oh my gosh. I almost laughed out loud. It wasn't a bad swear word (in comparison). One of those "in the Bible" words that some people "Mormonize" even in the Book of Mormon. But oh it was funny. I don't even know why it was funny exactly. It's not like I've never heard the word before, it just took me by surprise. Not that I condone bad language, but it was a nice ice-breaker of sorts. Because, face it: most of us have moments where we just want to let it out...

The other funny thing I saw was when I was leaving the HFAC after rehearsal was over. I was walking by a practice room when I saw a kid rocking out to a ukelele. I didn't even know you could rock to a ukelele. But this kid was really into it. Hard core ukelele-ist. Now I've seen it all.

So to anyone who says that BYU isn't diverse-remember: we have people that swear. And play the ukelele. And maybe at the same time! *Gasp*

Looking for a Window

I've had a really terrible last 48 hours. It's been a series of Jonah Days. I've been in the depths of despair. I've had no flying and all thud for the last two days.

Ok. It's not that bad. No matter how bad things are, they can always get worse (isn't that a comforting thought). But my last few days have been pretty terrible and I've thought about some things that I thought I'd post about.

First, let me explain the situation. I auditioned for A Christmas Carol at the Hale in Orem last week. I did the show last year so I wasn't so worried about getting cast. I was looking forward to it (was-note the past tense. Can you see where this is going?). Last year I was a member of the choir. This year I thought it would be fun to be part of the cast, so instead of going directly to the choir call back that I was invited to, I auditioned for the main show as well. My reading went really well (the directors raved about it), and the song went well too. Long story short, I wasn't called back for the cast. Ok. No big deal-I was in the choir last year and had lots of fun. So I went to the choir call back.

I was there for five hours. Five! I had been hoping to be out of there in no more than three so that I could go home and study for a test I had to take. And after all that pain: I wasn't cast. The new choir consists of about three people who have done it before. There are at least four of us who have done the show before that were cut, including one family who have been in the choir for about ten years, and my friend who has done Christmas Carol for about four years. Needless to say: we were pretty upset. My friend called the director yesterday to thank her for the opportunity and ask her about what happened (the girls that were chosen, and some of the boys were not exactly consistent vocally), and the director told her that both of us (meaning myself and my friend), were perfect. We couldn't have done anything else to get in. We didn't do anything wrong. She just felt inspired to cast other people this year.

I hate that.

Not inspiration, exactly. I mean, it's wonderful. But for one second (or maybe a little longer) I had the thought "this never would have happened at home". Theater politics gain almost an entire level of annoyance in Utah that they don't most other places because the directors are biased two times over-one in prior relationships, and two in inspiration. Bah.

I'm not nearly as bitter about it now as I was yesterday morning. You've seen my posts on how busy I am. God knows I have enough to do this semester. But a conversation I had with my friend on the way home got me thinking. She said that maybe this time the people who were cast needed to be there, and that next time things would be more in our favor. But I don't know that I believe that.

Here comes my theory. There is a line in The Princess Bride that says "who says life is fair, where is that written?". I like that line. No. Life isn't fair. But God is. It's one of the parts about His character that makes Him God. I don't believe that God would bless these other people and say "oops...sorry Joni. I'm going to leave you out in the cold for a second and I'll be back. Hang on". He doesn't work like that. One of the most complex, and incredible parts of his plan is that no matter what happens, everyone benefits. What happens to one person will, or at least can influence another person for the better also (even if it's not obvious). Everything happens for a reason. God doesn't forget one person to help another.

So while I hate that I don't get my fabulous shoes and hoop-skirt this year, and I still wish that things would have turned out in my favor-I know that whatever I want for myself isn't as good as what God wants for me. And while it may be hard right now, I know that when doors close, windows open. Maria had it right in The Sound of Music-there is another way. A better way. So now that I've had my cry-I'm not going to turn my back on the world, I'm going to face whatever comes as a chance for a new adventure. Besides-if I got everything I auditioned for, I wouldn't appreciate theater. It would become something I do, instead of something I love.

Alright Freud-analyze this.

I had a weird dream the other night. And believe me when I say that I have no idea where it came from. But then, random dreams are usually the best, right?

I dreamed that I was on some kind of cruise line that decided to build a bunch of ships that would give passengers the ultimate experience. Titanic. That's right. I dreamed that I was on a ship that re-enacted Titanic. Every bit of it. The sinking, the dead people, the iceberg, everything. Yeah. That's right. I dreamed about Titanic. Where that came from-who knows. But the details are pretty interesting.

Now, I'm not sure if the cruise line got volunteers to play the dead people (or did they actually die?), or if they were 'I'm dying of hypothermia' dummies or if people were picked at random, but I knew that the ship would sink, because my stateroom or cabin or whatever it was (it was like a third class room until I went back to go get my books and then it looked like a first class room) was under water at some point.

Rest assured-I don't think any cruise line is about to start giving passengers THIS kind of ultimate experience. Most cruise lines settle for midnight chocolate bars and all you can eat any time of the day buffets. The closest most of these ships will come to sinking is if passengers start gaining too much weight (though I guess even that isn't possible since the food would have already been on the ship in the first place). Either way though, it was a great "what the heck" kind of moment when I woke up.

The only connection I can work out is this: I had been talking with my mom that day about Pride and Prejudice, written by Jane Austen, who also wrote Sense and Sensibility, which was made into a movie with Kate Winslet in it, who is in the movie Titanic. So...there you go.

Have at it Freud.

I'm sorry, that *offends* me.

I hate that word. Offends. The way that word is thrown around on BYU campus is ridiculous.

I had a conversation with two people from one of my English classes today while on campus that frustrated me. (Not offended, frustrated. There's a difference). One of the girls was saying that every actor or actress is a prostitute because all of them are selling something. (I assume she means their bodies). I pointed out that I'm an actress (or claim to be one, I've done enough theater to deserve the title, I think), and that I don't agree with her. I said that while there are plenty of very public people out there that have certainly given off the impression that they want to be selling themselves to...whatever (the name that comes to mind for me is Lindsey Lohan). But I would hardly say that all actors and actresses both on and off the stage are selling themselves.

She went on to say that people who play bad characters are selling something. She said that people sympathize with the bad characters. Fantine, in Les Miz for example. She said that Fantine does bad things (prostitution) to save her daughter and that she's glorified as a heroine for her prostitution.

Good. Gravy.

This reminds me of most of the Banned Books Week type arguments we read about as English majors. Parents wanting to keep their kids from books that deal with death or with really evil characters or subjects because it could teach their kids to glorify evil. Books like Huck Finn, or (my personal favorite), Harry Potter. Or Catch 22. The Bible (*gasp*!) . It gets pretty ridiculous.

Pulls out the blogging soap box.

I don't want my kids to be evil. Who does?! What parent decides to raise their kid to be the next Hitler? No parent I want to know of. But sheltering your kids from the extreme evils of the world aren't going to make them go away. Hiding from 'questionable' material isn't going to stop it from spreading. And I mean this within reason. We shouldn't go and watch porn-films just so we know what goes on in them so we know what to avoid. That's not my point. My point is this: Shouldn't these books/plays/movies teach us to sympathize with the evil characters of the world? Or the characters that aren't so virtuous? What is so wrong with that?

Fantine for example. She does something evil to bring about good. She sells herself to prostitution (knowing that it's wrong), in order to save her child. She decends below all to save the life of another. Are we seeing a metaphor here? I hope so. What mother wouldn't do that for her child? Wouldn't it be more selfish for her to sit around? Knowing the conditions of France at the time Les Miz takes place, and knowing the options for single women...there really wasn't much else she could do.

I feel bad for Voldemort in Harry Potter. I feel bad for Javert in Les Miz. I feel badly for them because I see what has happened to them. They end up alone, and miserable in spite of their power. Does that mean I'm going to join ranks with them (even though they are fictional-work with me), to empathize with them a bit more? No. But we need oposition. The scriptures make that clear all over the place. There must be extreme evil so that there is a chance for extreme good. I don't want to read a book about a hero who isn't flawed. That's boring! I don't want to see a play where all the characters sit around singing "Sunshine Day" and talking about happy religious things. That's not life. I can't relate to that. There needs to be a struggle.

I don't think that writing this will accomplish much. To be honest, my friends that read this and any other random people out there that read this will probably agree with me. Mostly because I've spoken with the people who read this, and I've already talked with them about this. And writing letters of protest to the world about why banning Harry Potter is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of will not change the fact that parents out there are worried about their kids turning into mini witches and wizards overnight because of a fantasy book.

So in response to my classmate-I'm sorry you feel that way. Really sorry. Because in spite of the terrible shows that are out there, and the horrible literature, and the pornographic films that really are selling something-there are still good, virtuous kinds of media out there. I'm sorry that there are people out there who take advantage of the bodies they are given to present themselves in terrible ways, but I cannot agree that all films/books/plays are evil. We need evil characters or there won't be good characters. If I choose to portray a character in a play that is bad, or even evil, I hope that I would do so in order to make the real hero that much more heroic. So stop being offended and realize that for every bad film, there are several more good ones out there that can uplift and inspire.

And...just for her information-I'm pretty sure President Hinkley said that his favorite book (outside of scripture) was Les Miz. Oh...and read up on Elder Bednar's talk from the last conference for more information on being offended.

Soap box over. I'm off to go read something evil.