Nothing

You no longer need a good book, which he really likes, to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday's paper will do. You can make him waste his time not only in conversation he enjoys with people whom he likes, but in conversations with those he cares nothing about on subjects that bore him. You can make him do nothing at all for long periods. You can keep him up late at night, not roistering, but staring at a dead fire in a cold room. . . so that at least he may say, as one of my own patients said on his arrival down here, 'I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked.'

C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

My first year of teaching I tried out for a play. I was expecting ensemble. I got lead. It was a dream part so I couldn't turn it down, but I wasn't entirely sure how I was going to survive the month and a half left of school and stay on top of rehearsals. It seemed like way too much. All year I'd been tired and worn out and never quite finished with grading. I wasn't sure how it was going to work out.

It was the most productive quarter I've ever had as a teacher.

Assignments were graded and entered on time. Lessons were planned and finished by no later than 4:00. I was able to go to rehearsal every night and give myself over as fully as I could to the show, and enjoy doing so without guilt.

I've thought a lot about that quarter recently. Thought about how often we get distracted from the long term goal by the immediate semi-gratification. I remember one student, for example, who was particularly talented in dance, but, due to a supreme amount of laziness and bad grades, was not allowed to share these talents in the after school dance team. The student let the immediate pleasures of sleeping in class or socializing in the halls interfere with the real love and joy associated with dance.

And then there's the documentary I saw recently about the people who spend hours upon hours on Facebook with their hundreds of "friends".

I think about all the time I spend in "nothing". The time I spend not doing anything bad, or anything good - just drifting through articles in the paper I'm not hugely interested in or watching reruns of television shows or looking through my email for messages to delete. How much of my time is that actually taking? I think some "nothing" time is good for you, but when does it cease to help and start to harm? Do I need a busy schedule to keep me on task or am I good enough to fill my time with good things when left to my own devices?

I'll be honest: that last sentence from Screwtape scares me. What a horrible thing to discover about yourself. To learn that your life has been filled with nothing that gave you real joy. Horrible.

Supercali-what's the spelling?

I have no idea what that title means. I hate coming up with titles, so in things like this I tend to use the first thing that comes into my head.

In defense of myself (sorry Liz!), people have a different definition of what constitutes as 'busy', or 'too busy' or whatever. And for me, when it's been a long night and a boring class, doing anything outside of reading a book that I want to read or taking a nap is too busy. So for those of you (two! That's exciting) who bothered to read my last post, sorry for the tirade. Every once in a while all of us have fits of pessimism, and my last post was one of mine. And, like Ben said in the comments, sometimes it helps. For me anyway, sending out my frustration into a "void" (so to speak) helps me feel like I've at least done something with my frustration. I've turned it into something productive. Now, however, you'll be pleased to hear that I'm better. I'm not so depressed. I'm still exhausted (who isn't), but I'm feeling better about life in general.

I've got two things to discuss today. Ahem. The first one involves something important and the second one is probably only important to people like me and Liz who obsess over that marvelous book series (you know the one!)-Harry Potter.

I didn't have room in my schedule to take a religion class this semester (well, I did, but I'd be even more insane if I tried to manage school, work, play, and social life along with an extra two credit hours). So I've been doing a self guided study the past few weeks with CS Lewis as my guide. I've got a couple of books on the list to read in the next couple of months, starting with Screwtape Letters. Can I start by stating the obvious? Ok. The man is a genius. How can anyone so brilliant not have found the gospel? It's hard to find a page in my book right now where I haven't starred or underlined or made references to. His insight on temptation is incredible. I've found myself walking around in thought (something more people should do) thinking about where I am with my life and what it is that makes me tick. What about me is vulnerable to temptation? I'd say one thing would probably be my tendency to be a bit too serious with myself. I have issues relaxing. Anyway, if you haven't read CS Lewis (outside of Narnia), do it. He's on the top of my list of 'people I can't wait to talk to after I die'.

I have a theory about book to movie translations that I think should be commented on. I have a pretty good selection of DVD's. Ask my roommates. They fall into two categories (for the most part) : Book-movie, chick flick (and a few classics). Let's just say that if I didn't like my books made into movie films, my DVD collection would be pretty shallow. That being said, I think that people are too harsh on book-movie translations. And I'm sick of it. Let me explain how you should watch those movies...

1. Go in with the attitude that you're going to have a good time and be entertained. That's what movies are for, right? Why would we pay $8 to see something we thought we were going to hate? Just because all of your friends are going to see it, doesn't mean you have to. And if you do go, don't be negative the whole time.

2. Keep in mind that books and movies are entirely different genres. There are some things that just cannot work in a book that work in movies (and vice versa). For example: a good portion of most novels that have a narrator centered around the point of view of one character have a good deal of thinking. Inner monologues are a great way for an author to relay information to a reader either about a character, or about another character (that can be either honest or a kind of red herring). Inner monologues simply do not work in films. Then there is the issue of length: movies have about two-three (if you're Lord of the Rings) hours to present material to an audience. If everything from a book was translated directly into film, then we'd be there forever. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see everything from Harry Potter put to film, but the book on tape for Harry 5, for example, is 27 hours long.

3. This one is very important, so if you're one of the people who complains about book-movie translations, then listen up. I'm going to state the obvious here, but some people miss it. Are you ready? Movies don't erase books. I know! It's amazing. I mean, the text of the missing/'messed up' scenes might be a little faded when you look in the book again, but it will still be there! Isn't that great?! So what if your favorite line of a book isn't in the movie? So what if the lead isn't like you imagined him/her? So what if they've taken away characters or added different scenes/or messed up the scenery/or whatever else they could do? You still, believe it or not, have the book. The book is still there. If you lose it, you can go to your local bookstore (I use Barns and Noble), to buy a new copy. I hate when people complain about how a movie "ruined" the book. That's stupid. Movies can't ruin books. They don't have that kind of power. Furthermore, movies can't kill your imagination, where how you imagined a book can always be there.

4. The purpose of book-movie translations should be to supplement what's already there. It shouldn't take away from the book (see above), it should just add an extra level of entertainment. It's just one person's view of how a book should look on the silver screen. It doesn't necessarily make them right and you wrong, it's just an idea.

5. When you critique book-movie translations, critique the movie. Don't critique the movie in relation to the book unless it's relevant. Don't critique minor things like hair style, or a specific color of red, unless it's crucial to the plot. Or at least don't let it ruin your movie going experience. Using the Harry Potter example, I would like for the movies to use Ron more like the book: Ron in the book is the relayer of information in the wizarding world. In the movie that role is given to Hermione and Ron is reduced to witty sidekick. A comment like that is relevant to the movie because it deals with characterization flaw. Another comment about Harry Potter that I could make is that I don't really like Emma Watson's acting as Hermione. I think the way she is directed is a bit obnoxious at times, and I don't really prefer the way she acts most of the time. Note though: I don't let these flaws ruin the movie for me. And I'm not trying to limit free speech-if you don't like a movie, you don't like a movie, but at least give a valid reason for it other than "it wasn't like the book" because that's stupid. Of course it's not like the book. It's a movie.

So, go into the world, watch movies, and become educated viewers. It makes it better, I promise. And if you still don't agree with me (a few of my roommates *cough*), then don't come whining to me about it any more, because "such and such a movie ruined the book" isn't a valid argument.