Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical (hermionesviolin) wrote,
Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical
hermionesviolin

"It's a thin line between pleasing yourself, and pleasing somebody else..."

I get frustrated with Blackboard posters sometimes and i've noticed that i'm more inclined to let shit slide when i have at least some passing friendliness with the person in another context. This isn't surprising, of course, since the same thing happens on LJ. It's one reason i wish people were more civil and thoughtful in arguments (be it politics, fandom, whatever) because that person with whom you disagree might well turn out to be an otherwise quality person. (Cf. f_w.)

I'm inclined to want to hang a flag up on my door every once in a while saying SAVE ME FROM THE STUPID PEOPLE. You know that saying, "God, save me from your followers?" Yeah, i feel that way about both/all sides of issues with some frequency.

An acquaintance posted a link to this poster and i felt like it was more of the simplistic childish name-calling ("You're stupid." "Well you're ugly.") that i have grown so frustrated by. She was insulted, which given my comment and its tone was not uncalled for. Proof that there is hope for humanity is that we remained civil and did not let it spiral into wank. While there are problems with the Cult of Nice, erring on the side of civility has something to be said for it. One of the reasons i'm a big fan of people having friends with different beliefs than their own is that it reminds you that not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily evil/stupid/etc.

I was talking briefly with Allie about political cartoons and largely what it comes down to is that i get obsessive about complicating things. Simplifying things for political cartoon, slogans, jokes... so not my thing.

One bloody week until the election (which falls on the same day as Otelia Cromwell Day, inclining me to call it DAY OF PAIN -- though i feel like i'm stealing that from someon). Drinking recommendations? ;)

Conversation with Emma included Halloween costumes. She said something about the fun of dressing up as someone you're not. I was struck by the phrase because that's really what the whole costuming thing is about -- being someone you're not -- and it holds no appeal for me.

Edit: Emma later pointed out that "For some people though, the whole costuming thing is about being what you are but can't always be, or what you'd like to try being or what a part of you is that you can't show or that you don't show." Point taken, though i'm still not into costuming.

We talked about Dorian Grey (among other things) at dinner on Monday. We mentioned that one of the depressing its is that Lord Henry doesn't believe half the stuff he tells Dorian, but Dorian laps it all up. Oh, hypocrisy. I'm rather obsessive about people meaning what they say and following through on the implications of what they say and so on and so forth. I dislike many of Oscar Wilde's characters because although they are far more witty than Sade's characters, they still revel in doing whatever they want, pleasing only themselves everyone else be damned -- though in the case of Wilde's characters it's rather more revelling in the idea of how wonderful that would be, since their wealth only allows them to live outside the rules of society to a limited extent.

We started Leviticus in Bible class. It's interesting discussing the whys of the purity codes. Joel mentioned Dorian Grey in the context of vicarious atonement1 and Emma's enthusiastic reaction was louder than i would ever expect myself to be if a professor mentioned in class.

Edit: I knew there was another amusing thing, but i couldn't remember. It came up again in class on Wednesday, though. The idea that the modern granola-crunchers are the spiritual descendents of the levitical priests -- the idea that wholeness=holiness.

1You know how in sermons pastors always pun on the whole "at-one-ment" thing? Well apparently that's really where it comes from. Cf. OED:
atonement:
[In use a verbal n. from ATONE, but apparently of prior formation, due to the earlier n. onement and the phrase ‘to be atone' or ‘at onement.' Cf. the following:
1533 Q. CATH. PARR Erasm. Comm. Crede 162 To reconcile hymselfe and make an onement with god. 1599 BP. HALL Sat. III. vii. 69 Which never can be set at onement more. 1555 Fardle Facions II. xii. 298 The redempcion, reconciliacion, and at onement of mankinde with God the father.]

atone, v.
[f. the prec. advb. phr. in its combined form as repr. a simple idea, and 16th c. pronunciation. Short for the phrase ‘set or make at one'; cf. to back, to forward, to right, etc., and the compounds at-one-maker, at-one making, under prec. Assisted by the prior existence of the vb. to ONE = make one, put at one, unite, L. unre, F. unir; whence onement was used already by Wyclif. From the frequent phrases ‘set at one' or ‘at onement,' the combined atonement began to take the place of onement early in 16th c., and atone to supplant one vb. about 1550. Atone was not admitted into the Bible in 1611, though atonement had been in since Tindale.]
Monday was a full-busy day, and at some point i realized my Cough of Doom had gone away. Yayness.

At work, i asked Ann about one of the pieces i was filing because most of the letter was blanked out and i wondered if it was a mistake in the photocopying. She said it was because the letter contained some confidential information -- which had been my other guess, but which still surprised me. I mean, we file stuff with home addresses and unlisted phone numbers and even credit card numbers all the time. Not that i don't think it's sometimes appropriate to keep things truly confidential, i was just kinda thrown -- especially because i think that's the first time i've encountered that in my 3 years working there.

Oh how i loathe group presentations. Particularly when the assignment is evil: "What is the main point the article is trying to argue and how does it help us understand the differing perspectives of these two groups?" -- when the differences are the main point of the article -- in a 3-person 20-minute presentation. But in the end i thought the presentation actually went well (and we had munchkins!) and then we got our prof's evaluation -- "You did a superb job today with unusually difficult material. Your presentation style was splendid and your content was well thought through." -- and suddenly i feel rather more positive about the class ;) I'm still really not feeling into the material, though. I mean, i was earlier in the semester, but i'm definitely at the point of not caring now. Oh well.

And in other happy news, Abby can cover 4-5 on Nov. 15 so i can go to the English Department curriculum committee meeting! Blessed is she among women.

And Liz Carr and i spent about an hour and a half at Haymarket this afternoon, which is always nice. And there was the aforementioned Seamus Heaney, so yes, life is looking up. Am currently torn between going to bed and staying up to actually get some work done (and so i can go to bed knowing how the game ended). I really need to print out grad school apps, particularly so that i can give the recommender forms to the professors i've asked to write me recommendations. And i have a Bible paper due this coming Monday and a Shakespeare paper due the following Monday. Is it not insane that this sounds to me like a very lowkey upcoming couple of weeks?

"I have been woefully neglectful in replying to your kind letter of several months ago. I came across it while looking for a missing address and blush at having dropped the ball last August."
-Russell Peck of Rochester

Further proof that this is the correct career plan for me: i've started mentally planning how i'll teach Shakespeare if i ever have to teach it.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments