Monday afternoon, St. Anthony Community Care.
Hello pain-free mouth.
Good-bye $330.
*Sigh* My fear of the dentist has just multiplied exponentially, researching this procedure.
The Nativity Story
2 hours ago
Saturday, December 12, 2009
"I think I need a root canal. A long, slow root canal." --Bill Murray, Little Shop of Horrors
Monday afternoon, St. Anthony Community Care.
Hello pain-free mouth.
Good-bye $330.
*Sigh* My fear of the dentist has just multiplied exponentially, researching this procedure.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Is this a cast list I see before me?
I am so stoked about next semester's production of Macbeth. Look at this cast list!
Witches: LizAnne Whittaker, Nancy Chaffin, Julie Moore
Extra witches/gentlewomen/servants: Carrie Chapman, Macy Hammond, Karlan Hansen
Lady Macbeth: Meredith Bellows
Lady Macduff: Kristi Oakes
Siward/Fighter: Sam Hansen
Duncan/Fighter: Daniel Johnson
Malcolm: Seth Nehring
Donalbain/Young Siward: Thomas Brower
Macbeth: Davey Aintablian
Seyton/Murderer/Servant: Caleb Crockett
Murderer: Jacob Ludlow
MacDonwald/Murderer: Daniel Radford
Porter: Jacob Chapman
Banquo: Jordan Tait
Fleance: Michael Saunders
Macduff: Adam Pingel
Lennox: Michael Allen
Ross: Gabe White
Angus: Joe Bidwell
Captain/Messenger: Jeffrey Farnsworth
There are a few smaller parts that are being figured out still (played by smaller chorus parts), but I'm already sold. The show is being set in 11th century Scotland, and it opens February 17th. I'm so thrilled to be a WITCH, and to work with so many talented people! I love the rehearsal process with Roger (he's directing), and Davey pointed out that because so many of us know each other so well, it will just be a big group of friends getting together every night to do what they love.
I know I just finished a show, and I'm exhausted, but this cast list gave me a second wind, and I can hardly wait for our first meeting tonight...
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Funnies
It's negative three degrees in Rexburg right now. Jordan came by to get Bertha (motorcycle) and put her in storage. There has been snow on the ground for a solid week now. Winter has officially hit southeast Idaho.
To counteract the sorrowful effects of this, I post here a collection of things that have made me giggle during the last few days.
The first is that last night was a kind of odd night for "Pioneer Song"...we seemed to hit a "2nd night slump." But there were some endearing memorable moments, most notably when Julia kept combining different verses of songs. During our duet, she sang the wrong verse and I stuck with the right one, so it sounded something like this:
A Yankee, a Yankee! A man who's not a Yankee
Will there'll be make trouble in you ashamed store,
pain and bring you suffering sorrows galore unnamed
You'll It's a regret it fact as you can long as you live.
She also combined the verses "Far Away in the west I'll go searching" and "Far away in the west I'll find it" and ended up singing:
Far away in the west I'll firching!
The second funny is this picture. I came home from the show last night to find Annie asleep on her bed, with her mouth hanging open, looking like this. She woke up right when I took the picture. But it's still a gem.
The third funny is from the campus hub of comedy itself. We did an exercise in Comic Frenzy the other day in which we each wrote down an adjective, a noun, a pronoun, an adverb, and a verb on separate slips of paper. Then we mixed them all up, divided into two teams, drew words, and made poetry. I think they're pretty brilliant, don't you?
Collective Stanza Poetry
by Dallas, Josh, Macy, Katie, and Brandt
My short notebook dances carefully.
Stop it quickly icky kidnapper.
Painfully, they snog on the explosive LDS basketball court.
Simply, she kicked pulchritudinous atomic bombs.
Sensational bullets fly sappily at everyone.
Jazz Hands
by Gabe, Thomas, Richard, Jacob, and Liz
We are super-awesome.
We are a dark shoe-strap.
Skip it ridiculously quickly,
that repulsive spiked punchbowl.
A slinky cop ran turgidly.
The car seductively lectures him.
A slimy-ly obese shoe.
It grapples.
It vomits.
To counteract the sorrowful effects of this, I post here a collection of things that have made me giggle during the last few days.
The first is that last night was a kind of odd night for "Pioneer Song"...we seemed to hit a "2nd night slump." But there were some endearing memorable moments, most notably when Julia kept combining different verses of songs. During our duet, she sang the wrong verse and I stuck with the right one, so it sounded something like this:
A Yankee, a Yankee! A man who's not a Yankee
Will there'll be make trouble in you ashamed store,
pain and bring you suffering sorrows galore unnamed
You'll It's a regret it fact as you can long as you live.
She also combined the verses "Far Away in the west I'll go searching" and "Far away in the west I'll find it" and ended up singing:
Far away in the west I'll firching!
The second funny is this picture. I came home from the show last night to find Annie asleep on her bed, with her mouth hanging open, looking like this. She woke up right when I took the picture. But it's still a gem.
The third funny is from the campus hub of comedy itself. We did an exercise in Comic Frenzy the other day in which we each wrote down an adjective, a noun, a pronoun, an adverb, and a verb on separate slips of paper. Then we mixed them all up, divided into two teams, drew words, and made poetry. I think they're pretty brilliant, don't you?
Collective Stanza Poetry
by Dallas, Josh, Macy, Katie, and Brandt
My short notebook dances carefully.
Stop it quickly icky kidnapper.
Painfully, they snog on the explosive LDS basketball court.
Simply, she kicked pulchritudinous atomic bombs.
Sensational bullets fly sappily at everyone.
Jazz Hands
by Gabe, Thomas, Richard, Jacob, and Liz
We are super-awesome.
We are a dark shoe-strap.
Skip it ridiculously quickly,
that repulsive spiked punchbowl.
A slinky cop ran turgidly.
The car seductively lectures him.
A slimy-ly obese shoe.
It grapples.
It vomits.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
"Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better." --Andre Gide
I was thinking about something during my Ed Psych class the other day, because I spend Ed Psych class alternately thinking about Ed Psych and thinking about totally unrelated but very interesting things. I've seen advertisements/heard a lot of talk lately for a group called Citizens for Decency. I was thinking about how I'm very anti-pornography, and wondering how I could get involved to help fight sexual addictions. But then I started thinking about free speech.
The age-old conundrum.
I really do believe that pornography is harmful, dangerous, addictive, and a powerful force that can and will destroy relationships and families. I don't want pornography around. I don't know that pornography should be protected under free speech. But here's the problem.
Who gets to decide what's pornography and what's not?
The inherent difficulty in denying pornography the protection afforded by "free speech" is that things that are pornographic to some may not be to others. If we can oulaw Girls Gone Wild, can't we outlaw sex scenes in movies and on television? And if we can do that, can't we outlaw certain magazines? And if we do that, what about books and paintings and figure drawing classes? I reject the archaic notion that the human body is something to be ashamed of and hidden all the time. But it shouldn't be flaunted in such a way that is removed from all emotion and meaning.
I just have a problem with someone else defining the line between the two.
We had the MOST AMAZING DISCUSSION EVER in my American Lit class over the summer. Boy, I admire Bro. Allen's guts for having the conversation that he demanded of our class. He assigned us an article published in the most recent edition of "Irreantum," an LDS literary magazine. It was called "Reading About Sex in Mormon Fiction--If We Can Read" by B.W. Jorgensen. Which was a pretty brilliant article. I can't find it online, but if you can somehow get ahold of it, read it. I thought I'd share it here because I believe words are powerful and I want anyone and everyone who stumbles across this post to have the opportunity to ponder these things. (Presumptuous sounding of me, I know.) These insights are mostly from an LDS perspective and pertaining to literature specifically, but I believe they can apply to all views on the arts.
Our class was basically a discussion of this question:
How do we discern pornography from literature/art?
Okay, first of all. A common conception of "right and wrong" looks like this:
GOOD ---------- BAD
When perhaps a more accurate way of thinking is like this:
BAD ---------- GOOD ---------- BAD
(That's why the path is called the "straight and narrow," not the "straight and all the way over to one side" path.)
This model suggests that it's possible to attempt to stay soooo far away from the bad that we end up sinning in the sense of losing focus. Which I believe is very possible, and perhaps even common. Sometimes we set a standard and then stay as far away from it as possible, when we're supposed to stay as CLOSE to it. E.G. "If abstaining from R-rated movies is bad, then abstaining from PG-13 movies is even better. Or better yet, I'll only watch PG. Or no, how about G? Or even none at all!?" No. I stand convinced that the Lord would have us seek and understand truth in all of the forms He's made it available to us in. The author included this fantastic quote from Brigham Young: "I intend to know the whole of it, both good and bad. Shall I practise evil? No; neither have I told you to practise it, but to learn by the light of truth every principle there is in existence in the world...Though I mean to learn all that is in heaven, earth, and hell [,do] I need to commit iniquity to do it? No. If I were to go into the bowels of hell to find out what is there, that does not make it necessary that I should committ one evil, or blaspheme in any way the name of my maker."
That right there is some awesome principle. THAT CAN BE VERY EASILY USED TO JUSTIFY SIN. But Brigham Young explicitly tells us not to. So how can you tell? When it comes to literature, how can you tell whether you/the author is "going into the bowels of hell to see what's there" or "blaspheming the name of your/their Maker"? How can you tell the difference between an evil book and a good book that has evil in it? We know that everyone's maturity level/standards are different, but there must be SOME kind of line. No one could get away with reading Playboy "only academically" in the sight of the Lord. So what's the line?
As a class, we came up with a short list of characteristics that distinguish pornography from literature/art. (I would argue pretty strongly that this list can also help us distinguish "good" literature from "bad" literature. Or art in general.) Check it out:
PORNOGRAPHY
- inspires negative actions towards self and others
- characters are not individuals, but rather perfected "stick figures" with parts and sensations only
- does not attempt to reveal truth or explore the human condition (purpose is strictly arousal)
LITERATURE/ART
- inspires positive actions towards self and others
- characters are individuals, with flaws and conflicts and strengths
- attempts to understand the human experience by exploring some truth (purpose)
I feel pretty comfortable with these definitions.
However.
It's a futile exercise to attempt to categorize EVERYTHING into only these two boxes. A 13-year-old boy cannot look at a statue of Venus in the same objective way that a middle-aged woman can. (Catered to gender roles more than I'm comfortable with there, but you get the idea.) But on the other hand, a middle-aged woman may be aroused by the David, which was not it's purpose. And if you were to show a Playboy magazine to some aboriginal tribe in the middle of nowhere, they may react not with arousal or excitement, but with confusion or laughter or disinterest. And we in America react similarly to what other cultures find attractive. My point is that it doesn't have to be arousing to be pornography and it doesn't have to be pornography to be arousing.
So then we're back to the relative question. Can a book that is pornographic to one person be art to another? Yes? But here's why, according to Jorgensen and Brother Allen and most of my American Lit class and myself. THE EVIL OF A WORK OF ART LIES LESS IN WHAT IT IS AND MORE IN HOW WE CHOOSE TO READ IT. Maybe there's a spectrum. For every work and every individual, perhaps we can gauge using a more fluid concept. Like this:
INHERENT HARM [---------\--------] HARM I MAKE IT CAUSE
And certain things I would put unquestioningly on one side of the spectrum. Playboy magazine goes on the "Inherent Harm" side of the line. But there are other things that are different for everyone.
We can choose to read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" pornographically. Many do. Or we can choose not to. And when we find ourselves having difficulty making that choice, we know it, and we'd best put the book down/change the channel/avert our eyes. And I believe that the most people are strong enough to gauge that. And if you're not yet, don't chance it.
We shouldn't eliminate all of the literature or art in the whole world that could be viewed pornographically. Because let's face it, there are some weird people out there for whom nothing is safe. But I'm all for freedom of speech and here's why.
Brother Allen: "If we are going to explore the human experience, and the human experience is a mess, then literature MUST be dangerous."
I believe in humanity's ability to view art as art. You have a spiritual gauge. You were born with it. Everyone was. I know that not everyone chooses to view things the same way. And I respect whatever decision they choose to make. However, I believe in the right to read just as strongly as I believe in the right to abstain. I won't tell you to read something as long as you don't judge me for reading it. I won't tell my American Lit class to read "Brokeback Mountain" because I know that there are people in the class who would not choose to view the sex scene as revealing something about the characters, but rather as pornography/something offensive. But I believe that the author wrote that scene into the book not to arouse his readers. The details of the scene are important to the story and the development of the conflict and characters and relationship. And that's why I read. There are certain lines you cannot cross without losing your ability to gauge. But I believe that the Lord would have us seek out truth wherever we can feel His light teach it to us.
For some, it is enough to seek truth in heaven. But I myself yearn for all truth, in heaven, earth and hell. While I don't readily connect with those who are satisfied with heaven alone, I recognize that it is enough for them, and that neither my way nor their way is better. I hope that I can continue to live in such a way that my mind and heart are always open to learning. And visiting hell in art is a hell of a lot safer.
How do we discern pornography from literature/art?
Okay, first of all. A common conception of "right and wrong" looks like this:
GOOD ---------- BAD
When perhaps a more accurate way of thinking is like this:
BAD ---------- GOOD ---------- BAD
(That's why the path is called the "straight and narrow," not the "straight and all the way over to one side" path.)
This model suggests that it's possible to attempt to stay soooo far away from the bad that we end up sinning in the sense of losing focus. Which I believe is very possible, and perhaps even common. Sometimes we set a standard and then stay as far away from it as possible, when we're supposed to stay as CLOSE to it. E.G. "If abstaining from R-rated movies is bad, then abstaining from PG-13 movies is even better. Or better yet, I'll only watch PG. Or no, how about G? Or even none at all!?" No. I stand convinced that the Lord would have us seek and understand truth in all of the forms He's made it available to us in. The author included this fantastic quote from Brigham Young: "I intend to know the whole of it, both good and bad. Shall I practise evil? No; neither have I told you to practise it, but to learn by the light of truth every principle there is in existence in the world...Though I mean to learn all that is in heaven, earth, and hell [,do] I need to commit iniquity to do it? No. If I were to go into the bowels of hell to find out what is there, that does not make it necessary that I should committ one evil, or blaspheme in any way the name of my maker."
That right there is some awesome principle. THAT CAN BE VERY EASILY USED TO JUSTIFY SIN. But Brigham Young explicitly tells us not to. So how can you tell? When it comes to literature, how can you tell whether you/the author is "going into the bowels of hell to see what's there" or "blaspheming the name of your/their Maker"? How can you tell the difference between an evil book and a good book that has evil in it? We know that everyone's maturity level/standards are different, but there must be SOME kind of line. No one could get away with reading Playboy "only academically" in the sight of the Lord. So what's the line?
As a class, we came up with a short list of characteristics that distinguish pornography from literature/art. (I would argue pretty strongly that this list can also help us distinguish "good" literature from "bad" literature. Or art in general.) Check it out:
PORNOGRAPHY
- inspires negative actions towards self and others
- characters are not individuals, but rather perfected "stick figures" with parts and sensations only
- does not attempt to reveal truth or explore the human condition (purpose is strictly arousal)
LITERATURE/ART
- inspires positive actions towards self and others
- characters are individuals, with flaws and conflicts and strengths
- attempts to understand the human experience by exploring some truth (purpose)
I feel pretty comfortable with these definitions.
However.
It's a futile exercise to attempt to categorize EVERYTHING into only these two boxes. A 13-year-old boy cannot look at a statue of Venus in the same objective way that a middle-aged woman can. (Catered to gender roles more than I'm comfortable with there, but you get the idea.) But on the other hand, a middle-aged woman may be aroused by the David, which was not it's purpose. And if you were to show a Playboy magazine to some aboriginal tribe in the middle of nowhere, they may react not with arousal or excitement, but with confusion or laughter or disinterest. And we in America react similarly to what other cultures find attractive. My point is that it doesn't have to be arousing to be pornography and it doesn't have to be pornography to be arousing.
So then we're back to the relative question. Can a book that is pornographic to one person be art to another? Yes? But here's why, according to Jorgensen and Brother Allen and most of my American Lit class and myself. THE EVIL OF A WORK OF ART LIES LESS IN WHAT IT IS AND MORE IN HOW WE CHOOSE TO READ IT. Maybe there's a spectrum. For every work and every individual, perhaps we can gauge using a more fluid concept. Like this:
INHERENT HARM [---------\--------] HARM I MAKE IT CAUSE
And certain things I would put unquestioningly on one side of the spectrum. Playboy magazine goes on the "Inherent Harm" side of the line. But there are other things that are different for everyone.
We can choose to read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" pornographically. Many do. Or we can choose not to. And when we find ourselves having difficulty making that choice, we know it, and we'd best put the book down/change the channel/avert our eyes. And I believe that the most people are strong enough to gauge that. And if you're not yet, don't chance it.
We shouldn't eliminate all of the literature or art in the whole world that could be viewed pornographically. Because let's face it, there are some weird people out there for whom nothing is safe. But I'm all for freedom of speech and here's why.
Brother Allen: "If we are going to explore the human experience, and the human experience is a mess, then literature MUST be dangerous."
I believe in humanity's ability to view art as art. You have a spiritual gauge. You were born with it. Everyone was. I know that not everyone chooses to view things the same way. And I respect whatever decision they choose to make. However, I believe in the right to read just as strongly as I believe in the right to abstain. I won't tell you to read something as long as you don't judge me for reading it. I won't tell my American Lit class to read "Brokeback Mountain" because I know that there are people in the class who would not choose to view the sex scene as revealing something about the characters, but rather as pornography/something offensive. But I believe that the author wrote that scene into the book not to arouse his readers. The details of the scene are important to the story and the development of the conflict and characters and relationship. And that's why I read. There are certain lines you cannot cross without losing your ability to gauge. But I believe that the Lord would have us seek out truth wherever we can feel His light teach it to us.
For some, it is enough to seek truth in heaven. But I myself yearn for all truth, in heaven, earth and hell. While I don't readily connect with those who are satisfied with heaven alone, I recognize that it is enough for them, and that neither my way nor their way is better. I hope that I can continue to live in such a way that my mind and heart are always open to learning. And visiting hell in art is a hell of a lot safer.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Limerick Love
While he was at work doing phone surveys the other day, Jacob texted me to tell me of his overwhelming boredom. I told him to compose a story with the following elements:
waffles
guns
lipstick
sock puppets
Japan
hammers
He found his situation wasn't conducive to short story form, but of those inspiring elements, he did create some beautiful poetry. It was so brilliant, in fact, that I share it here.
NUCLEAR
A Japanese sock puppet groaned
After cleaning the guns that he owned
His lipstick that day
Tastes of waffle's decay
So bad that no hammers atoned.
UNTITLED
I ate a gun
in the Japanese sun
because I thought it a waffle.
It tasted so weird
And the lipstick -- it smeared
As my sock puppet made some falaffle.
With hammers.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Talk about gratitude...
So I know I already did a Thanksgiving post, but here's another one.
I would just like to take a moment to announce, yet again, that I am dating one of the greatest men currently living on the planet. Probably one of the greater men who's ever lived on the planet.
And out of the millions of girls he could have dated, I'm daily astounded that he chose me. The odds are astronomical...that the person you adore adores you back. And it seems to happen all the time. I'm still just astonished that it's happened to ME.
Now that's something to be grateful for.
He's the diamond in the rough, the prince in disguise, the William Darcy/Gilbert Blithe/Captain Moroni/Edward Cullen/Stan Claxton every girl dreams of. Except he's better.
And here's just one reason why.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Things I Am Grateful For
This year, due to financial tightness and a number of other factors, my roommate/dear friend Annie and I decided to stay here in Rexburg this Thanksgiving. So that my boyfriend/our dear friend Jacob could join us in our own little feast, we had our meal of thanks yesterday evening. We were so proud of our simple, delicious meal (which Annie was mostly responsible for, mad props and kudos and a lot of love to her), and we kept wanting someone to come over and see it. That picture up there doesn't do it justice. It was delicious, and I'm so grateful for the wonderful people in my life!
I've begun a tradition of making a list like this every Thanksgiving, so here are some other things I'm grateful for:
Make-up remover towelettes
Jamie Cullum
my iPod
an awesome roommate
an awesome boyfriend
family -- my incredible parents, grandparents, and sisters
my ability to walk/dance/run/skip/etc.
dry-erase boards
jump drives
my computer
dreams
Theatre
rock music
jazz music
journals
the scriptures
the restored Gospel
the Atonement
my Savior
candles
holidays
books
socks
not having to wear a corset
ballpoint pens
indoor plumbing
comfortable couches
comfortable bed
great films
guitars
Washington D.C.
the Constitution
the History Channel
Netflix Instant Viewing
donuts
pumpkin pie
refrigerators
horses
cars
children
fingernail clippers
the Beatles
Janis Joplin
Rosa Parks
vacuum cleaners
public transportation (where it exists, not like Rexburg)
boats
summer storms
chocolate malts
a job
the Priesthood
breakfast
wonderful teachers
interviews on "Inside the Actor's Studio"
having a printer at home
slippers
organic foods
commercial airlines
art -- great paintings and sculptures
vintage posters
thrift stores
letters from friends
missionaries
Comic Frenzy
friends who are wonderful examples of great marriages
my patriarchal blessing
a friend/roommate who makes things like this for Thanksgiving:
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
