ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on 28 January 2010 by KateMarie

Last night, as I was having trouble falling asleep, I thought about how I have always, for as long as I can remember, had trouble falling asleep.  As a child, however, the unquietness of my mind stemmed from far more fanciful, yet strikingly more fearful subjects.  I was, in general, a bold kid.  I’d touch any bug, perform any daring stunt, tackle any social situation (shyness came along with bad skin and unfortunate fashion decisions in junior high), but I was cripplingly frightened of the shadow-world of possible evil I imagined when alone in the dark.

Ritual kept me safe.  Every night, after my parents read to me and tucked me in, I would say, “I love you I love you, goodnight goodnight” and they would answer with the same redundant phrase, as I had instructed them to do.  You had to say it twice, you see, to make absolutely certain it was heard and understood.  Then they would leave the door open a crack with the hall light on, so a narrow beam of gold fell comfortingly across my bed.  Sometimes, when Daddy was in a silly mood, he would leave the door open a “butt crack,” measuring the width of the opening with his posterior.  I would laugh, but when he had gone I would get up and close it to its normal two inches…he didn’t know (how could he!) that skeletons could creep in through a larger opening.  With the skeletons safely shut out, I only had to worry about the witches in the closet, the mummy in the niche over my closet, and whatever-it-was lurking under my bed.  “Everybody and everything, I love you I love you, goodnight goodnight,” I would whisper out loud, to ensure that the ghoulies, ghosties, and beasties of every sort didn’t feel offended or left-out and creep in to take their revenge.  I pulled the covers up to my chin–to protect my neck from vampires–and lay on my side–to protect my heart from the stabbing blades of “murderers.”  I lay in the dark, frightened, and thought about things that troubled me.  About the witches, skeletons, vampires, mummies, and murderers, yes, but also about nothingness and nonexistence.  Someone must have explained to me what death was around the age of five or six, and the concept of non-being gave me a chilling sense of vertigo.  Actually, it still does.

I no longer lie in bed hearing the creaks of the sleeping house as monstrous footsteps of innumerable nightmares.  Contemplations of what it must feel like not to exist are rarely allowed to trouble my mind.  My worries now, however irrational, are far more likely to come to pass than any of my childhood fears.  And yet, while I still have trouble falling asleep, these “realistic” fears are warm and welcoming compared to the perilous nightmare-world I invented as a child, in which safety was secured by a delicate web of precautions and rituals that, if disturbed even a little, might bring disaster.

A rich imagination is a child’s greatest asset by day, and her darkest curse by night.

“Reality” and “Truth”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on 24 January 2010 by KateMarie

It is aggravating when a class that I am predisposed to dislike makes me think, but my Art and Science readings today have distracted me so much with my thoughts that I have to stop in the middle of them and write about it.  We’re reading about the way the art community and science community generally perceive the universe, reality, and truth.  This line caught my eye:

In the world of science the idea that there is some kind of universal jigsaw where all the bits fit together seems to prevail.

Such a view is troubling to me because it assumes two things that I’m not sure I agree with: first, that we can ever really get a grasp on any of the pieces of the “jigsaw,” and second that there is any ultimate and universal “reality” out there to discover.

My uncertainty about whether we can ever really firmly latch on to a solid manifestation of ultimate truth stems in part from the history of science, which is in essence a history of wrongness.  Thomas Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts explains the history of scientific belief as a series of big changes in basic ways of looking at the world.  Big changes like earth-centered universe to sun-centered solar system, physics based on Newton to physics based on Einstein, etc.  Basically, a paradigm shift entails the realization that very fundamental principles for looking at and making sense of the world are at best flawed, at worst wrong.  This has happened too regularly over the course of known history for me to really trust that the currently established way of thinking about anything is in fact the right or true way of thinking.  Wouldn’t that be arrogant?  Of course it seems like a right and true way of thinking, just like a sun-centered universe seemed the right, true, and only logical arrangement of the universe to pre-Copernican folks.  Facts and truths are set out by people, and people are very fallible creatures indeed.

However, I’m not trying to imply that I believe we can never be sure about anything.  Here’s what I can be sure of: things I touch, things I smell, things I see, things I hear, things I think, and things I feel.  Absolute truth is limited to individual sensory experience.  I can’t be sure that there is a computer in front of me (it could be a hallucination, or I could be a brain in a jar experiencing things through electrical impulses, or whatever) but I can be absolutely, positively sure of the truth of the sensation of a computer keyboard against my fingertips and the sight of the words on the screen.  If I feel happy, there is no way that I cannot in fact be happy.  If I say something is orange, and someone else says it is pink, which is it?  Does an object have inherent color without anyone/thing to perceive said color?  Luckily for us, enough of our individual sensory experience seems to line up with that of other people that we can interact with them and even make generalizations about the nature of things.  We can go on just as though there really were a single, fixed reality that we could eventually puzzle out through judicious application of science.

Thus, the only real implication of my beliefs about  reality is an open-minded and flexible attitude toward truth.  It’s not the case that I don’t appreciate or benefit from science–in their pursuit of truth in fixed reality, scientists often come up with applications that can make life easier or more enjoyable, and that’s awesome.  It’s certainly not the case that I walk around feeling like I’m inhabiting a separate reality from everyone and everything else–that would be profoundly lonely.  It simply means that I’m unconvinced and unimpressed by any assertion (by religion, science, or whomever) of unbending capital-T Truth and I am interested in subjective exploration of reality through art, poetry, literature, etc.  It means I want to be a professor of English rather than a professor of chemistry, physics, or biology, so that the kind of truth I’m chasing makes no pretensions to absoluteness.

Why I Study Old English

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on 22 January 2010 by KateMarie

In my seventeen years of formal education (counting kindergarten, in which one could argue I learned more valuable information than I did senior year of high school), I have often found occasion to wonder: “why on earth am I bothering to learn this?”  “When will I ever need to know the ins and outs of a semi-permeable cell membrane?”  “Why do they call this the honors program?” and questions of a similar ilk.  But it never occurred to me (until my professor raised the question yesterday) to wonder why I should study Old English.  It seemed obvious; “Ure ealdfaederas spaecon Westseaxna theode thusend geara aer thissum” (our ancestors spoke the West Saxon language a thousand years ago.)  That is, I consider Anglo-Saxon culture and the Old English manuscripts that it produced to be my roots, and everyone should study their roots, right?

Right, only I’m not really English.  Ok, I have a few droplets of English blood on my maternal grandmother’s father’s side, but officially I’m 50% Czech and the remaining percent (minus the drop of English) German.  So I’m northern European, I told myself.  Germanic.  Like the Anglo-Saxons.  Plus, there’s that drop ‘o English…

But that’s not it either.  The extent of my cultural connection to my Czech forefathers is a smattering of Czech words (mostly scatological) that I picked up from my dad and his cousins, and the opportunity to eat kolache at family gatherings.  The German connection is even fainter; we make pfeffernus at Christmas, but that’s about it.  The ties to and traditions of my pre-American ancestors have been essentially absent from my life, leaving a historical-cultural void that I filled with…literature.  I grew up with British history and culture pouring in through my eyes and ears off the pages of my favorite books.  British children’s fiction was the bread-and-butter of my youth–Roald Dahl, Brian Jaques, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and countless others with forgotten names but remembered stories.  I read truckoads of historical fiction, mostly about the middle ages or Queen Elizabeth.  I read about King Arthur and Harry Potter, and when I got a little older I read Bronte and Austen.  Thus, the strongest cultural influence I had as a child (which has continued into adulthood) was British.  Through the literature that I read, I learned and loved the history, mythology, language patterns, and historical culture of Britain far more than I ever did those lands to which I am connected by blood.

And so it seems only natural that I should study the language that is the ancestor of the tongue that connects me to the books I read, and the culture that is the ancestor of each successive period of British culture that I have grown up seeing as my own heritage.  It seems unnatural to say that the Anglo-Saxons aren’t “my people” when I feel more connected to that drop of English blood than to the pints and pints of Czech and German.

Maybe I’m overreacting, but aarrhhhhhgggggg!!!!!!!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , on 7 January 2010 by KateMarie

As a peace-loving, mellow sort of person, I’m rarely truly angry.  Annoyed, grumpy, indifferent, yes, but angry, not likely.  But today I’m furious.

ETS.  The Educational Testing Service.  If it were a person, we might come to blows.  Impenetrable webs of bureaucracy, bitchy customer service reps, misleading websites, and money-grubbing monopolies would be a source of annoyance any day, but when they come between me and grad school, I’m neither patiently forgiving nor temperate in my anger.  It was like this: in late October I sent out the additional score reports for my general and subject tests.  I hadn’t received the subject test scores yet, but I figured that my order would be filled when those scores became available.  Why would I make such an unreasonable assumption?  Well, only because a statement on the instruction page of the online score-ordering website said:

“score reports for a future scheduled test date will be mailed when scores for that test date are available”

Now, it’s possible that my grasp of the English language is slipping, but to me this statement suggested that it was indeed the established practice to send pre-ordered scores once said scores were processed and became available.  However, the customer service rep informed me (snottily and with unnecessary attitude) that it “clearly states” on the website that only available scores may be ordered.  I could hear her derisive sneer as she shot down my belief that pre-ordering scores was an acceptable practice.  She refused to listen to my concern that the order acknowledgement I had received by email had listed my erroneously-ordered subject test score reports along side my properly-ordered general test score reports.  I felt like screaming or crying or cussing her out, but  because I’m a well-mannered Minnesota girl and because she had made me feel thoroughly stupid and incompetent, I thanked her, hoped she had a good day, and hung up.

The real kicker is that I then proceeded to give twenty-three more of my hard-earned dollars to this pernicious company, in order to rectify my mistake caused by their misleading website.  If any other company operated in such a way I would take my business elsewhere, but I can’t exactly do that now, can I?  Luckily this mistake only affected one of my eight schools–it could have been disastrous.  I can’t do anything about it…but I want to.  Oh, I want to.

Unexpected

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on 3 January 2010 by KateMarie

I got an email today from Writing.com informing me that my poem “Northland Religion” had received a comment.  I had completely forgotten that Writing.com existed, that I had a profile, and the existence of the three items I had posted to that profile.  I recognized the tiny, six line poem when I read it:

Make it ten-thousand and one / for that little lake of tears / that baptized me / with reflections of the forest / and of the sun / and of the cloudless dome.

Simple, shabby, tangled in the language of my struggle to deal with loss of faith, and utterly forgotten, this poem had still reached someone who “really liked” it, a fellow Minnesotan who thanked me for its creation.

Although I’ve never completely given up on poetry, I know very well by now that creative fiction isn’t my realm.  Sometimes I feel like I’m betraying my old dreams; I was going to be a novelist and change the world with my ideas and my sparkling prose.  Sometimes it feels like settling to devote myself to the study of other people’s genius–”those that can’t do, teach” and all.  Yet I lack not only the aptitude but the patience and interest for writing prose, and I am passionate about academic English.  And now I find, when the ghost of ambition rattles her chains, that I can quiet her with silvers of approbation like today’s unexpected comment and go on, quite happily, in the less glorious path I am pleased to have chosen.


Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: A Scathing Review

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on 2 January 2010 by KateMarie

Reading Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a deeply, deeply disturbing experience for me.  It wasn’t the zombies–I made peace with the zombies before I opened the book.  In the preface to the Deluxe Heirloom Edition (which, by the way, made the reading experience at least 3x more enjoyable than it would have otherwise been with its pretty cover, ribbon bookmark, and classy illustrations), co-author Seth Grahame-Smith claims the intention of “writing ridiculous, gratuitous scenes of violence and gore in the imitated style of Jane Austen” (9).  I was excited.  After all, I like fictitious violence as much as the next person.  I was ready for zombies and the accompanying blood, brains, and brutality.  Here’s what was not, and will never be, ready to accept:

  • Poor Textual Cropping One reason Austen is a great writer is her “ability to delineate character through ironic exchange” (Susannah Carson, A Truth Universally Acknowledged, xiii).  S. G.-S. uses a giant pair of text-shears to pare back the original dialogue to its roots, therefore inhibiting Austen’s graceful and natural character development.  Instead, he substitutes jarring single sentences that bluntly describe character traits in an overt manner that I find distractingly un-Austen.
  • Sexual Innuendo Under regular circumstances, I adore innuendo and the more sexual the better.  However, on the list of things un-Austen, ceaseless “ball” puns and dialogue discussing genitalia are fairly high up (almost as high as zombies…but they’re ok, they’re in the title).  I really feel like S. G.-S. was setting himself up for failure trying to talk about sex in the voice of Austen, and that Elizabeth Bennet would have bitten off her own tongue before talking with her Aunt Gardiner about how Mr. Darcy’s “trousers cling to those most English parts of him” (235).
  • Ninjas Since when does one have to be a ninja to fight a zombie?  Normal people seem to do just fine in all the movies I’ve seen (and why shouldn’t they, considering how slow and clumsy zombies tend to be)?  The random and excessive presence of Eastern martial arts and their accompanying attitudes was distracting and detracted from the highly-British atmosphere of the book that I love so much.  The ninjqa-esque attitudes also dramatically changed the personalities of many principle characters, which leads me to the next objection,
  • Violence Against Humans (a.k.a. Cruelty) Darcy beats Wickham into quadriplegia “as punishment for a lifetime of vice and betrayal,” and Elizabeth Bennet wants to kill…well, everyone at one time or another (292).  Killing zombies is one thing, but a sense of “honor” that demands blood retribution for every perceived slight makes it awfully difficult for me to like the Darcy and Elizabeth of P&P&Z.
  • Poop Humor As with sexual innuendo, I love me some poop humor.  It is far from necessary or appealing in this setting, however.  Mrs. Bennet vomits incessantly whenever she is nervous (and when is she not?), and Mr. Wickham, when paralyzed, routinely soils himself (“fragrantly”).  I can only assume that S. G.-S. has a very active inner-five-year-old responsible for these portions of the text.
  • Inexplicable Changes Why does Mr. Collins commit suicide?  Why must Wickham become paralyzed?  What’s the point of randomly changing the plot in non-zombie-related ways?

Ok, now that I’ve ranted I’m going to admit the real reason why I disliked P&P&Z so very much: it was, in my opinion, disrespectful of the original.  I should have known from the moment S. G.-S. admitted in the preface that he hadn’t read the original since he “struggled through it in high school” (10).  This is clearly a man who likes zombies (/sex/poop/ninjas…) and dislikes Austen.  The violent ninja-esque sense of honor parodies the seemingly-arbitrary social rules of the English gentry, while the incorporation of sex, poop, and violence is a slap in the face of Regency Era British propriety.  I can’t really imagine an Austen fan enjoying this book, although I would perhaps recommend it to disgruntled high school boys bitter about having been forced to read Pride and Prejudice in class.