the Greater Nomadic Council

Sylvia Plath's "Morning Song"

Long one of my favorite of Plath's poems, I've finally had the opportunity to write about "Morning Song" for class. Continuing my tradition of posts no one wants to read, here's my take on the poem:

One of Sylvia Plath's more earth-bound poems, “Morning Song” strikes an intriguing balance between a mother's love for her newborn and the darker thoughts and feelings the birth inspires such as meditations on her own death and the mother's inability to comprehend her child due to its almost inhuman otherness. The poem manages a deft navigation between the rocks of sentimentality and the whirlpool of postpartum depression. The precarious balance between these and other seemingly contradictory emotions and the way in which Plath examines and plays with this tension stand as the poem's primary achievements. Love may set the poem going and ultimately be its main theme, but the problematic and perhaps guilt-inducing emotions the baby causes the mother make the work something other than a straight-forward ode.

The poem's first line eloquently captures the speaker's ambivalent tone by comparing the baby to a “fat gold watch” that, nevertheless, was “set... going” by “love.” From the start, the speaker envisions the child as something apart and not quite human. Instead, it is ornamental and mechanical, however valuable. A watch's workings derive from a mysterious art of gears and levers understood only by its maker. However, here even the mother cannot comprehend the infant. Later in the stanza, the child's first cry is a “bald cry” that takes “its place among the elements.” The adjective “bald” implicitly contrasts with the more guarded emotional expressions of adults and, by extension, the parents, emphasizing the child's vulnerability and difference. The very fact that such a cry “took its place among the elements” suggests another contrast with the mother. Elements must be pure and indivisible. Purity, like the child's cry, requires a simplicity of feeling and consciousness impossible for adults—a fact to which the poem itself attests.

However, the parents' “voices echo, magnifying [the infant's] arrival,” a momentous occasion. Even so, the child is merely a “new statue” which reduces it to something inhuman and ornamental like a “gold watch.” The baby may be beautiful and valuable, but it is an object, not yet a subject or fully human. Standing over it in the “drafty museum” (perhaps a playful reference to hospital gowns), the child's “nakedness / [s]hadows [their] safety,” a dense phrase that allows numerous interpretations. “Shadows” can mean “follows” as well as “being the shadow of something.” In the first case, what does it mean for the newborn's “nakedness” to follow the parents' “safety?” The image suggests the manner in which a toddler might tail its parents around their house, entirely dependent upon them. In the second reading, the child's nakedness is but a shadow of the parents' secure, self-aware, and clothed selves, echoing the “bald cry” from the first stanza. Nevertheless, the child as the “new statue” commands attention, leaving the spectators nothing more to do than to “stand round blankly as walls” due to the infant's inscrutability and role as object of inspection and reverence.

The next stanza expands the mother's effacement to a consideration of her own death, but first states the crux of the speaker's emotional dilemma. She addresses her child with the words, “I'm no more your mother [than a cloud].” Despite its vulnerability and utter dependence, the newborn lies entirely separate from the mother. After forty weeks of pregnancy—an intimate connection—this is a poignant reminder of their irrevocable individuality. Furthermore, the mother, in contrasting herself to her newborn, sees herself like a “cloud that distills a mirror to reflect its own slow / [e]ffacement at the wind's hand.” The child must serve as her mirror, but rather than achieving a form of immortality it is the mother's “slow effacement” and death that the child reflects.

Progressing from watch to statue, the speaker, in the fourth stanza, describes the infant's “moth-breath,” the first comparison she makes between her child and a living creature. Still, the life is a small, insignificant, and fragile one that only “flickers among the flat pink roses.” Despite the tininess of this new life, its breathing causes “a far sea [to move] in [the mother's] ear,” another pairing of opposites. The child's minute breaths crash upon the mother's mind like a vast and distant sea in expression of the mystery inherent in the child as well as the intimacy she and her child share. In stark contrast to the delicate beauty of the child, the mother is “cow-heavy and floral” when she “stumble[s] from bed.” Occurring at the same time as the child's first expression of individual desire, the metaphor used to describe the child evolves from a moth to a “mouth [that] opens clean as a cat's.” Then, at the end of the fifth stanza, the mother, after stumbling half-asleep into the baby's room, notices “the window square” which we assume is clear and open to the world, framing the scene of nursing child and mother. However, the line continues on to the next stanza where its meaning inverts. “The window square / Whitens and swallows its dull stars,” mimicking the child. The occluded window isolates the mother and child from the world and returns them some of the intimacy they shared during pregnancy. Finally, the child tries its “handful of notes” and “the clear vowels rise like balloons.” Here the poem employs no metaphors to describe the child in its first act of proto-speech; it is fully human. The poem ends by reconnecting the mother and child in a shared “morning song.” The infant has its cry and the mother her poem.

Cowboys vs. Redskins and Instant Replay

I pretty much agree with this article that says if you're going to have instant replay, then do it right. In other words, I'm against instant replay. In theory, it would be nice to get every call right, but that's impossible. Even with instant replay, you won't get every call right, as last night proved. A bad pass interference call helped the Cowboys win last night. I'm glad they won and I think they would have won anyways without it, but it was clearly a bad, but unreviewable call. Pass interference is the worst penalty in the game as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Make it a 20 yard penalty? Then what's the disincentive to the corner who knows unless he interferes, it's a sure touchdown? Make it reviewable? Then why not all other penalties (as the article also asks)? It's a tough question. Even so, I think bad calls tend to even out over a season. Luck is part of football. If this bothered the fans, they'd be watching chess matches instead. Some nights, luck determines the whole game. The same goes with blown calls. Since it's impossible to get them all right, just trust the professional refs to call it right most of the time and let the game go on. Besides, games that hinge on bad calls give the losers something to grouse about.

Anyways, on to the game itself. The Cowboys need a running game. Why Parcells isn't giving Lee, the only chance of a decent running game they have, more carries is beyond me. I know he doesn't fully trust him yet, but I don't see how Lee can gain his trust when he only gets the ball a few times each game. Of course, Parcells is a master of maximizing his team's strengths. Right now the Cowboys' strength is their passing game. Antonio Bryant looks so much better than last year and Testaverde is, despite my earlier misgivings, an enormous improvement over Carter. So, Parcells is turning them into a high-powered, pass-oriented offense.

Unfortunately, the secondary still has problems, particularly now that Pete Hunter is out for the season with a torn ACL. I hope Jacque Reeves can step up and play well, but that still leaves a hole in the slot in the nickel defense, his old position. Suddenly cutting Edwards and not picking up a cornerback in the off-season is looking like a bad idea. Perhaps even worse, Newman's tendency to get faked out and burned is being commented on by even the sportscasters. I don't see how he can be a good cornerback and so easily fooled by wide receivers. If he doesn't fix that problem it's going to exploited by every offense until the end of the season.

I'm also afraid that this is turning into an injury season for the Cowboys. Not only did they lose Hunter for the season, but Julius Jones is out for at least a couple of months, Andre Gurode is still hurt, Darren Woodson is still out, and Dan Campbell was hurt last night. The team cannot sustain many more injuries and make it to the playoffs, particularly with the Eagles looking like they have a lock on the division.

Bush Ain't No Cowboy

One of my professors pointed me to this article where she is quoted as saying:

"The idea of the American cowboy is the direct lineal descendant of the chivalric knight," observes Bonnie Wheeler, a medievalist in cowboy country. "The only serious difference is that your status doesn't depend on your social class." Editor of Arthuriana, the journal of Arthurian studies, Wheeler teaches at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

"Our president," she says, "is neither a knight nor a cowboy. He doesn't believe in taking care of the little guy, nor does he have the restraint or dignity of the cowboy."

The rather conservative slant of SMU's student body makes this a particularly scandalous thing to say. Even so, it's very true. However, I would also point out that Bush is not cowboy for another reason. He's yet another wealthy Ivy League-educated elitist (although it's questionable how much of that education stuck). His populism and aw shucks manner are mere stances meant to woo the ignorant and gullible.

Obviously this could be said of many politicians and is far from an original point about Bush, but it's often forgotten it seems. Bush ain't no cowboy, never was, and his hat's too big for his head.

New Voters Project (or) Praxis, Baby, Praxis!

I’m volunteering for these guys a bit now. It’s the largest non-partisan voter registration drive ever, and in Iowa City the numbers are looking good – voter registrations between 18 and 24 are up about 1,200, or roughly 7%, in Johnson county over the last election year. This is not necessarily the ideal volunteering opportunity for me, as I was looking around for some more frankly partisan projects, but they just weren’t as accessible – so I figured I’d be better off spending my time actually doing something positive immediately, rather than looking around for a more perfect thing to do. Anyway, though I imagine a lot of the people working and volunteering in the NVP are leftists, the project is definitely nonpartisan in practice – today I helped register a bunch of business students. As a man who loves to have his stereotypes confirmed, I was quite pleased that most of the students were stone-faced in their indifference, and the professor was clearly barely putting up with our political twaddle. She apparently wanted us out of the way so she would have plenty of time to teach America’s future overweight middle managers what a mouse is (I’m not kidding).

Anyway, yeah, I helped register business students. It’s an act whose morality I’m still contemplating.

Kidding.

Sort of.

Correlation Must Equal Causation

Since I've stopped blogging about politics, Bush has taken the lead in electoral votes. In fact, it happened quite shortly after the change in emphasis here. To all the Kerry supporters out there, I apologize. I had no idea my voice was so influential! The logs only show 100-200 people a day visiting this site. I guess they're all incredibly persuasive and well-connected folks. Who knew? Alas, Kerry must do without my help for a while longer, at least. It's time he learns to fly on his own. I cannot hold his hand and shore up his campaign through November. Really, it's for your own good, Senator. Now start flapping those little downy wings of yours and avoid the neighbor's dog.

Jedi is a Religion

So it makes perfect sense to me that Darth Vader is part of a cathedral.

(via Matthew Yglesias)

Why This Blog?

Phil explains why he started blogging and it's a much better reason than why we started this blog. Essentially, I was already spending several hours a day reading blogs and a number of my friends had started blogs of their own. So, I figured, hey! I don't have enough to say on my own to have a blog, but if we all pitch in I bet we could have a pretty good group blog. Of course, it turned out that when given 8 hours of free time a day, I do, in fact, have enough to say to run a blog on my own. Not to denigrate the contributions of my fellow bloggers, of course, but my volume alone could have kept a blog going despite their many excellent contributions. I say "could have" though since my output has dropped way, way off since starting school. Now I'm writing so much for classes that I rarely feel like writing something here (rarely in relation to what I used to do).

So, the genesis of this blog is unglamorous and boring. What's more interesting (to me at least) is why we've kept it up for so long. It will be a year in December, so we must find something enjoyable or useful about blogging. I like having a place where I can discuss politics and other things with intelligent people who don't all have the same views. It's helped clarify my own and change some of my opinions as well as given me quite a political education. Of course, the political discussions have fallen largely by the wayside since I'm not as obsessed with the day-to-day minutiae anymore. What else is there then? For one, it's a forum for my random thoughts and observances—a place where I can work towards my own understanding while hopefully prompting a conversation with others. It's useful to me, first and foremost. I don't care about you readers. You're nothing to me! Kidding, of course. I love it when people comment. It reminds me of the old BBS days when I had a vibrant discussion board. Some days we'd have over 200 posts. It was sick. Obviously this blog is nothing like that, but when the discussions take off they tend to be of a much higher caliber and hence, more useful and interesting.

Ramble, ramble, ramble... that is part of the fun of blogging. Rather than worrying about whether I've split an infinitive, left out a comma, or organized my thoughts well, I can just start typing and leave it at that. Fun stuff.

Cowboys vs Browns

Well... they won. It was definitely not pretty, but there seemed to be some improvement on the defense, particularly in the secondary. Vinny's three interceptions were dismaying. Even worse were the 11 or so penalties the Cowboys committed. Talk about a lack of discipline. I suspect that there's going to be a very small amount of celebration for them after the game. Parcells is sure to have many, many criticisms for them when they look at the tape. That said, if they can get their penalties under control and Vinny can keep his focus this team looks to be considerably better than last year's, despite my earlier prognostication. Obviously it's still early in the season so it's difficult to judge, but the defense looked good today (almost as good as last year) and the offense continued to be a big improvement over last year's. It's unfortunate that the Eagles also look much better this year since it means the Cowboys will probably still have to settle for a wild card if they make it to the playoffs again.

Some Thoughts on Moral Relativism

Matthew Yglesias thinks that conservatives who criticize liberals for their "moral relativism" actually are criticizing atheism. Since he fails to provide any specific examples I have to assume this is either an opinion based on his experience or mere speculation. Either way, I'm not entirely convinced, but for the purposes of this post I suppose it will do. Anyways, Yglesias, being the philosophically inclined type that he is goes on to write "moral relativism is a philosophical position usually called 'non-cognitivism' or 'expressivism' or some such thing the merits of which are complicated." But since I have no idea what he's talking about, I'll just limit myself to a few minor points that I'm sure he and others would agree with.

1. Atheism is not equivalent to moral relativism.
2. Atheists can be moral.
3. Morality does not require a belief in a god.

That said, I think what a lot of conservatives mean by "moral relativism" is moral judgment they disagree with. It's simply a fancy catch-phrase for "wrong." I'm sure there are some who apply a more exact meaning to the phrase and mean it to denote a specific type of amorality, but most seem to use it simply to tar their opponents. In fact, the more I think about the phrase, the less sense it makes. Either you have set moral standards or you don't. The latter case is essentially a form of either amorality or morals in the process of changing or evolving. Maybe I just don't understand what the phrase means at all. It seems like it may be one of those that gets tossed about that I thought I understood, but on deeper reflection realize I don't. Either it's nonsensical and a mere epithet or I just don't get it. If the latter, I hope to be enlightened with specific examples. If the former, I'm going to ignore anyone who uses it from now on.

UPDATE: This post seems to describe what may be meant by "moral relativism." Is it what he calls "cultural relativism"? That is, "at least some moral principles are particular to cultures (they only bind people who come from some backgrounds)"? Or is it column four, moral particularism? Neither one seems especially scandalous to me. There isn't a necessary conflict between universally applicable moral rules and the recognition that some "moral" rules are a result of culture. Nor is there a conflict between universal rules and situations where one has to consider the specific details rather than generalized rules. Of course, it's quite possible I'm just missing some crucial point here. I'm just a rank amateur, after all, but there doesn't appear to be a contradiction to me.

The Venture Brothers

Another great cartoon from Cartoon Network. After a super-spy dies, they have his bowels give way. How wonderful is that?

The Morality of Nothing

This will be somewhat related to my post on Boethius so you may want to read that first. Not necessary of course, but relevant background. Either way, I just finished reading Brian Rotman's Signifying Nothing: The Semiotics of Zero. Despite the title, it's an enjoyable and intriguing book that examines the related phenomena of zero's introduction into Western mathematics, the use of a vanishing point in art, and the creation of imaginary money in capitalist societies. Rotman argues that they're all analogous semiotic shifts in that each represents a moment in which a sign is introduced that is both part of the system and external to it as a meta-sign. That, though, is a detailed argument that I'm not going to reproduce here since it's not what I'm really interested in for the purposes of this post.

Perhaps the easiest to read chapter of the book is chapter three, "Nothing:Zero," which comes after Rotman has demonstrated how those three inventions are isomorphic to one another within their sign systems. In this chapter, he investigates the history of the concept of nothingness in Western thought, starting with the Greeks, then moving through Jewish and early Christian debates about the concept. In one section, he points out the difficulty nothing caused Christian theologists. I'm not going to retype several pages, but instead jump around a bit with relevant sections. Bear with me since I plan to quote several paragraphs:

Orthodox Christianity in Western Europe from St. Augustine's moral foundations to the scholastic legacy of St. Aquinas took its conception of God as a being knowable or unknowable to man, from Greek theology and metaphysics and its image of God as a maker, the Creator of the world, from Jewish monotheism. In so doing it saddled itself at the outset with a fundamental contradiction, a logical dilemma which it never resolved, about the ontological and eschatological status it was to assign to 'nothing.'

And:

The Greek refusal of the void was at once a philosophical proposition, a conclusion explicitly and safely debated within the domain of rational discourse. Ontologically it was impossible to attribute being to 'nothing' since 'nothing' is that which is not, and epistemologically 'nothing' was without meaning.

And:

St. Augustine, though he absorbed the God of Parmenides and Plato and their abhorrence of the void through the neo-Platonist writings of Plotinus and not from Aristotle, assigned an eschatological status to 'nothing'—it was the devil—which neatly Christianises the sort of horrific object Aristotle was at such pains to deny. For St. Augustine 'nothing' was a kind of ultimate privation, the final and limiting term of that which was absent, lacking, lost, which had been subtracted and taken away from the original presence and fullness of God. To be in a state of sin was to enclose within one's spiritual being an absence of God. (emphasis mine)

This is the argument Boethius makes about evil which I discussed in my previous post. It's apparently a pretty standard understanding of evil. But, as Rotman writes:

There is in this privative solution to 'nothing' a difficulty that borders on blasphemy, since it would seem that before the creation out of nothing there was something missing, lacking, something not yet part of God's being which was to be subsequently supplied by the creation. St. Augustine's answer, elaborated ingeniously in his theory of time, was that in creating the world God also created time itself, and so God, being outside of time, could never have lacked what he always had. This issue however—that is essentially what could and could not be ascribed to God, the nature and status of God's attributes—remained a dangerous one within Christian theology. Any attempt to refer too positively or too directly to God's relation to 'nothing' could be easily converted into heresy and unbelief.

And:

But this attempt to negate the problem of 'nothing', by a formulaic transfer of Aristotle's horror of the void onto God's transformative overcoming of it, was more an avoidance of the void than any real engagement with a sigh signifying no thing.

Rotman goes on to discuss the ways various people turned this into blasphemy. Then, later, writes:

Moreover, in precisely the same way that Socrates' Nothing, by being the agent of an absence in the previously full and indivisible knowing self, marked the place of an epistemological disruption, so 'nothing' allowed within Christian discourse—and this was its heretical danger—the means of a parallel theogenic disruption by introducing the possibility of an absence of God, a falling short from God's total unfractured omni-presence.

Sorry for the numerous quotes, but it seemed better to give Rotman's examination of the problem than attempt to summarize it myself, particularly since I don't entirely understand the finer points. I recognize the problem nothing or absence of God presents—how can an omnipresent God ever be absent?—but I'm not sure how it's resolved in Christian theology. Perhaps one of our readers better versed in such things will help explain it. For me it seems like a pretty direct contradiction and a telling example of the difficulty inherent in the problem of evil. How is it possible if one posits an omnipresent, omnipotent, and benevolent God? If one defines sin as God's absence then isn't God no longer omnipresent? Perhaps this lack is only possible for those possessing free will (although the question of whether sinners actually possess it is another interesting one) and since free will is something granted by God, the ability to fall away from Him is actually sign of His presence. That seems a little strained to me though, so surely there's another explanation that theologians have found acceptable. Rotman hints at another one when he discusses St. Augustine's theory of time. This is much like Boethius' attempt to resolve the conflict between perfect divine foreknowledge and human free will, which he does by positing two different systems and perceptions of time, one human and one divine. However, this problem seems even more mysterious and difficult to resolve. Obviously I don't have an answer; I just find apparent paradoxes and discussions of various moral systems fascinating. If you've read all this, I imagine you do too, so why not comment?

Freecycle=A Concept Not Everyone Gets

Hopefully some of you are already familiar with FreeCycle. It's an excellent system of message boards and email lists based around the concept of sharing within a community. If you have something that you no longer want, and that still has some use left in it, but that isn't worth trying to resell, you can put it up on the list. Someone will tell you they want/need it, and then come pick it up. You'll get rid of some unwanted junk and meet a new person, and the person who takes it, well, they get something they need for free. And in addition to the actual freecycling part, there's a whole other world of fun to reading the listings and seeing the crazy things people are offering, and contemplating what sort of journeys these strange objects have taken.

Freecycle does allow you to post Wanted listings as well - things that you need, that other people might be wanting to get rid of. Obviously, most people will take for granted that there are limits to what you can ask for and expect to get for free - on the Austin list, the Wanted listings were far, far fewer in number than the offers, and indicated people's need for such glamorous items as cardboard boxes, grass clippings, used videocassettes, and the occasional request for a Nordic Track. Since moving to Iowa City and joining the Freecycle list here, I've noticed that Wanted listings make up a much larger proportion of the listings - about half, in fact. More remarkable, though, is the kind of stuff these people are asking for - for free, no less.

Here are a few of the most amazing examples of acquisitional hubris you're likely to see:

From: "xxxxfromderby"
WANTED: DVD movie, Bridget Jones' Diary

Our puppy climbed up and stole my Bridget Jones Diary DVD and chewed
it, case and all - in under 2 minutes.

I would like a replacement if you have grown tired of your copy.

Thank you!

From: "cmorebutzXXXX"
WANTED....extra large dog crate

I am needing an XL dog crate....if you have one you are not using I
sure could put it to great use.....thanks

From: "Rebecca"
WANTED: 460 engine for a Ford 3/4 ton pickup truck.

From: "dbrown2321"
Subject: WANTED: Animal Grooming Item & Unwanted Yorkie

Hello: I am just beginning to learn to groom animals and need quite
a few things to get started. If you have any grooming things:
sissors, etc. that you aren't using, I would appreciate them more
than I can say.
Sometimes when we get a animal we end up deciding that this little
one just isn't the one for me, but don't know what to do about it. I
would love to have another little Yorkie, SO, if you have a little
Yorkie that you need a loving, safe & caring home for PLEASE contact
me. I am NOT interested in breeding NOR show just as a pet & part of
our family. I WILL have the little one spay/neutered for sure.

From: "Sarah XXXXXX"
Subject: WANTED: Blue's Clues; Sheep (llama) shears

Looking for anything Blue's Clues for my son's 2nd birthday
(clothes, toys, sheets, etc).

Also need sheep/llama shears.

From: "iowaXXXX"
Subject: WANTED: Fishing Boat

Hi,
I am new to this but I would really like to give a fishing boat to
my dad. He is an avid fisherman but does not have a boat. One in
good condition with a motor and trailer would be prefered. Thanks
for considering this!

Heather Wade

Z-Cult: More Rewarding Illegality

I've recently discovered Z-Cult, an excellent Torrent Tracker concentrating exclusively on comic book scans. I picked up several Sin City series, as well as some issues of Morrison's new Seaguy book. But the moral implications of this are somehow more troubling to me than any music or film downloading crime I've ever committed. Despite the recent jackpot Marvel in particular has hit with the movie market, I still see comics as a somewhat beleagured, unappreciated genre as a whole, with sales small enough that downloading on a large scale could have a substantial negative impact. I'm not sure if this is really accurate, but a much more realistic idea would be that I, normally a consumer of rather offbeat comics, could have relatively greater impact on the comics market by buying the books instead of downloading them - it's not so much a matter of supporting the industry or even the medium, but of supporting individual creators. So, y'know, check it out - but go buy a book for every two or three you download, 'kay?

(Also, if anyone finds an Invisibles torrent, hook a brother up.)

In an Academic Tone

I feel bad. I haven't posted anything substantial in quite a while. I've been so busy writing essays for my courses that I haven't really had the time to keep up with the news or had the energy to write a long post. I still don't. So, instead, I'm going to just post an essay I wrote for my poetry class. I apologize in advance for the blog-inappropriate tone. It's stuffy and academic and references poems you probably haven't read (but should). There's Anthony Hecht's "Peripeteia" and Richard Wilbur's "Walking to Sleep" (which I haven't been able to find a copy of online). Both of them are in The Vintage Book of Contemporary American Poetry if you want to read them. Also, I think my reading of Wilbur's poem is a bit strained, but I liked the idea so I went with it and it's too late now to rewrite it. Well, maybe not too late, but I'm too lazy. In other words, I don't think this is my best work (it's a bit schoolboyish, to be honest), but I have a lot of reading to do yet so here it is:

Poetry and dreams have been connected from the beginning of literature. Whether the writer transforms actual dreams into poems or, like Chaucer, creates poems as dreams, the two seem to share characteristics that intrigue poets. Of course, what fascinates them seems to be, in many cases, insomnia rather than sleep. Given the preponderance of poems like Elizabeth Bishop's “Insomnia” and Chaucer's “Book of the Duchess” and books like Charles Simic's Hotel Insomnia, one wonders if this fascination with dreaming could be due to something as mundane as sleepless writers longing for the bliss of dreams. Such questions may even be more interesting than the answers. Continuing this tradition are Richard Wilbur's “Walking to Sleep” and Anthony Hecht's “Peripeteia,” albeit in significantly different ways. If Wilbur's advice to insomniacs might be called an art of dreams, then Hecht falling asleep at a play is a dream of art.

Although on its surface, Wilbur's poem appears to be merely advice on how to fall asleep, it is, as expected, more than simply a warm glass of milk. Much like Coleridge's “Kubla Kahn,” it can be read as an examination of how one creates a poem. In fact, without the title the lines “Step off assuredly into the blank of your mind. / Something will come to you” might be interpreted as advice to an aspiring writer. The title, although a pun on “sleepwalking,” inverts the word's usual sense. Instead, it emphasizes the “walking” or work-like aspect of the process while converting “sleep” into a destination rather than a state of being. Wilbur also describes the way in which our creations tend to outstrip our intentions to become to an extent self-created. The work “[m]ay take on whims and powers of its own.” He also advises the prospective writer not to “[watch] your step too narrowly” for it will result in “shrinking your purview / To a tight vision of your inching shoes.” The poet must remain alert and open to the world as the raw material of art. However, with its ability to break free from the poet's control, the work might dredge up dark images of a “trotting cat whose head is but a skull.” As William Carlos Williams wrote, "poetry is a dangerous subject for a boy to fool with, for the dreams of the race are involved in it." Even if one takes precautions, “[t]he abrupt structure... [w]ill improvise like vapor.” The creative act is chaotic and unplannable. Even the end results will “acquire / Insensibly the look of hieroglyphics” and demand interpretation. Writing well also requires discipline in order to “not be detained by dread, or by / Such dear acceptances as would entail it.” Too much distraction and leisure may be only procrastination and ultimately prevent the author from writing down even a single line. The goal, instead, is to keep writing or “moping on” until inspiration takes hold to “blow your brains out” with some novel and unexpected phrase or thought. At this point in the poem, Wilbur introduces the first break, recognizing that this tack may not work. Rather than a deep introspection, it may be necessary to “open your eyes / To the good blackness not of your room alone.” One must seek out nature and, in true Wordsworthian fashion, find as inspiration “groves which are not you / But answer to your suppler self.” Through this method, “you may be granted... a moment's perfect carelessness” and, like Bishop, make “the casual perfect.” Ultimately, however, Wilbur suggests that writing may be little more than “Vishnu sleeping... dreaming by a pool.” Poets love to declare the uselessness of poetry, but the dreams of a god should not be ignored by mortals.

If Wilbur's poem attempts a description of how an artist finds inspiration and transmutes that into poetic meaning, Hecht's concern lies more with the use to which poetry is put. With the title itself, Hecht announces that his poem examines literature. It opens with an image of the audience, “a crowd, / Foul-breathed, gum-chewing, [and] fat with arrogance.” He emphasizes the physical, earth-bound nature of humans and displays us in unflattering light. He also recognizes the artifice of art and how it is “something less than perfection” as he surveys “the cast, / Management, stand-ins, make-up men, [and] designers.” However, once the house lights lower to announce the play, an act akin to opening a book and reading a poem's title, the speaker's state of mind shifts into one of “calm, invulnerable isolation,” a state which “might lead / To solitary, self-denying work / That issues in something harmless, like a poem.” While Hecht like Wilbur seems to deflate the importance of poetry the adjective “harmless” may in this context also mean “causing no harm” or even “beneficial.” It does, after all, “aim... at the soul's knowledge and habiliment,” a lofty and worthy goal. Before the play begins though, the speaker is only conscious “of consciousness” and “touched with a small grace.” The key word here is “small,” as we will discover later. Once the play begins—notably one by Shakespeare—the speaker drifts into a hallucinatory state well known to drowsy symphony patrons. Shakespeare's poetry induces a change in how the speaker relates to and experiences reality, one that is different from the ordinary not just in degree, but in kind. He links poetry to magic when he asks if “the magic cloak and book [can] protect.” The end of the vision comes with a transcendence that singles out the speaker as chosen and unique. Whereas before he was “touched with a small grace,” now:

Miraculous Miranda, steps from the stage,
Moves up the aisle to my seat, where she stops,
Smiles gently, seriously, and takes my hand
And leads me out of the theatre, into a night
As luminous as noon, more deeply real,
Simply because of her hand, than any dream
Shakespeare or I or anyone ever dreamed.

Through the touch of poetry's hand the dreamer's world is transformed. He experiences it as “more deeply real” than before. Though greater than art, it is made accessible through it as if in a dream.

Naturally these readings, particularly that of Wilbur's poem, do not encompass either work completely. Nevertheless, both demonstrate poets working with the materials of art and dream, discovering correspondences between the two while questioning their value. Modern science comes close to providing a complete evaluation of our need for dreams, but the work is far from over for poetry. It is likely no definitive answer is even possible. Similarly, no reading can be fully sufficient to a poem. If these particular ones intersect the more apparent or more substantial themes of the poems only haphazardly or not at all, perhaps they compensate by adumbrating some of the shadowy connections at which the poets hint. After all, those connections are themselves unclear, comprised as they are of intriguing questions and speculations more than final answers and clear comprehension.

Putin has Sudden Seizure . . . of POWER.

Somebody stick a spoon in this guy's mouth, before he bites his tongue off! Why is he shaking like that? Is he sick, or is he just DANCING WILDLY because we're . . . Back in the U.S.!- Back in the U.S.!- Back in the U.S.S.R.?

Of course, you can't help but feel for the people of Russia. As stunted and twisted by oligarchy as their democracy over the last fifteen years has been, they did at least have some vestige of local influence and control, specifically in the election of their regional representatives and presidents. Now, under the ever-popular guise of defending against terrorism, Putin is seizing n-n-n-nominating control over those posts. This will, as the Times points out, probably eliminate what little opposition representation currently clings to the wildly spinning tilt-o-whirl that suddenly is the Duma.

But for us lefties, the most interesting thing is the relatively tepid response that the White house has had to the situation thus far. In the frontpage article above, an unnamed official described the situation as a "domestic affair," though since then Colin Powell has stated fairly directly that the war against terrorism should not be used as an excuse to roll back democratic processes and reforms. But what do you think the chances are of those words, or anything like them, ever coming out of El Busho's mouth? Not likely, considering that he's used similar pretexts to erode civil liberties at home, if in lesser degree - perhaps the ideological disjunct would suddenly become too much for his supporters.

Maybe when Bush previously declared that he understood Putin's "heart and soul," he was telling us more than we could have imagined.

Arrested Development (or The Aesthetic Joys of Breakin’ The Law)

I can’t stop watching this shit. I downloaded the first season from SuprNova, then I got BSPlayer, then a bit of the old Xvid codec. Then I watched 12 –oh, wait, make that 13 - episodes in a row. Everything great you’ve heard and read is true. My new, comfortable chair isn’t making it any easier . . . but got damn. David Cross as a disbarred psychiatrist turned aspiring actor who wears cutoff jeans in the shower. Jeffrey Tambor as a white-collar inmate who converts to Judaism and releases a series of “Caged Wisdom” inspirational videos. It’s absurd and meaningful at the same time – not unlike, you know, The Simpsons. And after the Emmy’s, it looks like they’re actually getting renewed. Hoo-Ray!

Update(10:30pm): Make that 14 episodes.

Update(11pm): Make that 15. FUCK, I have reading to do.

Update(1am): Shit, I watched them all. And being unprepared in class tomorrow will be totally worth it.

The Cowboys' First Game

Unfortunately my assessment of the Cowboys was right inasmuch as it pertains to their loss today against Minnesota. The offense was much improved over last year's. Testaverde showed a confidence in his decision-making that Quincy Carter lacked as he hooked up repeatedly with Keyshawn, Bryant, and Glenn. The running game also looked improved with several backs making good runs. Sadly, the much better offense still missed several opportunities in the red zone. Even so, if the defense had been as good as it was last year, they might still have scored enough to win. Maybe it was just a result of playing such a powerful offense as the Vikings, but it certainly seems like the defense has taken a step or two backwards from last year. Even with a better offense, it wasn't enough to win. I just hope this isn't the case in every game. The defense needs to get its act together and the offense needs to score touchdowns when it gets in the red zone.

A New Blog

The student blog I posted about earlier is finally up. Their first assignment is a post at least one page long introducing their character. The two so far seem fairly good, despite the spelling and grammar errors (keep in mind, these are undergraduates, primarily freshmen and sophomores). Commenting is limited only to blog members since this is a class project, but you can follow along if you're interested.

Justice Department Redacts Radical Propaganda

The Memory Hole brings to light an almost unbelievable recent incident of government infowar. Here is the passage, from a Supreme Court Decision, that was redacted from an ACLU filing:

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

Sometimes you've got to laugh to keep from crying.

Yeah, But What About a Ninja Versus a Pirate?

An article up at the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts goes into excruciating/absorbing detail about who would win in a fight between a Medieval European knight and a Japanese Samurai. It's really quite good, though the author does descend into apologia for the knights. Strangely enough, I was reading through an issue of Dragon Magazine in the library recently, and it looks like the article was reprinted there, seemingly after it appeared on the interweb.

And yes, Dragon Magazine is the official mouthpiece of Dungeon and Dragons (tm). I no longer indulge in that sad and destructive lifestyle, but I still take a sociological interest in its denizens, and hope one day to free them from the bondage of role-playing nerdery.

Plus, dragons (and samurai) are cool.

Football Predictions

The guys over at Football Outsiders have posted their picks and it's not good for the Cowboys. Only two people pick them to even make the playoffs and one of those uses the "have drunken monkeys throw darts" method of choosing. Of course, the sloshed simians do choose the 'Boys to win it all. Unfortunately, I may have to disagree with my favorite of all animals. Dallas seems to have taken a slight step backwards on defense (due in part to the questions at right corner) while improving only marginally and temporarily on offense. The defense should be enough to keep them in the games, but won't be quite as dominating as they were last year. If they had last year's defense plus this year's offense, I'd say they have a good chance of making it several rounds into the playoffs, but the improvements in offense will likely be canceled out by the weaker defense. Ah well.. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Pete Hunter will turn out to be another excellent cornerback (or at least good enough) and the other problems on defense will get fixed, but getting burned in preseason games doesn't bode well. Then again, they did go 3-1. I don't know. I don't do this for a living, you know, so get off my back.

Another Cat Picture

It's an obsession, but at least this one seems to have some artistic qualities...

Last Meals

Random Penseur posts what has to be one of the fanciest last meals death row would ever see.

Of course, I doubt many of those who get themselves into positions where they are to be executed would have quite the refined taste he does. That's not to say that taste makes one a good person, but it does require education which tends to at least reduce the chance that you'll turn into a murderer.

Then again, there's always Hitler. In other words, RP is Hitler because he wants an artichoke vinaigrette at his last supper. Personally, I'd probably want some home-cooking like chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes, fried okra, Texas toast, and beer. You know, comfort food. His more refined list does appeal to me, too, though—a gourmet repast before death, a final feast for the senses.

Chaucer and the Game of Kings

To begin, read Pejman's roundup of discussions about who, in a perfectly played game, has the advantage, white or black? I would take the conventional line that white has the advantage due to tempo, but the idea that a perfectly played game would put white into zugzwang is an attractively counter-intuitive one. The mere fact that these sorts of fun discussions are possible about the game is a point in its favor beyond the life-long joy it can give Caissa's devotees. Then there's the literary uses of chess, an example of which I just happen to have read recently in Chaucer's "Book of the Duchess" that I thought I'd share. Here a forlorn knight discusses the vicissitudes of fortune by describing the death of his lady as having resulted from a chess game against Fortune:

At the ches with me she gan to pleye;
With hir false draughtes dyvers
She staal on me and tok my fers.
And whan I sawgh my fers awaye,
Allas, I kouthe no lenger playe,
But seyde, 'Farewel, swete, ywyws,
And farewel al that ever ther ys!'

Therewith Fortune sayd 'Chek her!
And mat in the myd poynt of the chekker,
With a poun errant!' Allas,
Ful craftier to pley she was
Than Athalus, that made the game
First of the ches, so was hys name.
But God wolde I had oones or twyes
Ykoud and knowe the jeupardyes
That kowde the Grek Pictagores!
I shulde have pleyd the bet at ches
And kept my fers the bet therby.

He goes on to lament the "fals, flaterynge beste" that is Fortune, but that's about all that deals directly with chess. I apologize that it's in Middle English, but I don't have a translation into Modern English, so you'll just have to struggle through. To help you, a "fers" was the piece that the evolved into today's queen, although at the time it was not nearly as powerful as it was able only to move one square at a time and only diagonally. The "jeupardyes" were chess problems that, had the knight studied them, might have let him "pleyd the bet" or "played better." The really interesting thing about this passage for me is, as Mark Taylor discusses in "Chaucer's Knowledge of Chess," an article in volume 38, issue 4 of the Chaucer Review, the way in which Fortune checkmates the knight "in the myd poynt of the chekker, / with a poun errant." In other words, Fortune deals the checkmate in the center of the board with a pawn, a truly humiliating and unexpected mate. Fortune so outclasses the knight in chess that she is able to force him into a king walk all the way into the center of the board and then deal checkmate with the lowliest of pieces. As any chess player knows, a pawn mate is one of the most satisfying you can inflict.

By the way, if anyone wants to play me sometime, I'm usually on freechess.org as mallarme and would love a match.

More Firefox Extensions

For those of you who don't read Slashdot, but use Firefox or Mozilla, here's another, more in-depth look at the extensions available.

Fort Worth Teen Scene 1964-67!!

Probably the highlight of my recent trip to New York (other than shopping at Century 21, anyway) was finding out, through the window of a shotgun vinyl shack, that Norton Records has put out a three-volume tribute to what their website (about ¾ of the way down) describes as "One of America's Most Intense Garage Scenes Ever!" Now, those of you who are, like me, actually from Fort Worth, can imagine my surprise. Granted that Fort Worth has a moderately distinguished recent musical track record (having birthed the Toadies and The American Analog Set in the '90s), it's not the place you can nowadays imagine as ever having been one of the most Intense anythings. But the wax does the talking – the Barons, the Jades, the Cynics, and most of the other bands on Volume 2 (the one I picked up) were teenage heathens, monstrosities whose lustful howls and bloody-knuckled shredding must have left their sharp suits in tatters after every show (if their screaming female fans didn't do it first).

But I ask you, why did I have to go to New York to find out about the proud, nationally respected music of my birthplace?

I suppose the Funky Town (Ta Da - irony!) city fathers see their lame "Cowtown" shtick as enough to define the rudiments of a municipal identity – and chances are, they're right, especially given the sizable chunk of the city's economy that's based on the apparently neo-Roper industries of killing and destroying. You wouldn't want to muddle up that sort of straightforward, gung-ho imagery with the suggestion that, wait, the Sixties actually did happen there, too. And maybe reminding the area's legions of desperately alienated teenagers that people used to have fun in the neighborhood would just be asking for trouble.

Okay, no, nothing quite so sinister, sorry. More likely, the guys running F-Dubs now were busy grooving to Sonny and Cher or Jan and Dean in those days, picking lint from their letter jackets and sneering at the shady-looking James Dean wannabes and their "noise." So the idea of latching onto that music's re-emergent cool as a way of burnishing the city's blase image likely doesn't even occur to them. Every town can't be Austin, I know. But it nonetheless depresses me to think about the opportunity that's being missed – I don't imagine the juvenile delinquents in these bands made it very far out of town, and I bet they'd be down to relive what were quite possibly their glory days. But would anyone care? Even given the proximity of Denton and Austin to hoover up, I imagine, the vast majority of dedicated music nerds in the area, there are certainly plenty of fading boomers around whose memories are bad enough that they would have no trouble suspending their disbelief long enough to imagine that this was actually the music of their youth, instead of Annette Funicello and Jim Nabors.

Anyway, not that it'll ever happen, especially since I'm not sure how easy it would be to even buy these records in Fort Worth. Does someone up there want to do some recon for me?

Movie Review: Hero

Hero was the first movie I've seen in months, so I'm glad it was a good one. Not perfect, but well worth seeing. I won't give away any of the story (although that's not the reason to see it). Instead, a few comments on the style and cinematography. In short, it's a beautiful film. Do not go in expecting a typical martial arts movie. This is more an art film with swordplay thrown in (there's no hand-to-hand fighting; it's all weapons). The really striking thing about the movie are the incredibly vivid, nearly monochromatic scenes which are the modus operandi of the film.

There is a framing device where Jet Li's character tells his story to the emperor, then the emperor retells it how he believes it happened. They go back and forth like this, telling almost the entirety of the story in flashbacks. However, each telling is different both in substance and color (though not style). In this respect it reminded me, to a certain extent, of Rashomon, which was likely the intention. Almost every scene has in it something visually stunning. The fights are elaborately choreographed, but easy to follow. The fighters fly around much like those in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but in a more stately, dramatic fashion.

This leads me to the one major flaw I felt marred the film—the melodrama. The way the plot is told fails to withstand the emotional weight of the characters. In attempting to create an epic myth of China's creation, the director has the actors come across as too distant and serene. This makes the tragic scenes seem overwrought and shallow. However, if you take your cues from the incredibly stylized cinematography and formal mood it creates, it's possible to reconcile the unrealistic acting to the film by seeing the acting as another of its iconographic, stylized aspects. Even so, be prepared for some outsized emotions. However, it's not such a serious flaw that it ruins the movie.

Notice that I've said little about the actual martial arts. That's because it makes up far less than half of the movie's ninety minutes. Do not expect it to be action-packed. Although the fights are beautifully done, they are spaced considerably farther apart than one might imagine based on the trailers. This seems to be enough rambling about the movie for you to get a decent sense of what it's about though, so I'll finish. Overall, I highly recommend seeing Hero, provided you like pretentious art films masquerading as martial arts movies. I do, so I enjoyed it.

UPDATE: Pejman reviews the movie as well, but with spoilers.

A Strategy for Kerry

While it seems most of the Kerry supporters are suddenly in a panic due to recent polls, it was only a few weeks ago that Kerry had been the favorite for months. Remember that since he accepted the nomination he hasn't been able to spend money like Bush, so it's only natural that his lead has dissipated. That said, he does need a coherent strategy, which Mark Schmitt is happy to provide:

Bush's case for himself is all about vision and will. He's willing to make enemies internationally, offend liberals, and transgress some of the principles of public life, because getting things done in a dangerous world sometimes requires that. For that reason, I think the two planks of Kevin's proposed case against Bush -- that he's going to get people killed and that he operates in secret -- actually reinforce the Bush message. The problem with Bush message is that he doesn't really have a coherent vision or will, and the problems we've created for ourselves didn't need to be created. That has to be the base of the message, and other points build on that. For example, Kevin's point that Bush should be critiqued for operating in secret doesn't have much bite if you assume the administration is competent. Given the threat of terrorism and other chaos, we need a certain amount of secrecy. The problem, however, is that the administration uses secrecy not to protect us, but to cover up its own incompetence and failings, and to suppress useful criticism."

The really interesting point about this post is how it attempts to show that criticizing Bush for being too secretive might actually help Bush if he's not first shown to be incompetent. Whether Kerry will be able to muster a simple and effective criticism of Bush that strikes a majority of voters as true remains to be seen, but be it the one Schmitt suggests or something else, he needs to come up with one soon.

Pulling Back

Surely this is a sign that we're doing well in Iraq:

In Iraq, the list of places from which American soldiers have either withdrawn or decided to visit only rarely is growing: Falluja, where a Taliban-like regime has imposed a rigid theocracy; Ramadi, where the Sunni insurgents appear to have the run of the city; and the holy Shiite cities of Karbala and Najaf to the south, where the Americans agreed last month to keep their distance from the sacred shrines of Ali and Hussein.

The calls are rising for the Americans to pull out of even more areas, notably Sadr City, the sprawling neighborhood in eastern Baghdad that is the main base for the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr. There, leaders of his Mahdi Army are demanding that American soldiers, except those sent in to do reconstruction work, get out.

After all, the sooner Iraq is under self-rule, the sooner we will have succeeded, right?

If The Simpsons Mated

A spinoff from Conan O'Brian's sketch "If They Mated," we now have a Simpson's themed one. For some reason this one is my favorite. Maybe just because the idea of Burns and Marge is so shudder-inducing. Or Burns and anyone.

(via Aeiou)

Boethius and the Problem of Evil

Although I found much of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy compelling, there were a couple of points which I think are unconvincing. So far, I've come up with three reasons why this might be:

1. I'm reading a translation and it's possible there are some inaccuracies or poorly conveyed subtleties in it.

2. My shallow philosophical knowledge is preventing me from resolving the apparent problems.

3. There really is a logical problem in Boethius' argument that, although perhaps not apparent then, has become obvious for even a casual reader 1,500 years later.

Of these, the first seems the least likely as it is both a relatively modern translation and one that comes recommended by my professor, a noted medievalist who can read Latin. Furthermore, for the interests of discussion, blaming the translation is the least interesting choice. So, this leaves either a misunderstanding on my part or a problem with the argument itself. I'm split between thinking the former likely, but not necessarily indicative that the latter isn't also true. Also for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume the latter, but, in case anyone wants to argue this, they should keep in mind that I think my own misunderstanding could likely be a problem. So, preliminaries out of the way, onto the problem with the problem of evil as Boethius explains it in a dialogue between himself and Lady Philosophy:

"No one can doubt that God is almighty," Philosophy began. "Certainly not, unless he is mad," I answered. "But nothing is impossible for one who is almighty." "Nothing." "Then can God do evil?" "No, of course not." "Then evil is nothing, since God, who can do all things cannot do evil."

And later:

"But," Philosophy went on, "the sovereign Good cannot do evil." "Certainly not." "And does anyone think that man can do all things?" "No one in his right mind could think so." "But men can do evil." "Unfortunately, they can." "Therefore, since He who can only do good can do all things, and those who can do evil cannot do all things, it is obvious that those who can do evil are less powerful. Moreover, we have already shown that every kind of power is included among the things which men desire, and that all objects of human desire are related to the good as the goal of their natures. But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so is not desirable. And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all. From all this it is clear that good men have power, but evil men are weak."

To me, this second, later passage seems to contradict the earlier one. However, in later sections Boethius attempts to demonstrate how the evil done by men is only apparent evil. Since it is all directed by Providence (i.e. God's will) it appears evil only to us who have limited knowledge. In other words, evil really doesn't exist, even though men can supposedly do it, because in the long view all evil has a good purpose. For some reason, I don't find this convincing. I suppose that if one assumes the existence of God, then the idea that all evil serves a good end becomes a logical necessity. In such a case, it would seem that the argument does hold together. In fact, in writing this I believe I figured out the problem. I had taken the statement that "evil is nothing" too literally in my first reading. Since it came prior to the explanation and elaboration in the next book, it seemed like a contradiction whereas, provided one agrees with Boethius' assumptions, it hangs together.

Maybe this post, then, is a waste of time. So, in order to try and salvage something, I'll move on to a discussion of the second passage. Here we see the interesting and attractive idea that the evil, even if seemingly powerful, rich, and happy, are actually miserable and weak. Again we find an assumption upon which the whole argument rests that we might disagree with, but this one does not rely on the existence of God. Instead, it relies on the nature of humans. To briefly summarize the argument that precedes it which I did not quote, everyone wants happiness which is a good. The ultimate happiness is being good oneself. However, some people seek happiness in transitory, incomplete things such as power or money through error. Since these things cannot provide lasting, complete happiness, those that seek them instead of the ultimate good do not seek what they truly want. Hence, they are impotent and weak. This line of argument is part of the consolation for Boethius, a good man and philosopher who was exiled, imprisoned (during which he wrote this book), and eventually executed.

Tricks of the Trade

Apparently this is a wildly popular article about the little tricks of various trades, but I thought I'd pass it along anyways. Some excerpts:

Nurse

Patients will occasionally pretend to be unconscious. A surefire way to find them out is to pick up their hand, hold it above their face, and let go. If they smack themselves, they’re most likely unconscious; if not, they’re faking.

Graphic Designer

If you have a client who is unable to approve a proposed design without putting her stamp on it, just put an obvious error in the proposal: a logo that’s too large, a font that’s too small, or a few judiciously seeded typos. The client requests the change and feels she’s done her part—and your design, which was perfect all along, sails through to approval.

The whole thing is pretty funny and/or interesting, so check it out.

Blogging Students

The course on chivalry that I'm assisting with this semester requires the students to choose either a web-based project, a paper, or debates. Why anyone would choose anything but the debates is beyond me, since those are, by far, the ones requiring the least amount of work. That said, the professor, aware of my IT background, asked me to come up with some ideas for the web project. I suggested a group blog where the students will take on the personae of various medieval knights and ladies. At least once a week they'll post entries detailing either their adventures or thoughts in ways that are both historically accurate and reflective of some principles of chivalry. I'm actually pretty excited to see how it turns out as the content will be entirely out of my hands and the form seems somewhat experimental to me. I'm certain there are other class blogs out there, but this particular incarnation, if not original seems at least unique. About 25 students chose to do the blog project, so it should be a very active one as well. Once it's up I'll post the link so you can all follow the experiment if you want. Maybe I should start handing out grades to my fellow bloggers here to motivate more posts. Of course, considering how lax I've been lately, I'd probably get no better than a gentleman's C myself.

A Stairwell, Stare Well

If my poor pun offends, I plead late night delirium. Below is just a picture I took today of the stairwell in Dallas Hall, the building where I have all my classes.