First Post of the Fall; A Simple Life Update

I haven't posted on this blog in nearly a month, since I was dreadfully overcome with a sinus infection, so I think it's high time for a new post, and I'm in a self-indulgent mood so I'll talk about what's been going on.

Things are starting to move forward. A symbolic gesture toward progress was made earlier in the week when I sold my 1992 Toyota Corolla, which I have had since 2006 (ie a junior in high school). Even though I am still without my desired car, the 1996 Ford Contour that has been in the shop for a long time (which was fine until August), I discovered that the Toyota had some residual issues from when it got too hot in the middle of Braselton traffic. After it got hot it affected my transmission or head; in any case one of my 4 cylinders wasn't working and the car couldn't get enough power so I was dragging as I drove, barely making it up hills. The issue could be fixed but it wasn't worth it and I was happy to sell it to a 19 year old auto mechanic student so he could fix it up for his girlfriend. It was very much a symbolic gesture as it represents cutting things loose and moving on.

I've been reflecting on specific goals I set myself last year around the same time. It was around October that I began my first non theatre position as a film extra while pursuing my interest in education, applying to a variety of different schools with the hopes of moving out. Ultimately I decided to stay at home, though. My strategy was to stay in Habersham because my best chance of getting a job in education and making education contacts was with the contacts I knew in Habersham's schools; this worked because I am a substitute but ultimately it didn't lead into a full time teaching position due to the "Highly Qualified" status necessitated through certification. It sucks because theoretically (and from what I've heard in actuality) it means that a Physicist with a PhD and 20 years of Physics research and lecturing experience wouldn't get a job teaching Physics or math in high school because he or she doesn't have a MAT or BSEd.

Tangent aside, staying in Habersham has been a positive thing; I've rekindled with a great deal of people, including principals, that will serve well in the future as contacts, I've gotten a method of working as a substitute down and therefore understand practical classroom management, and through working at the library and this position as well as keen personal management I've been able to earn a decent living. This being said, I'm still living at home. At the beginning of the Summer I faced two ultimate decisions that I could move out and survive and live on my income pretty well or that if I wanted to do extensive travelling abroad and backpack into the Andean South America I would have to live at home. My decision was made when my mom, diagnosed with breast cancer, said I should live at home because she needed someone to support her (and frankly, my dad is too desensitized to do so). My goal is to have $2,000 in my bank account by the end of the year. With that I will pay for my ticket to Lima, Peru for three weeks, give or take. Then I will try to have $2,500 in my account by June.

That being said, some interesting changes are to be contemplated and tactfully drawn out. I have decided that getting into a MFA in Creative Writing will be my priority (in reality I decided this a few posts before, but I will reiterate it). I still intend to apply to MAT programs, but the MFA will suit my needs best. I will teach, but my interest in writing will be nurtured in an environment with peers that share my love and interest in similar subjects. Mainly, though, it will help me with a couple of goals that I set last October and last year. For one, I want to move out. Period. I gave my mom and my interest in going to South America this year, but I made it a goal to move out, even if it is in Habersham, within 2 years ie by a August 2013 deadline. The MFA will give me a job and I only intend to apply to programs that are fully funded so I can afford housing. I also have a goal of living outside of Georgia; I love Georgia and I wouldn't mind settling here but I made this goal because even though I have traveled outside of this state I want the experience of living outside of it for proper perspective. I owe myself this opportunity; I don't want to be 40 and hating Georgia but not being able to do anything about it because I have obligations and expenses to worry about.

The MAT program will give me less of that but I'm tiptoeing into being ok with it. I have a special friend who has given me optimism by working as a tutor and doing well in the program. I will have to stay in the state of Georgia to get in-state tuition. Make no mistake; I view the MAT as an undergraduate experience, which I don't care to have, but I have optimism that if I apply to a big university I can have the opportunity to work at something a little more useful in my goals than being a waiter and I think the extra year will help me by having experience that will help me get a job quicker. In short: the MAT isn't my ideal prospect but I am becoming a little less militant in opposition to it.

I do want to comment on an experience I had with Teach for America. I decided to reapply because I felt that it was a good way to teach and get certification while not fully being in a MAT experience. It didn't work out; I made it past the first stage, but the phone interview didn't go so well even though the interviewer was 15 minutes late in calling me and the questions were extremely vague. Some people have had a positive experience with the program, others haven't. Ultimately, I doubt I would have. I am not a fan of charter schools. I will have to elaborate on that in a future post, but I feel charter schools are not doing anything truly positive to enrich students' lives that's tangible. They're sentimental, emotional, but they don't actually improve students' performances, they dilute money from public schools, they dilute attention from public schools, and they destabilize teachers thinking that teachers are the problem (they're not, Michelle Rhee). Teach for America is essentially a recruiting force for charter schools and like charter schools they place preference on emotional qualities such as passion and drive for change. Of course every teacher wants to make a difference in a child's life; that's what most teachers go in to do. There's a difference between a teacher who can teach and a Havard grad who led the Chess Club and chooses to boost his resume by suffering one year with a class full of lower-income students. That maybe bitterness talking, but I realized this was not how I wanted to get into my career in between the TFA stages and I think I sabotaged my own opportunity. Oh well. I will be fine. Probably. (As I said I'm starting to articulate an opinion on charter schools to be posted later).

Also, coming on the 18th will be my GRE test date. So the prospect of Graduate School is looming. Starting this week until the 18th I intend to study, but I also intend to develop my portfolio. I looked up the deadlines for the programs I am most interested in and noted them today. Changes will begin. It will be nice.

New Term: Haughty Suffering Complex

This week, I shall attempt to describe new terms that are apt in appropriately conveying specific situations or individuals; some may be funny, most will not be. My hope, humbly, is to accurate describe a situation that many people undergo. Many of these contain snark, something that may be on the rise as I suffer through my biannual sinus infection.

What is Haughty Suffering Complex?

Obviously it has to do with individuals looking down upon other people, hence the placement of "haughty."

The definition I use for Haughty Suffering Complex is that HSC is where people believe in a quantitative measure of suffering, ie an individual thinks he or she suffers more than you regardless of what you are going through.

A typical conversation might be like this:

"Man, I'm really having a bad day. I got a fever and a cold and couldn't go into work today; all I did was stay up all night and sit around."

"Pst. Please. You think you're having a bad day? I got a fever, and a cold, and AIDS, and I had to go into work today and work with a 106 degree temperature and a diminishing immune system."

As you can see from the previous conversation, even though person A is having a bad day person B is not impressed by said bad day because they suffer more, always.

My dad is a notorious with his HSC. Whatever you've done, my dad has had worse. Had to wash a lot of dishes at work? My dad had to wash 7,000 dishes while on the USS La Salle. Have a cyst on your rear? My dad had a cyst somewhere worse. Get sunburned for a week? My dad got water blisters while in Bahrain.

People who have HSC always suffer more, and if you complain they will ensure you that they suffer more.

Truth is, of course, suffering isn't quantitative. It is qualitative. Therefore, having a haughtiness about your suffering is asinine because suffering is a) fairly relative and b) everyone suffers. There's a brilliant Monty Python skit, "The Fire Yorkshiremen," that expresses HSC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo.

There is a sub sect of HSC, where people who have HSC are specific in their HSC through age. For instance one may say "It's hard eating just ____" and an older person says "In my day we were lucky to have any food at all. You kids are spoiled."

This is called 'Andy Rooney Complex.'

On Post-College

Don't avoid real life. It's not too shabby. 

You have to face it sometime. Just jump in. It'll suck, you'll have struggles. I did, most certainly. It's how you find out what you're made of, though. You realize you're doing the right profession, or the wrong profession. It helps you figure out what you want to do better than college because when you're facing back rent, student loan debt, or whatever, you begin to realize if you're making the right decision, or if you need to change your direction. It helps you prioritize what you want to do in life, whether it helps fuel your drive to succeed in your current pursuit or if it makes you decide to explore options. 

Then there's graduate school. Graduate school isn't for the faint of heart. Graduate school is designed for people who know what they want. If you do not know what you want, you should not go to graduate school. And unless you have experience working in a profession in the real world, I'm inclined to not be sure if you know what you want. It's, in a simplistic metaphor, like buying shoes that you're not sure if they fit. And graduate school is a really expensive pair of shoes. You certainly want to make sure they fit, especially knowing that graduate school WILL NOT guarantee you a job.

When you do get a job that's nice, you'll see that it is quite nice. There's nothing lovelier than spending your day earning money and having a social life afterwards, rather than going to classes and being in debt or poor to have a social life or working your ass off at a job.

My advice to graduating or upcoming graduating classes; 22 is a nice young age. Explore yourself. Explore your options. Don't settle down yet, but have enough self awareness to have direction or objectives. Don't be aimless in just working odd jobs. 

Graduate School Progress

Based on my previous posts a few things about my graduate school views are becoming clear. I have reached the point to where I recognize further schooling will be necessary. I remain reticent at the prospect of MAT programs, therefore MFA in Creative Programs are my priority. Based on my prose output this Summer (and really ever) my poetry stands as the strongest representation of my potential as a writer, therefore my focus shall be on MFA in Poetry.

My choice of MFA schools change every day or every other day if I'm lucky. Consequently I have decided to develop a criteria for MFA colleges. For one, they should be areas I'd like to settle in; this means the Atlantic South, the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior areas (within the vicinity of Chicago), and New England. Secondly, the college should be in a place that doesn't require a huge amount of car expenses. I am weary of the prospect of having to drive around to get anywhere, or at least doing it excessively. Therefore I am looking at institutions in cities that are developed to have fully functioning and overarching transit systems, or college towns that aren't huge and catered to a specific college crowd. Third, programs should be fully funded, which for a MFA program to be worth it in this economy, it should be. 

I intend to apply to 3 MFA schools. I have about six prospects: U of Miami, U of South Carolina, U of Florida, U of Minnesota, U of Illinois, and UMass-Amherst. Amherst, Columbia, and Urbana-Champaign are college-oriented areas that are pretty accessible and not too hectic, and Minneapolis, Miami, and Boston fulfill the prospect of substantial city qualities. U of Miami and Minnesota are my top choices, but this could change tomorrow; NC State has been on my radar for a while but Raleigh is a bit sprawled out for my interest, as Central Florida in Orlando might be. Wisconsin is also on my radar. 

This is all well and good, but I need a good portfolio and I  am facing a crisis of portfolio choices. I have written many poems, with many of them of pretty decent quality, and many of them fairly rancid. I have tried to delete the rancid poems, which serve as a means of helping me get through writer's block. 

I have tried to retrieve poems from my output over the years, and I feel like I have 17 potential portfolio candidates, to fill about ten portfolio spots. Five of them are good quality and are definitely going to be in my portfolio. Therefore I have five spots for the other 12 poems I have in my arsenal.

The intention of portfolio is to reflect the themes I intend to communicate through my poems as well as communicating the state of myself as an artist. This means going through poems that I have written that I find outdated, usually poems written in a confessional free verse style. I have a poem, for instance, where I describe the sort of hazy moment of the awkwardness of seeing someone I don't want to see, but I feel it doesn't accurately portray my output. On the other hand, I have another poem similar, but I am thinking of including it due to how it holds up themes that I still carry. 

I will probably still continue to write poems, but my priority between now and December 1st is primping up my portfolio and mending/revising various poems here and there.

Dear Gary Bettman: Please Quit

Hockey is my sport.

This seems odd, given that I am a Georgian, that I live in a state infatuated if not religiously devoted to college football and that I also live in a state who has given up not one but two hockey franchises to...Canada. It certainly creates a fish out of water feeling, just...in my own water.

Consequently the NHL and my love of a sport that few seem to take in for its brilliance has been subject to anguish. By being an Atlanta Thrashers fan by itself I saw my team endure losing, hopeless seasons as it turned away fans because of the apathy and ineptitude if not outright malice of the front office, where Atlanta Spirit never made an effort to cultivate a fan base (like Carolina, Dallas, other Sun Belt cities), never built any defensive depth for long term (playoff) goals, and never fired Don Waddell. Then when the Atlanta Thrashers were pursued by True North to be moved to Winnipeg, the fans, not the front office, took the brunt of the media's scolding.

This isn't about the Thrashers, though.

I certainly could articulate my frustration about the Thrashers' move further, but I am a year too late and I have moved on, with unwavering love for this sport.

Yet, my love wavers now, for the NHL is threatening a lockout...again. This is unacceptable.

I understand the owner's interest, and their demand for a revenue share that is closer to an equal share is fair enough.

Demanding that the players' share of the revenue be 43%, with a $450 million loss, is asinine.

The NHL Players' Union even showed their iniative and interest in negotiation but putting forth a Collective Bargaining Agreement that not only dwindles the revenue the players earn (losing them money) but also puts in a provision, one which makes it worthwhile to me, that the NHL would set up a revenue sharing system similar to the NFL to help boost and keep afloat smaller market teams, like Florida, Columbus, and-if this were 2010-Atlanta.

What was Bettman's response? No deal. Not even close. We will lockout if no deal by September 15th.

Gary Bettman: You need to go.

You represent the Owner's interest and the Owner's interest alone. You do not represent the fan's interest. Bettman, you may counter that by saying the Player's Union only acts in their interest and that their reluctance to accept the NHL's deal is indicative of apathy towards fans and selfishness, but they presented a deal to you in which they would LOSE money in the long term, while asking for a revenue sharing system that would benefit teams that are in smaller markets and have a dedicated fan base that isn't as broad as, say, the New York Rangers.

This is not just business, but politics. This is about the NHL having a deal that Bettman came up with, or one that the owners came up with, and not one the Players' Union came up with. This is just like the Democrats putting in a provision in a bill that Republicans favor and conceived and then the Republicans voting against said bill (or vice versa, the Democrats not voting for a Republican bill, etc). If the NHL Players' Union gave Bettman a CBA that he wanted, he'd still reject it. It's not about the fans, not about hockey, not about the players. It's Bettman; he knows that NHL fans will take in their product because there is no competition for professional hockey. He is acting like the cinema owners from my post about giving a shit.

Bettman needs to be fired by the board of directors, trustees, owners, whatever. If his hubris is so large that he can automatically put the lockout on the table as a first option, then he's far too dangerous for the sport. It is representative of short term thinking, not realizing that all of this will begin to turn away fans, especially young fans or new fans. It is within the self-interest of the league in the long run to be able to continue creating new markets for sport, which Bettman might point out it has done with the 'Winter Classic.' Yet, the NHL rose because of players like Ovechkin and Crosby, and because dedicated fans went back. It will be hard to foster new markets when there's a strike or lockout every six years that sets the NHL back.

Bettman is not good for the long term growth of hockey, and, really, he's not too wonderful for the short term.

When you watch the Super Bowl, no one completely boos Roger Goodell. Yet, take a look at this clip from the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iHJuBECBkU.

You may think, this was in Vancouver, where Vancouver just lost a hard fought final to Boston, but take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqkjxNSWZ0. He's not just booed at Stanley Cup Finals, but drafts. DRAFTS!

The NHL should do the following:

1) Make the CBA good for 8-12 years. We've had 2 lockouts already in the past 20 years.

2) Create a revenue sharing system, so small market franchises can survive and develop depth in their roster. If you want a good fan base, you have to have good teams and success. No shit.

3) Fire Gary Bettman.

An Update on Portfolio Work and Life

I'm closing in on the first day of school next week, which will ultimately bring me back to 40 hour weeks to its benefit (yay money) and to the detriment of my writing output. High time to give myself a self-awareness check.

This summer wasn't quite as a fruitful in prose. I do have a few 3 page stories, though a couple of them are pretty rough. I do have an 8 page story, about an elderly man driven to extremes at a country buffet, that I think has a great deal of potential. I still have the ten page story that is 'country noir' that I want to complete by next Thursday. I also want to make another piece of flash fiction. We'll see how this goes. Lately I've been playing with elements of the grotesque, as per my Flannery O'Connor and South Park influence. I am starting to find something a thematic groove, as my sense of place in Northeast Georgia and Southern Appalachia has become something of an enabler, lending me some wonderful characters. I do think my character work has gotten better. Hopefully if I can get a couple of stories in before Thursday I can at least revise some material that I've got. I still think my "Teeth" story has some potential, so I do think it'll help in the long run to have that piece. I also still have the 'Hostage' piece, about the kids who take their classmate hostage. There's some problems in the late acts that I need to revise. 

I have realized, though, I need to get back to writing some scripts, which will happen soon. I have also realized that poetry is more enjoyable for me to write, and consequently my output has more weight. Much like my prose this Summer, my poetry has been something of an exploration of my region and place and I've received some positive feedback from friends on certain poems. I certainly feel that "Alabama Coastal Plain" has some potential in being published, as does "Thunderstorms."  I do feel like it would be worth my while to place the emphasis of my portfolio on my poetry. 

Besides publication, my poetry and prose are going to be hopefully important soon in my attempts to graduate school.

I had hoped to explore the option of getting a teacher position while not certified, but unfortunately the position I was most qualified for, and for the school I have experience and contacts with, did not come to me. I did not get interviewed. I have not been interviewed for any teaching job. So graduate school will have to be a priority. 

I intend to continue substitute teaching because it is the best thing for me, but I am looking at grad programs now. I hate this, because the MAT just seems incredibly expensive and incredibly risky given the job market for teachers. I do hope that another year (and hopefully more) of sub teaching will contribute to me having some room for work due to my experience. I know this; if I'm going into a MAT program I want look into expanding my contacts. That means somewhere outside Gainesville and Habersham; no Brenau and no Piedmont. North Georgia and Georgia State are my top two. Georgia State has the best vibe to me; the person I emailed was wonderful, their instruction is based on developing constructivist curriculum, and they are near Decatur, which I wouldn't mind living at. Plus it is in an urban setting, which is something that might be able to get me jobs in Chicago or Seattle if that comes up. North Georgia has the benefit of a really quick program, low costs, and proximity to both the rural mountains and to really high paying teaching jobs in Forsyth County and, in a good drive, to North Fulton. They also give certification in the first year and they have a post grad program, but I'm not sure if I'll do that; there is no Government funding for that program, which means out of pocket and private loans. 

I am, however, determined to explore the option of fully funded graduate programs, though. This means MFA programs, like NC State, Oregon State, and Oregon, as well as PhD programs like the PhD in CW at University of Illinois in Chicago. UGA also has a PhD program, but I think I'd like to look at getting out. 

I am quite optimistic. That may change.

My Progress With Portfolio Work

Slowly but surely I'm withdrawing from prose, which may be a bad thing and a good thing. 

This may be a bad thing because I'm struggling to continue my prose work. I could use insubstantial artistic justification and cite a lack of inspiration but I feel it has more to a lack of interest (more on this below). This certainly could be another setback stemming from a lack of conception as to how to develop specific characters, but my character work hasn't been hopeless. I think I may have found my greatest enemy: plotting. 

Currently I've been working my 'country noir' story, and I think I have better characters than perhaps I'm willing to give myself credit for. Yet, the plot seems to be a bit thin. Maybe this is just a process but I'm becoming exasperated with a lack of infrastructure, so to speak, with my plot. Last week I had about 6 pages (out of ideally ten or more) of work, but I stopped because I find the robbery that lies within the crux of the plot doesn't make a bit of sense. Consequently I feel I need to take some time to figure out what my characters' struggles might be and then have my characters progress the plot--perhaps. 

To digress, I've actually started back at writing some poetry. After last week's frustration with my story I wrote a comic poem about my disappointing walk to the Harry Ransom Center while in Austin. I feel there can be some judicious editing needed but I laid down some interesting poetry. I also looked at some of my old work and I feel a great deal of it has potential. For awhile, poetry was my focus and specifically image-heavy poetry influenced by Eastern and especially Japanese poetry. I've ventured into experience-heavy poetry, a la Ginsberg and Whitman but I feel that it is easy, especially for me, to veer into self indulgence. I think some of these poems have potential, but I think I need to get back to image-heavy poetry, which has been my strongest material, as well as lay some commentary or discourse in these poems, much like Rumi would do or Neruda (both of which I like more than Basho or Ginsberg). 

It has also led me to think about what I enjoy about writing. I enjoy reading, but lately I've been reading less of classics like a good writer should be and watching 'The Wire.' I've also been reading some poetry, especially that of Thomas Hardy (and I plan to read 'Far From the Madding Crowd' soon). This has led me to reconsider what genres I enjoy the most in writing. When I was in my latter years of college I found enjoyment in writing, but writing scripts and poetry. My prose struggles have been numerous and I have worked on it, and I've got some good drafts. Yet, I'm starting to think that my prose struggles are not just my incompetence in writing prose but a lack of interest. Poetry gives me a great deal of joy, as does script writing. Part of me is thinking that I should refocus my portfolio on poetry and scripts, because I enjoy them the most and that maybe my prose isn't coming too well because I'm not interested or subconsciously I find it boring. I read a great deal of short stories, but my novel reading is subpar; typically I find reading 300 pages or more to be exhausting because I feel like it's unnecessary. If Faulkner could create an ensemble of hopelessly interesting characters in less than 250 pages in 'As I Lay Dying' then anyone can. That being said, I think I should continue trying for my prose. I'm thinking that writing from first person might be a good change of pace, as it best resembles dialogue and script writing (as far as prose concerns). I do think that my point of view work on a character in my 'country noir' story was exceedingly better, so I may start at that. 

Preparing for the MFA with Writer's Block

I've realized that if I do not get a teaching position within in the next year it will be necessary to go back to grad school.

My interest in writing and education has led me to believe that besides the dreaded MAT program (as I've discussed before) I should look into MFA in Creative Writing Programs. I've decided to apply to two MAT programs at least and at least two MFA programs. Since I've decided to apply to MFA programs this summer will be dedicated to building up my portfolio. 

Most MFA programs require a portfolio with 20-40 pages. Therefore my goal for the summer is write and work on at least 40 pages of prose (if not more). I intend to build up my portfolio by working on a 20 page short story, a 10 page story, and about 3 or 4 stories under 10 pages.

Thankfully I feel like I have a fair share of old material I can work on through revision. I have a 20 page story already laid out, but it needs heavy revision in specific moments. I have an idea for the ten page story, but it hasn't been written yet, so I'll probably start on it soon. The quick fiction pieces, as I'll call them, haven't been all worked out. I had been working, slowly, on an episodic story about a girl named Dorothy developing into an independent person; one part talked about her stunted attempts to date boys, one talked about her moment laughing at Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" when it was played during 9/11. I had planned to write about her conflict with her religious grandmother, but as I think about this I feel it might be better to separate these ideas and make them unique, individual stories. I feel like if I can create memorable characters from these individual stories it might serve my quick fiction interest. I do have another story about a kid digging for gold in his backyard, that's more than just about a kid digging for gold in his backyard, but I'm not sure to work on it or not. 

Besides showing my capacity for character development, I want to show these MFA programs my uniqueness not only in storytelling but also subject matter. I've come to realize that I have some consistencies in my subjects and themes. I'm very interested in the cognitive development of young persons, especially in how this development interacts with their growing awareness of the world and how their own, specific worlds shape their awareness. My 20 page story is about kids who take their chum hostage, but it's also about how they're driven to excess through the negligence of adults. I'm also interested in the mechanisms in living in a small town area, especially a small Appalachian area, during the 1990s and 2000s. So much changed during this time in Southern Appalachia as jobs grew fewer and the economic divide grew greater and meth completely devoured homes where I grew up around. There's definitely a Daniel Woodrell influence, but I'm not exclusively interested in 'country noir' though that's what I'm planning with the 10 page story. 

Why do I write about all this? This blog was initially suggested to show my inner workings concerning my writing and my output, but ultimately became a soap box for things I care about. It will remain a soap box, but I feel like it may serve me well to use this blog as a mechanism for self awareness over the Summer as I work on this portfolio. Self awareness is important in growing as an artist and keeping one on track, which is what I really need. 

As the title suggests, I've been overcome with a great deal of writer's block, rooted in my work. My creative writing output has stalled in these past two months because work has led me to be mentally exhausted and consequently my ideas have been stalled and exhausted. It's really hard to work at writing when you have 40 hour work weeks; not that this is impossible, but it's hard. Another purpose of this blog has been so that I can write something, anything while still working 40 hour weeks. So now that I am only working 17 hours a week, it's time to write!

A Belated Post on Austin

Austin, the live music capital of the world and supposed hub of alternative culture, is no Atlanta.

In fact my recent vacation to Austin by way of travelling on the Greyhound bus through the Gulf South has reaffirmed by faith and pride in the Atlantic South and Georgia.

Travelling, as I've mentioned before, provides opportunities for transcendent moments that help provide self awareness and perspective on life. Chicago put perspective on my life as a recent graduate, uncertain of what career I wanted for myself. The enjoyment of Millennium Park, Willis Tower, the North Side, and the food gave me a desire to bask in my youth and relish in life for a bit (rather than completely immerse myself in 14-16 hr days in film or theatre for barely enough). 

What did Austin put in perspective? For the past year I've been bashing Atlanta and to an extent Georgia; I've made my interest in moving away once certified to a great deal of people, among a general distaste for certain elements of Atlanta (namely the sprawl and city planning) and the political climate of Georgia (whose state legislature have performed meaningless and useless political actions while not properly discussing others). In short, I grew tired of the short term thinking of many Georgians and Atlanta at the expense of long term planning and wise investment (say, in education). All of this led me to think of moving out once I became certified in teaching or once I got into grad school. UT-Austin had been on top of my most desirable grad schools, with a fully funded MFA in Creative Writing and a great deal of cross genre work. Austin has been growing exponentially over the past few years, winning accolades for its nightlife and food and in particular its music. 

Atlanta is better, to me, at least. 

What Austin put in perspective was the value in my home state and gave me ammunition in pride in my state. 

Make no mistake, Austin isn't a bad city. 6th Street is a good street for nightlife. There's some great food here, ranging from taco trucks like 'Karma Taco' to Caribbean/Italian fusion places like Rasta Pasta at The Drag. It even has the backdrop of the Colorado River (Texas's Colorado River, not THE Colorado River that flows through the Grand Canyon) and Lady Bird Lake. It also has a badass state capitol. 

This, however, is all in Atlanta and in plentiful portion. 6th Street has a good music scene, but it primarily has John Mayer or Stevie Ray Vaughan wannabes, coffeehouse music, or club music. We have that in Atlanta, but in more original and uniquely raw forms and more of it (a la Opera, Club Mami, etc). We have great restaurants, especially in East Atlanta and Midtown like The Vortex, Ann's Snack Bar, Bluefin, and Mary Mac's. We have the Chattahoochee River and Piedmont Park and our capitol, while smaller, has a golden dome.

Austin is just as sprawled out as Atlanta. I tried to navigate through most neighborhoods and got blisters all over my feet because there is no transit in Austin. They have a bus system, but it is narrow and doesn't cover  a great deal; it-and this is sad-makes MARTA look like the Subway or CTA. I could get around to most places in Atlanta through MARTA; I can get to Little 5 Points through the Inman Park station, or Decatur through their station, or Midtown through Arts Center Station or Cheshire Bridge through Lenox Station. That does not include the bus routes MARTA has. One couldn't do that in Austin. Nor was the bus too reliable; I'd end up waiting 40 minutes to an hour waiting on the right bus at a station, even though it was supposed to be no less than 20 minutes at a given stop. East Austin has no bus coverage, for the most part, which made my seemingly feasible trip to the Rude Mechanicals for their new show (which sucked by the way) far more time consuming and treacherous. 

There's a lot of cool stuff in Austin, but for me I was unimpressed because Atlanta spoiled me, with actual travel destinations for tourists a la Georgia Aquarium, or cultural places like the High or the Alliance, as well as nightlife. I had some wonderful moments in Austin, especially when I was with people I met at the hostel, but I couldn't help but feel I was missing out on a better vacation. Especially given the expenses I could've gone to the Grand Canyon, or even somewhere local like Western North Carolina or Charleston or Savannah. Instead, I spent more on Austin than Chicago and trust me, Austin is no Chicago. 

It lead me to not understand why Atlanta didn't get the kind of coverage that Austin received in travel articles. Atlanta is better than Austin, no offense. 

Does this mean you shouldn't visit Austin? Not necessarily. For any interested traveler I'd suggest visiting Austin as a stop on a road trip, on the way through the Southwest, as well as visiting San Antonio. 

Would I suggest Greyhound? Actually, Grehound wasn't so bad. If you look up Greyhound on the internet you'll see a great deal of horrible reviews, discussing lost cargo to missing buses to lack of reservations in seating. Greyhound wasn't quite like this; I had no troubles or pains in cargo and I always had a seat. I think Greyhound is much like driving, with specific benefits and detriments. The benefits are the rural areas you see for better (like the farm land of Central Texas) and worse (the Gulf South, Mississippi's roads). I think if you do not have a form of transportation or a reliable form of transportation (like me) then Greyhound is definitely an option. Between the bus and flying, I'll take flying though. 

Even though I'm disappointed that I didn't get quite my money's worth in travelling, and that Austin didn't live up to much of its hype (to me), I'm glad I can take a perspective back that where I'm at and living isn't too bad. I'm acquainted with people who do not like Georgia and who came here and haven't acclimated to our ways, but now I feel like I have fair enough room to counter their beliefs with a great deal of pride and appreciation to what I've got. 

Really, it also showed me that I need to start thinking wisely and not differently about travelling. I chose Austin because it seemed different, over my instinctual interests in smaller areas (like Charleston or Savannah) and my love of nature (like Western North Carolina, like the Grand Canyon, etc). I should trust my instincts and wisdom over intellectual choosing something that's difficult or different.

Also, this trip showed me the importance of not just being by oneself. I had no issues in terms of discomfort. I just realized that having company would've made my trip better. Choose company and think wisely while travelling, and trust your instincts. 

Between Atlanta and Austin, go to Atlanta.

UPDATE: 7/28/2013

I miss Austin. Go to Austin as well.

The Other Generation Y

I hate it when Generation Y is pinned down as lazy or spoiled by older generations. Check out this blog post from "Bayou Renaissance Guy" where he addresses my generation citing other articles that reflect the attention my generation is currently receiving (because of our coming of age) through analysis and criticism:  http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2010/06/generation-y-spoiled-rotten.html. There's also this article:  http://www.offthegridnews.com/2011/12/08/generation-jobless-victims-or-spoiled-losers/. In fact, google "generation y lazy" and see what comes up.

I resent this stereotype for various reasons, namely that it reflects generalization, fundamental attribution error ("I got a job, so if you can't- tough"), a lack of awareness of changing economic climate, and truly it stems from this Objectivist idealism that people are not held back by circumstance or upbringing or anything like that, like why poor, black inner city youth can learn  computer code even though they may not have access to computers in their environment (http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/12/12/if-i-was-a-poor-black-kid/). That's the thing; there's this notion that, as my Ayn Rand-influenced friend put it, sociology and psychology are the "sciences of making excuses for people." Essentially, this means that factors such as socioeconomic development, parental guidance and raising don't affect cognitive development and that people use this as an excuse to their laziness and that the elites and people who succeed are that way through their own hard work. 

Bull-wait for it-http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/For-my-fans-of-the-wire-sheeeeit-obama-hope-change.jpg.

Of course there are people out there who did not grow up in fortunate circumstances and had low income families but were often able to find through their human experience moments of clarity, or having the right people raise and take care and influence them, or interacting and creating bonds with the right people, or being influenced by the right models or right philosophies. There are definitely instances of this, but that doesn't mean there are not adverse circumstances that adversely affect people. People's cognitive development, perspective on life, and life's philosophy are certainly affected by being around the wrong people, having the wrong type of parental raising (or not any parental raising), and having a human experience where exposure to raw and awful shit affects you. 

There's evidence in neuroscience for this in neuroplasticity, where the brain remaps itself based on human experience. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz even wrote a book about how he helped people with OCD by having them  just think that they don't have OCD: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Mental/dp/0060393556. People learn to survive through models, through experience. With good parents, people grow up learning to survive through hard work and dedication and develop empathy for other. Not everyone will have these parents, or upbringing. 

This is The Other Generation Y. 

Generation Y is stereotyped as trust fund kids, people who followed their impulses to impractical degrees who suffer through unemployment, people who occupy Wall Street with  no aim, and were spoiled by technology, instant communication, and financial wealth and upkeep. 

Behind this and unnoticed is the Other Generation Y. See, Baby Boomers were stereotyped in very much the same way as Generation Y's were; impulsive, spoiled brats who vest themselves in material needs and status symbols like sleek cars, and such, but this wasn't the case for a lot of them. During this time there was The Other America, where people suffered through low incomes, low circumstances, and low chances. When the kids of The Other America came of age they were the ones who went to Vietnam, not the Benjamin Braddocks. They came home to an economy like it is now, they turned to drugs and impulsive relationships and unplanned parenthoods. These are the people who were devoured by Cocaine and Crack and had children that became The Other Generation Y. This Generation Y subgroup had to grow up in broken families, through divorce and fighting, had to see low incomes go lower because of the shift of manufacturing to overseas markets, were devoured by meth and now they're coming of age. 

Like many posts, this one comes about because of a specific incident. A former childhood playmate was arrested, with someone else his own age, for home invasion and theft. He put a gun on a senior citizen and took his wallet and money. This guy is a member of The Other Generation Y. 

It saddened me, truly, to see him on the front page of our local newspaper, because he wasn't a terrible kid growing up. He was smart and had a wit about him; he picked on me quite a bit, but I was a nerd and he was one of the few kids who came over to my house for my birthday. Unfortunately, he had a mother who was a substance abuser and lived on a street that notoriously was full of people like that. He barely got to be with his father, who died a few years ago only 56 and said father neglected if not outright abandoned his family. His father was a drunk and impulsive, having 6-8 kids with 3 different women. 

I was lucky; even though my dad was a member of the Other America he grew up with good role models in his extended family, like his Great-Uncle Arthur, his uncle Carlton, and his employer Otis Stonecypher. Therefore when he got out of military service in 1975, he knew better than to go into drugs and instead used his GI Bill to go back to school and get trained in a trade. Though my dad worked a lot and I didn't see him a lot, I wasn't raised by someone who didn't understand his position as a parent. When I played recreational sports, my dad didn't always throw the ball with me because of his job and his fatigue, but I never had to worry about whether or not I was going to be picked up. 

See, the guy I mentioned earlier did. Let's call him D. D was on the same football team as me and I remember we had practice then when it was over, my dad was at his truck waiting to pick me up. D's wasn't, even though he was supposed to. Because my dad knew D's father, he and I waited, giving D some change to use the pay phone (before cell phones became popular) to call his dad, and waited for him to come pick him up. We waited 20 minutes, during which time D cried because he was certain his dad wasn't going to pick him up. My dad was just about to take him home, when D's dad finally showed up. I'll never forget that, because to me it seems basic that as a father you show up and pick up your kids, but that's because I was raised in an environment where that happened. D wasn't, and unfortunately he didn't have role models, parental guidance, or an upbringing that showed him necessary skills and developed a sense of self-awareness. Instead, he learned through his human experience that he had to make it on his own, and through impulses (word of the blog, if you couldn't tell) he led himself into robbing a senior citizen (who chased him out with a shotgun, by the way).

The idea of "Generation Y" almost seems asinine to me, because it fails to capture the entirety of people born in my date range. Not all of us had exposure to technology from an early age. Not all of us have iPhones, not all of us went through school without working or had new cars or new stuff. A lot of us grew up like this Bayou Renaissance man did, or came up with worse, because of the shift in the job market, because of how unplanned parenthood and drug addiction ate up people who needed help.

That's another word of the blog: help. Like, I hope D gets help and can clean himself up and make good decisions. People need help, and getting help doesn't mean you're spoiled either. Everyone gets help in one way or another.

Contemplation of MAT Programs and On Student Loans

I'm a firm believer that loan debt is not indicative of maturity.

This seems trite, but when discussing loans with a colleague of mine last summer this individual's response to my justification that some people choose GSC because they don't want to take on so much debt was "Well then you grow up and take up a loan" and this was echoed a year before by a fellow student as well. These were, like me, theatre majors.

In my earlier post "On College" I talked about how college has been in my mind lately because it has been a year (actually a year and two days from this post) since I walked. Also, college is a major topic in the media because of how unemployed young people are, something Obama has noticed and is trying to alleviate with lower interest rates on student loans (which would make me happy).

Today I started thinking about loans and debt because I realized that the MAT program looms over me, even though I wish to not undertake this program. I truly want to teach, and find immense gratification in education and especially English education, but the MAT program doesn't seem worthwhile to me. It seems to be more theory than practice; you come in and undertake one year and a half of theory then a semester's teaching for one class. For me, as someone in the classroom three and sometimes four times a day three days a week as a substitute teacher I find that I get a fair amount of classroom experience and really this is the best way to get prepared to be in the classroom. Any teacher will tell you that, and I know because I've asked them.

There's also something worse about the MAT program; no funding. There's no funding for most programs (there's a few like Emory's MAT program which provides some funding for matriculating second year students but it's freakin' Emory so tuition is pretty high) and most classes are during the day. So, really, you're not in grad school you're in extended undergrad and the MAT program is essentially designed like the last two years of a Bachelors in Education program is, just for non Bachelor's in Education holders. Most teachers who obtain MAT programs usually have to do MEd programs, depending upon their focus. Here's the catch though; it can charge so much because it is an alternative route to certification. If you have a Bachelor's degree but not in education and therefore not certified you can either get hired after passing GACE scores and go through the least expensive GA TAPP (or equivalent for other states), do a post-bachelor's degree that lasts a year, or the MAT. Unfortunately, because of teacher layoffs and the low demand for specific teaching subjects (a la my subjects) the MAT is looking like the only route to certification.

This worries me. As I mentioned in the above the MAT program doesn't really suit me or my needs and experience (and probably, honestly, very few people). More importantly, however, is the cost. A MAT program has the same costs as any other Graduate institution, which is per hour usually. At North Georgia, this is around $17,000, At other institutions this is around the $20,000 ballpark. Plus, it's usually two years of my time, and as I mentioned because it is during the day you either have to support yourself through a night job or just take more student loans for living expenses.

That brings me back to the subject of loans. I think people are starting to realize what I have felt, and what I argued against with my colleagues, which is that the idea of good debt ie student loan debt is an outdated illusion. There is no good debt; there's debt. Twenty years ago student loan debt may have been good debt, because of the job market for college educated people, but now with the economy and the saturation of the good market student debts are just more debt. There's necessary debt, and there's needless debt. You have a job that  pays reasonably well and you want to settle down and have kids, taking out a loan to pay for a house is necessary.

Most people will argue that college loans fall in the category of necessary debt, because investing in one's future is important. I agree, but that doesn't mean college loans aren't needless debt. My friends were taking on debt while theatre majors. This is needless debt, to me. The thing about Theatre, or any Fine Arts or Humanities or Liberal Arts (etc) degree, is that you CAN get jobs in them. They require, however, a great deal after college, and that means working a piss poor entry level job, sometimes earning $150 a week, that means a great deal of time trying to navigate the job market, that means dealing the uncertainties as to what you want to do. Taking out a great deal of loans for that type of degree is high risk and in some cases toxic. Because I went to a small liberal arts degree for my Bachelor's (1 year though) I saw several people coming out with $40,000 or more in loans...for a theatre degree. This is ridiculous. If you major in the liberal arts you should not be able to afford a brand new Ford Mustang with your debt. That means that after college you are going to pay a great deal out of pocket or defer it or whatever depending on your success. Plus, said liberal arts degree isn't the only place to get a theatre degree. There are public universities that will teach just as much for extremely less. That's the rub for needless debt, to me, when you choose the most expensive option over the just as good, if not better, less expensive option. Choosing a college because of prestige and not factoring in cost is asinine if not downright stupid, and taking in debt to fund this investment is needless, if you ask me.

Options is an ideal word for debt. What are the options before taking on debt? Do I need this house or should I take on an apartment for less the cost? It seems simple, but apparently it doesn't stop people from choosing really expensive options and needless options. That's what I am thinking about my MAT program. The people like my colleagues would say just do it, get certified. I'm not on their terms, though, so I feel like I need to explore my options before jumping in the MAT ship. I mean, ultimately, I may have to bite the bullet to it, but even MAT students are struggling (as I saw them in my sub teaching courses). I mean is $20,000 debt worth a $40,000 job? I mean, I could go back to North Georgia Tech and get a two year degree in IT and make that, with less cost. Plus, I feel like the twenties are made for exploring: the world, yourself, and others. This MAT program will not only put me in more debt with the possibility of uncertain options, but also take away two years that I could spend seeing Peru or Egypt, and developing my self awareness.

I may have to start looking at MAT programs, but I'm not doing it without a fight first. Rambling over.

On Tests in Public Schools

Today I subbed for British Literature, which is my territory and consequently I guess I'm a little more observant of how English is taught. English Literature, Rhetoric, and Composition is exceptionally important, not only in the development of basic skills of reading and communication, but also in developing creative critical thinking skills. This means giving a person the skills to form arguments, to develop research strategies, and ultimately be able to critically think in unique situations because of the lack of order of operation in literary analysis. Bottom line: you will not always face a troubleshooting issue that can be fixed by operations. You need a creative element to one's troubleshooting capabilities. This is the ultimate objective in English pedagogy, in my opinion, and it is one of my guiding principles as a future English educator (hopefully).

While substituting I noticed a test on Medieval and Renaissance literature; perusing the questions I found this test to be totally worthless to the aforementioned objective and, really, to the students' future. In perspective, I am reminded of a time when I mentioned the contributions of a chemist in Chemistry 1212 and a guy behind me said "You don't need to know that," because knowing who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry isn't going to help one develop the skills that come with Chemistry. He's right, and I was totally buffoonish. Likewise, this test was basically like me in that chemistry situation, and I regarded it in the same way as my classmate. The questions were basic, trivia questions. "What happened to Lady MacBeth before she died?" "The defeat _____ changed English history." "Elizabeth murdered whom in 1587?"  Do the students need to know this?

To an extent it is imperative to understand context, and in the case of the MacBeth, to understand what happened in what was read. This isn't helping students though. While students need to boost their memory, memory is aided through practical uses. Just remembering a math equation will not help you; your memory of that math equation increases through practice and through application. Likewise, that test should do more to test the students' capability to apply the information to analytical short answer questions. "Explain, briefly, how Shakespeare uses MacBeth to critique Elizabethan politics." "In what way was blood used as a leitmotif?" These kind of questions both enable the student to apply classwork and information but also create critical arguments, and presents circumstances in which analytical tools are pressed into action.

We need to veer away from multiple choice tests. They are asinine, and exist due to student numbers primarily. They do very little in improving the student's applicable capabilities in the real world. At Gainesville State I actually felt I received some wonderful examples of how this can work. My Chemistry professor offered a short answer test, and would grade based on correct answer, but give credit for correct work done on equations in solving incorrect problems. Why? To help facilitate growth. Another wonderful example was Larry Cook, my Stagecraft and History of Costume Design and Decor professor. He only gave out two tests, all of the test was short answer and he'd take off if you didn't put enough on the test; typically he'd expect at least 3 pieces of information per question. A lot of people wouldn't do well, but he always held a policy of allowing the tests to be corrected but with a caveat: if you brought in a test with a question that required a sentence, he'd expect a paragraph. A more applicable example in the English pedagogy context was Chris Barnes, my English 1102 professor. He was pretty laid back, and usually split the class in groups and have them work together. One of the great ideas was that he expected the essay to be worked on, but he'd accept better drafts. Why? Because he, like most people, understand that education is about growth. Not everyone is going to understand an essay at first go, but through analysis of mistakes made on said first go the second draft or even the third draft could show excellence.

Now to get to my (other) bottom line: As an aspiring English educator I tend to be aware of how my teachers and how other teachers teach so that I can build my curriculum accordingly. Any teacher you meet is the sum of the best parts of their favorite teachers. What I believe pedagogy should be based around is enhancing critical thinking and practical skills, as well as spurring growth. That's why I look at the Medieval and Renaissance test, as well as any multiple choice test and standardized test with a decidedly negative view. It does not help students grow, nor does it test critical thinking skills. We cannot do this to our students. We must work towards a more engaging, and a more practical curriculum.

On Giving a Shit

Don't do anything half-assed. Give a shit about what you do. I mean, c'mon.

This seems like a basic, after school or in school symposium speech, thing, but it doesn't seem like people give a shit.

This post, of course, arose from an incident. I love going to see movies, and I see about 30 every year in theaters. Unfortunately due to work, financial setbacks, and other factors I haven't been able to see any movies this month which, also unfortunately-for me at least, has led me to miss on some good movies like "Pina" and "Into the Abyss." Finally, after a long week, and an especially long day with unruly kids I received a nice paycheck and decided to see 'The Hunger Games' at the local cinema. This theater has always had issues with customers, going back to their inception. It seems to be run by wannabe turn-key operators, and consequently they've displayed a lack of concern. During the past few movies I've seen there, I have dealt with quality issues in particular with feedback. I dealt with it during 'Crazy Stupid Love.' I dealt with it during 'War Horse.' The picture quality is a bit low, but I can live with it. I, however, feel that if you pay money for something you should  receive good quality, regardless. During 'Hunger Games,' I didn't get that quality. I figured by a year they would've fixed the issue, but they didn't. I went to go get money back then. The manager, very reluctantly, gave me my money back and added "Well I guess you can pay $18 and see it in Gainesville."

Well, I will. Or I will pay $1.50 to Redbox or $8/month for netflix, or I will pay $5 for HD on Vudu.

Given the variety of options that come with seeing movies-rentals, instant queue, video on demand, you'd think that a movie theater would be appreciative of patronage, that the movie theater would care about the customers enough to ensure quality viewing to properly compete with the home viewing experience. If this were the case, the manager wouldn't have been snarky. He would have said, "Sir, I apologize for the quality and we'll work hard so your next viewing experience will be exceptional." If this were the case, there would not be a feedback problem, or it would've been fixed or the theater would wisely invest money in high quality instruments and equipment. If this were the case, they would say "even if we have to raise the price, it will be less expensive than driving to Gainesville, and people deserve quality." That's just it, though. Their mentality isn't that. Their mentality is "either give us money or pay more to drive to Gainesville." They know that people can't afford on a regular basis to go to Gainesville. They know that their quality might be substandard, that they might be able to cut corners, they might be able to charge a lot for concessions, that they can pick movies that they want rather than what an audience wants. "Don't like it, pay for the gas money to go to Gainesville." To hell with that, and to hell with this "don't like it, leave" mentality.

What happened to giving a shit about people? I'm not one to talk about how good things use to be, because I think that's primarily a load of shit. When you look at some things, you do see various circumstances that seem better. Like profit sharing; when a workplace made a profit, the profits were shared to all employees. The modern day equivalent of that is 401Ks, which do not provide exceptionally liquid assets (unless your 59 and a half), and can be a form of entrapment. Another example: Rich's. Rich's used to be a substantial retail store in the Southeast before being absorbed into Macy's. Rich's had this policy of allowing returns for a substantial time. They didn't care about losing money; they thought long term, and knew long term that keeping a customer was more vital for their business than a short term profit stemming from a purchase (I may need to blog about short term thinking versus long term thinking).

No less, in the case of the rant-and this is a rant out of frustration-I feel that the sense of entitlement that permeates in workplaces and businesses needs to cease. There's a great scene in the season 2 finale of Mad Men called "Meditations in an Emergency" where during the merger of Putnam, Powell, and Lowe meeting Duck Philips outlines his plan for Sterling Cooper, in bringing it to "financial maturity" by buying ad spaces, "the cheaper we can get it." Bert Cooper (the Objectivist of the group) is the one who says "I didn't hear the word 'client' once." This, of course, leads to Don Draper choosing to opt out of this vision because of his concern for clients and his job's duties in favor of the clients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5N3OQklFEU

It seems as though the world has been taken over by the Duck Philips's of the world. People who don't give a shit about people, who are willing to do things half-assed so long as there are short-term profit gains and not take into consideration of long term.

Joe DiMaggio has a quote that I think is suitable for the topic of "giving a shit." When asked why he plays so hard, he said "There is always some kid who may be seeing me for the first time. I owe him my best." I think it is within our self-interests to always owe people our best and to give a shit. 

I will see 'Hunger Games' in Gainesville, by the way.

Am I a Bibliophile or a Snob? (A self-centered post)

The individuals I encounter who consider themselves bibliophiles will not stop reading a book once he or she starts, regardless of how bad.

I do not have this patience. I have dropped books as a few as 10 pages in and as far as 200 pages in because I no longer care.  

Here are my snobbish traits that will make bibliophiles cringe and my defenses.

1) I will stop reading a book after 50 pages. 

If a book cannot be interesting, compelling, whatever appropriate adjective in 50 pages it does not deserve to be read. 

2) To me, a book should ideally be within 300 pages, and should avoid being 500 pages. 

There's a quote by Elvis Costello, that "If you can't write a song in 3 minutes then you can't write" (that's more of a paraphrase). I feel there is some justification of this with Ockham's Razor, and in Edgar Allan Poe's "The Philosophy of Composition," where Poe puts forth the ideal prose work as being one that can be read within a single sitting for the "unity of effect." Like Poe, I feel a prose work loses its value and "unity of effect" after an extended period of time, often times becoming cluttered in unnecessary details and diluting dramatic action with filler. If William Faulkner, Julian Barnes, Kurt Vonnegut, and other writers can detail great insight into character under 300 pages (often under 200 pages), then most writers can. I do have exceptions, but they seem to be consistent in having a great deal of dramatic action (a la Harry Potter novels and Les Miserables). 

3) Great stories need to be dynamic

There should be a balance in great works. Reading a book shouldn't be the literary equivalent of listening to Metallica's 'Death Magnetic,' where the music is so loud that it loses it's dynamic qualities. Great literature shouldn't just be all aria and no recitative. 

4) I do not think there's something inherently wrong in not reading "Classics"

I won't lie; I do not like most 19th Century and early 20th Century English Literature. I tried reading 'Far from the Madding Crowd' by Thomas Hardy; at first it was mesmerizing to read Hardy's description of the English countryside, but he does this throughout the novel to the point where after 100 pages one says "I get it, England's beautiful. Move on." Likewise, if you read one Jane Austen book, you've read them all. Somewhat well to do but still not as rich women strive for independence and choice under the circumstances of dealing with deranged, possibly inbred, aristocrats and such. Make no mistake, it's good, but just read one and be done. Charles Dickens; melodramatic, forceful. Joseph Conrad; boring, boring, boring, racist, boring. Seriously, these are classics. Make no mistake, this period of this country has great works, like the Sherlock Holmes novels and 'Jane Eyre.' Yet, I hate seeing facebook posts with "100 Books You Should Read" listed and selected works that have been read, with this underlying pretension that you're supposed to read this. Reading is great; it enables one to become articulate, self-aware, culturally aware, and deeply critical thinkers. But a list like that is one heavily rooted in the Western Canon (ignoring Akutugawa, Lu Xun, Naghib Mahfuz, and others who are not in the Western Canon), and two asinine. There are several works of literature that can enable a person to be self-aware, and are not on that list. Roald Dahl can do that, so can Eric Carle. So can Neal Stephenson, William Gibson, Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne, Ursula Le Guin, and other scifi/fantasy/genre writers. So my personal list of "classics" would not be agreeable to this list of works that should be read. So screw that. 

Essentially I do not believe in the conventional pretension of developing into capable people, nor in the pretensions that you have to read this to be smart or know about this to not be a philistine. I'll discuss my theory of literature later, but ultimately I think this post legitimizes my snob status. 

On College

Peter Thiel, one of the co-founders of Pay Pal wrote about how the "We're in a Bubble, but it's not the internet. Thiel says it's higher education, in an interview which I will post here: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/10/peter-thiel-were-in-a-bubble-and-its-not-the-internet-its-higher-education/.

Thiel is a highly intelligent individual, as the article describes a natural contrarian which seemingly seems unnecessary but this mindset has lead him to have a prescience that helped him avoid the dotcom and housing bubbles. This is old news, of course; this article came out in 2011 and I'm now writing about it. It is appropriate that I write about it now, however, because I am closing in on my first year from graduating from college. I have often thought about whether or not my college experience was worth it, especially since I'm a career switcher from my degree.

I agree with Thiel on several points. You don't need Stanford, Yale, or Harvard to become successful. You also shouldn't come into college with a mentality that once you graduate your ticket is set and you will come out earning $100K and have a house and kids. That's bull. You will struggle. You will have to work asinine jobs, earning barely enough. The future isn't bleak though.

The unfortunate thing is that majors in the social sciences and the humanities are saturated in markets that are predicated about scientific industry and service (ie those pesky business and science degrees that seem uncool). Also, we haven't truly developed a knowledge sector job market like other countries (who also have lesser populations). The truth of the matter is, real life sucks and college will not save you. You'll develop soft skills, and various mechanisms that will enable you to be apt critical thinkers for the job market, but businesses-especially now-want experience.

What we need to do isn't follow Thiel and believe college isn't necessary (he also graduated from Stanford and Stanford Law), but eliminate the stigma of not going to college. College isn't for everyone. This is pertinent in some people's minds when they look at a lot of internet and Silicon Valley billionaires who did not complete college a la Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and others. Also understand, though, that a lot of these individuals didn't need college, and also understand that many of the engineers behind the devices used and really the forefathers of the Computer age were college educated. Tim Berners-Lee innovated the "world wide web" and also went to Queens College, Oxford and now serves at MIT as a professor. Dennis Ritchie who helped pioneer C language and the Unix operating system went to another elitist school Harvard, and really anyone at Bell Labs and Texas Instruments were highly educated individuals who work 9 to 5 and were the opposite of Silicon Valley people.

I would like to know how many Apple employees are dropouts like Jobs and how many have advanced engineering degrees from top tier universities.

...

There's that great scene in 'Good Will Hunting' where Will is confronted by that elitist douche from Harvard about history, where the guy lifted his lines about agrarian economy in the 18th century from Gordon S. Wood. Though the Harvard guy is put in his (rightful) place the guy retorts to Will that while Will may have read the same books for less money that guy will be successful and Will will end up serving burgers.
Truth is, the Harvard guy is right. Will is too; there's nothing inherently special about the curriculum of a college or university that can't be done with really dedicated reading and home projects. The Harvard guy will get the better end of the stick (in real life) not because he learned anything more than Will. Thing is, Will's lazy. He doesn't really use his mathematics or academic knowledge for any end. That Harvard guy is someone who probably does; he's not hearing a professor talk about Gordon S. Wood, he's probably given the opportunities to work on major historical research because his professor is Gordon S. Wood's best friend.

College isn't about just going to class and eventually after four years of going to class getting a degree and winning at life. It's about using the resources that your college can afford through personnel to understand how be great at your field. Of course someone who just goes to Biology classes isn't going to find a job. If you go to UGA and major in Family and Consumer Sciences  and all you do is go to class, versus say someone who goes to a "lesser" college like Kennesaw State University and majors in Early Childhood Education and spends her time watching classes, works a job in childcare, and later student teaches at a school, you're not going to get a job probably before the latter individual. Remember those rednecks (or seemingly white trash) who didn't care about English or History and spent time talking about cars? Thing is, they went to trade school, picked up a trade like plumbing or refrigeration, and now they're earning $40K coming out with a two year or less degree. Why? Because they chose an opportunity to go to school that gives them practical experience.

Really, that's the problem with college. You shouldn't go to college without planning to work hard in non-curriculum based activities. The reason Harvard is so damn good isn't because they have an astonishing curriculum, it's because they have a really nice endowment. So if you want to be a journalist you can get the same knowledge of the field by going to wherever, but thing is if you go to Harvard you might be taught by someone who wrote for the New York Times, because Harvard can afford it. Hell, Harvard's newspaper is probably better than some professional newspapers, and that's what colleges can provide. They're Houses of Wisdom, and it's really up to you to maximum on its resources of people (both faculty and personnel) and other amenities. These opportunities are more fruitful and accessible through college. You can get them while  not going to college, but it is more difficult.

While Thiel is right, and ultimately is richer than I am, I don't completely agree with his "college is outdated" mentality. College and universities have a great utility, but it shouldn't be a stigma not to college. If you can make it without the resources of universities, more power to you. Just understand, nine times out of ten the Harvard guy is right.

I just hope that he would grow up to not be a douche.

Why My Favorite Guitarists Are Pricks

Look, I absolutely adore Dinosaur Jr. Their music is custom tailored to my taste in music with me having an interest in both their technical sonic elements (based on mutual influences) and an emotional, sometimes cathartic attachment to their songs. In particular, as a guitarist, I have an exceptional love for J Mascis (despite his hopeless interview chops). His guitar work has a healthy love of noise and feedback but he writes probably the most melodic solos by any guitarist and is far worthy of more attention.

Let me make it clear, however; J Mascis is a prick. So is Kevin Shields. So is pretty much anyone who plays a 100 watt amplifier.

Among guitarists there's a reverence for the 100 watt valve or tube guitar amplifier, especially Marshall Lead Series amps. Brian Bakker of Minor Threat and Bad Religion put as one of his "Ten Commandments of Punk Guitar" that the "holy grail" of guitar amps is the Marshall JMP 100 Watt. Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister once spoke in an interview for VH1's "Heavy: The Story of Metal" about how he turned his Marshall to 10 and was shortly after confronted by a woman working on her dissertation...four blocks down.

I sympathize with the woman.

In 2012 there's little to no reason to have a 100 watt valve amp. It's about this whole "yeah I'm a badass rockstar" mentality that really has no purpose. If you want to be heavy, you don't need volume; I'm in agreement with Roger Glover's statement "Heavy is attitude, not volume." Of course Deep Purple were one of the most notorious abusers, but they were from a different era.

In Deep Purple's era, there was a need for loud amps; as venues began to grow, there grew a need to develop stupidly loud amps like the Marshall 100W Lead or retroactively referred to the Marshall 1959, as well as other amps from Sound City (later Hiwatt) and Sunn 0))). Thing is, PA systems weren't as plentiful as they are now. How lacking were they? Well a subpar vocalist named Ozzy Osbourne who was batshit crazy was given the opportunity to sing in Black Sabbath (nee Earth) purely on the fact that he owned a PA system. Under any other circumstances he'd never be a vocalist for anyone on the level of Tony Iommi and Geezer Butler, but as Tony Iommi would recall the band couldn't get gigs unless they had a PA system. Iommi of course played a Laney 100W.

If you look at some of the old concert clips in the late 1960s and 1970s, you'll see that many bands didn't have mics on the amps, simply because that wasn't something that was done. That sort of stuff was expensive back then. Now, that's not the case. Most venues in 2012 have their own PA systems, and can mic amps. Having a stack of amps is consequently overkill, just an overindulgence reflecting this "I'm a badass rockstar" mentality. As someone who worked in mixing, I think anyone who uses a 100 Watt valve amp is a prick. I mean really?

For those who don't geek out over amps like I do, tube amps are loud. How loud? Fucking loud. A 100 watt solid state amp is not as near as loud as a 30 watt tube amp (watch me be wrong on that). Tonally, I totally get a tube amp's value; because of vacuum tubes' natural impedance on high frequencies, they have a very nice soft sound, with overdrive or soft clipping. It truly makes a difference. Guitarists, however, don't need 100 watts of tube sound. For one, 100 watts is not that much louder than 50 watts. Secondly, watts doesn't equal tone. Jimmy Page rarely used Marshalls in the studio for Led Zeppelin recordings; he used smaller amps, like Valco which was an amp sold in hardware stores. Likewise Brian May of Queen didn't get his tone from his Vox AC30's; he used a homemade 1 watt amp that he plugged into larger amps. Two highly revered figures of heavy music, who created "Whole Lotta Love" and "Tie Your Mother Down," used small amps to get their tone.

That's where J Mascis and Kevin Shields come in. Many guitarists do use only one stack, and there are some like Jack White who merely frustrate their audio mixers because they turn it up. J Mascis and Kevin Shields believe in extremes and share a love of noise. Both of them choose to be sadists, and use not one but three stacks. The sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0GZH-lw_P4
I've never seen MBV live, but I have seen Dinosaur Jr live and was front row center. For a day, I did not have clear hearing. That was my fault. Even without being up front, it is an assault. J Mascis use three stacks fully mic'd, as well as a Fender amp. He even uses a Marshall Major, which is a 200 watt Lead Series model. When he put on distortion for "Severed Lips" it was like a pin striking your ear drum. Is it necessary? No, not to me at least.

I understand that a lot of people like loud, and that has lead to some unfortunate circumstances like the ridiculous loud wars in sound recording ('Death Magnetic' anyone?). What I wish is that people would come to understand that while volume counts, dynamic music counts just as much. From a mixer's point of view, and even a guitarist's point of view, it's a much better concert experience to be able to hear all the instruments and vocals rather than just sludgy sludge.

Wanna be a rockstar? Don't fork out $1500 for a 100W amp. Get a 30 watt amp, and learn to play your instrument well and how to get the right tone. A mixer will help you get the right volume.

Are We Living in 1912?

In 1912, people are fighting for safer food regulations, for better working conditions (including better pay, better hours, etc), for better oversight; yet, that fight doesn't seem to go on.

In 2012 we shouldn't have to worry about pink slime being in our beef. We shouldn't worry about the quality of our poultry or our meat. That was a problem in the early 20th century, as depicted by Upton Sinclair in his overrated muckracking work 'The Jungle.' Yet, since 2001 the USDA has allowed "lean finely textured beef" or pink slime into beef, legally. I much prefer Jon Stewart's term for the meat,  "ammonia-soaked centrifuge-separated byproduct paste." Now, chicken, which really has been almost monopolized by Tyson and their hormone injection saving methods, is facing its own predicament as the USDA is allowing chicken to be inspected LESS by Federal monitors and instead face inspection through their own plants. (To get more details, check out this article from 'The Atlantic': http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/toxic-chicken-is-the-new-pink-slime/255595/) This idea is straight out of the 19th and 20th Century; it stems from the idea that plants will be motivated to be accountable because it is within their self interest to keep chicken pure based on consumer demand and the marketplace; theoretically consumers will not buy chicken that is contaminated so corporations won't allow contaminate them. No! That does not work; that is why we instigated the USDA. That does not realistically work; want evidence? Look at the early 20th century.

The same is going for working hours and working conditions. Granted, because of OSHA and other oversight organizations people aren't necessarily going to die because their owners closed up their shop (a la the Triangle Fire). There are other things, however, that were fought for in the early 20th century that we're losing.

The 40 hour work week, for instance. When I received a phone interview for a small theatre company in Indiana, I was told that the pay was $150/week. I asked the person interviewing me how many hours per week . He said usually 50-60 and on tech week 80. What the hell?
I thought this was in theatre exclusively, which notoriously have long hours for little pay, but it is something in effect for most businesses. My dad works overtime usually, but if he didn't want to he wouldn't have much of a choice. My dad's workplace, like most, have adopted a "don't like it, leave it" policy which is theoretically fine but in practice not so much. The economy is at a place where jobs are hard to get, so my dad couldn't realistically leave. He's 59, so leaving would pose enormous difficulties even though he has experience. In fact, he has 32 years of experience with his company in a highly skilled position, but he receives the brunt of corporate foolishness. If he were to work just 40 hours he'd only make $31,000 per year, and normally with his experience and for his position the rate would be $45,000+. Ultimately, when their products came back from China containing lead buttons, my dad's work forced them to come in at 3AM and work till 3PM every day until every clothing no longer contained the button. When some employees complained,  the work said "if you don't like, there's the door."

Within this situation we see that workplaces are making workers work more than 40 hours at the threat of their jobs within this environment. Yet, working 40+ hours in any job (including theatre, film, and entertainment) is wasteful and inefficient. People stop being effective at the 40 hour point; efficiency is better than long hours. Sara Robinson wrote an op-piece for Salon.com that I think gives a great point of view of the history and downfall of the 40 hour work week: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/. To excise a paragraph from the essay,

"This is what work looks like now. It's been this way for so long that most American workers don't realize that for most of the 20th century, the broad consensus among American business leaders was that working people more than 40 hours a week was stupid, wasteful, dangerous, and expensive--and the most telling sign of dangerously incompetent management to boot."




No job security, no fair hours and conditions, and poor food quality. This reeks of 1912, and of the individuals who wish to live like Mr. Potter from 'It's a Wonderful Life.' 


People will argue against the viability of these benefits, but look at Germany, which despite the European crisis has been doing well. 

On The Pretensions of Bibliophiles

"The book is always better than the movie."

You ever hear that? I know the specific individuals I can place this quote to. A colleague here, a fellow student there, a group of Asian & African Literature students discussing how the film to 'Jane Eyre' in 2011 was supposed to be worse than the original text (I saw the film, I disagree). 

And now-Hunger Games; the latest young adult crossover series turn super ultra mega blockbuster film. 

This, of course, has me ranting and raving to my friends (and consequently on this blog) on why this "Book is always better than the movie" policy is asinine. 

This, of course, has me making observations and rantings about other pretensions I often hear from fellow bibliophiles that I highly disagree with. 

"The book is always better than the movie." When I think of this statement I think of a counter posed by a great film professor I had named Tom Sauret. His quote: "Comparing films and novels are like comparing apples and oranges." 

He's absolutely right. Each work of artistic expression has it's own language (to also cite Sauret), what I like to call "the mechanism of presentation." Sauret defined film's language through four mechanisms: its mise en scene (what's depicted in the shot), its artistic use of light, its editing, and its artistic use of sound. This is all true, but film does have a very overt literary element to the presentation. Even non-narrative films like those by Stan Brakhage have a lyricism indicative of literary poetry. With narrative films it is more overt, but while it may seem easy to compare this literary element closely to prose, I feel that is inadequate. It is more useful to compare it with drama, which is more predicated on dramatic action or characters accomplishing objectives. 

Consequently a film adaptation of a work of prose focuses on carrying the story through dramatic action. This means that an element of the book that involves more of an in depth exploration of a character will probably not be fit for film. 

Now, television has begun the process of being a little faithful to source texts, a la 'Game of Thrones.' But fellow bibliophiles, you need to stop getting hurt by how a film interprets a text. Adaptation is not the same as copying, and likewise a film exists within its own rules and language and should be assessed on its own rather than as an extension of a book. 

I should also state that I am a cinemaphile.