These three terms -- nerd, geek, and dork -- get thrown around a lot, usually interchangeably. You can use any of the three you want and people will usually understand you. But in my mind (and potentially only in my mind), I think they are all very different. Yes, they do kind of go hand-in-hand, but they each have their own distinct meaning.
Nerd: school smarts. good at math, science, english, etc. excessively smart. does well on tests. gets good grades.
Geek: fandom smarts. knows anything and everything about their interests. usually focused on major franchises (superheroes, video games, t.v. shows, comics, etc.)
Dork: general personality trait. most people have at least some level of dorkiness that shows itself at one time or another. related to the person themselves, their conduct and demeanor, not the knowledge in their head. characterized as silly, goofy, awkward, weird, different but in an out-of-the-box thinking way rather than an ostracizing way.
So, I personally will use them in these respective ways, but if you want to keep using them interchangeably, I totally understand and I will be able to follow you.
P.S.: I count myself as all three.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The (Kind-of) Invisibility Cloak: Did J.K. Rowling Make a Mistake?
As a superfan of Harry Potter, I'm good at finding and picking at the plotholes. I do this with all books, but HP especially, since it is one of my greatest loves and I know it inside and out. Some plotholes choose to ignore and pretend that they don't exist; some you accept and learn to live with; and others you create far-fetched explanations that somehow work to make them fit (and if it's good, the rest of the fandom will follow suit). Some examples of plotholes in HP are: if Harry saw his mom die, why didn't he see the thestrals until Cedric died, and why didn't he see them at the end of that year taking the carriages back to the train instead of the following year? how did Fred and George never notice that Peter Petigrew was wandering around the Marauder's Map, usually with their own brother? if the invisibility cloak is supposed to be powerful enough to hide you from death, how did a bunch of teenagers create a map powerful enough to detect it? It's this last one that I want to focus on. Maybe this is me, being a crazy fangirl and making up some explanation to fill in the hole, but I think that this isn't really a plothole at all. I believe that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for the cloak showing up on the map while still being one of the Deathly Hallows and powerful enough to hide one from death.
(In my own words) As the story goes, three brothers (the Peverells) came to a river that couldn't be crossed. They happened to be wizards, though, skilled in the use of magic. So they pulled out their wands and created a bridge. Now, Death felt cheated. Those who try to cross the river are supposed to die, but these three found a way around that. So Death made a plan. As the brothers were crossing the bridge, Death approached them. He congratulated them on their cleverness and success and told them that he wanted to reward them. He would grant them each one wish. The oldest brother asked for a wand that could defeat any foe, so Death took a branch from an elder tree and presented it to the first brother. The brother went away and challenged an old enemy to a duel, won, and bragged of his success and the power of his undefeatable wand. Others overheard this, so when the brother was sleeping, someone snuck into his room, stole the wand, and killed him for good measure. So Death took the first brother as his own. The middle brother asked for a stone that could recall the dead, so Death picked a pebble from the river and told the second brother that if he turned it thrice, it would bring back a loved one who had died. So the second brother went to his home, turned the stone, and recalled the spirit of his beloved. For a time, they were happy together, but eventually the brother saw that his beloved was fading and miserable; she didn't belong in this world anymore. So he set her free and killed himself that he might be with her again. And so Death claimed the second brother for his own. Now, the youngest brother was clever. He asked Death for something that would be able to hide the brother from Death himself. Death was dismayed by this request, but a promise was a promise, and so he removed a piece from his own cloak of invisibility and gave it to the brother and he went on his way. Years passed, and Death searched high and low for the third brother, but he could not find him. It wasn't until many years later, when the third brother had grown old, that he passed the cloak on to his own son, that Death was able to find him, and the brother greeted him as an old friend.
It is this cloak that Harry now possesses, a cloak that can literally hide you from death.
The Marauder's Map was created by Hogwarts students, four boys between 15-17 years of age, one of whom was Harry's father and the previous owner of the cloak.
So how did four teenage boys create a map that can do what death itself can't? Yes, James Potter owned the cloak, so they knew about it and would want to be able to see it on the map, but that doesn't explain how they could be more powerful than a cloak created by death. I happen to think that there is a flaw in this logic and that they wouldn't have to be more powerful than death to create a map that can see the cloak.
I think the answer lies in the story, or in the metaphor behind it. Three brothers asked for three things from death, and when brought together under the power of one person, that person becomes master of death. First, a wand that is undefeatable. With this, one has the power to send anyone they wish to the grave, thus, the power to take life. Second, a stone that can resurrect the dead. With this, one can recall those who have been lost to the grave, thus, the power to reverse death. Third, a cloak of invisibility. With this, one can hide from death, thus, the power to avoid death. And that is the key. The point of the cloak isn't to hide from death, but to be able to avoid it at all costs. It happens to be an invisibility cloak because that is what Death uses, but it really could have been anything and Death still wouldn't have been able to take the third brother. I think that it should rightly be named a cloak of immortality.
Think about this: Death is walking along and he bumps into something, but nothing seems to be there. Well, he's Death and he's pretty smart, so he knows that there must be something or someone invisible there, so he goes to kill it. Well, it looks like the invisibility cloak wasn't really enough to avoid Death after all.
Now imagine that it's really a cloak of immortality. Death happens across this interesting map that shows the names of everyone in Hogwarts. Oh, look, there's the person who owns the third Deathly Hallow, the cloak. Now, Death knows exactly where he is, but there is nothing he can do to the person. Death can't touch him. Thus, it really isn't important that the cloak not be visible because it just doesn't matter. The map didn't need to be more powerful than death to show the wearer of the cloak because death still wouldn't be able to claim them.
If you noticed in the story, Death couldn't get the third brother until he took the cloak off of his own free will. He didn't wait until he died of old age; instead, he chose when it was time to take it off. If it's a cloak of immortality, then the third brother wouldn't have been able to die of old age while wearing it, which is why he had to eventually take it off to move on. Now, Harry was never attacked by anything deadly while wearing the cloak; if he had been, it would have given things away too early and it would have seemed really far-fetched, him not dying just because he's wearing an invisibility cloak. That doesn't mean it can't be true, it just means it would have made for a lousy plotline. You may argue that he got hit by spells and such plenty of times while wearing the cloak, but none of it was deadly. I truly believe that if Harry was hit by Avada Kedavra while wearing the cloak, he still wouldn't have died (though he obviously didn't need it, anyway).
Voldemort, in his search for immortality, was going after the wrong Hallow. The wand could only bring death to your opponent, it couldn't do anything for your own life. The one item that could have given him what he wanted was in Harry's possession all along.
So, not sure how well I explained that, but what do you think? Is it really a cloak of immortality, or am I reaching?
(In my own words) As the story goes, three brothers (the Peverells) came to a river that couldn't be crossed. They happened to be wizards, though, skilled in the use of magic. So they pulled out their wands and created a bridge. Now, Death felt cheated. Those who try to cross the river are supposed to die, but these three found a way around that. So Death made a plan. As the brothers were crossing the bridge, Death approached them. He congratulated them on their cleverness and success and told them that he wanted to reward them. He would grant them each one wish. The oldest brother asked for a wand that could defeat any foe, so Death took a branch from an elder tree and presented it to the first brother. The brother went away and challenged an old enemy to a duel, won, and bragged of his success and the power of his undefeatable wand. Others overheard this, so when the brother was sleeping, someone snuck into his room, stole the wand, and killed him for good measure. So Death took the first brother as his own. The middle brother asked for a stone that could recall the dead, so Death picked a pebble from the river and told the second brother that if he turned it thrice, it would bring back a loved one who had died. So the second brother went to his home, turned the stone, and recalled the spirit of his beloved. For a time, they were happy together, but eventually the brother saw that his beloved was fading and miserable; she didn't belong in this world anymore. So he set her free and killed himself that he might be with her again. And so Death claimed the second brother for his own. Now, the youngest brother was clever. He asked Death for something that would be able to hide the brother from Death himself. Death was dismayed by this request, but a promise was a promise, and so he removed a piece from his own cloak of invisibility and gave it to the brother and he went on his way. Years passed, and Death searched high and low for the third brother, but he could not find him. It wasn't until many years later, when the third brother had grown old, that he passed the cloak on to his own son, that Death was able to find him, and the brother greeted him as an old friend.
It is this cloak that Harry now possesses, a cloak that can literally hide you from death.
The Marauder's Map was created by Hogwarts students, four boys between 15-17 years of age, one of whom was Harry's father and the previous owner of the cloak.
So how did four teenage boys create a map that can do what death itself can't? Yes, James Potter owned the cloak, so they knew about it and would want to be able to see it on the map, but that doesn't explain how they could be more powerful than a cloak created by death. I happen to think that there is a flaw in this logic and that they wouldn't have to be more powerful than death to create a map that can see the cloak.
I think the answer lies in the story, or in the metaphor behind it. Three brothers asked for three things from death, and when brought together under the power of one person, that person becomes master of death. First, a wand that is undefeatable. With this, one has the power to send anyone they wish to the grave, thus, the power to take life. Second, a stone that can resurrect the dead. With this, one can recall those who have been lost to the grave, thus, the power to reverse death. Third, a cloak of invisibility. With this, one can hide from death, thus, the power to avoid death. And that is the key. The point of the cloak isn't to hide from death, but to be able to avoid it at all costs. It happens to be an invisibility cloak because that is what Death uses, but it really could have been anything and Death still wouldn't have been able to take the third brother. I think that it should rightly be named a cloak of immortality.
Think about this: Death is walking along and he bumps into something, but nothing seems to be there. Well, he's Death and he's pretty smart, so he knows that there must be something or someone invisible there, so he goes to kill it. Well, it looks like the invisibility cloak wasn't really enough to avoid Death after all.
Now imagine that it's really a cloak of immortality. Death happens across this interesting map that shows the names of everyone in Hogwarts. Oh, look, there's the person who owns the third Deathly Hallow, the cloak. Now, Death knows exactly where he is, but there is nothing he can do to the person. Death can't touch him. Thus, it really isn't important that the cloak not be visible because it just doesn't matter. The map didn't need to be more powerful than death to show the wearer of the cloak because death still wouldn't be able to claim them.
If you noticed in the story, Death couldn't get the third brother until he took the cloak off of his own free will. He didn't wait until he died of old age; instead, he chose when it was time to take it off. If it's a cloak of immortality, then the third brother wouldn't have been able to die of old age while wearing it, which is why he had to eventually take it off to move on. Now, Harry was never attacked by anything deadly while wearing the cloak; if he had been, it would have given things away too early and it would have seemed really far-fetched, him not dying just because he's wearing an invisibility cloak. That doesn't mean it can't be true, it just means it would have made for a lousy plotline. You may argue that he got hit by spells and such plenty of times while wearing the cloak, but none of it was deadly. I truly believe that if Harry was hit by Avada Kedavra while wearing the cloak, he still wouldn't have died (though he obviously didn't need it, anyway).
Voldemort, in his search for immortality, was going after the wrong Hallow. The wand could only bring death to your opponent, it couldn't do anything for your own life. The one item that could have given him what he wanted was in Harry's possession all along.
So, not sure how well I explained that, but what do you think? Is it really a cloak of immortality, or am I reaching?
Monday, March 21, 2016
Stephen Moffat and Doctor Who
Stephen Moffat has one last season of Doctor Who before he steps down and lets someone else take over. To me, this is both good, and slightly worrying. Let me explain.
Stephen Moffat is a great producer. His work, combined with that of Mark Gatiss, on Sherlock has made for a phenomenal show that truly has something for everyone. I don't know a single person who has watched Sherlock and not wanted to watch another episode. He knows how to make a show interesting. The problem comes when you leave him with no limits. Sherlock has to fit within the realm of logic and possibility. That's not really necessarily true when it comes to Doctor Who, and Stephen Moffat knows this.
Stephen Moffat is probably one of the biggest fans of Doctor Who out there. He understands the show inside and out and he absolutely loves it. He has a profound quote about who the Doctor is and what he means to us, and I love him for that. He just gets the show better than probably most of its fanbase, in all honesty.
What happens, though, is that he wants to understand it more. He wants to test the limits and see how far he can take it. Doctor Who is the perfect show for someone to test limits on because its nature is just inherently forgiving of such antics as might happen. The plot is set to allow for those quirky episodes, the strange creatures, the improbable solutions, and the general illogicality of the scenarios. That's what this entire show is! So I totally get testing some limits to see what you can do and how far the Doctor can go.
What I don't agree with is what I think is happening with Stephen Moffat's attempts. I feel like he is trying to find the utmost outer limits of the show. He is constantly stretching Doctor Who more and more, trying to find its breaking point. I'm worried that, in trying to find those outer limits, he's going to break them and I don't know if the show would be able to recover from that. As I said, this show is pretty lenient, but if you go far enough to cross the threshold, I think you'll have gone too far, to a place that you can't come back from.
Stephen Moffat does some great work. The most iconic villains of New Who have been his (vashda nerada, the silence, the empty child, and the weeping angels). He makes sure that the show doesn't stagnate. He's always looking for a new angle, something different, a way to change it up, something completely unexpected. He's great at that and it makes for some pretty interesting episodes. I think that, sometimes, though, he is moving a little too far too fast. He has to remember that, while New Who isn't Classic Who, and we don't really want it to be, there are still some parts of it that have become so ingrained to viewers that changing them starts to alienate the fanbase. Daleks and Cybermen are so old, it's hard to do much with them anymore, but they are expected so we can't get rid of them. You have to be careful, though, that, when trying to come up with a new plotline for Daleks that hasn't been done before, you don't inadvertently change who the Daleks are because that would be changing 50 years of history. Same with the Doctor and his accoutrements, such as the TARDIS and the sonic screwdriver. Sonic sunglasses were funny for an episode or two, but when you keep them around, we start to worry that the screwdriver will be lost forever, and we don't want that. I've heard the reasoning for the sunglasses, to make being the Doctor available to anyone. Well, news flash, the Doctor Who fandom is inherently open-minded. We don't need our own sonic screwdrivers to become the Doctor. Any old stick, flashlight, or pen will do. If we want it, we can manage. Don't lower the Doctor below the standards of its fans.
Am I making any sense to you? I just think that Stephen Moffat, in exploring the limits of the Doctor, is going to take it one step too far, change the show just a little too much, and he won't be able to fix it and we'll end up losing this great show, just because one person wanted to see how far he could take it before it broke and ended up accidentally breaking it.
Back to this being his last season. Yes, I will be happy to see Stephen Moffat step down from Doctor Who. If he wanted to come back to write the occasional episode, I'd be totally down with that. He really does do some great work. But I am totally ready for someone else to take the lead. What I'm worried about, though, is that, this being his last season, Moffat is going to up his game even more. He only has one season left in which to test the limits, break and rewrite the rules, introduce new concepts, and to take the show as far as he can. With such limited time, I am truly scared that he is going to go overboard. I would much prefer if he didn't know that he had one last season. It's kind of like the last season of Psych. They knew it was ending, so they just had fun with it, which is all well and good, but I feel like it was slightly detrimental to the show itself. They just went all goofy and did what they wanted, had fun and made some interesting episodes, but I think they stopped putting any actual effort into them. They didn't matter any longer, so why bother? The knowledge of the end, knowing when it will happen, having it in sight, can really mess things up. I think it would have been better for the decision to happen after he had the season lined up and figured out already. I get that it's better for writing if you know when to end, so you don't end up leaving gaping holes for the next guy to try and fill without knowing the original ideas behind it, but this is a scenario that I can see the foreknowledge of the end bringing the show crashing down while Moffat tries to fit all his ideas into it and potentially stretching it far past its breaking point.
So my hope for this season is, Moffat, keep it classy. You get to bring in a new companion, write one last story arc, have a few last adventures. Donna, Amy, and Clara were a little too Doctor for my taste. Capaldi's Doctor really needs someone who is just so human, like Rose and Rory were. He needs that balance. The TARDIS is only big enough for one Doctor. Write an overarching story with a good ending. Something hopeful. Connect all the stories so that when we rewatch it, we can see just how carefully constructed the season was so that it all leads up to the final conclusion. Tennant's last season is a good example of this. 1) The episodes were leading up to that final conclusion of the planet being stolen by the Daleks, like the bees disappearing and the stars, and the little teasers of Rose. 2)The whole season, plus the specials, were leading up to Tennant's departure. The whole season was kind of saying goodbye, giving him one last adventure with everyone, companion and fan alike. Write a season like that, so that when we watch it again someday, we can see the effort that was put into it, all those little things that we missed the first time around because we didn't know where it was going, but now that we do, we understand it all so much better. And take us to some new places. Let us explore new worlds, meet new races. Earth is a pretty great planet, and the Doctor loves defending it, but he is, in the core of his being, a traveler. He likes wandering. It's just who he is. He is nowhere near ready to settle down, and I feel like he's been a little too stuck on Earth recently. Give him planets and galaxies, new races and old. And when he does stay on Earth, he has a time machine. Find an unexplored period, teach us some history. The future is fun, too, but we can only reimagine it so many times. The past is there for the taking. What events did the Doctor have a hand in? The Doctor in the present is interesting, but we can see that those events aren't actually happening in the world around us right now and thus become a little less real, but when you delve into the past, we can wonder about if the Doctor actually did have a hand in it. What was Charles Dickens' real inspiration for A Christmas Carol? Does the royal lineage of England have a centuries old secret? What was behind the missing days of Agatha Christie? Put a new twist on an old story. And most of all, have fun and remember who the Doctor is, deep down, and what he means to those who watch it.
"It's hard to talk about the importance of an imaginary hero. But heroes are important. Heroes tell us something about ourselves. History books tell us who we used to be, documentaries tell us who we are now, but heroes tell us who we want to be. And a lot of our heroes depress me. But you know, when they made this particular hero, they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver to fix things." [*cough,cough*sunglasses?*cough,cough*] "They didn't give him a tank or warship or an X-Wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower or pointy ears or a heat ray. They gave him an extra heart. They gave him two hearts. And that's an extraordinary thing. There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor." ~Stephen Moffat.
Stephen Moffat is a great producer. His work, combined with that of Mark Gatiss, on Sherlock has made for a phenomenal show that truly has something for everyone. I don't know a single person who has watched Sherlock and not wanted to watch another episode. He knows how to make a show interesting. The problem comes when you leave him with no limits. Sherlock has to fit within the realm of logic and possibility. That's not really necessarily true when it comes to Doctor Who, and Stephen Moffat knows this.
Stephen Moffat is probably one of the biggest fans of Doctor Who out there. He understands the show inside and out and he absolutely loves it. He has a profound quote about who the Doctor is and what he means to us, and I love him for that. He just gets the show better than probably most of its fanbase, in all honesty.
What happens, though, is that he wants to understand it more. He wants to test the limits and see how far he can take it. Doctor Who is the perfect show for someone to test limits on because its nature is just inherently forgiving of such antics as might happen. The plot is set to allow for those quirky episodes, the strange creatures, the improbable solutions, and the general illogicality of the scenarios. That's what this entire show is! So I totally get testing some limits to see what you can do and how far the Doctor can go.
What I don't agree with is what I think is happening with Stephen Moffat's attempts. I feel like he is trying to find the utmost outer limits of the show. He is constantly stretching Doctor Who more and more, trying to find its breaking point. I'm worried that, in trying to find those outer limits, he's going to break them and I don't know if the show would be able to recover from that. As I said, this show is pretty lenient, but if you go far enough to cross the threshold, I think you'll have gone too far, to a place that you can't come back from.
Stephen Moffat does some great work. The most iconic villains of New Who have been his (vashda nerada, the silence, the empty child, and the weeping angels). He makes sure that the show doesn't stagnate. He's always looking for a new angle, something different, a way to change it up, something completely unexpected. He's great at that and it makes for some pretty interesting episodes. I think that, sometimes, though, he is moving a little too far too fast. He has to remember that, while New Who isn't Classic Who, and we don't really want it to be, there are still some parts of it that have become so ingrained to viewers that changing them starts to alienate the fanbase. Daleks and Cybermen are so old, it's hard to do much with them anymore, but they are expected so we can't get rid of them. You have to be careful, though, that, when trying to come up with a new plotline for Daleks that hasn't been done before, you don't inadvertently change who the Daleks are because that would be changing 50 years of history. Same with the Doctor and his accoutrements, such as the TARDIS and the sonic screwdriver. Sonic sunglasses were funny for an episode or two, but when you keep them around, we start to worry that the screwdriver will be lost forever, and we don't want that. I've heard the reasoning for the sunglasses, to make being the Doctor available to anyone. Well, news flash, the Doctor Who fandom is inherently open-minded. We don't need our own sonic screwdrivers to become the Doctor. Any old stick, flashlight, or pen will do. If we want it, we can manage. Don't lower the Doctor below the standards of its fans.
Am I making any sense to you? I just think that Stephen Moffat, in exploring the limits of the Doctor, is going to take it one step too far, change the show just a little too much, and he won't be able to fix it and we'll end up losing this great show, just because one person wanted to see how far he could take it before it broke and ended up accidentally breaking it.
Back to this being his last season. Yes, I will be happy to see Stephen Moffat step down from Doctor Who. If he wanted to come back to write the occasional episode, I'd be totally down with that. He really does do some great work. But I am totally ready for someone else to take the lead. What I'm worried about, though, is that, this being his last season, Moffat is going to up his game even more. He only has one season left in which to test the limits, break and rewrite the rules, introduce new concepts, and to take the show as far as he can. With such limited time, I am truly scared that he is going to go overboard. I would much prefer if he didn't know that he had one last season. It's kind of like the last season of Psych. They knew it was ending, so they just had fun with it, which is all well and good, but I feel like it was slightly detrimental to the show itself. They just went all goofy and did what they wanted, had fun and made some interesting episodes, but I think they stopped putting any actual effort into them. They didn't matter any longer, so why bother? The knowledge of the end, knowing when it will happen, having it in sight, can really mess things up. I think it would have been better for the decision to happen after he had the season lined up and figured out already. I get that it's better for writing if you know when to end, so you don't end up leaving gaping holes for the next guy to try and fill without knowing the original ideas behind it, but this is a scenario that I can see the foreknowledge of the end bringing the show crashing down while Moffat tries to fit all his ideas into it and potentially stretching it far past its breaking point.
So my hope for this season is, Moffat, keep it classy. You get to bring in a new companion, write one last story arc, have a few last adventures. Donna, Amy, and Clara were a little too Doctor for my taste. Capaldi's Doctor really needs someone who is just so human, like Rose and Rory were. He needs that balance. The TARDIS is only big enough for one Doctor. Write an overarching story with a good ending. Something hopeful. Connect all the stories so that when we rewatch it, we can see just how carefully constructed the season was so that it all leads up to the final conclusion. Tennant's last season is a good example of this. 1) The episodes were leading up to that final conclusion of the planet being stolen by the Daleks, like the bees disappearing and the stars, and the little teasers of Rose. 2)The whole season, plus the specials, were leading up to Tennant's departure. The whole season was kind of saying goodbye, giving him one last adventure with everyone, companion and fan alike. Write a season like that, so that when we watch it again someday, we can see the effort that was put into it, all those little things that we missed the first time around because we didn't know where it was going, but now that we do, we understand it all so much better. And take us to some new places. Let us explore new worlds, meet new races. Earth is a pretty great planet, and the Doctor loves defending it, but he is, in the core of his being, a traveler. He likes wandering. It's just who he is. He is nowhere near ready to settle down, and I feel like he's been a little too stuck on Earth recently. Give him planets and galaxies, new races and old. And when he does stay on Earth, he has a time machine. Find an unexplored period, teach us some history. The future is fun, too, but we can only reimagine it so many times. The past is there for the taking. What events did the Doctor have a hand in? The Doctor in the present is interesting, but we can see that those events aren't actually happening in the world around us right now and thus become a little less real, but when you delve into the past, we can wonder about if the Doctor actually did have a hand in it. What was Charles Dickens' real inspiration for A Christmas Carol? Does the royal lineage of England have a centuries old secret? What was behind the missing days of Agatha Christie? Put a new twist on an old story. And most of all, have fun and remember who the Doctor is, deep down, and what he means to those who watch it.
"It's hard to talk about the importance of an imaginary hero. But heroes are important. Heroes tell us something about ourselves. History books tell us who we used to be, documentaries tell us who we are now, but heroes tell us who we want to be. And a lot of our heroes depress me. But you know, when they made this particular hero, they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver to fix things." [*cough,cough*sunglasses?*cough,cough*] "They didn't give him a tank or warship or an X-Wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower or pointy ears or a heat ray. They gave him an extra heart. They gave him two hearts. And that's an extraordinary thing. There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor." ~Stephen Moffat.
Friday, August 14, 2015
The Road Goes Ever On and On from Chicago Summer Mission 2015
Before I went to Chicago, I thought the hardest part would be living in a big city. Once I was there, I thought it would be evangelism. Now that I'm home, I know that the absolute hardest part of going to CSM is leaving.
*Warning: this is an entire 10 weeks in Chicago summarized into one post. It's gonna be long and it's still not gonna get nearly everything.*
As a Museum Studies Minor, I am required to do an internship. I figured, the summer is a great time to do that because it's prime tourist season and I have nothing else going on. My goal for this summer was to get an internship at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. I started the process a little late, but I had talked to someone on the phone about it, had visited there before, was a strong Christian, and things usually work out for me, so I just kind of figured that it would happen somehow. I mean, if I'm going to do an internship anywhere, wouldn't God want me to be in a Christian-based museum? At the beginning of March I was informed that they didn't have an internship that fit my skill set. I was pretty disappointed and wasn't really sure where to go from there. As I said, I'm used to things working out in my favor, so when they don't, I get a little lost. What now?
I co-lead a bible study on my campus and we start most weeks by sharing our highs and lows from the previous week. I hadn't really processed the rejection yet or thought much about what I was going to be doing instead when I mentioned my rejection as a low at bible study. I was bummed, but not too much more than the usual lows that I give each week. I figured people would hear about it, sympathize for a minute, and then forget about it. But my co-leader and discipler Heather saw an opportunity. The next day when we met for discipleship, she asked me,
"Have you considered doing a summer mission?"
In all honesty, summer missions had never been anywhere on my radar. I've done mission trips before with my high school youth group, but I think, to me, they were more bonding experiences than anything. I had thought that I knew what I was doing for the summer so I never listened when the topic of Cru Summer Missions came up at weekly meetings. I wasn't doing it so it didn't matter to me. But suddenly, Heather was telling me about how I could get an internship while I was there and she was pulling up the page for me to explore and then she just left me to it for a few minutes. I don't think I'll ever quite be sure how it ended up happening, but before I knew it, I was filling out the online application and meeting with one of our staff ladies so she could write a recommendation letter for me.
And then I just had to wait. This galled me a bit. I wanted to know where I was going so I could start looking into internships. That was my focus going into this, getting an internship for school. The mission came second in my mind. I had to wait a couple weeks until after spring break to finally receive a call from one of the mission staff to talk over my application. Then, one Friday at work I see a missed call on my cell and receive an email telling me that I've been accepted to Chicago Summer Mission 2015. I'll admit it, I was excited. I immediately texted Heather to let her know. I'm pretty sure she was always more excited for me than I ever could be.
I didn't take it very seriously at first, though, and probably not even until I was actually in Chicago. I had 10 days to get the deposit in to secure my spot, and I waited until Friday morning, just before I walked out the door to go on a club trip to Indianapolis, to fill out the forms and get a check in the mail. I didn't read through the packet we received very thoroughly. I refused to do any follow-up calls for support raising. I turned in my book report a week late. And I never quite got around to applying to any internships. I finally knew what I was doing with my summer and that was all I cared about. I didn't know anything.
My mom can be kind of overprotective and paranoid at times so she hated that she had to wait for me to hear about our housing situation. How does she know what to buy for me when I don't even know who I'm living with or what is and isn't provided? Finally, a few days before we were leaving, we got emailed our rooming assignments. Breanna was the first of us to get it and immediately sent out friend requests and an email for us to figure out who was bringing what. Elise and I started our own email because we were sharing a room. Molly was coming late and said she would just bring whatever we forgot. And I can't forget Daena. And that was our room. I waited until about the day before to really pack (when I went to the UK for spring break, I started a load of laundry at midnight so I could leave at 1 p.m.). But finally, we were in the car for the 6 hour drive there. We stayed in a hotel overnight and the next morning is when it all began.
The Road
What exactly is a summer mission? you might be wondering. Simply explained, it is a bunch of Cru staff and students from all over the country getting together for the summer to do mission work. The exact nature of that work will depend on where you go (Jersey Shore, Chicago, Ocean City, etc.). In Chicago, it's going to one of three campuses (Illinois Institute of Technology, University of Illinois Chicago, or University of Chicago) and evangelizing to students who are there for the summer. There is also a focus on evangelism in the workplace. Everyone is encouraged to get a job for the summer and try to have spiritual conversations with your coworkers. Chicago is extra special because we also have the Crossroads Internship, a group of Cru students who have a passion for things such as script writing, filming, graphic design, etc. Instead of getting a job, they intern with Cru and do various projects that Cru campuses request of them as well as doing work pertaining specifically to the mission and they are charged with the special task of designing the Cru winter conference, IndyCC.
A typical week in Chicago was as follows:
Monday: work or a free day, pizza at 5:30, CSM specific meeting (we called it Family Room) at 7:00.
Tuesday: work or campus, Action Group (bible study) at 6:00 with dinner provided, and some community time afterwards.
Wednesday: work or campus, Night with the Lord (aka Date Night with Jesus) at 6:00, prayer and worship together at 9:00.
Thursday: work or campus, dinner at 5:30, open weekly meeting (we called it Vantage) at 7:00.
Friday: work or free day.
Saturday: work or free day.
Sunday: church at 10:00, Impact Team (campus group) meeting at 5:30, mandatory community event at 7:00.
While we were only required to go to campus one day each week, we were encouraged to go any day that we didn't have work.
And that's the gist of Chicago Summer Mission. But it was so, so much more than that.
Where Many Paths Meet
We had 42 staff plus kids and 68 students. On that first day, most of us arrived at Dwight Lofts not knowing most, if any, of our fellow students. We moved in, went on Target runs, and then had a large meeting that night to go over things and get to know each other. Two words: speed friending. I honestly don't remember most of the people I talked to that day, it was all such a blur. I do remember Mindy being one of the first and few to speak up and curly-haired Alex being the other anthro major, and I know I talked to Ben and I'm pretty sure I talked to Brian as well, but more than that is beyond me. I had just started what would be a 10-week long stay in a major city with pretty much complete strangers. Yeah, I was a little nervous, but I figured it would all work out, somehow (as I said, things generally do for me).
Going into it, I didn't have too many expectations. I figured I'd live in Chicago, find a summer job, make some friends, do some evangelism, do some quiet times, and that was about the extent of my expectations. I have always been an adaptable, complacent, and content person. I just figured this would be a change of scenery for the summer with some different people. And, to be honest, that's about what I got out of it for the majority of our time there. I didn't expect much and thus I didn't gain much. Such is life.
My first few weeks were full of job hunting, getting to know people, learning my way around, and trying to be brave enough to do evangelism.
I did a lot of job hunting with Daena and Adam W. At one point, we thought we had jobs at Haagen Dazs on Navy Pier, which was good because we were really starting to get discouraged. It was taking a lot of time, though, so eventually Daena and Adam found jobs elsewhere. I didn't though, so I was persistent and eventually I did get in. I didn't get to work there for a super long time, but I did get to make some money and get to know some of my coworkers. It was an interesting experience because 1) I never wanted to do food service, and 2) I, a Caucasian American, was in the minority. We mostly had African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Irish students in the city for the summer. Because of this, I was mistaken for Irish about 7 times, and those are only the ones I knew of. I did get to have some light spiritual conversations with a couple of them, but nothing that really went anywhere.
On our second day, we split into groups to do a scavenger hunt around the city and to get our train passes. I had the slight advantage of having taken the underground when I was in London, so I felt fairly comfortable with that. Those first few weeks were a lot of following the staff around to get to the church and such, but we eventually learned our way around by ourselves, especially those things that were within walking distance (and you may be surprised at what is counted as within walking distance when your only other option is to rely on public transportation). And can I just say, transit apps are SO helpful.
Evangelism is part of the reason I decided to do a summer mission, that and working on deepening my relationship with God. In spite of that, I really didn't give it much effort to begin with (or even through most of the mission). I went to campus once a week and usually let my sharing partner take the lead. I've always had a bit of performance anxiety. Give me a script and I am totally good, but when I am left to improvise, I am always worried that I'll say the wrong thing, especially when there is someone looking over my shoulder who can judge what I say. Am I being clear? Am I saying it correctly? Am I leaving anything out? I'm not saying anything incorrect, right? Pretty much, I didn't trust myself to get across this idea of God's love that I knew but barely felt that I understood. So, evangelism was a minimum effort for most of the summer, sadly.
And getting to know people, well that was a given. We were living together, went to church together, ate meals together, went sharing together, had bible study together, and did crazy things together (scavenger hunts, kickball, etc). It was inevitable that we would get to know each other, but the more effort you put into it, the more you'd get out of it. I tend to get peopled-out pretty easily, so I avoided a lot of unnecessary community time that I really should have gone to (hallway hangouts, megabed, etc.). I also tend to find the people I think I get along best with and stick with them, thus other relationships get pushed to the back burner. I did have some great times, though.
One other thing I should mention that was part of the first half of CSM was discipleship. We each spent an hour or so a week talking with one of the staff members about how we were doing and ways we could grow and such. I loved Mackenzie, but I will admit that since I didn't know her super well I wasn't going to go easy on her and just open up. I really don't just open up with anyone, to be honest. Maybe, maybe, my best friends that I've known for years and years now, but even that is rare. Still, Mackenzie pushed me as best as she could with what I gave her and it went well and taught me a lot and got me thinking about things, so I have to thank her for that.
Pursuing it With Weary Feet
The story goes that one year, a conference for all the staff was scheduled in the middle of summer project. The staff had to go and they didn't want to stop the project halfway through, so they had no choice but to leave the students to run the rest of it by themselves. Whether or not that is the absolute truth of how it got started, the tradition today is that the staff leaves halfway through and the students take over. This is when the project truly becomes what you make of it. All the students are assigned a role, from Summer Mission Director, to Action Group leader, From operations team to prayer team. Everything is left to the students. Those with more authoritative positions will keep in contact with staff, but for the most part everything is left up to us. The leaders team decides on the theme for the second half. Meetings team runs weekly meetings and comes up with content. Community team is in charge of food and planning events. Prayer team runs prayer and worship nights. Impact leaders lead sharing on campuses. Action group leaders lead the bible studies. Operations team is in charge of budget. Action group leaders and others on the leaders team disciple other students and get discipled themselves. We choose how we run things from now on. This is when we can no longer rely on the staff to lead us by the hand and we have to step up and just do it. This is when we truly become one cohesive unit. This is when it gets real.
We have to work with the other students to make sure that everything runs smoothly. We have to listen and work together if we want anything to get done. When you see someone forced to take charge, when you see how they handle responsibility, when you see their strengths and weaknesses, that is when you really get to know them, when you really bond. Also, since we were in charge of community events, we got to do things that people actually had a say in rather than just what we were told to do. We had a decades dance party, an amazing race, beach time, prayer walks, things we as students wanted to do.
Now, this may sound awesome. We have the power! But it was also a lot of responsibility. We had new meetings each week to attend to make sure that we were doing our jobs. We had to spend extra time each week on planning and organization to make sure that we were getting things done correctly. We couldn't rely on the staff anymore, so we had to rely on each other and on God. I think it's because of this that it's during the second half of the summer that we really grow together as a community and experience the most spiritual growth as well.
It's also during the second half that people really start to feel the effects of having been away from home for so long. The third week after staff leave is usually when this happens. We've been in Chicago for so long and we're about ready to go home, to go take a break. We don't have staff spurring us on anymore, so we just have to find ways to push each other through to the end. Make it over that last hill and then we can go the home stretch.
The Larger Way
I need to make mention of what is going to be my legacy among every student who went to CSM15. Assassins. After staff left, I decided to start a game of Assassins. If you don't know what that is, it's a game where everyone has a target and the goal is to "assassinate" your target. How you do this depends on how you're playing, but we played where you just had to touch your target with your plastic spoon while they weren't holding their own spoon in their hand. Once you accomplished this, you acquired their target and kept going until only one is left victorious. I waited until after staff was gone because I wasn't sure what they would think of it, it being a game about killing and all. I gave people a few days to let me know if the wanted to play (and I was still adding people even after I started sending out assignments), then we started. Ginger Evan volunteered to be the overseer and keep track of kills so that I could play without any unfair advantages. Originally I just wanted him to keep track of a few so that I wouldn't know who my assassin was, but he convinced me to hand the whole thing over to him and he would just report numbers to me so I could keep a "Kill Circle" recording how many people were left and how many kills each one had made. He took it to a whole new level by taking some inspiration from the Hunger Games and doing Cannons Fire at the end of each day to report the dead. Eventually I ended up leaving decisions to him as well. We started with 46 players and it took 2 1/2 weeks to declare a winner. In that time, we had some spectacular deaths, one quitter, spiritual connections, ridiculous rules, and some really paranoid people. There were a couple points when I wasn't sure if I had been right to start this game, but in the end everyone really seemed to appreciate it and have a lot of fun, and I do think it brought us more together as a community. So that was my contribution.
So, that was pretty much a summary of what CSM15 was and what we did, but what was the point? And was it worth it? The point is whatever you choose to get out of it, and I think I can speak for all 68 students when I say that yes, it was most definitely worth it.
I have always struggled with quiet times, and I still struggle with them, but during the last couple of weeks I was there, I really started to see how important they are. Quiet times give you the opportunity to dig deeper into the Word and really hear what God says. I think part of the reason I've always struggled to really understand God's love for me is that I've never really taken the time to learn about it. I grew up in the church so I figured that I already knew what I needed. The Bible seemed like history books to me. After going through our studies in Philippians and 1 Peter this summer, and seeing how relevant they are to our lives today, I've gained a better understanding of who God is and His will for me. While I still miss quiet times numerous times a week and probably don't dig as deep as I could/should, I have gotten better at remembering to take at least a bit of time to sit down with my Bible and to take time in prayer.
Prayer is another thing that I was always iffy on. I know that you're supposed to take everything to God, but I was always so self-conscious about it. I didn't like praying in groups because I didn't know what to say and didn't want to sound stupid. I didn't want to ask for prayer requests because I figured I could pray for things on my own without troubling others with my problems. Something I learned this summer was to pray in the Spirit, so rather than trying to plan out what I'm going to say if I have to pray out loud, I just speak up and trust God to understand what I'm saying. I also learned that you can't always rely on yourself and sometimes you just need someone to help you, and that is why you have prayer requests. We are all part of God's family and we want to be there for each other.
I think the most growth I had, though, was in evangelism. Before I went to Chicago, I knew that we were called to evangelism, but I didn't really feel called personally. I figured, I'm not a good people person so I'll leave that stuff to those who are good at it. It was especially hard because the kind of evangelism we were doing was getting to know people, connecting with them, and then showing them God's love and sharing the gospel with them, and I just don't connect with people that quickly. I'd hear everyone else talking about how awesome these people that they talked to were and how they loved hanging out with them, and all the conversations I had were just that, conversations. I just can't connect and go deep like that with people after having only met them. I really wish it were otherwise, but that's not who I am and I've learned to live with it. I've gotten a bit better with opening up to people in the last year, but it still takes a while for me to really consider you a good friend that I would actually invite to anything or tell things to. So, yeah, evangelism was hard for me this summer. But in the last couple weeks, I really just saw how much of a heart everyone had for it and for the people they talked to. I realized that I wanted that. I only got to go sharing one day during our last week, but it was a good day. We went to the beach and I had three really good conversations that got pretty deep. No, no one I talked to accepted Jesus, but they got to hear about the gospel and about God's love and see how he showed it through us. Really talking to those people, hearing their stories, seeing how broken and misguided some of them were, I really did start to gain a heart for evangelism. It's still something I'm going to have to work at, but I now understand why we focus so much on evangelism and I want to make it a priority in my life.
And Whither Then?
So, after 10 weeks of living together, eating together, sharing together, being crazy together, and loving Jesus together, those strangers that I had started the summer with had become my family. I realized after I got home that home is where you grow up, and even though we were only there for 10 weeks, we had grown so much spiritually and helped each other grow so much together that every single one of us now considered Chicago to be our home and each other as brothers and sisters, even closer than friends. None of us wanted to say goodbye. On that last day, as we all walked through those doors one-by-one, as Bri so perfectly put it, our "heart[s] shattered into 67 little pieces..." We've only been home a week, but we were ready for a reunion the day after we got home. While we may be in different cities and different states now, we are not apart. We still keep up with each other on twitter, instagram, and facebook, but most of all, we are all still a part of a groupme where we post jokes, memories, prayer requests, updates, and we've even started posting faith steps. We are there to encourage each and every one of our siblings through whatever happens this year and in the years to come. We can't wait for the reunion when we'll get to see each other again and talk face-to-face about what God has been doing in our lives. But for now, we are all heading back to our campuses to take whatever we've learned this summer and apply it in our own ministries. And one day, we will all sit around the campfires of Heaven, reminiscing about these days and the summer that changed everything.
If you are reading this and have never heard the gospel, don't know who Jesus is, or just don't know that God loves you, I encourage you to find a church near you and a Christian who can explain it, because you are missing out on something so amazing that it will change your life forever and you will never look back. The gist of it is that God created you, and he loves you, and he wants a relationship with you, so much so that he sent his son to die so that your sins could be forgiven, no matter how terrible you may think they are. God doesn't care. He wants you to be a part of his family. All you have to do is say yes.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Hogwarts Houses
So, I've been thinking a lot lately about the different houses in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. I realized a while back that she had ended up creating her own stereotypes when she made these houses, but I only recently realized how much more there is to each house.
I noticed how stereotyped the houses had become when I found HP fans who couldn't get past the fact that "all Slytherins are evil" (granted, this came from a Gryffindor, and we all know how those houses get along...), and when the first thought I had whenever someone said that they were a Hufflepuff was "What the heck is a Hufflepuff" (thank you, A Very Potter Musicals). I mean, I knew that there was nothing wrong with being a Hufflepuff and that not all Slytherins were evil, but so what? These ideas have become so ingrained in everyone's heads that it's hard to change their minds.
I am currently in an honors class that is focused solely on the Harry Potter series. We had a discussion one day about the houses. Our professor argued that, as honors students, it's almost guaranteed that we are, in reality, all Gryffindors or Slytherins. The Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws among us did not agree (I was one of them). His claim was that the Gryffindors and Slytherins are the ones who step up, who walk off the beaten path to do the extraordinary, and that that is what we were doing just by being in the honors program. I don't think this is truly the case.
When you think of the four houses, what traits do you associate with them?
Gryffindors: brave, courageous, outgoing, strong, protectors, etc... all that knightly, chivalrous stuff.
Slytherins: evil, ambitious, cunning, sly...pretty much anything with darker connotations.
Ravenclaws: smart, intelligent, wise...and any other synonym you can think of. Maybe also a little eccentric.
Hufflepuffs: loyal, kind, friendly, trustworthy, good finders...or possibly you really didn't know the characteristics of Hufflepuffs ("What the heck is a Hufflepuff?").
What's wrong here? These are all very shallow definitions. You must either be brave, ambitious (or evil...), smart, or, if you're none of those things, you're a Hufflepuff (a.k.a., the leftovers). With these definitions, I feel like there should be a lot more Hufflepuffs, but there aren't. Pottermore.com has the houses within about 100,000 members of each other (they're roughly equal, or at least close enough). These descriptions are too one-dimensional. Not all Slytherins are evil. Hufflepuffs are not just the leftovers. You don't necessarily have to be smart to be a Ravenclaw. And Gryffindors aren't just mindless muscle.
I recently took on the feat of convincing my sister that there was no reason for her to be ashamed of being a Hufflepuff. To do so, I had to dredge up every good fact I could find. The problem is, not many people are out there extolling the greatness of Hufflepuffs. You know why not? Because the true Hufflepuffs aren't that worried about what others think of them and the other houses only know what they're told about Hufflepuffs, which is not much. After a lot of work, I think I finally convinced her. Then she had to ask me, if Hufflepuff is so good, what do the other houses have to brag about? So, more deep thought. I think I finally found the definitions that suit my way of thinking. These aren't necessarily 100% correct, and I may have to tweak or completely rethink them later on, but for now these are my accepted descriptions for each house.
Gryffindor: They are focused on their reputations, but they also care about others. They have a need to prove themselves, which usually results in them trying to prove their bravery by showing off or by doing some great deed to help another. They are drawn to attention. They will go out of their way to do good things and help others because it will boost their own standing. It is not all selfishness; they do care about the well-being of others. The main point is that, if they can use their good deeds to gain some fame, they will, but even if they can't, they'll still do the good deed and help out a friend in need or stand up for what's right. They are, in essence, the knights. They are out in the world being chivalrous and making a name for themselves.
Ravenclaw: They are focused on learning. They are a very curious bunch and want to learn whatever they can. They are open-minded, always questioning and trying to understand, looking at all the possibilities. They can be a little eccentric and don't care much about what others think of them because they are more focused on the knowledge they are gaining than on the people around them. They don't have to be the smartest bunch, but they do have to have a drive to learn, a curiosity that keeps them seeking for new knowledge and understanding. They are the scholars, in their on-going search for knowledge and the truth. They just like to keep themselves busy by thinking and using their brains. Sometimes, the knowledge they gain may seem pointless, but sometimes it can lead to great discoveries and achievements.
Slytherin: They are the most ambitious ones. They have a goal, a dream, and they will make it happen. They strive to achieve anything they set their mind to, sometimes to the detriment of others. They don't let anything stand in their way. Their goals don't need to be all about having power or control; they aren't all out there to rule the world. When they make up their minds to do something, they will do everything in their power to see that it gets done. Some of those dreams will be about becoming great, gaining fortune, obtaining power; but some will be smaller, such as pursuing the one they love, or reaching a personal goal (running time or such). They are the people who will get whatever they want out of life because they will continue to strive for it until they make it a reality.
Hufflepuffs: The only house that is truly not focused on themselves. They are focused on helping others. Their happiness comes from making someone else happy. They are the most loyal and trustworthy because they truly care about their friends and don't want to use them for their own personal gain. Their goal is to please everyone, sometimes to the point that they ignore their own desires. They have a need to please other people. They will go out of their way to help a friend because they know that it's the right thing to do. They won't ask for recognition because just knowing that they have helped someone is enough for them. They are the charity volunteers; they just want to make the world a better place and will give up their time and effort to do so because they truly care about the well-being of others and still have extreme optimistic hope in humanity.
So, where do your priorities lie? Are you living for your reputation, your dreams, your curiosity, or your friends? There will be overlap; no one is completely one thing or another, but what is the drive behind the biggest decisions you have made about your life, your friends, your career, etc.?
If you generally put others before yourself, you are a Hufflepuff, selfless and truly to be admired. People like being around you because they know where they stand and that you really care about them. You can't stand to see anyone sad and will do everything in your power to help them.
If you like to explore/question/understand/think about things, you are a Ravenclaw. You like knowing things and want to know more. This may be just the curiosity of learning a single fact to wanting to know the truths of the universe, but whatever it is, you want to learn it. You're admired for your open-minded attitude and that you can just be you without worrying about what others think.
If you live to make yourself known, you are a Gryffindor. You like to stand out from the crowd. You stand up for what you believe in and make sure that your opinions are known. You make a stand when others might not. You aren't afraid of drawing attention. Bad attention is better than no attention at all. Everyone will know your name.
If you actively chase your dreams, you are a Slytherin. You don't let anything stop you from accomplishing your goals. You won't back down from a challenge if overcoming it will get you closer to your destination, but you will avoid anything that might hinder your journey. You will make your dreams a reality or die trying (just an expression, dying would prevent you from reaching your goals), but either way, you'll never be disappointed with your life because you will know that you did your best.
Well, I hope you can now see the benefits, and even some of the downfalls, to every house, and maybe even have a better understanding of which one you belong to. No house is perfect or even better than the others. Hufflepuffs are selfless but get no recognition, Ravenclaws are constantly learning but lose touch with reality, Gryffindors are famous but conceited, and Slytherins achieve their goals but destroy others in the process. Those are exaggerations, but you get the point. Never again do I want to hear "All Slytherins are evil" or "What the heck is a Hufflepuff?". Every person in every house has great things going for them.
And to my professor: just because we are honors students and stepping out above the crowd, doesn't mean that we have to be ambitious or daring. We could just be caring or curious. You don't know the reasons behind our individual choices to join. It may be the best way for someone to learn how to make the world a better place, or for someone to obtain the knowledge they seek, or it could be because it sets them apart from the crowd, or because it's just another step on the path to achieving their dream. Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs can be honors students just as much as Gryffindors and Slytherins. You're teaching us to look critically at the Harry Potter books. Well, I have, and I've seen how these stereotypes have grown beyond the pages of the books, and we are so much more than those original descriptions the sorting hat gave in 1997. Don't try to box us in or tell us who we are. We know who we are, and that is all that matters. The honors program represents all four houses, and you'll just have to accept that fact. I am a Ravenclaw, through and through, and being an honors student doesn't change that.
Sorry that it was a little long-winded and I got a little sassy there at the end, but I had to get that out there. I know it got a little repetitive, but I just had to make sure I said everything I had to say, so thanks for hearing me out.
I noticed how stereotyped the houses had become when I found HP fans who couldn't get past the fact that "all Slytherins are evil" (granted, this came from a Gryffindor, and we all know how those houses get along...), and when the first thought I had whenever someone said that they were a Hufflepuff was "What the heck is a Hufflepuff" (thank you, A Very Potter Musicals). I mean, I knew that there was nothing wrong with being a Hufflepuff and that not all Slytherins were evil, but so what? These ideas have become so ingrained in everyone's heads that it's hard to change their minds.
I am currently in an honors class that is focused solely on the Harry Potter series. We had a discussion one day about the houses. Our professor argued that, as honors students, it's almost guaranteed that we are, in reality, all Gryffindors or Slytherins. The Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws among us did not agree (I was one of them). His claim was that the Gryffindors and Slytherins are the ones who step up, who walk off the beaten path to do the extraordinary, and that that is what we were doing just by being in the honors program. I don't think this is truly the case.
When you think of the four houses, what traits do you associate with them?
Gryffindors: brave, courageous, outgoing, strong, protectors, etc... all that knightly, chivalrous stuff.
Slytherins: evil, ambitious, cunning, sly...pretty much anything with darker connotations.
Ravenclaws: smart, intelligent, wise...and any other synonym you can think of. Maybe also a little eccentric.
Hufflepuffs: loyal, kind, friendly, trustworthy, good finders...or possibly you really didn't know the characteristics of Hufflepuffs ("What the heck is a Hufflepuff?").
What's wrong here? These are all very shallow definitions. You must either be brave, ambitious (or evil...), smart, or, if you're none of those things, you're a Hufflepuff (a.k.a., the leftovers). With these definitions, I feel like there should be a lot more Hufflepuffs, but there aren't. Pottermore.com has the houses within about 100,000 members of each other (they're roughly equal, or at least close enough). These descriptions are too one-dimensional. Not all Slytherins are evil. Hufflepuffs are not just the leftovers. You don't necessarily have to be smart to be a Ravenclaw. And Gryffindors aren't just mindless muscle.
I recently took on the feat of convincing my sister that there was no reason for her to be ashamed of being a Hufflepuff. To do so, I had to dredge up every good fact I could find. The problem is, not many people are out there extolling the greatness of Hufflepuffs. You know why not? Because the true Hufflepuffs aren't that worried about what others think of them and the other houses only know what they're told about Hufflepuffs, which is not much. After a lot of work, I think I finally convinced her. Then she had to ask me, if Hufflepuff is so good, what do the other houses have to brag about? So, more deep thought. I think I finally found the definitions that suit my way of thinking. These aren't necessarily 100% correct, and I may have to tweak or completely rethink them later on, but for now these are my accepted descriptions for each house.
Gryffindor: They are focused on their reputations, but they also care about others. They have a need to prove themselves, which usually results in them trying to prove their bravery by showing off or by doing some great deed to help another. They are drawn to attention. They will go out of their way to do good things and help others because it will boost their own standing. It is not all selfishness; they do care about the well-being of others. The main point is that, if they can use their good deeds to gain some fame, they will, but even if they can't, they'll still do the good deed and help out a friend in need or stand up for what's right. They are, in essence, the knights. They are out in the world being chivalrous and making a name for themselves.
Ravenclaw: They are focused on learning. They are a very curious bunch and want to learn whatever they can. They are open-minded, always questioning and trying to understand, looking at all the possibilities. They can be a little eccentric and don't care much about what others think of them because they are more focused on the knowledge they are gaining than on the people around them. They don't have to be the smartest bunch, but they do have to have a drive to learn, a curiosity that keeps them seeking for new knowledge and understanding. They are the scholars, in their on-going search for knowledge and the truth. They just like to keep themselves busy by thinking and using their brains. Sometimes, the knowledge they gain may seem pointless, but sometimes it can lead to great discoveries and achievements.
Slytherin: They are the most ambitious ones. They have a goal, a dream, and they will make it happen. They strive to achieve anything they set their mind to, sometimes to the detriment of others. They don't let anything stand in their way. Their goals don't need to be all about having power or control; they aren't all out there to rule the world. When they make up their minds to do something, they will do everything in their power to see that it gets done. Some of those dreams will be about becoming great, gaining fortune, obtaining power; but some will be smaller, such as pursuing the one they love, or reaching a personal goal (running time or such). They are the people who will get whatever they want out of life because they will continue to strive for it until they make it a reality.
Hufflepuffs: The only house that is truly not focused on themselves. They are focused on helping others. Their happiness comes from making someone else happy. They are the most loyal and trustworthy because they truly care about their friends and don't want to use them for their own personal gain. Their goal is to please everyone, sometimes to the point that they ignore their own desires. They have a need to please other people. They will go out of their way to help a friend because they know that it's the right thing to do. They won't ask for recognition because just knowing that they have helped someone is enough for them. They are the charity volunteers; they just want to make the world a better place and will give up their time and effort to do so because they truly care about the well-being of others and still have extreme optimistic hope in humanity.
So, where do your priorities lie? Are you living for your reputation, your dreams, your curiosity, or your friends? There will be overlap; no one is completely one thing or another, but what is the drive behind the biggest decisions you have made about your life, your friends, your career, etc.?
If you generally put others before yourself, you are a Hufflepuff, selfless and truly to be admired. People like being around you because they know where they stand and that you really care about them. You can't stand to see anyone sad and will do everything in your power to help them.
If you like to explore/question/understand/think about things, you are a Ravenclaw. You like knowing things and want to know more. This may be just the curiosity of learning a single fact to wanting to know the truths of the universe, but whatever it is, you want to learn it. You're admired for your open-minded attitude and that you can just be you without worrying about what others think.
If you live to make yourself known, you are a Gryffindor. You like to stand out from the crowd. You stand up for what you believe in and make sure that your opinions are known. You make a stand when others might not. You aren't afraid of drawing attention. Bad attention is better than no attention at all. Everyone will know your name.
If you actively chase your dreams, you are a Slytherin. You don't let anything stop you from accomplishing your goals. You won't back down from a challenge if overcoming it will get you closer to your destination, but you will avoid anything that might hinder your journey. You will make your dreams a reality or die trying (just an expression, dying would prevent you from reaching your goals), but either way, you'll never be disappointed with your life because you will know that you did your best.
Well, I hope you can now see the benefits, and even some of the downfalls, to every house, and maybe even have a better understanding of which one you belong to. No house is perfect or even better than the others. Hufflepuffs are selfless but get no recognition, Ravenclaws are constantly learning but lose touch with reality, Gryffindors are famous but conceited, and Slytherins achieve their goals but destroy others in the process. Those are exaggerations, but you get the point. Never again do I want to hear "All Slytherins are evil" or "What the heck is a Hufflepuff?". Every person in every house has great things going for them.
And to my professor: just because we are honors students and stepping out above the crowd, doesn't mean that we have to be ambitious or daring. We could just be caring or curious. You don't know the reasons behind our individual choices to join. It may be the best way for someone to learn how to make the world a better place, or for someone to obtain the knowledge they seek, or it could be because it sets them apart from the crowd, or because it's just another step on the path to achieving their dream. Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs can be honors students just as much as Gryffindors and Slytherins. You're teaching us to look critically at the Harry Potter books. Well, I have, and I've seen how these stereotypes have grown beyond the pages of the books, and we are so much more than those original descriptions the sorting hat gave in 1997. Don't try to box us in or tell us who we are. We know who we are, and that is all that matters. The honors program represents all four houses, and you'll just have to accept that fact. I am a Ravenclaw, through and through, and being an honors student doesn't change that.
Sorry that it was a little long-winded and I got a little sassy there at the end, but I had to get that out there. I know it got a little repetitive, but I just had to make sure I said everything I had to say, so thanks for hearing me out.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Anime
I have recently come to the realization (which you probably already knew, but, hey, I'm slow sometimes) that anime is just cartoons that are socially acceptable for adults (or at least young adults). You won't usually find twenty-somethings proudly declaring their love of TMNT or the Powerpuff Girls, but you will find those (usually the more geeky ones, but that just means they're the brave ones who aren't ashamed of what they watch) who will loudly argue for their favorite anime, such as Naruto, Bleach, or Dragonball Z.
Why are cartoons and anime so different from reality tv or crime shows? When you look at any live-action television show, it's focused on the realities of life and is full of drama, comedy, and murder. You get what you get, with all the messy situations and crap that goes into making life what it is. Cartoons, on the other hand, are more focused on trying to impart some sort of message to kids. This is usually about friendship, love, hope, forgiveness, never giving up, etc. The villain is usually clearly defined, the protagonist is always the good guy who finds some way to save everyone, and the take-home message of every episode is that good will always triumph if you stick to your values.
Anime blends these two genres together. It takes the realities of life (death, murder, and all the tragedies and crap you can think of) and gives it some sort of good will triumph overarching message about friendship or never giving up or love or all that gooey stuff. Some anime focuses a bit more on the realities of life and the consequences of our actions, and the fact that there is evil and we don't always have answers for the hard questions (Death Note, Psycho-Pass), but this is what makes it for adults and not children and why it is acceptable to watch once you're no longer a child. Adults have become jaded and can no longer believe in the perfect outcomes of children's cartoons. What they can believe in are the messages portrayed through the more hardcore stories of anime shows that aren't afraid to show how life really is so that we can relate but can still come up with an ending that gives us the hope of a better world and a better life.
Some really good animes are Fairy Tail, Naruto, Bleach, and Psycho-Pass. Fairy Tail, while far from being realistic, imparts great messages about friendship, bravery, forgiveness, and never giving up all while keeping the action up and the audience in tears or laughter. Naruto, a classic, is focused on not living down to expectations but following your dreams, reaching beyond your potential, and never giving up. Bleach, another classic, looks at fighting for justice, even when everyone else is against you, doing what's right even if it goes against the norm. And Psycho-Pass (the only semi-realistic one in this list, albeit sci-fi and futuristic) really makes one think about justice, right and wrong, an individual's role in society, the structure of government, and human nature. All of these are amazing shows with great messages that are too violent for younger audiences, but are perfect for adults who still want to dream and hope and believe in humanity, despite what the news networks try to tell us. There still is, and always will be, hope for humanity and for a better, brighter future. That is what watching anime has shown me and why I will always argue that anime is as good as, if not better than, all those CSI and NCIS and all those other crime drama shows out there. Why focus on death when we can focus on life? That is my question here, why are so many people so interested in watching shows about murder and hatred? I don't get it at all.
Anime = a better outlook on life.
Why are cartoons and anime so different from reality tv or crime shows? When you look at any live-action television show, it's focused on the realities of life and is full of drama, comedy, and murder. You get what you get, with all the messy situations and crap that goes into making life what it is. Cartoons, on the other hand, are more focused on trying to impart some sort of message to kids. This is usually about friendship, love, hope, forgiveness, never giving up, etc. The villain is usually clearly defined, the protagonist is always the good guy who finds some way to save everyone, and the take-home message of every episode is that good will always triumph if you stick to your values.
Anime blends these two genres together. It takes the realities of life (death, murder, and all the tragedies and crap you can think of) and gives it some sort of good will triumph overarching message about friendship or never giving up or love or all that gooey stuff. Some anime focuses a bit more on the realities of life and the consequences of our actions, and the fact that there is evil and we don't always have answers for the hard questions (Death Note, Psycho-Pass), but this is what makes it for adults and not children and why it is acceptable to watch once you're no longer a child. Adults have become jaded and can no longer believe in the perfect outcomes of children's cartoons. What they can believe in are the messages portrayed through the more hardcore stories of anime shows that aren't afraid to show how life really is so that we can relate but can still come up with an ending that gives us the hope of a better world and a better life.
Some really good animes are Fairy Tail, Naruto, Bleach, and Psycho-Pass. Fairy Tail, while far from being realistic, imparts great messages about friendship, bravery, forgiveness, and never giving up all while keeping the action up and the audience in tears or laughter. Naruto, a classic, is focused on not living down to expectations but following your dreams, reaching beyond your potential, and never giving up. Bleach, another classic, looks at fighting for justice, even when everyone else is against you, doing what's right even if it goes against the norm. And Psycho-Pass (the only semi-realistic one in this list, albeit sci-fi and futuristic) really makes one think about justice, right and wrong, an individual's role in society, the structure of government, and human nature. All of these are amazing shows with great messages that are too violent for younger audiences, but are perfect for adults who still want to dream and hope and believe in humanity, despite what the news networks try to tell us. There still is, and always will be, hope for humanity and for a better, brighter future. That is what watching anime has shown me and why I will always argue that anime is as good as, if not better than, all those CSI and NCIS and all those other crime drama shows out there. Why focus on death when we can focus on life? That is my question here, why are so many people so interested in watching shows about murder and hatred? I don't get it at all.
Anime = a better outlook on life.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Preferences
So, this was originally going to be Doctor Who specific until I realized that it probably relates to all things fantasy/sci-fi that I read or watch. It will still be heavily Doctor Who, but it will have some other elements as well.
I've come up with a possible reason for why there are a number of things that other people completely love and I just despise, such as certain companions and the Hunger Games series. I say possible because, honestly, it could just be something I came up with so as to have an explanation that fits even if it actually isn't the reason. I don't really know for sure.
I think my problem with the Hunger Games, the Gemma Doyle trilogy, and the Doctor Who companions Amy, Donna, Martha, and Clara is that they are a little too "human." They represent what we think of as reality. Most people like characters that they can relate to, characters that they think of as real. These characters represent humanity's vices. They are far from perfect. We seem to expect people to be flawed, to mess up and make mistakes, to disappoint us, so that is what people expect from "realistic" characters. We use the phrase "I'm only human" to excuse our failures. Because we expect such faults, that is what we want to see because that is what people think they can best relate to. I, on the other hand, grew up practically living in a fantasy world. Every spare moment is spent with my nose in a book or my eyes glued to the t.v. watching something fantastic happen. Because I read so much fantasy, I pick up the themes and make them a part of my personal expectations. The difference comes in in that, while other people are focused on humans and their excuses for their faults, I am picking up ideas such as never giving up hope, always sticking by your friends no matter what, going to your limits and beyond to win. Yes, all good characters have some vices, but they are small, silly things that can be easily forgotten, not anything truly detrimental. So that is what I expect from my favorite characters, the attitude that nothing is impossible, that good will always triumph in the end, that there is truly some good in everyone.
While my philosophy and expectations may not necessarily be "realistic," I like them. They allow me to have hope and to trust in people, despite their failings. I don't like the phrase "I'm only human" because it just seems like an excuse, kind of like "life isn't fair" is an excuse to let things continue being unfair and not having to try to change them. When someone says that they are only human, they are admitting defeat, saying that they "know" that they couldn't do something so why even really try. Saying you're only human is saying that you're expecting failure, therefore you are setting yourself up to fail. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Hunger Games, Gemma Doyle, and a number of the Doctor's companions have glaringly obvious faults and little hope in humanity. I prefer those who give us hope that there are better things and people out there than what is expected.
In contrast, I actually think I prefer the Doctor to be more "realistic." The Doctors that are more emotional, those who show more baggage, bring a lot more to the show than ones who try to be above their mistakes (like Eleven). I think the reason for this might be that, if both Doctor and companion were too fantastical, then most people couldn't truly relate; it just wouldn't seem real. Nothing is perfect. It needs to be the Doctor who is burdened with failure and not the companion because the Doctor is an alien while the companion is usually the main representative of humanity on the show. It's better to let the companion represent hope, thus giving us hope in humanity, and let the alien Doctor, who is supposed to be a stranger to our world and our ways, take the heat when things blow up.
So, the lesson to take away from this is to read more fantasy where everyone has each others' backs and everything works out in the end. This will give you a bit more hope in humanity. Also, please stop using phrases like "I'm only human" and "life isn't fair." To use such phrases is to make them true.
So go home, read some Harry Potter, Anne of Green Gables, or Redwall and figure out why I am so determined to believe that there is good in the world.
I've come up with a possible reason for why there are a number of things that other people completely love and I just despise, such as certain companions and the Hunger Games series. I say possible because, honestly, it could just be something I came up with so as to have an explanation that fits even if it actually isn't the reason. I don't really know for sure.
I think my problem with the Hunger Games, the Gemma Doyle trilogy, and the Doctor Who companions Amy, Donna, Martha, and Clara is that they are a little too "human." They represent what we think of as reality. Most people like characters that they can relate to, characters that they think of as real. These characters represent humanity's vices. They are far from perfect. We seem to expect people to be flawed, to mess up and make mistakes, to disappoint us, so that is what people expect from "realistic" characters. We use the phrase "I'm only human" to excuse our failures. Because we expect such faults, that is what we want to see because that is what people think they can best relate to. I, on the other hand, grew up practically living in a fantasy world. Every spare moment is spent with my nose in a book or my eyes glued to the t.v. watching something fantastic happen. Because I read so much fantasy, I pick up the themes and make them a part of my personal expectations. The difference comes in in that, while other people are focused on humans and their excuses for their faults, I am picking up ideas such as never giving up hope, always sticking by your friends no matter what, going to your limits and beyond to win. Yes, all good characters have some vices, but they are small, silly things that can be easily forgotten, not anything truly detrimental. So that is what I expect from my favorite characters, the attitude that nothing is impossible, that good will always triumph in the end, that there is truly some good in everyone.
While my philosophy and expectations may not necessarily be "realistic," I like them. They allow me to have hope and to trust in people, despite their failings. I don't like the phrase "I'm only human" because it just seems like an excuse, kind of like "life isn't fair" is an excuse to let things continue being unfair and not having to try to change them. When someone says that they are only human, they are admitting defeat, saying that they "know" that they couldn't do something so why even really try. Saying you're only human is saying that you're expecting failure, therefore you are setting yourself up to fail. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Hunger Games, Gemma Doyle, and a number of the Doctor's companions have glaringly obvious faults and little hope in humanity. I prefer those who give us hope that there are better things and people out there than what is expected.
In contrast, I actually think I prefer the Doctor to be more "realistic." The Doctors that are more emotional, those who show more baggage, bring a lot more to the show than ones who try to be above their mistakes (like Eleven). I think the reason for this might be that, if both Doctor and companion were too fantastical, then most people couldn't truly relate; it just wouldn't seem real. Nothing is perfect. It needs to be the Doctor who is burdened with failure and not the companion because the Doctor is an alien while the companion is usually the main representative of humanity on the show. It's better to let the companion represent hope, thus giving us hope in humanity, and let the alien Doctor, who is supposed to be a stranger to our world and our ways, take the heat when things blow up.
So, the lesson to take away from this is to read more fantasy where everyone has each others' backs and everything works out in the end. This will give you a bit more hope in humanity. Also, please stop using phrases like "I'm only human" and "life isn't fair." To use such phrases is to make them true.
So go home, read some Harry Potter, Anne of Green Gables, or Redwall and figure out why I am so determined to believe that there is good in the world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)