Blog Archives

139 Nebraska! The good Life!

1/30/2019

As there’s nothing I’m going to comment about in the news, I’ve been trying to come up with a topic for this post. There’s been enough snow to require shoveling about every three or four days during the last few weeks and it looks like we could have more rounds of this in the not distant future, although today (Jan. 30) it’s just stupid cold. It was -19° when I got up this morning with a wind chill of about -40° This got me to considering how different this is from the WNC mountains where we’d get two or three snowstorms every year which would create thick, heavy, “heart-attack” snow and would, generally, be pretty well gone in a couple of days, although Bonnie and I did spend a fair amount of time and effort clearing our road in order to get to work a couple of times each winter.

The recent snows here have been a very fine, “dry” snow which, once it was cleared from our driveway and sidewalks, dried up through evaporation without much further intervention from us. So, not really a big deal, but requiring a couple of “person-hours” to get the process started for each event (We have a BIG driveway!). The biggest difference that I’ve noticed has been the cold. Yes, it could get cold in WNC, but below zero wind chills for extended periods of time weren’t common in WNC and don’t seem all that unusual around here. Here’s a cartoon I saw recently which seems to sum up the situation.

Having lived in Nebraska for about four and a half years now, I admit that I have enjoyed it. Summers can be pretty hot, winters can be very cold, there’s more frequent snow than in the mountains of WNC, and we don’t have the mountains to look at, but, it’s nice to see a real sunrise in the morning and an actual sunset in the afternoon. People here are more used to snow here, so they seem to cope with the snow on the roads better than many did in the mountains. I also appreciate the fact that Nebraska people seem to have a real sense of humor about themselves and their state, which I enjoy. Here’s an example:

This is a real thing! It’s called “Carhenge,” and it really exists near Alliance, Nebraska. It’s made of old cars painted grey and has become quite a tourist attraction since it was built in 1987.

On the other hand, even the locals can be amused by this, just as the folks in WNC were amused (and annoyed) by the tourists in that area. When we went to a regional LEGO Faire, we found this:

I’m also rather fond of this view of what Nebraskans think the rest of the world thinks of their state:

I’ve suggested before that football is a big thing in Nebraska. This may help explain that:

(NOTE: This is an actual picture of Memorial Stadium on the campus of UNL during a game.)

I do like it here, even if I poke fun at the state. Of course, I’m not the only one, we do enjoy “The Good Life:”

I should also note that Lent (and Mardi Gras) is approaching before too long, so it’s starting to be on people’s minds. I saw this picture not long ago which suggests that New Orleans isn’t the only place where “Fat Tuesday” is celebrated, although it MAY be a bigger deal elsewhere.

I’ll be back in a couple of weeks, when I may be able to come up with something of greater import (although bringing a smile to folks, which I hope this did, seems of some importance today).

LLAP

0 Comments

138 Quotes, part 2

1/17/2019

0 Comments

I was reading Stephen Hawking’s Brief Answers to the Big Questions the other day when I ran across a couple of quotes which I wanted to add to my “Quotes Collection.”  The particular quote which set me off reminded me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and said, “People asked a computer, ‘Is there a God?’  And the computer said, ‘There is now,’ and fused the plug.”  This got me to thinking about quotes in general and I realized that I hadn’t done a post based on my collection for a long time.  When I looked it up, I was surprised to find it dated back to the very early days of this blog (#11, November 2014), so I thought I’d try to see if my ever-growing collection contained any “gems” which might get me to thinking about something worth posting.  The quotes which one chooses to remember probably say more about the collector than anything else, of course, but I did come up with some which got me to thinking, which got me to writing, ….  So, here are some thoughts.

Quote: Legends are lessons.  They ring with truths.  I suppose that it’s the fact that I have always valued history a good deal that makes me value this quote from Queen Elinor in Disney’s Brave so much, but I hope that I am not unique in finding value from the study of our past.  Yes, I am aware that the study of the history of Western Civilization has, largely, been a study of the ideas and influences of “old, white guys,” which has all too often ignored the contributions of women, non-whites, the young, etc.  That’s probably not a good thing.

On the other hand, for good or ill, the dominant influences on civilization, at least in the West, was the people whom some now seem to think should be deemphasized because they weren’t “inclusive” enough.  I don’t say this to suggest that the rather limited pool of influences was a “good” thing, whatever “good” means in this context, just that it is the reality of how Western Civilization developed.  To ignore that fact, would be like ignoring the fact of the influence of the Christian religion on the same development.  Now I’m not at all sure that the West couldn’t have profited from a greater understanding of other cultures, religions, etc., but the fact is that some form of Christianity was a major influence on Western Civilization. One can argue quite successfully, I think, that not all of that influence was necessarily good.  The Inquisition; witch trials, burnings, hangings, etc.; attempts to abolish native religions because they were “incorrect;” wars over which brand of Christianity was the “right” one; anti-Semitism; and various other behaviors, would not appear to be what all would think of as terrifically positive influences, but I don’t want to get bogged down on that topic today.

As Queen Elinor says, our legends (a common method of transmitting history, even if not always factual) can teach us things.  These legends ring with the truths (both good and bad) of our existence.  They do much to tell us who we are, why we are here, how we got here, and how we are expected to behave.  I think that we ignore that fact at our considerable peril because it amounts to ignoring social, if not always factual, reality.  That’s a dangerous place to find ourselves.  I will readily acknowledge that not everything about our past has been what I would call “good,” but it’s worth remembering that it hasn’t all been “bad,” either.  It would seem to me that rational people would accept that and try to make our future better than our past has sometimes been.

I frequently think back to my teaching days, at times wondering about whether, or not, my students really understood what I was trying to communicate about the importance of theatre history and literature.  I remember that I started the discussion of every play in my Dramatic Lit. classes with this question: “What is this play about?”  I knew that it was THE important question to ask because I knew it could simulate a greater understanding of the forces which created a play and, therefore, help us to better understand how to communicate the play to an audience.  But, this quote from Arthur Laurents from a Dramatists Guild Landmark Symposium may explain what I was driving at better than any explanation I ever came up with in class.

Quote: I remember Jerry (Jerome Robbins) asking the most important question asked any time about anything in the theater: “What is it about?”  One of the reasons why he is the most brilliant of all choreographers is that he knows a dance has to be about something, not just an abstract dance.  When it’s about something, no one knows better how to make it a dance and move the story.

I suppose that the basic idea is similar to my favorite quote from M*A*S*H, the one about playing the notes, but not playing the music (see post #128), but this may say it better and require less explanation.  Laurence Olivier, I think, meant much the same sort of thing when he said, “Have a very good reason for everything you do.” I don’t think either Robbins or Olivier were trying to imply that there was only one possible interpretation of a piece, but that it’s difficult (perhaps impossible) to create really good work without trying to communicate something with it.

I think (I’m not sure that it was ever fully developed as a definite plan) that was why, towards the end of my teaching career, when I was assigned to teach the first course for majors, called “Introduction to the Professions,” I assigned my students to watch the first episode of the TV show “Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth” and hoped that they would watch the complete series.  You see, having been raised, theatrically, by neo-Aristotelians at Indiana University, I believe that the theatre developed out of ritual and myth. Now, Joseph Campbell has said that “A ritual can be defined as an enactment of a myth.”  I believe that what he meant was that the performance of certain behaviors (dancing certain dances, repeating certain stories, singing certain songs, etc.) by the members of a culture at some point came to be seen as a way of furthering the understanding of the myths, beliefs, legends, etc., which are central to that culture.

That means, I think, as we used to say in Stage and Screen, that “We are storytellers.”  After all, myths are stories, so rituals are the enactment of those stories and theatre is simply a variant form of ritual.  It seems to mean that theatre is always “about” something, which gets us back to Jerome Robbins’ question.  That’s probably confusing, but I think it does make sense if you look at it carefully.

Quote: “It is false and a shame for you to mind what these say, that are out of their wits!”        This is the most famous quote attributed to my ancestor, Martha Carrier, during her trial for witchcraft on August 2, 1692.  I suppose I am breaking my “rule” about not getting into political questions in this blog, by bringing this up, but I find it quite disturbing when some of our “leaders” seem to have difficulty accepting the idea that their opinions are not automatically accepted as truth.  I like Sherlock Holmes’ comment that “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”(emphasis added, RSB)  Of course, that means accepting that there are such things as facts, or at least verifiable assertions, which establish the nature of reality (the possible) so that it is possible to “eliminate the impossible.”

The problem comes, I suppose, when the parties involved cannot agree on a standard for reality. That can, and does seem to happen, although I find it extremely sad when it does.  I agree with Stephen Hawking when he said, “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” I’m not sure that Darwin would have agreed completely with Hawking, but adapting to change was something which he apparently believed was important when he said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

I think that it’s probably going to prove impossible to survive for long denying such things as, say, global warming and environmental pollution.  I don’t know that I think that it’s worth the time and energy to argue about the causes, but the effects in terms of climate change, sea level rise and the like seem to be getting measurably worse and, it would appear that we have limited alternatives.

I think it's likely that we can: 1.) do the best we can to understand if we (the human race) are having an impact on creating this situation (which appears highly probable) and try to reduce/mitigate/eliminate that impact; 2.) assume that whatever happens is the will of some Deity and that we are not to blame (except [possibly] for not praying to the correct one) and just accept the we are have no ability to influence our destiny, so we can (should) do nothing; or, 3.) we can deny the data of our own eyes, ears, etc., and pretend that these things really aren’t happening because we don’t have simple solutions which can be guaranteed to solve all of our problems.

Personally, I like #1 of the group above.  That may be because I have spent my life working with the “truths” of legend and story, so I’d like to believe that J. R. R. Tolkien was correct when he said “…I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago, certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.”  I think those truths formed the basis of the religious and spiritual belief systems which appear in most (all?) human cultures.

I’m also rather fond of this quote from J. K. Rowling: “Ultimately, in writing as in life, your job is to do the best you can, improving your own inherent limitations where possible, learning as much as you can and accepting that perfect works of art are only slightly less rare than perfect human beings. I’ve often taken comfort from Robert Benchley’s words: ‘It took me fifteen years to discover I had no talent for writing, but I couldn’t give it up, because by that time I was too famous.’”

This is probably somewhat less coherent than what I usually write, but I think (hope) that it will provide some food for thought.  I’ll be back in a couple of weeks with something else.  Hopefully, it will be more coherent, and, perhaps, even amusing.

LLAP

0 Comments

137 Language and the Sloppy Use Thereof

1/2/2019

0 Comments

It probably would be anything but news to my former students, especially those who suffered through my having to approve their BFA theses prior to submission to the full Committee, that I’m a bit “picky” about the use of language.  By that, I don’t mean that I insist on ignoring the use of strong or even “improper” language in its appropriate place.  And, yes, I do believe that there can be appropriate places for such language.  However, I have always thought that the use of language is something which should be carefully considered for clarity, accuracy, and appropriateness to the context in which it is being placed.  To me, this implies that one should use language with sensitivity and care.

That, of course, means that I am in complete agreement with Albus Dumbledore when he said that; “Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic.  Capable of both inflicting injury and remedying it.”  To me, at least, this isn’t so much a neat quote, as an obvious truth.  And, it does not require that one be a wizard in order to follow its advice.  Having spent my life in the study and practice of theatre (an obviously word-based form of art), how could I not think that language is, for all intents and purposes, magic?

Unfortunately, we seem to be living through a time in which language has been significantly devalued.  I suspect that this is probably due, at least in part, to the popularity and use of Twitter, and other “social media” systems which have encouraged radical abbreviations, elimination of characters within words, lack of punctuation, etc.  However, I also suspect that we have devalued the intelligent and creative use of language in our educational system because it is difficult to evaluate on a numerical scale (as if putting a number on something as an evaluation is ever really meaningful).  I never found that number grades were particularly meaningful except in those rare cases where the only thing of importance could be evaluated on a truly binary scale (right-wrong, true-false, etc.)  Is that really an effective process for evaluating education?  Or, is it simply a way of “keeping score,” so we know who conforms the best?  I was always much more interested in having my students become useful, productive, educated adults than I was in exactly how they would earn a living.  Perhaps as a result, I have former students who have gone on to work in various aspects of theatre, but also as teachers, lawyers, parents, and all sorts of fields. I consider all of them to all be of value, and I’m proud to think I may have contributed to my former students’ success.  To me, that success was always bound up in the educated use of language.

I find it somewhat sad that so many people either don’t know when they aren’t using the language effectively, or don’t seem to know or care. A couple of minor examples: I keep hearing the term “forecasted” being used on television, especially local television, but national, as well.  Now, I was taught that the use of the term “forecast” was perfectly acceptable as a past tense; as in, “Snow was forecast (not forecasted), but didn’t develop.”  I won’t even mention the form, “Rain has been forecasted.”, as too terrible for polite society.

It was common for folks on the local news here in the Omaha area to refer to the local area as “the Metro” not so long ago (I’ve lived here less than four and one half years), but now it’s not uncommon for them just to say “Metro,” as if the word “the” takes too much time during their news/weather broadcasts. And, I think it's dumb to say, for example, "I live in Metro."

I’ve also noticed that several news/weather broadcasters seem to have acquired a habit of using rather inverted and overly-complicated forms of expression along the lines of: “The stock market will climb, if not stay the same.” I was always taught that it made more sense to say, for example: “The stock market will stay the same, if not climb.”, as the “if not” refers to the possibility of a change, rather than the possibility of none.  The current usage just seems quite awkward and nonsensical, at least to me.

Of course, advertising provides many possible examples of sloppy, silly, or even just stupid, language usage.  Now, language has always been used by advertisers in an attempt to be “cute,” I guess, but only sometimes successfully.  I don’t find it particularly amusing when the resulting usage is just stupid or insulting, as in the recent ads for Chevrolet which featured “Real People, Not Actors.”  My first thought (as a theatre person, I suppose) was that actors ARE, of course, people.  Then, it occurred to me that, if Chevy paid these people to serve as spokespeople, gave them “lines,” or even just encouragement to praise the product being promoted (I would include editing to achieve this effect), then these “real people” are, in fact, real actors.  Certainly, if they ever appear in another ad, SAG-AFTRA (or whichever union is appropriate) would very much like for them to become union members, and the production unions might very well support this idea.  By the way, I was, extremely amused when Progressive Insurance started running an ad (maybe more than one) which featured “Real actors, not people.”

Still, advertising has always done dumb things with language, although there are examples of what seem to me to be really clever use, as well.  I do think that advertising, generally, tends to come down more on the side of annoying, at least in their use of language, than the opposite, however.  A recent ad which I have found of particular annoyance is the one for an app called “SmartNews.”  Their “catch line” is: “I was only getting news that I agreed with.”  So, they seem to be saying, getting this product, where theydecide what ideas to feature and promote is supposed to make sure that I get all of the truly important stuff that I’m incapable of finding, or paying attention to, by myself.  I confess that I do want to know how this app is going to force me to pay attention to stuff which I don’t “agree with?”  Because it would be good for me?  Personally, I select news stories online because they strike me as being of interest to me.  How this app is going to make me pay attention to the “news” I don’tfind interesting is beyond me.  And, it strikes me as highly improbable that it would, in fact, have much impact on what I pay attention to.  I confess that I haven’t explored this app, but it doesn’t appear to be all that different from a variety of other internet news sources which try to cover the broad spectrum of stuff out there in Internetland.

Of course, I have always tried to make a distinction between NEWS and COMMENTARY.  I know it must seem terribly old-fashioned of me, but I’ve always considered that basic information (Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How) was what the news was all about! That’s what I was taught in in my Sixth Grade English class, where we produced our elementary school newspaper (published two or three times a year, as I remember it).  Then, when I was a Junior in High School, I took the Journalism/English class and worked on the bi-weekly Evanstonianduring my Senior year, as well.  Again, “the five W’s and an H” were emphasized as what constituted news.

Most of what is available to us on the so-called news channels and feeds is, in fact, commentary.  This is all of those “talking heads” (or other forms) telling us what THEY want us to think the facts mean.  Obviously, the most important thing to them is that we accept them as sources of the “correct” sort of thinking.  The reality is, however, that this isn’t news, it’s interpretation. Like most people, I do pay some attention to those commentators whom I find seem to make sense and seem to offer an established level of expertise regarding the subject at hand, but I try to remain aware of the fact that what they say isn’t really the “news,” it’s their take on the news and that they very well may (often do) have some sort of agenda of their own, be it a book they’ve written, a magazine they edit, a reputation to establish, their network owner’s political stance, etc.  I take criticism of theatre with several grains of salt, why should I accept political opinion without examination?

I think the following cartoon from this past November suggests a lot about how folks can (and do) use language for their own purposes:

On the other hand, of course, there are cases where the opinion is being stated by people who just plain don’t have their “facts” straight (or they refuse to accept the possibility that their beliefs are not “facts.”), so they state as factual that which they wish to believe, and to have us believe.  A recent letter in the “Public Pulse” section of the Omaha paper dealing with the “Happy Holidays”/ “Merry Christmas” controversy reads, in part:

“As a Catholic adult, I have no problem with someone wishing me a happy holiday.  As I see it, Christmas grew out of a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.  I believe the Lord I believe in would be very pleased to see that this celebration has grown to be a worldwide event celebrating kindness and caring by people of many nations, of many beliefs and cultures.”

Of course, one doesn’t have to examine this very closely to discover that the major assertion here is not factually correct, or, at least, is not based on readily available evidence, including that of the Bible.  It is true that Christmas grew out of the celebration of the birth of Jesus, but the implication that this Christian celebration was the inspiration for the numerous other celebrations around the time of the winter solstice is simply unsupportable with factual evidence.

It can be established that many cultures do have celebrations at about this time of the year.  These celebrations go by many names: Solstice, Yule, Saturnalia, Chaomos, Hanukkah, Malkh, Mödraniht, and, almost certainly, others of which I haven’t heard.  The fact is, though, that many of them (all of those listed, I believe) predate the appearance of Christianity.  Hence, the celebration of Jesus’ birth could not have “… grown to be a worldwide event celebrating kindness and caring by people of many nations, of many beliefs and cultures.”  Christmas simply cannot be considered to have been the inspiration for these celebrations because they were around before Christmas was invented.  In fact, Christmas appears to be a part of a much greater tradition of celebrations (rituals, prayers, etc.) which take place around the time of the Solstice and which were probably mostly intended to celebrate the beginning of the new cycle of the seasons and the Sun.  Many of these traditions also tend to have other major celebrations at the Summer Solstice and the two Equinoxes, for which there are also traditional Christian holidays (Easter, Corpus Christi, and All Saints) which were established at these times of year precisely because they were established “holy” days before Christianity existed.  Of these, only Easter (from Ostara celebrated at the vernal equinox) makes obvious sense, as it’s linked to the Jewish Passover, but due to differing calendars, the two holidays often don’t align all that exactly much of the time.

There is also the fact that we really don’t know the date of the birth of Jesus.  As there is no documentary evidence from the period to establish that.  The Bible, of course, really can’t be counted as documentary evidence, as the Gospels were written down after the fact with no certainty that the any of the actual Apostles could actually read and write (although Matthew probably could, as he was a Roman tax collector, who probably had to keep records.)  At some point, the oral traditions of these stories were transcribed into written form and some of them were accepted by Church leaders as “correct.” The Western Christian Church established December 25 as the selected day in the early-to-mid fourth century and that date is the one most commonly used today.

It seems quite unlikely that it was the actual date, in part because: 1.) the calendar has changed more than once [depending on where in the West you happen to be]; 2.) if the actual birth was in Bethlehem because Joseph had to go there to be a part of a census of the Roman Empire [and to be taxed], it seems quite unlikely that the Romans would have required every male in the Middle East travel to his home town during the winter when travel is difficult [the Roman Empire wasn’t that stupid]; and, 3.) the shepherds spoken of in Biblical accounts would not have been in the fields in winter because their sheep would die from exposure.  Various dates have been proposed for the actual date of Jesus’ birth, but it’s not really clear what would be the most likely date.  Nor is it clear that it really matters.  It seems most likely that the December date was selected because that time of year was already being celebrated by various pagan groups and it was the desire of the leaders of the Christian Church to “Christianize” those celebrations.  But, is the specific date the most important thing about this celebration?  I’ve never thought so.  I don’t say these things to belittle or diminish the idea of Christmas, but because I believe that the idea of Christmas is more important than the specific date selected for its celebration.

In much the same manner, I think that trying to be aware of the best information and accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness in the use of language is of some importance.  Sloppy use of language, I have found, tends to indicate sloppy thinking and/or lack of actual information (reliance on “bull.”)  As I don’t like sloppiness, disorganization and lack of clarity in thought and believe that doing the basic research usually provides one with the best information available, having good information and expressing one’s ideas clearly would seem to be a desirable end.  That’s why I dislike the sloppy use of language and/or the use of sloppy language where ever it occurs.  What do you think?

LLAP

0 Comments

139 Nebraska! The good Life!

​138 Quotes, part 2

137 Language and the Sloppy Use Thereof

Archives

Categories

138 Quotes, part 2