happy halloween 2010

Happy Halloween! This weekend J and went to a fun murder mystery dinner that was hosted by some friends. The dinner had a Western theme, and J and I both were assigned characters. I was the town doctor and J was the newspaper editor. Fortunately (or unfortunately?) neither of us ended up being the murderer. We did figure out who the murderer was (although we relied on our friends who help us figure out all the clues). Anyhow, it was a really fun night.

Sam chose to be Batman this year. He still doesn't totally understand who is "Batman" (or any superhero for that matter), but he had fun nonetheless. And he already owns Batman pajamas, to this year's costume was extremely easy. Here are some pictures:

Please note my medical bag and J's bear bolo tie.

Can you see Sam's little cape poking out from behind his back?

jane austen's writing style is reattributed?

Jane Austen fans, how do you feel about this new argument that Austen's writing style may be attributed to her editor William Gifford? You can read the reaction of one Jane Austen fan here (which also includes quotations by Kathryn Sutherland, the academic who came forth with this new editor argument).

For those who are interested, the Jane Austen Fiction Manuscripts Digital Edition (the new project lauched by Sutherland which is mentioned in the first link) is now available online. If anyone wants to spend a few years debunking (or supporting) Sutherland, have at it! I'd love to research this project a little more (in order to form my own opinion), but I think the task would require too much time. It took Sutherland three years to compile this database, so it obviously wouldn't be a quick research project. Still, I think it would be fun to read bits of Austen's novels in her own handwriting.

P.S. The watercolor/pencil sketch of Austen was painted by Cassandra Austen (Jane's sister) in c. 1810. It is thought to have been painted/sketched from life. Given the context of this post, Jane doesn't look too happy about the reattribution of her writing style, does she?

the sunday nap and steinbeck

I'm resisting the Sunday nap today. The boys are both asleep right now, but I'm holding out. For me, sleeping on Sundays is both awesome and awful. I love being lazy and taking a snooze, mostly because I never allow myself to do those things on any other day of the week. But if I nap on Sundays I can never, ever fall asleep at a decent hour when the night comes. I toss and turn in bed each Sunday night, ruing the moment that I succumbed to the Sunday laze. Sunday naps are the bane of my existence, mostly because I love them so much.

Let's hope I can fall asleep tonight.

In other news, J and I have started to read a book together in the evenings. When J suggested the idea a few weeks ago, my jaw dropped open. It's not that J doesn't like to read, he just doesn't like fiction very much. J only gets in the mood to read fiction once every few years. The last novel he started was two years ago. He got a good way through A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man before the urge to read fiction left. I wonder if he'll ever finish it.

Anyhow, we are reading Steinbeck's East of Eden together. Hopefully we can finish it before J loses interest in fiction (again). It's fun to talk about the different metaphors and themes (particularly the Cain/Abel parallels) with different characters. It's also fun for me to look at the cover of our copy (see left). This painting (Cain and Abel by Titian, 1542-44) was one of the paintings which escaped damage after a recent fire disaster (another Titian painting which hung on the same ceiling wasn't as lucky).

Steinbeck writes very beautifully, and his passages are often very reflective. Reading with J has also forced me to slow down and enjoy Steinbeck's descriptions and thoughts more, largely because J and I read out loud. Since we're reading together, I can't barrel my way through lengthy descriptions (which often happens when reading fiction. My eye immediately starts to scan for the next plot-moving device. Hmm. I wonder what that says about my personality.).

Last night we read an interesting passage in which Steinbeck discusses the difference between a story and a lie. I can't help but think that Steinbeck was had himself in mind when writing the end of this passage: "I think the difference between a lie and a story is that a story utilizes the trappings and appearance of truth for the interest of the listener as well as of the teller. A story has in it neither gain nor loss. But a lie is a device for profit or escape. I suppose if that definition is strictly held to, then a writer of stories is a liar - if he is financially fortunate." (New York: Penguin Books, p.74).

I love the feeling that Steinbeck is pondering and thinking about himself while he writes. It's as if he is learning and reflecting alongside his readers. I like that we (Steinbeck, me and J) are journeying and discovering things together.

sam the storyteller

Sam loves to have us tell him stories. Sometimes the stories are made up on-the-spot, and other times he requests to hear stories about recent highlights of his life (like our trip to Olympia and Mt. St. Helens in September). This week, though, Sam started to make up his own stories. We have to give a lot of prompts like, "And then what happened?" to keep things rolling, but they are really darling.

One story involved all of the extended members of the B family. Each person would go to the park, fall down, and "bonk" a different part of their body. I can't remember all of the injuries, but I do remember that Bop bonked his back and N bonked his nose. Then a different family member would come up and kiss the bonk better. It was really cute.

Most of the time, though, Sam's stories have been about animals. These stories always abruptly end after a shark and a dolphin are introduced to the narrative. For example, this is the story he told me last night in the car:

"Once 'pon a time, there was a monkey. He name George. He eat...bananas. Then...there was...a gorilla. He eat meat. And then a shark and a dolphin came. The end."

spiders and halloween

Are you seeing a lot of spiderwebs this time of year? I don't mean tacky Halloween decorations - I'm mean actual spiderwebs. There are tons of spiders around here right now, mostly because we're experiencing the tail-end of spider mating season.

It's been interesting to see so many actual spiderwebs while getting ready for Halloween. I know that spiders also have some associations with Halloween, largely because they could be venomous. I also came across this source which noted that spiders were thought to have been "helpers" for witches (since they could inconspicuously crawl around places). But seeing all of the spiderwebs around my neighborhood and workplace has made me wonder about the practical associations with spiderwebs and Halloween. Could it be that spiders became naturally associated with Halloween because of the mating season? (I know climate and mating seasons vary from location to location, but it's an interesting thought.)

If anyone knows anything about spiders, mating, and the historical development of Halloween symbols, speak up! I've thought about this topic every day for several weeks, mostly because I'm constantly seeing spiderwebs (really intricate, fancy webs like this one) whenever I step outside.

half-baked thoughts mostly about the beatles

J and I are settling into a new busy routine, although things are going to change next week. J is quitting his job - his last day is tomorrow. We're excited at the new prospects ahead. He has an interview for a new position this Tuesday. This job prospect was completely unexpected, so we're still wrapping our minds around this potential change in plans. But if that opportunity doesn't pan out, then J has other plans for his career. And I have full confidence that he'll be great at whatever path he chooses.

Anyhow, with my new busy schedule, I haven't been able to sit and think as much as I would like to do. I have had a couple of thoughts that keep passing through my head lately, but I haven't been able to flesh them out. I thought I'd jot down a couple of ideas here, perhaps so I can make better sense of things. Prepare yourselves for another bullet-point post, my friends:

• Despite my best efforts, I can not get out of bed early in the morning. Every single night, I ask J what time he is waking up (as if intending to wake up early with him). He thinks that it's hilarious, because I never get up with him. Okay, well, I rarely get up early. I have to have some extreme motivation to get up before Sam (like someone will miss their flight if I don't drive them to the airport). Other than that, I can't seem to get out of bed. I'd like to get up early, because I know I could accomplish more things in the day. But I guess when it comes down to it, I love sleep more than accomplishment. (Gasp! What a pathetic realization!)
  
• I've thought about the Beatles a lot lately, partially because John Lennon would have turned 70 last Saturday. (Some of you may have noticed my Beatles tribute on my art history blog.) Over the past few days, just for fun, I've been trying to ascribe certain percentages to how much Paul and John individually contributed to the Lennon/McCartney compositions. The other night, I kept J awake, trying to make him come up with percentages with me. For example, we determined that "A Day in the Life" seems to be about 50% Paul and 50% John. We think "Two of Us" is 90% Paul. And "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is 90% John. (This is a pretty fun game. If you have percentages to suggest, let me know!)
• This is another John Lennon thought. This may sound strange, but sometimes I acutely miss the presence of John Lennon in the world. Which on one hand is silly: I shouldn't miss John Lennon - he died before I was even born. I guess I miss the potential things that he could have done and the potential music that could have been written. It's strange to listen to Beatles music and feel as if John is still around in one sense (his voice is played all over the world, and it has been playing for decades). Sometimes I feel a musical connection with this person that has long been gone, and I miss the potential connections that I could have had with the music he was unable to write. Does that make sense? Perhaps I'm just sensitive to the issue to loss and unfulfilled potential, because of my mom's death, and that gets translated into my thoughts about music. I don't know.
• I like that Sam scribbled on my lecture notes with yellow crayon. I would never admit this to him (or encourage him to do so again), but it's cute to look at little swirly scribbles while I'm lecturing. It's like a little love note from my buddy.
  

why i will not read 'twilight'

I've thought about writing this post several times, but I've put it off for a couple of reasons. One main reason is that I know that some of my readers really love the "Twilight" series, and I don't want anyone to feel offended by writing this post. I'm not trying to attack or belittle people; I simply want outline all of the reasons why I don't want to read the "Twilight" books. Really, this is more for my own sake, because I need to work out my complex aversion to the series. Then, the next time someone is shocked by the fact that I haven't read a smidgen of Stephanie Meyer's books, I'll be prepared with all of my reasons. Here you go:

• I'm not interested in vampires. Or werewolves. I'm not interested in them in a romantic sense, nor am I interested in thinking about their supernatural strengths. It's just not my thing.
  
• I don't want to fall in love with a male character from a novel. I'm already in love with J and would rather spend my time thinking about him. I want to be "Team J," and not "Team Edward" or "Team Jacob."
  
• I have read plenty of reviews of "Twilight" (my favorite being this one that my aunt wrote) and I can tell that the subject matter would bother me a lot. I know that I would loathe Bella's character. She seems like a completely incompetent female that only finds validation through male affection. I don't know if I could sympathize with her at all.
  
• I have read enough reviews to know that Stephanie Meyer's poor grammar, syntax, and overall writing style would drive me insane. (You can read one such review here). If I'm going to spend time reading, why not read something that is eloquently expressed? That's what I love about good literature: it can express the ineffable. If I come across something that's poorly written, I spend most of my brain-power editing and reworking the text.
  
• And here's my main reason: I don't want to read "Twilight" because it is so popular in Mormon culture. For me, reading "Twilight" would mean that I was giving in or accepting Mormon pop culture - and even worse, would mean that I'm participating in and fostering such culture. Does that make sense? "Twilight" is a symbol for something that I don't understand and that I don't want to be. I have to resist "Twilight" in order to make a broader statement about my cultural principles and standards. The reason why I don't like Mormon pop culture? It is rather nuanced and complex, but the bottom line is this: in my opinion, almost all the art, literature and music that is popular within Mormon culture is mediocre. I wholeheartedly admit it: I'm a snob. I wish that Mormons would show more interest in things that are eloquently written, beautifully expressed, or exquisitely rendered. If I read "Twilight," then I'm helping to encourage the low standard of Mormon pop culture, and I just can't do that. I know that I'm fighting a losing battle (it's me vs. Deseret Book), but I'm still holding my ground.