Footnote Frenzy

Prereading note: while writing a different post,¹ I ended up needing to deeply nest some statements. I realized² that I had spent around equal time setting up the prereading note to actually writing the post, so I decided to just turn the note into its own post. As a result, that’s Draft 0. Also, since I needed to make sure my³ footnotes parsed, I relabeled Draft 2 as 2/3, since it’s unclear which is the correct term.⁴ Draft 4 remains as such.

Draft 4

Like many bad authors,⁵ I rely a lot on gimmicks.⁶ Also like bad authors,⁷ I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.⁸ If it isn’t clear from the eight⁹ footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,¹⁰ I can’t have nested footnotes.¹¹ Instead, I¹² use nested sets of punctuation.¹³ So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals¹⁴ I use, I was happy.¹⁵ So, my list of nesting symbols¹⁶ now goes: footnotes,¹⁷ parentheses,¹⁸ square brackets,¹⁹ then angle brackets.²⁰ Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets²¹ that I can find,²² so²³ I used short and long dashes,²⁴ then two asterisks²⁵ when I needed²⁶ to go one layer deeper in my nesting.²⁷ I don’t²⁸ like the way that they look,²⁹ so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than five³⁰ layers deep.³¹ And, as I read through this draft,³² I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily. However, long and short dashes don’t quite look different enough for me to parse at first glance, so it’s a good thing I³³ won’t need to use them often. Anyways, the 86 footnotes³⁴ of the piece contain a total³⁵ of 1415 words within its footnotes. That’s nearly 70% of the entirety of the words written.³⁶ Whoops.

Draft 2/3

Like many bad authors,³⁷ I rely a lot on gimmicks.³⁸ Also like bad authors,³⁹ I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.⁴⁰ If it isn’t clear from the six⁴¹ footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,⁴² I can’t have nested footnotes.⁴³ Instead, I⁴⁴ use nested sets of punctuation.⁴⁵ So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals⁴⁶ I use, I was happy.⁴⁷ So, my list of nesting symbols⁴⁸ now goes: footnotes,⁴⁹ parentheses,⁵⁰ square brackets,⁵¹ then angle brackets.⁵² Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets⁵³ that I can find,⁵⁴ so⁵⁵ I used two asterisks⁵⁶ when I needed⁵⁷ to go one layer deeper in my nesting.^58,59 I don’t⁶⁰ like the way that they look,⁶¹ so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three⁶² layers deep.⁶³ And, as I read through this draft,⁶⁴ I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily.

Draft 1

Like many bad authors,⁶⁵ I rely a lot on gimmicks. Also like bad authors,⁶⁶ I copy my gimmick from someone else.⁶⁷ So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals⁶⁸ I need, I was happy.⁶⁹ So, my list of nesting⁷⁰ now goes: footnotes,⁷¹ parentheses,⁷² square brackets,⁷³ then angle brackets.⁷⁴ Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets⁷⁵ that I can find,⁷⁶ so⁷⁷ I switched to using two asterisks.⁷⁸ I don’t really like the way that they look,⁷⁹ so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three⁸⁰ deep.

Draft 0

Prereading note: Yay! I finally used more nesting.⁸¹ It now goes: Footnote,⁸² parentheses,⁸³ square brackets,⁸⁴ then angle brackets.⁸⁵ Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets that I can find.⁸⁶

Digital Diaries

Prereading note: this post was written as an assignment, so drafts 4-6¹ lack much of my snark and² will read much more like an academic essay. In the final draft, I hope to have restored some of the charm³ that I tend to have in my writings.

Draft 7

Diaries today are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.

Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.

For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,⁴ digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog⁵ post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused.⁶ But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.

A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable.⁷ The fact that two different agencies,⁸ both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response.⁹ And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.

Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.¹⁰ Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.

That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,¹¹ it is a fairly trivial process¹² to transcribe a backup.¹³ But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.¹⁴ The Internet, however, backs up everything.

And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: neither promises permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time.¹⁵ The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially now, some 20 years after the first published arguments, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.

Draft 6

Diaries are becoming a digital phenomenon. That is, people are deciding to record their thoughts on computers, rather than paper. This transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.

Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, their objections almost always orient around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.¹⁶

For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, a blog¹⁷ post could become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.

A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow become unavailable. The fact that two different agencies,¹⁸ both make constant backups of the Internet is seen as a lackluster response. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”¹⁹, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards. Additionally, blogs all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. The copies are automatically made to every computer accessing the site.

Since these backups exist so widely, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or the burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.²⁰ Had the files in the library been digital, they would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.

That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. The Internet, however, backs up everything.

And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this fact: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is equally likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.

Draft 5

Diaries today are becoming more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. However, this transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.

Many people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, examination of these objections tends to show that they are rooted in either classism or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries.²¹

And, for those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor a blog²² post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. But, most blogs are, as the name suggests, hosted on the Internet.

A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The fact that the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine²³ or Google’s own caching system both make constant backups is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities,”²⁴, which would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries and libraries also lack subject search without the work of dedicated stewards.. Additionally, digital diaries all have word search capabilities, as modern browsers all contain that feature. And, unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.

Thirdly, since these backups are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.²⁵ Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.

That tragedy calls out the most important problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up.

The Internet, however, backs up everything. Yes, we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone.

And to me, the heart of digital diary and the Internet is reflected by this: they don’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time. The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.

Draft 4

Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people decide to record their thoughts on digital displays, rather than analog records. And, like the other forms becoming digital, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.

For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.²⁶

For those unfamiliar with the Internet, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely, digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance, a blog²⁷ post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since nearly old computers are still functional, and old operating systems are constantly being ported to new machines, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.

A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive²⁸ or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”footnoteDiaries, On-Line Diaries, and the Future Loss to Archives; Or, Blogs and the Blogging Bloggers who Blog Them. C. O’Sullivan p.71 That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them.

However, the lack of searching capabilities is never seen as a flaw in traditional diaries. Unlike physical diaries, anyone can access any blog from anywhere and anytime, which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made. They can also search, since every modern web browser has search and find capabilities.

Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in Brazil.²⁹ Had the files in the library been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts, preventing that horrible loss of knowledge.

That tragedy leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document, it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup. But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?

The most honest answer is that they don’t. Most likely nothing any given blogger has to say won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the Internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed. However, even many of the manuscripts from that time are still gone. The Internet makes it more likely that the unimportant words will live on.

And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress, for instance, is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.³⁰ The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. Therefore, to me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.

Draft 3

Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. That is, more and more people³¹ are turning, not to their notebooks, but to their keyboards when they decide to put to paper³² what’s in their mind. And, like these other records, the transition from analog to digital is not wholly uncontroversial.

For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. But, even a mild examination of most of these objections shows that they are deeply rooted in either classist thoughts or appeals to tradition. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.³³

For those unfamiliar with the Internet,³⁴ online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,³⁵ digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,³⁶ a blog³⁷ post could plausibly become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage³⁸ currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open. They may be difficult to interpret, but no more so than damaged manuscripts.

A second concern is that posts on the web may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable.³⁹ The obvious rebuttal to this statement, namely the Internet Archive⁴⁰ or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine (the Internet Archive) does not have word or subject search capabilities.”⁴¹ That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. What searching methods are available come only when dedicated people add them. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files⁴² still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, however, we can access⁴³ any blog from anywhere and anytime,⁴⁴ which frees the researcher from needing the funds to go to the specific library where a diary is held, or find a way to have a copy made.

Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria⁴⁵ or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.⁴⁶ Had the files been digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.⁴⁷

That leads to the third problem with preferring physical media over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exactness of the replicated document,⁴⁸ it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.⁴⁹ But, as the recent burning of the Brazilian library shows, even vitally important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians?

The fairest answer is that they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant. Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, it is true that we may not have a guarantee that this generation’s Beowulf will survive if not printed.^50,51 But, we have a much higher chance that any thought of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.

And to me, that truly is the heart of digital diary keeping, and by extension, the internet. They doesn’t promise permanence, only equality. Every work hosted on Wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.⁵² The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. To me, the arguments against online diaries, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, are nothing except baseless fear of the future.

Draft 2

Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries, regardless of the factuality of these claims.⁵³

For those unfamiliar with the digital world, online storage can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,⁵⁴ digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,⁵⁵ the blog post may can hypothetically become unreadable if the file format becomes obsolete or unused. However, since every currently obsolete file storage⁵⁶ currently has an interpreter, it is unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.

A second concern is that posts on the web⁵⁷ may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive⁵⁸ or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”⁵⁹ That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. Unlike the physical diaries, we can access all of the blogs from anywhere with an internet connection, which frees the researcher from having to find the funds to go to a library where a diary comes from.

Additionally, since these files are spread over many different servers, it is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria⁶⁰ or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.⁶¹ Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.

That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. If you don’t care about the exact document,⁶² it is a fairly trivial process to transcribe a backup.⁶³ But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? The short and long answer is they don’t. Most likely they won’t be relevant.

Nonetheless, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment if it isn’t printed out.⁶⁴ But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.

That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.⁶⁵ The famous and forgotten will both exist in perpetuity. And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. Diary studiers point to the spread of the clock as a phenomenon leading to the rise of the diary and see this as a good change, and yet don’t feel the same way about the rise of digital media. To me, this is, especially 15 years after the publishing of O’Sullivan’s article, nothing except baseless fear of the future.

Draft 1

Diaries, like many written records, are becoming more and more of a digital phenomenon. And, like these other records, the transition is not wholly uncontroversial. For many reasons, people have a distrust of digital diary keeping. However, these objections are almost always classist, unreasonable, or Ludditical. They almost always find themselves orienting around the alleged fragility of digital diaries One common complaint about digital diaries is their alleged fragility.⁶⁶

For those unfamiliar with the digital world, they can seem horribly fragile. Unlike a bound book, which can last indefinitely,⁶⁷ digital diaries require constant upkeep. If written in a word processor, for instance,⁶⁸ the file may become unreadable if the software becomes obsolete or unused. However, almost any old file system has seen some sort of official use, and so interpreters exist. It’s unlikely that we will ever have files that we truly cannot open.

A second concern is that posts on the web⁶⁹ may be pulled down or somehow also become unavailable. The simple rebuttal of the Internet Archive⁷⁰ or Google’s own caching system is seen as lackluster. O’Sullivan complains that “the Wayback Machine does not have word or subject search capabilities.”⁷¹ That argument would hold merit if not for the fact that physical diaries lack search capabilities, and libraries holding them do as well. Regardless of the search capabilities, the files still exist. It is far less likely that we will undergo a similar loss to the burning of the Library of Alexandria⁷² or even the very recent burning of the linguistic library in South America.⁷³ Had the files been wholly digital, they could have been more easily duplicated, and would have been likely hosted in a different site from the physical artifacts.

That leads to the third problem with physical over digital media. Yes, you can duplicate a physical document. But, as the recent burning of the library shows, even drastically important documents aren’t always backed up. What guarantee does a random, insignificant citizen of the world have that anything they write will ever be relevant to historians? Even if it isn’t, the internet protects and safeguards it. Yes, we may not have as good of a guarantee of this generation’s Beowulf surviving on parchment. But, we have a much higher chance that the random thoughts of a random individual will be as accessible to future generations as that epic.

That truly is the heart of the internet. It doesn’t promise permanence, it promises equality. Every work hosted on wordpress is just as likely to be there in fifty year’s time.⁷⁴ And that, along with the different archiving methods, brings to the next point. This is the first time in human history where we can not only see what was written, but pinpoint to the exact second when a piece is written, edited, or deleted. We no longer can question which draft of a manuscript is older.

Othello Review

Draft 1

Tonight I had the pleasure of watching Othello at the Globe Theatre. In a wonderful turn of events, I was a groundling.¹ I was right next to the stage, and even leaning on it for the piece of the play after intermission.

Sadly, the set and lighting didn’t blow me away. The lights were fixed and immobile, and the set more or less was as well. What I can comment on, however, was the music.

The show began with natural trumpets,² which was nice. Come the scene where Cassio becomes drunk, they are replaced with valved trumpets. Before the first intermission, they bring out the cornetti,

In the second act, the cornetti play lamentations as the piece falls to its tragic fate. The ending dance, however, returns with the beautiful jazz trumpeting. Other instruments included a lute during the drunk scene, played masterfully by Iago, drums and other percussion played by instrumentalists, and whistles.

Finally, as is requested by Shakespeare, there is singing. The drunken songs sounded drunk and merry. The whole cast song at the end was sung brilliantly.³ But, the song that struck me hardest was Desdemona and Emilia’s duet of the Willow Tree. They flowed between two part harmony and unisons flawlessly and beautifully. I stood entranced for the first⁴ time in the show. Nothing existed for me except the two flowing voices and the story they told.

And truly, that’s all that I can ask of a show. There was a moment where time stood still, and I found myself drawn, not into the story or characters, but simply into a place where I feel what the characters feel. Even in professional theatre, those moments can be hard to come by, but the cast brought me nearly to that point time and time again, and to the point in the soulful duet. But, as all good things do,⁵ it too came to an end.

Today’s Gospel

Draft 3

Today’s Gospel¹ reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels.² Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”³

Peter, the man who⁴ Jesus loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan.⁵ To me, this truly shows two of the important pieces of my Catholic faith: we are to act and speak as we see true, not always meekly or gently, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Jesus doesn’t reproach Peter in soft words, or calmly. In fact, he doesn’t even do it kindly. In no uncertain words, he tells Peter that he is sinning.

Nonetheless, 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.⁶ Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly Jesus forgave Peter for his actions, and Peter tried to accept this change.

This reading particularly speaks to me in today’s climate. We tend to take neither of the two messages we are told to take. We don’t tell the people we love to their faces that what they are doing is wrong.⁷ We also don’t do the other side of the message, and forgive those who do wrong. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I judge quickly and quietly, then discount anything that someone who has spoken out of ignorance has to say. Today’s reading was a good reminder to me that I need to try harder to love, even when it’s hard.

Draft 2

Today’s Gospel⁸ reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels.⁹ Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”¹⁰

Peter, the man who¹¹ Jesus loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan, the great betrayer. To me, this truly shows two of the important pieces of my Catholic faith: we are to act and speak as we see true, not as we see convenient, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Jesus doesn’t reproach Peter in soft words, or calmly. Nonetheless, 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.¹² Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly Jesus forgave Peter for his actions.

Overall, this reading speaks to me, especially in today’s climate. We tend to take neither of the two messages we are told to take. We don’t tell the people we love to their faces that what they are doing is wrong.¹³ We also don’t do the other side of the message, and forgive those who do wrong. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. I judge quickly and quietly, then discount anything that someone has to say.

Draft 1

Today’s Gospel reading features one of the two lines that I find most striking in the Gospels. Jesus exhorts Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”¹⁴

Peter, the man who¹⁵ loved and trusted so much so that he entrusted the Church to him, is called Satan. This is truly the best example of Jesus saying that we are to love the sinner, even if we abhor the sin. Moreso, it points out to me that we have the responsibility to help those around us who make mistakes. 6 days later, he takes Peter to the mountain where he meets with Elijah and Moses.¹⁶ Even though the Gospels don’t mention it, clearly there was some conversation during those 6 days where the misunderstanding was resolved.

Sleep Days

Some days you go to sleep, anxiously awaiting the coming morning and day. Other days you wake up, counting down the moments until you can go back to sleep.

There are many factors that can influence both of those, from what’s happening in your life at a macro scale,¹ at a micro scale,², and how much sleep you’ve gotten the night³ before.

Today I remembered that sleep you miss is at least as important as the other two. I didn’t sleep enough, and so today wasn’t as fully experienced as it could be. I’m hoping tomorrow will be better.

Playing the Ukulele

Draft 1

As you many have gathered from my prior post, I play the ukulele.¹ There are two reasons I thought it important to bring with me on my trip to London. First, it’s the smallest instrument I know² that can play chords and harmony, which is nice when I want to sing along with a backing.

The other reason is that I have minimal difficulty playing melodies on it. Whether I’m plucking out an old familiar melody to decide how to accompany it, playing along to my singing new melodies, or picking out new melodies, I can do them all with relative ease. Part of this is that the instrument is tuned to four of five pentatonic notes³ as its four strings. This also means when I want to play something with the dominant as the low note, it’s fairly easy to do, as the pentatonic scale a fourth below C still uses 4 of the 5 notes. The only difference is F instead of E.

All in all, the ukulele is a fun and easy instrument. I would highly recommend anyone to learn it.

Arranging for Bagpipes Part 2

As you may remember from my last mention of this topic, some songs are very difficult to arrange for bagpipe. Today, I was lucky enough to find a song that was easy.

I found myself today with the best problem an artist can have: a hyper focused muse. I could not focus on anything else until I had set the hymn “How Can I Keep From Singing” to bagpipes. Unlike the anthem that I previously discussed, this son was far easier. It’s pentatonic,¹ and only occupies an octave, from the dominant to the dominant. As you may remember, the bagpipe has a range of an octave and a second starting from the subdominant. So, I put the song in the key of d, added a few grace notes, and was done. It’s nice when things go well.

Small Changes

Draft 2

By now, I’m sure you’ve noticed that I’m currently studying in London.¹ As a result, much of the typing I’m doing here is being done on keyboards with the UK’s key layout.²

Some of these changes make complete sense to me, like the fact that the pound symbol³ is much easier to type.⁴ Unfortunately, it’s Shift-3, not Shift-4.⁵

Other changes are slightly harder for me to deal with unconsciously. Next to the single quote key ’, they added in a key for pound and tilde. Instead of shift-single giving you double, it instead returns the @ sign. Thankfully, shift-2 therefore gives us ".⁶ Additionally, backslash is next to the left shift key, and the vertical line⁷ is shift backslash.⁸ Where the backslash should⁹ be, there is nothing. Those changes have messed me up more than once when typing a password.¹⁰

I’m also switching to using more Windows machines.¹¹ Commands, especially in the browser I use, are sometimes very different, which is an adjustment. Overall though, those are the main changes I’ve really noticed.

The moral of the story is that I apparently don’t notice the big differences,¹² but I do notice the small ones.¹³

Am I missing the forest for the trees? I prefer to think that I’m missing the branches for the leaves. I still see that I’m in society,¹⁴ and even the mutually intelligible¹⁵ part of the world,¹⁶ but not the differences between here and home,¹⁷ except where they’re a little different,¹⁸ as many are beginning to be in this lovely start of fall.¹⁹ Also, as much as I wish I could claim this whole article was a set up for that autumn²⁰ metaphor, it was completely unplanned.

Draft 1

I’m currently studying in London. As a result, much of the typing I’m doing here is being done on keyboards with the UK’s key layout.²¹ Some of these changes make complete sense to me, like the fact that instead of a dollar symbol²² being Shift-number, it’s the pound symbol.^23,24 Unfortunately, it’s Shift-3, not Shift-4.

Others are slightly harder for me to deal with. Next to the single quote key ’, they added in a key for pound and tilde. Instead of shift-single giving you double, it instead returns the @ sign. Thankfully, shift-2 therefore gives us ". Additionally, backslash is next to the left shift key. That’s messed me up more than once when typing a password.²⁵

I’m also switching to using more Windows machines.²⁶ Commands, especially in the browser I use, are sometimes very different, which is an adjustment. The moral of the story is that I apparently don’t notice the big differences,²⁷ but I do notice the small ones. Am I missing the forest for the trees? I like to think I’m missing the branches for the leaves. I can still see that I’m in society,²⁸ and even the mutually intelligible²⁹ part of the world,³⁰ but not the difference between here and home,³¹ except where they’re a little different.³² Also, as much as I wish I could claim this whole article was a set up for that autumn³³ metaphor, it was completely unplanned.

Why I Dive

Draft 2

When people find out that I dive, a frequent question is why. There are a variety of reasons for that. The most common¹ reason for this is that I don’t look like a diver. That is, many people seem to think² that I am much larger than the average diver. The other reason people seem disbelieving is that I’m not too terribly flexible. I don’t disagree with either assessment, but they don’t affect my choice for one key reason: I dive because I enjoy it, not because I dream of being the best. If my size becomes a limit for how fast I can spin, that’s fine because I don’t need to be throwing 407B.³ Another reason I enjoy diving is that people really seem to appreciate watching the dives where I fail.⁴ If I’m being honest, I’m one of them.

Draft 1

When people find out that I dive, a frequent question is why. There are a variety of reasons for that. The most common⁵ reason for this is that I don’t look like a diver. That is, many people seem to think⁶ that I am much larger than the average diver. The other reason people seem disbelieving is that I’m not too terribly flexible. Both of these are valid reasons for me to not dive, but they don’t stop me. Instead, I dive because I enjoy it, and I never expect to be great at it. If my size becomes a limit for how fast I can spin, that’s fine because I don’t need to be throwing 407B.⁷ I dive because I enjoy it.

Dance Nation Review

Today, I had the wonderful opportunity to watch Clare Barron’s Dance Nation at the Almeida Theatre. The show follows a U13 dance squad as it prepares for national qualifying tournaments. What follows is a review.

Draft 3

The show speaks about the sexualization and sexuality of young women. As I share no part of that experience, my review will focus on other aspects of the show.

As many of you know, I was a techie¹ in high school. Perhaps because of that, or perhaps because something about the medium of live theatre really allows the technical aspects to shine forth, I tend to focus a lot more on the technical theatre aspect than the acting. My reviews² will also likely focus on these.

When we are first allowed on stage, we see a curtain in the murky realm between translucence and transparancy. We can barely make out a mirrored wall behind us, and lights running up the seams. When the show opens, the curtain drops. I was struck by the paneling of the stage. Mirrors made up the entire back wall, with lights strung between each. Throughout the show, the use of the lights as a way to demarcate different areas of the stage and different characters was masterful. However, the panels do not remain mirrors. The first piece of the show that struck me was the paneling of the stage.

Throughout the show, the panels turn and twist about, becoming anything from doors, to black glitter decoration, to a wolf’s head, to a bathroom stall. The use of the panels as entries and exits, as a way to bridge and break scenes, and, at the end, as a way to recognize the disjointed nature of both the show and life is fantastic.

The lighting of the show is also incredibly helpful for setting and moving the scenes along, as well as making the minimal set feel larger. When Luke is on the car ride home with his mother, the moon in the upper right of the stage tells us of the long day he’s had, and connects us to the other dancers, who each have their own memories of the night. As the drive continues, orange lights flow by their faces, reminding the audience of their movement. When Zuzu has a breakdown, the lights become harsher and harsher until her realization comes through.

Continuing to mess with the set, the show did a wonderful job of playing with set as prop and prop as set. Actors tended to carry in the set pieces, or pieces that they worked with remained a part of the show. Always in the wings of the stage were the detritus of a dance studio, reminding that it’s never far away, especially in the minds of the dancers. As the show progresses, the stage becomes more and more cluttered, just as the depth of the characters’ experiences do.

A final note about the set, as means to transition into the acting, all along what is meant to be the ceiling of the room are trophies from dance competitions past. In my experience as an athlete, leaving mementos of victory where they are always visible is meant one of two ways. Either the coach wants to say “you’re a part of a program with past success, and with hard work you can be a part of that too,” or “winning is all that matters. The teams that aren’t up here don’t belong in our memories because they were a failure as a team and as people.”³ This show chose to take the second approach, and took it to the comical extreme that some coaches take it. Not only does the coach point out the one year with no trophy by saying no one remembers them, he then mentions the next year, where a dancer was recruited to become a professional. One of the panels turns and shows us a shrine dedicated to the dancer and all of the dancers chant her name. This is the first of many times throughout the show that the coach and dancers talk about how winning⁴ is the only important aspect of dance. To quote a common sports saying, “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” What the show quietly points out, however, is that there is a constant culling of winners. No one the rest of the star’s team. Slowly but surely, in memory and in action, the weak are culled. Only the strong remain.

In the first scene, a dancer gets injured and is never heard from again. Near the end of the show, another dancer makes a mistake and quits as a result. These actions, along with monologues, showcase a dangerous aspect of not only children’s athletics, but also of society. Weakness and failure are not opportunities to grow, but rather signs of being inherently inability. And, since the weak get culled, any mistake means you no longer belong.

All in all though, it was a very enjoyable show.

Draft 2

The show speaks about the sexualization and sexuality of young women. As I never went through that, my review will focus on other aspects of the show.

As many of you know, I was a techie⁵ in high school. Perhaps because of that, or perhaps because something about the medium of live theatre really allows the technical aspects to shine forth, I tend to focus a lot more on the technical theatre aspect than the acting. My reviews⁶ will also likely focus on these.

When we are first allowed on stage, we see a curtain in the murky realm between translucence and transparancy. We can barely make out a mirrored wall behind us, and lights running up the seams. When the show opens with the curtain dropping, I was struck by the panels of the stage. There was a string of lights between each mirror. Throughout the show, the use of the lights as a way to demarcate different areas of the stage and different characters was masterful. However, the panels do not remain mirrors. The first piece of the show that struck me was the paneling of the stage.

Throughout the show, they turn and twist about, becoming anything from doors, to black glitter decoration, to a wolf’s head, to a bathroom stall. The use of the panels as entries and exits, as a way to bridge and break scenes, and, at the end, as a way to recognize the disjointed nature of both the show and life is fantastic.

The lighting of the show is also incredibly helpful for setting and moving the scenes along. When Luke is on the car ride home with his mother, the moon in the upper right of the stage tells us of the long day he’s had. As the drive continues, orange lights flow by their faces, showing the audience how they’re moving through time. When Zuzu has a breakdown, the lights become harsher and harsher until her realization comes through.

The show did a wonderful job of playing with set as prop and prop as set. Actors tended to carry in the set pieces, or pieces that they worked with remained a part of the show. Always in the wings of the stage were the detritus of a dance studio, reminding that it’s never far away, especially in the minds of the dancers. As the show progresses, the stage becomes more and more cluttered.

A final note about the set, as means to transition into the acting, all along what is meant to be the ceiling of the room, there are trophies from dance competitions. As an athlete, leaving trophies where they are always visible has in my experience been meant in one of two ways. It either is left to say:“we have a history of hard work and success. Keep that alive,” or “these trophies represent the years we remember and care about. The years without trophies are failures, and the athletes are too.” This show chose to take the second approach, and took it to an almost comical extreme. Not only does the coach point out the one year with no trophy by saying no one remembers them, he then mentions the next year, where a dancer was recruited to become a professional. One of the panels turns and shows us a shrine dedicated to the dancer. This is the first of many times throughout the show that the coach and dancers talk about how winning⁷ is the only important thing. The show quietly points out that there is a constant culling by no one remembering the rest of the team. The show systematically culls the weak from its ranks. Only the strong remain.

In the first scene, a dancer gets injured and is never heard from again. Near the end of the show, a dancer makes a mistake and quits as a result. These actions, along with monologues, showcase a dangerous aspect of children’s athletics, but also of society. Weakness and failure are not growth experiences, but rather signs of being inherently weak. And, since the weak get culled, any mistake means you no longer belong.

All in all though, it was a very enjoyable show.

Draft 1

The first piece of the show that struck me was the paneling of the stage. When the curtain drops to begin the show, the back wall is composed of mirror panels. Throughout the show, the panels are turned and become anything from doors, to black glitter decoration, to a wolf’s head, to a bathroom stall. Throughout the show, the use of the panels as entries and exits, as a way to bridge and break scenes, and, at the end, as a way to recognize the disjointed nature of the show and life is fantastic.

The lighting of the show is also incredibly helpful for setting and moving the scenes along. When Luke is on the car ride home with his mother, the moon in the upper right of the stage tells us of the long day he’s had. As the drive continues, orange lights flow by their faces, showing the audience how they’re moving through time.

In terms of the show itself, the show is set in a dance academy featuring the parts of youth athletics I was so incredibly fortunate to miss out on. These preteens are being told that their future success in life depends wholly on how well they perform at a single show. The coach⁸ reinforce the idea that it really doesn’t matter whether you’re having fun.⁹ All that matters is being the best and winning. Weakness isn’t tolerated, and the weak are culled out.

From the first scene, where a dancer gets injured and is never heard from again, through to the end, where a dancer makes a mistake and, as a result, quits dance forever, the idea of mistakes as being reflective of character flaws, and that character flaws (and by extension, those who hold them) should be hidden.

All along what is meant to be the ceiling of the room, there are trophies from dance competitions. As an athlete, leaving trophies where they are always visible can be meant in one of two ways. It can either be: “we have a history of success, and y’all are going to be a part of it,” or “we only care about you if you win.” As you might guess, this show chose the second approach, and took it to an almost comical extreme. Not only does the coach point out the one year with no trophy by saying no one remembers them, he then mentions the next year, where a dancer was recruited to become a professional. He fully tells both the dancers and the crowd that the only important thing about dance is being the best. Even the rest of the famous dancer’s group is forgotten. Only the strong remain.

Returning to painting the scene, the show did a wonderful job of playing with set as prop and prop as set. Actors tended to carry in the set pieces, or pieces that they worked with remained a part of the show. Always in the wings of the stage were the detritus of a dance studio, reminding that it’s never far away.

All in all, it was a very enjoyable show.