Pathos

Last night, Alexa and I were lucky enough to be at the evening's most exciting event in Philadelphia, the Mountain Goats concert. The lead singer John Darnielle had a tendency to share little introductory anecdotes before he played each song. While stopping to figure out the chord progression for his next song, he began to talk about how a person's legacy can become so infused with pathos that they become more in death than they ever were in life. Upon hearing pathos, Alexa and I turned to each other and said "English!" at the exact same time. Please do not judge.
The impact of the introduction was somewhat lost, considering that neither of us had any idea who the subject of the song was (Dana Plato, who John described as an actress gone too soon). Regardless, John Darnielle's reference to pathos got me thinking about what we've been discussing in English class. Are there American icons that are associated with so much emotion that they become detached from their actual accomplishments? Marilyn Monroe immediately comes to my mind. Though only an actress, she is an immortal in pop culture. To a lesser extent, I think of JFK. While he was undoubtedly a remarkable man, his political accomplishments weren't as impressive or revolutionary as those of many of his predecessors, and many of the domestic reforms with which he is credited should rightfully go to Lyndon Johnson. In this respect, does Kennedy deserve to be deified in US history the way he has been? Both these instances seem to exemplify an American tendency to wrap those that have died early in a shroud of pathos and raise them to a level above what their actions would warrant. Or perhaps the Mountain Goats and I are just a cynical bunch.

-Colin

Responding To Societal Cues

Even though it's been awhile since we discussed memorials, and the emotions that accompany them, in class, I had an experience on Friday that reminded me of our discussion. I was volunteering in my mother's classroom, and on this particular day she just happened to be reading The Wall by Eve Bunting. The book deals with a child's visit to the Vietnam War Memorial. My mother is an extremely empathetic person, so as she was reading she began to cry. It was only after several of the children in the class began to well up, that I remembered our discussions in class. Seeing so many of the children being emotionally connected to a memorial that they most likely have had little or no previous connection to reinforced the idea that it's not the memorial itself, but the reactions of others dealing with the memorial that causes emotional responses. I found it really interesting to see one of our discussions played out in real life.

-Tara

Another Translation

I was reading the play Antigone by Sophocles (it's in our book) and noticed some things pertaining to class. I noticed two vocab words were used, clement and augur. One of the characters in the play is a blind augur who with the help of an assistant who can see, forecasts that the king will have great misfortune if he kills Antigone. The more interesting relation to class, however, was the translation. Antigone was written in ancient Greece, and thus, in Greek. In the English version, there are several references to "God". This is anachronistic because no one believed in God then; they believed in the gods, and most importantly Zeus. I assume the translator meant "Zeus" when he wrote "God". I found it odd and don't really understand why he didn't just write Zeus since it was more historically accurate and a closer translation to the original. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this translation?

~Becca

Atonement

I'm reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol and one passage caught my attention:

"...In fact, man's oldest spiritual quest was to perceive his own entanglement, to sense his own interconnection with all things. He has always wanted to become 'one' with the universe...to achieve the state of 'at-one-ment....' To this day, Jews and Christians still strive for 'atonement'...although most of us have forgotten it is actually 'at-one-ment' we're seeking."

I looked it up on the Online Merriam-Webster dictionary and the "at-one-ment" idea is there! In the tertiary definition. I never knew that before. Just thought I'd share this with you so that we can all celebrate one of our vocab words. =)

-- tori

Healthcare Wordplay

One of the things I've noticed in the healthcare debate recently has been the rhetoric used by people on each side of the argument. The Left uses phrases like "universal coverage" (which has a positive connotation), while the Right responds with phrases such as "government takeover" and "socialized medicine" (which have very negative connotations). The Democrats label the public plan as an "option" (options are good, right?), while the Republicans call it a "government takeover" (eeeek!). And list of common words and phrases used by each side goes on and on. Democrats say we need "cost controls" and a public plan to increase "competition". Along with this, they frequently mention insurance companies "denying coverage". The Republicans, on the other hand, label the Left as "tax and spend liberals" and use words like "waste", "fraud", and "abuse" to describe the results of current government programs. But these words pale in comparison to the Right's big guns, words like "bureaucracy" (my personal favorite quote happening to be "death panels of government bureaucrats") and "rationing" which send chills down our spines.
In the end, the healthcare debate has turned out to be a debate over words, and it seems that whoever can win this battle will emerge the victor. How do you all feel about this? (and if you have more words and phrases to share, it will be greatly appreciated)

-Bryce Cody

Bad Luck?

Hi guys! Well, today is Friday the 13th. Now were all going to fail our vocab quizzes because of the bad luck, right?

Seriously however, while I realize the fact that I realize that both Friday and the 13th of the month are both human inventions, and wouldn't exist with out us making the artificially dividing what we perceive as time into portions like days, hours, weeks, etc., and furthermore there is no proof that a day can be "unlucky", I still can't help but believe the superstition to an extent. There are other superstitions I still semi-believe, even though it makes no sense too. I guess my question is, why? Is it because I have heard these superstitions my whole life, and they have become habitual? Is it because I'm going along with tradition? Or am I just not able to totally break myself from the idea of the symbol equaling the thing symbolized.

So, my question to the rest of you; do you still believe in any superstitions or have any thoughts on the matter?

-Melissa C.

Moment of Silence

In homeroom this morning, during the moment of silence, I was in the middle of putting my hair up. I didn't want to start over again, so I continued the process. But then I began to look around and think, 'everybody stopped what they were doing for the moment of silence. Am I being disrespectful by doing something else?' And this question later became, 'will other people think that I am disrespectful?'

Is doing something else in the middle of the moment of silence disrespectful even though I was participating? Is it important to prove my participation to others?

-Joanne

Observation of Today's Memorial

Today, Tori and I noticed that our homeroom had an interesting, and certainly not conventional, response to today's memorial which we felt related to the discussion on memorials in class. When the principal called for everyone to say the pledge, we complied and recited it, although rather out of sync. We immediately went to sit down, when the principal called for everyone to remain standing. Tori, Lauren, and I stood up, but no one else did. They just looked at us strangely and then resumed their conversations, despite the moment of silence we were supposed to be having. Our teacher was standing, but said nothing to the class. The memorial had basically no effect on our homeroom.

This certainly was not a transformative memorial, and I don't think it was supposed to be, but done for the sake of showing respect. Honestly, it didn't have any more effect on me than it did on the kids sitting down, but I stil stood because I felt I should. To me, and most peole, I think, a memorial means you have to act respectful. Usually social surroundings pressure you into showing sense of patriotism and respect during memorials. However, when you remove that social pressure, people act the way our homeroom did.

~Becca

Names and Memorials

As soon as I went on the internet today, I was greeted on Comcast by a preview to an article that said "President Obama says the names of Fort Hood Victims aloud...". This caught my attention after we talked about how the names of the 9/11 victims are read at ground zero every year, and I figured I'd share it with you guys. It's another example of how names are used as memorials.

Here's the full article:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091110/US.Obama.Fort.Hood/

-Audrey

Spanish: to be verbs

Okay I know we've moved on from E-prime, but I was working on some Spanish homework and I thought of something. In the Spanish language, they actually have two different to be verbs. "Ser" is for things that are relatively permanent. The other verb, "estar", is for temporary things, like "I am hungry". I think this is much more effective than English's single verb. I'm not a native Spanish speaker so I don't really know the connotations associated with these verbs, but I'm assuming that the fact that there are two of them makes for better communication. I would think there would be less of a one to one relationship problem. Do you guys agree?

~elizabeth

Those aren't your mother's eyes...they're a geneticist's.

My dad and I were listening to an NPR story about stem cell research. While talking about the subject, he enlightened me to the fact that the United States government allows geneticists to patent gene sequences. That's right, patent them. So someone literally owns the code for baldness or Downs Syndrome or something like that.

The question is: are genes really fair play for patents? Mind you, patents are for inventions, not discoveries, but researchers have found ways to redefine the rules for patents to have it their way. Why? Because if someone owns the genetic recipe for a trait, you have to pay them a royalty to conduct research on it. And then, technically, all of your findings belong to them. There's a lot of hoop-wah going on about how holding this "intellectual property" hinders scientific research. But then there are those who argue that if it weren't for the money, there would be no incentive for investments in R&D to begin with.

Speaking of intellectual property, here's another tidbit for you to chew on: the concept of Google Books. Google is undertaking a project to scan every volume out there into their database and make it available for users. Publishers and writers are getting their underwear in a wad because they say this violates copyright laws. But can't people just go to a library and check out the book for free anyway, even scan it themselves? Google is now starting to bargain with publishers, letting them allow only limited previews for some books. So who's committing the crime: those who horde information for themselves as a money-making asset or those who advocate the free and unlimited distribution of knowledge?

click on these:
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
(emily donahue)