Katie's blog on the first five scenes of the play really struck a chord with me. During my reading, I felt that Amanda's life and memories seemed a little too wonderful and enchanted; I question as to whether the gentleman callers and exciting childhood actually existed. Amanda is so focused on Laura's life, I believe she is living her "dream life" through her daughter. Hypothetically, Amanda has invented a perfect childhood to escape her dissapointing and pathetic existance. To a point, I sympathize with the disillusioned Amanda--her husband left her, her daughter hides behind glass figures and records, and her son wants to escape his home and life.
Rachel's blog on the play Sure Thing made a really good point. Drama & theater have a lot of purposes; sometimes for pure entertainment, sometimes for a social commentary, and other times for both. Essentially, though, drama is a reflection of real life. The characters and happenings on stage are meant to resemble the people and events of the real world. Yes, dramatic performances are sometimes outlandish and unrealistic, but theater also has the ability to use poetic license to its advantage.
Sure Thing shows two individuals, strangers, and several instances of "what if" situations. Many of us said we enjoyed this play, because we've all been in similar situations. Well, like that connection to real life, Betty & Bill slowly begin to act & speak like each other. I know in my life, when I spend regularly with someone, I pick up some of their habits. If Betty & Bill resemble each other, maybe that's a statement about the development of relationships.
The stage directions and cast descriptions in this script leads me to believe that this play should not only be seen, but also read. Like most plays, it should be performed--it is, after all, a dramatic piece. But, it surprises me that the playwrite would put so much effort into the directions and descriptions simply to help the director and actors portray the charactors. Such hard work and detail should be shared with not just those involved in the productions, but the audience as well.
"But the answers are sometimes determined (and always influenced) by the questions--the exact wording of the questions posed by the interviews, the order in which the questiond are asked, and in some cases even the way in which they are asked (in person or via the telephone)."
I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but the idea discussed in chapter 6 about the questions (rather than the results) of polls never occurred to me. Now it makes perfect sense that the questions and form of inquiry should be included when sharing results of polls. To me, the questions are more important than the results. We all know that how a question is asked reflects a lot on what kind of answer is required or desired. Voice inflection is an important aspect when questioning, along with the order of questions. Like Dr. Jerz's comment/idea about the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" questioning tells a lot about the interviewer and interviewee.
I am an avid reader and movie-goer, so when a book is adapted into a film (or vice versa), I'm in heaven. I suppose the same goes for theater. I love attending the theater, so I find it fascinating how many plays have been adapted into movie versions.
The 1968 version of Doctor Faustus with Elizabeth Taylor & Richard Burton. Burton plays Faustus & Taylor as Helen of Troy. Apparently in this movie, Helen has a much larger, more important part then in the original play. I wonder if Helen was made a larger part because of Taylor or if they chose Taylor to fit Helen? Here's the New York Times review of the film.
Hamlet is a play that has probably been adapted into every form. There was a 1990 version with Mel Gibson & Glenn Close, a version with 2000 version starring Ethan Hawke & Bill Murray, & the 1996 version with Kenneth Branagh, also my personal favorite. Each of these follows the classic Shakespearan storyline, but with their own personal touch. Whereas the Gibson version takes place in Denmark complete with castles and ancient garb, the 2000 edition is modernized to take place in the now, yet they the characters still speak the original language.
The Glass Menagerie was made into a film in 1987. I've never seen the movie, but it seems as if there are only four characters in the cast, just like the play. I find that fact fascinating, because movies tend to add characters &/or scenes, but from what I've found, the movie sticks to the original plot & characters.
It fascinates me that plays, movies, & books can be adapted into other mediums & yet still maintain the entertainment factor. I understand that scenes & dialogue can be altered, but generally the goal of the storyline remains unaltered.
Interaction & Discussion
I didn't know what "Sure Thing" was about, but when I go to read the play, I realize that I've not only read it before, but actually used it in a lesson. A classmate of mine & I presented a lesson on oral communication, and one of our aspects was drama/theater. We used this play to only demonstrate the use of drama in the secondary education level, but the importance of speaking & listening to one another. Our example was a huge success (& fun in the process), so I guess this shows what a small world it is.
"Sure Thing" is a quirky piece of drama & I enjoyed reading it a second time. Not only is this work entertaining, but it also relatable. Not everyone has the joy of experiencing a romance (or potential romance), but most everyone interacts with other individuals.
"Newspaper reports too seldom make apparent the often deep ambiguity of data."
As I write a paper or news article, I always try to picture someone over my should asking me why or trying to prove me wrong. As long as my literacy conscience keeps me on task with his nagging and questioning, I usually write a fairly informed and substantial piece of work. However, there is always going to be someone who finds something wrong or can prove my claims incorrect. That's just how the literary cookie crumbles. Nothing, including scientific evidence, is foolproof. Facts, even though facts are to be considered unquestionable, leave room for interpretaion. I believe anything (literary texts, news, scientific reviews) have the potential to be analyzed in varying evaluations.
"I was quite sure that Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one was universally obvious."
I really enjoyed this article/journal entry. I thought it was well-written, quirky, and funny, but it also proved a good point. I know I've commented on the universality of Shakespeare before, but just last night (in my Shakespeare class) about the audience's ability to relate to works written hundreds of years ago. I still believe that, but I think individuals relate to the ideas and generalizations.
For instance, in King Lear, the king is trying to cope with his old age and slipping mind. Many people deal with these kinds of issues, hence the "relatability" of King Lear. However, I doubt many people can understand the trials and tribulations of ruling a country when your daughters are trying to steal your land. Readers see the big picture, not the specifics.
In our reading, I understand the author's predicament; Bohannon is trying to share not only the story, but the ideals and principles of Hamlet. Due to the language barrier (so it seems) the Africans "miss the point." I don't think the author failed, though. Literature is meant to be interpreted. If this tribe gets a different meaning out of Shakespeare's words, at least we can be comforted by the fact that they receieved some kind of meaning.
I have a difficult enough time writing a regular news article (I still haven't got the hang of that), but writing about a crime is whole different ballfield. The exercise on Friday was fun, but it gave me a good idea of what it's really like to write about a crime.
Reporters must be quick on their feet and with a pen; they have to make sure there is enough information to acurately portray the victims and crime, but they also have to tread carefully on the accused's rights. In our lab on Friday, I think we all got a real taste on the difficulty of writing a crime article. Like we experienced, there are so many dates and times and names. It is the writer's responsibility to clarify the events for the reader.
For curiousity's sake, what angle did everyone take for the event read in class? I focused on the escaped inmate; I didn't mention the previous escaped inmates or the hostage. Those aspects could be made into completely seperate article.
To be honest, "It Ain't Necessarily So" is not one of my reads. I think the authors are (ironically) biased and pompous; to me they sound like they believe they have all the answers. Boy, I wish I was half as smart as Murray, Schwartz, & Lichter. Anyway, although I don't care for the personality of the book and its authors, they do make some good points.
I find it amusing when an individual is discussing a topic or sharing and opinion and, when they are challenged, their repsonse is something like, "But it was on the news." So all the information found in the news is foolproof? Apparently I missed that memo. News, in what ever form, should/can be trusted, but consumers should still be wary. Humans are flawed, so the products we produce (news) may also have mistakes. I don't think everyone should stop reading the paper or watching a news broadcast, but I do think individuals should cautious. Personally, if I am interested in an article or story, I'll research a bit to clarify and verify. I like being informed with the correct information.
One of my favorite statements in our reading's introduction is "The news clearly has a relationship to the truth, but it is never simply equivalant to it." I think this is a good motto to keep in mind when watching the news. We put our faith in journalists and reporters, but we should also rely on ourselves to make sure the news/truth being provided is accurate.
I had forgotten what a fabulous play this was. I can't even begin to verbalize the vast amount of human emotion and "everyman-ness" of this work. I think everyone gets a little crazy and dreams or imagines acting upon our crazy thoughts. No, I would never go seek my revenge on an enemy and kill them, but I believe everyone reaches a point where they act a little cracked.
I think Hamlet is such a classic tale because there is a character or character trait that everyone can relate to. While one may share Ophelia's preoccupation with love, others may sympathize with Hamlet's tormented mind. I probably relate to Gertrude the most. She seems like a woman trying to do her best and make appropriate decisions, but fate seems to be against her.
Who would everyone else relate to?
I think if I was to go into journalism as a career, I would want to write features. Not to say I'd be any good at it, but I think that form of writing would be right up my alley. Next to the comics, I really enjoy the feature articles in the newspaper. They are informative, but fun; a feature is not just a bunch of facts, but entertainment is thrown in, too.
If I ever did make it as a journalist, I think my hardest habit to break would be my use of "flowery langugage." Like Hugh Mulligan, I would be a pro at observing and writing down emotions, but I would hit a snag when I went to share those feelings with audience. I'm confident I'd be able effectively show my audience emotion, but I would be writing as a storyteller, not a journalist. I feel features walk a fine line between the news and a story--I would probably always lean towards the story and entertainment, rather then informing the readers.
My best friend Matt is attending law school in Harrisburg & he made a comment the other day that really didn't register until I started the fairy tale/crime report exercise. Matt told me that almost everyday, most people commit a crime. "If people knew about the laws swimming around us, they'd probably never leave the house." Apparently, there are so many laws and technicalities that normal, everyday events and actions could/can be considered illegal. He'd have to give the whole story, but what it basically comes down to is that crime is all around us.
At first I thought this fairy tale exercise was just going to be a normal, cute, fun assignment. Well, it's cute and fun, but it really makes a good point. Something as innocent (although the Grimm's fairy tales aren't the Disney movies we've seen all these years) as a children's story can be seen as a tale of crime and violence. Come to think of it, most of the nursery rhymes I sang as a child are pretty gruesome. There's something to think about.
Hamlet is able to do anything -- except take vengeance on the man who did away with his father and took that father's place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized. Thus the loathing which should drive him on to revenge is replaced in him by self-reproaches, by scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally no better than the sinner whom he is to punish. Here I have translated into conscious terms what was bound to remain unconscious in Hamlet's mind....
The distaste for sexuality expressed by Hamlet in his conversation with Ophelia fits in very well with this. - Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, tr. James Strachey, Avon, N.Y. 1965. p.299.
Although I did extensive work with psychoanalysis and Freudian theory last semester, it didn't occur to me to apply my knowledge to "Hamlet" until I did some research. In a nutshell, Freud believed that most males desired their mother and were jealous of their father. Hence the name "Oedipus complex." *This is very general and simplified explanation.
Hamlet seems to fit into this Freudian theory. In a distorted parallel, Oedipus and Hamlet share a similar life and destiny. Oedipus (unknowingly) kills his father and marries his mother. Hamlet's father is already dead and his mother has married his uncle. Okay, it's not exactly the same life, but if you use your imagination, it can work. For instance, in I.ii.77, Hamlet refers to his mother as "good-mother." In the Norton Shakespeare text, a footnote defines this term as stepmother. In a psychoanalysis, a critic may read this line as Hamlet's subconscious sexual desire to be with his mother. If she is his biological mother, their relationship is impossible (or at the least, wrong), but if she is seen as his stepmother, the affair is a possibility.
This quote by William Shakespeare is so true. Most people would agree that the news is full of crimes and basic bad news, but there has got to be good news out there, right?
I think a lot of it has to do with the desire of the audience. Like Dave Krajicek states in in "Covering Crime & Justice," hearing about terrible events in other places reassures those unconnected to the crime. It goes back to the "that can't happen to me" thought process. As long as the crime doesn't directly effect their lives, then it's dangerous & exciting.
"The more newspapers print articles about criminals in other places...the more secure readers feel in their own environments. In essence, readers like the grass to be browner on the other side of the fence, and the browner the better."
Think of a horror film. The creepier, scarier, wilder, the better--because it's not real. As long as the audience is secure that the boogeyman really can't them, let the actors on the screen get slaughtered. Both the news reports and movies give cheap thrills, except we normally feel some sort of sympathy for the real-life victims.
I've discussed before that I wish there was more good news reported, but I'm sure if journalists started reporting the good news, we'd probably gripe that there wasn't even real news. That's society for 'ya.
Before this year, the most I ever read out of the newspaper was the comics, horoscopes, and ocassionaly a front page article that caught my eye. Now I find myself being much more aware of the news and events going on around me. Like Ashley, the editorial/opinion page was a foreign land to me.
First of all, I generally lean (ok, jump) to the liberal side, and I know the Trib usually reports with a conservative slant. Not to be used as an excuse, but this is one of the reasons why I avoided the newspaper. Basically, though, I didn't care. I was happy in my little igorance bubble, and I wanted to ignore the chain of events going on around me. If I've learned one thing thus far, it's that everything effects everyone.
Through the last three years, I've learned to form and share my own ideas, but I've also learned to open my mind to other views and experiences. For example, the reading of the newspaper. Like I said, I normally wouldn't read the paper, but I stepped out of my comfort zone (I know it's only the newspaper, but this whole experience is new to me) and read articles that I never have before. I didn't particularly enjoy the articles, but the experience was enjoyable enough.
Like John, I couldn't resist taking the conservative/liberal quiz on Lou's blog. My score was actually pretty acurate. However, I'm getting a little fed up with the imaginary line (which apparently is illegal to cross) between right-wings & left-wings. Truthfully, I don't know enough about politics or war or poverty to say a lot (that's another thing I can't stand: people talking out of their tooshies about topics they are not informed about), but if an individual can back up their beliefs, more power to them.
I have a friend who is so right-wing that he falls over sometimes, and he feels that anyone who doesn't agree with him is wrong, no questions asked. How does this happen? How can society be so narrow-minded? Yeah, I'm a liberal; I believe in gay-rights, George W. annoys me to no end, and people are entitled to make their own choices. But I'm also a Christian. I believe there is good in us all & I also believe God is probably both laughing and shaking his finger at us. Sure, John has a lot of different views than me, but can he back up his beliefs? Yes. Do I respect him for it? Absolutely.
Like Dr. Klapak has stated, just because my beliefs are different, doesn't mean I'm un-American, I truly have faith that someday, the wall between the crazy, pot-smoking, going to hell, radical, hippie liberals and the right-wing blood conservative, unashamedly born-again radical evangelical Jesus-loving Christians get along.
Your Political Profile
Overall: 15% Conservative, 85% Liberal
Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal
Nancy brings up a good point. One "rule" of journalism that still confuses me is the boundaries of on & off the record. Can everything said be reported? Is the reporter required to share an article before it is read? Is the subject entitled to know what will be included in the article? All of these questions run through my mind as I'm interviewing and writing. For me, I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable. I probably should grow a thicker skin, but if an interviewee comments to me, I make sure they are aware that their words may be published.
I found these sites that are pretty helpful in sorting out the ethics of journalism.
This is a funny, quirky essay. I recommend this because it shows the value of ethics, not only for the readers, but also for the reporter.
New York Times Code of Conduct
Here's a checklist the New York Times uses. Maybe we should all just follow their rules!
There is a time and place for sensationalism. I'll admit, when I'm in the checkout line at the grocery store, I flip through "magazines" like the Enquirer. I can't help it! A headline that reads "Jesus Returns to Earth to Baptize Bat-Boy" or "300-lb. Cat Marries his Mother" is just begging to be read. Although these articles are funny and ridiculous and help pass the time, I realize that they're just money-makers. They are obviously unrealistic and over-the-top, but if I'm aware of what true news is, I think I'll be ok.
Chapter 9 discusses proportionality and the comprehensiveness of news. I wish more journalists would follow this guideline. Dictionary.com define news as:
1. Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
2. A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
3. New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
Newsworthy material: “a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news” (James Atlas).
However, when I hear the word "news" I think of facts and real world events, but maybe that's just my viewpoint. I actually try to avoid television broadcasts, because I can't stand the tabloid-ness. I understand newspapers and t.v. programs are out to sell a product, but what ever happened to simply reporting events? Not just events, though, but information people actually want to hear. Note to all the journalists out there: sometimes good things happen in the world; why is it always neccessary to report on the tragic?
I wonder when it hit Faustus that he was really destined to spend eternity in hell. I know he understood the deal he struck, but he showed little remorse for actions, until the end. I find it amusing that a play written in the 1500s includes emotions and actions that still occur today. I know I've been in situations where myself, or someone I know, dimisses all help-until the last minute. Like Faustus, the person rejects assistance, but then regrets the decision when it it too late to change the situation.
I have been a victim of journalism. Well, actually the forum journalism presents. In high school, a student operated an online message board, and a particularly nasty person felt it neccessary to trash me all over it. Not only did my entire school frequent this site, but anyone with internet access could read all about me. To this day, I am still scarred from this event.
As I was reading chapter 7, I understood full well the power journalism holds. When used appropriately, journalism has the ability to change and move people, but it is a double edge sword. Public news can manipulate emotions and cause serious damage. In a nut shell, I feel journalism should be based on "truthfulness, facts, and verification." If those standards are not upheld, then those who abuse the privilege of journalism, ruin it for everyone.
“Basis for Contradiction”: Morgan Spurlock Comes to Seton Hill
Although Morgan Spurlock, star and producer of “Super Size Me,” has definitely made a name for himself, not everyone considers themselves a fan. At Seton Hill University’s Thursday lecture featuring Spurlock, a variety of people attended, all with contrasting opinions.
When asked about his impression of the event, Jeremy Brammell said, “Although I thought this lecture was funny and entertaining, I didn’t learn anything new. I guess that’s why it’s called a lecture.” Brammell also shared that he came to Spurlock’s talk opposed to his views. “His movie was funny, but I don’t agree with his opinions. We all know processed fast food is bad--so what?”
Spurlock responded to critics by describing “personal responsibility” and the “conscience consumer.” He said he is not asking his audience to not ever eat McDonald’s or a hamburger again, but only wants consumers to be aware.
An anonymous spectator agrees with Brammell. “Yeah, he’s funny, but all he did was stick it to McDonald’s. He’s just another disgruntled guy who made a documentary. I wasn’t impressed with the movie, and I was even less impressed with his presentation.”
There were also Spurlock supporters in attendance. Nancy [no last name provided] said, “I love him! He is one of the smartest men in entertainment. He has such an insight into society and is not afraid to speak his mind.”
Nancy, along with a group of her friends, was thrilled to hear about Spurlock’s visit. When asked to comment those opposed to Spurlock’s attitude, she said she hopes hearing him speak will help them. “If they just understood what he was all about, then maybe they’d be better for it. He has a lot to say, and hopefully they’re willing to listen.”
A SHU senior, Jeremy Burkett, chose not to attend the event. “I saw the movie and all, but it hasn’t stopped me from eating McDonald’s. Society is so desensitized about everything. I see what he’s saying, but it probably won’t stop many people like me.”
The general attitude of the crowd was excitement, even with the diverse crowd. Several rounds of applause sounded throughout the lecture, and Spurlock received a standing ovation at his conclusion, “You can change the world…with a thought.” Spurlock’s thoughts have obviously influenced his audience, both negatively and positively.
Pep and Spirit are Lacking at Seton Hill
When Dave Falletta, graduate resident director of Seton Hill University, arrived at SHU’s first pep rally last Thursday he stated aloud to the crowd, “This is the lamest bonfire ever.” This comment represented the general feeling of the entire event.
Jimmy Pirlot, master of ceremonies, welcomed everyone and announced the homecoming weekend events. Pirlot used a microphone, but the low- quality sound system made it difficult to hear. Several members of the crowd stated that they could not hear Pirlot. One student said, “No one’s even listening. I can’t hear at all. This thing [pep rally] is pretty sad.”
Although the estimated 30-40 people attended, many attendees were disappointed in the festivities. The cheerleading squad performed three cheers and a dance, and one representative from the football spoke. Renee Belville said, “The football team should have been announced. It probably would have taken awhile, but I think it would have added a nice touch. All in all, this isn’t a very exciting pep rally.”
According to Lauren Bradley, co-captain of the cheerleading squad, the pep rally was specifically for the football team, but all athletic teams were invited via email. Very few representatives from other athletics were in attendance. When golfer, Chelsea Spencer, was asked about the invitation she said, “I knew about the pep rally, but I didn’t get an invitation. I thought it was only for the football team.”
Paul Crossman, of the tennis team, and a representative from the equestrian team also commented about not being invited. “We were invited?” Crossman stated.
One spectator said, “I didn’t even know there was a pep rally tonight. I was just walking by, and saw the people and the food. There wasn’t any announcement for this at all.” The cheerleaders did hand a sign announcing date and time, but the sign fell and was never replaced.
Some fans wondered about the lack of interest. An anonymous bystander said, “Where are all the people at? This is lame.” Following the main events of the night, the crowd increased. As of 10:15pm, individuals were still seen around the fires.
Katie Manni, a SHU student said, “I thought it would be cool to attend the first ever pep rally. At least there’s food.” Many students were seen stopping solely for food and then leaving. Generally, the crowd just huddled around the fires and ate the supplied food.
When asked about the football team’s involvement in the pep rally, freshman football player, Miguel Gordon, said, “Our coach told us about it. We didn’t have to come, but it was encouraged. There’s about 25 of us here.” There are about 120 football players on the team.
I know everyone who has email/internet has received the email entitled "Must Fill This Out" or "Learn More About Your Friends" or something similar. So, for fun & something different, my wildcard is going to follow that template. Hey, it's something stupid and silly, so don't take it too seriously. ;-)
Full Name: Katherine Ann Lambert
Siblings' Names: only child
Pet(s) Name(s): Maggie
Favorite Color: purple or black
Favorite Food: chicken, potatoes
Favorite Drink: Pepsi...yeah, I know it should be something more fun...
Single?: Definitely Not
What are you doing right now?: working (sorta)
What are you listening to?: the blare of the tv from the sitting room
Who was the last person you talked to on the phone?: Jeremiah
What do you do for a living?: go to school (English Lit. education), work as a receptionist & office assistant at an assisted living facility, & comuter lab work study
If you had three wishes, what would they be?: to be graceful (like a ballerina--body-type included), to have all the music talent I desire, & to be rich (Yeah, I'm a sucker for that wish)
What was the last dream you had?: I'd rather not say...lately my dreams have been that of a drug addict
Where do you want to be in 10 years?: married to my Jeremiah, raising babies, maybe teaching...I have simple goals
Who knows you the best?: Jeremy, maybe Michelle or Shannon
What did you do last night?: went to Angeline's birthday party & learned how to play poker
Who will respond to this?: EVERYONE...OR ELSE!! (j/k)
I had fun at the Spurlock lecture on Thursday, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I think I could have. David Denninger mentioned at the beginning of the semester that he enjoyed reporting on the Honor's Convocation; he noted that normally he would have been bored, but taking notes kept his interest. For me, I was distracted by my constant writing. I probably would have attended the event whether we were instructed to go or not, but I wish I just could have gone and enjoyed myself.
Several times, I forgot that I was covering a story and would then have to stop and think about what had been said withing in the last few moments. This took me away from the action/entertainment on stage. Overall the experience wasn't terrible, but I would have much rather attended the lecture for pure entertainment purposes.
Regardless of my feelings about the actual reporting, I feel my article turned out well. I went to my room and worked on it, but I wasn't happened with my finished project, so I went to Friday's workshop. I reall wanted to skip class (sorry, Dr. Jerz), but I really wanted to turn in work I was really proud. I've worked hard on all my articles, but this was really important to me.
The workshop was a HUGE help. There weren't many people there, so we got one-on-one attention. It was definitely a terrific experience. I recommend to everyone to attend at least one workshop--it's worth it.
Interaction & Discussion
I had a difficult time with this reading. I had to read segments several times, just to get it into my head. I just recently finished a section on Marlowe in British writers, so I guess I should have expected the complex language.
Marlowe's parallelism actually helped me a great deal. The descriptions and comparisons of Faustus to Greek gods and heros allowed me to have a better idea of the doctor. I picture him as arrogant, self-absorbed "nerd." Without being redundant, I see him as the man in the original "Twilight Zone" season one Escape Clause. They both are sneaky characters looking for a good time. I'm hoping the "good doctor" gets it the way Walter does. Ah, sweet irony!
Thank goodness for Dr. Jerz's notes for this play. I probably could have fought my way through the language, but having the extra information available was a HUGE help.
My favorite part of the play was the representation of the hierarchy of life. "The multi-level platform would have communicated this relationship – although, in this play, nothing actually happens on Earth. All the action is on God’s throne, which is at the top; in heaven, at the next level lower, and in hell, which is lower still – possibly at ground level." To me, it makes sense to visually show the ladder of power, along with describing it.
Although I researched the Corpus Chrisi plays, I still had a difficult time picturing in my head the chain of events. The wagon simulation was a huge help for me. I'm a visual learner, so to see the action (rather than just hear about it) made everything clear.
The videos were great, too. Again, I understood the concept of the moving wagons and plays, but the videos allowed me to grasp the concept much better.
I've never actually met Morgan Spurlock, but with all the work I've been doing on him, I feel like I know him. I first knew of him last year in my logic & argument class; we didn't get to watch his whole film, "Super Size Me", but enough that I knew I enjoyed his work. Later, I found out he would be coming to speak at SHU. So exciting!
Over the summer I didn't reallty think about his visit, but then my mom found out he was coming. She actually wanted to go. Wow, I sometimes forget my mom isn't a hermit and does have contact with the outside world. I didn't even realize she knew who he was, let alone wanted to attend his presentation. *On a side note, my mom is searching our family's ancestry & it turns out we're related to Spurlock. Granted he's something like my 45th cousin twice removed, but still pretty cool.
I anxious about tomorrow's event. I would love the chance to talk with him, but (ever the typical bozo fan) I don't have any idea what I would say. I thought of some questions for news writing, but they all seem so typical and boring. Anyone have any suggestions?
Dr. Jerz went over the origin of the Corpus Christi plays, but I was curious to find out more. Truthfully, there isn't a lot of information to be found. Many of the dates differ, but generally, the same list of facts can be found over and over. Here's what I discovered...
Corpus Christi is a religious holiday--instigated in 1311--to celebrate the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, the symbolism in the Mass of the Host which is taken in communion as the body of Christ--'corpus Christi'. The Corpus Christi Feast celebrates the possibility of salvation through the sacrifice of Christ at the Crucifixion made available to all through communion in the Christian Mass.
The plays were first staged as early as the 1300s and were then performed annually until the late 1500s. Most of the city was involved in the performance; there were multiple performances at a dozen or more locations.
The Feast of Corpus Christi, the Body of Christ, occurrs 60 days after Easter and thus falls in early summer, in June or July. The Feast was formally established in 1215, when the Church asserted that what occurred during the mass was the miracle of transubstantiation
The cycle of plays consisted of a series of plays on Christian history. They began with the Creation of the World, then moved onto episodes from the Old Testament, the birth of Christ The cycle consisted of a series of plays on Christian history, beginning with the Creation of the World, moving through episodes from the Old Testament, the birth, ministry and passion of Christ, His Resurrection, and ending with the Day of Judgment.
Here's a really good sight with complete descriptions and even some pictures: Medieval Writing
Denamarie actually inspired this blog. The audience has the oppurtunity to learn and grow with Claire. At the beginning, our minds are as blank as Claire's. As she learns who the masked man is, about her marriage, and about her mother, we also learn. I find it amusing that the main character knows the least about what's going on around her.
Interaction & Discussion