What do I plan on majoring in? I have no idea. I'm off to find that out. To take some time to figure things out. There's got to be something I'm good at, that I enjoy, that I can work with. Several people, and even my father have said that when you find what you wanna do, you'll do insanely well at it and do better than most people. And for the most part, apart from core classes of course, that's about right.

Even though every college has its faults, I did kind of get a little sad going to Seton Hill for the next-to-last time. But then again, I did a lot here than I've done anywhere, so of course it means something. The air was nice, the potholes weren't, and I came across Mike Cooper's adorable doggies. Very, very cute.

Now, before some of you jump on me and say I'm just quitting and I'm a cop-out, this has nothing to do with recent events. This is something I've had a long time to think about, and over break, I came to my decision. This does not affect, nor has anything to do with, how I feel a class should run, so with my previous entries in mind, don't think I'm taking back my words or giving up. I got at least one person to stand beside me, and to me, that's worth it.

Anywho, in the meantime, I'll be at the DDR tournament on Thursday to strut my stuff. Shame after this week I won't be able to participate in them or write for the paper anymore, but thems the breaks. I might be back if what I want is here, but by then I think the only people I'll recognize would be the teachers.

I'll also have a bit of extra time to finally work on my website, so that's a plus. I can still of course work on mywritings and my little artsy projects, as I don't need a degree to submit such things for publication. It helps, but I'm also kind of starting out in that respect.

First off, I want to apologize, some comments, including some of my own, got eaten up or disappeared thanks to the wonderfulness that is Moveable Type. I tried posting that a few times, but it apparently some of it didn't work.

Anywho, I'm sure that some people have wanted a proper, calm-looking update on the status of things. I'll admit that I do appear a lot angrier online, it's easier to type up a short bit of text that can blow things out of proportion. I've been known to come off like that.

I will admit that the last update was written with a little hasty frustrations in mind, due to the aforementioned distraction of Jerz's PDA and my ass going numb, and something which I'll mention later in this post which offends me (properly this time) a good bit.

Bottom line, I am a strong advocate in the belief that using the internet to teach, or as a major function of the class, is a bad method of doing things. E-reserve, or usage of Jweb's facilities are fine, they're there for a reason. It's one place where students can convene or get a certain text. The blog system is separated, and with only anonymous comments on, discussions are hard to come by. As far as class goes:

"And how is students expressing their opinions about the texts not learning? It brings up discussion about the text, which, i thought was the whole point? We learn things about the texts such as themes, and symbols, for example, i mean really, how else do you learn about lit?"

A greater discussion can be developed if a teacher suggest a few themes. If you ask anyone, "What did you think about this?" You get, 99% of the time, the same response. Either, "I liked it," "I didn't like it," or, "It was okay." If you ask further, they'll either say, "I don't know," or give a half-assed answer. I do it. You do it. We do it until the day we die. But if you have someone who has experience with the text, and asks more involved questions, then students pick up on other themes they didn't notice or were unaware of, possibly changing the relevance and meaning to a story. If the whole class is just the students talking about what they liked, why do we have a teacher? Let's just get a referee to take attendance and make sure we don't get off-topic, because we don't go to class to listen to other students all day. We go to class to be taught; if you want to sit in a circle and hear what everyone thinks about a text, join a book club.

As stated, using texts which are googled and have typos looks very bad and unprepared. Using texts that they teach in Intro to Lit course also leaves this impression. Class should function without the use of a glowing box. While not every class should be a lecture, a portion of the class should be information and themes given to the students. Discussion is vital in a good class, but it shouldn't be the driving factor, which is something I think the class is focused on. Posting, "Hey, I wanna know what you think," in someone's blog isn't very good motivation. What does it achieve? It's no different than the silence that follows in class. Honestly, if the internet MUST be used, a place where we can all get together is best, and not 20 different URLs, and only being able to comment to a short few. Hell, You can see how little comments I got over my last two entries. Moveable Type and motivation don't go hand in hand.

And as a side note, I find it odd that we're at the midterm, yet we're still stuck in the Great Depression. Go fig. There's a joke in there somewhere, I know it.

But my last gripe, which you can stop reading at this point if you like, is about referencing 9/11 in class. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, can get in front of a group of people, mention 9/11, and spark a discussion. It's a cheap, low, dirty, and terrible tactic to pull in class, and it's one of the few things that will actually get me truly pissed off. It's something that's so recent that any yokel can get people involved into talking about it just by mentioning it's name. If any of you have listened/watched to Dane Cook's standup... "Yeah, I was in my pueblo, and i heard the noise..."

Now, I'm sure my ten or so readers are wondering what my plan of action is. Something as far as complaining to a higher board is unecessary; I'm not trying to get Jerz fired or anything silly, he's a cool guy. But yes, he is wrapped up in technology to the point that it dampens the class. There is a flare to a book, to a printed, hard bound, flippable copy of something we can hold in our hands, and to a class that doesn't need a projector to function. While the facilities are there, and I'm sure they cost a lot and are well used in classes that need them, but anything apart from the text and the ELMO (why it's called that I do not know) is not needed. Lastly, when students don't get something or are confused, you can't expect someone to chime in with what you're hoping, a stronger gameplan or idea must be established.

And since I don't have any way to end this....

http://www.shadowtherat.com/temp/danceflash.html

Here's a video of me badly dancing to Dragonstea Din Tei from Haducii, a Romanian pop band. I'm sure you've heard it before, if you haven't, google Numa Numa and watch that fat guy dance in his chair much better than I.

I made a few footnotes and addendums in my portfolio to my previous blog entry, for the matter of interest, here's what I put:

-Added a footnot after the word "disorganized" that read: "constant pauses finding what you want to talk about tonight, you should know what you're doing beforehand"

Added a proper addendum at the end of the blog entry:

"It reflects bad on you when:

-The students use a lo less "Ums" and pauses when talking/presenting
-one of your internet sources has a typo

Call me a jerk for criticizing, but how do you expect a student to discuss when you expect them to carry the whole class for you? Your motivation is just asking, 'Well what do you think?' which does nothing but break a silence that comes back immediately afterwards. You offer little to no help to your students and leave them high and dry. When someone is not on the same page, you expect them to just be on the right track. And there were certainly most, as in one or two or three excluded I'm assuming, that either talked about what I said [regarding my previous entry] or told me personally they agreed. Students have even dropped out of your class over your methods of teaching."

And these are some things I noticed that I didn't have the room nor desire to write:

-When the first presentation was going on, Jerz was playing with his PDA, and made himself look like a bigger jerk than I when he was finished and we had to wait for him to be done toying with things, or maybe the silence tipped him off. That's VERY rude. That's just as bad as Dr. Alexander sleeping with a constipated face when we did presentations for him. How is a student going to get motivated when the teacher can't even look at his students?

And the comment about how the blogs helps the students with thier papers I found humorous at best. The only thing the students can do is help themselves, because Jerz wants the students to motivate each other. How can we motivate each other when you have a teacher that isn't motivated enough to remember what hes talking about and spends more time asking the students to teach themselves?

I'm sorry if I'm in a very ranty mood. I'm sorry if I am lax and unmotivated to do the work, but I don't have faith in someone who is going to run a Deism-style class, i.e. make the syllabus and expect everything to fit together the way you want.

I'm sure the few, few critics of my harsh evaluation of class will say that the students need to band together. Well as Stormy said in the last entry, we have lives. We have things to do. People like me who commute don't have the time to lounge around and hunt down various students.

Take a look at how many little comments everyone has in thier blogs. Take a look at how many people don't update or do half-hearted updates.

I said it before, I'll say it again: For a literature class, we've done more about the internet and new media. And if I may rant about the typo in the Pound poem tonight... A TYPO. A FLIGGING TYPO. Doesn't sound like a big deal, right? Especially after the class finds out it's a typo during the middle of class. Something like that... the laziness of using common poetry they teach in Intro to Lit just because you can find it on Google really makes me angry and not wanting to do the work out of spite. Why should I try when the teacher doesn't?

Jerz, you are a fine person, and a fellow comrade nerd-at-arms. Just have subjects to talk about, don't sit there like a bump on a log and give your job to the class.

I'm sure you have better things to do than to see this blog entry, so let's get to the meat the nitty gritty.

Bernice Bobs Her Hair

The Adding Machine

Jury of Her Peers

the Great Gatsby

Machinal

The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock

And looking through my comments, this is going to be a pretty weak portfolio, moreso than my Writing For The Internet ones.

And the following can be ignored since I know I've missed two classes, almost 1/6th of the whole semester, but there's something which I know others have mentioned (names excluded) that bother me.

Although with no offense to you, Good Sir Jerz, this class feels a lot more like a New Media Journalism class, and not at all like a Lit class. I feel like I'm in WFTI all over again, and the fact that class was hindered when the internet was down reflects that. Sure you continued moving along, but not as well as you normally could. But there's another thing that I think reflects poorly on the class: When the reading material consists of things most people read in high school or in basic, Intro-to-Lit classes, easily googled poems/stories, and the professor's own book, that definitely puts a damper on student motivation.

There was a lot of time spent on setting up the blogs and this whole silly trackback thing... sure, it makes it easier for you, but not for the students if every time they update they have to go through the horrendous process in the NMJ tutorial (since some of us update from random school computers which means you have to do it every time you log in practically), when all they need to do is copy and paste the trackback link in the bottom of a new entry.

I understand that you are the head honcho of New Media Journalism, but that shouldn't mean you should force that on other classes. Many people still don't know what the hell to do with these blogs, or they (well at least one other person) consider it pointless as more work is done outside of class than inside. It comes off as convenience for the professor, but not the students. Come on, anonymous comments are always on, so there's no way to track where you've posted, you just have to hope and remember.

Bottom line: The internet is seriously slowing this class down. Everything looks like you are very disorganized, and that also causes confusion in the ranks and a lack of motivation to do the coursework. A teacher that gets students doing the work is one who at least acts like they have things under control. Like when the blogs got hacked. No one knew what the hell to do because we were so dependant on blogs.

And I quote this from Rate My Professor.com

"Energetic and demanding. Very caught up in new technology. Prefers students who think the way he does. Tries hard to do a good job, sometimes too hard."

That sounds about right. Your heart's in the right place, and I understand that New Media is your bag, but you need to step out of the Internet zone and into the Classroom zone, if you know what I mean. I spend most of my days playing World of Warcraft nonstop, but when I need to do serious work, I walk away from the computer or go to the Maura lounge to get focused. The internet distracts a lot of students, or since it's online they don't view it as anything more than busywork, and in a way it is. You try so hard to get people to comment and discuss things via the blogs, but that's something that should be done in class.

That's why we go to class. If all our discussions are online, why waste the Thursday night to sit around and hear what we can read online? A lit class is supposed to be energetic, and to spark discussion, not make a two sentence entry on what you read and expect it to blossom into something big. Once again, students prepare for class and not for the internet.

I know lots of students feel this way too, and I don't expect them to have the cahones to publically admit it like me. All I'm saying is this: I'm paying ten grand a semester for this, so I'm going to make DAMN sure my money is well spent. Students can either stand up and criticize and decide for themselves how their education goes, or you can sit around all day outside of class and we can complain about it for the rest of your years at Seton Hill. And if you're just going to complain, and not do anything, then shut up. I know I don't swear in this because it's the shcool blog, but Shit Or Get Off The Pot. even if you're here on scholarship, someone's paying good money for you to be here, don't muck it up.

But here's the real scoop: T.S Eliot is amost Toilets spelled backwards.

Granted, this could all be foreshadowed by her mother, and the monotonous office scene in the beginning, but after that I felt like I was just skimming the pages until the final realization, to which for Helen there was none. Her name would be read in the paper by another couple or other people, and get passed up like everything else. The wheels of the cog move on, so to speak.

Yes, I am a bit biased since I've seen this theme played out a good bit, but like I said, the play was dragging. The dialogue just felt forced and filled in places. I know not every single word has to be important, but the pacing was just very slow. This could be a reflection of Helen, however, since it took her so long before she snapped, and it's kind of ironic how on page 58, after talking about drowning and prisoners and dead husbands:

Helen: Any Prisoners?
Husband: No.
Helen: All free?
Husband: All Free.

But the irony is that it didn't help, she still felt trapped up until death, not knowing if that was the final solution for her.

eh, it was okay I guess, but as stated, maybe it's just modern convention affecting my opinion. Given the original context arounf the Great Depression, I'm sure many people felt like this, just a part of somethign that is a never-ending cycle of loathing and unwanting.

Ugh. Second time going through this one.

The thing, in my opinion, about Fitzgerald's writing style, is that is works in small doses, as read in Bernice Bobs Her Hair. As a novel, there is little substance. It seems like Fitzgerald is just stalling and wasting time... sure, in any reading you have to have description and whatnot, and you're not supposed to get to the point very fast, but damn. Slow.

And I also like saying T. J. Eckleburg. Eckleburg Eckleburg Eckleburg.

Fitzgerald paints his usual picture of the era, but the characters, I'm assuming, are to override the scenery. Whenever I read this I imagine everything in grays or pale colors, while the characters are in full color. And the events reflect that too, but for the life of me I can't remember some instances of that...

As I started reading this, I thought, "Huh, this is like that story I've read a bazillion times before about the dead guy who got axed because he messed with his wife's bird." Halfway through I realized I was right and thus my opinion on this story is much easier to state.

The sexist overtones are obvious; the intent is to put down the women and let it look like the men are in control, and the bumbling housewives don't know any better. But with the investigation and cover up of evidence (like finishing sewing the blanket), they reveal that they are a lot smarter than they appear, and know the true intent of the murder.

The time period and context play one of the most important roles in any work of literature. Glaspell set up the men to look punctual, and straight-to-the-point. There is a change, however, when the men leave, it changes perspective. Even though the overtone of an unknowing housewife is still there from the first part of the story, through simple questions and actions the women get to work decompiling the mystery. The title even reflects that as well, since of course the ones with the real knowledge have a choice to frame or free the criminal.

This play was... well... pretty quick and annoying given the overall message. The idea of an eternity of servitude and slavery being justified with the hope of a better future seemed kind of played out, although in Zero's case they emphasized the fact that he could have done something to make his life better along the way, and instead he just kept taking it from everyone.

I notice the obvious play on words with Zero's name, both in the name-calling, "loser" definition of the word, and also the fact that he had no substance, especially compared to Mr. One through Mr. Seven. They all did things, even if they were mundane, while Zero did nothing.

Zero's death and rebirth achieved nothing. Sure, he met a friend and learned he could have made somehting else out of himself, but it was too late to even try which is why I think he just left the Elysian Fields and moved on. That's all he could do, really, was just keep going to the next job/location/place, since he never stopped to smell the flowers or did anything besides work. The revelation that he was born a servant reflects that, and as Charles alluded to, Zero will just have the idea that there is something worth it by going through the same hell over again.

Well, the movie had a lot of differences to the original version. In the story, Bernice was described as having dark hair and being pretty, while Marjorie had blonde hair. In the movie, this was changed and they made Bernice out to be ugly.

The story jumped a lot in relation to time. In the movie, a lot of the jumps were played out, scense were extended, and things that were just told by the narrator were said by Marjorie (like the "just me, you us," line). Warren seemed disinterested after Bernice's hair got cut instead of more fascinated, and although she was getting attention, that attention was emphasized more in the movie. Fitzgerald made short comments on how muc attention, but he leaves the reader to assume that Marjorie still has the upper hand all the way through, instead of it being gradually changing in the film.

Personally, the story was much better, as most would say. If the film followed the book, it would be much shorter, and not as impactful. Bernice's graceful leave felt more of a high-brow revenge, especially since she referred to the Indian comment made about her at the end.

On a serious note, unlike the last portflio, I have little to contribute again. Al of my enries for this are on the main page below you. To somehow make up for this, I'm including something from my Livejournal which sparked a few cross-journal fights and the loss of someone on my friends list.

Well, granted, I trolled her journal to begin with since she couldn't vote in he election.

Linky for the Drama

*see Dr. Wendland and Dr. Atherton and Dr. Arnzen and a slew of other good professors here at SHU

But wen you're in a lab, it's a different environment. You don't really know who is the teacher, the man at the far end of the room, or the glowing box at your fingers. Mentally, one would logically reach for the tool closest to them, but if the more important message is coming from a distance, it can cause confusion.

Yeah, this is a long-shot theory, but it's me trying to make some sense to why working in a lab all of a sudden gives me hardcore ADHD. As I've said here many times, I'm a lazy person. If I was in the Procrastinator's Club, I wouldn't even waste the time to tell everyone the meeting was postponed. To someone who doesn't use computers a lot, I guess a class like WFTI or something similar would be a constant learning experience. But what from there? If another class came along and they knew the ropes, would they be inclined to pay attention as much as they did before, slack a tiny bit, or be like me and check your email and Livejournal friends list instead of doing work?

I know, you'd think someone who uses computers as much as I do would love this concept of computer teaching, but when it coms to serious learning, technology has no place in it apart from the few programs that serve a real purpose (like Hyperchem). Class chatrooms and forums don't count.

There's a reason why the same old methods of teaching have been in place for hundreds of years. Because they work. With the magic box out of the way, I can actually concentrate. Too may people are all keen on new ways of teaching, and going to Seton Hill has shown me that it's not new ways of teaching, it's doing the old ways of teaching well.

Anywho, IF does cross a boundary that no genre can really lay claim to. Well, in one of the later Zork games it specifically said you were a waiter at the King of Frobozz's dinner, but even then that still doesn't point to gender much.

I think that excluding the sex of the role, or mixing the two (as in that Gelatea game or whatever it was that was switching characters a lot) leaves room to make a game more challenging. One thing I've noticed is that games are biased. If you have a first-person shooter, chances are you're a male. If it's third-person and there's a female character, 9 times out of ten you'll be sneaking around or doing espionage (Oni, Starcraft: Ghost, you could even count Princess Peach's role in Paper Mario), and IF doesn't involve either. Since I play games like Dungeons and Dragons, I know a bit about roleplaying, and getting into a character. Without character, there better be some damn good description and plot going on. I'll admit that as much as Zork is my favorite IF series, I haven't beaten a single game. They're that damn hard. At heart, IF is the only genre that actually puts you in the center of the game. You hav your own thoughts and opinions of characters and events, but they don't affect the plot whatsoever. I would say that adding graphics is what kills that exprience, but some of you should picku p Return to Zork, Zork Nemesis, or Zork Grand Inquisitor. Hard as hell, but amazing world design. Want some rye? 'Course ya do!

Now. Blogs and Gender. Hoo boy.

As I said in class, the reason why more female bloggers are on the rise is the ease of use of the internet to everyone. More people, period, are using the internet, not just young teens. The statistic of more adult blogs only reflects the people who were using the internet awhile ago, in my opinion. Sure, it's delving into stereotype by saying the boys used the machines and the girls did other things (I'm not one so I can't say what those would be), but hey, stereotypes had to come from somewhere. Society forced such gender roles on the culture.

Well, at least I always played with computers as a kid. My sister isn't a good example as she played hockey on a men's team. I'm just throwing up speculaion at this point.

But the sudden statistical rise of female teen blogs just shows how fast technology is coming, than just about anyone can use it... granted, it's never going to get as bad as a cyberpunk novel, but with that ease of use comes with it a sense of Internet territory. Older users or members on a forum will lash out or scold newbies for thier bad typing/posting habits. Sometimes, it is justified, as a new poster will ignore the rules of a forum.

This elitism (as some would call it) has a purpose. I've seen kids who speak in AOLer shape up thier language when ignored or attacked for speaking like an idiot. I paticulary like forums, because it's one of the few forms of internet communicaion where speaking clearly and properly is a must. Of course there are boards out here where that doesn't apply and they talk like retards, but and actual solid communities online do keep things legible.

What is the attraction? I myself even put down blogs until I got one about a year ago last month. But the cultures that span across a single site reach more than just you and your friends. i found it funny how on an exercise I turned in about commenting in other people's blogs, Jerz noted that I should have gone out into other communities instead of Livejournal, where my blog is located.

But, there are thousands of communities and almost 5 million accounts. Granted, some of those are gimmick accounts and secondary/teriary/etc accounts from multiple users, but still. Sites like Livejournal and Xanga have so many users and cliques that there's too many communities to ever traverse it all. So most peopel find select communities and groups of friends and stick with that. Crawling a site that large is just about the same as finding a new one.

Overall, blogs and thier respective communities aren't small potatoes. I wouldn't call them a phenomenon, but I wouldn't rule them out as nothing. It's another outlet besides talking to friends abnd family and keeping a diary, and this time it's more managed.

Silent Hill.

You promised you'd take me back one day, but you never did.

Now I'm waiting for you, in our special place."

The opening words of Silent Hill 2 began a journey full of symbolism and psychological horror. You are taken into the world surrounding James, a man who got a letter from his dead wife who died three years ago due to illness. You are led into a world where everyone is lost, a town is empty, and a sadistic pyramid-headed monster (rendition I drew) appears every now and then to do horrible things to James. I wont reveal major plot spoilers, but the plot analysis (scroll down a bit) has left gamers discussing this game's symbols and meanings in great length, spanning hundreds of posts on forums in debate.

The fact that a video game can generate as much discussion as a literary peice is what makes gaming more powerful than just, to steal a line from Scott Kurtz, "Waka-Waka-Waka-Fruit." Sure, it's mostly linear, but with over 5 variations on the ending it forces the question of which ending is real. Nowadays the good ending isn't the right ending anymore. The only way to answer this is with sequels, as in Silent Hill 4, the superintendant of the apartment building the game takes place in was James' father, and he drops a hint or two about James' whereabouts.

SH2 had little difficulty apart from one or two puzzles. As a game, it was very weak. As a story or even a movie, it had atmosphere out the wazoo. Wandering the streets of Silent Hill in thick fog or in too-clear of a black night sky among distant voices of paranoia and fear set gamers in a mood very few games could match. I've had people who didn't care for video games sit down and watch a playthrough of SH2, and left fully entertained.

So there's something to be said about games. Even Vin Diesel, who has his own game company owned by Vivendi Universal, has stated that games can do so much more than any movie can.