Done my time

As I alluded to a few posts back, I did in fact recently graduate from college.

Exhibit A

I know, I know you thought the day would never come. Of course it's not because you doubted my academic record, never that, but because you knew I wasn't quite quit with the Y until I had made good on a traditional part of the BYU experience: hiking the Y, which in fact I did last Saturday.

Exhibit B

My friend Ammon and I at the top

And now my career at BYU is:

Exhibit C

More blogging neuroses/confessions

I compulsively edit and re-post previously published posts (occasionally with extensive rewrites).

I am beginning to suspect that I am a serial blogger.
Let's look at the facts: 28 days, 0 posts; 1 day, 3 posts.

What does this mean? Only time will tell.

I don't know what it is

But something about this picture just makes me smile. Oh those Brits.

Getting the ball rolling

I was quite shocked the other day to discover that it had been nearly a month since my last post. I had a busy middle of April and there will be posts to come on that topic, but for now I figured I'd best build up some momentum and what better way to do so than to begin with an inflammatory post that I've been meaning to post for some time now anyhow.

For what I am about to discuss, I beg some of your pardons and ask the others of you for your patience. Around a month ago, I found myself watching My Fair Lady in search of examples of cockney use for the England CultureGuide that I was working on at the time. Whilst I was doing so, I realized that I seriously dislike My Fair Lady. Now I am aware that to some such a statement is tantamount to sacrilege, but hear me out. Truth be told, I do like about three-fourths of it, but I have serious misgivings about the way it ends and it has nothing to do with Rex Harrison's talk singing, which I am utterly at peace with (in fact I think between Rex and Walter Matthau in Hello Dolly all fussing about Gerard Butler in Phantom of the Opera and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia should be laid to rest, we have a long tradition of imperfect male singers in film musicals to uphold after all). Nor does it have anything to do with the Dr. Dolittle/Eliza Doolittle coincidence that in earlier days mystified me a fair bit. No, what bothers me is Rex Harrison's character's behavior. The entire film/story revolves around the idea of metamorphosis and bringing out inner beauty--we see Eliza progress from her rough Covent Garden persona to a refined, polished, and genteel beauty (both outside and inside) whereas he remains unrepentantly curmudgeonly, rude, and abrasive. And everyone is okay with this? Perhaps, and I do mean perhaps because I don't really believe this myself, it is understandable that when she is rough he treats her roughly, but I feel there should be reciprocal growth and metamorphosis. Why should he be allowed to treat her horribly for forever?

So this led me to ponder farther about the genesis of this story. I can't say I'm surprised with the sexism coming for Shaw's day and age, but I might have expected some rewriting when My Fair Lady was turned into a musical or at least when it was a film. Didn't this bother Audrey Hepburn? I know that they all lived "in a different time" but still we're talking about elemental good behavior here. Maybe from this time on I'll just have to turn the movie off at the end of the ball.

But this is not my only issue with a musical of this era, I also have serious issues with The Sound of Music. For one I think it really is abominably bad behavior of Christopher Plummer to continue to refer to it as "The Sound of Phlegm" unless he is only referring to his own performance, but I suppose that is an issue for another time altogether. For the most part I really do like The Sound of Music, I mean come on Julie Andrews, spades of memorable songs, and children and nuns who sing, what's not to like? Well for some years now I have been extremely uneasy about the song "Something Good." Everyone loves Sister Maria and I think we are all pretty familiar with her exuberance by this point. So in the rush of finding that the man she loves does in fact love her in return, I can go along with her line of thinking as she exudes that she must have done something good in her past to deserve having something so good now (particularly when I take into account that she is a Catholic Nun and that really does go along with much of their doctrine). What rankles me then is that Captain Von Trapp stands right there essentially singing that yes, you must have done something good to deserve me.

Let's look at the facts of the case there, Captain. From the very beginning Maria was a good person willing to sacrifice her entire life to the Lord, but she agrees to leave her dream--becoming a nun--to come help you and your family out. It's Maria who really talks to and bonds with your kids. It's Maria who discovers their talent and individual worth and helps them to see it as well. It's Maria who cultivates their gifts and teaches them to sing. It's Maria who introduces love to your home. And it's Maria who inspires real obedience and good behavior. In fact, it's Maria who the kids run away to see not their philandering father. Doesn't anyone else feel that their parts in the song should be switched? Or at the very least, Captain Von Trapp should sing that he too must have done something good.

The bottom line? I may have to take it upon myself to rewrite some musicals in order to preserve my own sense of right and wrong and simple good behavior.

And you thought editors were useless

Well apparently this has been a hot news item here in Utah, but for those of my readers who live far, far away I'll let you in on the "scoop." Monday morning the Daily Universe had to recall all copies (well not all because some people kept their originals as "collector's items") of the paper and issue a reprint because of a hapless "spell check" error. The caption front and center was meant to describe how "the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" sustained a new apostle, however what it actually discussed was the Quorum of the Twelve Apostates--who funnily enough look just like the apostles.

The Daily Universe is sticking to their story that spell check incorrectly fixed a misspelling of apostles, but this skeptic doesn't buy it. How were they trying to spell apostles, "apostatles"? I think it more likely to have begun as a joke, the writer assumed the next person, or surely the person after that, would catch it. Either that or it was an editing test and they all failed. If the Daily Universe had proper editors, a fact I have long disbelieved, it would have been caught and the University could have saved some money and kept from looking incredibly sheepish.

And while I'm at it, I'll share my defense for the Oxford comma. This is a lifelong battle that I feel compelled to undertake. Consider the following:

After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, she thanked her parents, the Pope, and Mother Theresa.

After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, she thanked her parents, the Pope and Mother Theresa.

Do you see it?

In the first sentence, the one with the Oxford comma, the prize winner is thanking three people/groups of people: her parents, the Pope, and Mother Theresa. In the second sentence this is not the case. Instead, the prize winner's words become a confession: her parents are, in fact, the Pope and Mother Theresa. Now that would be shocking.

So what have we all learned? Spell check does not solve all our problems, but editors do. The Oxford comma is a crucial and beloved punctuation mark that can help us all avoid heretical, and embarrassing, statements.

Ahhh, don't you feel better--and smarter?

Warning: Somehow the Daily Universe seems to have been remarkably successful in keeping the above picture off the internet. I, myself, cannot reveal my sources or how I intercepted the picture I'm posting (I am not one of those with a collector's copy). I must therefore respectfully request that it not be disseminated indiscriminately because I'm going to blame you if I get kicked out of BYU two weeks before graduation.

Where the fun is

I always knew the College of Humanities was a bit liberal--why else do you think I am an English major?--but still, this seems a bit much. This morning I received this invitation.

Dear Humanities students,

We are having our closing social this Thursday, April 9th @ 7:00 PM! We will have some live music and mixed drinks, so make sure to stop by.

The English Society's Classy Closing Social

Thursday, April 9th

7:00-9:00 PM

JFSB B003

Free drinks and live music!

Hmmm, "mixed drinks"? What exactly does that mean? This is what google found when I asked them:

I admit that is more or less what I thought of.

So if they don't mean mixed drinks in this sense, what do they mean? And why do they think that such mixed drinks would be a big enough draw to make it their main advertisement? It almost makes me want to go so I can see for myself what exactly the college of Humanities serves up after hours.

Almost.

Holi

Meg is in the second row on the right, diagonal from Tate

It's that time of year again. Here's what happened this time around.

• The Thomasons and I attended the BYU Gamelan concert in the Pavilion at the Hare Krishna temple.
• I searched through thousands upon thousands of people to find my friends, and actually did find them (as well as a lot of other people I knew). Ah, I remember how there were only about 100 people, or less, the first time I went to Holi.

This picture really doesn't even do it justice. It was absolute madness. Some people drove down from Idaho to attend.

• I was coerced, literally, into selling some of my previously purchased colors to complete strangers and earned all of my money back in the process.
  
• Ali and I drove down to Payson (to avoid the traffic trying to get on the freeway in Spanish Fork) where we stopped at the Daily Freeze and I ended up getting dinner for free.

All in all, a good day (despite the hordes).

What did you do to welcome in the spring?