THE DEBATE:

Liesl sings "Timid and shy and scared am I of things beyond my __"

Is __ "Ken" or "Kin?"

We had a family debate about it and I can't remember what side I'm on.

Anyway, debate on! Head to the comment box!

Writers, does this make you nervous?

One Year Adventure Novel, my writing/English program for this year recently contained a quote I found very thought-provoking. It said, more or less:

'It nears the impossible to get published these days. Fewer people than ever are actually reading books... and more people than ever are submitting manuscripts.'

It gets you thinking, doesn't it? So all you aspiring authors, what makes you think you have a chance?

And what I really want to know-- have you ever submitted a manuscript? A letter? I want to hear about your publishing attempts.

The born debater embraces her destiny:

This morning I registered for the Puget Sound NCFCA Speech and Debate Qualifier. As in past years, I've signed up for several speech events, although this season I'm trying more than ever before-- five. More on those later.

I was sitting in the kitchen, munching on a couple particularly scrumptious strawberries, when Ophia walked in.

"So," -she plopped down next to me- "You're signed up for debate?"

"Yup."

"Lincoln-Douglas?"

"Yup."

"So... what's the resolution?"

"I dunno."

Yes. This will be interesting.

I've got so much to do before a different tournament this weekend. I shouldn't really be on blogger presently... I'm justified, however, because as I type, I'm photocopying about 23 pages from Jane Eyre, my Dramatic Interpretation piece for this year. The book is resting on the copy machine, with my two arm-weights on its spine to hold the pages down. Who knew my weights were duel purpose?

Oip! The last page for Jane Eyre is coming through the copier right now. Time to go. But first, a quote from Ophie and my humorous duo interpretation [which we need to practice]:

Emily [Gray]: "Oh, Cornelia! This is terrible! I intended to be on deck when we sailed. I just know I'd get a lump in my throat as I saw our native land slipping over the horizon!"

Cornelia [Ophie]: "Our native land stays still. We slip over the horizon."

Emily: "Oh."

Tournies!

A Round Robin.

Done! Very exciting! Ophie and I had oodles of fun...

Although once I gave my apologetics speech in the wrong room! All I had to do was switch places with another competitor, so it all worked out all right. Still... (sigh).

One (awesome) novice made my day. He said:

"At first, when everyone was talking about Qualifying tournaments, they were calling them "Qualifiers" and I had no idea what they were talking about. I was thinking, 'Koala fires? Why would you want to go to a Koala fire?'"

Is that an epic quote or what? The rest of the day I kept saying (in my Aussie accent), "Crikey! It's a Qualifier!"

Time for bed...

Grace, earnestly looking forward to the rest of the year's Qualifiers/Koala Fires!

Hairy deal gets a shave... =D

I received a comment today in response to my Eowyn vs. Arwen post from a certain 'Natalie Joy' (A 'certain Natalie Joy? I sound like Jeeves!). It made me sigh:

"Who is more important, Eowyn or Liv?
As a human being I know that if I was Liv, and I saw what was going on here, I would be very hurt.(I'd probably cry....=)
As a Christian, I know that I, nor anyone else, has the right to criticize Liv for deleting her posts.
"Actually I'm not wondering, its kinda obvious."
How can it be obvious??!! We have no idea!
Liv is such a sweetheart(I've met her in real life), I feel so bad for her!
If I have offended ANYONE at ALL. I am so sorry. Please forgive me. But can't we have more respect for Liv's feelings?"

Dear Natalie Joy:

Please know that I am NOT criticizing Liv for deleting her posts at all. If anything, I think it was a good decision. =D

Nor do I remember saying anything critical of Liv. I'm sure she IS a sweetheart in real life!

I might point out, though, that she presented herself as a debater ONLY on her old Arwen v. Eowyn blog. It was this Liv (and this Liv's feelings!) that I was addressing.

Anything I wrote was in that same spirit of debate that she herself used! I don't believe Liv would be hurt- I'm pretty sure she would recognize a debate when she saw one... =D

I was referring to the Eowyn vs, Arwen debate only, which she opened to the world wide web --on a personal basis, I know her not at all!

Thanks for letting me clear this up!

~Grace

Robin Hood and... Politics?

I found a thought provoking comment in my comment box-

My dad pointed out that [Robin Hood] is always "taking from the rich and giving to the poor," which is EXACTLY what liberalism and (in a more extreme sense) Communism do. I console myself by saying that it's more like the American Revolution-- Robin and his men are resisting a government gone bad. What do you think?

Robin Hood the socialist. Hmmmm. First off, in this post I'm referring to England and Nottingham according to how they are depicted in Robin-Hood related legends.

According to legend, Robin Hood's role in redistributing wealth is undeniable. That the local economy was in horrible condition is obvious. Robin does take from the rich and give to the poor.

However, I think that the figure of Robin Hood can be taken at more than one angle.

First, we see his potential communist side. When I think communism, I think of hard earned wealth being re-distributed to the ne'er-do-wells of society as a measure to make sure 'all are provided for.'

While I'm at it, I'll just pull out a formal definition of communism:

Communism. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. ~American Heritage Dictionary.

In which all goods are equally shared by the people. Does Robin Hood want all goods equally shared by the people?

Looking at legend once again-

The people of Nottingham were oppressed. They were impoverished. A very easy way to get them out of their impecunious positions would be to take money from those who had plenty and give it to those who had little. That's what Robin did, right? But the problem wasn't that simple. At its roots, it's obvious that the people who had plenty were the ones who were oppressing those who had little.

Robin-Hood-the-instrument-of-communism- would be told like this-

Lower class people of Nottingham have no money. Upper class people have lots of money. Robin steals from Upper class and gives to Lower class. All have enough.

Sounds fairly accurate, right? And according to my definition of communism, Robin would be taking the place of Government. Just sneak his name in there and we read:

Coomunism. A system of government in which Robin Hood plans and controls the economy and Robin Hood holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Almost sounds like it would work, doesn't it? But let's take him at a "different angle" now, as I said earlier.

Unlike my definition (which made me laugh), legend doesn't tell us that Robin had any aspirations to rule. Robin Hood often appears as being anti-government. Why? No wonder! The government of his day was really skewed, with governing officials as wealthy men who:

a. Were on good terms with the present ruling monarch (Prince John)

or

b. Had noble blood and lots of land in the family.

This "Goverment" saw it fit to impose severe taxes on the people. One ballad (I'm going purely by memory here, sorry folks) goes something like this-

Th' hert an' soul were taxed out of them,

referring, of course, to the people of Nottingham. The ballad goes on to tell the classic tale of Robin robbing the rich and giving to the poor which could also be seen as robbing the government and giving to the people.

Simultaneously, the government was robbing the people and giving to... the government! With the government being Prince John and his nobles, of course.

Because he didn't like the way things were being run, Robin made himself anti-government. He was PRO the people earning money for themselves, choosing to fight the wealthy noblemen who interfered with the people's rights. Looking at my communist definition one more time, it appears that the government Robin was fighting was actually more communist in philosophy than he was (bold added by me, as before).

Communism. A system of government in which Prince John plans and controls the economy and he and his noblemen hold power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people while really hoarding all the wealth for themselves.

Wow... sadly, now I've depicted the current state of many communist countries. Wasn't originally trying for that...

Ahem. "My" off-hand definition of communism was. "Hard earned wealth being re-distributed to the ne'er-do-wells of society as a measure to make sure that 'all were provided for.'" We can plug this one in with Prince John's government, too. The hard earned wealth was that which rightfully belonged to the lower working class of Nottingham. The Ne'er-do-wells were Prince John and his nobles, who cared only to sit on cushions in their comfortable dwellings while others made their livelihood.

It's worth pointing out that it was originally a Nobleman's job to make sure all his serfs/laborers were provided for, but, just as in many modern day communist societies, it ended with the nobleman hoarding most of it for himself.

I asked earlier, "Does Robin Hood want all goods equally shared by the people?"

No. He wanted justice. He wanted to keep "all goods" that he, individually had rightfully earned and have every other man keep what goods he had rightfully earned. Robin wanted each man to be able to provide for his family without having his wages snatched from under him due to ridiculously high taxes.

He took back from the wealthy and gave his loot to those who had rightfully earned it.

Class distinctions kept the lower class from retrieving the money themselves and becoming involved in the workings of the government.

Prince John's government wasn't caring for the sick, innocent, helpless, or needy, so none of John's taxes were even going to the places the were supposed to go.

Hmmmm... Robin Hood the socialist? I don't think so.

Any more thoughts? This is a "Debate Time," so stop by the comment box...

Ballads were found in Robin Hood, a Mythic Biography.

Robin Hood and... Politics?

The link was being funny- my post is here

Robin Hood and... Politics?

Debate Time! Comments encouraged...

When it comes to arguing on Blogger...

This started out as a comment... Tee hee...

Inflammatory posts--

Should they be discouraged?

For me, reading controversial content and then confirming my stance on an issue by verbalizing my thoughts is part of what blogger is. Share your opinions regardless of whether everyone will agree with you. In fact, with any given post, you can't get everyone to agree with you. There are too many different people in the world.

If I posted that I think it's sad how quickly we're using the earth's resources and some people don't even care, A LOT of people would disagree with me.

Or, if I wrote some horrible, completely rude remark that made fun of some minority group and then joked about it being "politically incorrect," A LOT of people would hate me (I WOULD'T write that, by the way...this was my hypothetical point...).

If I wrote that I thought abortion was killing countless children, MANY would have something to say about that.

Either way though, whether an opinion is generally considered "good" or "bad," I have the right to say it.

On The Locket, we do what I call "Debate Time!" posts every so often. I write them for people to debate about them. If they don't want to debate, they click X in the corner.

If I didn't write anything controversial, I wouldn't write anything substantial...

But tell me how you feel, and, somewhat ironically, I'll put it under "Debate Time..." =D

Debate Time!!!!

I loved my mother's comment so much, I had to publish on its own... and I just gor BACK from Finance Class (thanks, Mr. H!)

In answer to your questions concerning the composer of the score:

Your Mother said...
Marian, This is Bracie's mother chiming in here. She, the busy thing, is off at a finance class. The score was by Prokofiev. I really hate his music for Cinderella, but the music, the costumes, the choreography, the scene all worked perfectly at this production. Tchaikovsky is so lush and flowing and beautiful; Prokofiev is more angular (that may sound weird, but that's how it seems to me) and to me it seems he makes no attempt to *delight* (in the ballets I've seen). But what we saw and heard was very moving, in a powerful sort of way. Gigi, I had so much fun with you ladies! Let's save up and do it again soon! And I think there is a play or 2 at the Seattle Shakespeare Company I am interested in seeing. Go check out their page and tell me what looks good to you.

Love,Your Mother

Mama, you do have a way with words. And the fluid grace of the dances (is 'fluid grace' repetitive? =D) was so captivating, I didn't mind some of the more ...innovative moves, which I thought I wouldn't like.

Which brings me to the subject of modern dance/classical ballet.

I thought I hated 'lyrical' dance. Maybe I still do.

But there were a few elements of Romeo et Julliette that were not necessarily classic-- in one of my favorite scenes; "The Golden Scene," as I called it; Julliette is barefoot (Note the first picture I posted in my previous entry, below). While hair pulled tightly back in buns was uniform, Julliette appears at least once in each of the acts with her hair down. Her mother does as well, in a wild grieving scene in which she throws her head and body around.

That scene was very ...innovative. Yet it was unmistakeably poignant, capturing mourning that grows almost savage. It was another of my favorites. Prokofiev's "angular" (to quote my mother) music fit perfectly.

Debate time!

So what are you?

Are you a lyrical dancer yourself?

Or a classical ballet purist?

Perhaps somewhere in between?

PS. I couldn't resist posting another picture; the last one was so moving. Aren't they beautiful?

"I fear a cage"

Debate Time! Yes, you heard me. I want your thoughts, even if you disagree with me!

Note: This is NOT the Eowyn vs. Arwen debate. There are whole sites devoted to that. I'd rather Arwen just stayed out of this. I want to know what you think of Eowyn!

She's proud, beautiful, and very brave.

And while I loved all the LOTR books, I have a confession to make- I didn't care for the Two Towers that much. I know that many readers may well be avid Ent lovers, but the Ents were too slow for me. Tolkiens's WRITING style isn't slow- just the Ents. I *gasp* "skimmed" them. But I loved Eowyn.

Recently I noticed on a (beautiful) blog a button on the sidebar. It had a picture of Arwen and Eowyn and text underneath that read,"Arwen and Eowyn: Two of my favorite women from Lord of the Rings." I smiled. They are nearly the ONLY women in LOTR. No offense to Goldie the River daughter or Rosie or anything.They just aren't really pivotal characters. So of course Eowyn would be one of your favorites!

But the more I read, the more I find unfavorable opinions concerning Eowyn.

Personally, I love her. She loves her brother and uncle, kills the Witch King in an incredibleact of bravery, and then marries Faramir and lives happily ever after. Mostly. She still had to struggle against the Shadow, and watching her grow and love again is a delight.

As to the movies- Miranda-what's-her-name was not the natural choice for Eowyn. Does anyone agree? She looks older than Eomer- all wrong! Eowyn is supposed to be young and foolish and reckless and daring enough to go into battle and fall in love with a King.

Tell me all your thoughts- Discussion is encouraged!

Debate time!

Discussion has been sparked on various blogs... and I'm intrigued. Opinions, everyone!

Tell me:

What do you think of Harry Potter?

and

What do you think of the Twilight series?

I haven't read any of them, so I have no opinion at all. Other than I've never really been interested enough to read them.

But I want to know what you think. =D

And the only reason I DON'T have an opinion is that I haven't read them. If I had, you could be sure I'd have some thoughts.